HIV rises 50% among black gaysFollow

Found one.

The example in question primarily deals with China.

Still not sure what your point was, but there you go Now, answer my question from before: are you saying that married individuals are more likely to have unsafe sex with multiple partners than singles? I'd like to see your stats on that

An article published in 2009 in the Journal of Health Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal, examines the relationship between homosexual tolerance and AIDS rates. They found that an increase in tolerance significantly reduces the rate of HIV. They also found that laws that ban marriage between individuals of the same sex increase HIV rate by between 3 and 5 per hundred thousand.

A link to the study, which you won't bother to read.

Edited, Aug 4th 2011 3:48pm by Spoonless

Whatever, lagaga.

Damnit, I was just about to post "gbaji in 3...2...1...."

I wasn't able to find the link to that study, at least one that would work, but I found this, which is pretty much saying the same thing.

ITT: The opposite of what Varus has said is found to be true. No one surprised.

Before I found this page I had found a few other pages that had dead links to that PDF.

Link to PDF works just fine for me.

So it peaked at 2005. When civil partnerships passed into law. And after that they declined, yes? ]

Seems like you've shot yourself in the foot Varus, if acceptance of homosexuality did increase the incidence of HIV/AIDS, the numbers would still be climbing.



You really should read these things before posting them.

Edited, Aug 4th 2011 5:26pm by Nilatai

What other group of people share needles?

Those damn diabetics!

It's not using unclean needles though, is it. It's using "used" needles.

Point of order. It is indeed using "unclean" needles. You can reuse needles if you clean them properly. It's the fact that they're not clean, not that they are being reused which spreads the disease. My mom used to reuse needles all the time. She boiled them in a pot on the kitchen stove.

Semantics at this point IMO. If I take a needle which has never been used by anyone and dip it in HIV positive blood, then hand it to you to use for the very first time, you'll be exposed to HIV, right? It's not that the needle has been used before, but that it has a substance on it which may contain HIV that matters. Obviously, reuse of needles increases the likelihood of that, but it's still the fact that the needle is "dirty" that causes the infection. A dirty needle that's never been used will cause infection. A clean needle that is being reused will not.



I have read it. Pretty questionable methodology IMO. They tied rates of "risky" homosexual activity to the rate at which "cruisy" spots were listed in a gay periodical? Really? And used that in preference to state reported rates because... well, because the latter rates didn't correlate in any way to tolerance rates (read the whole thing, not just the parts you already agree with).


Additionally, their own explanation offsets some of the effect you're talking about. The reduced rate of HIV infection wasn't because current sexually active gay men became more responsible with their sexual behavior as a result of an increase in tolerance, but that the increase in tolerance resulted in more men coming out, thus increasing the total number of gay men to divide the rates of HIV infection by. We can assume that those men in less tolerant times would not have come out, but also would have been more cautious about their homosexual activities anyway. It's a wash really.


So we could perhaps argue that closeted gay men who are already cautious with their relationships will be more likely to come out (and perhaps even get married) if gay marriage is legalized in a given state. But there's no evidence to suggest that men who are openly gay prior to legalization/recognition of gay marriage will become any more "safe" about their sexual activities once that happens. All that happens is that a subset of men who currently are counted as heterosexuals (and have low HIV infection rates) will be counted as homosexuals.

It really doesn't support what you're saying at all.

That's dumb and you know that.

If the needle is clean, with no trace of AIDS, your blood, etc., then what's the difference between a clean used needle and a clean new needle? Even if the needle were new, if it isn't clean (rusted), then you can catch something.

They tried to make me go to rehab but I said 'no, no, no'

I haven't read the thread. This proves varus is wrong from the get-go:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576319043572865406.html?mod=e2fb

tl;dr- It says that we should be treating people who are infected with HIV, because treatment HUGELY reduces the transmission rate. i.e., the best way to get rid of it is not to ignore it, but to treat everyone who has it.

Somehow I doubt that.

If you read the article, because it will save you money.

The semantics of dirty needles. Only in the Asylum.

Another gay bash thread with the usual trio posting in it. Who da thunk?

Though this is more of a double whammy for virus...he gets to bash gays AND black people in one jab? SCORE!

Then Alma with the usual strawman attempts.

Then gbaji who prays his posts are long enough that people get tired of reading them and just agree with the foocker so he shuts up.

It's like watching reruns on Nick at Night, only the show foocking sucks.

The needle can be clean, doesn't mean it's contents are!

All in the Family.

/thread

Under that logic I can say "If you're having anal sex, then you're probably not using protection.".

It's not a moot point.