Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

I'm actually fine with the religious arguement. But I've got my own solution to that.

"Gay" sex is more dangerous, and being gay (or having sex with a gay man) puts you at a higher risk of getting HIV. Why is it bigoted to say so?

Because not every gay person has anal intercourse, and nor does every straight couple not. Then theres also practicing safe sex. Its not the orientation that brings greater risk of contracting HIV, but rather, its the actions the individual partakes in, and the risk factor for said activities are just as high, regardless if its a heterosexual or homosexual couple.

Edit: Why the hell do the forums turn to molasses whenever I post.

http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

People living with HIV/AIDS in 2005 38.6 million

Women living with HIV/AIDS in 2005 17.3 million

Thats almost half.

In actuality the people at the highest risk of contracting an STD are young single men and women between the ages of 15 and 25.

I'm sorry, what was that about being gay having any dam thing to do it with it?

Bingo



Sex can be potentially harmful or even fatal. Homosexual and heterosexual are definitions of a sexual preference not a sexual act.

I am a heterosexual. If I stop having sex (god forbid! ) I would not stop being a heterosexual. My uncle is a homosexual. If he stopped having sex, he would not stop being a homosexual. We would only both be safer..... and well probably have a lot of hobbies.

We are talking about NEW HIV cases each year in the USA. I posted the stats and the facts earlier in this thread, feel free to scroll to see them.

There are about 44,000 new cases a year, of that number 70% are men.

Of that 70% who are men, 60% of the men are gay men. 25% are needle users and 15% are straight.

Them's da facx maam.

"Them's da facx maam."

Them's only da statistics sir. (being silly with you)

We all know statistics can be swayed by whoever is doing the study and should always be taken with a grain of salt, including any I quote. So lets go with yours for argument's sake.

Now I probably interpret them very differently than you do. 70% are men, 60% of those men are gay.... ok, now I see that as again, the sexual act and the manner of lifestyle, not the sexual preference.

In most states gay and lesbian men and women can not marry. Marriage (in most cases) implies monogomy, whereas being single tends to mean dating and in some cases multiple partners. Men (again in most cases not all) tend to have more sexual partners in a lifetime than women. So a single man is at greater risk than a married man.

Now going with your statistics and my way of interpreting them..... maybe the solution is to legalize gay marriage and encourage the monogamy that comes with it. *grins*

Are you suggesting a piece of paper makes people faithful? I would have to disagree with that, if that's your point.

The state might also reduce overdoses by providing safe drugs.

A state run brothel would improve safety for both involved. Pot for cancer patients?

The list goes on and on.

The government sets standards according to the majority standard.

No I'm saying a solid relationship with the support structure provided to every other solid relationship helps encourage more solid relationships.

Your examples are extreme and completely outside the point and do not back up your views. You know this. But ok, fine.....

Safer drugs for addicts.... They're called methadone clinics. I dont actually agree with them but they're there and its an option.

Legalized prostitution to be able to provide health care for and take taxes from prostitutes. Sure, why not.

And pot for cancer patients? Hell yea, helped a friend of mine in the past before it was legalized in CA tremendously and I had no qualms about helping her get it.

Yea I think you and I can agree at this point that we're gonna just keep disagreeing.

Where do I sign up?

Well first you gotta get addicted to the other stuff and I'm guessing you're not inclined to go there. heh

Do you not understand the concept of statistics or do you just selectively apply them when the cause is worthy?

How about this quote from the website you cited:

In the UK, the USA and a number of other European countries, HIV and AIDS have affected young gay men more than any other group of people. In the UK and USA especially, the percentage of young gay men who have been infected with HIV and the percentage with AIDS are much higher than those among other groups such as heterosexual people or children.


This is politcal correctness at it its most dangerous. You stick your head in the sand and ignore the most obvious logical conclusions because you don't want to make generalizations or hurt someones feelings?

Would you make the same case for intravenous drug users?

Yes I read that on the site too.... But if you read farther on it also explains how it is the behavior associated with single males uneducated about the facts and engaging with multiple partners. It isn't saying they are at higher risk because they are gay, it is saying they are at higher risk because they are taking unnecessary and uneducated risks. It states clearly that the solution to the problem is education, which if you read my earlier posts you would see has been my point all along. Homosexuality is not the risky behavior, promiscuity is.

You can't lump drug addicts in with gay men, two seperate issues and completely innapropriate.

I will however apply your question this way..... intravenous drug use and promiscous sex (whether heterosexual or homosexual) are both dangerous activities and can lead to fatal consequences.



I know you weren't saying this to me but actually I apply all statistics with a grain of salt as all are skewed one way or another.

EDIT: You'll note also the site's repeated use of the words "YOUNG gay men". YOUNG men who haven't been properly educated engaging with multiple partners which is actually fairly typical of young men of any sexual preference.

I am picturing two young men, one gay, one straight. The straight young man is talking about sex with his friends. He is open about his sexual activities. He is able to be open and is open to recieving information from others because of this.
The young gay man has been raised in a culture which tells him his feelings are wrong, therefore he hides them until he is older and more confident. But in his early at risk years he doesn't discuss his sexual activities with his friends or anyone else and so isn't receiving information in the process.

So which young man is at greater risk? The solution is fairly obvious here.

Allana, I'm really not clear on what it is you think I'm saying, but the statistics don't lie. If you are a gay American you are statistically more likely to have HIV, than if you are straight. And if you don't have it now you are statistically more likely to becom HIV+ in the future.


I didn't "lump them in", I use them as an example of the meaning of statistics for those who let emotional issues such as discrimination against homosexuals cloud their reason.


Is your argument that promiscuous gay men have exactly the same chance of contracting HIV as promiscuous straight men? That defies logic for several reasons. I can elaborate, but please think it through for yourself.


This is, IMO, a common complaint from those who either are afraid of math, or whose arguments defy known statistics. You pick whatever source of statistics you like, I'm pretty sure all of them will agree with my position.


Are YOUNG gay men a subset of all gay men? Then unless you have some evidence that OLD gay men are at lesser risk then you've proved my point. However, I think you'll find that gay men of all ages are at greater risk, but perhaps this is more pronounced at younger ages.

There are other reasons why gay men are more at risk, hopefully you've figured them out on your own by now. Now if the statistics disagreed with those reasons then perhaps we'd have to look further, but logic and the stats agree.

For those willing to put their beliefs to a test, consider this hypothetical situation:

Your only child needs an emergency blood transfusion and you have to choose between three men. The only information you have on those men is that one is straight, one is gay and the other is a former intravenous drug user.

Whose blood do you use?


(If you want to be a prick and like to quibble over meaningless details of hypothetical questions, feel free. I will either ignore you or mock you, as time permits.)

Okay you can mock me now becuase ill quibble.


Gay men have a higher Incidence of Aids then straight men overall, that does not necessarily mean gay sex is more dangerous. Becuase there are other factors involved such as the amount of time it spread in the gay community before it was fully identified.

The same is true for IV drug users.

in Africa i beleive most people who have Aids are straight.

There is no Aids test for straight couples to get married. If its a heath issue then test all people straight , gay - for Aids , or whatever the health risk is - and deny only based on that.


Basically even if it were "dangerous to be a gay man" -

What does this have to do with Gay Marriage?

The risk of death is extremely higher for smokers than non smokers - will we no longer let smokers get Married?

Last i checked our civil rights were not based on our health.

I would choose the Gay Man as he is the most likely to even know his HIV status.

Any of them, because the blood bank does tests to make sure that the blood isn't infected.

/sarcasm on

OMG are you crazy?! .. then his gay blood would mix with your child's straight blood and make him/her Bisexual!

/sarcasm off



BTW I find it funny that all this talk has turned to be about homosexual MALES and if they're at greater risk for HIV then straight males ... when, quite obviously, there are other subgroups under the overall "homosexual" umbrella that seem to have been forgotten in the discussion.

Hehe, "It's not me-- I was transfused that way".

I find it even funnier that the original topic of this thread was about a judge outlawing a prison group's Bible program...

Touche'

I kinda' like the SL forums .. you open a topic .. read the first page .. then skip to the end and read the LAST page ... and try to figure out in your head how the HELL it got from one end to the other without reading the middle.


Its like a game ... try to flesh out the leaps in logic and see if you're right or wrong.


EDIT: My spelling just sukcs today

Actually, it's a moot point. :/

"Gay men have a higher Incidence of Aids then straight men overall, that does not necessarily mean gay sex is more dangerous. Becuase there are other factors involved such as the amount of time it spread in the gay community before it was fully identified."

Wrong. Sorry, but wrong.

People who engage in anal sex have a higher incidence than people who do not. This, of course, leads to the fact that a greater percentage of gay men are at risk of HIV than other groups, but it is due to the sexual activity, NOT the sexual orientation.

Not all gay men have anal sex (my hand goes up here), and not all anal sex is done by gay men.

In any case, the blood banks in Britain do not allow you to give blood if you are a sexually-active gay male.

"Is your argument that promiscuous gay men have exactly the same chance of contracting HIV as promiscuous straight men? That defies logic for several reasons. I can elaborate, but please think it through for yourself."

Promiscuous unprotected sex is equally risky, regardless of the type. HIV isn't the only nasty STD out there.

And may I point out:

In the UK:

"Up until 1998, men who have sex with men formed the main exposure category for new HIV diagnoses. However, in 1999, heterosexually acquired HIV became the largest category, and has continued to be so ever since."

AND:

http://www.avert.org/stats.htm

From this we can conclude that, yes, having unprotected sex with homosexual males is more risky than having unprotected sex with hetersexuals, simply due to the probabilities involved, but also we can see, by using the same statistical method, THAT HAVING SEX WITH AN ENGLISHMAN IS MORE RISKY THAN HAVING SEX WITH A WELSHMAN.

Likewise, in America, of the people living with HIV:

* 35% were white
* 43% were black
* 20% were Hispanic
* 1% were of other race/ethnicity.

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

So let's rephrase that blood donation question:



For those willing to put their beliefs to a test, consider this hypothetical situation:

Your only child needs an emergency blood transfusion and you have to choose between three men. The only information you have on those men is that one is white, one is black, and the other is hispanic.

Whose blood do you use?



OH NOES! I EXPOSED PREJUDICE!

Musuko.

Okay.

You're either a fool for not understanding the concept of a hypothetical question or very clever to have avoided answering it and exposing either your "prejudice" or lack of concern for your own children.