Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Male Homosexuality related to altered brain function

Nov 30, 2003 4:57AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
You do have some imagination if you truely think that is all you have indicated...
Dec 2, 2003 10:30AM PST

You just need to get yourself past the denial staqe.

- Collapse -
How amusing
Dec 2, 2003 10:20PM PST

you must think you are.

Dan

- Collapse -
Thank you!
Dec 2, 2003 10:48PM PST

for acknowledging that I at least THINK.

It would be even better if you did some thinking yourself before posting (you might avoid providing some impressions you later try to deny having made).

- Collapse -
Re:Thank you!
Dec 2, 2003 11:02PM PST

Ahh, yes, how droll your attempt at amusement is. If you continue to excercise your humor and inference skills one or the other may, someday, reach a noticeable level. I only have the remainder of normal lifespan left to me, so I'm not hopeful of seeing that day. Such is life.

Dan

- Collapse -
I love this!
Dec 2, 2003 11:23PM PST

This is classic Ed. Notice how he's got you completely off the original topic?

Wink

- Collapse -
Hi Josh
Dec 2, 2003 11:42PM PST

A bit closer look would readily reveal that it was Dan who has pushed this particular thread away from the topic of the thread.

Classic Josh though -- thinking otherwise in the face of the posted evidence.

I do get a kick out of Dan though. He is almost like that "Little engine That Could" but...

If a wit had an arbitrary value of 7, I would only be at 6 while Dan striggles to maintain a 2 and a half wit would of course be a solid 4.

PS - yes we have here diverged even farther but note the EXACT point of divergence was your post (see how it works?).

- Collapse -
Keep saying it Dan...
Dec 2, 2003 11:44PM PST

"I think I can, I think I can..."

It worked for that little engine, maybe...

- Collapse -
I am trying
Dec 2, 2003 11:58PM PST

But you're off the track and not being at all clear about what you mean. Oh, well, you tried your best, I'm sure.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:If either YOU or Dave actually READ them...
Dec 2, 2003 2:24AM PST

Hi, Edward.

We have to deal with the situation as it is today, not as it was in the 80's, when (in THIS country, though not in much of the rest of the world) male homosexual transmission was by far the most prevalent route. The question of import is what do we do now, not how did we get where we are -- unless, of course, you simply delight in the blame game.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:If either YOU or Dave actually READ them...
Dec 2, 2003 2:43AM PST
"We have to deal with the situation as it is today, not as it was in the 80's, when (in THIS country, though not in much of the rest of the world) male homosexual transmission was by far the most prevalent route. The question of import is what do we do now, not how did we get where we are -- unless, of course, you simply delight in the blame game."

Exactly so Dave so denial gets you nowhere and exacerbates the problem. Here is the situation TODAY!

2002 stats are the most recent (US only here) and they are as follows (the US distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents):

MALES 718,003
FEMALES 159,271

of the males 50,793 were results of heterosexual contact and 172,351 injection drug use.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

THE PROBLEM is homosexual acceptance--kind of like "love a leper" in days gone by before personal hygiene was a concern. TYPE-1 is by far the most common here in the States AND it is most commonly spread by homosexual contact.
- Collapse -
For the sake of argument,
Dec 2, 2003 3:53AM PST

we can even ignore homosexuality vs. heterosexuality. Risky sexual behavior is the real key. It just so happens that the types of things gay men tend to engage in are more risky for disease transmission.

Dave, there is heterosexual behavior -- even promiscuous risky stuff -- going on all over this nation. Yes, STD's are up in general throughout the population (but heck, why promote abstinence outside marriage which WOULD prevent a whole heck of a lot of the transmission), but we aren't seeing syphilis clusters breaking out in the brothels of Las Vegas -- we see it in the gay bars and bathhouses in San Fransisco.

An inordinately disproportionate amount of money has been spent to erradicate a mostly preventable disease. If, there hadn't been the PC paranoia about case reporting and quarantine and immigration discrimination (which has pretty successfully contained SARS) in the early days of AIDS, it could well have been contained and virtually eliminated in the US. You can point to Africa all you want, it doesn't change the fact that here in the US the vast majority of cases remain contracted through MSM contact, and IV drug use. Even the so-called heterosexual spread is mostly unsuspecting women who's partners have or are engaging in MSM.

BTW, we've had sex education and the like up the wazoo (did I say that Wink ) and the fact remains that young males contraction rates are increasing not decreasing in the latest trends. Do you really think there is a man, woman or teen out there that doesn't realize that sex gets you pregnant, the chances of getting AIDS are greater with casual sex and homosexual sex than with sex in a committed monogamous relationship, etc.??

No, I don't believe AIDS was God's curse on the gay man or anything like that. I don't believe AIDS is the product of some sin. But I do believe that PC tippy toeing around the issue of the very real health implications of the gay lifestyle (and it is one, just like a heterosexual promiscuous one is) has resulted in a negative impact on the entire nation's health and pocketbook. Other risky behavior is taxed to your celebration and denigration Dave -- smoking comes readily to mind. It's fine for you to ***** moan and complain about second hand smoke and what a filthy habit it is. How about a condom tax instead of free ones?

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: For the sake of argument,
Dec 2, 2003 5:23AM PST

Hi, Evie.

I agree that the vast majority of current cases in the US are the result of male homosexual transmission. But that's barely true for NEW cases, and they really reflect what happened several years ago because of the long time between becoming Hiv+ and showing symptoms. But even if its victims are partially responsible for their plight, there are parts of the world where 50% or more of the sexually active population is Hiv+, and (given the nature of those locations), essentially sentenced to death a decade or more from now, with all the attendant (and truly tragic) socioeconomic disruptions. To me, that means that complaining about the cost of finding affordable treatments is inconsequential, especially for one who continually proclaims their Christianity. Or is the parable of the Good Samaritan merely a fable?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Who would this be?
Dec 2, 2003 5:36AM PST
"To me, that means that complaining about the cost of finding affordable treatments is inconsequential, especially for one who continually proclaims their Christianity."
- Collapse -
Wrong ...
Dec 2, 2003 6:06AM PST

... according to the CDC, new infections are still dominated by MSM or IV drug use.

* Approximately 40,000 new HIV infections occur each year in the United States, about 70 percent among men and 30 percent among women. Of these newly infected people, half are younger than 25 years of age.(3,4)

* Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. Of newly infected men, approximately 50 percent are black, 30 percent are white, 20 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)

* Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Of newly infected women, approximately 64 percent are black, 18 percent are white, 18 percent are Hispanic, and a small percentage are members of other racial/ethnic groups.(4)


Now 60% of 70% is 42% of all infections -- a dramatically disproportionate rate for a practice actively engaged in by 1-2% of the adult population. It is also fair to attribute many of the heterosexual transmissions to homosexual ones -- IOW, many women are infected by men who became infected through MSM, and despite the decreasing stigma, it is reasonable to assume that a decent portion of those men who claim they contracted it through heterosexual sex do not want to be outed. The odds of me picking any straight man to randomly have sex with and contracting AIDS are next to nil. The odds of a gay man picking any gay man and contracting AIDS are unfortunately way too high for anyone in their right mind to risk! And yet they do!

To date, still less than 1 million of rapidly approaching 300 million Americans are infected. Compare that to just prostate and breast cancer and you should begin to get my point. Just among family and family friends I've known at least two dozen who have developed and/or died of cancer. I know of one who has contracted and died of AIDS. It was an infection that could have been prevented. The same can't be said for most if not all of those cancers.

I'm still most saddened that the majority of AIDS deaths are needless and could have been avoided if it was treated like any other communicable disease by responsible health officials. It is never too late to change failed policy, if only to set precedent for the next thing that comes down the pike!

Can we focus on the US when talking about policies and social factors in the US? I mean it's not a whole lot different than discussing diahrea in the US and in the Third World -- apples and oranges completely!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re:Wrong ... -- Right, thanks!
Dec 3, 2003 12:59PM PST

... for finding the stats, Evie.

If 70% of new cases are in males, and 60% of those are due to homosexual sexual activity, that means that only 42% of all new cases in this country are now due to male homosexual activity, which is precisely what I was trying to prove to Ed!
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Wrong ... -- Right, thanks!
Dec 3, 2003 10:15PM PST

Hi Dave,

Still wrong. That MSM 42% still represents the biggest single cause. And it is still way disproportionate compared to their percentage in the population.

Nobody is discounting that the virus can be spread through normal heterosexual intercourse. But if it were as readily spread through this activity, given that 98% of the population participate in it, surely the distribution of infections would have normalized by now. It has spilled over into the heterosexual and female communities because of cross over where infected gay or bisexual males have sex with women. Also, IV drug use knows no gender bounds.

You can try to mainstream the disease all you want, but it's just not the case HERE IN THE US, which is what Ed was referring to in regards to the impact of the consequences of the behavior on society. Same can be said for the "they only hurt themselves" argument for IV drug users. No, they don't, because when their irresponsible behavior leads to AIDS infection they put others at greater risk.

Why should responsible people be forced to pay for condoms, needles, education, medication, treatment, studies, research, etc. for the BEHAVIORS and consequences thereof of a small percentage of the population? Why all the mental gymnastics around the very real fact that AIDS is almost entirely preventable in this country by exercising a modicum of personal responsibility. At this point, anyone who gets infected sure as heck bears the lions' share of the responsibility for that infection ... period!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
i would respond but...
Dec 2, 2003 5:33AM PST
"up the wazoo"

I am having trouble typing--tears, stomach cramps, raucus noise, ... (I believe it is called uncontrollable laughter!)
- Collapse -
Homophobia is really...
Dec 3, 2003 4:17PM PST

...an improper term, much more appropriate would be Homodisgustus. If we who object to homosexuality are homophobes, then are atheists now called Godophobes?

- Collapse -
Not really
Dec 5, 2003 3:40AM PST

Athiests don't object to gods, they just do not believe gods exist.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Not really
Dec 5, 2003 8:05AM PST

Technically that is correct.

But it often seems the other way.

I believe some athiests, not necessarily all, would love to outlaw religion in the USA. Of course, that is the same charge brought against the Christian sects every day.

It's the same thing, one group wants to impose it's believe on the other. And someone, not everyone, in every group does it sooner or later.

roger

- Collapse -
Re:Re: How much of your taxes is being spent on AIDS?
Dec 2, 2003 12:34AM PST

Dave, you have been linked to the proper and official statistics for AIDS and In the US and Austrailia the VAST MAJORITY of Aids is directly linked to homosexual activity. (You linked to it but obviously haven't read much of what is presented)

The same links I previously provided you that you studiously try to ignore indicate VERY CLEARLY that later variants (and note that later means that they came AFTER) are now more common in CERTAIN other parts of the world.

It is YOU who seems to think that by ignoring the very simple WELL DOCUMENTED fact that AIDS was introduced into the US through homosexual activity and was propagated by the same and exacerbated by drug users.

The following data are summarized from the CDC annual HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Unless otherwise noted, numbers are estimated numbers of diagnoses of AIDS in the United States through December 2002.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

- Collapse -
And I notice YOU haven't responded to the links I provided that
Dec 6, 2003 6:21PM PST

demonstrate why your beloved CDC's statements are just not quite the FACTS you claim they are.

Ian

- Collapse -
NT - Could you please expound that, Edward?
Dec 1, 2003 5:22PM PST

`?

- Collapse -
I could but then again you could sinmply read the available info...
Dec 2, 2003 12:48AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:How much of your taxes is being spent on AIDS? PART 1
Dec 1, 2003 9:22PM PST

Some of you keep insisting that AIDS is a homosexual disease caused by 'deviant' behavior; however, the original myth was that some 'heterosexual/bisexual' person caught it by having sex with a monkey somewhere. Truth or fiction, it started somewhere and if there is some element of truth to that story, the deviant behavior started with beastiality.

If there is no element of truth to that story, then where DID AIDS originate? Although it was spread quickly through the homosexual community, there is no proof that it originated with it. AIDS was confirmed to be able to be spread through blood transfusions from all walks of life, including heterosexuals who were infected and didn't know it. However, not ALL blood transfusions proved to be infectious, so where did the heterosexuals get it? Perhaps from another 'deviant' behavior called bisexuality where some straight crossed your moral line, got infected and then passed it on to his wife or girlfriend who then passed it on to other partners or perhaps from infected shared needles?

I'm wondering where all of the infected people in Africa got infected in the first place? You can't possibly believe that so many straights spread out so far and wide came in contact with a few homosexuals throughout their country and infected such remote territories as to wipe out entire adult communities leaving so many orphans who may or may not now be infected via their mothers as they were born.

If AIDS was originally strictly a homosexual disease, then why weren't ancient societies completely wiped out from it since that activity was/is well documented long before the 1970's? Why weren't there epidemics of this disease in existance long before now?

TONI

- Collapse -
Jumping to humans, Toni...
Dec 2, 2003 2:06AM PST

Tony, consider SARS and Ebola, which were present in animals before humans. How did they make the jump to humans? How about thru the food chain? This appears to be the case with SARS, and the current outbreak of Eubola seems to be from what is called "bush meat", in this case, specifically the meat of gorillas sold in the food market.
The spread rate from a original cross over would depend on the mechanics of the transfer vector from the human cross over to other humans. On this line of thought, sometimes speed of onset of the disease is inversely porportional to number of new infections. A person infected with Ebola rapidly shows the symptoms, and their contact with other humans is less (medical isolation or death) than it might be for something like AIDS, where the infected party might not know that they were infected (and therefore a vector) for years.

- Collapse -
Re:How much of your taxes is being spent on AIDS? PART II
Dec 1, 2003 9:24PM PST

AIDS is a disease that needs to be addressed and a cure found for it just as the black plague needed to be eradicated. It is a PEOPLE disease that knows no boundaries and has spread indescriminately like wildfire because of ignorance, apathy, and finger-pointing rather than morality issues. As the world finally contributes equally to stopping the rampage and funding a cure, it, too, will be eradicated like chickenpox. The children are the future of the world, but in countries where AIDS is wiping out all of their parents, you will have countries full of orphans who know nothing about survival since there will be no adults left to show them how. Saving the adult population is a world priority because to do otherwise is to watch the domino effect worldwide.

TONI

- Collapse -
NT - Well said Toni!!! VERY good!
Dec 1, 2003 10:03PM PST

`?

- Collapse -
Not bad Toni BUT...
Dec 2, 2003 1:31AM PST

the first recorded case was not until 1959. Genetic analysis of this blood sample suggests that HIV-1 may have stemmed from a single virus in the late 1940s or early 1950s. HIV may not have even existed in any form prior to that just as various other diseases (acute respiratory syndrome for instance) crop up all the time. Explains adequately your "How come...".

I know you tend to try to find accurate info (even though you often don't find it and resort to believing fictions) so here is a link to RESEARCH the topic. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/dhap.htm

A timeline http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/timeline80-87.html
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/hivprevalence/selected.htm#highrisk

This is another disease associated closely with homosexuals
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000758.htm

I do agree that money now has to be spent to combat the spread and to educate in prevention BUT this in no way negates the facts (well documented) that it was and remains due to HOMOSEXUAL behavior that the monies have to be spent on this rather than something else.

HOMOSEXUAL MALES were and remain the PRIMARY vector of the disease.

- Collapse -
Re:Not bad Toni BUT...thinking here
Dec 2, 2003 2:27AM PST

>>>Genetic analysis of this blood sample suggests that HIV-1 may have stemmed from a single virus in the late 1940s or early 1950s. HIV may not have even existed in any form prior to that.>>

And WHOSE blood sample was this taken from? A homosexual or a straight or a bisexual?

Since mutations of many diseases are the 'norm' after the original becomes immune to medicinal cures, where is the actual proof that HIV started with homosexual behavior? Your'facts' assume as much because it was prevalent in that community that was largely ignored by the world because gays were a 'throw away' society and didn't need to be saved.

Years later blood transfusions were also infecting people in surgery or were hemopheliacs, and gays who donated blood were also being blamed for that. It again was years later that it was determined that straights were spreading it via other methods.

There is no definitive proof that homosexual activity actually started the strain of HIV that turned into full blown AIDS. It helped to spread it faster, just as blood and bodily fluids of straights was spreading it. The knowledge just wasn't THERE to point to straight activity until long after the gays were dying en masse. Most of the straight cases that were showing up were being misdiagnosed because society could handle letting the homosexuals take the 'heat' since they didn't matter much, whereas the few straights who died had the stigma they must have been hippies or drug addicts.

Nothing in your research links proves it all started with the gay male....only that that community showed it up faster than the rest of the world. The refusal by the cdc and medical professionals to check every possible method of spreading it left the straight world undiagnosed and in the closet so to speak until it was made public.