I know you didn't give criteria for the study. I personally think you just want to keep the idea of the study abstract, so you can make a slur against gays.
I know what you are "just saying". I was saying MORE than what you were "just saying".


I don't see how that fits into my theory.
In my theory, we're talking about sub-groups. The overall group representation is unchanged.

It's like having 100 parents. 10 of them parents of gay kids.
3 out of 10 of all parents are below average intelligence, and the 3 parents of gays who have below average intelligence throw the kid out.
But that doesn't mean anything about the other 27 parents of straight kids who have below average intelligence. They still exist.


I know you don't.
You still don't understand what is being said, nor do you understand the potential causal relationships involved.

People can be predisposed to violence. But if that were true for 30% of blacks, and only 15% of other races, you would blindly insist that being black doesn't cause it while ignoring the bigger picture.
That's why I am moving on.


Yes. I can.
Furthermore, you just pulled a bait and switch.
NONE of your reply actually addresses my point.
NOWHERE do you show where my statement is actually wrong.
I'm going to repeat it since you didn't broach it last time.

And before you fly off on the handle again, realize that I am talking about "even AMONGST gays", pointing out that blacks make up a disproportionately high number of AIDS cases as compared to other races, like white.

YOU want to fixate on gays as a factor, while ignoring the fact that across the board, blacks are ALSO a huge factor.

Now to move on to the article you're trying to misrepresent.


1) Why do you have to specify "outside Africa"?
That's discounting a large percentage of the BLACK infected HIV without reason.
Without purpose.
And ESPECIALLY since that is where a lot of the vaginal infections take place, it's like saying "The house is not on fire, if you ignore the kitchen which is engulfed in flames"

2) Your article talks about a heterosexual AIDS EPIDEMIC.
It doesn't say heterosexuals aren't at risk.
It doesn't say heterosexuals have a lower risk from vaginal sex with an infected partner.
It uses the word EPIDEMIC, which is a bit like saying that the nuns who took a vow of celibacy aren't going to have an EPIDEMIC...

Moreover, it doesn't address the heterosexuals who DO GET INFECTED by heterosexual sex.

Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse.1

HIV/AIDS Statistics - The Body


Why didn't you quote THIS statement, which pretty much obliterates the article's credibility...
62% of the HIV transmissions were believed to be due to anal contact.
They are basing their conclusion on a BELIEF and not actual FACTS???
Puh-leaze!!!

As previously quoted, 80% of world-wide infections are from HETEROSEXUAL sex.
The real reason gay men are at a higher risk is because guys are more promiscuous. And when a slutty straight guy wants to hook up with a straight girl, the opportunities are just not there like they are for a slutty gay guy.
And that has nothing to do with the type of sex had, but rather the opportunities.


And you continue to waste space with this pointless complaint....

Here's my OP that started all this....point out the slur please. Unless pointing out two studies can correlate is a slur. The Black poverty rate that you like to trot out isn't a slur if it's true.

But studies show a correlation of more male kids from the same woman increasing the chances of there being a gay child. So since NO female plans on having a gay child, "gay" is a random involuntary variable. Birth rate is inversely proportional to intelligence and economic success. Eventually the involuntary "gay" correlate will run into the birth rate one. The throwing kids out is a consequence of the higher intolerance of the type of people more likely to have more kids, and therefore a gay one.

That's how my "theory" works. "Gay" is the most unknown variable there since no one knows where it comes from.
Hell, we all might be wrong.
Actually I do believe some people are predisposed to violence. But I also think there has to be a catalyst. Poverty for example is a hell of a causation. Saying "being Black" is the causation is a bit simplistic. But I think you know that.
Unless "being White" is the cause of white collar crime.
But even among gay Blacks, it's still anal sex and drug abuse. Blacks may have a propensity to be a little more loose with the sex and drugs, as abortion and pregnancy statistics also show, but the methodology for the spread of AIDS is still the same.

Not a causal "factor" though. Because even among Whites, homosexual White males lead heterosexual White males by a huge margin.
AIDS & HIV Statistics for USA by race and ethnicity
I'd like to direct your attention to the "drug use" statistic differences between the races.

I didn't specify "outside Africa. The article did. Here's another.
The threat of a global AIDS epidemic is over, say experts | Mail Online
Speaking a quarter of a century after the term Aids was coined, Dr De Cock said large-scale heterosexual spread was unlikely to occur anywhere outside sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 11 million children have been orphaned by the disease.
He said: 'It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries.
The majority of cases were in gay men and immigrants who contracted the disease overseas.


Actually that is dealt with here....from the above link...
In all, there were 33million people living with HIV in 2007 - around two-thirds of which were in Africa.
And even in Africa, it's regional, just like in the U.S.
HIV and AIDS in Africa
Both HIV prevalence rates and the numbers of people dying from AIDS vary greatly between African countries. In Somalia and Senegal the HIV prevalence is under 1% of the adult population, whereas in South Africa and Zambia around 15-20% of adults are infected with HIV.
"Being Black" is still not implicated as a causal factor there either.

Outside of Africa and Third World nations, it's still pretty much a gay men and drug addicts disease. Just as the "HIV epidemic is over" article stated.

Do you have fact to refute them?
Health & HIV
Men do get infected from both anal-receptive and anal-insertive sex, but anal-receptive sex is about 10 times more risky. Some folks say the chance of infection from receptive anal intercourse is one in 50, versus one in 500 from insertive anal intercourse.

Since your statement was simply anal sex isn't any more risky, here's a simple refutation.
Can you get AIDS from. . . ?
If a couple have anal intercourse the risk of infection is greater than with vaginal intercourse.

Can't get simpler than that.

And yet in the U.S. and most other developed countries even in Africa, it's pretty much a non issue among most non-drug-addicted heterosexuals. There's even growing evidence of anal sex being one of the principle modes of transmission among heterosexuals in Africa.
Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa

It seems you are the one wasting time with your continual posts filled with nothing but "nu huh's" but not a single attempt to show actual information that shows me being actually wrong. Liar.
But actually I AM just wasting time here. I got nothing to do but sit here and post and listen to music. It's hot outside and TV is much more boring than this.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

You might as well have told a "Your momma's so dumb ..." joke.


That's quite a leap.
People don't "plan" on their baby having blue eyes either, but that doesn't make it a "random involuntary variable".
Involuntary? Yes.
Random? No.


You're committing the same illogical assumption over and over again...
I've already addressed this with the black / crime analogy.

Just because two variables are noted to have a statistical correlation doesn't mean it's a causal one. It also doesn't mean that the variables aren't entirely related by a third variable.


And statistically, poverty IS the causation.
Studies that examine race, INCOME, and crime show that more affluent blacks are analogous to their affluent white peers.
Poor blacks are analogous to their poor white peers.
It's the INCOME which is the problem.
But then again, we can take the next step in the rabbit hole and make blind associations with race and income, ignoring other causal factors like discrimination.


And among STRAIGHT blacks which have a higher per capita representation, it's STILL a larger problem.
If you want to use HIV as a means to point the finger at gays, you are ALSO creating an excuse for others to do it against blacks.

Compare the STRAIGHT numbers for blacks and whites.
High-risk heterosexual contact
Black, not hispanic: 24,205
White, not hispanic: 6,081
AIDS & HIV Statistics for USA by race and ethnicity

YES. Gay males represent a larger percentage of the problem.
Just like blacks do ACROSS THE BOARD.


The same argument can be made for gays.
There is NOTHING about being gay which is a causal factor for HIV.
I have gay sex and my chances are zero from the gay sex. I'm in a monogamous relationship.
You keep trying to have your cake and eat it to.


You mean that blacks are 2.5 TIMES MORE than whites to get it from IV drug use, while blacks make up significantly LESS of the population than whites?

And I'm sure you can do the same for gays.
What you don't seem to grasp is that there isn't a way of looking at this data that if you tried something similar for race, it would indict blacks just like you want to indict gays.


Irrelevant.
There is no rational reason for excluding Africa.


And it does the same damn thing.
It specifies EPIDEMIC. That doesn't mean the risk isn't there.
Like I explained, there are SPECIFIC risk factors involved. Drug use involves sharing needles. If you use drugs, but don't share needles or bodily fluid, you're okay.
Gay men can have sex all they want as long as they don't have it unprotected with an infected partner. If you throw in READILY AVAILABLE promiscuity into the mix, it's a recipe for disaster.


That's not "dealt with".
Again, you're trying to insist the house isn't on fire by excluding the kitchen which is engulfed in flames.
There is no logical reason to exclude Africa. It CLEARLY shows the capability of heterosexual transmission.

And the 80% statistic PROVES that straights are at risk.
I explained WHY the straight community has inhibiting factors.


I need "facts" to refute people's BELIEFS???
Excuse me while I have a laughing fit...


I could have told you that...
Likewise, a MAN's risk of infection from vaginal sex is LESS than the WOMAN's risk of infection from vaginal sex.

What you just did was compare anal-receptive to anal-insertive, and try to conclude something about vaginal...
Duh???


Or any more simply unsubstantiated...


I repeat. 80% of HIV transmission via heterosexual sex.
OVER and OVER again, your articles talk about epidemics and "excluding Africa".
1) 80% does not have to be an epidemic, but it DOES PROVE a straight heterosexual sex transmission rate.
2) There is no logical reason for excluding Africa.
The kitchen is on fire. ADMIT it!


"evidence"?
Quit using words that are not substantiated.
From the article: "In this communication, we review evidence from several sources to support our contention that the majority of HIV transmission not accounted for by iatrogenic exposure could be accounted for by unsuspected and unreported homosexual and heterosexual penile–anal practices."
COULD be accounted for?
UNREPORTED???

How the heck can you make a factual conclusion about the UNREPORTED events???


I give information when it's necessary. Classifying my posts as "nothing but 'nu huh's'" is the clear lie.
Repeatedly, all you do is misrepresent the articles you throw out there.
Articles that fixate on classifications of "epidemic" and want to exclude the Africa data DO NOT prove that straights have a lower chance of transmission.

Excuse me....again. Runt? Wedgies? Still, playing "schoolboy games", I see. You're so fond of hurling insults to others, but when "sized up, and put in a container", you scream, "victim", and that it's "not about you"...when, you have, in fact, "made it about you".

FoundIt attacked your argument, point by point, and rendered it, and by extension..."you", impotent. You get so caught up in semantics and get distracted by the love of your own postings, that you lose focus, as to where you are. But I'm sure I'm not the only one used to it. Carry on.

"Happy meal"....your fare, not mine...being older, I'm into sushi.

well, that certainly sums up fxashun pretty well

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

You see, you are still talking like a cheerleader watching from the fence. I guess we know who's the "bottom" in THAT relationship. LOL.

What's fun about your posts is that there's nothing to rebut. Just bullshit.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

It would have been of topic.

But we know the genetic sequence that controls blue eyes. Not so homosexuality. Yet another questionable comparison. You're the one leaping.

And I've pointed out that in THIS case it does. Unless instead of using abstract comparisons, you want to try and disprove this specific one.

And among straight Blacks though it's a factor of drug addiction. Which is where it makes the jump to hetero females. The numbers bear that out.

And look again at the hetero spread among the genders. It's a known fact that even in homosexual circles drug addiction is another big factor for risky sexual behavior. It's STILL not just "being Black".

Yet still you insist you understand causal relationships, but I guess that only when convenient. Because even among Black people, it's not evenly spread. But among gay men, well, I've linked several places that implicate that behavior as causal.

Sounds like what I said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun But being Black doesn't cause crime. If I just don't do the actions that are criminal, no crime. The same analogy works for AIDS and gay men. Gay man doesn't cause AIDS but a specific activity performed by gay men happens to be a efficient transport for HIV. But if you just sit at home and "be homosexual", no AIDS. I understand causality quite clearly.

Yes. Just as Blacks are out of proportion for many negative factors. That's just what the data says.

I'm not indicting "gays", I specifically said men who have sex with men. Anal sex, while not limited to heterosexuals, is still practices more by MSM's. Just as the statistics and research shows.

I thought you said you agree with the research. The professionals found a significant reason to do so. And they didn't exclude just Africa, they excluded "Sub Saharan Africa". They were rather specific.

But the risk is still greater for MSM's. Because the actual sex is riskier.

But there is RISK in lesbian sex. But it ain't much. The level of risk clearly are worse for MSM behavior.

And he biggest causal factor is still anal sex or drug use. Unless you can show otherwise. Which you have yet to attempt.

No you need facts to refute the facts.

But that's not what we are discussing. I gave your quote.

No I didn't. I said that they are both riskier than vaginal anything.

So you think Avert, is lying? Based on what?

And 70% of all HIV is in Africa. I feel safe. Here in the U.S. non drug addicted heterosexual males are almost as safe as lesbians. While gay men are still most at risk. Black OR White. I live in the U.S.

Tell it to the WHO.

Did you look at the actual narrative or did you just look for crap like that to say? So let's see here you don't trust news outlets, avert, or any one else. What outlets are there that support your "vaginal sex is as risky as anal sex". I'm dying to see YOUR sources.

Did you read the narrative other than that excerpt? It gave their reasoning.

Or in other words you just don't have it.

The "articles" quote the WHO. You have presented no articles that quote nothing that you say. Yet you are saying you have "proven" something. How do you require so much proof yet offer nothing but "your word" in rebuttal. I smell bullshit. And it's not mine.

Bullshit analogies and comparisons, saying you have refuted crap as if YOU were an authority higher than Avert or the WHO. Yeah right.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

LOL....I got my popcorn popped and the tennis match is so "lop-sided". ( munch, munch)
FoundIt : 10
FX : 0


Stay tuned.

The reason that the HIV transmission rate is higher in homosexual males than then general population in the United States has everything to do with history.

Homosexuality was traditionally shunned. This forced individuals to develop counter-cultural behavior that was secretive in nature. Because the individuals were secretive, they were far less likely to be open with medical professionals as to the nature of their contacts and less likely to be tested. This behavior has lessened, but has not completely stopped. When you have a group who is shamed into believing they are second class or somehow bad, they are less likely to take proactive measures at taking care of themselves with there is a risk of bigotry from the health care professionals.

This cause a huge jump in homosexual vs. heterosexual infections. Taking this a step farther, we see that the communal organization of the homosexual culture creates a small pool of partners. One person in one hundred contracting AIDS is less likely to have the same impact as one person in ten. So the statistical probability of having an infected partner as a homosexual male is significantly higher not because the transmission rate is higher but because the population size is smaller.

In addition, society has reinforced a living situation that limits the homosexual incentive to develop monogamous relationships. Heterosexuals are afforded the biological institution of procreation, but that institution is virtually meaningless in today's society. With the number of children flooding orphanages and the number of single parents, we can see that the value of this relationship has greatly diminished. Heterosexuals also have the opportunity to enter into a legally binding agreement that provides rights and responsibilities afforded by the state. There is a financial and legal incentive to create family units regardless of biological origin. The gender is the only stipulation. Beyond this, we limit the homosexuals ability to "nest" or create their own family unit by adoption. If we were to afford homosexuals the same social rights and responsibilities we would likely see a decrease in the infection rate. A statistically significant one at that. All arguments about homosexual infection rates until that point are merely speculation and inference from false human constructs unequal to other test subjects to which they are being compared.

__________________

I think that is pretty much hogwash. Homosexuals by nature make lifestyle choices that are dangerous and invite themselves to a host of problems including HIV transmittion and STD infections. I don't think 'leveling out the playing field and giving homosexuals the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts' would really decrease the infection rate. I don't feel homosexuals in general would clean up their behavior and behave like their heterosexual counterparts just because they are afforded the same rights. The example can be made of a unhappy heterosexual couple that decides to have a baby to 'help the relationship get better' but most of the time does not help the failing relationship at all.