Homosexuality and Health

[Kan' Sharuminar]

Well, they are some of the only men in modern times to wear skirts in public as part of thier fashion.

He was kidding also.

I know he was, hence the

I also presumed he was making the point that it's ridiculous to lock someone away simply for something beyond their control, hence the comment at the end

 

[warpus]

Yep!

I have nothing against Scots. In fact, GO CELTIC, DOWN WITH RANGERS

 

[ComradeDavo]

Now wait a tic. If 30% of the new cases come from homosexual men - are homosexual men accounted as being 30% of the general population?

Or is this another case where a small minority of the general population account for 30% of all new cases?

I think if you consider overall population and the number of heterosexuals compared with the number of homosexuals AND THEN looked at the percentages THAT would speak for itself as well.

Once you consider the overall population numbers I think you see plainly which demograph has a MUCH higher infection rate/percentage.

Everyone knows that aids is a bit more rife amongst homosexual men at current, but the statistics show that these days that aids is something that effects both hetrosexuals and homosexuals, and I particuarly give the example of St Ives as a town where there is an outbreak amongst hetrosexuals.

Basically, being gay or straight doesn't effect your chances of getting aids, what effects it is who you have sex with.

 

[Sidhe]

Interestingly the numbers of women infected with aids in the year 2000 was higher than men and in the next ten years women are due to become the largest group affected by AIDS. To be honest AIDS infection isn't really readily attributable to a particular group in society as a whole, to take a small statistic like one small town isn't any more reavealing than looking at the US's statistics alone, although some people do tend to think that a deal under 5% of the worlds population is somehow relevant to the world wide situation sadly.

It is widely accepted that it is not possible to change your sexuality from homosexuality to heterosexuality and vise a versa, to try can result in depression and in sever cases complete mental breakdown. I can trawl out the medical journal that asserts this again if you'd like but I'll wager those who didn't care the first time will not care the second. Bi sexuals yes homosexuals no, and if it is caused only by conditions in the womb it still isn't in any way a choice and your asking for discrimination on the basis of the way someone is born, there is no distinction between mocking someone for being gay and mocking someone for being Down's Syndrome, even if you deny the moot genetic influence, then both conditions are due to circumstances beyond genetic or environmental control. To say you can just change your sexuality because you have a choice is just not acknowledging reality.

 

[MobBoss]

Everyone knows that aids is a bit more rife amongst homosexual men at current, but the statistics show that these days that aids is something that effects both hetrosexuals and homosexuals, and I particuarly give the example of St Ives as a town where there is an outbreak amongst hetrosexuals.

Basically, being gay or straight doesn't effect your chances of getting aids, what effects it is who you have sex with.

You are kidding right? A "bit more rife"? While it is true that AIDs/HIV does effect both heterosexuals and homosexuals, I think you truly need to open your eyes in regards to the rate of the disease when comparing the two demographs. I think if you have any logic in you at all, it will be readily evident that the AIDs rate among homosexual men is quite larger than "a bit rife".

As for your last comment...it couldnt be further from the truth. It does effect your chance, or else we wouldnt see the trends we see in the overall populations.

 

[Truronian]

I may be wrong here, but is homosexual relations between women not alot safer than heterosexual relations?

 

[nonconformist]

I may be wrong here, but is homosexual relations between women not alot safer than heterosexual relations?

Yeah, it is.

 

[.Shane.]

To the OP....

Being gay does not inherently mean you're more likely to get AIDS. Its behavior driven. The risky behaviors that lead to AIDS, historically, have been more associated w/ gay men, hence the higher rates of infection. As Truronian pointed out, I'd imagine that for gay women, the AIDS rate is probably lower than for the general heterosexual population.

 

[ComradeDavo]

You are kidding right? A "bit more rife"? While it is true that AIDs/HIV does effect both heterosexuals and homosexuals, I think you truly need to open your eyes in regards to the rate of the disease when comparing the two demographs. I think if you have any logic in you at all, it will be readily evident that the AIDs rate among homosexual men is quite larger than "a bit rife".

As for your last comment...it couldnt be further from the truth. It does effect your chance, or else we wouldnt see the trends we see in the overall populations.

Look, fact is that those figures showed that more hetrosexual people caught aids than homosexual people.

Clearly if you have sex with someone with aids then you have a chance of catching it, as opposed to not having a chance if you don't.

Whilst aids has spread quite alot amongst homosexual men due to lots of unprotected sex in the past people are generally now realising the risks and taking more precautions.

To quote Sidhe - Interestingly the numbers of women infected with aids in the year 2000 was higher than men and in the next ten years women are due to become the largest group affected by AIDS.

You can't deny that really.

 

[MobBoss]

I may be wrong here, but is homosexual relations between women not alot safer than heterosexual relations?

Speculative. Where AIDs/HIV is concerned yes....where other STDs are concerned, no.

To the OP....

Being gay does not inherently mean you're more likely to get AIDS. Its behavior driven. The risky behaviors that lead to AIDS, historically, have been more associated w/ gay men, hence the higher rates of infection. As Truronian pointed out, I'd imagine that for gay women, the AIDS rate is probably lower than for the general heterosexual population.

Studies have shown that they (women who have sex with other women) get AIDs/HIV from other sources. From having sex with high risk men and/or drug use. And I do beg to differ, being gay means you will most likely engage in risky behavior which can lead to HIV/AIDs, thus you do have a higher chance of getting the disease. Just like someone earlier mentioned gays have a higher chance of suicide or dying at an earlier age. Believe it or not, risky behavior shortens your lifespan!

 

[MobBoss]

Look, fact is that those figures showed that more hetrosexual people caught aids than homosexual people.

Ok, next logical question. How many more heterosexuals are in the population than homosexuals? What was the rate in those individual demographs? Its not just about which demograph account for more, when one demograph is about 90%+ of the population. Because heterosexuals outnumber gays on such a VAST level, they will ALWAYS outnumber them in pure numbers - you need to see how many cases there were compared to how many are in the population in order to get a TRUE perspective of the situation. If in Britain, gays accounted for 30% of AIDs cases while only comprising say, 5% of the population - that is a very, very sad statistic and it says a lot about gay sexual practices.

Clearly if you have sex with someone with aids then you have a chance of catching it, as opposed to not having a chance if you don't.

I agree. But you dont only get it from sex.

Whilst aids has spread quite alot amongst homosexual men due to lots of unprotected sex in the past people are generally now realising the risks and taking more precautions.

I think once you compare the numbers within the specific demograph you will see otherwise. If 5% (estimated) of the population accounts for 30% of the cases something is terrible wrong in that demograph.

 

[Cuivienen]

I think once you compare the numbers within the specific demograph you will see otherwise. If 5% (estimated) of the population accounts for 30% of the cases something is terrible wrong in that demograph.

Is, or was? The percent of people infected with AIDs who are homosexual has been steadily declining for the past decade or so as heterosexuals catch up.

On the other hand, "Without a woman, there's no one to say no," so homosexual men will always indulge in (on average) more risky sexual behavior. It's male nature.

 

[warpus]

Studies have shown that they (women who have sex with other women) get AIDs/HIV from other sources. From having sex with high risk men and/or drug use. And I do beg to differ, being gay means you will most likely engage in risky behavior which can lead to HIV/AIDs, thus you do have a higher chance of getting the disease.

Lesbians are more likely to engage in drug-use than heterosexual women? You'd have to link to a study to convince me.

 

[MobBoss]

Is, or was? The percent of people infected with AIDs who are homosexual has been steadily declining for the past decade or so as heterosexuals catch up.

Uhm, no. Not in the least. In fact in the last several years it has been on the rise, not falling. Care for me to post a few pages of data showing that? Here is a link: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/table1.htm In that link you will plainy see that the numbers for male to male sexual transmission rising, not falling.


~~ Male-to-male sexual contact: 16,625(2001) 16,852(2002) 16,804(2003) 18,203(2004)

In that same study you will see where the male heterosexual transmission numbers WERE declining each year.

~~ Heterosexual contact: 5,095(2001) 4,843(2002) 4,720(2003) 4,581(2004)


If you look at the totals at the bottom, you will notice that the overall numbers are declining for heterosexual men AND women, but rising in homosexual men. In the USA at least, their percentage is rising...not declining. Now please feel free to show me where your "stead decline" is. Good luck.

On the other hand, "Without a woman, there's no one to say no," so homosexual men will always indulge in (on average) more risky sexual behavior. It's male nature.

No, its not male nature. I am a male and I dont engage in risky sexual behavior...saying its "male nature" is simply making an excuse for risky and destructive behavior...the old "boys will be boys" argument.

 

[MobBoss]

Lesbians are more likely to engage in drug-use than heterosexual women? You'd have to link to a study to convince me.

No, I said drug use is one of the main ways they get HIV/AIDs. As for higher drug use there may be some evidence for that as well....a quick google got me this: http://www.alcoholmedicalscholars.org/gay-out.htm

Alcohol abuse and dependence in the gay and lesbian populations

I. Introduction (slide 2)

The problem:
The prevalence of substance abuse and dependence is higher than in the general population.
Gay identity formation may be linked to the increased prevalence.
Few gay and lesbian clients enter treatment centers.
Substance problems may be linked to unsafe sexual practices.
Most treatment centers do not address the special needs of the gay and lesbian populations.
Lesbians may have additional needs beyond that of the gay man including child related and domestic violence issues.
Prevalence (slide 3)
Early work in the field estimated the rates of substance abuse and dependence in gay men to be greater than 30%. These samples probably oversampled heavy users. (1,2)
Population-based samples of gay and heterosexual men in the mid 80’s found substantially higher rates of drug use among gay men than heterosexual men. This result was true for both urban and rural areas. (3,4,5).
There is no clear consensus on the actual prevalence, as most of the studies have had methodological errors including poor or absent control groups, unrepresentative samples (e.g. gathered data from bars), failure to use uniform definitions or substance abuse and dependence, or of homosexuality, and the "closet factor". (6)
Lesbians appear to have an equal prevalence of substance abuse and dependence as compared to gay men, and have a higher prevalence than heterosexual women. (7,8)

I encourage you to do your own research into it using non-bias sources.

 

[Grisu]

No, its not male nature. I am a male and I dont engage in risky sexual behavior...saying its "male nature" is simply making an excuse for risky and destructive behavior...the old "boys will be boys" argument.

that's exactly why your argument is wrong. you go on claiming that just by being gay, you will indulge in more risky behaviour, while this is clearly an individual choice. there are plenty of gay who don't indulge in "risky" behaviour. when someone uses the same type of argument on you (male nature), you're suddenly saying that yes, it depends on the individual, since you don't engage in risky behaviour......

 

[ComradeDavo]

Ok, next logical question. How many more heterosexuals are in the population than homosexuals? What was the rate in those individual demographs? Its not just about which demograph account for more, when one demograph is about 90%+ of the population. Because heterosexuals outnumber gays on such a VAST level, they will ALWAYS outnumber them in pure numbers - you need to see how many cases there were compared to how many are in the population in order to get a TRUE perspective of the situation. If in Britain, gays accounted for 30% of AIDs cases while only comprising say, 5% of the population - that is a very, very sad statistic and it says a lot about gay sexual practices.

What it says is that alot of gay people have had unprotected sex. What I say is that alot of hetrosexual people are doing that as well! So it's not right just to see AIDS as a problem for gays and it's not fair to say that gays are more unhealthy, becuase it depends on the sexual practise of the individual.

 

[ironduck]

that's exactly why your argument is wrong. you go on claiming that just by being gay, you will indulge in more risky behaviour, while this is clearly an individual choice. there are plenty of gay who don't indulge in "risky" behaviour. when someone uses the same type of argument on you (male nature), you're suddenly saying that yes, it depends on the individual, since you don't engage in risky behaviour......

Bingo.

ten.

 

[ComradeDavo]

that's exactly why your argument is wrong. you go on claiming that just by being gay, you will indulge in more risky behaviour, while this is clearly an individual choice. there are plenty of gay who don't indulge in "risky" behaviour. when someone uses the same type of argument on you (male nature), you're suddenly saying that yes, it depends on the individual, since you don't engage in risky behaviour......

I also agree.

 

[nonconformist]

Wait, so we're back to the old "Gays take drugs" argument gain?