Homosexuality and Health

[MobBoss]

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......

You miss the point entirely. I fully believe that the "boys will be boys" argument to be totally false and a simple excuse for bad behavior. However, the statistics concerning disease rates dont lie. If, like you say, gay individuals are at the same risk as say, heterosexual men, wouldnt they not HAVE THE SAME RATE OF INFECTION? This is false.

Of course, individuals make their own choice, but according to the stats, if you are gay you are more likely to engage in risky sexual practices that raise the chances of contracting HIV/AIDs. How else do you explain the higher rate of the disease in that demograph?

 

[ComradeDavo]

MobBoss - why is it that women are soon to become the most affected group then? Are they really gay men is fancy dress?

 

[MobBoss]

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.

First of all, I want you to comment on your earlier statment about the HIV/AIDs rate in homosexuals steadily declining over the last several years. I gave you direct evidence that your statement was indeed false. I would like for you to either provide data supporting your claim or concede the point and that you were in fact wrong.

I dont deny that heterosexual people have risky sex as well. Of course they do. However, since the rate of HIV/AIDs isnt the same among heterosexuals as it is homosexuals something is out of kilter isnt it? The answer is the type of risky behavior and how often it is engaged in. Gay men (in general) engage in more types of risky behavior, more often. If you dont think so, then by all means you explain to me why they have a higher rate of HIV/AIDs infection. Give it your best shot.

 

[El_Machinae]

MobBoss - there might be some confusion regarding the term 'rate'.

Rate tends to mean 'velocity'. This means that heteros have a higher rate, because the percentage of heteros who are infected is going up faster than the homos.

The homosexuals certainly have a greater percentage of infection in their population. I think this distinction is why there is so much arguing.

So - by analogy: Suppose I was in debt $30,000 and I was paying 1% interest (compounding). I not doing well now, and each year it's getting worse. This will be the homosexual infection.

Suppose you are in debt $2,000 but are paying 5% interest (compounding). You're not so bad off now, but things will get worse rather quickly. This will be the heterosexual infection.

We can't pay down the debt (to reduce the population of infected patients would require their death or a cure), so the rate really matters. If you take a snapshot, the homosexuals look worse off - but the real problem is that percentage rate. Within a few years, the heterosexuals will have more debt than the homosexuals - ie, their infections as a total (or a snapshot percentage) will be higher.

 

[MobBoss]

MobBoss - there might be some confusion regarding the term 'rate'.

Rate tends to mean 'velocity'. This means that heteros have a higher rate, because the percentage of heteros who are infected is going up faster than the homos.

Uhm...no..its not. At least not in the studies from the USA that I linked to. Heteros may have higher raw numbers simply due to the fact that 90%+ of the population is hetero, but as a percentage, its not going up faster.

The homosexuals certainly have a greater percentage of infection in their population. I think this distinction is why there is so much arguing.

I agree.

So - by analogy: Suppose I was in debt $30,000 and I was paying 1% interest (compounding). I not doing well now, and each year it's getting worse. This will be the homosexual infection.

Suppose you are in debt $2,000 but are paying 5% interest (compounding). You're not so bad off now, but things will get worse rather quickly. This will be the heterosexual infection.

I humbly submit that your analogy is incorrect, as least in terms to numbers in the USA. If anything your numbers are backwards considering that 90%+ of the USA is hetero while 3-6% gay male, shouldnt your numbers and your pecentages be reversed?

We can't pay down the debt (to reduce the population of infected patients would require their death or a cure), so the rate really matters. If you take a snapshot, the homosexuals look worse off - but the real problem is that percentage rate. Within a few years, the heterosexuals will have more debt than the homosexuals - ie, their infections as a total (or a snapshot percentage) will be higher.

Not what the data I linked earlier says. It says that the number of Heterosexual cases DECREASED over the four year period from 2001-2004 while the number of homosexual cases INCREASED in the USA. Thus, how exactly can the percentage of heterosexual HIV/AIDs cases INCREASE if the actual number of cases decreased while the overal population increased? And if the number of homosexual cases INCREASED in the four year period, how can that NOT result in a higher percentage????

Come on EL_M, the numbers are right there in front of you...you cant deny that. I would agree with you...if the numbers were reversed and the number of heterosexual cases grew enough to result in a larger percentage - but thats not what the data shows. At least be honest about the numbers.

 

[El_Machinae]

How can heterosexual cases decrease? Do you mean 'new' cases decreased (i.e., fewer infections this year than last year)?

 

[ComradeDavo]

First of all, I want you to comment on your earlier statment about the HIV/AIDs rate in homosexuals steadily declining over the last several years. I gave you direct evidence that your statement was indeed false. I would like for you to either provide data supporting your claim or concede the point and that you were in fact wrong.

I dont deny that heterosexual people have risky sex as well. Of course they do. However, since the rate of HIV/AIDs isnt the same among heterosexuals as it is homosexuals something is out of kilter isnt it? The answer is the type of risky behavior and how often it is engaged in. Gay men (in general) engage in more types of risky behavior, more often. If you dont think so, then by all means you explain to me why they have a higher rate of HIV/AIDs infection. Give it your best shot.

In regards to the bit i've bolded - would you care to point out where I actually stated that? Because i've looked over my posts and I didn't actually say that anywhere......

Also you seem to be ignoring the point that aids is on the rise amongst WOMEN, who are clealy not having sex with homosexual men....

 

[MobBoss]

How can heterosexual cases decrease? Do you mean 'new' cases decreased (i.e., fewer infections this year than last year)?

I believe the data covers new cases yes. And cases do decrease due to death and other factors. However, even then, if the number of NEW cases decrease how can the percent of cases increase when the overal population itself it growing?

 

[MobBoss]

In regards to the bit i've bolded - would you care to point out where I actually stated that? Because i've looked over my posts and I didn't actually say that anywhere......

My apology, it was Cuivienen that said "The percent of people infected with AIDs who are homosexual has been steadily declining for the past decade or so as heterosexuals catch up." which is a false statement. I got you confused in the cross posting...once again my apology.

Also you seem to be ignoring the point that aids is on the rise amongst WOMEN, who are clealy not having sex with homosexual men....

Not ignoring it, but formulating my answer. Once again, the data I showed you earlier from the USA says that new cases among women actually fell from the period 2001-2004. To me that indicates the issue is different from country to country.

Also, if you look into it a good deal of women do get HIV/AIDs from men who have sex with men. You see, there isnt really a bi-sexual demograph in data studies. Either you have sex with same sex partners or you dont. Women get HIV/AIDs mainly from men who engage in high risk sexual behavior or drug use and that can include heterosxual men, bi-sexual(gay) men, and their own drug use.

I do believe Sidhe posted a good deal of data on this previously and it mainly showed that this problem is accelerating in mostly third world nations in Africa and South America. Is this because of common high risk sexual practices in those nations? Lack of education? Lack of condoms? It is certainly a debatable topic.

 

[ironduck]

Quoting from the original post:

I've heard that homosexuals have a lower general health and life expectancy than heterosexuals, and therefore that homosexuality is an unhealthy practice.

This has already been addressed; the second part of the sentence does not follow from the first part. The only people I've ever seen claim otherwise are the ones that consider homosexuality morally wrong, and therefore need to justify their position.

 

[ComradeDavo]

My apology, it was Cuivienen that said "The percent of people infected with AIDs who are homosexual has been steadily declining for the past decade or so as heterosexuals catch up." which is a false statement. I got you confused in the cross posting...once again my apology.



Not ignoring it, but formulating my answer. Once again, the data I showed you earlier from the USA says that new cases among women actually fell from the period 2001-2004. To me that indicates the issue is different from country to country.

Also, if you look into it a good deal of women do get HIV/AIDs from men who have sex with men. You see, there isnt really a bi-sexual demograph in data studies. Either you have sex with same sex partners or you dont. Women get HIV/AIDs mainly from men who engage in high risk sexual behavior or drug use and that can include heterosxual men, bi-sexual(gay) men, and their own drug use.

I do believe Sidhe posted a good deal of data on this previously and it mainly showed that this problem is accelerating in mostly third world nations in Africa and South America. Is this because of common high risk sexual practices in those nations? Lack of education? Lack of condoms? It is certainly a debatable topic.

No worrys about the mix up!

One thing I would say - when looking at AIDS you can't go by data just from the USA, because AIDS is a global problem, and particuarly bad in parts of Africa, where it is so almost entirely because of young men with AIDS taking many female partners, and also alot of children being born with it.

Obviously you mention what Sidhe has posted, I would say that it is because a)lack of sex education and thus lack of condoms + b)sexual practises of many hetrosexual men

 

[MobBoss]

No worrys about the mix up!

One thing I would say - when looking at AIDS you can't go by data just from the USA, because AIDS is a global problem, and particuarly bad in parts of Africa, where it is so almost entirely because of young men with AIDS taking many female partners, and also alot of children being born with it.

Obviously you mention what Sidhe has posted, I would say that it is because a)lack of sex education and thus lack of condoms + b)sexual practises of many hetrosexual men

I agree it is a world problem...but likewise, the rest of the world isnt very good at compiling data about the problem. The CDC in the USA is. And the USA has a large enough population to give decent rates and demographs across all spectrums. What good would it do to discuss AIDS in Africa when the topic is "homosexuality and health"? Is Africa known for its homosexual population? And how that population compares with the rest in its healthiness?

 

[ComradeDavo]

I agree it is a world problem...but likewise, the rest of the world isnt very good at compiling data about the problem. The CDC in the USA is. And the USA has a large enough population to give decent rates and demographs across all spectrums. What good would it do to discuss AIDS in Africa when the topic is "homosexuality and health"? Is Africa known for its homosexual population? And how that population compares with the rest in its healthiness?

Well, the impression you are giving is that you see AIDS as largely a gay sexual pratices problem....

 

[classical_hero]

Well, the impression you are giving is that you see AIDS as largely a gay sexual pratices problem....

There is a correlation between the various groups around the world that have a greater % of there respective populations is their attitudes towards sex. You see the areas where AIDS is promiscuity. AIDS spreads rapidly in populations that are willing to have more sexual partners. So that does seem to beg the question about groups in the Westen cultures that have growing AIDS populations.

 

[Mathilda]

This has already been addressed; the second part of the sentence does not follow from the first part. The only people I've ever seen claim otherwise are the ones that consider homosexuality morally wrong, and therefore need to justify their position.

Indeed, being gay isn't unhealthy in the same way as smoking or being overweight. It's not being gay in itself that is unhealthy, but some of the optional, but common behaviour. Also, I believe that the mental problems are mainly caused the negative attitudes of the enviroment.

 

[Grisu]

You miss the point entirely. I fully believe that the "boys will be boys" argument to be totally false and a simple excuse for bad behavior. However, the statistics concerning disease rates dont lie. If, like you say, gay individuals are at the same risk as say, heterosexual men, wouldnt they not HAVE THE SAME RATE OF INFECTION? This is false.

Of course, individuals make their own choice, but according to the stats, if you are gay you are more likely to engage in risky sexual practices that raise the chances of contracting HIV/AIDs. How else do you explain the higher rate of the disease in that demograph?

actually it's you who's missing my point. Stats mean exactly NOTHING to the individual. Stats say that a man in switzerland is more likely to cause a deadly traffic accident than a woman. that doesn't automatically make me personally more likely to cause a accident than my gf. it all comes down to my individual choice. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[MobBoss]

Indeed, being gay isn't unhealthy in the same way as smoking or being overweight.

I beg to differ, its exactly as unhealthy. The only difference is which orifice the disease causing agent comes in through.

 

[MobBoss]

actually it's you who's missing my point. Stats mean exactly NOTHING to the individual.

Stats comprise large groups of individuals. Or do you deny this? If you have 1 individual in 100 who doesnt partake in a risky behavior what are the odds of people participating? Pretty high. Can indivduals break away from trends, sure they can...but on average they dont. Thats precisely why teenagers have to pay a premium on car insurance, regardless of their driving record.

 

[Mathilda]

I beg to differ, its exactly as unhealthy. The only difference is which orifice the disease causing agent comes in through.

Yes, very funny.
Statistically not true though.

 

[croxis]

Homosexuality is no more unhealthy than being black.
It is (are?) the CHOICES and ACTIONS people make which increases risk of infection.