Bigotry nonsense

"So to get back to the part that you DID address... The statistics you introduced from the CDC to support the split between 67% homosexual and 33% others for new HIV cases also prove that an estimated 0.34% of homosexuals per year develop HIV. We can be reasonably certain that these individuals did NOT properly use a condom. Unless you have some other data, we do not KNOW how many other homosexuals might need to learn to use a condom. Do you have additional data on that?"

****************************


Condoms are not so reliable, they tear and fail in many ways.

Did you know that many people get infected with AIDS, and a condom would not have helped, since it was not passed on by sexual contact ?

Kimberly Bergalis?


https://www.google.com/search?q=kim...id-att-aio-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

You didn't post any facts. All you did was make claims. You must support claims with links to credible sources.

You never do that because you're either to damned lazy or you know you're claim is false.

Nothing you say matters. Your posts are just unsupported claims.

 

No, I did not realize that. I was just taking the raw CDC statistics that led to the 67%/33% split among new HIV cases and demonstrating that the homosexuals who account for the 67% represent 0.34% of all homosexuals. In other words, the incidence of new HIV cases among homosexuals is so small that it should have no bearing on judging whether homosexuality is good or bad for society.

 

Do you have a link to this data?

 

It is sufficient to say that Data collected from any such study would be flawed and serve no useful purpose.

The only real way to deal with AIDS is complete testing of everyone, know the person you are having sex with, high risk behavior, regardless of condom use is still high risk behavior !

Open sores or lesions that make contact with a laceration, or other skin contact injury, during sex, permitting body fluids transfer is another possibility.

Since a total number of cases and vectors remain unknown, studies as these even when used as random sampling still provide scant usable Data as the sampling index is too small and does not accurately reflect the larger full scale vector analytical of the live Data necessary to provide any useful information.

 

The point is you try to make it sound as if that's their stance. It is a deception on your part. I merely point out yet more deceptions you use to base your claims.

You didn't answer my last question to you, have you once told the truth in your life?

 

What you copied and pasted had nothing to do with my statement. I pointed to their arguments that pedophilia was a sexual orientation, NOT their arguments that it is not a mental disorder. Like I said, Nothing there contradicts a thing I have stated.

 

For starters, how about those HIV positive individuals who infected the .34% in a given year? We can be reasonably certain that these individuals did NOT properly use a condom.

 

It's not a sexual orientation, by their stance. They retracted anything about it. So you continue on in dishonesty.

 

Dixon76710 posted this link: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6437a1.htm

I followed that CDC summary to the most likely source of his 67% figure and found this report:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-us.pdf

Refer to Table 1a. Diagnoses of HIV infection, by year of diagnosis and selected characteristics, 2010–2014—United States
Under "Transmission category" 2014 Male-to-Male sexual contact is responsible for 21,566 of 32,185 cases, or 67% of HIV cases (which accounts for your 67% figure). There is a separate category for injection drug use (if we can assume that it was reported in all cases).
US Population in 2014 was 318,900,000 so we can assume 2% gay, or 6,378,000.
This means 21,566 of 6,378,000 gay people were diagnosed with HIV, or 0.34% in 2014 (a slight increase from 2013 but still far less than 1% of the homosexual population.

My point was that this 67% figure sounds impressive until you put it in perspective to see it involves the actions of less than 1% of the homosexual population. As DoctorWho pointed out, there are other factors (like unreported drug use) that might reduce that figure even lower.

 

FACTS, and the CDC linked to is a credible source.

 

I made no representations as to what their "stance" is and instead merely referred to their arguments made. They frequently make outlandish arguments, and when there is a sufficient back lash from the public, they withdraw those arguments. Like the press release you posted in response to the backlash they received when they argued that pedophilia wasn't necessarily a mental disorder.

 

bigot:

a ​person who has ​strong, ​unreasonable ​beliefs and who does not like other ​people who have different ​beliefs or a different way of ​life:

That would include the climate change activist who don't like those who tend to believe that climate change is natural and science blames the sun not man.

California's Gov. "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown is a climate change bigot.

The LGBT activist have an unreasonable believe that buggery is natural and don't like the other 98% who refuse to allow their poop shute be used for anything else except to poop. So these LGBT activist meet the definition of being bigots.

 

Since when did the CDC have anything to do with the APA

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure the lgbt is trying to convert all people to homosexuality.

 

I think we all infer from your posts that you believe these facts support bigotry against homosexuals, but maybe you could avoid further misunderstanding by making your position clear. So far your random facts about homosexuals do not justify restricting their actions in any way. What exactly were you hoping that your facts would prove?

 

Now here we have an unconscious admission you should be embarrassed by. Putting aside for now the fact not all homosexual males indulge in anal sex, can we consider the high percentage of heterosexual porn on the web demonstrating anal intercourse between male and female?
This obsession with the mechanics of something you regard as an exclusively gay form of sexual activity reveals more about your sub-conscious self than you really want to display in public.

 

Since never. We were discussing my claims of 67% of new HIV in the US being among men who have sex with men. The statistics come from the CDC. The CDC is a credible source no matter how much you wish it wasn't so. Your views are a product of ideology, in spite of the scientific facts.

 

I have never once argued that point.

67% of 100% of HIV cases are among men who have sex with men. Agreed. Never once argued that fact.

I'm an going to state the fact that only 0.34% of men who have sex with men who also identify as gay are infected. So the risk may be elevated but it isn't really as frightening as some would have us believe. It certainly isn't an issue regarding MSM relationships.

 

They just want special privileges, special protections that the majority don't have and just want their unreasonable lifestyle excepted as being reasonable and part of the norm. Anyone who will not except their demands they demonize and don't like. Basically they are LGBT bigots who hate.

 

No one is suggesting their actions be restricted. In a discussion about HIV among homosexuals robini asked

Its the PREVALENCE of HIV among homosexuals. And that would be its prevalence in relation to the prevalence among the rest of the population.

 

Well I wouldn't know how many gays are into anal but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

What special privileges do they want?

Your opinion on what is or isn't reasonable isn't relevant.

What are they demanding?

Not sure still that anybody is trying to convert everybody to homosexuals. So you're first post was what, a lie?

 

What do you care what gay people do in their bedroom?

- - - Updated - - -

The prevalence isn't very high. We are talking about 0.34% of men who have sex with men.

 

What they "want" has evolved into demands. Demands they expect the government to bring about. Personally I don't think government has any business trying to dictate the sexual morality of the masses through indoctrination and government mandates.

 

You know a person has no backing when they have to distort statistics, even use information that was retracted to make a claim.
Stats don't lie, but liars do stats.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct. I merely point out you are being deceitful.
And you still haven't addressed if you ever posted or said anything truthful in your life.

- - - Updated - - -

Lots of people are bigots, some where it proudly, as I do in the case of ignorant people. I am bigoted against ignorance and proudly share it.
So why do people who don't like gays like to be called a bigot. By definition, that is what they are.