« Happy Birthday President Bush | HomePage | Introducing Guest Blogger Abu Musab al-Zarqawi »

Wednesday, July 06, 20051120706100

Homosexuals, Disease, etc

"STDs on rise among gay men," UPI, 6 July 2005, http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=94339... (from Drudge Report).

Stupid, ahistorical behavior => terrible, ahistorical plague.

 

Sexually transmitted diseases, especially syphilis, have become more common among gay men as the fear of AIDS has declined.

 

The article goes on to cite contributing factors, which would barely be a problem if not for the main problem. Not that this is new...

2002 New HIV Diagnoses

22:15 Posted in Homosexuality | Permalink | Comments (19) | Tags: epidemiology

Comments

I was going to comment that I'm amazed at how many people still practice unsafe sex but then I remembered that I didn't learn what 'safe sex' exactly meant until after I'd graduated from high school. But still, you think you'd know better than to have unprotected sex with a stranger at a nightclub after shooting meth.

Posted by: Adam | Thursday, July 07, 2005

Just think, under the coming theocracy, you'd have never learned! Because your parents would be too mortified to discuss the issue with their children, and they'll be damned if the schools will!

Society's ills soon melt away! Rejoice!

Posted by: aaron | Thursday, July 07, 2005

Stupid, ahistorical behavior => terrible, ahistorical plague.

Excuse me? What is stupid about being gay? How exactly is it "ahistorical" as it's existed among people and animals from the beginning of time. And since when are solely homosexuals responsible for STDs. That's simply a ridiculous statement.

Posted by: Chirol | Thursday, July 07, 2005

Chirol, if you read TDAXP's first two posts on homosexuality you read his evidence which he argues homosexuality (as in a grown individual sexual interested with another grown individual of the same sex) is a realitivly modern invention.
Remember, at first the homosexual movement stated homosexuality was a choice. If you have any old encyclopedias they will state that the leading theory of homosexuality is a choice. (Even my liberal World Book from 1988 states that).
I think TDAXP meant gays are not solely responsible for STDs, what he means is homosexual behavior is making the AIDS crisis much more worse than it has to be in the West. (Just like how cultural problems of complete male sexual dominance in Africa has made AIDS a world issue).

Posted by: Catholicgauze | Thursday, July 07, 2005

Aaron,

Serious or sarcastic? WIth you it can be hard to tell.

Chirol,

"What is stupid about being gay?"

The same thing that is stupid about driving in the wrong lane at 200 km/h (in real life, not in the Tatu song).

It shortens life expectency dramatically, while putting many others at risk.

"How exactly is it "ahistorical" ..."

Catholicgauze handled that question well. The posts he was referencing are at

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2004/12/14/derbyshire_s_homophobia.html

and

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/22/homosexualism_v_homosexuality.html

How is homosexualism ahistorical? Simple: it did not historically exist

Posted by: Dan | Thursday, July 07, 2005

Its not homosexuality qua homosexuality that is spreading HIV, its unprotected sex and homosexual sex in America happens to be unprotected more often than heterosexual sex.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information that "homosexualism" or male preference for men instead of women (why not just use the word 'gay?) does not exist historically. The quotes you made from John Derbyshire in your referenced posts don't seem to indicate that he holds this position. Where is this coming from?

There seems to be pretty good anthropological, historical and biological evidence that gay men have been around for thousands of years, often in egalitarian relationships. What's your evidence against this?

Posted by: Adam | Thursday, July 07, 2005

Adam,

Your first paragraph is correct. Exactly as saying "Handling rot doesn't spread the Black Death, insects passing blood between vermin and humans spread the Black Death."

To your second...

"There seems to be pretty good anthropological, historical and biological evidence that gay men have been around for thousands of years, often in egalitarian relationships. What's your evidence against this?"

Where is this evidence?

Every pre-modern historical case I know of falls into pedophilia, ephebophilia, or faute-de-mieux. None match the modern use of the word homosexualist.

While the tactical genius of homosexualists in hijacking the word "gay" is to be applauded, the language should not be so debased...

Posted by: Dan | Thursday, July 07, 2005

HIV has never been detected in a human being. The so-called "infections" you are talking about, are acutally diagnoses, and these have ever-changing, complicated (and some say bigoted) conditions. The two most popular tests, the Western Blot and the Elisa are both simply anti-body tests, they do not test the presence of any virus. www.aliveandwell.org Homosexuals do not necessarily have more unprotected sex, but they do necessarily use more immune supressing drugs, such as poppers, because they relax muscles and the anus. It is the use of drugs that particularly interest homosexuals that we should be most concerned about. I've known many homosexuals, nearly all of which were religious condom users, but I don't think if you're constantly using a drug roughly equivalent to a organ transplant surgery-level immune supressent on a weekly or daily basis that you should be surprised that you "got AIDS". The same goes for factor 8-using hemophiliacs. Other immune supressants are constant exposure to disease and filth, which is what is really going on in Africa. Throwing rubbers at A) habitual users of dangerous drugs or B) people without toilets or clean water is getting pretty silly.

Posted by: heirabbit | Friday, July 08, 2005

Interesting thoughts heirrabbit, but how many viri are diagnosed through direct detection?

Posted by: Dan | Saturday, July 09, 2005

the solution is that everyone should turn lesbian.

hey, aren't most hiv transmissions around the world passed through heterosexual contact? and, um, aren't theocons around america trying to block schools from teaching the stuff that would prevent homosexuals (and heterosexuals) from getting stds?

and, um, aren't the theocons also trying to undermine the same-sex marriage laws and the civil union legislations that would lead to lesbian/gay stability and thus lead to less promiscuity among homosexuals?

calling the behavior stupid without taking a good hard look at the causes of the stupid behavior is, well, stupid.

Posted by: nora sumi park | Sunday, July 10, 2005

Viri are absolutely never diagnosed through direct detection, they are far too small to identify in routine tests. All tests for viral diseases are based on detecting secondary factors, usually the antibodies produced in response to the virus.

Posted by: anon | Monday, July 11, 2005

Nora,

Thank you for stopping by.

"the solution is that everyone should turn lesbian."

Well, such is impossible for half of our population...

More seriously, sapphism and homosexualism are different conditions. It does not make much sense to view then as analogous to each other. Certainly they were not viewed the same historically! The Puritans, for instance, gave capital punishment to homosexualists while convicted sapphists only of "lewdness."

"hey, aren't most hiv transmissions around the world passed through heterosexual contact?"

An irrelevent misdirection. Such a figure would include the countries of Africa, which are in the backward retrograde cultures that have little relevance for those with even basic infrastructure.

In a developed country -- the United States -- an absolute majority of new HIV cases come from homosexualists. This inspite of homosexualism being a tiny minority.

" and, um, aren't theocons around america trying to block schools from teaching the stuff that would prevent homosexuals (and heterosexuals) from getting stds?"

Unlikely, as they generally oppose denormalizing homosexualism.

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/20/vertical_homosexualism_v_horizontal_antihomosexualism.html

Further, as Flit(tm) said in another thread

"Sex that involves tissue tearing creates greater opportunities for infection. That's just biology. Anal sex common among homosexuals and dry vaginal sex common in Africa are both associated objectively with higher incidence of tissue tearing. The idea that homosexual sex is just as safe as regular heterosexual sex is simply not true biologically."

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/07/07/adam-on-homosexuality.html#c163673


"and, um, aren't the theocons also trying to undermine the same-sex marriage laws and the civil union legislations that would lead to lesbian/gay stability and thus lead to less promiscuity among homosexuals?"

I would assume that while an absolute majority of new HIV cases come from homosexualists, only a small minority of them would come from sapphists. Assuming that..

The catastrohpic prosicuity rates among homosexualists is much, much higher than has been observed in any (as far as I know) sizeable heterosexual population over an extended period. Given that, a "civil union" that is essentailly merely a collection of contract and power-of-attorney law would be unlikely to significantly reduce that rate.

"calling the behavior stupid without taking a good hard look at the causes of the stupid behavior is, well, stupid."

Indeed. Which is why I've taken looks at stopping behavior at its root as well.

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/21/denormalization_from_license_to_explicit_horizontal_control.html

Posted by: Dan | Monday, July 11, 2005

...and it would probably never occur to so many that making same-sex marriage LEGAL would cut down on promiscuousness among homosexuals?

What is really keeping a homosexual couple together? I mean, seriously. Society does absolutely nothing to keep them together and everything they can to make it as difficult as possible for them to have a relationship because it is so down on "homosexual behavior".

You might want to think about that a bit. If society really started supporting these couples, what impact would that have on their relationship?

I have a bit of knowledge about this, being in a gay relationship for 30 years now (and now the gay bashing will probably start). And after all the crap we have gone through, we are still together because there were so many times that all we had was each other. And left and right, we see straight couples getting a divorce because they "can't communicate" or some other lame reason.

We have more sanctity in our relationship than most straight couples will ever realize, legal or not.

Posted by: Bill | Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Bill,

Thank you for the post. I appreciate you as a commenter.

"...and it would probably never occur to so many that making same-sex marriage LEGAL would cut down on promiscuousness among homosexuals?"

Changing the definition of marriage to include man-man relationships would not significantly cut down on promiscuousness among homosexuals. As I said before, their promiscuity rate is very, very, very high. Higher, I would wager, than in any heterosexual culture were marriage has been forbidden. Making certain legal arrangements easier through less paperwork (that is, civil marriage) would not change that.

"What is really keeping a homosexual couple together? I mean, seriously. Society does absolutely nothing to keep them together and everything they can to make it as difficult as possible for them to have a relationship because it is so down on "homosexual behavior"."

The culture does a lot to fuel homosexualism. It creates the alientation that leads to socially ostracizing behavior. But humans are social animals, and it is not surprising that generally that even consciously and unconsciously self-selecting folk form their own societies to find warmth and love.

This is why some cultures find themselves with homosexualism, and some don't.

"You might want to think about that a bit. If society really started supporting these couples, what impact would that have on their relationship?"

I already blogged on a marginal analysis of this question.

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/12/libertarian_antihomosexualism.html

"I have a bit of knowledge about this, being in a gay relationship for 30 years now (and now the gay bashing will probably start)."

No, it won't. You are welcome here.

"And after all the crap we have gone through, we are still together because there were so many times that all we had was each other. And left and right, we see straight couples getting a divorce because they "can't communicate" or some other lame reason.

We have more sanctity in our relationship than most straight couples will ever realize, legal or not."

Perhaps, if "sanctity" is the right word...

But then, the sampling in this analysis isn't random, is it?

Posted by: Dan | Tuesday, July 12, 2005

I'm just curious as to how you would back up this claim:

"Changing the definition of marriage to include man-man relationships would not significantly cut down on promiscuousness among homosexuals."

I don't know where you'd find empirical data. Perhaps in a few years we can see how legalized marriage for homosexualists affects the Canadian AIDS/HIV transmission rate?

In heterosexual relationships, state-and-religion-sponsored monogamy significantly cuts down on promiscuity. From studies I have seen in Men's Health and read in WebMD forums, infidelity occurs in 10-25% of marriages.

Voluntarily constraining the one-to-many relationsips to one-to-one relationships would have an alarming effect on a mathematical simulation of transmission. I'd wager the effect would be near exponential.

If I were a better computer scientist and a better mathematician, I'd figure it out. Maybe I'll get bored and give her a go.

Posted by: aaron | Tuesday, July 12, 2005

THIS MY FIRST AND I MUST SAY MY LAST TIME TO VISIT THIS WEB SITE. I HAVE NEVER IN ALL MY BORN DAYS READ SO MANY STUPD AND NARROW MINDED BLOGS IN MY LIFE!!
LET ME ET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON A FEW THINGS.
FIRST THE BLOG ABOUT HOW THERE ARE THOSE IN THIS COUNTRY THAT ARE HAPPY ABOUT THE USA BEING FORCED TO OBEY INTERNATIONAL LAWS, WELL GUESS WHAT FOLKS, WE THINK WE HAVE THE NERVE TO PUSH OUR BS DOWN THE WORLDS THROAT, BUT, WHEN THE WORLD TRIES TO BRING INTO LINE WE CRY FOUL, WE ARE THE FIRST NATION TO USE THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO ENFORCE OUR WAY ON OTHER COUNTRIES, WE ARE THE FIRST TO ENCAGE IN WAR FARE TO TRY MAKE THE REST OF THE WORLD FALL IN LINE WITH US, MAY I ASK WHERE IN THE HELL DO WE GETOFF.
AMERICAN ALSO SEEM TO FORGET THAT THEY ARE THE INVADES TO AMERICA HAVING KILLED THOUSANDS OF MY PEOPLE AND THEN PLACING MY PEOPLE ON CONTROLED RESERVATIONS AND IN THE NAME OF THEIR WHITE GOD AND HIS BULLSHIT, THEY JUSTIFY EVERYTHING THEY DO IN THEIR GODS NAME NO MATTER HOW SATANIC IT IS.
THEY THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET BACK AND JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE WHEN IT IS THEY WHO SHOULD BE ON TRAIL.
AMERICA USED TO BE A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE BEFORE WHITE MAN AND HIS UNHOLY GOS ARRIVED.
AND AMERICA WELL CONTINUE GET WORSE HAS LONG THERE ARE SICK PEOPLE LIKE THOSE HERE STILL ALIVE.
WE NEED TO BE TAKEN DOWN TO OUR KNEES, AMERICA NEEDS TO FALL!!!!

Posted by: BERRY JACK | Saturday, June 16, 2007

Hmmm...a blog-system plugin for eliminating comments that are written entirely in caps?

What a freaking cool idea that would be!

Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | Sunday, June 17, 2007

Curtis,

I think tdaxp is finally making it big -- I've had three non-spam crazy comments in three days! :-)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, June 17, 2007

Thanks for sharing this article.This article is giving very good information about the subject.

Posted by: Generic Viagra online | Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Post a comment