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.

 

CDC Homosexuals account for 61% of new HIV infections.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrChuck

Where do you get the notion that I'm gay bashing?


Did you start this thread?

No? Then I am not referring to you.




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nikola014


So okay you're straight,then why defending something you're not?
I really don't see a reason.



Im not black, but i would defend someone who was being racially abused. If people didnt defend what was right, we may very well live in the different world. I defend my brother because i dont want to live back in the days when people where beaten/killed for being homosexual.



Don't take this like insult,i am just curious.


No offence taken



Ask your parents and grandparents or someone older,was there gay and lesbian population when they was young?I'm an older man,so i can't tell you the answer on that question.The answer is NO.Maybe a few in the whole world.



The reason there where no homosexuals back in my grandparents age is because you would be socially rejected. You would be beaten. Locked away. Killed in some cases. Its worth noting that homosexuality however is well reported throughout history - thousands of years of it. We didnt invent it, it has always been there and looks set to continue. Therefore, it is a natural occurrence.




So you come with conclusion that gay and lesbian population increased dramatically in the past decade.
I blame society.



I blame society in the first place for trying to cover up its existence. I secondly blame religious institutions that for century's have told people how to live their lifes, condemning those who choose their own path.
Although i would like to thank science for looking into the subject and not stating flatly that it is "unnatural"
I would also like to add how grateful i am to human beings, of whatever orientation, for accepting homosexuality and more importantly, minding their own business.
My brother lives in a better time, i dont have to worry that he will have the # kicked out of him just because he doesn't naturally want to have sex with a woman.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I might add only one thing:

people do not know what nature does, what it want, why it's there, how many homosexuals it needs and why the hell it needs them anyway? Tha fact is the same way nature made heterosexuals it made homosexuals as well (both in humans as in animals).

Please, stop saying you "know" what is natural and what is not.

Everything that exists in nature is NATURAL. Deal with it or go back to reading some old book that doesn't know squat about nature and the natural order of things.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SigilOfLux
 


A more appropriate analysis would have identified that males probably account for 100% of all HIV tansmissions. This is because males have this thing called a penis that injects bodily fluids directly inside. I bet there is no finding on female/female homosexuals and HIV contraction. So all this study says is males are more likely to cause the transmission of HIV, which is an absolute no brainer. When two males go at it there is a higher risk.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
In South Africa we have a mainly heterosexual epidemic, and gender or specific sex acts seem less important than certain sexual patterns.
A big problem here is what they call "concurrent relationships".
Most African men and women have the same amount of sex partners over a lifetime as Western couples (serial monogamy, each relationship lasting about 7 years in the West).
The problem is that Africans tend to have them simultaneously, perhaps in a failed attempt to copy older patterns of polygamy.
Especially in the first phase of HIV-infection people look very healthy, but they are hyper-infectious.
Now if somebody is a truck-diver (for example), and they leave work from a rural SA wife, then they go to second wife in the big city, and then they go to a border town ...
Meanwhile, those "wives" also do what they must do to eat.
Because these relationships are regarded as somehow permanent, safe sex is not a major concern.
So having many sex partners in a short amount of time during the highly infectious stage is a recipe for disaster.
Men can spread it to women or the other way around, although women are considered more at risk.
However, the consensus here is that the higher biological risk of women can only be addressed by improving women's social and economic status.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I never understood this "natural or not" argument. There are so many unnatural things in our lives that arguing about what is natural is utterly pointless.

And homosexuality surely IS natural. It happens in other species and in humans naturally, gays are not manufactured in factories, and they were always among us. If there is one thing unnatural in all this, it is homophobia. That is a social construct with little natural basis.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Amen to that. Homophobia is a social construct for sure. You are right about every animal has this same phenomena. Since the hate for homosexuality at its root is a religiously inspired ideology, yet the religions put no sin above any other, then the focus on homosexuality is no more deplorable then lying, cheating, or having bad thoughts. Except society places extra emphasis on homosexuality.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by DrChuck

Where do you get the notion that I'm gay bashing?


Did you start this thread?

No? Then I am not referring to you.



Funny, did you write that in a reply to me?

Yes? Then either clarify where your accusations are thrown, or don't get pissy if you didn't.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Did you ever see two male or female animals make love?
No.
Why's that?
Well,it's because it's not natural.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
As I posted in the other garbage thread identical to this one:

This thread is hate-mongering and trollish.
Just to point out-in Africa where the disease is rampant-The continent has about 17% of the worlds population but accounts for 67% of all AIDS cases and over 70% of all AIDS related deaths-at least in 2009.

I can promise you that the gay population affected in that case is insignificant.

The problem is most people believe they will never get sick and or die, and more over think that modern medicine will cure everything anyway.

Perhaps you should try and understand the topics you chest thump about while seeking things to embolden your confirmation bias.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Nikola014
 

Are there really still people who haven't seen two animals of the same sex make love, especially our closest relatives - the chimps and bonobos?
Does anybody still use this as an argument?
That is astounding.

Sadly it's because of the unnatural things that people do to animals in patriarchal societies, like factory farming or dissecting primates for bush meat in dwindling jungles, that we have diseases like HIV, swine flu, bird flu and coming pandemics like monkey-pox that will make AIDS look like the common cold.

Now what are the Western homophobes and religions doing to stop this?
Except for some rare exceptions, they support crowding animals and spilling rivers of their body fluids while giving them antibiotics, and destroying the environment every single day.
How truly unnatural of them.
How dare they even mention "nature" and expect to be taken seriously?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Hmmm. Homosexuality isn't natural? Neither is watching TV, cross continental flying or most of the food you eat, and you've learned to get used to that pretty well.

It has been said more than once in the thread, but I'm going to say it again: Don't distort the facts or only read what you want to read...


By race/risk young, black MSM were the only group to experience a statistically significant increase in new infections over the four-year time period studied. CDC estimates that new HIV infections among young, black MSM increased 48 percent during that period (from 4,400 HIV infections in 2006 to 6,500 infections in 2009)


Actual CDC Source

And if you look at the Infections by Ethnic group/Race you see the same pattern:


Blacks/African Americans accounted for half of all new HIV diagnoses and just under half of new AIDS diagnoses in 2009. Of the total number of people living with an HIV diagnosis in 2008 in the 40 U.S. states and 5 dependent areas, 46% were black/African American; 31.6% white; 20% Hispanic/Latino; 1.3% multiple races; 0.6% Asian; 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native; and 0.04% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.


So the opening post may just as well have read:
Sooooo if being black is natural then why is it that black people account for the majority of HIV infections and the only group it's increasing in is young black men?

Which is obviously a very racist angle. Yet you get away with:
Sooooo if homosexuality is natural then why is it that homosexuals account for the majority of HIV infections and the only group it's increasing in is young homosexual men?


How do you explain that? Social standards suck much? I digress.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Nikola014
 


You might want to educate yourself:
Homosexual behavior in animals


Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in non-human species. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same sex animals. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2]


Anyway, the whole natural/unnatural debate is moot. Natural does not equal good, unnatural does not equal bad. Computers are also unnatural. Are they bad?
edit on 22/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Gemwolf
 

I don't harbor a particular dislike of gays, but in response to this........




Hmmm. Homosexuality isn't natural? Neither is watching TV, cross continental flying or most of the food you eat, and you've learned to get used to that pretty well.


The difference between homosexuality and those other things you mentioned is that the latter actually exist for a reason and serve a clear purpose. Do you understand?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleak
 


Another difference is watching TV etc is a choice. Being gay is something one is born with.

Understand?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
By my experience the debate about gay behavior amongst animals is one that the homophobes will twist in different directions.
As soon as one proves to them that all kinds of animals have gay sex, and it therefore cannot be unnatural, they will turn the argument around and say gay sex is animalistic, whereas humans were created for better things.

But I suppose one will have to address the arguments as they are presented.
A lot of footage of chimps having gay sex have already been posted in previous threads, so I thought some "Lion Pride" from South Africa would be a nice variation on nature's homosexuality:




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.



Originally posted by Bleak
The difference between homosexuality and those other things you mentioned is that the latter actually exist for a reason and serve a clear purpose. Do you understand?


lordtyp0 actually already answered, but I'll respond in any case: Does love not have a purpose? Homosexuality is - just like with any other relationship - about LOVE and companionship. Not just sex - unlike popular believe. Homosexual people don't just get together to have wild anal sex and then part ways. They actually have meaningful relationships. Go to the movies together. Have a quiet dinner. Tell each other about their days... Wow. From where I'm sitting it doesn't differ that much from heterosexual relationships... Who could have guessed?

Edit to add: And for Pete's sake... Why do we compare human relationships/interaction with animals!? Apples and oranges?


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 22-8-2011 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 

While what you say is almost certainly true, I can't for the life of me figure out what your point is.


reply to post by halfoldman
 

Please, enough of the whole "natural" argument; it can clearly be seen that "natural" can be an unbelievably subjective concept, so it's clear that such terms do very little if anything for this debate.

Oh and by the way, I'm pretty sure that certain *cough, cough* "other" types of sexual relations can be seen among animals as well......I suppose that means that, by your logic, they could be considered natural and acceptable...?


reply to post by Gemwolf
 

I'm basically just recycling my old arguments here, but you see, it's clear that two people of the same gender can have a close, positive relationship without having some weird desire to screw each other. I think that, in the context of this argument, homosexuality IS about sex -- now again, just what is the purpose? Just what are the "redeeming factors" of it all? It seems as if I am missing something; what would that be?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleak
 


Homosexuality is only about sex as much as heterosexuality is.
That being said the only thing that matters is consenting adults. All other arguments are based off of mythology and faerie-tails that cherry pick "right" and "wrong".

You seem overly concerned about things having purposes. You also claim that you seem to give a lot of lip service claiming nothing against gay people.

So I ask: what is your point?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Okay,now homosexuality is natural.
Tomorrow pedophilia will be natural.
After that,killing people will be natural.
Good job people.

I'm glad that there isn't much people who support this sickness.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join