Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CDC, FDA, CBC, and WHO consider homosexuality a health risk

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by rogerstigers
You are pointing out that you have "medical evidence", but I have yet to see you post any.

Uhm, the part about the CDC and FDA saying you couldn't donate if you hand any homosexual activities.


Fair enough, but that's not a medical fact, that is a policy based on unknown and unpublished factors.




Originally posted by rogerstigers
I also don't see any acknowledgement from you that heterosexual sex is also "risky".

That's not really a logical comparison. Eating food and breathing air have risks as well, but humans can't live without either. Please explain how heterosexual sex is less necessary for the human race than breathing and eating. Then continue to show the risk it creates to human life.



Ah, but then your comparison is not quite logical either. If we only had sex to reproduce then given the absurd human tradition of sticking with one mate, we would probably see only a few small outbreaks of STDs over very long time spans. Since the entire issue would appear to be sex related, I would say that recreational HETERO sex is a fair comparison to recreational HOMO sex.

[edit on 10-12-2009 by rogerstigers]




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Since the entire issue would appear to be sex related, I would say that recreational HETERO sex is a fair comparison to recreational HOMO sex.

No, it's not the same thing. Take the biological function of eating. You have to eat to survive, but you don't need all the food you eat (in Western countries). Many people in the United States eat excessively but you can't draw the conclusion that this behavior can be substituted from that fact. It's not as if putting food in your ear or nose would have the same biological functionality. No, there's only one way to eat. Juggling Little Debbie snack cakes might be as much fun as eating for you but it isn't a replacement and can't be compared.

EDIT: If the CDC said you couldn't donate blood if you juggled Little Debbie snack cakes, then I'd say the same thing about the practice.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by dbates]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I just starred and flagged this thread because it really cuts through the BS that schools, gov't and "gay rights" culture are trying to shove down our throat (No pun inteded, sorry) in the interest of being politically correct.

Just face it folks, health statistics have shaped this policy.

The truth will set you free, my friends.


[edit on 12-10-2009 by SpookHunter]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
this is exactly why I always lie to medical personal. tell anyone the truth and you have an albatross. they test the blood after you give it anyway, regardless of what you tell them. so if you find the questions intrusive...lie. Lying is empowering.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Since the entire issue would appear to be sex related, I would say that recreational HETERO sex is a fair comparison to recreational HOMO sex.

No, it's not the same thing. Take the biological function of eating. You have to eat to survive, but you don't need all the food you eat (in Western countries). Many people in the United States eat excessively but you can't draw the conclusion that this behavior can be substituted from that fact. It's not as if putting food in your ear or nose would have the same biological functionality. No, there's only one way to eat. Juggling Little Debbie snack cakes might be as much fun as eating for you but it isn't a replacement and can't be compared.

EDIT: If the CDC said you couldn't donate blood if you juggled Little Debbie snack cakes, then I'd say the same thing about the practice.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by dbates]


Well, then it comes down to anal sex, then doesn't it? Are they saying (or implying) that Gay men having Anal Sex is somehow more dangerous than a straight man having anal sex with a woman?

I can't see how this is anything more than an anal sex issue. If it were some wierd health artifact related to being gay, then why not ban gay women from giving blood?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
Lets get down to it.. Since you firmly believe it's a health risk. (And um.. if I did some of those practices too, I'd say it's a health risk)

What exactly are you suggesting should be done?

We should stop supporting it as the next civil rights movement. This goes into the a similar category as smoking, drinking excessively, and overeating. (Although none of the previous behaviors automatically exempt you from donating blood.) If there are negative health consequences you can continue if you wish, but don't expect a standing ovation for it. Don't shriek in false alarm when someone dares to stand up and question the safety of what you're doing.

Really all I'm asking for is truth in advertising. If this behavior puts you in an elevated risk category, then why not say so up front? Well, I guess the CDC is shunning this on the side, but the general public is misled.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Totalstranger
this is exactly why I always lie to medical personal. tell anyone the truth and you have an albatross. they test the blood after you give it anyway, regardless of what you tell them. so if you find the questions intrusive...lie. Lying is empowering.



I actually don't give blood at all. I have an odd obsession about not sharing my genetics with anyone. I won't give have a kid of my own. I don't understand it, but it is a quirk of mine that I have learned to live with since i was a teenager.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Totalstranger
Tell anyone the truth and you have an albatross. ... Lying is empowering.


No my "friend", *some* of us have an albatross. Don't lump the rest of us in with the word *YOU*.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by SpookHunter]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Really all I'm asking for is truth in advertising. If this behavior puts you in an elevated risk category, then why not say so up front? Well, I guess the CDC is shunning this on the side, but the general public is misled.


You have yet to convince me of anything other than the fact that the medical establishment moves at a turtles pace when it comes to accepting social changes. There is no viable evidence that I have seen that says that gays are at more risk of AIDS or other STDs than any other sexual orientation. It's a simple fact that the more you screw, the more risk you have, no matter what or who you are screwing.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpookHunter

Originally posted by Totalstranger
Tell anyone the truth and you have an albatross. ... Lying is empowering.


No my friend, *some* of us have an albatross. Don't lump the rest of us in with the word *YOU*.


[edit on 12-10-2009 by SpookHunter]


I do believe that was a Rhetorical YOU and that he was implying ANY invasive question should be avoided.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
I do believe that was a Rhetorical YOU and that he was implying ANY invasive question should be avoided.


Don't tell me what he meant.
I didn't ask.
but - *YOU* know what I meant and that was my intent. I have no patience for the PC crowd that continually obfuscate the facts and the truth.

Perhaps you didn't understand his illustration of this point:


Originally posted by Totalstranger
... Lying is empowering.

I rest my case.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by SpookHunter]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


From:

www.cdc.gov...

Since HIV/AIDS in MSM was first diagnosed 1981, gay and bisexual men have been leaders in dealing with the challenges of the epidemic. Gay organizations and activists, through their work, have contributed greatly to many of the guidelines for prevention, treatment, and the care of people living with HIV/AIDS.

For complex reasons, HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM population. For example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in 2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.


Last Modified: September 25, 2009
Last Reviewed: September 25, 2009
Content Source:
Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention
National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

MSM = Men who have sex with men

I_R



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


The authorities don't consider homosexuals in themselves to be a health risk. Your thread title is simply wrong.

They consider unprotected, penetrative sex a health risk. And because homosexuals are most likely to engage in such activity, they've decided not to accept their blood for donation purposes. Fair enough. But in my experience at least, for every guy who enjoys "pitching and receiving" there's another for whom that holds no attraction whatever.

It's discriminatory to blanket ban those careful gay guys who choose not to mow the back garden lawn or who always rubber up ... yet not ban those straights for whom sexual restraint is as much a foreign concept as it is for those unrepresentative gay men who trawl the bathhouses.

Personally I'd much rather my emergency blood transfusion came from a careful homosexual than a promiscuous straight guy ... and from a promiscuous straight guy than a bigot with an agenda.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


I had to come back in now that some others are finding the same argument with your post as I.

Ok, I'll break it down into bite-sized chunks for you, and I'll start at the beginning...

The various sexualities didn't exist before the beginning of the 20th century. The tern "homosexual" was coined by a Human Rights activist and author (I forget the name) in protest at Nazi ideals about sexuality and control.

That is where the three sexual labels began. Prior to that, people simply had sexual relations with other adults and it wasn't generally discussed in open socity.

In the 1930's Alfred Kinsey began research into diverse sexuality in Humans.

Perhaps due to his work, or the discussions amongst the scientific and medical fields afterwards, the connection was made between anal intercourse and homosexuality. It wasn't a great leap, but the act was closely connected through "default" more than anything else (what else could they do, right?)

That connection stuck. There has never been such widely discussed and noted research since Kinsey as far as I am aware. Yes there are further studies, but most of them (trust me on this if you can, I research sexuality as a writer) are based on the basic link between anal intercourse and homosexuality. There has never been any widely observed sexual research conducted since Kinsey which focuses on anything other than anal intercourse when discussing sex between men.
They all ignore the fact that not all bisexual or homosexual men enjoy this activity, or have EVER engaged in this activity, it is simply taken for granted that they do or have.

So, the medical community, because of the research previously conducted (however long ago) still believes that "gay" = "anal intercourse".

This act in and of itself is a high risk sexual activity, regardless of those taking part. But the belief that gay men have only this to enjoy dictates that the frequency of exposure to risk is significantly higher amongst this community.

That is why such government and medical professionals hold true to the stereotype, there simply hasn't been any recognised research into male/male sexual activity since it was asserted that this act is closely ascribed to homosexual lifestyle.

If there was some more up-to-date sexual research conducted amongst gay men, and it was then taken on board by such medical authorities, I dare say the attitude would change.
They would have to replace the ban on actively gay men with a ban on any person who regularly engages in anal intercourse, regardless of their sexual identity.

Now, the reason I have such a flammable response to your post and opinion, is because you have "insinuated" again and again that there is something inherently "wrong" with gay people, that they are unhealthy. But you are using an interesting and justified discussion about WHY this is the case as a disguise to spout a bigoted view about sexuality in general.
You have repeatedly refused to accept the discussion about WHY gay men are barred from giving blood, as I have laid out for you above (which is just my opinion), and instead you stick to a closed opinion that there is something being hidden to support a personal view you hold.

Your post is not about asking why these authorities have this view, it is about supporting your homophobic opinion.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers
You have yet to convince me of anything other than the fact that the medical establishment moves at a turtles pace when it comes to accepting social changes.

It's not the job of the medical establishment to rule on social changes. Their job is to tell us what is and what is not healthy for our bodies. It will always be equally harmful to lay out in the sun till you turn red. It doesn't matter if the latest fad is to have red skin. I would hope medical professionals never succumb to social whims.



Originally posted by rogerstigers
There is no viable evidence that I have seen that says that gays are at more risk of AIDS or other STDs than any other sexual orientation.

You can say that but do you have any proof to counter what M.D. Kevin M. De Cock, director of the WHO Department of HIV/AIDS, has to say (See original post). It's his professional opinion and the opinion of the WHO, CDC, and FDA that homosexuals are at more of a HIV risk than heterosexual people.

Just as a follow up, here's a recent study from the Center for Disease Control (CDC).


MSM (men who have sex with men) is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

Overall, one in four MSM participating in the study was infected.

CDC Fact Sheet - HIV/AIDS among gay and bisexual men
August 2009


One in four (25%) in the study were infected with HIV. Do we get it now or do we keep proclaiming this to be some great liberation for men? Are we still claiming there's no elevated risk? I don't see how. The CDC has very good reason for excluding homosexual men from blood donations. This is Exhibit A and a very recent study.


[edit on 12-10-2009 by dbates]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


I listed the percentages in my post above Dbates. You may have missed. There is definitely a high percentage of MSM's who contract the virus according to the CDC and it was updated this past September so numbers are current.

I_R



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Ok, I'll break it down into bite-sized chunks for you, and I'll start at the beginning...

The various sexualities didn't exist before the beginning of the 20th century.

That's right, it was termed "mental illness" before the PC movement.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


No, I saw the post further up from idle_rocker. There is indeed adequate evidence there that there is an increase and higher potential in gay and bisexual men to be tested positive for HIV infection than other groups. I can understand now why the CDC would blanket ban a whole gender of people based on their sexual preferences from donating blood. I can also now understand why lesbians and bisexual woman are not blocked since they are apparently not in the high risk group.

If this is the whole and the crux of this thread, then the numbers make sense and explain the policy in a way that is not any more prejudiced than preventing IV drug users or people who had hepatitis from donating blood. It's a medical risk based on statistics.

If however, as you stated, this is proof that they shouldn't have the same civil rights that everyone else has, then I guess Lesbians and Bi-women are safe and can marry now, huh?



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpookHunter

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Ok, I'll break it down into bite-sized chunks for you, and I'll start at the beginning...

The various sexualities didn't exist before the beginning of the 20th century.

That's right, it was termed "mental illness" before the PC movement.


Can you supply a date on when the "PC Movement" began please? I'd really like to know what the official date for that is.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


You know the entire thing is making me laugh, because actually Sodomy is practice by heterosexual people also.

So, are we to ask heterosexual woman if they practice sodomy?






top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join