Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

Since 1977??? Wow --and I thought I was in a dry spell for it being 3 months!

So you would bet your child's health on the theory that a smaller percentage of gay men are HIV+ without knowing it (than straight men)? I have seen no statistics that address that, but I would find it very surprising.

But you make the unwarranted assumptions that the men are asked about their HIV status or that they even know what their blood is being used for.

That is an invalid assumption designed to duck giving an honest answer. I hope you are more critical when your real child's health is at stake.

Again, this shows a misunderstanding of statistics and simple logic (and perhaps a slight misunderstanding of human anatomy). Your argument might be valid if I stated, "All gays have the AIDS," but I don't think anyone has said that here.

So, what is the most dangerous of the "common" sexual activities? Okay, I'm assuming from the above that you'll agree that it is anal sex.

Now tell me, which group engages in anal sex more often, gay men or straight men?

And further, which group overwhelming engages in by far the most dangerous sexual activity, receptive anal sex. If you said straight men, then I hope you have diagrams to illustrate that for me.

Are there mitigating circumstances that I'm not aware of? Do gay men have a lot less sex of all kinds than straight people? Do they use condoms far more often? Are they more likely to have a single sexual partner?

Is there any evidence to support any of those, because the overwhelming high (relative) percentage of gay men who are HIV+ seems to disagree.


This is not accurate. What they typically ask is something like "Have you ever had oral or anal sex with another man with or without a condom or other form of protection?"

So I guess they enthusiastically welcome gay blood donors. Except for those gays who have ever had sex with a man, that is.

I'm glad the people posting to this thread aren't protecting our blood supply.


Huh? Do you want to think about this one more time before I respond. Are base-jumping and skate-boarding "equally risky" as well?


What do you intend to prove with this? Are you saying that over half of all Brittish men are gay (something we Americans have long suspected), because that's the only way this stat helps your position.


Yes, that appears to be true, although I'm more than a little worried that you just looked at the totals and didn't actual compare to the total population.

So are you willing to concede the point yet?


The obvious answer is white. What did you expect?

Of course, you very well might have chosen hispanic, because your understanding of statistics still seems pretty shaky.


Oh really? Curse you, foul mathemetics! Why do you hate gays and blacks?

"Again, this shows a misunderstanding of statistics and simple logic (and perhaps a slight misunderstanding of human anatomy)."

HIV, and other blood-born STDs, have a much higher chance of transmission between people engaged in unprotected anal sex than in other forms of unprotected sex, for the simple reason that the lining of the colon is more likely to rupture and allow semen to come into contact with blood (which is how HIV is spread in sex) than the vaginal or oral linings are.

Add this fact to the knowledge that anal sex is common amongst homosexual men, and you start to see a reason for its prevailance. It is common in heterosexual relationships too (a lot more common than most people suspect), but not in such concentrated social circles or level of unprotected promiscuity as was found in the 1980s. From this point onwards, the high-prevailance bred high-prevailance. The high numbers of HIV positive homosexuals today can be directly attributed to the lack of awareness and unprotected promiscuous sex in those early days of HIV.

This is supported by the fact that infection rates for heterosexuals in Britain is now greater than the infection rates for homosexuals. This suggests that unprotected anal sex has now become more common amongst homosexuals than it has heterosexuals, which makes sense, considering how aware of the risks and need for protection most homosexuals are now, and how comparitively unaware heterosexuals are; with some still considering it a "gay disease" that they don't need to worry about.

"Now tell me, which group engages in anal sex more often, gay men or straight men?"

We are not a group. We are just people who share characteristics (in this case, sexual orientation). I wouldn't refer to people who wear glasses as a "group", although perhaps you might.

"Are there mitigating circumstances that I'm not aware of?"

Again, see above; the early infections of the 1980s creating a large supply of infected homosexual males, which then fuelled continued infection. As you can see from those stats we looked at in the last post, over 11,000 of the homosexual infections were prior to 1990, but only 1,600 of the heterosexual infections were.

This suggests that homosexuals aren't at any greater inherant risk to HIV infection...we just happen to have a headstart on everyone else.

"Do gay men have a lot less sex of all kinds than straight people?"

Here I can only rely on conjecture and opinion, as Kinsey is a little out of date. I'm sure that homosexual men don't have less-frequent sex than heterosexual men (well, I imagine they don't do vaginal sex as often...). However, sex for homosexuals isn't all about anal sex.

I will quote Stephen Fry, as he says it MUCH better than I ever could:

"Buggery is not at the end of the yellow brick road somewhere over the homosexual rainbow, it is not the prize, the purpose, the goal or the fulfilment of homosexuality. Buggery is not the achievement which sees homosexuality move from becoming into being; buggery is not homosexuality's realisation or destiny. Bugger is as much a necessary condition of homosexuality as the ownership of a Volvo estate car is a necessary condition of middle-class family life, linked irretrievably only in the minds of the witless and the cheap."

Personally, I have enjoyed a fantastic array of sexual delights, and I'm discovering many more at this very point in my life. Anal sex, on the recieving end at least, has not been one of them. Perhaps I'm just a tight arse.

"Do they use condoms far more often?"

I have no idea if they do or not...but after decades of the risks being made clear to us all, I should hope they do. Certainly, the drop in infection rates might suggest that.

How many straight bars have buckets of free condoms beside the door? I know the gay ones in Wakefield do.

"Huh? Do you want to think about this one more time before I respond. Are base-jumping and skate-boarding "equally risky" as well?"

Do you not understand what "equally risky" means?

"What do you intend to prove with this? Are you saying that over half of all Brittish men are gay (something we Americans have long suspected), because that's the only way this stat helps your position."

British has one t.

And we might be. Good for me if they are.

And what I am hoping to prove, along with the comparison between Englishmen and Welshmen, is that these kinds of statistics mean squat. I could just as fairly say that gay men, men who don't wear glasses, men with two legs, and men from England should not give blood, as they are more likely to be HIV positive than straight men, men with poor eyesight, men with prosthetic legs, and men from Wales.

Singling out men who have had unprotected anal sex with other men, yes, perhaps quite sensible...just as singling out anybody of any gender who has unprotected sex with anybody else would be. But any man who has had any kind of sex with any other man (ie, a sexually-active gay male)?

"your understanding of statistics still seems pretty shaky."

I know enough to know that the figures I have quoted are misleading because they don't take into account the relative size of each population (for instance, white Americans may make up more of the number of infected Americans than hispanics, but there are many more of them, so the actual percentage of infected white Americans may be lower than the percentage of infected hispanic Americans), and that given a back of the envelope guesswork calculation (assuming 10% homosexuality rate. A big assumption, of course), it's clear that, in Britain, any given homosexual is roughly 10 times more likely to have HIV than any given heterosexual.

However, the problem is using such groupings to divide and catagorise people into donors and non-donors. I am not allowed to give blood because other people who share a characteristic with me (having sex with members of the same sex) are statistically at a higher risk than others? I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could perhaps find that people with brown hair are more likely to be infected than people with blond. Do you use that catagory as a basis for a ban if the statistics supported it?

It's all rather similar to the higher insurance premiums most young men have to pay, with no thought to their own personality, ability or character, because other young men before them have been irresponsible and dangerous...

...IT IS CONCLUDING SOMETHING ABOUT ONE INDIVIDUAL BASED ON OBSERVATIONS OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS OF A SIMILER "TYPE", WITHOUT ANY DIRECT INFORMATION ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION. THAT, QUITE SIMPLY, IS PREJUDICE...PREJUDICE IN THE PUREST DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

Here's a thought for you: statistically, the percentage of Americans who are obese is greater than the percentage of Britons who are obese. Would it be fair, then, for me to say, upon hearing that I'm about to met an American person, having learnt nothing else about that person (he could be an Olympic athlete for all I know), "Oh, he's probably fat," just based on the fact that he's in that "group" of Americans?

Musuko.

So is your whole point "don't hate me just because I'm gay"?

It's apparent that it would be a big waste of time to respond completely to the irrelevant facts, fawlty [sic] logic, ridiculous comparisons, and general whininess of your post.

The fact that you criticize me for a typo, while your post contains numerous spelling errors, shows that you really don't give a shit about understanding this and just want to be a victim.


Wow. This shows you really haven't learned anything at all here have you? I seriously hope that gay rights activists in the UK keep you in the back row where you won't embarrass them.

"So is your whole point "don't hate me just because I'm gay"?"

No. My point is not to assume certain characteristics based on a person being in the same "group" as others with those characteristics.

"It's apparent that it would be a big waste of time to respond completely to the irrelevant facts, fawlty [sic] logic, ridiculous comparisons, and general whininess of your post."

Since when have these forum debates been anything more than an enjoyable waste of time?

"The fact that you criticize me for a typo, while your post contains numerous spelling errors, shows that you really don't give a shit about understanding this and just want to be a victim."

I didn't criticise you over it. I just pointed out your mistake. I'm aware of my many mispellings. It was a long post at midnight. Forgive me.

Why would I want to be a victim?

"This shows you really haven't learned anything at all here have you?"

What am I missing? How is assuming any American I meet is likely to be fat any different than the blood bank assuming that any male who has any kind of sex with another male is likely to be HIV positive?

Come on Groucho. That post had no content whatsoever. All you gave me was personal criticism, rather than any decent response to the points I made.

Do you have any decent responses?

Musuko.

I don't know, but you do. For example, making an issue out of my use of the term "group" when we're talking about statistics. That's just whininess, and totally unproductive. Yes, Musuko, you are unique a very, very special individual. Happy?


It's not different. They're both fellatious. What kind of alternate reality are you in where you think the blood bank (or I as proxy) "assumes" every gay man to have HIV?

You presume there is some prejudice there where none exists. "Oh, but they don't discriminate against brown-haired people, Groucho. That's not fair!" (not an exact quote, but an accurate summation). Come on, Musuko. If brown-haired people were ten times more likely to be HIV+ you can be damn well sure they wouldn't allow them to give blood. Is it also discrimination that they don't allow Haitian heroin using prostitutes?

In the US our evil blood banks discriminate against British people too (more specifically anyone who has spent a significant amount of time in the UK in a certain time range). Something about being afraid of having our brains turned to swiss cheese, I think. Wait a minute, you weren't in the UK during the mid-eighties were you? That could explain a few things.


Make a decent point and I'll respond. Heck, I even respond sometimes to many indecent points. But when you pack a post with 20 or so ridiculous statements, it's a waste of time.


To save time, how about you find a few friends who support your arguments first. I'd hate to waste my time being individual tutor when I can educate the masses in one shot.

Don't hate me cause I am a cherub.

"For example, making an issue out of my use of the term "group" when we're talking about statistics."

That's integral to the issue. You're grouping people by arbitrary distinctions. Why does my being a sexually-active person of one sexual orientation mean I am at higher risk of infection based on the activities of other people of the same orientation? It may be a sensible precaution to base opinions on me based on experience with strangers, but it is certainly not fair.

Again, I make the point in the hope that you get it: "Many Americans are fat. A larger proportion of Americans are fat than an equal number of Brits. Therefore, upon hearing that the person I am about to meet is American, I make the assumption that he is more likely to be fat than if the person were not American. I have never met this particular person and know nothing else about them than their nationality, but I am making this assumption about them based on evidence that is completely unrelated to them personally. I know nothing of his history, his eating habits, his exercise habits, but I am perfectly comfortable in assuming he is likely to be fat."

"What kind of alternate reality are you in where you think the blood bank (or I as proxy) "assumes" every gay man to have HIV?"

The British blood bank does not accept donations from men who have been sexually active with other men. Why?

"If brown-haired people were ten times more likely to be HIV+ you can be damn well sure they wouldn't allow them to give blood."

There are fewer black people than white people in America. Fact, yes?
The largest percentage of HIV infections in America are in black people. Fact, yes?

From this it is easy to see that the chances of a black American being infected is greater than the chances of a white American being infected (larger percentage of the infection rates in a smaller percentage of the population).

So...are you saying it is okay for American blood banks to disallow black donors?

"To save time, how about you find a few friends who support your arguments first. I'd hate to waste my time being individual tutor when I can educate the masses in one shot."

If you want to refute my arguments, it's up to you to do it. I do wonder; if you think I am so beneath response, why are you still responding?

I also wonder, Groucho, if you would be so quick to brand me as "whiney" if I had not made it clear that I was homosexual myself? I notice that your reply to my first post (which made no mention of my own sexuality) was reasonably measured and thoughtful. As soon as I responded with a post exposing my sexuality, your first response was to fall into homophobic rhetoric, thinking I have an "agenda":

"So is your whole point "don't hate me just because I'm gay"?"

...and thinking I simply wish to martyr myself as a minority:

"shows that you really don't give a shit about understanding this and just want to be a victim."

There's no denying, you would not have made such statements had I not been homosexual myself, would you?

Had I not made indications to my own sexuality, you would not have thought I was on the march, "whining" about how I'm being discriminated against. You would not have thought "oh dear, it's another gay guy prattling on about how victimised he is...again."

I have the feeling that you would have given me a better hearing. Want to prove me wrong?

Musuko.

please learn to use the forum quote system its much easier to read. Thanks.

That anal sex is more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex i beleive I already mentioned earlier in this thread. Anal sex is not gay sex. Some women like Anal sex, some gay men do not.

This does not discount the time factor - becuase it spread first amoung the gay population it is hard to easily seperate the sexual activity from the population of those with Aids. The statement "well the incidence is higher becuase they have more anal sex" is a conclusion its not part of the statistical comparison. And it ignores some of the other facts involved.

If the transmission were 100% and fatality 100% over a short term then you could conclude more, But this isnt the case. The fact is Gay men are a partly closed group as far as their sexual partners - therefore the spread has some statistical containment which influences the proportion.

Judging just on statistics - with the numbers you two have given, Asian female would be the best choice for a blood donor - wouldnt it? It not exactly a hard game to play.

The safety of "gay sex" however is not the arguement , it was brought up as AN arguement against gay marriage. Which in turn was brought up as an argument of how The christain agenda is being codified into the United States body of law, As it has been for many years, contrary to the concept of seperation of Church and State.

Which coincidently is the seperation of church and state that lead to the story which led to this thread.

Sure this is actually an easy answer - plenty of straight men have anal sex.

With Straight women.


Do you still need a Diagram?

-okay i blatantly ignored the receptive part. I have not seen any statistics which determine that receptive is more dangerous than giving.

-even if it is than straight women having anal sex are in the same dangerous catagory.

"please learn to use the forum quote system its much easier to read. Thanks."

I know how to use the forum quote system. I refuse to use it because it gets misused in the way that you have misused it: by quoting entire lengthy posts rather than the relevant parts.

So nyeah.

Musuko.

You can use it to quote just the relevant parts.

"You can use it to quote just the relevant parts."

Compare the space used in each.

Musuko.

Since space isn't at a premium here...

Oh, well if "plenty" of straight men have anal sex, then I guess you've proved your point. Thanks for being so precise. Yes, answers are indeed easy when you don't care whether they are accurate or relevant.

Show me anything that says that straight men engage in anal sex more often than gay men and then you might have a point.


Hah, funny. So you decided to ignore the most important word in my statement and then made fun of my statement that depended on it. So very clever.

Well, hopefully you learned something here. Being on the wrong end of the penis is much higher risk for all types of sex. More proof that math hates gay people (and women).


Great, we can agree on something. A woman receiving anal sex from a straight man has basicallythe same risk of contracting HIV as a man receiving anal sex from a straight man.

Now, what does that have to with anything? Or were you just ignoring that we were comparing the rate/risk of HIV between straight and gay men?

You figured it out, congratulations.

Since you've demonstrated that math hates gay people, and I have a fondness for math, then I have to conclude that I do indeed hate gay people.


I want to, but I can't. Even the most straightforward logic seems to escape you so proving anything to you clearly cannot be done.

well More straight men probably have anal sex than gay men - since gay men only make up 10% of the population.

even if less straight men poportionally have anal sex.

for example if 1 in 5 straight men have anal sex and 1 in 5 straight women have anal sex - that is More people then gay men.

I think were even on the ignoring part since you have merely said receiving anal sex is riskier than giving anal sex when it comes to HIV.

Im assuming you are refering to rectal tissue damage and infering this makes it riskier?

Since women are smaller than men typically, when a woman has anal sex with an infected man it would be riskier than a man doing so?

Again ive seen nothing that breaks down HIV transmission in giving vs recieving in any sex oral, vaginal or anal.

Are you just thinking out loud? Or did I miss the part where we decided we were going to to count the total number of sex acts in the world.


I didn't ignore you, but I also don't plan on collecting all the research for your convenience. If you really care, go out and look for it yourself.


I'm not inferring anything, I looked at the statistics. Logically the statistics make sense because of what you say and because of other obvious factors. Now, if the statistics told me that phone sex is the riskiest then I might think twice.


This by itself is a logical assumption. You might also theorize that asian women are more at risk than caucasian women by the same principle. What's your point?


I haven't seen any statistics on the anus sizes of men vs. women. I'll give you my reference if you give me yours.

I was *attempting* to follow your reasoning since you *neglected* to reference in the first place why receiving anal sex is the riskiest behavior.

The rest which followed that was of course pure conjecture since in my opinion i was following your forray into the discussion.

All of these arguements are of course relatively moot - since HEALTH is not a factor in straight marriage and has no place being one in gay marriage.

can't you feel the love (pun intended)

Do you dispute it? Why would I provide references for something that reasonable people can agree on? Just as I reasonably agreed that women's anuses are typically smaller than men's rather than insist you document it.


Again, just thinking out loud? Following that line of reason would be fine if it points out a flaw in my reasoning, but it doesn't. So, IMO, it's a waste of time.


When did I say this had any relevance to gay marriage? That was your own non-sequitur.

Once again, the assertion is (loosely put):

Gay men are more likely to be HIV+ than straight men and a gay man who is not HIV+ is more likely to become HIV+ than a straight man.

And it still stands. If you want to read into that that I am against gay marriage or against tofu, that's up to you.

Guys, just do a google search for groups that have the highest risk of HIV infections. You'll find a lot of recent statistics that say poor heterosexual african americans, especially single women, are at the highest risk of HIV. So stop bitching about gays with HIV, and start figuring out ways to limit the rights of blacks based on those facts. Heck, you've limited them before, why not again?

The gay marriage issue came before these arguements - please scroll up in the thread. These statistics are all tangents to that issue , which is a tangent from the seperation fo church and state issue.