Well I knew they would find a way to indoctrinate children.......

[manimal]

Unprotected anal sex is part of the reason for HIV's prevalence.. not anal sex in general.



.. a further illustration of your naivety.

Its 1965 and your trying to convince Jesse Helms that racism is bad......

 

[Throckmorton]

Its 1965 and your trying to convince Jesse Helms that racism is bad......

I'm not anti-gay. I'm anti gay men killing themselves with HIV.

The gay community needs to wake up and realize it needs to take care of itself. The people who claim to support you don't really give a damn about your wellbeing, and the continuation of the HIV epidemic is clear proof of that.

 

[Darwin333]

Absolute joke. We just want our rights to to get married. You can't pray in school. But lets start teaching our elementary kids about, you guessed it homosexual families. And lets put it in text books and assign homework .

http://www.baycitizen.org/education/story/parents-clash-over-gay-curriculum/

I mean hey lets help them really young, I mean its not a learned behavior. Right?

Do you think your kids might catch "the gay" due to this indoctrination?

 

[HomerJS]

Just curious when the history of DADT is taught in school is the gay component just eliminated from the lesson?

 

[zsdersw]

That's what I'm saying.... gay men have so much unprotected anal sex that their HIV prevalence is 20%, because they don't seem to understand that it's extremely high risk. It needs to be restigmatized, so that they rightfully fear it.

No, you're saying that anal sex in general is bad, whether it's protected or not.

And are you saying you'd put on a condom and have sex with someone who has such a high chance of being HIV+, knowing there's a risk of the condom breaking, or some bodily fluid containing HIV getting onto a permeable membrane of your body?

The risk of a condom breaking from anal sex is exceedingly low... even with anal sex. In the 13 years that I've been sexually active, I've never had a condom break... and I've had more than my fair share of sex.

 

[Throckmorton]

No, you're saying that anal sex in general is bad, whether it's protected or not.

No, I said anal sex is the problem because it's high risk, unlike unprotected vaginal sex. The proof is in the pudding. A certain percentage of people have unprotected sex, no matter the type, but for you there is a much higher chance that the consequence is contracting HIV.

The risk of a condom breaking from anal sex is exceedingly low... even with anal sex. In the 13 years that I've been sexually active, I've never had a condom break... and I've had more than my fair share of sex.

What about bodily fluids getting on your permeable membranes like your eyes, mouth tissues, etc? The high possibility of that happening should be enough to make you afraid of sex with a man who hasn't been tested and isn't within the 6 month false negative period.

 

[PoAT.PaN]

One simple solution is return marriage to it's original roots as a religious ceremony. At the government level, only civil unions could be recognized for any two 18+ human adults. Those who worry about it as a tax loophole for every Joe and Larry (or Jane and Jill), another simple solution here would be a time limit before tax breaks are applied, such as no tax breaks until you have been in a union for 3 complete calendar years.

 

[Craig234]

The people who claim to support you don't really give a damn about your wellbeing, and the continuation of the HIV epidemic is clear proof of that.

Who are you talking about, I don't know any groups who 'claim to be pro-gay' who aren't pushing AIDS prevention education.

 

[wuliheron]

One simple solution is return marriage to it's original roots as a religious ceremony. At the government level, only civil unions could be recognized for any two 18+ human adults. Those who worry about it as a tax loophole for every Joe and Larry (or Jane and Jill), another simple solution here would be a time limit before tax breaks are applied, such as no tax breaks until you have been in a union for 3 complete calendar years.

Just get rid of the tax loopholes to begin with. I can understand kids being a tax deduction, but why on earth should people get tax deductions just for being married? If marriage is such a sacred and blessed institution then it doesn't require any special status from the government.

 

[Throckmorton]

Who are you talking about, I don't know any groups who 'claim to be pro-gay' who aren't pushing AIDS prevention education.

Give an example of such a group telling gay males how much higher risk they are and that 20% already have HIV.

 

[Craig234]

Throck, I think you might misunderstand the motives behind low condom usage rates.

Heterosexuals face unwanted pregnancy, and yet millions happen from unprotected sex.

 

[zsdersw]

No, I said anal sex is the problem because it's high risk, unlike unprotected vaginal sex. The proof is in the pudding. A certain percentage of people have unprotected sex, no matter the type, but for you there is a much higher chance that the consequence is contracting HIV.

No, you said that anal sex is the problem, whether it's protected or not. Only when I corrected you about unprotected/protected did you start including that modifier in your statements.

What about bodily fluids getting on your permeable membranes like your eyes, mouth tissues, etc? The high possibility of that happening should be enough to make you afraid of sex with a man who hasn't been tested and isn't within the 6 month false negative period.

Wow, major naivety regarding HIV.

Consider the following:

1. The only bodily fluids that contain HIV are blood, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk, and other bodily fluids that contain blood. Considering that a condom prevents any such fluids from being exchanged between sexual partners, protected anal sex is not a significantly more serious threat.

2. Basic hygiene and common sense precludes getting any bodily fluids in the eye.

3. Oral sex is much less of a risk than either anal or vaginal sex.

The overall tone of your comments indicates that you don't think gay men should at all be sexually active. If your particular level of hysteria regarding HIV was justified, far more than 20% of gay men should be HIV+.. but they're not.

 

[zsdersw]

Give an example of such a group telling gay males how much higher risk they are and that 20% already have HIV.

Had you actually bothered to do even the most basic of Google searches, you'd see that there's pages and pages of results for HIV awareness.. even specifically for gay men.

I also cannot recall going to a single gay event, bar, reading a single gay publication, or being otherwise involved in the GLBT community without seeing safe-sex advocacy information, HIV statistics, and other related materials.

 

[Craig234]

Give an example of such a group telling gay males how much higher risk they are and that 20% already have HIV.

I could, but you made a statement about 'those people' and I'm asking who you are talking about.

 

[Throckmorton]

I could, but you made a statement about 'those people' and I'm asking who you are talking about.

I'm talking about the people who will go to the ends of the earth for gay marriage, but won't even acknowledge that there's a serious epidemic among gay men. Like I said, imagine if 20% of women were affected by an incurable disease. Imagine all the Races for the Cure and Walks to Raise Awareness...

 

[Craig234]

No, I said anal sex is the problem because it's high risk, unlike unprotected vaginal sex.

IMO, unprotected vaginal sex IS high risk sex - 27% of new infections are women (from all reasons) - though the rate is far less than gay sex.

The proof is in the pudding.

Not the best choice of words

What about bodily fluids getting on your permeable membranes like your eyes, mouth tissues, etc? The high possibility of that happening should be enough to make you afraid of sex with a man who hasn't been tested and isn't within the 6 month false negative period.

Those all apply equally to women with someone infected, though the chance the partner is infected is lower.

But they are also very very low rates of infection.

 

[Craig234]

I'm talking about the people who will go to the ends of the earth for gay marriage, but won't even acknowledge that there's a serious epidemic among gay men. Like I said, imagine if 20% of women were affected by an incurable disease. Imagine all the Races for the Cure and Walks to Raise Awareness...

I meant, what specific groups?

For example, if I said 'I'm tired of all the people who are totally 'black rights', but also demanding we bring black slavery back', you could ask 'who is doing that?'

I didn't mean to ask to clarify what they're saying, but rather, which groups are doing it?

I haven't seen any groups demanding ending gay marriage discrimination, who are 'not the friend of gays' encouraging safer sex practices also. You said you have seen such groups?