Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

There's nothing new in this debate which we haven't already covered ad nauseam. We all know that unprotected sex is risky, and that gay men are a risk group for HIV etc. What the homophobic crowd consistently fail to do is come up with any constructive, realistic way forward, as consistently requested by brownjenkins and others and roundly ignored in favour of malicious trolling.

I disagree, but am in a hurry - will have to post later..

And what's with this unhealthy and deeply suspect obsession that homophobes have with the details of homosexual activity? Oh, I've already answered that:

I did want to address this, however, since I see you're on - do you think anyone here is a homophobe, and if so, what is your definition?

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Actually, the latter, though I still wonder about the scat obsession.

Just say no, then? Or is gerbil packing OK?

Has anyone from PETA interviewed gerbils on their point of view?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Then, TWFM ...
Data, Dude, data. Sorry you don't like data,

Well, you might be earning your breat as a gynecologist (IIRC), but I earn my bread with data analysis. I am almost surely the most advanced Stata programmer on this board, and a very highly skilled Stata programmer in the world (although I know that there are many better programmer than I). Out of the 9.75h that I spent on the job today, probably 85% was spent in data analysis, the remaining in supervising other's people data analysis. My PhD dissertation is entirely comprised of data analysis.

I would be glad to take "your" data and reanalyze it, but I certainly would not do it for free (alhtough I would consider doing it pro-bono for the right law firm).
I will not believe "analysis" done by ideologically (homophobically) motivated agencies and never peer reviewed.

I reaffirm my point 3. You claim that I don't want to hear but it is you that don't want to hear. I said several times already that any human action (even going to sleep) entails risks. Decisions are always made in condition of risk or uncertainly. A trade off is always made, even when eating a stake. Some decisions are clearly stupid (dominated, in economic parlance) but among certain options the best choice can be done only in reference to what an individual values (they are on the frontier of the possibility set, in economic parlance). For example, to say that gays should abstain from all sex is ludicrous because it does not take into account that there is something good (individually and ethically) in same-sex sex.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree, but am in a hurry - will have to post later..

I did want to address this, however, since I see you're on - do you think anyone here is a homophobe, and if so, what is your definition?

I don't know for sure. I don't think you are, so I wouldn't include you in that "crowd". I believe that you have posted kinda-positive statements about gays in this thread, and suggested constructive ways in which they might live within the religious principles that you would apply to everyone. That's the sort of discussion which is worth having, even though no-one is going to change their mind, because it makes clear that there is some sort of understanding of the humanity at the heart of the issue.

I think inked might be, on the basis of his previous correspondence: I'm pretty much in agreement with LWFM on that one in that all he seems interested in doing is saying gay=disease + disgustingness. I may have missed it but I haven't read anything constructive from him on this. However, his recent post suggested that he might well apply his opprobrium equally.

EDIT - oh, I see I haven't answered your question. I would define a homophobe as someone who is afraid of or who hates or dislikes GLB people.

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Well, you might be earning your breat as a gynecologist (IIRC), but I earn my bread with data analysis. I am almost surely the most advanced Stata programmer on this board, and a very highly skilled Stata programmer in the world (although I know that there are many better programmer than I). Out of the 9.75h that I spent on the job today, probably 85% was spent in data analysis, the remaining in supervising other's people data analysis. My PhD dissertation is entirely comprised of data analysis.

I would be glad to take "your" data and reanalyze it, but I certainly would not do it for free (alhtough I would consider doing it pro-bono for the right law firm).
I will not believe "analysis" done by ideologically (homophobically) motivated agencies and never peer reviewed.

I reaffirm my point 3. You claim that I don't want to hear but it is you that don't want to hear. I said several times already that any human action (even going to sleep) entails risks. Decisions are always made in condition of risk or uncertainly. A trade off is always made, even when eating a stake. Some decisions are clearly stupid (dominated, in economic parlance) but among certain options the best choice can be done only in reference to what an individual values (they are on the frontier of the possibility set, in economic parlance). For example, to say that gays should abstain from all sex is ludicrous because it does not take into account that there is something good (individually and ethically) in same-sex sex.

TWFM,

Well, do you wear a seat belt - with or without the force of law? Do you get vaccinated for communicable diseases to protect society - voluntarily or by force of law? The fact is that certain risky behaviours are governed by society in a variety of settings (oh, meat packing or purity standards for medicinals or packaging of flammables etc). Why is it that the recommendations backed by multiple government statistical studies in a variety of countries documenting the risks of specific sexual behaviours are attacked?

Why is sexual behaviour so special?

And, has anyone checked in with the gerbil lobby for their point of view a la Gaffer? Or is PETA sufficient?

[Jonathan]

Why is sexual behaviour different? Maybe because it's you and your partner's choice and your choice ONLY if you shoud have sex, how you should have it and how often. It's no one else's business. Perhaps you and your partner are taking a risk when you have sex but no, I don't think that endangers society.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, do you wear a seat belt - with or without the force of law? Do you get vaccinated for communicable diseases to protect society - voluntarily or by force of law? The fact is that certain risky behaviours are governed by society in a variety of settings (oh, meat packing or purity standards for medicinals or packaging of flammables etc). Why is it that the recommendations backed by multiple government statistical studies in a variety of countries documenting the risks of specific sexual behaviours are attacked?

Why is sexual behaviour so special?

And, has anyone checked in with the gerbil lobby for their point of view a la Gaffer? Or is PETA sufficient?

no one is attacking your studies... as i've said, homosexual males need to be even more careful (though, in reality, everyone has a risk factor, so everyone should be careful)

[inked]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Why is sexual behaviour different? Maybe because it's you and your partner's choice and your choice ONLY if you shoud have sex, how you should have it and how often. It's no one else's business. Perhaps you and your partner are taking a risk when you have sex but no, I don't think that endangers society.

You confuse actions done privately with consequences affecting public. I am trying to make the point that private actions have public consequences. The motorcyclist may refuse to wear a helmut (a private action) but long-term care for veggies after head injuries quickly become (usually within 90 - 180 days, or the upper limit of the insurance policy ~$1 million on average) very quickly.

Analogously, sexual behaviours which propagate HIV quickly become public responsibilities ("you must find a cure for HIV"). In fact, the gay community and subsequently heterosexuals with HIV were rushed to govermental study and interventions and assistance.

Anybody want to draw the analogy between helmuts and condoms?

Same for heterosexuals and the consequent children when not contracepting.

There is no such thing as a totally private consequence of sexual activity. The adage "you play, you pay" is a natural consequence in either case and has PROFOUND societal effects.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

I at least have data on which to base my statements. IR contends that they are all ideologically motivated and therefore everything I say is wrong.

get it right inked. you submit twisted and biased INTERPRETATIONS of data. You dont submit data despite repeated requests to just submit the actual data and not the We Hate Gays interpretation of it...

But, not suprisingly, one doesn't see gay research on correlative hetersosexual behaviours because that would dis-establish the contention that the behaviours are alike.

Is this your way of coping out from giving correlative data then? Try again inked. If you are going to castigate all gays for engaging in horrific sexual acts then youll need to show that these acts dont occur in the heterosexual population. You keep giving us nothing correlatively. You had that one single figure of 25% that you said yourself you came up with off the top of your head... not very useful and certainly doesnt justify your indignation over your data not being taken seriously.

Hence, one merely hears the mantra "homosexual behaviours and hetersexual behaviours are identical" - which is patently not true.

Is someone going to inform me what a "homosexual behavior" is exactly? Ive only been asking in this thread for over a year now.

The argument wasn't that heterosexuals can't do it or don't do it. The argument was that there is not the same set of practices to the same degree of incidence.

Ah tune changing are we. Ok so if its now "degree of incidence" then basically you are saying its ok for heterosexuals to have anal sex but not for homosexuals? Isnt that basic discrimination right there? Furthermore, if you are going to discriminate against people based on "degree of incidence" then where do you set the bar? Heterosexuals are ok because only 25% of them have anal sex? What if its actually 50% or 60%? When can we start calling "heterosexual behavior" evil exactly? And what I just dont understand is why the behavior of any given homosexual is bad, EVEN those homosexuals who DONT have anal sex... while the behavior of any given heterosexual ISNT bad, EVEN those heterosexuals who DO have anal sex... Thats simply a complete and utter double standard and therefore invalidates everything you are asserting here.

I don't know about math in your educational system, but I was taught that that regardless of the numbers involved, the difference between 97% of homosexuals engaging in anal intercourse and 25% of heterosexuals engaging in anal intercourse was a real difference.

Ha ha! You want to play with math? Be careful your own bogus numbers will come back to haunt you you realize. Lets have a look shall we...

Some think that the homosexual population of this country may be as high as 10%. I note you vehemently disagree with that and instead in the past have focused on a number more around 1%. Well then... Lets look at both ends of the range shall we... 10% of 300 million people is 30 million people. 1% is 3 million people. 97% (and by the way I notice your "reliable" data conveniently skipped from 91% to 97% in one post...) of 3 million is 2.91 million. 97% of 30 million is 29.1 million. So thats 2.91 million to 29.1 million gays happily using the ol back door. This is of course based on the assumption that ALL gays in the country are sexually active which they arent...

Now... 99% of 300 million is 297 million and 90% of 300 million is 270 million. 25% of 297 million is 74.3 million. 25% of 270 million is 67.5 million. So what have we here... it seems as few as 67.5 million HETEROSEXUALS in this country may engage in anal sex. Meanwhile... a maximum of 29.1 million homosexuals engages in this "homosexual" behavior. Gosh inked... I dont know about my math skills but seems to me 67 million is a whole lot bigger then 29 million. They did teach you that kinda stuff in doctor school right?

So what do we conclude from this detailed analysis? That the "cost" of this foul behavior on society is greater because of the behaviors of HETEROSEXUALS then it is from the behaviors of homosexuals. And you want to castigate only homosexuals for this? Whats the point of that inked if the majority of it is happening among heterosexual couples? Face it, you attempt to manipulate the numbers to your favor to make homosexuals look bad yet you ignore the clear obvious fact that it doesnt hold water when you compare it to "heterosexual behavior".

By the by, I am waiting for the argument that some homosexuals engage in heterosexual acts of intravaginal intercourse means that all homosexuals are really heterosexuals!

So you are contending now that heterosexual behavior is ONLY vaginal sex? Man you sure live to a high standard dont you. Sorry kids. Kissing is out. Gays can do that.

The fact is its ALL sex acts. Its not one or the other its just sex. If you are going to discriminate based on anal sex then youve condemned many heterosexuals as well. If you adjust your tactics and now attempt to discriminate against gays based on the frequency of gays having anal sex in the population then you are going to need more gays to justify the tremendous "concern" you have about the general public health of the country because of evil bad gay anal sex. And NOW you are attempting to say if you arent capable of engaging in vaginal sex with your partner then what you are doing is wrong? Well how nice of you inked. Why not just say anyone who has at least one penis and one vagina between the two of them doesnt need to be judged here. Any one else... well you are bad and your sex is bad and disgusting and OH BY THE WAY your BEHAVIOR is defined by your sex acts while mine isnt. Yeah thats fair and even Id say...

Folks, I am not homophobic because I delineate the differences in homosexual behaviour and heterosexual behaviour. IT IS THE BEHAVIOURS that are the risks from a medical standpoint.

But you are because you dont bother saying word one about the equivalent "BEHAVIOURS" among heterosexuals. The fact you bring up homosexual vs heterosexual at all tells us what your agenda is all about. Instead of saying anal sex is more risky then vaginal sex and leaving it at that you choose to say "gay" sex is riskier then "straight" sex. And its just not necessary UNLESS you want to make gays out to be the sexually immoral degenerates you continually try to set them up as.

Want to do a poll on behaviours here? I'm willing to bet that there will be a sharp difference in frequency betwixt heterosexuals and homosexuals in the incidence of anal intercourse, rimming, fisting, golden shower participation, and mud rolling. And, if you want to include oral sex forms, I think you'd best distinguish between oral stimulation to orgasm for either party as the primary means of release versus uses as foreplay. I bet the differences would be smaller but still significant.

go for it if it gives you a rush. Im thinking in this particular population you wont find too much extreme sexual behavior from either side. I do note that we did have a good half dozen admitted young homosexuals in THIS VERY thread who all said their sexual experience was none or nearly none... So you may want to pick a different population so you can spin your numbers a little better. Hey maybe you can get the gay data from the Gay Swinger Association of America and you can get the straight data from the Elderly Nun Association of America. Then you can make some wonderful "comparisons" befitting the Family Council itself .

[inked]

IR,

"Is someone going to inform me what a "homosexual behavior" is exactly? Ive only been asking in this thread for over a year now."

#360 post
I believe that is known as attributive attack. You attribute what you wish so you may attack a straw man. However, if you cannot correlate the behaviours, allow some research to do so:

"The following figures are taken from one of the largest (850 pp.) studies on this subject, "The Gay Report" (1979), by two homosexual researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young. The pair and their respondents are stunningly candid. According to their research:

Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex;
91% engage in anal sex;
82% engage in "rimming".......,
22% engage in "fisting".............,
23% engage in "golden showers".............., and
4% engage in "scat" ..............and in "mud rolling".............."

I await your correlative heterosexual data on percentage participations.

Most studies of which I am aware report ~25% of heterosexuals report anal intercourse. I do not recall a percentage of rimming in heterosexual studies but would gladly be enlightened. I have never see "fisting" reported on a percentage basis in hetersosexuals, nor for that matter golden showers or scat or mudrolling.

I do not deny that the behaviours could be performed by heterosexuals. The incidence if occuring would be much less in all categories, most likely, as the marked differential in anal intercourse attests.

But, please, show me the studies to prove me wrong that BEHAVIOUR is the difference.
------------------

"Ah tune changing are we. Ok so if its now "degree of incidence" then basically you are saying its ok for heterosexuals to have anal sex but not for homosexuals? Isnt that basic discrimination right there? Furthermore, if you are going to discriminate against people based on "degree of incidence" then where do you set the bar? Heterosexuals are ok because only 25% of them have anal sex? What if its actually 50% or 60%? When can we start calling "heterosexual behavior" evil exactly? And what I just dont understand is why the behavior of any given homosexual is bad, EVEN those homosexuals who DONT have anal sex... while the behavior of any given heterosexual ISNT bad, EVEN those heterosexuals who DO have anal sex... Thats simply a complete and utter double standard and therefore invalidates everything you are asserting here."

Same response as above.

"Now... 99% of 300 million is 297 million and 90% of 300 million is 270 million. 25% of 297 million is 74.3 million. 25% of 270 million is 67.5 million. So what have we here... it seems as few as 67.5 million HETEROSEXUALS in this country may engage in anal sex. Meanwhile... a maximum of 29.1 million homosexuals engages in this "homosexual" behavior. Gosh inked... I dont know about my math skills but seems to me 67 million is a whole lot bigger then 29 million. They did teach you that kinda stuff in doctor school right?

So what do we conclude from this detailed analysis? That the "cost" of this foul behavior on society is greater because of the behaviors of HETEROSEXUALS then it is from the behaviors of homosexuals. And you want to castigate only homosexuals for this? Whats the point of that inked if the majority of it is happening among heterosexual couples? Face it, you attempt to manipulate the numbers to your favor to make homosexuals look bad yet you ignore the clear obvious fact that it doesnt hold water when you compare it to "heterosexual behavior".

Gee, why do more gay guys, WSM per CDC, have an increasing incidence of the HIV? Cause they don't do the math or the HIV doesn't do the math?

"go for it if it gives you a rush. Im thinking in this particular population you wont find too much extreme sexual behavior from either side. I do note that we did have a good half dozen admitted young homosexuals in THIS VERY thread who all said their sexual experience was none or nearly none... So you may want to pick a different population so you can spin your numbers a little better. Hey maybe you can get the gay data from the Gay Swinger Association of America and you can get the straight data from the Elderly Nun Association of America. Then you can make some wonderful "comparisons" befitting the Family Council itself."

IR, I note the following which I doubt you read to since you seem to get awfully excited at the header on the site. Analyze away!


1. Bill Roundy, "STD Rates on the Rise," New York Blade News, December 15, 2000, p. 1.
2. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among Men Who Have Sex with Men--San Francisco, California, 1994-1997," Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), January 29, 1999, p. 45.
3. Ibid.
4. Ulysses Torassa, "Some With HIV Aren't Disclosing Before Sex; UCSF Researcher's 1,397-person Study Presented During aids Conference," The San Francisco Examiner (July 15, 2000).
5. Jon Garbo, "Gay and Bi Men Less Likely to Disclose They Have HIV," GayHealth News (July 18, 2000). Available at: www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/news?record=136.
6. Ibid.
7. Jon Garbo, "Risky Sex Common Among Gay Club and Bar Goers," GayHealth News (January 3, 2001). Available at: www.gayhealth.com/templates/97863827496203.../ index.html?record=35.
8. "Bisexuals Serve as 'Bridge' Infecting Women With HIV," Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000). Available at: www.mb.com/ph/scty/2000%2D07/sc073004.asp.
9. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see alsoBell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
10. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.
11. "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.
12. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.
13. David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3.
14. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L.A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, edited byJ. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
15. A.P.M. Coxon et al., "Sex Role Separation in Diaries of Homosexual Men," AIDS, July 1993, pp. 877-882.
16. G. J. Hart et al., "Risk Behaviour, Anti-HIV and Anti-Hepatitis B Core Prevalence in Clinic and Non-clinic Samples of Gay Men in England, 1991-1992," AIDS, July 1993, pp. 863-869, cited in "Homosexual Marriage: The Next Demand," Position Analysis paper by Colorado for Family Values, May 1994.
17. Bill Roundy, "STDs Up Among Gay Men: CDC Says Rise is Due to HIV Misperceptions," The Washington Blade (December 8, 2000). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/a.
18. Richard A. Zmuda, "Rising Rates of Anal Cancer for Gay Men," Cancer News (August 17, 2000). Available at: cancerlinksusa.com/cancernews_sm/Aug2000 /081700analcancer.
19. "Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer," The Washington Blade (June 2, 2000). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/000602hm.
20. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) September 4, 1998, p. 708.
21. "Viral Hepatitus B--Frequently Asked Questions," National Center for Infectious Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)September 29, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/b/faqb.
22. "Hepatitus C: Epidemiology: Transmission Modes" Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 1998.Available at: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis /c/edu/1/default.htm.
23. "Gonorrhea," Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) September, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/ Fact_Sheets/FactsGonorrhea.htm.
24. "Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea."
25. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) January 29, 1999, p. 48.
26. J. Vincelette et al., "Predicators of Chlamydial Infection and Gonorrhea among Patients Seen by Private Practitioners," Canadian Medical Association Journal 144 (1995): 713-721.
27. SPR Jebakumar et al., "Value of Screeningfor Oropharyngeal Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection," Journal of Clinical Pathology 48 (1995): 658-661.
28. "Some Facts about Syphilis," Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)October 1999. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/ Fact_Sheets/Syphilis_Facts.
29. "Syphilis Elimination: History in the Making," Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)October 1999. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/dstd/Fact_...Syphilis_Facts.
30. C. M. Hutchinson et al., "Characteristics of Patients with Syphilis Attending Baltimore STD Clinics," Archives of Internal Medicine 151 (1991): 511-516.
31. "Syphilis Elimination."
32. Homosexual advocates object to the use of this term (Gay Bowel Syndrome), which they say unfairly stigmatizes homosexual behavior. Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 55.
33. "STD Treatment Guidelines: Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis," (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) 1993. Available at: /www.ama-assn.org/special/std /treatmnt/guide/stdg3470.htm.
34. Jack Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men and Women (San Francisco: Down There Press, 1998), p. 220.
35. Health Implications, p. 56.
36. "STD Treatment Guidelines."
37. Health Implications; See Morin, Anal Pleasure and Health, p. 220, 1.
38. Health Implications.
39. "Table 9. Male Adult/Adolescent AIDS Cases by Exposure Category and Race/Ethnicity, Reported through December 1999, United States," Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention: available at: www/cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1102/table9.
40. "HIV/AIDS Among US Women: Minority and Young Women at Continuing Risk," Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/women.
41. Ibid.
42. "Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer."
43. "Young People at Risk: HIV/AIDS among America's Youth," Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youth.htm.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. "Need for Sustained HIV Prevention Among Men who Have Sex with Men," Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention (Centers for Disease Control)November 14, 2000. Available at: www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.
47. "Resurgent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Disease among Men Who Have Sex with Men--King County, Washington, 1997-1999," Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Centers for Disease Control, September 10, 1999, pp. 773-777. Available at: www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ mm4835a1.
48. "Need for Sustained HIV Prevention."
49. Bob Roehr, "Anal Cancer and You," Between the Lines News (November 16, 2000). Available at: http://www.pridesource.com/cgi-bin/a...rticle=3835560.
50. "Studies Point to Increased Risks of Anal Cancer."
51. Rhonda Smith, "HPV Can be Transmitted between Women," The Washington Blade (December 4, 1998). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/9901011h.
52. Ibid.
53. Katherine Fethers et al., "Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women," Sexually Transmitted Infections 76 (2000):348.
54. Ibid., p. 347.
55. V. Gonzales, et al., "Sexual and Drug-Use Risk Factors for hiv and STDs: A Comparison of Women with and without Bisexual Experiences," American Journal of Public Health 89 (December 1999): 1846.
56. Ibid.
57. "Bisexuals Serve as 'Bridge' Infecting Women with HIV," Reuters News Service (July 30, 2000).
58. Ibid.
59. "Sexually Transmitted Infections," p. 347.
60. Ibid.
61. Rhonda Smith, "Childbirth Linked with Smaller Breast Tumor Size," The Washington Blade (December 17, 1999). Available at: www.washblade.com/health/000114lh.
62. "HPV can be Transmitted between Women."
63. Katherine Fethers et al., "Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women," Sexually Transmitted Infections, July 2000, p. 345.
64. Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244.
65. Peter Freiberg, "Study: Alcohol Use More Prevelent for Lesbians," The Washington Blade, January 12, 2001, p. 21.
66. Ibid.
67. Karen Paige Erickson, Karen F. Trocki, "Sex, Alcohol and Sexually Transmitted Diseases: A National Survey," Family Planning Perspectives 26 (December 1994): 261.
68. Ibid.
69. Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (December 1994): 469-492.
70. Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
71. D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
72. "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
73. Health Implications, p. 79.
74. J. Bradford, et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
75. R. Herrell, et al., "A Co-Twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
76. D. Fergusson, et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999), p. 876-884.
77. Ibid.
78. Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
79. Quoted in Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 286

From New York to Washington to California, the Gay Blade to the CDC to the Bureau of Justice to the various medical journals cited to the San Francisco Examiner, it's all just one VAST HETEROSEXUAL CONNSPIRACY. How did they co-opt all those folks? Inquiring minds want to know! Let me guess, it's a CIA mass hallucinogen critically dispersed over the USA and Canada and only affecting statiticians who happen to be dealing with STD's, is that it?

IR, I see the errors of my ways, it comes from documented consequences of sexual behaviours! By the by, the references do refer to studies of heterosexual and homosexual people, but you have to read the titles of the articles to see that. And they specifically address male and female homosexual behaviours and risks, bisexuals, and -oh my gosh-heterosexuals!

[Insidious Rex]

Its amazing how you simply side step 95% of what I say...

Originally Posted by inked

IR, I see the errors of my ways, it comes from documented consequences of sexual behaviours! By the by, the references do refer to studies of heterosexual and homosexual people, but you have to read the titles of the articles to see that. And they specifically address male and female homosexual behaviours and risks, bisexuals, and -oh my gosh-heterosexuals!

Im sorry, which one of those was the one with the direct correlative data again? And not simply a study of homosexuals alone? Since youve studied them all thoroughly Im sure you can provide me with those details...

As for your contention that "homosexual behavior" is anal sex, rimming, blow jobs, etc. well once again how can you justify saying that when more heterosexuals engage in those behaviors then homosexuals. I still cant see how you can justify this with a straight face.

[Rían]

hmmm, I hear "twisted", "spin", "copped out", "castigate", "changing tune", "bogus", "foul", "manipulate", "evil", "bad", "disgusting", "discriminate", "agenda" ....

Looks like your data is making someone nervous, inked!

[Insidious Rex]

Calling something like it is is supposed to make me nervous? Is that classic creationist thinking or something?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Looks like your data is making someone nervous, inked!

no... it's mostly his smug attitude

of course, i can be smug too

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

As for your contention that "homosexual behavior" is anal sex, rimming, blow jobs, etc. well once again how can you justify saying that when more heterosexuals engage in those behaviors then homosexuals.

We're talking percentages, that's why.

From THE DATA - a higher percentage of homosexuals engage in anal sex than do heterosexuals.

Again, let's take it to a non-emotional group for a comparison.

Let's look at professional athletes and non-professional athletes/non-athletes.

I hope people here can at least admit that professional athletes abuse steriods more than non-professional athletes/non-athletes do.

Let's say (again, I'm making up percentages - you can claim different numbers, but I certainly hope you guys can admit that professional athletes abuse steriods more than non-professional athletes/non-athletes do) - Let's say:

30% of professional athletes abuse steriods,
3% of couch potatoes abuse steroids.

Well, OF COURSE there will be MUCH more abusers in the second group because the second group is MUCH larger! Does that mean that we get all het up and start sending out bulletins and mailers and post informative papers on bulletin boards all over the USA (except in pro-athlete locker rooms)? Or perhaps is it wiser to target professional athletes, a group with a higher risk rate, with this info? Of course, the latter option would be chosen by any sensible person, wouldn't you guys agree?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

no... it's mostly his smug attitude

frankly, I agree that his post attitude could be a little warmer and more caring, but having "talked" to him "in person" (via PMs) and having seen him as a caring person, I can see past it.

I don't blame him, however, because when he posts DATA, then character insults (which have nothing to do with the DATA) start getting hurled at him. And the more DATA he posts, the more heated the totally-irrelevant-to-the-subject insults get. Which leads me to think that there is nothing better (such as, say, DATA) to be thrown at him.

[brownjenkins]

on that RÃ*an, i refer you to my post a few days back...

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

on the bigger issue... facts are not just about data, but what you choose to present... if there was a thread about catholicism, and every few weeks all i posted was "facts" about clergy abuse... people would probably (and rightly) accuse me of trying to discredit catholicism in general

no one could argue that the incidents were indeed "factual"... i've even seen studies online that say child abuse is more frequent among priests as a proportion of the general male population... but they could argue that by me constantly harping on only one aspect that i was skewing the picture

i don't judge a category of people by the "bad eggs", even if one can prove to me the the "bad eggs" are in fact a majority of the said population... and if i see someone else doing it, you can bet i will comment on it

that kind of categorizing clouds issues tremendously and takes the focus off the real issues at hand

[brownjenkins]

remember this thread is about Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, not about AIDS (for all those who like to stay on topic )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

We're talking percentages, that's why.

From THE DATA - a higher percentage of homosexuals engage in anal sex than do heterosexuals.

Again, let's take it to a non-emotional group for a comparison.

Let's look at professional athletes and non-professional athletes/non-athletes.

I hope people here can at least admit that professional athletes abuse steriods more than non-professional athletes/non-athletes do.

Let's say (again, I'm making up percentages - you can claim different numbers, but I certainly hope you guys can admit that professional athletes abuse steriods more than non-professional athletes/non-athletes do) - Let's say:

30% of professional athletes abuse steriods,
3% of couch potatoes abuse steroids.

Well, OF COURSE there will be MUCH more abusers in the second group because the second group is MUCH larger! Does that mean that we get all het up and start sending out bulletins and mailers and post informative papers on bulletin boards all over the USA (except in pro-athlete locker rooms)? Or perhaps is it wiser to target professional athletes, a group with a higher risk rate, with this info? Of course, the latter option would be chosen by any sensible person, wouldn't you guys agree?

Ok... nevermind the analogy doesnt hold because you arent genetically predisposed to be a steroid user as far as I know... while the whole genetic argumen about homosexuality is very much a wide open book with plenty of evidence for its possibility... But if you are going to maintain the argument that steroid use is costly to our society and therefore those awful athletes need to stop engaging in such immoral behavior for the sake of society because this many cases of steroids have been discovered then NO I wouldnt agree because sheer numbers is what you are starting with and you cant side step and say ignore the numbers just focus on the percentages when there are MANY many more non-athletes abusing steroids then there are athletes. If 10 million people over here are taking health risks and 1 million over there are why do you sit here and say ignore the 10 million lets get on the cases of the 1 million. makes no sense to me. It certainly seems to me the logical action to take is to say STEROID USE IS BAD FOR YOU. Whats wrong with that exactly? Why harrass the athletes for choosing to be athletic in the process and saying they are the cause of all this immoral steroid behavior and why dont they just get with the program and start being couch potatoes like the rest of us normal folk.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

on that RÃ*an, i refer you to my post a few days back...

Yes, I see what you are saying, and I agree that the big picture is the fairest and most accurate

However, there was a question about the risks of certain types of sexual behavior, and it is certainly pertinent to note which groups of people tend to engage in that behavior at a higher percentage, IMO. Inked is answering a question. and has submitted data relevant to that question from a number of sources.