Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Homosexual Double Standard, Ad-hoc, Cavalcade!

    So what if homosexuality has an unusually high risk of HIV? So what if it could be defined as abnormal? It's two men consenting! If they both consent to it, there's nothing wrong with it!

    Homosexual conversion therapy must be banned for the good of the LGBT community. So what if they consent to it? They just don't know the risks. They're probably brainwashed into doing it. It's dangerous to their health, and we must ban it! It doesn't matter if it's their choice or not!

    -

    If a man was married before, and had sex with women before, but is now gay, then he was probably just in the closet this whole time. We have to stop persecuting the gays, and help them to feel welcome!

    If a man was married to another man before, and had sex with other men before, but now has sex with women, and is married to one, then he's probably just a brainwashed, self-hating, closet-gay. Shame on you evil homophobic idiots for brainwashing him like that! You're probably just all closet homosexuals yourself anyway!

    -

    If a closet-gay comes out, and starts supporting the LGBT, good for him! Gays need to be treated with respect, and dignity, in this world that treats them as the opposite. No one deserves to be hated like the gays are hated!


    If a 'reformed' homosexual starts publicly condemning homosexuality, and the LGBT as evil and immoral, then I hope that hateful, bigot, gets run over by a bus!!! That still gay, closet-homosexual, is just a self-hating bigot. I HATE homophobic, self-hating bigots like him, and if I ever see him, I'm going to personally tell him that he's a loathsome piece of trash that should kill himself!!!!
    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

    -Thomas Aquinas

    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

    -Hernando Cortez

    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

  • #2
    Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
    So what if homosexuality has an unusually high risk of HIV?
    True. Homosexual and bisexual men are at higher risk for infection. As well African Americans, Blacks, Latinos and Hispanics of any gender have higher rates of HIV. Individuals who use abuse drugs intravenously, as well as babies of HIV-positive mothers, are also at risk. So!

    So what if it could be defined as abnormal? It's two men consenting! If they both consent to it, there's nothing wrong with it!
    It is not defined as “abnormal” by those that know. The American Psychological Association and related disciplines worldwide state that both heterosexual behaviour and homosexual behaviour are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.

    Homosexual conversion therapy must be banned for the good of the LGBT community. So what if they consent to it? They just don't know the risks. They're probably brainwashed into doing it. It's dangerous to their health, and we must ban it! It doesn't matter if it's their choice or not!
    No, it must be banned because it's unnecessary, doesn't work and can be harmful. It is based upon the erroneous premise that homosexuality is a disorder. According to the APA it is not. Furthermore many Evangelical-based former proponents, such as Exodus International, now acknowledge that it doesn't work.

    If a man was married before, and had sex with women before, but is now gay, then he was probably just in the closet this whole time.
    Possibly! Or perhaps attempting to conform to social conventions, the demands of his Church or possibly confused. Who knows.

    We have to stop persecuting the gays, and help them to feel welcome!
    What gives you the right to persecute anybody?

    If a man was married to another man before, and had sex with other men before, but now has sex with women, and is married to one, then he's probably just a brainwashed, self-hating, closet-gay. Shame on you evil homophobic idiots for brainwashing him like that! You're probably just all closet homosexuals yourself anyway!
    He is probably bi-sexual. But neither you nor I know nor is it up to you to prognosticate – especially in such a snide tone.

    If a closet-gay comes out, and starts supporting the LGBT, good for him! Gays need to be treated with respect, and dignity, in this world that treats them as the opposite. No one deserves to be hated like the gays are hated!
    Why wouldn't we treat ALL our fellow citizens with respect, and dignity?

    If a 'reformed' homosexual starts publicly condemning homosexuality, and the LGBT as evil and immoral, then I hope that hateful, bigot, gets run over by a bus!!! That still gay, closet-homosexual, is just a self-hating bigot. I HATE homophobic, self-hating bigots like him, and if I ever see him, I'm going to personally tell him that he's a loathsome piece of trash that should kill himself!!!!
    Such anger!

    quote: Michael Bussey and Gary Cooper, the founders of Exodus International, a Church-based coalition of "ex-gay" ministries have denounced all such programs seeking to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals, according to articles in The Sentinel (2/2/90). Bussey remarked of the programs: "I had no success with them. I counselled...hundreds of people...who tried to change their sexual orientation, and none of them were successful….”

    http://www.christianforums.com/t1647820/
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think Timeless is pointing out the inconsistencies in the homosexual rhetoric, not defending it.


      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
        I think Timeless is pointing out the inconsistencies in the homosexual rhetoric, not defending it.
        And Tassman is pointing out that TimelessTheist's portrayals of the rhetoric are inaccurate and that there aren't any inconsistencies.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh. Well, pardon me if I think differently. I believe Timeless is right on point with his observations.


          Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
            Oh. Well, pardon me if I think differently. I believe Timeless is right on point with his observations.
            Actually, he's doing what seemingly every atheist wanna-be comedian on YouTube does--take the most extreme instances of rhetoric or grossly exaggerate actual rhetoric until it's something different, and attack those as if they're representative of the other side as a whole, thereby obfuscating the real issues.
            Last edited by fm93; 08-23-2014, 10:35 AM.
            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by square_peg View Post
              Actually, he's doing what seemingly every atheist wanna-be comedian on YouTube does--take the most extreme instances of rhetoric or grossly exaggerate actual rhetoric until it's something different, and attack those as if they're representative of the other side as a whole, thereby obfuscating the real issues.
              Just like the homosexual movement does with those who disagree with them and refuse to condone what they do!!!!



              Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                Just like the homosexual movement does with those who disagree with them and refuse to condone what they do!!!!
                Except that the people involved in the movement as a whole don't do that, and you're making the same fallacy.
                Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                Comment


                • #9
                  True. Homosexual and bisexual men are at higher risk for infection. As well African Americans, Blacks, Latinos and Hispanics of any gender have higher rates of HIV. Individuals who use abuse drugs intravenously, as well as babies of HIV-positive mothers, are also at risk. So!
                  Yes, but keep in mind, that homosexuals make up less than 4% of the world population, yet they're somehow responsible for 1/3 of all the HIV infections worldwide. It's pretty much impossible not to see a connection.

                  It is not defined as “abnormal” by those that know. The American Psychological Association and related disciplines worldwide state that both heterosexual behaviour and homosexual behaviour are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.
                  Yes, you're right, there's no way you can define something only affects 4% of the population, that goes against the other 96%, IE the norm, as abnormal. It's not like it's the definition of the word, or anything.

                  No, it must be banned because it's unnecessary, doesn't work and can be harmful. It is based upon the erroneous premise that homosexuality is a disorder. According to the APA it is not. Furthermore many Evangelical-based former proponents, such as Exodus International, now acknowledge that it doesn't work.
                  Well, according to the many scientists that left the organization, including its former President, no, it is still a disorder. They stopped defining it as such for political reasons. Furthermore, Russian scientists have found the exact opposite....so, yeah. Unless you're actually trying to imply that the American government, and by extension, the groups it funds and interacts with, are trustworthy, which would probably not be accepted by most Americans for obvious reasons.

                  Though, disregarding all that, I thought the only reason homosexuality was okay was because the two adults consent to it? Well, the adults consent to the therapy too. If consent is suddenly not enough, then you're entire argument in support of homosexuality falls apart.

                  What gives you the right to persecute anybody?
                  The same thing that gives me the right to persecute thugs and rapists.

                  He is probably bi-sexual. But neither you nor I know nor is it up to you to prognosticate – especially in such a snide tone.
                  Then why aren't gay men that start having sex with women and stop having sex with men bisexual? Also, bisexuality seems like an excuse. If a person who previously was only attracted to men, and had sex with men, now is married to a woman, and has sex with women, and vice versa, he didn't change, he's 'bisexual'. Well, according to his testimony, he 'wasn't' attracted to both sexes, he was attracted to only one, and then started going with the other, so that pretty much destroys the idea that a man like that would be bisexual.....unless you're just asserting it to get out of admitting he changed, in which case, the entire idea of bisexuality is an unfalsifiable, ad-hoc explanation, anyway.

                  Why wouldn't we treat ALL our fellow citizens with respect, and dignity?
                  Go extend the same respect and dignity to NAMBLA and I might re-think it.

                  Such anger!
                  I know. Those LGBT people can sure be mean if they want to be.

                  quote: Michael Bussey and Gary Cooper, the founders of Exodus International, a Church-based coalition of "ex-gay" ministries have denounced all such programs seeking to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals, according to articles in The Sentinel (2/2/90). Bussey remarked of the programs: "I had no success with them. I counselled...hundreds of people...who tried to change their sexual orientation, and none of them were successful….”
                  Eh, whatever, psychologists did the same thing back when it was still a disorder, which, frankly, is part of the reason why they created this idea that it's normal. Anyway, Exodus International was just the largest organization that practiced this, there are others, and the testimony of ex-gays seem to contradict this very statement.
                  Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                  -Thomas Aquinas

                  I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                  -Hernando Cortez

                  What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                  -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Tassman? Well that is Tassman. Square_peg is just reacting because the OP took a negative look at how homosexuality is actually portrayed in the media, and how the opposite is handled in a contrary manner. Kudos to TT for an accurate picture of our failing society.
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      Tassman? Well that is Tassman. Square_peg is just reacting because the OP took a negative look at how homosexuality is actually portrayed in the media, and how the opposite is handled in a contrary manner. Kudos to TT for an accurate picture of our failing society.
                      Yup!


                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                        So what if homosexuality has an unusually high risk of HIV?
                        It doesn't. Homosexuality on its own doesn't carry a risk of anything. What you mean is that there are comparatively high incidence rates of HIV among some gay communities that happen to have some members who have HIV and are promiscuous and don't use safe methods. And whaddya know? That equally applies to straight people--you're more likely to contract HIV if you're promiscuous, don't use safe methods and sleep with people who have HIV. Merely being gay doesn't make you inherently more likely to have HIV. Meanwhile, if you're gay but you practice abstinence, or at least have a stable, committed relationship with someone who does likewise, or use safe methods, then you're not at any more risk of catching HIV than straight people who do the same. So the harmful effects that accompany some forms of homosexual relationships, and equally apply to some forms of heterosexual relationships, can easily be avoided--homosexuality on its own is no more inherently harmful than heterosexuality on its own.

                        So what if it could be defined as abnormal?
                        There's a difference between abnormal and rare.

                        It's two men consenting! If they both consent to it, there's nothing wrong with it!
                        And here we see your first major misunderstanding, which indicates to me that you don't actually understand the issues and that you therefore really shouldn't be sarcastically going off about this. The logic was never "it's okay because of consent alone," but rather "it's okay because two developed people mutually consent to it AND it isn't inherently harmful." So with that in mind...

                        Homosexual conversion therapy must be banned for the good of the LGBT community. So what if they consent to it? They just don't know the risks. They're probably brainwashed into doing it. It's dangerous to their health, and we must ban it! It doesn't matter if it's their choice or not!
                        ...this silly bit of sarcasm misses the point and is rendered moot. The previous standard of "it's okay if people consent and it isn't harmful" is also applied here, and conversion therapy is thereby rejected because it IS harmful. There is no double standard or inconsistency here, because the same single standard was applied and the results were consistent with its methodology.

                        If a man was married before, and had sex with women before, but is now gay, then he was probably just in the closet this whole time.
                        And people reason this way because we have direct testimony that provides evidence to believe it. Neil Patrick Harris, for instance, has said that he had sex with women when he was younger and was gay back then, just as he is today.

                        If a man was married to another man before, and had sex with other men before, but now has sex with women, and is married to one, then he's probably just a brainwashed, self-hating, closet-gay.
                        Your over-exaggeration aside, people reason this way because we have direct testimony that provides evidence to believe it (like the ex-president of Exodus International, for instance, and plenty of other "ex-gay" people who eventually admitted that they still experience feelings of same-sex attraction and that their orientation didn't actually change). Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? Why yes, it's the same standard that was used for the previous statement. Since it's a single standard being applied consistently, there's no double standard.

                        If a closet-gay comes out, and starts supporting the LGBT, good for him! Gays need to be treated with respect, and dignity
                        Here's where I have an issue with your rhetoric. This is technically inaccurate. Gay PEOPLE need to be treated with respect and dignity, and not because they're gay, but because they're PEOPLE. (Same goes with treatment of members of racial minorities--you don't treat them with respect and dignity because they're black/Asian/Hispanic, but because they're people, and people in general deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.) Enough with terms like "closet-gay" and "the gays." You don't refer to heterosexual people as "the straights," do you? Please, for the love of God...when you see the phrase "gay people," stop focusing only on the word "gay" and learn to focus on the word "people."

                        If a 'reformed' homosexual starts publicly condemning homosexuality, and the LGBT as evil and immoral, then I hope that hateful, bigot
                        You make it sound as if "the LGBT" is an organization like the NAACP or WHO or PETA. It's not. It's simply an acronym describing any person who experiences feelings of same-sex attraction or feels that his/her sex (aka status of being male or female) doesn't match with the internal perception of gender. So if someone condemns "the LGBT" as evil and immoral, then what he/she is doing is condemning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as a whole as evil and immoral, which is absolutely hateful and bigoted.

                        gets run over by a bus!!! That still gay, closet-homosexual, is just a self-hating bigot. I HATE homophobic, self-hating bigots like him, and if I ever see him, I'm going to personally tell him that he's a loathsome piece of trash that should kill himself!!!!
                        I don't doubt that some advocates for gay rights have hypocritically said things like this, but it's dishonest to take the most extreme, negative statements possible and portray it as if they were representative of the whole. Do you want people to portray the Westboro clan's truly hateful and idiotic statements as if they represented all of Christendom? If your answer is no, then don't broadbrush the entire gay population like that.




                        So ultimately, contrary to what Jedidiah said, we see that TimelessTheist didn't take an accurate picture at all, and that basically all of his alleged instances of double standards fail due to his misunderstanding of why people reason a certain way. And now I'll go back to addressing you personally: stop this. The only thing worse than someone who's bitterly sarcastic about seemingly everything is someone who's bitterly sarcastic and WRONG about seemingly everything. Do some statements from gay rights advocates seem contradictory to you? Do "angry activists" perplex you with their anger? Don't immediately go off on some annoyingly sarcastic rant about how absurd you think it is. Make an actual effort to find out WHY they're angry, and WHY they reason in certain ways. This may involve time-consuming activities like doing in-depth reading and personally asking them, but in the end, you'll be a much more understanding and knowledgeable person.
                        Last edited by fm93; 08-23-2014, 04:16 PM.
                        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It doesn't. Homosexuality on its own doesn't carry a risk of anything. What you mean is that there are comparatively high incidence rates of HIV among some gay communities that happen to have some members who have HIV and are promiscuous and don't use safe methods. And whaddya know? That equally applies to straight people--you're more likely to contract HIV if you're promiscuous, don't use safe methods and sleep with people who have HIV. Merely being gay doesn't make you inherently more likely to have HIV. Meanwhile, if you're gay but you practice abstinence, or at least have a stable, committed relationship with someone who does likewise, or use safe methods, then you're not at any more risk of catching HIV than straight people who do the same. So the harmful effects that accompany some forms of homosexual relationships, and equally apply to some forms of heterosexual relationships, can easily be avoided--homosexuality on its own is no more inherently harmful than heterosexuality on its own.
                          Homosexuals are naturally promiscuous, that's why their rates are so high.

                          There's a difference between abnormal and rare.
                          Not really.

                          And here we see your first major misunderstanding, which indicates to me that you don't actually understand the issues and that you therefore really shouldn't be sarcastically going off about this. The logic was never "it's okay because of consent alone," but rather "it's okay because two developed people mutually consent to it AND it isn't inherently harmful." So with that in mind...
                          That's not the argument that anyone, including the LGBT, uses. They all say it's justified purely because of the consent. If they used this standard, then they would have to be against homosexuality because of the high risk of HIV, and be against transgenderism, as the surgeries they get are, indeed, harmful, both physically and psychologically.

                          ..this silly bit of sarcasm misses the point and is rendered moot. The previous standard of "it's okay if people consent and it isn't harmful" is also applied here, and conversion therapy is thereby rejected because it IS harmful. There is no double standard or inconsistency here, because the same single standard was applied and the results were consistent with its methodology.
                          Conversion therapy, in and of itself, is not harmful.

                          And people reason this way because we have direct testimony that provides evidence to believe it. Neil Patrick Harris, for instance, has said that he had sex with women when he was younger and was gay back then, just as he is today.
                          So....he had consensual sex with a woman....and yet he was somehow still gay? And this makes sense to you? Even so, I could just turn your own argument against you, and say that Neil Patrick Harris was deluded into believing he was already gay back then, or something like that. You can't have it both ways.

                          Your over-exaggeration aside, people reason this way because we have direct testimony that provides evidence to believe it (like the ex-president of Exodus International, for instance, and plenty of other "ex-gay" people who eventually admitted that they still experience feelings of same-sex attraction and that their orientation didn't actually change). Hey, doesn't that sound familiar? Why yes, it's the same standard that was used for the previous statement. Since it's a single standard being applied consistently, there's no double standard.
                          And what about the ex-gay people who are still ex-gay? Oh, that's right, they don't count..... Even then, it's typical for any mental disorder that the therapy might not work, or it does and the disorder relapses. Works that way for people with drug addictions too.

                          Here's where I have an issue with your rhetoric. This is technically inaccurate. Gay PEOPLE need to be treated with respect and dignity, and not because they're gay, but because they're PEOPLE. (Same goes with treatment of racial minorities--you don't treat them with respect and dignity because they're black/Asian/Hispanic, but because they're people, and people in general deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.) Enough with terms like "closet-gay" and "the gays." You don't refer to heterosexual people as "the straights," do you? Please, for the love of God...when you see the phrase "gay people," stop focusing only on the word "gay" and learn to focus on the word "people."
                          I'm talking in reference to sexuality, which is why I use the term "gays." I have no problem with someone using the term "the straights".

                          You make it sound as if "the LGBT" is an organization like the NAACP or WHO or PETA. It's not. It's simply an acronym describing any person who experiences feelings of same-sex attraction or feels that his/her sex (aka status of being male or female) doesn't match with the internal perception of gender. So if someone condemns "the LGBT" as evil and immoral, then what he/she is doing is condemning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as a whole as evil and immoral, which is absolutely hateful and bigoted.
                          Thank you for proving my point. As soon as an ex-gay starts condemning his former, immoral lifestyle choices, the LGBT throws him under the bus. Also, yes, the LGBT is an organization. They have parades, organize events, and so on.

                          I don't doubt that some advocates for gay rights have hypocritically said things like this, but it's dishonest to take the most extreme, negative statements possible and portray it as if it was representative of the whole. Do you want people to portray the Westboro clan's truly hateful and idiotic statements as if they represented all of Christendom? If your answer is no, then don't broadbrush the entire gay population like that.
                          I'm not generalizing, by any means. All you have to do is look at some of the popular gay right's advocacy blogs, and their entries about ex-gays speaking against the LGBT, to see that. Sure I may have been hyperbolic, but it still stands.
                          Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                          -Thomas Aquinas

                          I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                          -Hernando Cortez

                          What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                          -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            TT, you went for the whole thing? Why not just stop at the beginning paragraph?

                            First, we correct the adverbs:

                            What you mean is that there are shockingly high incidence rates of HIV among sexually active gay communities that happen to have most members who have HIV and are promiscuous and don't use safe methods.
                            And when you develop drugs to treat them, their ridiculously unhealthy sexual behavior means the turnaround time for drug resistance to develop is much lower, thus creating more jobs for pharmacology grads! Everybody wins!

                            And whaddya know? That equally applies to straight
                            Men? Women?

                            spreadsheet units with no relation to reality whom I will disingenuously refer to as "people" or "humans" to avoid having to confront any actual facts or statistics about sexual behavior.
                            you're more likely to contract HIV if you're promiscuous, don't use safe methods and sleep with people who have HIV. Merely being gay doesn't make you inherently more likely to have HIV.
                            And merely wearing a Nazi armband does not mean that you agree with everything Hitler did, but you're probably going to get investigated to hell and back at the very least if you do it in America in 1942.

                            Meanwhile, if you're gay but you practice abstinence, or at least have a stable, committed relationship with someone who does likewise,
                            The sad part is that having a "stable, committed" relationship with someone with whom you're mutually abstinent isn't all that far-fetched. Still, it's an argument disconnected enough from actual reality that I can feel safe ignoring without having felt like I missed an opportunity to learn something.

                            or use safe methods, then you're not at any more risk of catching HIV than straight people who do the same.
                            Sure, whatever, we all know that the number of gay people and the number of straight people who regularly have sex with random strangers is exactly the same.


                            Originally posted by 2blowhards
                            HIV needs two things in order to flourish. The first is extreme amounts of body-fluid-swapping to be going on. Among America's urban gay swinging set, promiscuity levels during the '70s rose to hard-to-imagine heights. Meanwhile, condom usage was laughed-at. A real man -- a real gayguy anyway -- wanted his friction skin-to-skin. He wanted to revel in body fluids. According to one survey, the average high-risk early-days AIDS victim had had 1160 sexual partners. Not very sanitary.

                            The other factor the HIV bug needs to flourish in a population is for that population to be in an already-weakened state. Healthy vigorous groups tend to resist HIV, while the previously-compromised quickly fall prey. Berkowitz (like Gabriel Rotello) does a splendid job of making vivid how bad the health of many of the catting-around gays already was, even pre-AIDS. But you'd expect that to be the case, wouldn't you? After all, the gays who were regulars on the Christopher Street and Fire Island scenes were having unprotected sex with strangers on a regular basis.

                            Even so, the health of this crowd pre-AIDS was surprisingly awful. I recall -- and Berkowitz confirms -- that gay scenesters in the late '70s often considered sexually-transmitted-diseases to be honorable battle scars: proud signs of their sexual prowess, defiant medals that they'd earned fighting for "liberation." Just as The Pill was assumed to have ended all worries about pregnancy for straights, medicine was assumed to be capable of dealing with no matter what infection. Scene-making gayguys often had doctors specifically to deal with their STDs -- they called them their "clap doctors."
                            It's starting to look like maybe the 'stable, committed, relationship' type gays you're bringing up are about as abundant as "moderate" Muslims, and thus just about as useless when discussing the religion or the lifestyle.

                            So the harmful effects that accompany some forms of homosexual relationships, and equally apply to some forms of heterosexual relationships, can easily be avoided homosexuality on its own is no more inherently harmful than heterosexuality on its own.
                            True, but completely irrelevant, just as any discussion of "heterosexuality" that avoids the actually experienced institutions of marriage and dating that accompany 90% or more of heterosexual experience is going to be weird, strained, and irrelevant, any discussion of homosexuals that doesn't take into account the actual life and sexual proclivities of most gays is going to be an utter waste of time, and those who take the conversations in that direction are going to be assumed to be either legendarily idiotic or actively losing the debate and trying to put the best face possible on it. There are no anecdotes to illustrate your over-long and over-excused points, much less data.
                            Last edited by Epoetker; 08-23-2014, 07:15 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                              It doesn't. Homosexuality on its own doesn't carry a risk of anything. What you mean is that there are comparatively high incidence rates of HIV among some gay communities that happen to have some members who have HIV and are promiscuous and don't use safe methods. And whaddya know? That equally applies to straight people--you're more likely to contract HIV if you're promiscuous, don't use safe methods and sleep with people who have HIV. Merely being gay doesn't make you inherently more likely to have HIV. Meanwhile, if you're gay but you practice abstinence, or at least have a stable, committed relationship with someone who does likewise, or use safe methods, then you're not at any more risk of catching HIV than straight people who do the same. So the harmful effects that accompany some forms of homosexual relationships, and equally apply to some forms of heterosexual relationships, can easily be avoided--homosexuality on its own is no more inherently harmful than heterosexuality on its own.
                              Utter nonsense, SP.

                              HIV has three main, natural vectors (not counting needle sharing and medical transmission since both are arguably artificial vectors): Rectal Intercourse, Co-infection and Congenital. Like other STD's it is possible to transmit HIV in any type of sex - but it is not efficient in either vaginal or oral contact. The reason is that the lower colon is stupid - it cannot distinguish 'virus' from 'lunch'. Co-infection increases the efficiency of transmission in all vectors - translation, if another STD is present transmission is much more likely (3-5, 7-10 - depends which study you're looking at). Congenital is transmission from mother to child.

                              Where we see high levels of apparent heterosexual transmission (theses are not areas of the world where surveillance is reliable) we also see sky high STD rates which strongly indicates that co-infection is the actual vector.

                              MSM account for the vast majority of HIV transmission in the developed world because they are engaged in behavior that is likely to result in transmission if one party is infected. The virus only cares that it gets a free ride to a new blood stream - it doesn't care who that blood stream belongs to or how 'PC' they are. HIV cares about behavior because behavior is what puts a person at risk - period.

                              Milk maids frequently get cow pox; homosexual males frequently get HIV. In both cases it is because their behavior puts them at particular risk - that's the nature of most transmissible disease; behavior maximizes or minimizes risk.

                              And DO NOT EVER spout that 'safe sex' nonsense here again. I counsel kids every week who 'always' used condoms - and a few that really did. But they are in my office because they have GC or CT or even Trich (and are pregnant ) which are the diseases condoms work BEST against. If a glorified latex fence is all you have between you and a deadly disease don't be horribly surprised when I knock on the door to give you the bad news.


                              ETA: TT is correct, we do in fact see much higher levels of promiscuity in MSM - collaborated by higher overall STD rates (not just HIV - they also have higher syphilis rates as well as the other reportables). The one universal truth of STD - it ONLY occurs in the presence of promiscuity.
                              Last edited by Teallaura; 08-23-2014, 07:30 PM.

                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 04:56 PM
                              20 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Juvenal, Yesterday, 11:08 AM
                              9 responses
                              75 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 08:52 AM
                              6 responses
                              61 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                              11 responses
                              333 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by seer, 10-22-2020, 02:50 PM
                              24 responses
                              161 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X