Homosexuality and Health

[.Shane.]

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

You're correct. He's mistaking correlation for causality.

However, I have a feeling the mistake is intentional as there's an agenda to be followed.

 

[ironduck]

Of course it's intentional. It's justification.

 

[MobBoss]

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

Being black isnt a choice or an action. Having risky sex is. And in my opinion homosexuality is a sexual preferance choice as well.

Btw, being black does carry its own inherit health issues. Ever hear of Sickle Cell Anemia?

And I agree about the choices and actions that increase risk. But since certain demographs have a higher instance of infection does that not equate with a higher instance of risky behavior? I find it hard to explain one without the other.

Of course it's intentional. It's justification.

Justification of what? That saying homosexuals engage in risky sex more often and thus experience a higher risk/rate of getting HIV/AIDs.

Ok. See, so far, none of you have done anything to refute the numbers. A lot of rhetoric yes, about "justification" and "agenda"...and a lot of talk about the individual. But no real explanation of exactly WHY the homosexual community at large experiences such a higher rate/percentage/whatever of disease. Say what you will. The numbers I linked dont lie. New heterosexual cases of AIDS/HIV fell while homosexual male cases actually increased during the years 2001-2004. You want to make excuses for it thats fine. You think its acceptable, thats fine. I happen to not think its either fine or acceptable, but thats me. Oh well.

 

[El_Machinae]

Every heard of Black Like Me?

Being black IS a choice. No two bones about it.

 

[warpus]

Being black isnt a choice or an action. Homosexuality is.

Why do you always have to confuse homosexuality with homosexual acts?

Being attracted to men is not a choice - having sex with men is.

 

[MobBoss]

Why do you always have to confuse homosexuality with homosexual acts?

Being attracted to men is not a choice - having sex with men is.

Do you associate heterosexuals with heterosexual acts?

Think about it.

 

[croxis]

Having risky sex is. And in my opinion homosexuality is a sexual preferance choice as well.

Even if the latter is true (sadly almost all peer reviewed research I have pulled up on EBSCO and Ovid would argue otherwise), those two are two SEPERATE choices. Someone who would choose homosexuality would also make a seperate choice to be promiscuous. Again, two seperate things you are incorrectly lumping into one. Corralation is not causation.

And I hate to break it to you, but there is only one gene that is related to race -- everything else is a frequency in population. Not all blacks have sickle cell nor are all homosexuals promicuous

 

[MobBoss]

Even if the latter is true (sadly almost all peer reviewed research I have pulled up on EBSCO and Ovid would argue otherwise), those two are two SEPERATE choices. Someone who would choose homosexuality would also make a seperate choice to be promiscuous. Again, two seperate things you are incorrectly lumping into one. Corralation is not causation.

And I hate to break it to you, but there is only one gene that is related to race -- everything else is a frequency in population. Not all blacks have sickle cell nor are all homosexuals promicuous

Have I said that all blacks have sickle cell or are all homosexuals promiscuous? No.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think homosexuals and heterosexuals equally promiscuous? And if so, then how do you explain the differences in HIV/AIDs rates in the two demographs?

 

[croxis]

Yes I do think they are equal in the current 18-25 age bracket and I would suspect that it is based on how the relationship clusters are different as the hetersexual one is more node based while the homosexual cluster is probably similar to that found Peter Bearman et all 2004

 

[MobBoss]

Yes I do think they are equal in the current 18-25 age bracket and I would suspect that it is based on how the relationship clusters are different as the hetersexual one is more node based while the homosexual cluster is probably similar to that found Peter Bearman et all 2004

Thats not an explanation. Or if it is its one I dont get. Once more. If, like you say, homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal in promiscuity, then why do homosexuals have a far higher percentage of infection in their demograph?

Or let me reverse it...if homosexuals and heterosexuals both have equally loving and monogamous relationships....then why do homosexuals have a far higher percentage of infection in their demograph?

 

[Cuivienen]

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.

Note "on average". Anecdote =/= fact.

 

[croxis]

Thats not an explanation. Or if it is its one I dont get. Once more. If, like you say, homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal in promiscuity, then why do homosexuals have a far higher percentage of infection in their demograph?

Or let me reverse it...if homosexuals and heterosexuals both have equally loving and monogamous relationships....then why do homosexuals have a far higher percentage of infection in their demograph?

Fine I will do your homework for you: Chains of affection: The structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks. Peter S. Bearman, Moody, and Stovel. Published in American Journal of Sociology on July 2004. It is on Page 44-91.

STD propagate based on the frequency and structure of a network, in this case it is a network of sexual interaction with individuals as the nodes. For heterosexual adults these networks are rather fragmented and isolated. Promiscuous individuals are structured in a hub - branch network (formally known as a core infection model). Most people remain isolated from an STD because their networks are isolated from an infected one, and due to the hub branch structure of more promiscuous groups it is much more easy to prevent, educate, and isolate STDs.

What was found for teenagers is a much more frightening network based upon a longitudinal study conducted over 18 months, a giant ring with branches that more or less sexually connected half of the students at a school (288 in the ring, 573 total in study). The furthest distance between two students is 37 steps. If one person in that ring contracted an STD at the start of the study, say form a person at another school, in theory (based again on the timing of the various relationships) all 288 people could become infected, even though the average partner's for the students averaged between two and three, not very promiscuous behavior if you ask me. As the article itself said STD risk is not simply a matter of number of partners.

The reason why I claim that the homosexual population would have a similar structure to that highschool: You have a isolated population (sexually anyways) in relatively small numbers. Now the core infection model probably exists for the individuals who are promiscuous (as it does with heterosexuals), but connected to that would be a ring/branch structure which would make it prohibitively difficult to isolate STDs like it is with the heterosexual population.

 

[ironduck]

Justification of what?

You need to feel justified in your position that homosexuality is immoral. The reason you have taken that position is likely because you feel guilty. By 'proving' to yourself and the outside world that you are 'right' you trick yourself into feeling vindicated; thereby relieving yourself of your own guilt. Clearly it's not working very well for you, however. I suggest you seek professional help. Good luck on your quest.

 

[warpus]

Do you associate heterosexuals with heterosexual acts?

Think about it.

Associate with - yes. Confuse with - no.

 

[ComradeDavo]

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.

Well I have liberal attidudes towards sex and as far as i'm concerened someone can ahve sex with as many partners as they like. Of course this is a problem when they don't use protected and get STD's.

 

[MobBoss]

Fine I will do your homework for you: Chains of affection: The structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks. Peter S. Bearman, Moody, and Stovel. Published in American Journal of Sociology on July 2004. It is on Page 44-91.

So this study was about teen sex, but not homosexual sex patterns. Ok. I humbly submit that it is no basis for comparison of the two.

What was found for teenagers is a much more frightening network based upon a longitudinal study conducted over 18 months, a giant ring with branches that more or less sexually connected half of the students at a school (288 in the ring, 573 total in study). The furthest distance between two students is 37 steps. If one person in that ring contracted an STD at the start of the study, say form a person at another school, in theory (based again on the timing of the various relationships) all 288 people could become infected, even though the average partner's for the students averaged between two and three, not very promiscuous behavior if you ask me. As the article itself said STD risk is not simply a matter of number of partners.

In essence what you are saying is one bad apple spoils the bunch. Moot point as all demographs have more than enough bad apples to go around. I humbly must also say that while STD transferance, is not a simple of matter of the number of partners, certainly increasing the number of your partners increases your risk. Just like the more you drive, the more risk you take of getting hit. Also, if teens are having 2 to 3 sexual partners in an 18 month study...yes..I would say that is certainly promiscuous. Its certainly not monogamous at any rate.

The reason why I claim that the homosexual population would have a similar structure to that highschool: You have a isolated population (sexually anyways) in relatively small numbers. Now the core infection model probably exists for the individuals who are promiscuous (as it does with heterosexuals), but connected to that would be a ring/branch structure which would make it prohibitively difficult to isolate STDs like it is with the heterosexual population.

Only if, like the teens in the study, they are having sex with multiple partners....and are thus, promiscuous.

 

[MobBoss]

You need to feel justified in your position that homosexuality is immoral. The reason you have taken that position is likely because you feel guilty.

Uhm...nope. You can assume all day long and all you want, but I assure you, I have no feelings of guilt towards homosexuals at all. I simply prefer being honest about it, and honestly, the fact that the homosexual community at large has such higher infection rates/percentages is undefensible.

If gay sex is not any more dangerous than heterosexual sex, if gays are just as loving and monogamous and you cant judge the individual.....then why on earth do homosexuals NOT have the same rates and percentages in their demograph as do heterosexuals?

So, yes, I do take a position that homosexual sex is immoral. I also take the position that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Changing sex partners two to three times a year, if not more, is not moral, sorry....and that goes whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.

By 'proving' to yourself and the outside world that you are 'right' you trick yourself into feeling vindicated; thereby relieving yourself of your own guilt. Clearly it's not working very well for you, however. I suggest you seek professional help. Good luck on your quest.

Actually, none here have justified the un-justifiable. When the number of new cases of AIDs/HIV is rising in a certain demograph it says something about the demograph. It directly points out that demograph is engaging in risky behavior that is resulting in higher rates of infection. You want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the true root of the problem fine. But I can tell you with all assurance, more condoms is simply not the answer, nor is viewing immoral behavior as moral. Its simply making the situation worse.

 

[warpus]

So, yes, I do take a position that homosexual sex is immoral.

What's the alternative for homosexuals though? Realdolls?

 

[Che Guava]

Actually, none here have justified the un-justifiable. When the number of new cases of AIDs/HIV is rising in a certain demograph it says something about the demograph. It directly points out that demograph is engaging in risky behavior that is resulting in higher rates of infection. You want to stick your head in the sand and ignore the true root of the problem fine. But I can tell you with all assurance, more condoms is simply not the answer, nor is viewing immoral behavior as moral. Its simply making the situation worse.

But there's more to it than just the behaviour of that demographic. Yes, on average gay men (can't speak for women) will have more partners than heteros, in a large part because of queer culture. I can't debate the merits or drawbacks of that because I'm not really qualified to do that. What I can do is point out that HIV infection rates are also higher (at least in NA) in black and latino communities, and I wouldn't say that there is anything particularly unsafe, irresponsible or immoral about those communities.

There's a few other reasons why HIV infection rates are higher in the gay community:

1) HIV/AIDS first found its way to America through the gay community (no, i don't have a link for that...yet), and given the much smaller size, its no wonder why it would have spread so much faster in that 'partner pool', as pointed out by croxis. Permiscuity obviously plays a role in that, but anyone can be promiscuous.

2) Anal sex transfers HIV more efficiently. Blood-to-blood contact is the best chance you'll get at getting HIV from a partner, and yes, anal sex does involve some bleeding at times.

3) The stigmatization of homosexuality. Since many queer folk are not really 'out' to family and friends, many have to rely on prostitutes and anonymous partners for sex. In a lot of those situations, there isn't really time or a proper dialogue open to discuss protection, so sex without condoms is a lot more common.

Sorry if these points have been brought up before in this thread. I just stopped by and read the last page's worth.....

 

[sanabas]

Uhm...nope. You can assume all day long and all you want, but I assure you, I have no feelings of guilt towards homosexuals at all. I simply prefer being honest about it, and honestly, the fact that the homosexual community at large has such higher infection rates/percentages is undefensible.

No feelings of guilt, but you do view it as immoral. But as far as I can tell, what you prefer is a constant litany of 'homosexuality is wrong BECAUSE it is dangerous.' 'Extra-marital or casual sex is wrong, BECAUSE it is dangerous.' I don't think I've seen any other reasoning from you about why any sex other than heterosexual, married sex is wrong, apart from 2 reasons. 1. It's dangerous. 2. I/lots of others say it's wrong, and my/others personal morality should be applied to everybody. Is there a third reason anywhere? Also, why do you not apply that first reason to any other topic? In other threads, you've actually specifically said that the first reason is no justification for why something is wrong. i.e. driving. Or pointing out that even though the majority of divorces occur to married people, that's no reason not to get married, and no reason not to encourage marriage. And yet you use the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT repeatedly about homosexuality.

1. Divorces are bad, and have negative consequences.
2. Married people have a higher rate of divorce than unmarried people
3. Therefore, people should be encouraged to be unmarried, and not to be married.

1. STDs are bad, and have negative consequences.
2. Homosexual people have a higher rate of STDs than heterosexual people
3. Therefore, people should be encouraged to be heterosexual, and not to be homosexual.

Two identical arguments there, apart from 3 words changed. One argument you reject as being rubbish. One argument you use repeatedly.

As for being indefensible, I'm not sure why it needs to be defended. It's not particularly relevant. Those who practice safe sex, either hetero- or homo-sexual, have far, far, less risk of STDs, pregnancy, etc than those who practice unsafe sex. To me, that says the indefensible bit is having unsafe sex. If you want to attach a stigma to something, and you're truly concerned about the danger, attach it to unsafe sex. There's no reason to extend that stigma to many more people engaging in safe behaviour.

Look at drinking. There's been a very large stigma attached to one particular behaviour in the last 20-30 years, becasue that behaviour is dangerous. The stigma is not attached to the wider behaviour of drinking, the stigma is attached to one particular, very dangerous, can't be done safely, subset of drinking: drink-driving. Why attach the stigma to the less dangerous, possible to do safely, wider behaviour, when it's easy to identify the subset that is at risk, and their risky behaviour?