WOW!!! HIV is resurgent among Homosexual men, "reaching epidemic"

Who has claimed that HIV isn't a serious issue in the Gay community? It is a very serious issue.

That is just one of many reasons I support gay marriage.

 

Condom use is down throughout the U.S. by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Because of the higher rate of HIV infection within the gay community that puts them more at risk, but any unprotected sex between non-monogamous persons is dangerous.

I know that in San Francisco there are many educational efforts to promote safe sex to the gay community, and to the general public.

 

Yes, I saw a report yesterday that said over 40% of HIV+ people have unprotected sex.

It's no wonder AIDS is on the increase.

 

This was my original post in this thread- still just as relevant.

 

SFJeff homosexual/lesbian conduct does not result in procreation. & quitting homosexuality saves more lives. People who are promiscuous whether it's straight or homosexual will do so because that is what they want to do and not be monogamous. The homosexual AIDS victims chose to be promiscuous because they don't want to be monogamous.

Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons they do straight sexual behaviors and fathers children with a woman. Yet sometimes, have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors-it’s about ending same sex conduct even if attractions don’t change. Behavior can be learned. If a boy is homosexually raped repeatedly, it’s more likely he will do gay conduct in adulthood because sex abuse damaged his mind and caused him to behave in ways he wouldn’t. If the boy had not been molested, then it’s less likely he would do gay conduct in adulthood. Only those who are dishonest or deluded deny it.

I am not a religious person but I see something wrong with gay/lesbian conduct. My reasons for being against gay/lesbian behaviors and being against sex changes (transsexuals are worse) are unrelated to any religion. They must abolish sex changes-a surgical mutilation. With homosexuality, if 2 knowing and willing adults want to do gay/lesbian conduct but not tell others what to think, then it’s their life, their choice. But gay/lesbian conduct must be marginalized like smoking. While they have not conclusively proven same sex behaviors are genes-if that is true, it would be same as alcoholic gene. There are people who become alcoholics because they learn becoming drunkards by seeing this, emulating and getting addicted. Then some people are alcoholics because they have alcoholic gene.

- - - Updated - - -

& quitting homosexuality saves more lives. People who are promiscuous whether it's straight or homosexual will do so because that is what they want to do and not be monogamous. The homosexual AIDS victims chose to be promiscuous because they don't want to be monogamous.

Never have I heard straights blame childhood sex abuse for reasons they do straight sexual behaviors and fathers children with a woman. Yet sometimes, have heard gays and lesbians say childhood sex abuse is reason they do same sex behaviors-it’s about ending same sex conduct even if attractions don’t change. Behavior can be learned. If a boy is homosexually raped repeatedly, it’s more likely he will do gay conduct in adulthood because sex abuse damaged his mind and caused him to behave in ways he wouldn’t. If the boy had not been molested, then it’s less likely he would do gay conduct in adulthood. Only those who are dishonest or deluded deny it.

I am not a religious person but I see something wrong with gay/lesbian conduct. My reasons for being against gay/lesbian behaviors and being against sex changes (transsexuals are worse) are unrelated to any religion. They must abolish sex changes-a surgical mutilation. With homosexuality, if 2 knowing and willing adults want to do gay/lesbian conduct but not tell others what to think, then it’s their life, their choice. But gay/lesbian conduct must be marginalized like smoking. While they have not conclusively proven same sex behaviors are genes-if that is true, it would be same as alcoholic gene. There are people who become alcoholics because they learn becoming drunkards by seeing this, emulating and getting addicted. Then some people are alcoholics because they have alcoholic gene.

 

Of course it is. Its just that unprotected sex between men is about 19 times more dangerous than unprotected sex between a man and woman. 1 unprotected encounter between men carries the same risk of HIV as 19 unprotected encounters with 19 different women.

 

It is a serious problem. So is institutionalized inequality, manifested in the denial of legal recognition of our marriages.

 

Citation? An unprotected encounter between two men who are not infected has zero chance of trasmitting a disease that neither one has. What's more, it's potentially more dangerous to have unprotected sex with someone who doesn't know their HIV status and may be infected, than to have unprotected sex with someone who is HIV+ and consistently following their medical treatment plan because their viral load is so low that they have very little chance of actually transmitting the infection. That said, both scenarios carry a level of risk - both higher than I personally would ever take.

And lest it be forgotten, not all same-sex sexual behavior is high-risk. Not all gay men engage in high-risk sexual behavior. Clearly, too many still do, but the disproportionate infection rate among men who have sex with other men is not because they're gay or men. Gay men have a much smaller pool of potential partners compared to heterosexuals, which is a factor in the rate of the disease's spread in that population. This is what makes certain unprotected same-sex behavior potentially more risky than the same behaviors practiced between members of the opposite-sex. It is not necessarily true that gay men engage in the riskiest sex acts with any more frequency than their heterosexual counterparts, and some gay men don't engage in risky sex acts at all.

Which is why it thoroughly pisses me off when people make generalizations about gay sex, gay men, and HIV. It's a case of shooting off their mouths without really knowing what they're talking about, and largely for the purpose of demonizing an entire subset of the population with a 'guilt by association' type of argument.

 

So do you think that Russian Roulette is okay if the revolver only has 1 bullet in 20 chambers, but not if it has 19 bullets in 20 chambers?

Arrogance about risk is what leads people to unsafe sex. You are correct- unprotected sex between non-monogamous men is much, much riskier- but ALL unprotected sex between non-monogamous persons is inherently risky.

Advocating safe sex only to gay men, will only lead to a false sense of security for heterosexual couples, and an increase in HIV and other STD's. Focus more resources on the higher risk groups certainly- but make sure the safe sex message gets out to all sexually active people.

- - - Updated - - -

All of what you say here, I agree with- my previous post didn't deal with many of your points, but I agree.

 

a faithful marriage would help fix that...

 

Of course. But a man who has sex with men is 19 times more likely to be infected with HIV than a woman who has sex with men.

 

Yeah, Ive often doubted the assertion that anal sex is responsible for the elevated incidence of HIV among men who have sex with men and instead suspect it the higher numbers on average of sexual partners that men who have sex with men typically have.

 

The word was invented in the context of monogamy in a gay marriage.

 

So do you think that Russian Roulette is okay if the revolver only has 1 bullet in 20 chambers, but not if it has 19 bullets in 20 chambers?

Arrogance about risk is what leads people to unsafe sex. You are correct- unprotected sex between non-monogamous men is much, much riskier- but ALL unprotected sex between non-monogamous persons is inherently risky.

 

Still waiting for you to cite your source. Sounds like something you pulled out of your ass.

 

Keep waiting. I could provide you a dozen sources and it wouldn't sway you from believing what you sooooooo desparately want to believe. Keep up the good work convincing the younger gays that homosexual sex presents no more risk of HIV infection than heterosexual sex.

 

So you did pull it out of your ass, then.

It doesn't, as you have over-generalized. What carries a greater risk is unprotected sex involving the exchange of bodily fluids, and men who have this kind of sex with men may be at greater risk than their heterosexual counterparts who engage in the same practices because of the smaller pool of partners available - as I already stated.

Gay men who consistently refrain from engaging in risky sexual practices have less chance of becoming infected than their heterosexual counterparts that engage in risky sexual practices. The point being, the potential for infection comes from having risky sex, not from being two men.

 

Noooo, I simply don't recall where I read it. 489,121 people in the US with HIV. 56% of them are Men who have sex with men who represent 2% of the population.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
If its not 19 times its even more.

 

Except your source doesn't say that they're 19 times more likely to become infected with HIV. You made it up.

 

Noooo, I simply don't recall where I read it. 489,121 people in the US with HIV. 56% of them are Men who have sex with men who represent 2% of the population.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html
If its not 19 times its even more.

 

So you keep saying, but you haven't bothered to explain how you think those statistics work out to "19% or even more". And the fact that you can't/won't produce the source for the 19% means I'm simply not going to believe you.

 

Isnt it self evident? If the risk of HIV infection of MSM were equal to non MSM, we would see 2%(CDC) -4% of the HIV among MSM and the other 98% among non MSM. Instead of 2% we see 56% among MSM and instead of 98% we see 44% among non MSM. MSM have 28 times the risk of being infected as the average of all people have the risk of being infected. Certainly the risk of a woman being infected would be somewhere between 19 to 28 times the risk. All depends on what you assume is the percentage of the population that is MSM

 

You seriously think you can make this leap from the percentage of infections represented by one population to a claim of 28 times the risk without showing any of the work that got you from point A to point B, and then further claim that it's self evident, and then think that we're just going to take your word for it?

No. For starters, you haven't even identified what it is that puts a person at risk. I'm not baffled by your BS, just astounded that you really think people are going to fall for this smoke and mirrors.

 

Sorry, 56% / 2% = 28 times the risk. Again, would have thought it was self evident.

 

The only thing self-evident from this is that you don't know jack about calculating risk.