[PLUG-TALK] HIV/AIDS

Sun Jan 4 01:59:41 UTC 2009

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Michael Robinson
<plug_1 at robinson-west.com>wrote:

>
> On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 16:59 -0800, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > (I just now subscribed so forgive the copy and paste from archives
> > instead of using my reply button)
> >
> >         http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/HsxDdly.htm
> >
> >         I didn't choose the above link for necessarily being 100%
> >         correct,
> >         but I think it's worth a look.
> >
> > Intentionally picking bad sources to make your case seems like a
> > wasted argument and hence a waste of your and our time.
>
> And why is this a bad source?  Is it a bad source because you are
> clouded by a bias that is against anything that criticizes homosexual
> sex on a non religious basis?

I called it a bad source because you told me it was.

>
>
> >         I'm against condom use, they fail and I think their use is a
> >         selfish
> >         act. Still, how likely is an HIV positive homosexual to engage
> >         in unprotected sex compared to an HIV positive heterosexual?
> >         If
> >         an HIV positive homosexual has multiple partners, which may
> >         not
> >         be so uncommon, HIV could spread like wildfire. Now then, how
> >         about bisexuals for a moment. Bisexuals engage in heterosexual
> >         sex as well potentially creating a bridge for HIV. Imagine you
> >         are married and in a heterosexual relationship with someone
> >         only to find out that they are bisexual and have contracted
> >         HIV from one of their same sex partners. If HIV/AIDS comes
> >         from the gay community, bisexuals could be the bridge
> >         that brought it to women. Granted, HIV can be spread by bad
> >         blood transfusions as well. I think sexual contact is more
> >         common than blood transfusions though.
>
> > When I read the above paragraph it becomes clear that you don't know a
> > lot of facts about HIV or homosexuals.  For example, did you know that
> > women can be homosexuals too?  Did you know that of the well known
> > STD/STIs that HIV is one of the harder ones to exchange?  Some
> > researchers have even made estimates that the average number of
> > exposures before someone gets HIV is about 10.  Compare that to HPV
> > which can be spread regardless of whether the participants had safe
> > sex or just intimate skin contact.  Perhaps you could read a book or
> > take a class about sexually transmited diseases and infections.
>
> HIV can be transmitted 1 in 10 times means it can be transmitted the
> first time.  The fact that it takes 10 exposures to get it doesn't
> seem to be slowing it down much.  HIV/AIDS is a pandemic.  I used
> the term homosexual in order to include women, though it is understood
> that the first population to contract AIDS was probably apes and from
> there homosexual men.  I am not denying that there are other STDS which
> may be transmitted more easily than HIV/AIDS and I am not denying that
> these other STDS are potentially just as bad.

My point is that you should try to learn some facts about the subject.  Get
educated.  I think you'd have less fear about this stuff if you knew more
truth about it.  Also, I didn't say HIV can be transmitted 1 in 10 times.

>
>
> >         If homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous than
> >         heterosexuals because homosexual sex is not fulfilling,
> >         that's more sexual contact and more chances for an STD
> >         to spread. I posit that homosexual sex is inherently
> >         dangerous if it promotes risky sexual behaviors. Well
> >         does it? Do homosexuals take more risks than
> >         heterosexuals?
> >
> > Why is homosexual sex not fulling?  Based on your argument, wouldn't
> > single people be more likely to be promiscuous since no sex at all
> > would be less fulfilling than some sex?  Because I can't agree with
> > the setup of your if statement, the logic doesn't make sense to me,
> > I'm free to ignore the conclusion.  That is, you've failed to be
> > sufficiently logical to make your case.
>
> You don't need to hear the rest of this argument from me, you need
> to listen to homosexuals and former homosexuals who have chosen to
> reject homosexual sex that are willing and eager to explain why.

Maybe I should listen to former catholics instead?

>
>
> >         AIDS is an incurable disease and we are probably no closer to
> >         a cure today than we were in 1980, practically speaking.
> > Actually, some German doctors recently cured AIDS in a patient:
> > http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-11/cure-aids
>
> The cocktails that are used are not a cure.  I am not confident
> that something which is mutating and has the capability from day
> one to fool the human immune system can be cured by medical
> science.

Go read the article.  They CURED the man's AIDS.  He may or may not still
have the HIV virus in his body but they cured his AIDS.  It's rather
interesting.  The cure could work on others.

>
>
> >          One
> >         way to stop AIDS is to control the spread of HIV. Keep the
> >         blood banks clean and make both homosexual sex and group sex
> >         illegal and enforce the law.
> >
> > That's a good idea.  Maybe we should also make homosexuals wear a
> > badge when they are in public.  And we can start burning books that
> > contain homosexual erotica or other stories that support homosexuals
> > lifestyles.  You probably didn't realize it, but sodomy is already
> > illegal is lots of places in the US.  I think, but I'd have to check,
> > that Oregon is one of those places.
>
> There need to be more books on what's wrong with homosexuality.  How
> it is unnatural.  How there is a higher rate of transmission of STDs
> from homosexual than heterosexual contact.  And yes, burning homosexual
> erotica books and closing down homosexual erotica sites is most
> certainly a good idea.  As far as labeling homosexuals with a badge,
> that would encourage ridicule and overlook the fact that some
> homosexuals are abstinent and others have been cured.

Is driving a car natural?  Is using electricity natural?  Is taking a flight
on a plane natural?  Lots of people feel like you're  likely to get a cold
or the flu when you fly on a crowded plane.  Does that mean that we should
stop commercial air travel?  How and where do you draw these lines?

>
>
> >          Go after promiscuous
> >         heterosexuals as well considering that HIV/AIDS doesn't
> >         care what kind of sexual contact is involved.
> > Well, unprotected anal sex is actually a really good way to transfer
> > HIV due to the tearing of tiny blood vessels and the fact that semen
> > has a high HIV density in infected men.  Unprotected anal sex and gay
> > bath houses lead to the initial spread of HIV here in the US it would
> > seem, but these are practices that are not common anymore.  There are
> > probably still plenty of people having unprotected sex who shouldn't
> > but I believe that the situation is improving overall at least in
> > first world countries.
>
> There is no such thing as "protected sex."  The only safe sex is having
> sex the way God intended with a partner who does not have an STD.  The
> human body is not designed for same sex sexual contact or else anal
> sex would not break tiny blood vessels.  Apparent when two lesbians
> have sex, not sure how that is even possible, there is a higher
> likelihood of vaginal infections than when a man and woman have
> sex.

Well, if you think breaking tiny blood vessels means it's wrong, ask some
women how hard it is to get a urinary tract infection from sex the way God
intended.  Monogamous heterosexual couples can rather easily share a yeast
infection back and forth too.  By the way, there are plenty of websites with
demonstrations of how two women can have sex if you get curious.  It can be
a beautiful thing.

>
> >          If the people
> >         who have HIV/AIDS refrain from blood and sexual contact with
> >         the healthy population, AIDS will die out when they die. I
> >         think a change in behavior worldwide could stop AIDS faster
> >         than any retro viral drugs, though drugs are part of the
> >         solution as well. Anything to keep HIV/AIDS patients
> >         comfortable and prevent the spread of this disease, well
> >         almost anything, is welcome.
> >
> > Have you ever heard of Africa?  Take a look at the amount of
> > homosexual vs. heterosexual activity there and the incidence rates of
> > HIV and AIDS.  Foreskin is natural and yet it has been supposedly
> > linked to a slight increase in the susceptibility to getting HIV.
>
> Yes, I've heard of Africa.  Africa is where AIDS came from.  It
> jumped from apes to homosexuals and from there to everyone else
> it has infected.  Abstinence due to the fact that condoms fail
> in combination with anti retroviral drugs and HIV/AIDS testing
> is the only way to stop HIV/AIDS right now.

Let me get this straight.  You're writing a prescription that says the only
valid sex is sex to explicitly get pregnant in wedlock and hence all other
forms of sex are inherently wrong?  So then, if/when you get married, will
you two be able to have sex without the goal of pregnancy?  Eg., if she's
not already pregnant or doesn't want to get pregnant would you be able to
have sex?  I think I'd rather admit to being a sinner, use birth control and
repent later.  Say, 2 or 3 times a week.  Dare I call that Rasputin style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Rasputin

>
> >         AIDS isn't the only STD the world needs to worry about, it's
> >         just one of the scariest.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >         I think studying HIV/AIDS one can make a case against risky
> >         sexual behavior and if homosexuals are more likely to engage
> >         in risky sexual behavior than heterosexuals, one can make a
> >         case for opposing homosexual activity, on public health
> >         grounds.
> >
> > Here you are overgeneralizing.  We can make a case against risky
> > sexual behaviour on the grounds of public health, but how did you get
> > to homosexual activity in general is bad?  Safe sex for homosexual
> > activities should be just as healthy as safe sex for heterosexual
> > activities.
> >
> > Jason
>
> Safe sex is an oxymoron.  Condoms have a high failure rate.  If
> you have 20 sex partners, a 1 in 10 failure rate is enough to
> get you infected with HIV/AIDS and other things as well.  Teaching
> that their is "safe sex" discourages people from being completely
> abstinent which is the only safe choice when their is the option
> of engaging in sexual contact with an STD infected person.
> Homosexual sex is completely unnecessary to society.  It's
> benefits, which don't exist, don't outweigh it's dangers.
> I am not overgeneralizing as you suggest.  The quickest way
> to slow the spread of STDs is to prevent sexual contact between
> infected and uninfected people.

Condoms have a high failure rate?  Higher than what?  Zero?  Is that your
definition of high?  What is this 1 in 10 failure rate you're talking
about?  Condoms do not fail 1 in 10 times.  If that were the case I'd have
lots of sons and daughters by now, as would several of my friends.

You some how mix things which are believable with things that are not.  I
agree that people with STDs should not have sex with people who do not have
STDs, but how is that related to homosexual sex more so than other forms of
sex?

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20090103/ea647b09/attachment.html>