[PLUG-TALK] HIV/AIDS

Sun Jan 4 01:29:55 UTC 2009

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'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.

>         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.

>         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.

>          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.

>          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.

>          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.

>         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.

> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-talk mailing list
> PLUG-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-talk