• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
MaggieD said:
'Skuze me for chiming in here. Maybe I'm not reading back far enough. But it seems that people are making an argument that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the transmission of HIV. Well, it does. From the CDC:

Transmission Category - Stats for 2008 Diagnoses

Male-to-Male Sexual Contact: 22,469
Drug Use Males: 2,539 -- Females: 1,571 = 4,110
Male-to-Male Sexual Contact and Drug Use: 1,141
Heterosexual Contact with a person who either has HIV or is at high risk: Men: 4,496 -- Women: 8,864
Other: Men: 110 -- Women: 77

From th CDC: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

Male to Male sexual contact is more causitive than all other reasons combined. If I'm missing something, please forgive me. I may have misread posts.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me ask you a question.

If two gay men who do not have HIV, are monogamous with each other, can they give each other HIV?

Hopefully you can see that it would be impossible for them to contract HIV from one another. Having gay sex does not magically create HIV.

Fact 1: To get HIV you have to come in contact with someone who has the disease.

Still with me?

Okay, Fact 2: The leading cause of the transmission of HIV is unprotected anal sex, due to the ease by which tears and fissures occur in anal tissue. Condoms greatly reduce the risk.

As such, men who have sex with men, represent the group with the highest risk of acquiring HIV, namely due to their likelihood in engaging in the behavior of anal sex. For the record, not all gay men engage in anal sex.

Still with me?

Fact 3: Men who have sex with men represent a small population. In fact, at most they represent 3-5% of the population of men. That means that they are a much smaller pool, and it is much more likely for a disease to get around.

Still with me?

Conclusion: It is not homosexuality that leads to HIV risk. It is the combination of unprotected anal sex, a smaller population pool, and promiscuity that lead to Men who sex with men being a higher risk group for HIV. Homosexuality can be practiced with 0 risk of getting HIV. All that is needed is that a gay man know his partner is clean, practice monogamy with that partner, and not engage in unprotected anal sex with that partner until they are sure that they pose no risk to their health. If they do those three things, than they can never get HIV from practicing homosexuality.

Do you disagree?

That is exactly what those statistics you just posted show. You simply made the mistake of thinking you could take a correlative relationship and determine causation from it.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Ok, let me ask you a question.

If two gay men who do not have HIV, are monogamous with each other, can they give each other HIV?

Hopefully you can see that it would be impossible for them to contract HIV from one another. Having gay sex does not magically create HIV.
Click to expand...

Check!

Fact 1: To get HIV you have to come in contact with someone who has the disease.
Click to expand...

Check!

Okay, Fact 2: The leading cause of the transmission of HIV is unprotected anal sex, due to the ease by which tears and fissures occur in anal tissue. Condoms greatly reduce the risk.

As such, men who have sex with men, represent the group with the highest risk of acquiring HIV, namely due to their likelihood in engaging in the behavior of anal sex. For the record, not all gay men engage in anal sex.

Still with me?
Click to expand...

Yeppers.

Fact 3: Men who have sex with men represent a small population. In fact, at most they represent 3-5% of the population of men. That means that they are a much smaller pool, and it is much more likely for a diease to get around.

Still with me?
Click to expand...

Mmm....yeppers, with reservations...

Conclusion: It is not homosexuaity that leads to HIV risk. It is the combination of unprotected anal sex, a smaller population pool, and promiscuity that lead to Men who sex with men being a higher risk group for HIV.
Click to expand...

Partly right. It is not the fact that someone is homosexual that puts one at greater risk of HIV. So I'm good there. More after I finish this foolish formating. ;-)

Homosexuality can be practiced with 0 risk of getting HIV. All that is needed is that a gay man know his partner is clean, practice monogamy with that partner, and not engage in unprotected anal sex with that partner until they are sure that they pose no risk to their health. If they do those three things, than they can never get HIV from practicing homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Check.

Now, back to the partly right. I don't agree that it has anything to do with there being a smaller pool. It has only to do with the fact that homosexual men are more apt to engage in risky behaviors. If they don't engage in those behaviors, they probably have zero chance of contracting HIV. The fact that gay men contract HIV at the numbers shown in that chart shows merely that it's epidemic (due to behavior). Not that any one gay guy is more apt to get HIV.

I'm not at all sure now -- do we agree? Or not? I'm confused. ;-)
 
'Skuze me for chiming in here. Maybe I'm not reading back far enough. But it seems that people are making an argument that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the transmission of HIV. Well, it does.
Click to expand...

That's the statement I made with my statistics post. I was wrong.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the transmission of HIV. Behavior does. Thanks for staying with me on this. I've learned to watch my Ps & Qs and, especially in sensitive situations, to say what I mean very carefully.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Now, back to the partly right. I don't agree that it has anything to do with there being a smaller pool. It has only to do with the fact that homosexual men are more apt to engage in risky behaviors. If they don't engage in those behaviors, they probably have zero chance of contracting HIV. The fact that gay men contract HIV at the numbers shown in that chart shows merely that it's epidemic (due to behavior). Not that any one gay guy is more apt to get HIV.
Click to expand...

I don't want to underestimate the fact that men who have sex with men are a smaller pool. If we assume that most MSM (Men who have sex with Men) will only have sex with other MSM, in other words, identify as gay, then you have a pretty small community and the chance for a disease to spread more rampantly is more likely. But I do agree that if MSM didn't engage in risky sexual behaviors such as promiscuity and unprotected anal sex at all, then the fact that they were a smaller pool would be irrelevant.

My main point, which I believe we do agree on, is sexual orientation is irrelevant to HiV infection. It is risky sexual behaviors that is the primary culprit.
 
CriticalThought said:
I don't want to underestimate the fact that men who have sex with men are a smaller pool. If we assume that most MSM (Men who have sex with Men) will only have sex with other MSM, in other words, identify as gay, then you have a pretty small community and the chance for a disease to spread more rampantly is more likely. But I do agree that if MSM didn't engage in risky sexual behaviors such as promiscuity and unprotected anal sex at all, then the fact that they were a smaller pool would be irrelevant.

My main point, which I believe we do agree on, is sexual orientation is irrelevant to HiV infection. It is risky sexual behaviors that is the primary culprit.
Click to expand...

For instance, if patient zero (if accurate) were heterosexual, we'd be talking about this disease in opposite terms - much as it is in Africa.
 
Zyphlin said:
Homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality, does not make one any more likely in and of itself to be able to contract HIV. If you expose a straight person and a homosexual person to HIV they have the exact same likelihood of gaining the disease. This obvious tells us its something else in the community that is causing disproportionately large numbers of homosexual men to have HIV rather than heterosexual men, and that said thing can not simply be their status as homosexuals because it can easily be proven that being homosexual in and of itself doesn't make you more or less prone to gaining the disease. Thus, there is likely an additional factor/factors that is more prevalent in the homosexual male community than in heterosexual male communities. Most evidence seems to point to a high proliferation of more casual sex mixed with the smaller community pool of potential partners to engage in said sexual style with, leading to the higher proliferation of this. Both factors can arguably be contributed to the fact that society and the rule of law denies them the traditional incentives for monogamous relationships while also ostracizing them from being "normal" thus increasing the seeming need to require them to go about things more "discreetly" and on the down low than possible rather than traditional relationships.

Heterosexual people performing the same type of irresponsibility also are more likely to catch STD's than other heterosexuals. For example, individuals that are college aged are more likely to contract an STD than those that are in their 30's and 40's. Shall we suggest then that college causes STD's? Or is it perhaps that the atmosphere and sexual standards at most colleges are different than those that are older and it is that, not necessarily college itself nor the age of the people, that are responsible for the variations?

Similarly with basketball, you'll see that those players who most routinely average double digit points are also the ones that tend to have given the most fouls in a season. One could incorrectly assume then that fouling people leads to scoring more points. OR, you could be more intelligent and look for a more direct relationship, namely that those who play more minutes are both more likely to score points and more likely to have more opportunities to get fouls and thus it is not the fouling but the time played (The behavior) that is the issue.
Click to expand...

You have a link to back that up or is this your opinion?
 
MaggieD said:
I don't understand that at all.
Click to expand...

Patient zero - the one who spread the virus in the West was a gay flight attendant - thus, it was gay men who were picking it up as he had sex "in every port" (this was in the late 1970s mind you, when a LOT of people were sleeping around).

What I'm saying is that if said person were a straight male, we'd be talking about how it affects straight women (as it does in Africa).
 
rivrrat said:
It's pretty much common sense. Which part of it do you require link for?
Click to expand...

rusty_gears.jpg


Oh darn, now i have to engage these. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
Patient zero - the one who spread the virus in the West was a gay flight attendant - thus, it was gay men who were picking it up as he had sex "in every port" (this was in the late 1970s mind you, when a LOT of people were sleeping around).

What I'm saying is that if said person were a straight male, we'd be talking about how it affects straight women (as it does in Africa).
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. I'm not sure one can come to that conclusion, though. It still wouldn't have spread throughout the hetero community as fast as the gay community, numbers-wise. Once it got there, it would explode and, after this length of time, there probably wouldn't be too much difference than the stats today. That's my opinion on it, anyhow.
 
ptif219 said:
Show facts opinions mean nothing
Click to expand...

Anytime someone tells you something you don't want to hear, you respond with "prove it".

Your lack of common knowledge, basic civics and concepts in U.S. Government isn't our problem. It's yours. Deal with it or get off the boards.
 
Hicup said:
I do not wish to report CC. I asked a question to see what was customary. Ease off on the MOD button there Redress. You won't intimidate me. If I am banned for my contributions here, it will be a loss to DP, and I will have lost a place for me to learn from others that express differeing views than I. In other words, we both lose.


Tim-
Click to expand...

Tim, don't go there. I've been here long enough to know there are two things you don't do here at Debate Politics. And I don't do 'em. You got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.
 
Hatuey said:
Again, that is either intentionally dishonest or ignorant. The reality is that while it is a certain type of behavior which causes you to be more prone to being infected. That behavior is called 'promiscuity'. Stating that homosexuality is a risk factor is as redundant as saying heterosexuality is a risk factor. The overwhelming majority of infections in Africa are from male to female relationships. Does that mean that heterosexuals are a risk factor for HIV? No. Promiscuity is. I'm tired of your silly word games now.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you understand his point but am pretty confident you don't understand what a risk factor is. A risk factor implies no causal relationship. In what you quoted, Hicup did not claim that "homsexuality itself" causes HIV.
 
Taylor said:
I'm not sure you understand his point but am pretty confident you don't understand what a risk factor is. A risk factor implies no causal relationship. In what you quoted, Hicup did not claim that "homsexuality itself" causes HIV.
Click to expand...

Homosexuality itself isn't a risk factor. Homosexual acts may be, not always though.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Homosexuality itself isn't a risk factor. Homosexual acts may be, not always though.
Click to expand...
Whether or not that is true, saying you believe homosexuality is a risk factor does not imply that you believe there is a causal connection.
 
Taylor said:
Whether or not that is true, saying you believe homosexuality is a risk factor does not imply that you believe there is a causal connection.
Click to expand...

In order to be a factor, it would have to have some causal relationship. Otherwise, by definition, it would not be a factor. ;)
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
In order to be a factor, it would have to have some causal relationship. Otherwise, by definition, it would not be a factor. ;)
Click to expand...
In epidemiology, causality is often not known. So the above is actually not true. For example, small stature was recently identified as a risk factor for developing heart disease. There may or may not be a causal relationship there, and by making the connection we are in no way saying that being short "causes" heart disease.
 
Taylor said:
CC - you appear to be utterly ignorant on what a "risk factor" is. A "risk factor" implies no causal relationship whatsoever. It refers simply to a variable that is related to increased risk. The relationship can be causal OR correlational.

That you would accuse someone of "lying" for using a term YOU did not understand is quite simply outrageous.

I'm sure he'd appreciate a public apology.
Click to expand...

As usual, Taylor, you are another one who doesn't know the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Being homosexual is not a risk factor. Engaging in unsafe sex is. Homosexuals may engage in unsafe sex more often than heterosexuals, but that does not equate to the orientation, itself, being a risk factor.

There will be no apology, since he used the term incorrectly, even after he was shown that he was wrong.
 
Taylor said:
In epidemiology, causality is often not known. So the above is actually not true. For example, small stature was recently identified as a risk factor for developing heart disease. There may or may not be a causal relationship there, and by making the connection we are in no way saying that being short "causes" heart disease.
Click to expand...

If they don't know, they can't claim it is a risk factor. At best, they could say that it is a possible risk factor.
 
texmaster said:
Male homosexual sex clearly shows it makes it far more likely to contact HIV.
“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC[/B]
Click to expand...

This is known as self-pwnage. Notice how tex manipulates terms to try to prove his position... but only succeeds in proving that he has done nothing but try to be deceptive. Anal sex does not equal male homosexual sex.
 
Taylor said:
No.. he posted an analogy illustrating problems with correlational data. It was not relevant to the issue I was raising with my post.


Show me where Hicup claimed that it wasn't unprotected sex that causes HIV, but "homosexuality itself."
Click to expand...

Here Taylor:

Hicup said:
Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV.
Click to expand...

I quoted this several times, and he denied that he made the claim. He lied.

Now that you have been proven wrong, let's see if you apologize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom