Comment by SteveInCO on March 3, 2013 at 9:56pm

It's like arguing that white folk are the devil and God shows us our sin of lightness through higher incidences of skin cancer when we choose to be white under the sunlight. Why oh why can't I stop choosing to be white under the sun? I must repent! Or put on some sunscreen.

All it really means is us whitebreads need more sunscreen, especially those of us who get sunburns from flash photography.  Similarly anal sex probably requires more precautions (not just AIDS but hepatitis, etc.)

Comment by Strega on March 3, 2013 at 10:00pm

First documented case of child cured of HIV      *newsflash*

So, without the AIDS issue, once we get it beaten, what's the argument?

Comment by Thom on March 3, 2013 at 10:46pm

I don't get how AIDS makes it a valid argument to begin with. The debate isn't whether or not AIDS is bad for you, or if you're more likely to get AIDS if you're gay. The issue is whether or not we have the right to limit, and determine peoples sexuality. 

Comment by SteveInCO on March 3, 2013 at 10:58pm

Indeed Thomas.  That being the case, why do so many gays want to sweep the evidence under the rug?

I *very* sarcastically commented on another forum, in response to Strega's newsflash, that of course you know the only way to cure AIDS is to kill all the gays.

Comment by Unseen on March 3, 2013 at 11:31pm

Well, way back when AIDS first appeared, the first known patient was a gay airline pilot named Gaetan Dugas ("patient zero"), and for a while it spread mostly in the gay community in San Francisco due to bareback gay bathhouse sex, so it became stigmatized as "the gay disease." It took the public a while to realize anyone could get it, not just gays. Do we have the right to limit and/or determine people's sexuality? Ask your local public health department. They are concerned with syphilis and gonorrhea, so why not HIV?

Comment by Kris Feenstra on March 4, 2013 at 12:59am

That being the case, why do so many gays want to sweep the evidence under the rug?

I think you would need to qualify 'so many', but I have encountered different reasons for some clinging to falsely hopeful statistics.

• Statistics globally do not necessarily match statistics regionally, and depending on which numbers you use from which regions, you get different results. The statistics used may be legitimate stats; however, those stats may not necessarily be contextually valid.
• Some are tired of being treated like walking HIV bombs. In Canada for instance, the overwhelming majority of MSM are not HIV positive, and this can be stated despite the fact that it is unknown how many men who have sex with men actually live in the country. While it is true that MSM represent a disproportionately high number of HIV cases, it does not represent the majority of cases (not in Canada, and not globally), so understandably terms like 'the gay plague' wore thin ages ago.
• Some just want to get laid and think there won't be any consequences, or perhaps they do accept the risks, but are tired of being nannied so they downplay the issue to the thousandth person lecturing them to be safe.
• Some are playing politics, not necessarily by choice.
• Other reasons for which I cannot possibly account.

That said, I am not really aware that there is significant denial of increased HIV risks to MSM. It seems to be pretty widely accepted amongst gays and straights alike. Was there some sort of survey or study suggesting that significant members of the gay community are in denial or are misrepresenting the risks?

Comment by Thom on March 4, 2013 at 1:09am

They may just be defensive about it, I can't answer that SteveInCO. I know, Unseen, I agree with you. I was just making the point it shouldn't enter into the debate at all.

Also to answer the original thread topic, no I don't think the dialogue will change for a very long time. Even after marriage equality is legal everywhere in the U.S. you will still hear people bickering over it. How long has abortion been legal here? Yet you can go near any clinic, and there are protesters, and then protesters of the protesters.

Comment by Ward Cressin on March 4, 2013 at 2:55am

In the USA a higher percentage of gay men are infected with HIV than straight men and women. Worldwide, it is just a disease and could be called a straight disease in Africa. IIRC the same could be said of HIV in southeast Asia but my info is from a while ago and could be off for there.

 

Desu - very cute, thanks    :D

Comment by Gregg R Thomas on March 4, 2013 at 5:16am

If Homosexual people are Gay, are Heterosexual people Unhappy?

If Heterosexual people are Straight, are Homosexual people Bent?

Basically it's all Fucking and you gotta be careful in selecting partners.

Personally I don't want ANY STD.

Comment by Unseen on March 4, 2013 at 10:14am

@Kris Feenstra

Gay males are said to be about 10%-11% of the male population.

"44% of U.S. men diagnosed with AIDS are men who have sex with men." (source)

I'm not sure how self-described bisexual males fit into the statistics, but it does seem that AIDS is a significantly greater problem in the gay community. I also don't think statistics provide any sort of guidance ethically. Suppose, for example, that there's a disease transmitted heterosexually. And I believe there is one: apparently cervical cancer is caused by heterosexual sex with a male carrying the HPV virus. Women who are sexually active with multiple partners are at greater risk, which is a parallel with promiscuous gay sex.

So, from a public health standpoint, perhaps the government does have standing to discourage sexual promiscuity, but not for moral/ethical reasons.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page