From the Chinese Xinhua, the risk of AIDS is, as in the United States, vastly higher in the homosexual community:
The transmission of HIV/AIDS among gays in the Chinese capital was even worse than through sex workers, the city's disease control center said on Friday.
Up to 5 percent of homosexuals in the city were infected, compared with 0.5 percent of women sex workers, said He Xiong, the Beijing Centers of Diseases Control and Prevention deputy director.
Statistics like this should scream at us that homosexual behavior is very unhealthy; in fact, it would be more healthy to smoke than to engage in homosexual behavior since studies have shown homosexuals have a reduced lifespan of 25-40%.
When 10 times as many homosexuals have AIDS than women who work in the sex trade, that should say something loud and clear to anyone reasonable enough to hear.
Here in the United States, the CDC says 72% of male AIDS cases spring from male homosexual behavior...while according to a study commissioned by the pro-homosexual Human Rights Campaign only about 2.9% of the population is homosexual.
When 72% of AIDS cases come from 2.9% of the population...what is wrong with this picture?
If 72% of brain cancer cases came from 2.9% of the population that used a certain type of cell phone...don't you think that cell phone brand would be yanked off the market in a New York minute?
If 72% of mouth cancer cases came from 2.9% of the population who brushed their teach each morning before breakfast...don't you think there'd be a massive PR campaign to warn people not to brush their teeth before eating breakfast?
Yet instead of trying to convince people to "just say no" to homosexual behavior, we approve of it, we applaud it, we celebrate it, we even go so far as to legally and governmentally protect people's access to practice it as openly as possible.
Many of our schools allow student clubs oriented around this dangerous behavior. Many schools even teach children that this behavior is normal, natural and healthy.
We would rather smile and pretend to be the good guy than save people from suffering and death.
We are a people who have lost touch with not only morality, but all common sense and reality.
19 comments:
Bob,
With all due respect, you are blatantly misrepresenting the CDC's data. The report you cited says that 72% of male HIV cases come from homosexual behavior. It does not say "AIDS cases." There is a HUGE difference, which you clearly do not understand. The report even says, "CDC’s analysis of HIV diagnoses includes all new HIV diagnoses, with or without an AIDS diagnosis." This should tell you that the percentage you cite does not necessarily include AIDS cases, yet you present it as such anyway. Don't you know that you can live with HIV for twenty years without ever getting AIDS?
Also, I would strongly recommend being more specific when you discuss homosexual behavior. Using myself as an example, I do not have HIV or AIDS - or any STD, for that matter. Yet I engage in homosexual behavior. The difference is that my partner and I are completely monogamous, safe, and responsible; he is not infected with anything either, and we know neither of us will cheat, so the chances of us becoming another statistic are extremely low.
I am not disputing that many gay men have HIV/AIDS - they do. Nor am I denying that a male HIV/AIDS patient is more likely to be gay than straight. But maybe you should cross-reference your statistics with the prevalence of infidelity, promiscuity, and other high-risk behaviors among gay men living with this disease to see if there's any positive correlation. Because frankly, homosexual behavior itself does not cause HIV/AIDS, just as heterosexual behavior itself does not cause HIV/AIDS. IRRESPONSIBLE behavior does.
For this reason, I think it's very misleading to make blanket statements like "homosexual behavior is very unhealthy," because I am living proof that this is not necessarily so. What we should all say "no" to is irresponsible, promiscuous, anonymous, unsafe homosexual behavior. And I'd say the same thing about heterosexual behavior.
You seem to be missing the point that HIV/AIDS doesn't just "happen" from homosexual behavior. It's not some spontaneous phenomenon. It all comes down to HOW and WITH WHOM you practice it.
HIV and AIDS are used synonymously in most reports including those from the CDC. The reason is that HIV causes AIDS. Whether you say "72% of AIDS cases came from homosexual male behavior" or "72% of HIV cases came from homosexual male behavior," either way, 72% of a particular deadly medical condition came from homosexual male behavior. Using a different term to distract doesn't alter the reality or the end result.
Not all traffic fatalities come from drunk driving, but a huge percentage do. Not all drunk drivers will have a traffic accident, but a huge percentage do.
When the figures show that a certain behavior is high-risk and that a lot of people get hurt or killed performing that behavior, the smart thing to do would be to NOT perform that behavior. Not just "be careful" about it, but not do it at all.
You and I both know that promiscuity rates in the homosexual community are astronomically high--even among so-called monogamous couples.
I'm glad for your sake that you and your partner are faithful enough to one another that you aren't putting each other in jeopardy by having sex with someone who statistically probably ISN'T being careful and thus bringing terrible risk into your relationship.
But the reality is--and the statistics clearly show it--most homosexuals AREN'T being careful, so it's both irrational and dangerous to attempt splitting hairs over this.
Bob, you're still not getting it. I'm not splitting hairs or trying to justify high-risk behavior. I even agree that most homosexual men are not sexually responsible. But even someone who agrees with you should tell you when you are misrepresenting the data, and you ARE misrepresenting the data!
Look at the CDC report again. First of all, the form "HIV/AIDS" with a slash mark does not appear one time. Second, the authors use "HIV" when they discuss HIV and "AIDS" when they discuss AIDS; the fact that the article is divided more or less into two parts, one for each term, should make this even easier to understand. The acronyms are NOT used synonymously. This is because HIV does not ALWAYS result in AIDS. The CDC doesn't use a different term to "distract" - they use one term when it's appropriate and another when it's not for the sake of accuracy, as any medical report should do.
How about if I used the words "high cholesterol" and "heart disease" interchangeably? Or if I said that all cigarette smokers have lung cancer? One causes the other, so my statement must be correct, right? By presenting the data in those terms, the number of people with heart disease and cancer would skyrocket instantly, making the epidemic seem exponentially worse than it actually is. Why on earth would I twist the facts like this? Well, maybe I just happen to have a political agenda against smokers and people with heart disease...
Let's imagine that in 1988 you were on a safari in Africa, got injured, and had to be rushed to the nearest hospital for a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, the blood you received contained HIV. It is now 2008. You have had HIV in your body for twenty years, but through some miracle your condition has not developed into AIDS. Now, let's say I showed you a CDC report saying that 2% of all AIDS cases reported in 1988 were caused by African blood transfusions. Would that statistic apply to you?
"HIV" does not necessarily imply "AIDS," but when you take a statistic from a medical organization that clearly says one thing and make it say something different, your message is that the two terms are one in the same. This is not a pro-gay or an anti-gay concern. It's an accuracy concern.
Do you get it yet?
Alex, it's you who doesn't seem to want get it.
You said yourself in your example, "...You have had HIV in your body for twenty years, but through some miracle your condition has not developed into AIDS..." Obviously on some level you realize that they are closely connected.
Let me put it another way. Are you ambivalent about contracting HIV and living with it indefinitely...in the hopes it won't turn into full blown AIDS? Are you telling me contracting HIV is no big deal? Nothing to worry about?
"Obviously on some level you realize that they are closely connected."
On *some* level?! Yeah, it's called that level where I say it explicitly! Acknowledging a cause-effect relationship implies that I'm aware of a certain closeness, wouldn't you agree? When did I ever say that HIV and AIDS aren't closely related?! And when did I say that having HIV is only a big deal when it turns into AIDS?!
I'll ask my question again:
Let's imagine that in 1988 you were on a safari in Africa, got injured, and had to be rushed to the nearest hospital for a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, the blood you received contained HIV. It is now 2008. You have had HIV in your body for twenty years, but through some miracle your condition has not developed into AIDS. Now, let's say I showed you a CDC report saying that 2% of all AIDS cases reported in 1988 were caused by African blood transfusions. Would that statistic apply to you?
This is not an essay question; it's multiple choice:
YES or NO
Yes it would apply to me because (1) HIV causes AIDS, and (2) I had a blood transfusion in Africa.
But it wouldn't matter much because I'd still have AIDS hanging over my head regardless of where I got the transfusion or what the statistics were.
Here's an important difference in your example and the way most men get AIDS in the United States: my hypothetical transfusion (1) isn't a behavior I had a choice to do or not to do, and (2) isn't immoral. Neither of those are true of homosexual behavior.
More importantly, what you don't want to deal with is that homosexual behavior is obviously very dangerous. You might want to go back and re-read the entire original post.
While your at it, consider the questions I ask. Put yourself inside those questions:
If 72% of mouth cancer cases came from 2.9% of the population who brushed their teach each morning before breakfast, would you brush your teeth every morning before breakfast?
If 72% of brain cancer cases came from 2.9% of the population that used an Acme Brand cell phone, would you go out and buy an Acme Brand cell phone?
Ooooh sorry, wrong answer.
While the blood transfusion part does describe you, the scenario clearly says that although you have HIV, you do not have AIDS. HIV causes AIDS, but not always. At the time you read the CDC report, all you had was the virus, not the disease. And as your own source clearly indicates, one can have HIV without having AIDS. You would not have been included in the statistic of AIDS cases resulting from African blood transfusions. If the study had said "HIV cases," you would have. They are two different things.
The next time you spin medical statistics for your anti-gay agenda, try to at least LOOK like you know what you're talking about.
Thanks for playing! We have some lovely parting gifts for you: an autographed copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and "Philadelphia" on dvd. I talked to God earlier and she said they're both right up your alley!
Okay, go ahead and pretend there's no correlation, even though you admitted it yourself.
Alex, you are a prime example of someone who is so determined to do something, they'll ignore all danger and reason to justify it in their own mind.
Apparently you would use that Acme Brand cell phone.
Ok, so even after I explicitly said that there's a correlation between HIV and AIDS (a fact that's so academic I can't believe anyone would even try to dispute it), you think I'm pretending to deny my own statement? I'd love to hear you explain that!
I'm NOT trying to justify irresponsible sexual behavior or say that HIV/AIDS is nothing to worry about. Please quote where I said otherwise.
I'm trying to correct your error of saying that HIV and AIDS are the same thing - something that your own CDC report demonstrates as false:
"CDC’s analysis of HIV diagnoses includes all new HIV diagnoses, with or without an AIDS diagnosis."
This means that some of the HIV-positive people in that 72% statistic HAVE NOT BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH AIDS! But by claiming that "HIV" and "AIDS" are synonymous, you've incorrectly stated that those people who do not have AIDS actually do. That is a misrepresentation of the facts! It doesn't mean that HIV/AIDS is nothing to worry about or that it's ok to have irresponsible sexual contact. It means that you don't know how to read a medical report! How are you not getting this?!
And, no, I would NOT use your Acme brand cell phone, because that analogy only works when you compare it to high-risk homosexual behavior. In case there's any confusion, let me be perfectly clear:
I do not encourage or condone irresponsible sexual behavior, regardless of whether it's homosexual or heterosexual.
My partner is the only person I have sex with, and vice versa, I do not take iv drugs, and neither of us is infected. We are not "monogamous" like many gay couples. We are monogamous like you and your wife. Therefore, I do not engage in any type of behavior that would expose me or my partner to HIV/AIDS.
Because you and I are both in exclusive relationships, I am just as unlikely to get HIV/AIDS as you are. Actually, that might be inaccurate. Based on your personal testimony, you've had more sexual partners than I have (and even an extramarital affair, correct?) and participated in much more risky behavior before becoming a Christian, which would have made you more likely to get HIV/AIDS than me, a monogamous homosexual man who has had two sexual partners his whole life (neither one infected with anything) and has never been unfaithful, ever.
Stereotypically speaking, the fact that I'm a gay man would make you think I am more likely to get HIV/AIDS. But between our respective sexual histories, I'd have to say it's yours that befits the description of "irresponsible and high-risk," not mine.
How's that for ironic?
You are attempting to minimize the danger of homosexual behavior by pretending there is no relationship between HIV and AIDS--which in one breath you admit, and in the other you deny.
Let me try this another way. Cancer frequently kills, but it doesn't always kill. The fact that it doesn't always kill in no way makes it any more desirable to have. If not, a reasonable person would avoid behaviors which increase the risk of cancer.
HIV doesn't always result in AIDS--though it usually does eventually. Does this in any way make HIV any more desirable to have? If not, a reasonable person would avoid behaviors which increase the risk of HIV, and thus AIDS>
If you and your partner are monogamous the way you claim, you are very fortunate...and very rare in the homosexual community. Given the overwhelming promiscuity in the homosexual community, even among those who claim to be monogamous, taking another person's word for it is still pretty risky.
And as I said several comments ago, you and I both know the vast majority of homosexuals aren't being careful, and they aren't being monogamous. So the risk factors remain essentially the same.
Building a case based on rare exceptions is both disingenuous and foolhardy.
Alex,
As you say, "I understand your frustrations, but frankly I think you're being melodramatic."
"HIV doesn't always result in AIDS--though it usually does eventually. Does this in any way make HIV any more desirable to have? If not, a reasonable person would avoid behaviors which increase the risk of HIV, and thus AIDS."
First of all, no, the fact that HIV doesn't always result in AIDS does not make the virus any more desirable or any less serious. I never said it did either of those things; if you insist otherwise, at least have the decency to quote me.
Second, thanks for finally admitting that HIV doesn't always result in AIDS. Do you think that might be why the CDC said "HIV" and not "AIDS" when they reported that 72% of all HIV cases come from homosexual behavior? If they wanted to restrict that figure to AIDS cases, they would have said "AIDS." But fortunately, they too were in on your groundbreaking epiphany that HIV does not always result in AIDS, and thought it best to present their findings as accurately as possible by saying "HIV," not "AIDS." If they didn't care about accuracy or honesty, like you, they'd have simply flipped a coin to decide which term to use. Does this deliberate use of terms mean that the CDC considers HIV a non-issue compared to AIDS? Of course not. It just means that they, unlike you, know how to use medical terminology correctly. I don't know how else to explain this, so I'll resolve myself to the possibility that you're just an unintelligent person who cannot mentally grasp his own error, an error that any Biology 101 student is taught to avoid: "virus" is not the same as "disease." Yeesh.
"You are attempting to minimize the danger of homosexual behavior by pretending there is no relationship between HIV and AIDS--which in one breath you admit, and in the other you deny."
Hm, now that's just a boldface lie. Please quote the exact place where I deny a relationship between HIV and AIDS. Cut and paste my words into your next post, and let that be the extent of your response. Thanks!
(And Carrie, thanks for chiming in with that smart little dig. It shows a great deal of maturity to come onto a thread that is entirely unrelated to your Bristol Palin article purely for the sake of enriching this discussion with your clever and altogether necessary comment. Do you have any more deep thoughts to add? Or did you come here just to show off your impressive wit?)
I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion, Alex. You're close to returning to your old ways: dancing around the obvious to avoid an unpleasant conclusion.
Someone who is in denial is never going to be able to face the adverse affects of a behavior.
I can only hope time and truth will do the job.
So...what you're saying is that you cannot quote me. Thanks, that's all I needed to know.
I apologize if you think I'm returning to my old mocking ways. I just get extremely frustrated when someone accuses me of saying something that we both know I never said, and then runs away when I call him out on it.
When you find the sentence where I deny a relationship between HIV and AIDS, be sure to let me know!
Hey Bob, sorry to bug you again, but I was perusing the CDC website and found a chart that explains HIV/AIDS surveillance:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/surveillance-table.htm
But I'm confused. If the CDC uses both terms synonymously, then why is there one category for "HIV/AIDS" and another for "AIDS"? If there is no difference, wouldn't there be just one? You obviously know more about this stuff than I do, so maybe you could clarify.
Just an educated guess, but since they had no idea what was causing AIDS, and only later pegged it to be HIV, it would probably be because the early years of the epidemic statistics were tracked solely by syndrome without reference to the virus itself.
Oh ok. So they're NOT using the two terms interchangeably. Thanks for clearing that up.
Obviously they are in some cases, since you cited that they do in fact have an HIV/AIDS category.
As I said before, whether you end up needing a kidney transplant or not, no sane person wants diabetes, and no sane person would willingly expose themselves to behavior which is likely to cause it.
As I said yesterday and as you continue to illustrate, there is no point in continuing this discussion. You are like the 4-year-old who insists on doing what they want to do, regardless of all the reasons it's a bad thing to do.
'Nuff said.
And once again, I ask you to quote the exact words where I said HIV is better than AIDS, or that there's no relationship between the two. You can't, because I never said it. So how about you stop putting words in my mouth, mmk?
Post a Comment