Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:
A lot of current gay culture is focused on anonymous sex and promiscuity.

And heterosexual culture isn't?

Melissia wrote:Then wouldn't you try to stop them from thinking that, to prevent them from trying to kidnap your family?

How do you know who has those thoughts?

How do you propose changing their thoughts?

How will you prevent them from having those thoughts in the future?

How do you know that your position on this is absolutely correct?

What other thoughts should we stamp out?

What if you have thoughts that other people find objectionable?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

biccat wrote:
A lot of current gay culture is focused on anonymous sex and promiscuity.

And heterosexual culture isn't?

It's not nearly as prevalent as in the homosexual community.

When AIDS reaches the same pandemic level in the straight community as it is in the gay community, we can talk.

As interesting as this subject is, maybe can you start a thread elsewhere?

biccat wrote:It's not nearly as prevalent as in the homosexual community.

It isn't for a lack of trying though.

The supposed prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the GBLT community is actually quite overblown, due to the hateful propaganda of many conservative extremists.

biccat wrote:How do you know who has those thoughts?

People who hate homosexuals frequently spout that hate or reveal it in other ways.

biccat wrote:ow do you propose changing their thoughts?

Through conversation, usually.

biccat wrote:How will you prevent them from having those thoughts in the future?

Through repeated conversation, usually.

biccat wrote:How do you know that your position on this is absolutely correct?

Because the alternative, nihilism, leads to the idea that nothing is morally wrong. I am convinced that my ideas are morally correct until I see a reason to believe otherwise. Subjectivism can kiss my pale white arse.

biccat wrote:What if you have thoughts that other people find objectionable?

I would convince them that they are not.



Homophobes are dangerous to society at large, often attacking not only homosexuals but even heterosexuals they mistakenly believe are homosexuals, as an expression of their hatred. Sometimes the attack is a sexual assault, in fact, and many outed lesbians are afraid to go out alone for this very reason. I also dislike it when homosexuals do the same thing back towards heterosexuals, too

Ahtman wrote:

biccat wrote:It's not nearly as prevalent as in the homosexual community.

It isn't for a lack of trying though.

Exactly. HIV is simply more easily contracted by gay men, it's not because they are more promiscuous. Simply, HIV spreads more easily through anal sex than vaginal.

http://www.science20.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterosexuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data

In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive. Yet two large population surveys showed that most gay men had similar numbers of unprotected sexual partners per year as straight men and women. US researchers applied a series of carefully calculated equations in different scenarios to study the rate at which HIV infection has spread among gay men and straight men and women. They used figures taken from two national surveys to estimate how many sex partners gay men and straight men and women have, and what proportion of gay men have insertive or receptive anal sex, or both.

They then set these figures against accepted estimates of how easily HIV is transmitted by vaginal and anal sex to calculate the size of the HIV epidemic in gay men and straight men and women. The results showed that for the straight US population to experience an epidemic of HIV infection as great as that of gay men, they would need to average almost five unprotected sexual partners every year. This is a rate almost three times that of gay men.

But to end the HIV epidemic, gay men would need to have rates of unprotected sex several times lower than those currently evident among the straight population. This is because transmission rates are higher for anal sex than they are for vaginal sex, say the authors.

Sorry to burst people's bubble about feeling superior because people of their sexual orientation are less promiscuous or 'moral' than others. The facts don't stack up.

Melissia wrote:The supposed prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the GBLT community is actually quite overblown, due to the hateful propaganda of many conservative extremists.

By population, even estimated population, the rate of HIV incidence is much higher in the LGBT population than in the heterosexual population. Though I imagine that, if you were to control for poverty, the strength of the relationship would fall off significantly.

dogma wrote:By population, even estimated population, the rate of HIV incidence is much higher in the LGBT population than in the heterosexual population. Though I imagine that, if you were to control for poverty, the strength of the relationship would fall off significantly.

For the latter: Indeed it would, as I've seen plenty of articles about comparing the difference between heterosexuals of various economic classes and the level of infection with various STDs (college papers are fun if you choose an interesting topic), and this is pretty much the result I saw.

But for the former, I was merely making the statement that, to many conservatives, AIDS/HIV is a "gay problem", and in fact is often thought of as "god's punishment to gays", this despite the fact that there's more heterosexuals with AIDS/HIV than there are homosexuals period, with no qualifications. The main reason that the homosexual community suffers more from it is actually likely due to the small size of the population more than anything, and even then, the most estimates I've read put the infection at about ~5% of the population at most.

Unlike certain conservatives that try to claim that all or most homosexuals are infected. For example, it was once reported (falsely) that 70% of homosexuals are infected with HIV/AIDS, based on mangled, poorly done research on suicide victims which wasn't actually about homosexuality or HIV/AIDS. It was only reported on because conservatives wanted to jump on it to use as a weapon in their war of hatred.

edit: I read PFOX as FOX, thus the edit tor remove that reference. PFOX is not affiliated with FOX news, it's an organization trying to promote "ex-gay awareness" or some other crap.

biccat wrote:
A lot of current gay culture is focused on anonymous sex and promiscuity. There's even a subculture dedicated towards getting infected with HIV. There is a limited amount of resources we can dedicate to providing education and information about HIV, it should be put to where it will do the most good.

First, bugchasing isn't exclusive to LGBT individuals, and exists specifically because it is taboo; ie. as a result of HIV/AIDS education.

Second, a lot of American sexual culture, in general, is focused on anonymous, or relatively anonymous, sex and promiscuity.

Third, if you're going to target specific communities due to their rate of HIV incidence, it is important to understand why the rate is so high, otherwise you run the risk of wasting resources. Claiming that the LGBT community has a higher rate of HIV incidence because of the current state of the LGBT lifestyle ignores many other contributing factors, two of which I noted, in general, above.

This has gone OT, however being a master of skilful debate I shall merge the two topics seamlessly.

If you were injured in a war, and the government gave you a prosthetic limb, would you be happy with the assistance you received? And would it be morally wrong to insert said limb into a man's arse if he consented to it?

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Sorry to burst people's bubble about feeling superior because people of their sexual orientation are less promiscuous or 'moral' than others. The facts don't stack up.

Sex education is also an issue, particularly among poor MSM (WSW is less of an issue due to differences in sex drive, and obvious physical distinctions). I mean, if heterosexual education is controversial, I shudder to think what would happen if a public school tried to educated people about homosexual intercourse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:
But for the former, I was merely making the statement that, to many conservatives, AIDS/HIV is a "gay problem", and in fact is often thought of as "god's punishment to gays", this despite the fact that there's more heterosexuals with AIDS/HIV than there are homosexuals period, with no qualifications. The main reason that the homosexual community suffers more from it is actually likely due to the small size of the population more than anything, and even then, the most estimates I've read put the infection at about ~5% of the population at most.

Ah, that clarifies your point. And yeah, I've heard that argument before, particularly looking to a time when homosexuality was even more taboo than it is now.

Yeah, parents these days don't like teenaged pregnancies but don't want to do anything to stop it.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Exactly. HIV is simply more easily contracted by gay men, it's not because they are more promiscuous. Simply, HIV spreads more easily through anal sex than vaginal.

The study referred to in your article isn't a survey of promiscuity, it's a study based on estimates of promiscuity. Further, even if the study is correct, it doesn't explain why HIV infections are more prevalent in blacks than in whites (and not just in percentages, but in absolute numbers).

However, lets assume that promiscuity rates are similar between gays (meaning homosexual men) and straights. Does that mean we should accept the same rate of promiscuity between gays and straights and simply accept that gays are more likely to get HIV? Or should we encourage gays to be less promiscuous because they're more likely to get the disease if they engage in risky behavior?

Howard A Treesong wrote:Sorry to burst people's bubble about feeling superior because people of their sexual orientation are less promiscuous or 'moral' than others. The facts don't stack up.

Yes, it's all about feeling superior. Reducing infections has nothing to do with it.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

Wow that is alot if support you got there for exiting the RM. I know State side we have a problem with MOS' tranfering over into the civilian world. Like in the military you could have a title that would suggest you were a water safety engineer, but thats not the same as someone who has a degree in managing many gallons of drinking water with a background in biology and chemistry at plant. Also the private sector is very cut throat and competitive.

Melissia wrote:despite the fact that there's more heterosexuals with AIDS/HIV than there are homosexuals period, with no qualifications.

See the link above.

Cumulative Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, Through 2009*

Male-to-male sexual contact 529,908

Heterosexual contact** 198,820

It's possible that some of those male-to-male reports may be due to Triple AIDS.

(note that this doesn't distinguish between "gays" and "straights," but rather transmission type).

biccat wrote:See the link above..

Worldwide, 85% of AIDS/HIV transmissions are heterosexual.

Melissia wrote:

biccat wrote:See the link above..

Worldwide, 85% of AIDS/HIV transmissions are heterosexual.

AIDS in Africa seriously distorts the statistics. There are a lot more problems - particularly rape, denialist theories, and leaders ignoring the issue - that need to be addressed there before you can start addressing the issue of safe sex. If people don't accept the association between unsafe sex and death they're not going to use condoms.

In the US, however, AIDS education should be directed towards those communities that would most benefit from the effort.

Here's a novel idea... don't be promiscuous and the epidemic would end fairly soon.

Phototoxin wrote:Here's a novel idea... don't be promiscuous and the epidemic would end fairly soon.

Considering that behavioral changes of that magnitude are nearly impossible to engineer without oppressive restrictions, its a really bad idea given the nature of governance in the developed world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
The study referred to in your article isn't a survey of promiscuity, it's a study based on estimates of promiscuity.

How do you think HIV incidence and prevalence are studied?

Melissa, the argument you're making about the total number of cases being predominantly heterosexual is really really poor, statistically. It's an abuse of statistics.

Gay men are a higher risk group than straight couples or lesbians. This is a fairly indisputable fact. If we are unwilling to consider the risks potentially posed by this (in terms of say, donating blood) then we are being silly.

However, for gay men in the military, it'd be an easy fix. A blood test every now and then, with anyone found HIV positive being discharged from duty, would probably sort it out nice and quick. It'd also protect soldiers from their heterosexual comrades! How fair is that!
There'd still be a risk of infection, but it would be drastically reduced. You're never going to completely erase the risk, though.

dogma wrote:How do you think HIV incidence and prevalence are studied?

Mandatory reporting.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

NeedleOfInquiry wrote:My "little gay tirade" as you put it is is not about gays but about aids.

However, the revealing bits were your thinly veiled contempt when using commas to refer to a gay person's married partner ( "husbands" ) was clearly dismissive an indicated you don't believe in the equal validity of that relationship to a heterosexual marriage.

Or maybe you'd like to explain referring to wanting to avoid serving in the forces because you might have to sleep alongside...

another male who is obviously of low moral character and has not butt fethed another male is 3 months or more

When you grow up please come back any pull your homophobic head out your ass you'll be welcome in civilized society. Next time you start typing with the intent to spray a toxic shower of bs around a thread please leave a warning so that people with more than a few braincells do not have their intelligences blunted by reading your vile tirade of ignorant crap.

I'm back.

1. My as you put it "thinly veiled contempt when using commas" referred to the fact that Congress doesn't believe in the equal validity of that relationship to a heterosexual marriage. Congress and the President blesses gays joining the military and making Christians have to live with them without giving the christian soldiers the choice to leave the military while at the same time denying gays the right to get married in churches. So that's my reference to husbands which you missed. What congress can force on the military they themselves will not tolerate. We call them folks hypocrites where I come from. The Service chiefs were asked what they thought. They then fired the Army and Marine chiefs for disagreeing. The marines picked another chief who still disagreed and the canned him and picked a navy guy to represent the marines so they could all vote yes.

2. As to that how did you put it "When you grow up please come back any pull your homophobic head out your ass you'll be welcome in civilized society." It is amazing how anyone that disagrees with the gays in the mlitary line is homophobic. Even calling someone homosexual is bad, we have to use the word gay, why is that?

For you information I had nothing against gays (since you prefer that term) in my first army assignment. We had 2 black guys sleeping together in the early 70's in a room in 3/8 CAV and no one cared plus there was no aids then. Then we had a really long field exercise where there were 20 of us in a GP medium and the guy on fire watch (a closeted gay) decided to stick a part of his body into the mouth of a new kid just assigned as he was sleeping in his sleeping bag. The kid woke up, screamed and went into shock. Everyone else woke up. It got ugly. Even after that nobody went after Huggy and Suger, the two gay black dudes after all it was a white dude that did it. It took a few more months of increasing favoritism and both of them staying off the duty roster for resentment to begin to build and everyone was wondering what was going on. Then the SDO caught Huggy and Suger and the troop first sergeant all naked in the supply room and that was that. After that there was resentment against homosexuals, I do not think the term "Gay" was in use then.

If you missed the point of this homophobic guy with his head up his ass let me make it simpler for you. When its a all male combat unit they may go down to the ville and play around with the same women when they are in garrison but you can not afford favoritism in the ranks due to sex in a combat unit when one guy decides which of the other guys is going out first and has the best ticket to die because the guy choosing and the guy not selected are having sex with each other.

If you have still missed the point the biggest fear of the Combat arms leadership is not that the troops will despise and kill the gays but that unit cohesion will suffer to real or imagined favoritism between guy buddies.

It is not the only problem, my point about aids is also valid even if someone wants to call me homophobic. and yes we do kick out anyone that has a permanent communicable disease, but those numbers will be small compared to aids.

If you want to see what the end result of forcing gays into combat line units ask the Dutch Army who was the first to do so.

The Dutch leadership had a meeting of their Senior commanders and NCO's when the civilian leadership made the decision. They asked if anyone had a problem with the order. Several did and were escorted from the meeting are removed from the service. The fear had begun. The religious soldiers who do form the backbone of most combat units were allowed to end their service contracts. If you disagree that folks of strong moral convictions form the backbone of combat units you have never served in one. That backbone leaving the Dutch army accelerated the decline.

By the time they were picked for UN duty in the Balkans nobody trusted anybody else and unit cohesion had been destroyed. Officers would not go down to the units, Sergeants would not check the outposts and nobody thought they could trust their life to anyone else.
Politics had destroyed the Dutch Army.

I have talked to Dutch officers, they confirm privately what General Sheehan said publicly http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7478738/Gay-Dutch-soldiers-responsible-for-Srebrenica-massacre-says-US-general.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7478738/Gay-Dutch-soldiers-responsible-for-Srebrenica-massacre-says-US-general.html

That is why the Dutch peace keepers turned over 7000 people in their care to be massacred without a fight. They gave up their weapons, their combat vehicles and their respect. If you don't believe me read the book by the commander of the Dutch troops or the report the Dutch government commissioned. That same Dutch political leadership resigned after the study came out. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/8618244/Dutch-state-to-blame-for-Srebrenica-deaths-court-rules.html

None of this is politically correct but it is true, which I guess makes it worse.

By the way I do not want gays in combat arms units, but it is not because you think I despise gays, my gay boss read your remarks at lunch and had a good laugh over it. She is where I got the husband remark from on an earlier conversation on the fecklessness of Congress and the Defense of Marriage Act. Our company accepts her "Husband" but the state and the federal government does not, the same government that is OK with gays in the ranks....

I do not want them in the ranks for the same reason I do not want women there. Young people away from home will do stupid things, I was young once myself. We segregate the sexes and keep women out of combat units because adding sex to the calculus is just stupid and dangerous.

It is just as stupid and dangerous to put gays there but it's not politically correct to say so is it? If its OK for gays why not women on combat units? Ask your members of congress that question and ask yourself if we would have fired several service chiefs for refusing to put women in combat units permanently and if not then what's the difference.

The answer is you can be hypocritical as long as you are politically correct.


But if you are not politically correct it does not matter if you are right.

As for your civilized society I am no longer a member of.... I killed people for 22 years so feckless souls whom have never risked their life on anything can lecture me and my buds on what affects the unit cohesion that our lives depended on and those whom we trained who are still in.

I would rather be with them and their uncivilized life than with those who, how did that go?

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Thank you NoI, you gave me the energy at 2:10 am to exclaim "Oh my God he went there" very loudly.

Please note I politely disagree with most of what you've said.

Gay soldiers are allowed to serve in the UK military and I think we can all agree that those guys are pretty damn effective.

The answer is you can be hypocritical as long as you are politically correct.


But if you are not politically correct it does not matter if you are right.

Having to say something this ridiculous as this as part of an argument should be your red flag that you are on the wrong side of it.

As a combat veteran myself, though I didn't kill people for 22 years, I feel like I should mention that I'm very much okay with gay people serving.

Believe it or not, they are already.

biccat wrote:Mandatory reporting.[/url]

Reporting is mandatory, but the CDC only uses certain types of HIV screening in its statistics.

To ensure the validity of the data, CDC includes HIV infection data from states and dependent areas that have conducted confidential name-based HIV infection reporting for at least 4 years to allow for stabilization of data collection and for adjustment of the data in order to monitor trends. Therefore, CDC’s 2008 HIV Surveillance Report, published in 2010, includes data from 37 states and 5 U.S. dependent areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting since at least January 2005 [3]. (In the list below, these 37 states and 5 dependent areas are shown in bold.)

The difference is accounted for using a number of estimation statistics, at least in that particular report. Even comprehensive reports involve adjusting the raw data according to the variance found in the two-part STARHS-BEDS test, and again due to variance in testing rates (Blacks, MSM, are much more likely to get tests than most groups) if the data is being normalized.

Rather than gays not being allowed to serve, perhaps we should stop homophobes from serving. They seem to be the ones with the problem after all. And homophobia is a choice

Monster Rain wrote:Call me authoritarian if you will, but I think that mandatory National Service is an awesome idea.

I actually completely agree Mandatory national service to the military for both genders would be a great idea. Because then when some bastard tries to invade the us. he will face 300 million Trained Soldiers. Of course then the freaking protests will start again.
look at Switzerland they do it. But that is only because they are the bank of the world. We are the powerhouse we should have half our population serving military service.
National service should include working in the government for a short time or joining the armed forces.

mattyrm wrote: This has gone OT, however being a master of skilful debate I shall merge the two topics seamlessly.

If you were injured in a war, and the government gave you a prosthetic limb, would you be happy with the assistance you received? And would it be morally wrong to insert said limb into a man's arse if he consented to it?

Indeed, seemless!
Yes, i would be happy. And only if he's a Christian conservative. they make mistakes, go to " God can cure me of the Gay" camp and all is forgiven. otherwise, you're just an immoral pagan.
and wouldn't that last bit make one hell of a Christmas card?!