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.
There are two primary ways of spreading HIV (as well as Hep C, which is arguably just as bad) - intravenous illegal drug use and anal sex. HIV and AIDS are most rampant in homosexuals and blacks.
In America, many more people we rub shoulders with have HIV than most of us realize. Out of all groups of people here, homosexuals have the highest proportion of HIV and AIDS.
Homosexuals have become psychologically desensitized to HIV because they see so many of their friends and bretheren living well despite having HIV.
Many of the folks living with HIV are supported by the government. There are special programs to assist those with HIV. The biggest expense is HIV medications that keep these infected people alive.
Because HIV has become desensitized within the homosexual community, the risks aren't taken as seriously, and thus HIV has a greater multiplying effect. This, in combination with the fact homosexuals are naturally promiscuous, is dangerous. You know they are more promiscuous because the female factor isn't involved and men are simply more promiscuous. Not only are homosexuals particularly promiscuous, but they have an entire underground culture that is thriving all across the country - sex in parks and public places. Homosexuals who use these parks, called "cruisy areas", often have sex with folks they don't know and may never see again.
So are we essentially enabling folks to spread HIV by the government paying for the medications that keep them alive?
This is scary stuff and it's 100% real. Most folks would be absolutely shocked to see how things really are.
The funny thing is, years ago the anti-interracial marriage folks were saying the same thing- no one wants it, it will never pass, etc. Yet here we are today, with it being perfectly legal. I'd say it'll take 15 years for gay marriage to be legal and widely accepted amongst most.
Same with African-American rights...
An August 2010 CNN poll was the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage. In 2011, Gallup, ABC News/Washington Post, and CNN/Opinion Research polling data showed that a majority of Americans approve of same-sex marriage.
Opposition to same-sex marriage is correlated with religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation, and residence in the South and Midwest. Support for same-sex marriage correlates with lack of religious affiliation, young age, Democratic Party affiliation, and residence in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Many of the folks living with HIV are supported by the government. There are special programs to assist those with HIV. The biggest expense is HIV medications that keep these infected people alive.
And what do you believe the alternative is to "keep(ing) these infected people alive"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOKAN
Because HIV has become desensitized within the homosexual community, the risks aren't taken as seriously, and thus HIV has a greater multiplying effect. This, in combination with the fact homosexuals are naturally promiscuous, is dangerous. You know they are more promiscuous because the female factor isn't involved and men are simply more promiscuous.
Strange that you equate "homosexuals" and "homosexual men", as though they have the same meaning. I suspect there are millions of lesbians out there who would be terribly surprised that "the female factor isn't involved" in their lives.
Not to mention, the assertion that "men are simply more promiscuous" does not equal "homosexuals are naturally promiscuous". By your logic, homosexual men are promiscuous because they are MEN, not because they are homosexual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOKAN
So are we essentially enabling folks to spread HIV by the government paying for the medications that keep them alive?
Same as we do for a multitude of other diseases, some of which are more easily spread than HIV is. Again, what's your point? Why do you insist on making this disease a special case? While I admit I have my suspicions, I'd love to hear your take on why you seem to believe that HIV carriers should die without treatment.
And what do you believe the alternative is to "keep(ing) these infected people alive"?
Strange that you equate "homosexuals" and "homosexual men", as though they have the same meaning. I suspect there are millions of lesbians out there who would be terribly surprised that "the female factor isn't involved" in their lives.
Not to mention, the assertion that "men are simply more promiscuous" does not equal "homosexuals are naturally promiscuous". By your logic, homosexual men are promiscuous because they are MEN, not because they are homosexual.
Same as we do for a multitude of other diseases, some of which are more easily spread than HIV is. Again, what's your point? Why do you insist on making this disease a special case? While I admit I have my suspicions, I'd love to hear your take on why you seem to believe that HIV carriers should die without treatment.
I don't think people should die necessarily. But the lackadaisical attitude I've seen with infected men I've worked with in combination with the fact that homosexual men are incredibly promiscuous is troubling.
There are two primary ways of spreading HIV (as well as Hep C, which is arguably just as bad) - intravenous illegal drug use and anal sex. HIV and AIDS are most rampant in homosexuals and blacks.
In America, many more people we rub shoulders with have HIV than most of us realize. Out of all groups of people here, homosexuals have the highest proportion of HIV and AIDS.
Homosexuals have become psychologically desensitized to HIV because they see so many of their friends and bretheren living well despite having HIV.
Many of the folks living with HIV are supported by the government. There are special programs to assist those with HIV. The biggest expense is HIV medications that keep these infected people alive.
Because HIV has become desensitized within the homosexual community, the risks aren't taken as seriously, and thus HIV has a greater multiplying effect. This, in combination with the fact homosexuals are naturally promiscuous, is dangerous. You know they are more promiscuous because the female factor isn't involved and men are simply more promiscuous. Not only are homosexuals particularly promiscuous, but they have an entire underground culture that is thriving all across the country - sex in parks and public places. Homosexuals who use these parks, called "cruisy areas", often have sex with folks they don't know and may never see again.
So are we essentially enabling folks to spread HIV by the government paying for the medications that keep them alive?
This is scary stuff and it's 100% real. Most folks would be absolutely shocked to see how things really are.
that's funny. i'm gay and i'm 34 and still a virgin. i have gay friends and none of us even have ONE STD much less aids.
gays are no more promiscuous than straights. we just have a different sexual orientation.
that's funny. i'm gay and i'm 34 and still a virgin. i have gay friends and none of us even have ONE STD much less aids.
gays are no more promiscuous than straights. we just have a different sexual orientation.
Gay men are more promiscuous than straights. It's a reality. Perhaps they're a bit more modest and less promiscuous in small town environments or areas with smaller, closer-knit populations where they have to be more accountable to others.
Men are more promiscuous than women. I believe straight men would be more promiscuous if women allowed it. But it doesn't work that way. However, men into other men = promiscuity off the charts.
Like I said, most folks would be shocked if they saw the realities that I have.
Gay men are more promiscuous than straights. It's a reality. Perhaps they're a bit more modest and less promiscuous in small town environments or areas with smaller, closer-knit populations where they have to be more accountable to others.
Men are more promiscuous with women. I believe straight men would be more promiscuous if women allowed it. But it doesn't work that way. However, men into other men = promiscuity off the charts. Like
I said, most folks would be shocked if they've seen the realities that I have.
i live in a town of 50.000 in the midwest. not big but not like a village. i dont' care about holding myself accountable to someone else. i live my life the way i choose for me.
and yes men are more (in general) promiscuous than woman. though it's not always the case
Like I said, most folks would be shocked if they saw the realities that I have.
so many wild experiences huh
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.
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.
