Homosexuality and Health

[.Shane.]

lol, if you don't like his answers... quit arguing w/ him! His agenda is that he's anti-homosexual and he will bend his argument to suit that. You won't persuade him (and vice versa, I'm sure).

As I said before:

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.

His argument is akin to the arguments that are often made that blacks are inherently more criminal because they are more likely to be imprisoned, per capita. The reason people make this argument (and its the same logic as MobBosses anti-gay argument) is that there's a proven correlation.

So, what is a correlation. Most people think that a correlation = causality, ie that if 2 things are correlated one must cause the other. This is a fallacy and extremely poor logic. A correlation simply means things move in the same direction.

So, the fact that gay men have higher infection rates is simply a correlation. Its not a cause.

What is the cause? Its behavior. Anal sex, multiple parterns, and IV drug use are probably the greatest means of spreading AIDS. Gay men historically participated in two of these risky behaviors more so than the general population. The third, I have no idea how the statistics break down.

However, many gay men are monogamous. And, many straight people have anal sex.

So, simply being gay does not cause you to be at risk. Its the choices you make. And, since the AIDS epidemic started the risky behaviors have largely been curtailed in the gay male population.

Also, since gay females did not have the same risk factors their rate of infection was actually below the average of the general population. Something conveniently overlooked.

Also, there are many straight demographics that have extremely high infection rates, also overlooked.

 

[croxis]

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.

I supplied a connection on why the entire homosexual population is a combo of adult and teen networking.

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.

Yes, but that was not the main point of my statement. How people are connected is just as important as how many they are connected to.

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.

Did I argue otherwise? No. My argument, which you ignored and failed to address, is the type of networking is vitally important in the transmission of STDs. Also my wording was poor - these were romantic partners, not necicarily sexual partners.

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

Which has nothing to do with their sexual orientation!

You are simplifying the problem out of reality. Just as I explained to my students for their research project, supplying an average is not enough data to model reality, just as the average number of partners isn't enough. I explained to them standard deviation, t-tests, and minimum number of pure-random samples needed to provide a crisper picture of what is really going on.

Your fundamental argument is that homosexuality is bad because promiscuousness increases risk of STD infection.

Here are the factors which affect risk of STD infection IN A POPULATION:
1) Use of barrier protection
2) Regular testing of members in that population
3) The ratio of infected to non infected people in that population
4) The number of partners
5) How the networks are structured
6) How a specific disease is transmitted

Is the attraction of the same sex a direct cause of any of these?
No.

What you are looking at is a CULTURAL issue, not a biological one.

 

[MobBoss]

No feelings of guilt, but you do view it as immoral.

I find quite a few things immoral Sanabas, not just 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.

Uhm, no. Therefore, people should be encouraged to enter marriage with a committed attitude and encouraged to work out their differences and stay married. Plus, we as a society, should support marriages even more than we do, as opposed to devalueing them as you do here.

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

Not at all and you misrepresent me.

 

[MobBoss]

His argument is akin to the racist arguments that blacks are inherently more criminal because they are more likely to be imprisoned, per capita. The reason people make this argument (and its the same logic as MobBosses anti-gay argument) is that there's a proven correlation.

Once more with the comparison with racial discrimination. Too bad sexual preferance has nothing to do with race.

So, the fact that gay men have higher infection rates is simply a correlation. Its not a cause.

What is the cause? Its behavior. Anal sex, multiple parterns, and IV drug use are probably the greatest means of spreading AIDS. Gay men historically participated in two of these risky behaviors more so than the general population. The third, I have no idea how the statistics break down.

Very good. At least you dont try to disguise or or deny it.

However, many gay men are monogamous. And, many straight people have anal sex.

And do you think that such behavior is also reflected in demograph infection rates/percentages?

So, simply being gay does not cause you to be at risk. Its the choices you make. And, since the AIDS epidemic started the risky behaviors have largely been curtailed in the gay male population.

If so, then Why O why are the number of new cases increasing in the gay male demograph?

Also, since gay females did not have the same risk factors their rate of infection was actually below the average of the general population. Something conveniently overlooked.

Not at all. I have conceded the fact that lesbian sex itself has a very low incidence of HIV/AIDs transference, however, lesbians as a demograph still experience HIV/AIDs in their demograph (I cant recall if the overall rate was higher/lower or equal to heterosexual women) due to numbers of self-labeled lesbians that still have sex with high risk males (which according to one study by the CDC is as high as 70%+) and/or IV drug use.

Also, there are many straight demographics that have extremely high infection rates, also overlooked.

Please by all means, educate us on them.

He has an agenda and its not one that's interested in an honest discussion.

My discussion has been totally honest, even more so than that provided by you and your peers that disagree with me. All I have heard from your side is rhetoric, with no data presented or linked. So please, dont label me as dishonest in my discussion in order to simply discredit me. Be honest yourself.

 

[sanabas]

I find quite a few things immoral Sanabas, not just homosexuality.

Yes, I know. And most of your posts on those subjects are an attempt to justify that morality to others, or possibly to yourself.

Uhm, no. Therefore, people should be encouraged to enter marriage with a committed attitude and encouraged to work out their differences and stay married. Plus, we as a society, should support marriages even more than we do, as opposed to devalueing them as you do here.

Yes, that argument is rubbish. Well spotted. To paraphrase what you've just said, people should be encouraged when entering marriage to take all possible precautions to avoid divorce. Close?

And to apply the same changes as I did for the two arguments: people should be encouraged when having homosexual sex to take all possible precautions to avoid STDs.

Not at all and you misrepresent me.

Misrepresent you how? Those two arguments aren't identical? You don't reject the first argument as the rubbish it is? Or that you don't repeatedly use the second argument? Which is the misrepresentation?

 

[MobBoss]

What you are looking at is a CULTURAL issue, not a biological one.

I do not disagree that the reason for a higher gay male AIDs/HIV rate results from a gay culture issue. In fact, I agree with that assessment whole-heartedly. The question would be is such a culture immoral? In my opinion yes.

 

[MobBoss]

Yes, I know. And most of your posts on those subjects are an attempt to justify that morality to others, or possibly to yourself.

How about you cease commenting on me and/or my motivation regarding the issue? I have given my reasons for doing so. If you dont buy it then ok, but there is simply no need to continue to portray me as someone who has hidden issues...unless of course that is the totality of your argument vesus my position. I am simply a person who can actually take a stand on what he views as being immoral. If that bugs you then oh well.

And to apply the same changes as I did for the two arguments: people should be encouraged when having homosexual sex to take all possible precautions to avoid STDs.

Not what I would encourage....but you are free to recommend what you want.

 

[.Shane.]

My discussion has been totally honest, even more so than that provided by you and your peers that disagree with me. All I have heard from your side is rhetoric, with no data presented or linked. So please, dont label me as dishonest in my discussion in order to simply discredit me. Be honest yourself.

I edited my post to take out some of my harsher language. I apologize.

I don't really feel like I have a "side" in this.

I'm not making the same argument as the others. My whole point is that you're mistaking correlation for casuality and, as such, it flaws the whole discussion. That's the reason I mentioned the argument about blacks and crime, not because you said it, but because its a good comparison in terms of understanding the differences between correlation or causality. I also think its a good comparison because IMVHO your argument here is thinly masking an anti-gay agenda (I'm also infering this from other posts I've seen by you on related topics) just as the comparison argument is often used to hide an anti-black argument.

 

[sanabas]

due to numbers of self-labeled lesbians that still have sex with high risk males (which according to one study by the CDC is as high as 70%+) and/or IV drug use.

Source please. If it's the same one you used last time you made a similar statement to this, I thought we had already explained to you, and had you agree, about how you were misrepresenting what was said? Continuing to misrepresent data in the exact same way you have already admitted doing can only lead us to the conclusion that you are deliberately lying.

 

[.Shane.]

Uhm, no. Therefore, people should be encouraged to enter marriage with a committed attitude and encouraged to work out their differences and stay married. Plus, we as a society, should support marriages even more than we do, as opposed to devalueing them as you do here.

See, here you're looking at modifying the behavior, rather than just dismissing the whole thing, as you do w/ homosexuality.

It would appear you're applying a double-standard.

To straights you'd say "change the bad aspects of your behavior which in end divorce", but in terms of gays and AIDS you'd just say "don't be gay". (yes, I know not your words, I'm simply examining your argument).

 

[sanabas]

How about you cease commenting on me and/or my motivation regarding the issue? I have given my reasons for doing so. If you dont buy it then ok, but there is simply no need to continue to portray me as someone who has hidden issues...unless of course that is the totality of your argument vesus my position. I am simply a person who can actually take a stand on what he views as being immoral. If that bugs you then oh well.

I don't think you have any hidden issues. I don't remember you posting your reasons for commenting on this issue. I only remember a lot of posts that sum up as 'homosexuality is immoral because it is dangerous', with various arguments to try and justify that view.

Not what I would encourage....but you are free to recommend what you want.

Why not? It is very similar to what you encourage wrt marriage. Or is my paraphrasing of your marriage advice way off?

Please answer my question. How did I misrepresent you when I posted those two arguments and stated you dismiss one of them and repeatedly use the other?

 

[MobBoss]

Source please. If it's the same one you used last time you made a similar statement to this, I thought we had already explained to you, and had you agree, about how you were misrepresenting what was said? Continuing to misrepresent data in the exact same way you have already admitted doing can only lead us to the conclusion that you are deliberately lying.

I offer the following without comment: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/wsw.htm

And slide 10 from this study: http://www.cdc.gov/stdconference/2002/Slides/A4Marrazzo.pdf

Am I going to see ‘lesbians’
in my practice?
● Prevalence estimate of lifetime same-sex
behavior among women in U.S.: 8%
● Prevalence of women identifying as lesbians: 4%
● Most (80-95%) lesbians have had sex with men
● Many (~20%) continue to be sexually active with
men
● All estimates strongly depend on population
studied
Laumann 1994; Sell 1995; Johnson 1995; Diamant 1999; O’Hanlan 1996

Once more, offered without comment so you cannot claim the data is "misrepresented" as you so often do.

By the way, I make a math error once and even admit it, so thus all my arguments ad nasuem are misrepresented? I dont think so.

 

[MobBoss]

Why not? It is very similar to what you encourage wrt marriage. Or is my paraphrasing of your marriage advice way off?

Just like I wouldnt endorse sex outside of marriage for heterosexuals, neither would I recommend such for homosexuals, with the added caveat that I dont support homosexual marriage as well.

Please answer my question. How did I misrepresent you when I posted those two arguments and stated you dismiss one of them and repeatedly use the other?

Because your recommendation/alternative is not one that I would endorse.

 

[sanabas]

numbers of self-labeled lesbians that still have sex with high risk males (which according to one study by the CDC is as high as 70%+) and/or IV drug use.

Many (~20%) continue to be sexually active with
men

Thank you for the source. Once again, the source shows that your original statement was grossly inaccurate. Your source says that ~20% still have sex with males. You increase that to 70%+, and change from males to high-risk males. Therefore your original statement was a lie or a misrepresentation.

*edit*Still waiting to hear how I misrepresented you. no longer waiting.

Just like I wouldnt endorse sex outside of marriage for heterosexuals, neither would I recommend such for homosexuals, with the added caveat that I dont support homosexual marriage as well.

But what's the difference between the two positions? How are the two bits of advice functionally different, so that you endorse one and dismiss the other?

Because your recommendation/alternative is not one that I would endorse.

Which one?
You do not endorse or use the first argument, about marriage, correct?
You do endorse and use the second argument, about homosexuality, correct?
So where is the misrepresentation?
*/edit*

 

[Vietcong]

if homosexuality is due to a genetic defect, then that means it should be treated as one, and fixed.

if its thear chiocs, its thear choice, so good for them


I'm all for fixing genetic defects

 

[El_Machinae]

I can imagine that there are a host of genetic diseases that should be fixed (my colourblindness leaps to mind).

But I don't think that many gay people want to be 'fixed'. Why would they? By analogy, I like liver 'n onions - maybe due to a genetic quirk. Should my tastes by 'fixed'?

 

[MobBoss]

Thank you for the source. Once again, the source shows that your original statement was grossly inaccurate. Your source says that ~20% still have sex with males. You increase that to 70%+, and change from males to high-risk males. Therefore your original statement was a lie or a misrepresentation.

Sanabas, the exact study that I recall in regards to the 70% figure I cannot find at the moment. This is what I could find right here, right now. I have seen other studies/surveys that indicate the number could indeed by much higher than 20%, but this IS WHAT THIS PARTICULAR ONE SAYS.

You didnt obviously take the time to see all the slides or read what I posted. From slide 34: • Women reporting sex only w/ women more commonly
had had sex w/ bisexual man or HIV+ partner
Fethers, STI ‘00; Marrazzo, Intl J AIDS STD ‘01; Chapman AJPH ‘99 Oh gee..it doesnt EXACTLY use the word HIGH RISK, but of course you dont think bisexual men or HIV+ partners to be high risk do you? You also ignore this item as well These surveys suggest that some groups of WSW have relatively high rates of high-risk behaviors, such as injection drug use and unprotected vaginal sex with gay/bisexual men and injection drug users. But we all know that unless it specifically uses the word HIGH RISK that gay/bisexual men and injection drug users are not a high risk demograph...right?

Please, I am so tired of your lies and misleading statements regarding me. Your only hope of counter is character assassination which you attempt constantly. Its your only defense and your only alternative. To actually discuss the situation would result in your losing the argument.

So, in essence, if you wish to discuss the data as opposed to mis-labeling me a liar, then I am all for that. Otherwise we are done.

 

[sanabas]

Sanabas, the exact study that I recall in regards to the 70% figure I cannot find at the moment.

I humbly submit that the reason for that is it because it doesn't exist.

You didnt obviously take the time to see all the slides or read what I posted.

Very true. I didn't bother looking through all 74 pages, I looked at page 10 because that's the one you mentioned.

From slide 34: • Women reporting sex only w/ women more commonly
had had sex w/ bisexual man or HIV+ partner
Fethers, STI ‘00; Marrazzo, Intl J AIDS STD ‘01; Chapman AJPH ‘99 Oh gee..it doesnt EXACTLY use the word HIGH RISK, but of course you dont think bisexual men or HIV+ partners to be high risk do you?

Page 10 appears to be talking about all women. Page 34 would appear to be talking only about those who turn up to STD clinics. No surprise to me that a higher percentage turning up to STD clinics would be involved in high-risk activities. But page 10 certainly says nothing about high-risk men.

You also ignore this item as well These surveys suggest that some groups of WSW have relatively high rates of high-risk behaviors, such as injection drug use and unprotected vaginal sex with gay/bisexual men and injection drug users. But we all know that unless it specifically uses the word HIGH RISK that gay/bisexual men and injection drug users are not a high risk demograph...right?

Not ignoring it, simply didn't read it. Which page is it on? And again, if the page you're referencing talks about high risk groups without actually using the words high risk, there's no problem. If the page you're referencing makes no mention of risk factors, you attaching high risk to your summary is incorrect.

Please, I am so tired of your lies and misleading statements regarding me.

What lies? What misleading statements? Please give me examples.

Your only hope of counter is character assassination which you attempt constantly.

Nope. Not interested in character assasssination. When you post factually inaccurate things in support of your arguments, I will point them out. How is that character assassination?

Its your only defense and your only alternative. To actually discuss the situation would result in your losing the argument.

It would? News to me. Along with pointing out your inaccuracies, I have tried actually discussing things as well.

So, in essence, if you wish to discuss the data as opposed to mis-labeling me a liar, then I am all for that. Otherwise we are done.

If you lie, I'll call you a liar. Please show me even one example in which I have said you were lying/misrepresenting/inaccurate when you weren't. I am happy to discuss your arguments & the data as well. I'd be happier to do it if you used more logic in your arguments, and less fallacies & appeals to emotion. I've tried a couple of times to summarise your arguments, and then rebut them.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

It is geneti. My dad has 150 cusins. Not one is gay.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It is geneti. My dad has 150 cusins. Not one is gay.

How do you know? Do you follow their actions 24/7?