CDC, FDA, CBC, and WHO consider homosexuality a health risk, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 06:46 PM by UmbraSumus

Originally posted by SpookHunter

This thread points to policies being made by statistically measuring the pathology of behaviors which were classified as mental illness. The PC movement changed that classification.

Well i happened to be studying statistical infrequency as a means of defining abnormality today .Homosexuality was given as an example of the influence of cultural and statistical determinants in the definition of abnormality .

It was in 1987 that Homosexuality was no longer categorised as a clinical syndrome , with the publication of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-III-R by the American Psychiatric Association.

The reasons for this decision, research showed that homosexuality was not as infrequent as had once been thought .And on measures of psychological adjustment and well being, gay men and women did not differ from heterosexuals, except for feeling like the persecuted minority that they are .

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 06:50 PM by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by iLackCreativity
For people with such open minds to be on this site in the first place I find it strange that when it comes too being gay your minds shut down.

The homophobia on here is unreal , Sexuality isn't black and white.

Just because gay people can't give blood doesn't mean you can use that as fuel for your hate. Many straight people can't give blood either.

I really feel sorry for you being so full of hate for something so trivial.

I have read through the entire thread, and while there are some very different and opposite opinions, not one single person has stated that they hate anyone. Why would you make such a comment, and start applying that nonsense term "homophobia", when nothing posted thus far ts anything of the sort? One might think you are trying to promote some agenda here.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:17 PM by halfoldman

I'm shortly going to reply to two above posts. Thanks for the well-wishes, I am merely HIV-positive for now, my CD4 count remains normal, and apart from a sore throat I have escaped both the hectic flu strains during our winter, unlike most of my HIV-negative friends! Thanks for that thought! If the SOURCE (rather than a puzzle of symptoms) of plague, TB, mad cow disease, bird flu, smallpox (cowpox), swine flu and so forth is animals, then surely it is short-sighted to not learn from the past and risk our collective future. As for the video, we in SA have had this pseudo-science pushed on us ad nauseam by Thabo Mbeki, and it is all discredited nonsense. Since he was replaced as President last year, it is like we have woken up from a collective nightmare, where the health ministry pushed garlic, beetroot and lemon juice as Aids cures, and ARV therapy was stalled at every opportunity. (It is conservatively estimated that Mbeki is responsible for 300, 000 deaths since 1999 - preventable deaths, particularly of mother-to-child infections, and countless more orphans and infected people.) Perhaps there is a conspiracy behind Aids (it seems very targeted - the whole problem endlessly repeated here). For a major proponant of the views in this video try and Google Anthony Brink, who expouses these theories and was a major influence on Mbeki. Africa is full of migration, wars and urbanization which may shift truths on death rates (there are also various strains of HIV, some deadlier than others). Aids is greatest where populations have been in greatest transit. Just don't believe HIV doesn't lead to Aids, we've been there and the evidence is all around us.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:18 PM by sanchoearlyjones

reply to post by dbates

It's almost as if this were a manufactured societal problem isn't it? It's fascinating because when it comes down to actual medical science there's no contesting that homosexuality is a serious health risk to the individuals partaking in that lifestyle. Yet there's this false sense of urgency to silence all those who voice their opinions against it.

This reminds me of the fact that should a white Person have received blood from a black Person in the USA, then they were considered to be a black Person. I am still looking for the law, but I think the argument You are bringing up is quite bigoted.

I can imagine plenty of white People arguing that "brother blood" must be bad for You; as after receiving You magically start growing an afro, and prone to a crack addiction. However, it has been shown through education that the "line" of thinking in the early 20th century was wrong.

My comparison of the white black issue, and the harsh example of what whites would fear from "brother blood" is not to far from Your stance.

Your actually using a flawed law to incite Your biased opinion, and I guess by all Rights You can do that. Heck for that matter I don't care what anyone's Worldly viewpoints are; no matter how biased, or demeaning they are to their fellow Person; as long as these biased viewpoints go no further.

I really wish You didn't have the very apparent Christian viewpoint that seems to be emanating from Your stand point. The regulations, and requirements are silly in absolute fact. There is no way for anyone who is sexually active with another to KNOW for sure the other Person hasn't been sleeping around; in other words no one knows how many times "sancho" has been at their homes shaggin' on their ole' ladies without a condom.

Sancho afterall is the Mexican name for such a Person. So, how could anyone "knowingly" answer those questions "truthfully"? They cannot.

It simply boils down to the very similar laws of the early 20th century of receiving blood from a black Person in medical terms resulted in the white Person officially being labeled as a black. It was a load of crap then, and a load of crap now.

I really think the title of Your thread should have read:
My Religious beliefs tell me to hate queers; so now that I have a lame excuse to bring it to ATS I WILL

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:31 PM by StinkyFeet

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by StinkyFeet

www.abovetopsecret.com...

but until then it is just common sense to protect the blood supply as much as possible.

I just cut out the unnecessary parts. Looks logical to me.

I couldn't agree more.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:38 PM by StinkyFeet

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

That is insane. This is nothing like a bunch of bigots not wanting to get some black blood. This is about people that don't want a terminal illness and a government agency making the occasional wise decision to take steps to protect them.

Are you bigoted against people with Hepatitis? If not, why don't you swap blood with them. Is it because you hate them?

[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:44 PM by sanchoearlyjones

reply to post by StinkyFeet

What is insane is that in the mid 20th century that was the law in the USA. It has since been proven as hogwash.

What is the difference between that legislation, and this current legislation regarding homosexuals?

Show me one way that a homosexual is "dirtier" than heterosexual.

It is based off of bigoted ideology; which is supported in the USA by the Christian Majority. Remember Rev. Ted Hagard?

[edit on 12-10-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:49 PM by idle_rocker

C'mon Sancho...we've come a long way since then. All that is being said is the CDC monitors blood and prohibits contribution by high risk individuals. A high-risk individual could also include a woman who knowingly had sex with someone who had aids. What is so difficult to understand?

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:52 PM by sanchoearlyjones

reply to post by idle_rocker

Alright, I'm pulling my frickin hair out. Man, or woman makes no difference. There is a term by the name of infidelity. There's not a man, or woman alive that can guarantee that their partner isn't sleeping with "Sancho"

Like sex ed......... you may be faithful, but Yo' partner has been a little busy while You were at work.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:53 PM by halfoldman

In the HIV/Aids pandemic in southern Africa, 60% of infected people are women. This is apparently due to concurrent relationships (although the average SA African man has less sex-partners than the serial monogamy of the West, however, the likelihood for horizontal infections increases manifold in this model). The economic influence on this situation goes back to apartheid. This plays a huge role, mainly since sexual relationships are also transactional relations. (Although this should not be confused with prostitution.) It's a complicated topic, and I sometimes feel that in the West HIV/Aids is so simple! Well, I've been on Medhelp and other US sites concerning HIV and was also quite shocked at what I first considered homophobia. I think however that one should distance oneself personally when it comes to medical fact. I disagree with many other so-called "health problems" placed on gay people. Before the 1980s, gay men had above average health concerning diet, heart and overall health. However, when it comes to HIV/Aids, I think we as a people/community must listen and not immediately shout homophobia! If the silly straight people want to delude themselves into thinking that it is not their problem too, perhaps we should them. He, he...

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 07:56 PM by Sundancer

reply to post by StinkyFeet

I have a lot of people on this forum who already dislike me because of my opinions so I'll be the one to get down to the nitty gritty here.

I've been involved in the sex industry for years, as is my sister. If you don't like it, tough, don't read my post.

I've worked with (not slept with) literally thousands of woman. I've spoken with, dancers, porn actresses, students, housewives and yes, Christians in many different countries. So I can say the below with certainty. Call it the research that Kinsy should have continued.

Woman having anal sex is a LOT more common than we're led to believe. Because the US is 80 percent Christian it's still taboo to talk about, but make no mistake it's happening.

In many cultures young woman are having anal sex with boyfriends or fiances long before they have traditional sex to keep the hymen intact. Many young girls in the US that are not allowed to use birth control do it to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

In Central America, the complete sexual experience is known as los tres platos, or "the three dishes": oral, vaginal, and anal.

In my experience, which is a lot as stated earlier, in speaking with woman about this issue, a large percentage of woman have at least "tried" anal sex, however the majority of them will only consider it in what they deem long term relationships or marriage. .

A CDC survey says
www.cdc.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">CDC survey PDF FILE

"for females, the proportion who have had anal sex with a male increases from 2.4 percent at age 15 to 32 percent at age 22–24." One in three women admits to having had anal sex by age 24. By ages 25 to 44 the percentages rise to 35 for women.

So I guess that my question to the Op and you is... Since according to a CDC survey as well as my own experience in talking with other woman, approximately 35 percent of woman up to the age of 44 have anal sex. Does this make them a health risk? If you were bleeding to death would you refuse their blood?

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:00 PM by dbates

reply to post by Sundancer

The regulations that the FDA and CDC mandate only state that homosexual males are a risk. They don't seem to indicate that there is an unnecessary risk from females unless they're involved in a sex industry, have a known disease, or have had sexual relations with a man that has had homosexual activities.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by dbates]

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:06 PM by StinkyFeet

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

Nobody is saying homosexuals are dirtier than anyone else. We are saying that it is a fact that the male homosexual population has 50x the infection rate of the rest of the overall population.

It doesn't mean they are dirty. It means that many of them are victims of a deadly disease. It is a terrible tragedy, and if we can avoid infecting even one person by accident then it seems like a reasonable approach.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:09 PM by StinkyFeet

reply to post by Sundancer

No it doesn't make them unable to donate blood unless they had anal sex with an intravenous drug user, a man who had anal sex with another man, or any other high risk group.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:19 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by dbates
They don't seem to indicate that there is an unnecessary risk from females

Well, they should because HIV is spread almost just as well in the vagina as in the anus. Don't believe me? Vaginal secretions are just like semen, i.e. they contain the virus.

Unprotected vaginal intercourse is considered high risk for both partners, but unprotected anal intercourse is considered even higher risk.

www.thebody.com...

So, again dbates, why is it that you started this thread? To show us how wrong the CDC is for banning gay men to give blood?

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Nutter]

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:22 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
We are saying that it is a fact that the male homosexual population has 50x the infection rate of the rest of the overall population.

Please don't state estimates as facts. Unless you found where this fact came from other than someone's opinion.

It is a terrible tragedy, and if we can avoid infecting even one person by accident then it seems like a reasonable approach.

So, why are heteros allowed to give blood then when they constitute 47% of the newly infected HIV people each year?

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:24 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by StinkyFeet
No it doesn't make them unable to donate blood unless they had anal sex with an intravenous drug user, a man who had anal sex with another man, or any other high risk group.

But the CDC doesn't distinguish between anal, oral, masturbation etc. They simply ask "sex" with another man.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:25 PM by StinkyFeet

reply to post by Nutter

I already did post the link twice. It is from the CDC. Look back through my posts and you will find it twice.

So, why are heteros allowed to give blood then when they constitute 47% of the newly infected HIV people each year?

Because even if that is true homosexual men or any man that has sex with any man regardless of sexual orientation have a 50 TIMES HIGHER AIDS INFECTION RATE.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by StinkyFeet]

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:28 PM by Nutter

reply to post by StinkyFeet

And I asked for a fact and not an opinion. Unless you provide the actual statistics for gay men being 50x more prone to HIV. BTW, I believe you'll be hard pressed to find those statistics.

reply posted on 12-10-2009 @ 08:33 PM by Nutter

reply to post by StinkyFeet

50x more infection rate? Really please start backing that statement up.

Here....I'll help you out.

hivinsite.ucsf.edu...

Notice how that in 2001 the heterosexual contact is 28% while the MSM is 40%? Doing the math, that is LESS THAN 2x more infections.

Please show this majic number of 50x or conceed that you are wrong.

Also notice that the heterosexual contacts are at 28% while intervenous drug users are at 26%?

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Nutter]