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.
Why do you keep bringing up other continents/countries? In America, gays, despite only making up a minuscule number of the population (2% for heavens sake!) are far and away the most likely to get it. 2%! Sorry, but that is just ridiculously disproportionate. I don't care about Africa, I don't care about Asia - I care about AMERICA. And the point is that misguided homosexuals are the biggest problem regarding the propagation of AIDS in this country. That simple. You want to talk about it regarding Africa? Post in that forum. I'm talking about America.
Quote:
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men
You should probably use a condom before you have sex with another man.
These threads are so enormously self absorbed. No one cares what you think. You aren't special. You don't have all the answers. You aren't as smart as your delusions of grandeur would have you believe. Who gives a rat's? Think what you want. I don't care. I'm not going to marry you or have sex with you, so have at it.
And no - commenting on a thread saying you don't care doesn't equate to actually caring but just not admitting it.
"Most seriously affected" because they were the FIRST group affected.
Anyone who has unprotected sex is at risk, and the greatest risk is incurred by the person doing the "receiving" sexually. Which is why women tend to be affected more than men.
My thread specifically concerned America, not the rest of the world. In fact, it wasn't even about AIDS in the first place! AIDS may be thriving in Africa, but it is not a "black people's" disease.
You're the one who brought AIDS into the discussion (post 54) and you're the one who called AIDS "the homosexual disease" (post 79).
If you're going to talk about AIDS, you can't ignore the vast majority of the AIDS epidemic. And if you're going to refer to AIDS as "the homosexual disease" then I have every right to call it "the black disease" or "the black women's disease" since it's a disease that disproportionately effects black people and effects more women than men.
Seems though that liberals are choosing to create fights and demand more right than those that had earned the respect of others.
Some one learned the squeaky wheel get's their way, even if it is corruptive, and it has generated into every liberal agenda. I had been violated by gay in the past ,mostly on the east coast . I had hitch hiked across country and it seemed that because I was from California I would naturally accept these assaults to my body by strangers, which I did not . I was literally being forced on, by these people ,it was disturbing and revolting.
Now it seems that they have forced their way into society and corrupting every aspect possible. The are not earning their way they are forcing it.
I have been violated by heterosexuals in the past. It seemed that because I'm a woman, I would naturally accept these assaults to my body by strangers, which I did not.
I was literally being forced on by these people and it was disturbing and revolting.
Did you have some kind of point?
You're the one who brought AIDS into the discussion (post 54) and you're the one who called AIDS "the homosexual disease" (post 79).
If you're going to talk about AIDS, you can't ignore the vast majority of the AIDS epidemic. And if you're going to refer to AIDS as "the homosexual disease" then I have every right to call it "the black disease" or "the black women's disease" since it's a disease that disproportionately effects black people and effects more women than men.
Because it is the homosexual disease in this country. It is the black disease in Africa, but it is the homosexual disease in this country and the numbers are rising. Like I mentioned, my concern is not Africa - it is America. And here at home, homosexuals are the most likely to propagate it than heterosexual males or females.
I would like this to be an adult and civil debate. I'll start by stating who a person dates or sleeps with is none of my business and I don't wish to make it my business. However, on a moral level, I don't agree with homosexuality and miscegenation. If I see a gay or interracial couple in the street, I don't give them a mean stare or special attention - I pass them as I would any other person. I don't go on crusades, blasting them. I pretty much keep it to myself unless people directly ask, and then I reveal what I think. Why do some people, particularly liberals, always feel the need to be outraged when I reveal my views on the topic? Sometimes it is as if I just beheaded a baby. I'm not hurting anyone - I don't heckle or hurl verbal abuse towards gays or interracial couples. I just don't agree with them. What's so wrong about that? It's my right.
Of course it is your right. You're still a moron.
PS there is a real good chance that you are the result of "miscegenation" someplace in your ancestry.
PS I have French, Spanish, English, and black "miscegenation". My English ancestors may have been the result of "miscegenation" with Italians (Roman occupation) or Germanics (Angles, Saxons, Even Norse) My French ancestors may well have been the result of "miscegenation" with Italians, Germanics, Norse, even Asians in the form of Huns.
Truth is, there is no such thing as racial purity. But keep thinking you are a purebred. Whatever floats your boat.
PS there is a real good chance that you are the result of "miscegenation" someplace in your ancestry.
PS I have French, Spanish, English, and black "miscegenation". My English ancestors may have been the result of "miscegenation" with Italians (Roman occupation) or Germanics (Angles, Saxons, Even Norse) My French ancestors may well have been the result of "miscegenation" with Italians, Germanics, Norse, even Asians in the form of Huns.
Truth is, there is no such thing as racial purity. But keep thinking you are a purebred. Whatever floats your boat.
You do know the difference between ethnicity and race, don't you? If you did, you would know that your English ancestors mingling with your French ancestors is not miscegenation.
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.
