U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2013, 09:58 PM
 
541 posts, read 495,402 times
Reputation: 670

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilly1224 View Post
My advice to people with children is, watch them closely and monitor the "programs" that they watch on T.V. The people behind the scenes are pushing this gay agenda like crazy. They are very sly with it. Typically they will use so called "celebs" (usually the very young and naive ones) to advocate that anti homosexual beliefs are archaic and bigoted. Also, they ensure that there are an over-representation of gay persons throughout the media and in movies. This is meant to normalize the behaviors. Not to mention, they incorporate lyrics about homosexuality into most songs geared at teens.

I pray that I'm not here when society reaches its lowest level. I don't want to witness it.
Who is "they" ?!? Please do tell us the names of these evil people who are overthrowing society by secretly orchestrating and advancing the "homosexual agenda".

And ... what will happen at the "lowest level" ?!? Is that when your neighbor down the street enters into a gay marriage and it doesn't affect you at all ???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Salinas, CA
14,900 posts, read 4,755,351 times
Reputation: 7980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vergofa View Post
I worked as a reporter for many years investigating "grass roots" political organizations and NGOs. This included attending many of their meetings.

The goal of gay marriage is to eliminate the 501c3 designation for churches, using as a precedent, The Supreme Court decision against Bob Jones University. (look it up)

That is why is must be marriage, but a civil union or other legal concept. The goal was start in CA, so that the case would be heard by the 9th circuit. A gay couple would ask to be married in church, and if they were turned away, they would sue. (See the Supreme Court decision against Bob Jones University.) Prop 8 was a setback for this plan.
I guess it is easier to assign sinister motives to those you disagree with than to change discriminatory attitudes. There was a lot of this same type of hysteria in certain places when inter-racial marriages were being legalized 40-50 years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:10 PM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,682,804 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
And again, I believe science over your estimates based only sl*tty friends of yours from 20 years ago.
OK, but how do you explain HIV/AIDS and it hard hitting homosexuals. If the average is 3 partners a year, then how is it so widespread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:13 PM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,682,804 times
Reputation: 368
Here is some "science". If that survey you linked to is true, how do they explain this:
Quote:
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU.
HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:23 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,113,032 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire View Post
OK, but how do you explain HIV/AIDS and it hard hitting homosexuals. If the average is 3 partners a year, then how is it so widespread?
That's an extraordinarily complex epidemiological question. I've talked about it a little with my best friend from college's father - he's a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington (and my best friend is a former Fullbirght scholar who studies retrovirus (like HIV) assembly).

It has to do with the initial high rate introduction of HIV into gay populations in the 70s and 80s, the susceptibility of anal tissue to HIV transmission, condom usage rates, and certainly the very small segment of gay men who in fact do have lots and lots and lots of sexual partners, usually while doing drugs like meth (if 1 of your 3 yearly sexual partners happens to be a super-sl*t meth user and you make a stupid decision not to wear a condom, guess what, You've Got Aids (I'm saying that in "You've Got Mail" AOL voice)).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:25 PM
 
Location: Bethesda, MD
810 posts, read 810,665 times
Reputation: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire View Post
Here is some "science". If that survey you linked to is true, how do they explain this:

HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS
When you factor in that they often engage in extremely high risk activities like anal sex with high numbers of sexual partners (without condoms), it becomes apparent why HIV is so prevalent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:27 PM
 
541 posts, read 495,402 times
Reputation: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
That's an extraordinarily complex epidemiological question. I've talked about it a little with my best friend from college's father - he's a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington (and my best friend is a former Fullbirght scholar who studies retrovirus (like HIV) assembly).

It has to do with the initial high rate introduction of HIV into gay populations in the 70s and 80s, the susceptibility of anal tissue to HIV transmission, condom usage rates, and certainly the very small segment of gay men who in fact do have lots and lots and lots of sexual partners, usually while doing drugs like meth (if 1 of your 3 yearly sexual partners happens to be a super-sl*t meth user and you make a stupid decision not to wear a condom, guess what, You've Got Aids (I'm saying that in "You've Got Mail" AOL voice)).
As someone with a PhD in epidemiology, I can state that this is about the best simple explanation that can be given in a forum like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:31 PM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,682,804 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
That's an extraordinarily complex epidemiological question. I've talked about it a little with my best friend from college's father - he's a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington (and my best friend is a former Fullbirght scholar who studies retrovirus (like HIV) assembly).

It has to do with the initial high rate introduction of HIV into gay populations in the 70s and 80s, the susceptibility of anal tissue to HIV transmission, condom usage rates, and certainly the very small segment of gay men who in fact do have lots and lots and lots of sexual partners, usually while doing drugs like meth (if 1 of your 3 yearly sexual partners happens to be a super-sl*t meth user and you make a stupid decision not to wear a condom, guess what, You've Got Aids (I'm saying that in "You've Got Mail" AOL voice)).
If you have unprotected sex once with someone who has HIV, or even is in full blown AIDS, the risk is very very low you will get HIV. You need to have sex over and over again, and then that's not knowing your partner.

Heterosexuals have anal sex too and homosexuals don't have as much anal sex as is commonly given them credit. You mostly blow each other. So I still am left with, does everything you say above explain why it's 80 times greater?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:38 PM
 
Location: 9851 Meadowglen Lane, Apt 42, Houston Texas
3,178 posts, read 1,682,804 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Second, according to the CDC, your likelihood of contracting HIV from insertive PIV (penis-in-vagina) intercourse is 5 per 10,000 exposures to an infected source. Insertive anal intercourse is 6.5 per 10,000. If you're not good at math, that means you have a risk of 0.05% and 0.065%. Not huge odds, but all the same you need to start using condoms whether you like it or not. You're a fool to gamble with your life and health this way, and the life/health of your present and future partners, particularly when you can get free condoms just about everywhere (health department, some high schools/colleges, family planning/sexual health clinics, etc.).
Whats The chance of me having AIDS after having unprotected sex with infected partner? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers

Yahoo answer, oh well it sounds legitimate.

According to the above, anal intercourse magnifies your risk by by a whopping 1.3 times compared to vaginal sex. Again, homosexual males are almost 80 times at risk. Where is that coming from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 10:43 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,113,032 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire View Post
If you have unprotected sex once with someone who has HIV, or even is in full blown AIDS, the risk is very very low you will get HIV. You need to have sex over and over again, and then that's not knowing your partner.

Heterosexuals have anal sex too and homosexuals don't have as much anal sex as is commonly given them credit. You mostly blow each other. So I still am left with, does everything you say above explain why it's 80 times greater?
Like I said, it's extraordinarily complex, and I don't claim to understand it in any great depth. Epidemiologists who study it doesn't even understand it entirely, and I'm a chemist, not an epidemiologist.

I think the main factor for increased risk in the MSM (men who have sex with men) population is strictly the percentage of infected people, which is directly related to the initial high rate of infections in the 70s and 80s. If I pick out a random MSM to have sex with, there's like a 15% chance he is HIV+. If I pick out a random WSM (women who has sex with men) to have sex with, there is something like less than a 0.5% chance she is HIV+. Not to mention HIV traverses anal tissue easier than vaginal tissue.

So even if you have two men - one MSM and one MSW - both of whom have sex with 3 partners in a year, the MSM is at a MUCH HIGHER risk of contracting HIV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top