Posted on 01/02/2007 3:54:45 PM PST by CANBFORGIVEN
What will it take to insist on truth? Lawsuits? Protests? In my opinion, doctors and other health professionals must exert pressure, or share culpability.
Lethal consequences to engaging in defining features of male homosexuality-- promiscuity and anal intercourse
** Note: This article contains explicit references to common, dangerous homosexual sexual practices and is therefore not suitable for young readers.
Yes, but what we do without all those show tunes, ice dancers, decorators, dress designers and hair stylists?
Why heavens to Betsy, we'd just be a mess, a mess I tell you!
I guess we would just have to listen to rock music, go for walks, wear pants and not cut our hair.
Did you read the article?
I think this information needs to be out there, so those, especially young adults and teens, who are "experimenting" in this lifestyle choice, are informed about major consequences that in some cases are irreversible and could cause their death. How sad if we just choose to ignore it.
Probably because most shrinks are gay ............
I once told a closet gay that if the Shrink's had only kept homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, gays would now have protection under the ADA (disabilities act). He almost choked. It was hillarious.
Now thats funny!
Well, the main argument of the article is: Homosexuality is a health risk, mainly because of HIV/AIDS.
That statement, however, is nonsense, as it only takes into account MALE homosexuality. Lesbians indeed have a much LOWER risk than the general population.
From that standpoint, heterosexuality amongst women would also have to be classified a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences.
As a guy I'd have to ask: Who would want this?
The title of the article is a bit odd. We don't normally call something a "disorder" on the basis of medical consequences. People with an inclination to take part in dangerous sports, drive fast cars or climb mount Everest are many times more likely to die young than the rest of us but nobody considers them disordered.
The whole issue of homosexuality needs to be de-medicalised. It is an issue of WORLDVIEW and should be discussed in terms of ethics, not science.
I agree heterosexuality outside of a monogamous marriage is as risky as homosexuality. But the article addresses many other disease that are horrible. Have you ever heard of anal cancer? I hadn't
I do agree with looking at it as a WORLDVIEW not through the lens of science. The author of the article is just trying to convey that there are horrible consequences to choosing this lifestyle. I had never heard about anal cancer. Have you heard of this? That is why I felt the article needed to be available. It is about awareness
I don't see schools promoting dangerous sports or extreme activities that could shorten someones life except for homosexuality. They consider homosexuality like it as an innate trait without considering the horrible outcome that could occur when one even engages in this activity ONE time. How irresponsible is that.
Yes, I've heard of anal cancer. Half my family are doctors. And that is what the author of this article is clearly not.
So the risk of anal cancer is 40 times higher - but it's still pretty low, also in comparison to other, more common cancers (lung, breast, colon etc.).
Take another example: The common treatment for autoimmune diseases (like Multiple Sclerosis, Myasthenia gravis etc.) is immunosupression. With that, your cancer risks go through the roof, the risk for skin cancer is probably a few hundred times higher. But that doesn't mean the treatment is wrong, because everybody will get cancer. In fact, still very few do.
Bottom line: If your argument is epidemiology, you should know what you're talking about. It's annoying how nowadays everybody pretends to be an M.D..
Did I insult your intelligence? I'm sorry to offend you, because clearly you are deriving all your information from riding the coattail of all the Doctors in your family.
I don't agree with the article's suggestion to classify homosexuality as a disorder. I just found it informative for those of us who don't have a family of "Doctor's". It is information that I thought needs to be out there. If I told you not to do something because you could die from it, wouldn't you want to know what the consequences are. It doen's t mean you won't engage in it but you can't claim ignorance.
However, the article is written by a Nurse who worked with several who claimed to be homosexual and the original writings were by several Doctors involved with the research. (See the names below original document.)
Anal cancer, does occur because one engages in homosexual encounters. Yes, there are many diseases and cancers you can get. The point is, this particular one can be prevented by not choosing the homosexual lifestyle. Don't you think that information needs to be out there? Does your family of Doctor's explain the health risk associated with the homosexual lifestyle besides just AIDS/HIV?
"Did I insult your intelligence?"
You did not. You asked whether I had heard of anal cancer, which indeed I have. As that is not the norm, I explained why. And no, you couldn't insult my intelligence, my IQ is above 150 and I went to university myself. I'm pretty self-assured, so no need to apologize.
"Anal cancer, does occur because one engages in homosexual encounters."
Actually not. It does occur because of b*ttsex or autoerotic stimulation of the rectum. And that's all I'm saying: From a purely medical standpoint that distinction is relevant. Observations need to be empirically based, otherwise it's junk science.
HPV, specifically types 16 & 18 are considered likely culprits for anal cancer. There's a successful vaccine, recommended for girls, to prevent these types which are known to cause cervical cancer. It's hoped it might be useful in males as well.
Actually, I think the point of the article was to show the consequences of male homosexual behavior. Even if there are 0 health consequences associated with lesbianism, it doesn't suddenly make male homosexual behavior healthy. You are using the same fallacious reasoning pro-gay proponents repeat constantly.
Lesbians indeed have a much LOWER risk than the general population. From that standpoint, heterosexuality amongst women would also have to be classified a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences.
Only if you look at the total number of infections, ignoring the fact that lesbians represent a very small % of the US population (even lower than male homosexuals). "of 246,461 women were reported as HIV infected. Of these, 7,381 were reported to have had sex with women; however, most had other risk factors." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm
7,381 is around 3%~ of 246,461; lesbians only represent around 2% of the population, maybe less. Therefore they are on par with heterosexual women in terms of infections.
PS- I am well aware that the website says they can't confirm* that the infections were caused specifically from lesbian behavior, and I know there were other risk factors. However, that doesn't change the fact that those within the lesbian community are spreading HIV as quickly as heterosexual women if you look at things proportionately.
Actually, if we refer to male homosexual behavior specifically, it isn't. Male Homosexuals, who represent a small percentage of the US population, spread HIV faster than male/female heterosexuals combined. And these are male/female heterosexuals who participate in high risk sex.
Male-to-male sexual contact 454,106 total infections
High-risk heterosexual contact 164,850 total infections http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
The fact of the matter is, assuming equal promiscuity, it is far easier to spread HIV through Anal sex. Your chances of getting HIV through heterosexual sex are rather low, even if you aren't using protection. Males having unprotected heterosexual sex have an even lower risk than their female partners.
Thanks for the information. I didn't know that.
"The fact of the matter is, assuming equal promiscuity, it is far easier to spread HIV through Anal sex."
That is correct. The seroconversion rates are approximately:
Receptive anal intercourse: 50/10,000 (fifty per tenthousand contacts with an infected source, assuming no protection)
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse: 10/10,000
Insertive anal intercourse: 6.5/10,000
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse: 5/10,000
"Your chances of getting HIV through heterosexual sex are rather low, even if you aren't using protection."
Well, they are rather low compared to the risks involved with childbirth or needle sharing, they are pretty damn high compared to a monogamous relationship between two seronegative partners. Your risk as a man having unprotected insertive sex just ONCE is about the same as having MS (multiple sclerosis). But you wouldn't tell the MS patient among your relatives that statistically speaking he should be healthy.
"Males having unprotected heterosexual sex have an even lower risk than their female partners."
Which again can be halved by circumcision. However the main reason why unprotected heterosexual sex has a lower risk for the male compared to homosexuals who do not have receptive anal intercourse is the lower HIV prevalence amongst heterosexuals in western nations. However, if you are as promiscuous as Tommy Morrison of Rocky V fame or live in a state like South Africa that pretty much evens the odds.
Hi all. Went back after reading some of the comments and read it again. As I read it, the article was about male HS, so lesbianism is irrelevant, but I didn’t get that it was about HIV per se - just high risk behavior in general. Unlike an inclination to take part in dangerous sports, drive fast cars or climb mount Everest the activity is an addiction because it involves less choice and is usually done far more often. Thus I would agree with “disorder”.
Back when AIDS first started and news reporters interviewed gay’s at bath houses asking them how many “partners” they had under the theory that public health officials could track those exposed to the new threat. The numbers were astronomical - hundreds of partners per week or sometimes per day. Just those numbers alone, even without AIDS are a public health nightmare for other STD or other infectious diseases. The article barely mentions the ancillary risks such as drug use that comes with the acceptance of a set of values this lifestyle demands or increased exposure to violent crime, so IMO the article greatly understates its case.
With all the high risk activity this addiction exposes its practitioners too, it is reasonable to ask why lifestyle fascists in cities like San Francisco or NY who try to outlaw smoking, transfats or foisgrat (high risk to ducks) don’t want to outlaw this one too. Are gays more deserving of freedom than the rest of us or less deserving of protection? Courts struck down sodomy laws based on privacy, but privacy doesn’t protect one who uses illegal drugs in their home. Both are matters of individual choice and both are equally legitimate targets for government public health regulation. Most left wing positions are fundamentally dependent on a lack of consistency when considering issues. That’s why they must endorse situational ethics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.