Username:
Comment:

Check here

Brendan Rizzo

Talk about having outdated facts... (not to mention myopic ones; has he even HEARD of the AIDS pandemic in Africa?)

Allegory for Jesus

That stat is worthless as a point of comparing the risk of drug injection and male-male sex, because you don't know how much each one is contributing to said 91%. To say nothing of the risks that have nothing to do with AIDS, of which homosexual sex has much fewer than intravenous drug use (or illicit drug use in general).

When looking at all AIDS cases in which male-male sex may be a factor, it includes 75% of male cases (and 60% of all cases). (Of course, this is only true of America, where the brunt of the AIDS epidemic is borne by the gay community, due to the fact that it started there. This is not true of all AIDS affected countries). Total of 470,000 AIDS cases, 270,000 due to male-male sexual contact, with or without shared needles. Assume that 5% of population is gay (underestimate). The number of gay men with AIDS is 0.1% of the American population (300 million)and the men with AIDS is 4% of the total gay male population (estimated 7.5 million).

Even assuming all AIDS patients were gay, the reasoning is backwards because it does not look at the impact on the total gay population, thus allowing you to assess "risk". The spoiler: only 5% of the male gay community would be infected if every male AIDS patient happened to be gay. Not exactly the same level of risk that would be suggested by the totally inane "91%!!1!1!!" statistic.

aaa

You are a terrible liar.

Hive

"Use a fucking condom if you're having vaginal or anal sex with a male."

And if you care about your partner, use a condom when getting oral sex. There's just as much risk of giving your partner STDs that way as when you're having PIV intercourse. The giver of oral is more at risk from catching STDs than the receiver is. Swallowing fluids creates a risk for HIV.

Mister Spak

" That means that homosexual behavior is just as risky and just as dangerous as injection drug use"

No, it means fundie-enforced fail is more dangerous than anything else. Needle exchange programs have been shown to reduce HIV transmission by 40%, yet fundies block these programs, causing people to be infected by HIV, making christianism more dangerous than homosexual drug use.

In Africa and Europe it was something else called straight sex. Should we stop it too?

The largest group of people with HIV are heterosexual women.

Swede

Bzzz! Wrong; you can't add two groups and say that both are just as dangerous, without stating the individual group percentage.

Sweden and the US of A combined have about 318* million citizens. That means that Sweden is just as large as the US. Or, ya know, not!

Who's glamorizing homosexuality, btw? We just accept the fact that there are homosexuals, and move on with our lives.
Could we please glamorize people with epilepsy next? It would be nice to be glamorous for a bit...

* Old figures from Wikipedia.

Professor M

And if you care about your partner, use a condom when getting oral sex. There's just as much risk of giving your partner STDs that way as when you're having PIV intercourse.

Um...no, there isn't. The risk of transmission of most STIs via oral sex isn't zero, but it's still far, far lower than PIV or penile-anal insertive sex. Safe oral is still a good idea, but even unsafe oral isn't even on the same page as below-the-waist penetrative sex. (Yes, this means that the traditional defining gay male sex act is less likely to result in disease transmission than the act that heterosexuals have been drilling into the minds of the last few generations of gay men as the defining gay male sex act. And yes, this means that heterosexuals bear some moral responsibility for the spread of HIV among gay men due to said campaign of heterocentrist redefinition. But no, it doesn't mean that straight people are entitled to rewrite biology to cover up their own guilt.)

CanadianBroad

Right. Of course.

Because(questionable) HIV infection percentages are the only measure of how risky a given behaviour is.

Idiot.