Some pretty powerful stuff in this article: News just keeps getting worse for homosexuality Date: 3/18/2010 8:46:55 AM The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is not a part of the vast, right-wing conspiracy, religious or otherwise. It is tasked with disease control and prevention, and reports the stubborn facts about an array of health problems. A data analysis released today by the CDC finds that homosexuals have an HIV infection rate that is more than 44 times higher than that of sexually normal men. CDC link Forty-four times the rate of infection - for a deadly virus that kills its hosts. Further, the rate of syphilis infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) is an astonishing 46 times higher than that among sexually normal men. Says Kevin Fenton, M.D., of the CDC, "[T]his analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations." The FDA, which again is not the research arm of the American Family Association or the Family Research Council, says that the prevalence of HIV infections among MSM is 60 times higher than in the general populace. It is for that reason that a man who has had sex with another man even one time since 1977 is not allowed to donate blood. Don't miss this. For a man to have sex with another man poses so much danger to the nation's health that if a man has had sex even one, single, solitary time with another man in the last 33 years, he cannot be allowed to give blood. The risk of imparting a lethal infection through a tainted blood supply is simply too high. The FDA reports that the second highest risk group for HIV/AIDS is found among intravenous drug abusers. Bottom line: homosexual behavior is even more dangerous than injection drug use. Neither should be accepted, promoted, honored, endorsed, sanctioned or given special protections in law. The FDA also reports that since the AIDS epidemic began in 1977, an astonishing 91% of all afflicted males contracted it through having sex with man or through drug injection. "Heterosexual AIDS" is a myth. If there was ever a sexual behavior that deserved to be militantly opposed, in law as well as in public policy, homosexuality is it. It is lethal, it is fatal, and it is the height of callous indifference to tell these men that not only is their behavior okay, we will punish anyone who dares to criticize it. There is simply no genuine compassion in the hearts of those who would celebrate a lifestyle that consigns its practitioners to death. The Link
Cervical cancer has more than 1000% occurrence rate in females than males. Similar numbers are shown when you look at other diseases such as breast cancer. If ever there was a sex that deserved to be militantly opposed it is the female sex.
The thread is "weak". The largest population percentages for getting STDs is homosexual men. The second largest is heterosexual females. These two groups are followed distantly by heterosexual men and then homosexual females. Rather than focusing on the homosexuals, the actual lesson here is that being on the receiving end of penetrative sex puts you at significantly higher risk for contracting a disease. That is hardly a stunning lesson. Suggesting that we should "militantly oppose" a sexual orientation for the sake of safety is insane.
I'm gonna pull a percentage out of the air - oh lets, say 99% - I'd bet that 99% of all AIDS cases (excluding the children who contracted it from their mother) are directly related to poor decisions and risky behavior. Obviously every single person who contracts HIV should be treated with the same level of respect, dignity and care as any other person suffering from any other disease - however you can't deny that the disease is directly related to risky behavior.
Let people live the way they want to live. Who really wants the government to step in? _________________________________________________ They already have, more of my tax dollars are paying for treatments.
According to the CDC, obesity related deaths accounted for more than 400,000 deaths in the US in the year 2000. Don't have time to look up more recent info, but I can guess the number is rising since in the last decade, obesity has risen as well. Obesity related death Where's the militant outrage? Where's the indignation? Where's the compassion that would lead (presumably) to closing down McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's and restaurants that over serve food? Where's the suggestion that we crack down on people who refuse to eat anything other than fatty meat, potatoes, and ho-ho's - and eat way too much of those food groups at that?
Wow This is a tough issue. I strongly believe people should be allowed , within the law and as long as it causes no harm, to engage is whatever behavior with whomever they wish. But here is an instance when the behavior while legal can cause severe harm and death to both parties, and to any party with whom they engage in behavior. That is their right . So is it their right to go on medicaid and get expensive treatment? serious question, If money is limited ( and it will be) should medicaid funds be withheld from people with aids to give treatment to someone else without aids? If money is limited and the list of people needing medical care is longer than the dollars available how will we decide who to treat? Does someone who did not engage in known risky behavior but who gets cancer deserve treatment more than someone who knowingly put themselves at risk? Of courser if money will never be the issue we should treat them all.
Many posters are suggesting that the op not be taken literally or that there is some hidden meaning. I'm dense on this one, please explain the deeper point. The allegory is going way over my head. If the op is serious in what is written, the argument has been annihilated by the posts about penatratees, tobacco and guns. Please enlighten me. Seriously.
Let me get this straight. You want to ban homosexuality in order to save homosexuals? Judging by the feelings expressed toward gay people in the OP, you would think that letting gays kill themselves off would be an acceptable approach.
GTT " you would think that letting gays kill themselves off would be an acceptable approach. " Do you see that as an option? OR shouldn't they be given any treatment available, even if it is at taxpayers expense? If the money is there I think yes, treat them. The problem is down the road when money gets tight and choices on whom to treat have to be made. Of course there are other conditions that quasi fall into this category but for this topic, how should we prioritize who gets treatment if money is finite? I see this as a hard choice. It would be nice if people who wish to engage in activity that sheer numbers show is risky and even one act can result in contracting the disease, would use condoms which reduces the risk to almost zero.
Also, what "behavior" that causes the spread of disease is being celebrated? Is anybody "celebrating" unprotected sex? That, if I understand correctly, is the behavior that leads to the spread of AIDS and STDs. The op sounds sort of like the intolerant element of the Christian community that, back in the early Eighties, seemed to think that AIDS was caused by friction between male body parts. How much are we paying for the treatment of Sickle Cell? Should anybody be celebrating "those people?"
Risky behavior causes the spread of AIDS, not sexual orientation, though, as noted above, certain types of sexual behavior make the spread of AIDS more likely. This is a social and cultural issue. Risky behavior includes unprotected sex where one is being penetrated, up-sex with multiple partners, intravenous drug use with non-sterile gear, blood transfusions where the blood pool is not regulated, etc. Some groups are obviously more likely to engage in risky activity. Why? Lack of education. Lack of effective governmental intervention. Cultural norms that fail to process the science, which exacerbates the lack of education (this can include religious beliefs, sub-cultural/outsider standing (which pools risk), varying ideas of femininity and masculinity, etc.). On and on. I don't disagree with the OPs assertion that risky behavior should not be celebrated as a matter of policy or public stance. Celebrating the normalization of relations between one's sub-cultural group and the broader population is reasonable, as is going through the motions of exorcizing the demons and emotional traumas that being ostracized has wrought (this can be undertaken in intelligent and thoughtful ways or not). As a general rule risky behavior is not lauded or celebrated. Being a homosexual is not something that causes HIV, so it is not a risky status or behavior in and of itself. I don't mind that people are uncomfortable with homosexuality or, say, flamboyant homosexuals themselves. I understand that religion takes up a certain amount of one's reasoning procedures and lays out values and guidelines that lead some to feel opposed to homosexuality, etc. I just wish that these people would recall the value of 'live and let live' and, perhaps even more importantly, that they would embrace the value found in not being mean-spirited dumb fucks. The OP is simmering with just that kind of unreasoned idiocy. Make an effort, man, make an effort.
From the CDC link above: In 2008 the outgoing executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a leading homosexualist organization, admitted that homosexual behavior is both extremely high-risk and primarily responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS in America. Referring to the rate of AIDS among homosexuals, GLTF's Matt Foreman said that "Internally, when these numbers come out, the 'established' gay community seems to have a collective shrug as if this isn't our problem. Folks, with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that." Is he being hateful too?