The last week's Dakota Voice poll question is now closed. It was:
According to the CDC, what is the largest source of AIDS transmission?
Here's how the answers came out:
- Homosexual contact & injected drug use (48%)
- Injected drug use (16%)
- High-risk heterosexual contact (15%)
- Homosexual contact (13%)
- Other (6%)
Only 13% got the answer correct. The answer was simple to find, and I even mentioned the source in the question. Like many things concerning homosexuality, perhaps many respondents thought that wishful thinking could equate to reality. Sadly, it does not.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the estimated number of AIDS cases for 2006 are
Male-to-male sexual contact 49.64%
Injection drug use 13.44%
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 3.35%
High-risk heterosexual contact 32.93%
Other 0.63%
It is important to note that while homosexuals account for only 2.9% of the population, homosexual activity is connected with more than 50% of AIDS cases.
AIDS transmission rates are very low for female homosexuals due to the limited fluid transfer and lesser opportunity for tissue damage during sexual encounters.
When only male homosexual AIDS transmission numbers, the health risk becomes even more stark:
Male-to-male sexual contact 67%
Injection drug use 12%
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 5%
High-risk heterosexual contact 16%
Other 0%
Again, it should be noted that while all homosexuals account for only 2.9% of the population, male homosexual activity is connected with 72% of male AIDS cases.
If 72% of male lung cancer cases were connected to eating Twinkies, how quickly would we see health warnings plastered across every media outlet in the country?
If 72% of male heart attack cases were connected to green apples, how quickly would we see a major campaign from government health services warning people not to eat green apples?
Yet with a politically correct and politically favored sexual practice, we only hear the crickets chirping. In fact, we not only see an absence of health warnings about the dangers of homosexual behavior, we see an aggressive campaign by Hollywood, the news media, and many in government demanding the public accept this behavior as normal, natural and healthy.
In addition to drastically high AIDS transmission rates, the homosexual community has high rates of gonorrhea, herpes, Chlamydia, syphilis, HPV, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.
Our culture has gone insane. Meanwhile, people are getting sick and dying. People are hurting physically, mentally and emotionally.
We simply must stop this politically correct hate of homosexuals that allows them to place their bodies and souls in jeopardy because we such cowards that we can't bear the though of being criticized.
People (and cultures) caught up in destructive behavior must end the denial to get better. And our culture is engaged in one of the biggest cases of denial in human history.
Do we have the courage to quit fooling ourselves and change?
11 comments:
So what you're saying is that we should all be lesbians and only have heterosexual contact to procreate under laboratory conditions? Haha. No. You just want to stop gay males from have sex, something they are going to do regardless of what you say and think and regardless of the invasive social engineering laws that you pass.
The best thing that you could hope for is to reduce the number of cases of transmission among the gay population, but that population already knows that your real interest isn't HIV/AIDS at all. It's to change their sexuality.
Just as my interest is in seeing drug users and gamblers not just make their destructive behavior slightly more safe, but to change their behavior.
There is no "safe" destructive behavior.
Homosexual behavior isn't destructive. Pushing homosexuals outside of society is destructive to homosexuals and society.
In other countries such as China where they continue to ignore the spread of HIV/AIDS through other means like blood born exchanges, the leading cause of HIV infection is in fact blood born exchange. (Not homosexuality.) So when I see a large swath of the US population trying to ignore/exclude gay people, fighting education efforts, etc, it is no surprise to me that HIV infections are higher among that population.
You aren't going to make gay people go away Mr Ellis. Science points to homosexuality as a biological condition, and even Rick Warren could agree with that. The cold fact is that education and inclusion of gay people, especially in permanent unions, would drastically reduce this number.
Your interest is very obviously not in helping gay people.
Then why do homosexuals have much greater rates of AIDS, gonorrhea, herpes, Chlamydia, syphilis, HPV, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence?
I'd say the evidence makes your assertion not only look woefully incorrect, but not even remotely connected to reality.
That's beside the fact that homosexual behavior obviously is a biological misuse for the parts involved, which, for men, can result in physical injury.
I don't think Warren would agree with the fallacious and unfounded contention that homosexuality has biological causation. And even if there were some biological factor involved, people are human beings, not animals, a fact which seems to have conveniently escaped you.
Human beings have intelligence, reason, moral accountability, free will and choice. In other words, human beings are not slaves to instinct and impulse.
Why don't you attribute a little more human dignity and worth to people instead of treating them like animal and expecting them to act like one?
As I said, when you spend years, decades, or even lifetimes trying to marginalize gay people, it should be no surprise they suffer the effects of being marginalized. You have not made a connection between homosexuality and anything.
What spreads disease? Disease is spread through fluid transmission, not being gay. This is reality. What are some things human beings do to avoid transmittion disease through such fluids? Condoms are one very traditional answer. Do condoms work to stop the spread of HIV in gay people? Yes. Knowing all of that, the question should be why?
The answer is marginalization, leading to lack of education and rejection of mainstream sex practices. Combine that with youth and you have a very bad combination when it comes to contracting sexually transmitted diseases. If you took away the marginalization, started education, then you could address the real culprit in both straight and gay peoples: sexual promiscuity + unprotected sex.
Besides, acknowledging that human beings have sexual urges is hardly treating them like animals. And for you of all people to suggest that someone else is treating gay people like animals is laughable. I simply acknowledge that the only difference between them and you is that they are attracted to people of the same sex. A position you could never take because you are too busy treating them as their sexuality instead of people.
That is reality Mr Ellis. And if you need proof, look to the left. The only thing you care about more than homosexuality is abortion. And I don't see you finding a causal link between those two either.
Indeed, disease is spread through fluid transfer. You can't accomplish very much homosexual sex without fluid transfer, so if you're going to have homosexual sex, you're going to have fluid transfer. Pretty elementary, huh?
If people would just reserve sex to within marriage as God intended, AIDS transmission would come to a screeching halt.
But contrary to your implications that human beings can't control their sexual impulses, they can. They often choose not to...and end up paying the physical, emotional and spiritual price.
It's really as simple as that. I know you'd like to fantasize a world where there are no real-world consequences for bad moral choices, but that isn't reality, and it never will be.
Why don't you stop trying to justify the immoral and unjustifiable, deal with reality like a grownup and start promoting a safe, healthy lifestyle for yourself and others?
You hit the nail on the head, Mr Ellis: "If people would just reserve sex to within marriage as God intended, AIDS transmission would come to a screeching halt." So it should be no surprise to you that so many gay people want to get married and want to institutionalize marriage within the gay community. The people doing the most work to stop HIV/AIDS in this country are gay people, and the fight for marriage rights is also part of that.
You glossed over my point that homosexual sex does not have to include fluid transfer; that is the point of the condom. And as much as I would like for people to restrict the number of sexual partners they have, I have to acknowledge that they are going to make their own choices. With that in mind, I encourage condom use. And not so surprisingly, any decent publication that talks about condom use is going to tell you that they are not 100% effective and that the only way to be 100% protected is to not have sex.
I'm not justifying their actions, Mr Ellis. I'm simply trying to encourage them to make better choices, which is a much more realistic route than trying to force them to make the choices that you feel are appropriate.
I also have to acknowledge that some things are not meant to be changed, and homosexuality is one of those things. Hence the rather large failure by ex-gay groups to actually change anyone's sexuality. (And not to mention, hence the damage they have caused people while trying.)
Homosexuals already have the right to get married. The only problem is, they don't want to do what it takes to constitute a marriage: combine a man and a woman.
There is nothing stopping homosexuals from being monogamous right now. If they wanted to. But they obviously don't want to. Even the relatively few homosexual relationships which make a claim to monogamy have been found to involve outside sexual partners. Apparently they want to undermine and twist the definition of "monogamy" to mean something it obviously isn't, just as they want to counterfeit marriage.
As to condoms, they are no magic bullet. They contain microscopic holes which, while small, are still many times bigger than viruses. Condoms were designed to stop much bigger sperm, not viruses. While they're better than nothing, they're far from safe. If you were a soldier, would you go into battle with a vest that had a bunch of holes in it? As a former military member, I can tell you that I wouldn't be that crazy. Why are homosexuals that crazy?
What's more, condoms can break. They can break even during heterosexual sex where there is natural lubricant present (interesting how even biology points us to what is correct and incorrect about sexual relations, isn't it?); how much more so during homosexual sex?
Still further, even knowing the risks, many homosexuals still don't use a condom. It doesn't take a PhD to figure out the AIDS risk, and the condoms campaign has been going on for nearly 30 years, so if they haven't been educated thus far, they never will. It is therefore obviously yet another choice to take risks in pursuit of a sexual thrill. A rational person would ask themselves why they would be willing to risk their life in pursuit of a momentary thrill.
I can't force homosexuals to make the right choices, any more than I can force a drunk or drug addict or gambler to make the right choices. In the end, the choice is theirs. As I said, they are not animals who are slaves to instinct and impulse. But it is certainly reasonable to believe that if we uniformly warn people of the dangers of alcohol abuse, drugs, gambling and homosexual behavior, some may wake up and change their behavior appropriately. One might as well argue that alcoholism and drug abuse were "not meant to be changed," and perhaps not pedophilia, either. Interestingly, though, treatment programs for homosexuals have a higher success rate than those for drunks and drug abusers. That should speak volumes to a rational person.
It appears you are embarrassingly desperate to justify an unhealthy and immoral behavior. You would do yourself a service to ask yourself why.
As I said, homosexual behavior isn't something that can be changed, but you cling desperately to the idea that it can. However, the goal of ex-gay groups is only to get bi people to date people of the opposite sex and to get gay people to be celibate. And it should be absolutely no surprise to you, since gay people are not animals, that they can be celibate. But that isn't changing one's sexuality.
In fact that same reasoning should also prove to you that homosexuality is not an addiction. Drug addicts and alcoholics are not as capable of change as homosexuals, of course that is only if you define change as being celibate. That is being rational Mr Ellis.
Being homosexual is not unhealthy, but still in this country people like you say it is. This leads to people not educating themselves about it and turning it into a problem. There are ways to practice homosexual sex safely without danger. And as I said, when you marginalize people, you should not be surprised at the results. You support the conditions that create the problems suffered by many gay people.
Two gay people in a monogamous same sex relationship or even marriage, because in my church they can get married, is the right answer. Attacking homosexuality as the problem is just misguided. You want homosexuality to be the problem, and that is why you are willing to gloss over the real issues.
You say that condoms campaigns have been going on for 30 years, then why do straight people still get HIV? Aren't they all listening too? No, of course not. Why? Because for 30 years there have been new people born, new people coming of age, all sorts of possible conditions (including the stigmatization of homosexuality) that leads to a lack of education still. Even straight people have this problem. But as I said, you want homosexuality to be the problem.
As for drug use, getting people off meth, crack or heroine is really does help them. The treatment to help them does not usually hurt them unless the drugs have hurt them too much.
The "treatment" if you can even call it that for homosexuals does not help them and it has in many cases hurt them. What has really hurt homosexuals is the idea that they have to change or they are in serious danger. What really hurts homosexuals is people who want/believe homosexuality to be a problem.
So I "cling" to reality, huh? Because homosexuals have been leaving that behavior behind for at least 2,000 years (the Bible records it), and people continue to do so today.
Talk about denial, Amie. You're so desperate to justify a practice that any rational person easily realizes is unnatural and immoral that you can't even accept the fact that people can change if they want to. You're really dedicated to the premise that human beings are just highly evolved animals, aren't you?
Even choosing to be celibate is indeed change. However, many homosexuals have gone beyond celibacy to enjoy heterosexual relations.
But it makes it easier to justify an immoral and unhealthy practice if one fools oneself into believing change isn't possible, isn't it?
Heterosexuals are still getting AIDS because...hold onto your hat...they, too, are choosing a momentary thrill over safety and reason. However, since the AIDS transmission rate is much higher among homosexuals, it appears that although there is a lack of rationality in both camps, one of the camps is suffering much more greatly from this dearth of rationality.
You are truly delusional to claim that a treatment which can help homosexuals stop a dangerous, unhealthy and immoral lifestyle is "hurting them." It is no more hurting them than getting drunks and drug addicts off their behavior is hurting them.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to argue endlessly with someone with the mentality of a fencepost, who is so dedicated to justifying dangerous and immoral behavior that they can't even begin to grasp elementary truths. I put this information out there for people who may be ready for change. You have made it overwhelmingly obvious that you are not, so there is no point in continuing this discussion.
cinemaphile85, as I stated to you on this subject on a different post, you are unresponsive to rational arguments, so this conversation is over.
There's no point in continuing this discussion with you because your mind is obviously locked up tight and closed to any truth.
I put this information out there for people who might be ready for change; you are obviously not ready for change. And if you want to peddle pro-homosexual propaganda, there are plenty of Leftist websites out there--including "mainstream" media outlets--that are more than happy to do that. I will not further the unchallenged peddling of harmful lies at Dakota Voice.
Post a Comment