It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A New 'Gay Disease'?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyjackblack
 


Well all the gay folks I know are pretty sexually active, how do I know? Well they're pretty proud about it. I don't want to hear about it any more than I wanna hear about a straight couples sex life, I think it's disgusting either way. Maybe they're just really proud about it only in my small texas city. Plus, why is there a need for one of the partners to take up an opposite sex role? It just doesn't make sense, if someone is a man and they like another man, then they shouldn't have to take on a feminine role, but one of them always does and if homosexuality is everything the MSM say's it is (MSM is the best source for info and never misleads or gets things wrong) then they shouldn't be taking on the roles that straight couples have (meaning a masculine and a feminine). Why can't these poor oppressed gays be ordinary people and not have to take on opposite sex roles in a homosexual relationship?




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Come on folks, this is not about what goes on in people's bedrooms, active or non-active.

It is about how the media misrepresented this new/not so new superbug with gays when it is an equal opportunity infector.

I could care less how people decide to conduct their personal sex lives, it isn't any of my business, nor do I want it to be.

You want to discuss pillow talk? Go to BTS and start your own thread and have at it.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Come on folks, this is not about what goes on in people's bedrooms, active or non-active.


I could care less how people decide to conduct their personal sex lives, it isn't any of my business, nor do I want it to be.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't butt sex rip and more blood involved, but that isn't our business, right??



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


If it's an equal op infector why are gays more likely to acquire this disease?

While the media should be blasted for reprting half truths, you also need to quit trying to sugarcoat it because gays are more guilty than the average Joe of spreading it.

If you are really concerned about slowing down the spreading of this disease then you shouldn't gripe when the time comes to quarantine gays.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


I am not sugar coating anything, the article states that this is a disease which can affect anyone. It also states that according to a university study that gays would be at a higher risk of contracting this do to their sexual activity.

It is wrong to label it as a gay disease. The disease does attack gays alone it can infect anybody who isn't aware of the possible transmission routes, hence equal opportunity infector.

Trying to pin it on one selective group only increases the chances that someone else could contract the disease through an implied ignorance that this MRSA strain can affect this one group of people.

Straight people are not immune.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
One has to wonder how the media would play it if they put out a story on sickle cell anemia? And would people at once go to blaming blacks for a problem in their health costs rising? This would also be interesting, from a social information perspective, if that threat jumped the racial barrier and could potentially threaten a larger population.

OP, this article was a good find, IMO. It forces those of us that think to look at how the media subtly influences the opinions of it's readers. Without crossing any invisible line, there is a certain "gay bashing/blaming going on here in this article.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Come on folks, this is not about what goes on in people's bedrooms, active or non-active.

It is about how the media misrepresented this new/not so new superbug with gays when it is an equal opportunity infector.

I could care less how people decide to conduct their personal sex lives, it isn't any of my business, nor do I want it to be.

You want to discuss pillow talk? Go to BTS and start your own thread and have at it.


Great post . Stared . I have read on this a bit and if this is a gay virus then all viruses are targeting gays. It could also be referred to as "the slut virus" "the porn star virus" And my favorite the "Anal lovers virus"

Simple fact is that if you don't use protection your at risk . To push this off as anything more than a threat to the human race is sexist and downright inflammatory(no pun intended)

I could also venture that the common cold is the "straight" virus . As im sure studies would show far more straight people contract it each day .

Anyway my point is . If you have sex and care about your body be safe .

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Mindless]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Here is an article where the University of California at San Francisco kind of apologizes for the report they produced which they said contained some information that could be interpreted as misleading.

Some lawyer must have come up with that lingo.

Anyway here's a snippet to the article:


UCSF apologises for 'misleading' multidrug-resistant MRSA story

...The UCSF press release was picked up by newspapers around the world, leading to some confusing and homophobic headlines, some of which suggested that this strain of MRSA was a ‘gay disease’ or a ‘new HIV’.

It also provided ammunition for anti-gay groups, including the conservative Concerned Women for America, which issued its own press release on Wednesday, entitled, 'Epidemic feared - 'gays' may spread deadly staph infection to general population...



[edit on 1/22/2008 by JacKatMtn]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join