[PLUG-TALK] HIV/AIDS

[Jason Dagit]

(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.


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.


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.


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

 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.


 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.


 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.


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pdxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-talk/attachments/20090103/979f193c/attachment.html>