Commentary: Stonewall Columbus Pride Parade reminiscent of a Fourth of July parade

Jun 23, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Lantern

A Pride Parade walker looks to throw bracelets at crowds that lined the street. Pride Parade, part of Stonewall Columbus Pride Festival 2013, took place June 22 on High Street.

Comments
481 - 500 of 605 Comments Last updated Jul 20, 2013

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#506
Jul 9, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip, can you be less of a coward for once, and drop the puppets? It's embarrassing.
It must be difficult for you to realize that more than one American citizen is opposed to the LGBTQIABCDEF agenda.

I do not live in or near Dayton, OH.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#507
Jul 9, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Cannibalism, rape, incest, filicide and same-sex behaviors are observed in the animal kingdom; irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick by which to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Cannibalism, rape, incest, filicide and same-sex behaviors are observed in the animal kingdom; irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick by which to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.
And it's rational to think that homosexuality is actually as harmful as cannibalism, rape, incest, filicide becaaaauuuuuse...?
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
It must be difficult for you to realize that more than one American citizen is opposed to the LGBTQIABCDEF agenda.
I do not live in or near Dayton, OH.
Is that so? Unhide your location then.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#508
Jul 9, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you recognize no objective standard; however, you insist that others are morally obligated to respect yours.
How quaint.
I recognize the objective standard that nobody has the right to harm me or violate my rights without good reason; and in turn, I have no right to harm another or violate their rights without good reason. The government's job is to determine "good reason" in some circumstances; and to referee when one citizen's rights are in conflict with another citizen's rights (or the rights of government), and determine which right is superior in others.(Our) government has no right to make laws that violate or deny rights unless it shows it has a valid governmental purpose as its reason for doing so.
Marriage, from its inception, is a reflection of Nature's laws.
The state has always recognized and supported this fact because all good civil law flows from the natural law.
Bad laws are based on a different moral system -- like relativism or utilitarianism [though you deny any moral system exists].
I don't deny it exists, I simply realize that it is changing, partly as a result of society's increasing understanding of itself, and partly as a consequence of an increasing desire for self-rule and self-determination (and less reliance on "authority").
The fact remains that either way, we legislate morality --- the only question is which morality ought to be legislated.
Since different religions have different views on morality, only a view based on human rights can be adequate (I mean, you don't want our laws based on Islamic morals, do you?).
Strangely, you believe that 21st century homosexuals are suddenly wiser than the natural law,
I don't know that, nor do I claim to. I simply realize that they have the same right to self-determination ("pursuit of happiness") as everyone else.
and all of the great thinkers of the ages who acknowledged it as the basis of our civilization.
They were a product of their times the same as we are a product of ours. I can appreciate their contributions,not as something to adhere to, but as something to build on.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#509
Jul 9, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what are you doing on Topix nature-lover?
You should be in D.C. demanding that Congress pass legislation protecting and promoting cannibalism, rape, incest and filicide.
They're not likely to review those things which can be demonstrated to cause harm or violate the rights of others. Your comparison is ridiculous.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#510
Jul 9, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And it's rational to think that homosexuality is actually as harmful as cannibalism, rape, incest, filicide becaaaauuuuuse...?
<quoted text>
Is that so? Unhide your location then.
The CDC has plentiful stats on the harm inherent in same-sex behaviors.

I have been participating in this forum for ~3 years.
The regulars know and can vouch that I am not the poster from Dayton, OH.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#511
Jul 9, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I recognize the objective standard that nobody has the right to harm me or violate my rights without good reason; and in turn, I have no right to harm another or violate their rights without good reason. The government's job is to determine "good reason" in some circumstances; and to referee when one citizen's rights are in conflict with another citizen's rights (or the rights of government), and determine which right is superior in others.(Our) government has no right to make laws that violate or deny rights unless it shows it has a valid governmental purpose as its reason for doing so.
Once more, you have presented your superior rights theory without providing the basis of it -- that is, the standard from which you define "harm."
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't deny it exists, I simply realize that it is changing, partly as a result of society's increasing understanding of itself, and partly as a consequence of an increasing desire for self-rule and self-determination (and less reliance on "authority").
Objective standards do not change.
Self-rule w/less reliance on authority [i.e., objective standard]= anarchy

If all standards are relative, the law is useless.
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since different religions have different views on morality, only a view based on human rights can be adequate (I mean, you don't want our laws based on Islamic morals, do you?).
Human rights stem from natural law, as evidenced by our founding documents.
No matter how hard one tries, one cannot divorce same-sex behaviors from morality.
And that is the reason you refuse to acknowledge an objective standard.
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't know that, nor do I claim to. I simply realize that they have the same right to self-determination ("pursuit of happiness") as everyone else.

They were a product of their times the same as we are a product of ours. I can appreciate their contributions,not as something to adhere to, but as something to build on.
Redefinition is not "building on" -- it is replacing.

You support the redefinition of natural law by 21st century homosexuals; therefore, you believe them to be wiser than the law and all of history's greatest thinkers, who have acknowledged its governance throughout millennia.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#512
Jul 9, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not likely to review those things which can be demonstrated to cause harm or violate the rights of others. Your comparison is ridiculous.
By what standard do you define "harm"?
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#513
Jul 9, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The CDC has plentiful stats on the harm inherent in same-sex behaviors.
I have been participating in this forum for ~3 years.
The regulars know and can vouch that I am not the poster from Dayton, OH.
Are you talking about HIV infection? HIV infection isn't related to homosexuality, but unprotected sex. That's why HIV rates are so high in Africa, due to religious attitudes that fight the use of condoms. Unprotected anal and vaginal sex are both risky behaviors due to tearing of the anus or vagina during sex can expose fluids to the bloodstream, thus causing infection. Unprotected woman-to-woman sex has an almost zero percent HIV rate, much lower than unprotected, vaginal, heterosexual sex. Also, who are these people? Just reveal your location already, and quit being a coward.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#514
Jul 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The CDC has plentiful stats on the harm inherent in same-sex behaviors.
I have been participating in this forum for ~3 years.
The regulars know and can vouch that I am not the poster from Dayton, OH.
If HIV is your worry, you should support gays marrying. Studies show that marriage lowers HIV infection rates.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#515
Jul 9, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about HIV infection? HIV infection isn't related to homosexuality, but unprotected sex. That's why HIV rates are so high in Africa, due to religious attitudes that fight the use of condoms. Unprotected anal and vaginal sex are both risky behaviors due to tearing of the anus or vagina during sex can expose fluids to the bloodstream, thus causing infection. Unprotected woman-to-woman sex has an almost zero percent HIV rate, much lower than unprotected, vaginal, heterosexual sex. Also, who are these people? Just reveal your location already, and quit being a coward.
ATLANTA, Georgia [08/24/09]- An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times [50x] more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population. Dr. Amy Lansky revealed this statistic during a plenary session at the 2009 HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.

The CDC had already revealed last year that approximately 53% of the estimated 56,300 new HIV cases in 2006 were in homosexual men, with the African American population being particularly affected.

The new statistics, however, estimate the prevalence of HIV/AIDS relative to the homosexual population, which allows comparisons to other groups in the wider population. Because of the difficulty of determining the homosexual population, the CDC had to estimate. Based on a variety of national surveys, they based their statistics on the median estimate that homosexual men constitute 4 percent of the overall male population, reports RH Reality Check.

According to Dr. Lansky, then, based on the 4 percent [4%], the CDC estimates that in 2007 there were 692.2 new HIV cases per 100,000 homosexual men - or fifty times [50x] more cases than the rest of the population.

While merely an approximation, the CDC's announcement confirms previous statistics and studies that indicate vastly disproportionate occurrence of sex-related diseases in homosexuals. According to a February 2007 study, for example, homosexual men with HIV are 90 times [90x] more likely to develop anal cancer than the rest of the population.

Earlier this year, as another example, the Centers for Disease Control released a statistical report indicating that homosexual men made up 65% of the reported primary and secondary syphilis cases in 2007. A report from the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2006 revealed that 51% of people infected with HIV in the country were homosexual men.

----> In fact, the statistics on HIV/AIDS led one group, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, to state in 2006 that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease," in a billboard ad campaign geared to reducing rates of HIV infection.

While homosexualists have actively suppressed such statistics in the past and focused on portraying HIV/AIDS as a disease affecting the whole population in an equal fashion, the statistics' increasing undeniability has forced their hand. Rather than admit any inherent problem with homosexual practice itself, however, the apparent prevalence of disease among practicing homosexuals has led them to switch tactics and use these statistics to urge governments and other organizations to increase support to the homosexual communities.

***

My location is not in or near Dayton, OH.
And I could care less whether or not you believe it.
Even TonyD2 knows that I am not the poster from Dayton, OH.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#518
Jul 9, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
If HIV is your worry, you should support gays marrying. Studies show that marriage lowers HIV infection rates.
Well, this post represents my third attempt.
The auto-mod continues to censor this article.
And I can certainly understand why.
A homosexual man sharing the nitty-gritty about the same-sex lifestyle is revolting.

Same-sex Marriage: It’s Not About Monogamy

http://tinyurl.com/qylevlu
They cannot kill a spook

Mishawaka, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#519
Jul 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, this post represents my third attempt.
The auto-mod continues to censor this article.
And I can certainly understand why.
A homosexual man sharing the nitty-gritty about the same-sex lifestyle is revolting.
Same-sex Marriage: It’s Not About Monogamy
http://tinyurl.com/qylevlu
Filthy scum. Think of an orgy on a septic tank.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#520
Jul 9, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Once more, you have presented your superior rights theory without providing the basis of it -- that is, the standard from which you define "harm."

All the basis I need is in the following sentence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal (not just straight people), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Harm is simply the violation of rights. We (governments) have determined that some forms of "harm" are acceptable in certain circumstances (self-defense is one example, taking of money by the government (taxes) is another). The least amount of harm necessary (preferably none) to achieve a valid government purpose is the goal. That's asssuming you have a valid government purpose, which you've yet to provide.

[QUOTE]Objective standards do not change.[QUOTE]

That's certainly not true. There are any number of different moral standards around the world, based on the experiences and observations (objective) of those who adhere to them. It is the shrinking of the world, due to increased access to long-distance travel, that brings these sometimes conflicting views together.

[QUOTE]Self-rule w/less reliance on authority [i.e., objective standard]= anarchy

Anarchy=NONE. I'm not proposing NONE. I'm proposing "as little as is necessary to protect all of the citizens and their rights."

[QUOTE]If all standards are relative, the law is useless.
Nobody said ALL standards are relative. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, agree? Those aren't relative standards are they? It's YOU who are applying relative standards to different people, not me.
Human rights stem from natural law, as evidenced by our founding documents.
Bullshit. You must read these documents ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY than I do.
No matter how hard one tries, one cannot divorce same-sex behaviors from morality.
But we CAN divorce morality from the law in common-sense fashion, using the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

And that is the reason you refuse to acknowledge an objective standard.

I have presented a completely objective standard (One that, by the way, has no inconsistencies or double-standards).
Redefinition is not "building on" -- it is replacing.

Really? You're marriage is going to be different if gays are allowed to marry?

[QUOTE]You support the redefinition of natural law by 21st century homosexuals; therefore, you believe them to be wiser than the law and all of history's greatest thinkers, who have acknowledged its governance throughout millennia.
Nope. I don't redefine natural law. Nobody does. Not even the person who coined the term marriage in the first place.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#521
Jul 9, 2013
 
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said ALL standards are relative. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, agree? Those aren't relative standards are they? It's YOU who are applying relative standards to different people, not me.
<quoted text>
Bullshit. You must read these documents ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY than I do.
<quoted text>
But we CAN divorce morality from the law in common-sense fashion, using the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.
And that is the reason you refuse to acknowledge an objective standard.
I have presented a completely objective standard (One that, by the way, has no inconsistencies or double-standards).
<quoted text>
Nope. I don't redefine natural law. Nobody does. Not even the person who coined the term marriage in the first place.
Declaration of Independence, second sentence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The "Creator" who "created" all men equal under the "Laws of Nature" did not then, or now, approve of same-sex behaviors. When this document was written, sodomy was punishable by execution throughout the states. In fact, in 1778, Thomas Jefferson himself attempted to lessen the punishment by proposing the penalty of castration; the Virginia legislature rejected his proposal.

Further, sodomy laws remained on various state books across these United States of American until 2003, a mere decade ago.

It is only the moral relativism of the radical Progressive movement of the 21st century that has tossed this nation's moral foundations into the sewer.

Relativism is intellectual nonsense -- those who embrace it claim there are no absolutes even as they claim, via the state, the absolute right to impose their views on others.

Marriage existed for millenia before this nation's inception.
Our government, founded upon the "Laws of Nature" as established by "Nature's God," recognized marriage as reflective of Nature's laws and foundational to civilized society.

The definition of marriage has not been coercively forced upon anyone.
It simply has existed through the ages as a building block of society.

It is Progressives who seek to destroy the foundations of our society and nation by arbitrarily redefining them. It is not enough for them that same-sex practitioners can freely live their lives in this nation, and freely declare that their same-sex relationships are acceptable.

No, indeed. Progressives [i.e., collectivists] demand that all citizens must accept it without criticism; in fact, it must become the law of the land. We see the same tactics used with abortion, contraception, global warming, wealth redistribution, et al.

The Progressive "gods," using the power of the state to apply their will, have become the arbiters of "morality."

But...there is no liberty in coercion.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#522
Jul 9, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
ATLANTA, Georgia [08/24/09]- An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times [50x] more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population. Dr. Amy Lansky revealed this statistic during a plenary session at the 2009 HIV Prevention Conference in Atlanta.
The CDC had already revealed last year that approximately 53% of the estimated 56,300 new HIV cases in 2006 were in homosexual men, with the African American population being particularly affected.
The new statistics, however, estimate the prevalence of HIV/AIDS relative to the homosexual population, which allows comparisons to other groups in the wider population. Because of the difficulty of determining the homosexual population, the CDC had to estimate. Based on a variety of national surveys, they based their statistics on the median estimate that homosexual men constitute 4 percent of the overall male population, reports RH Reality Check.
According to Dr. Lansky, then, based on the 4 percent [4%], the CDC estimates that in 2007 there were 692.2 new HIV cases per 100,000 homosexual men - or fifty times [50x] more cases than the rest of the population.
While merely an approximation, the CDC's announcement confirms previous statistics and studies that indicate vastly disproportionate occurrence of sex-related diseases in homosexuals. According to a February 2007 study, for example, homosexual men with HIV are 90 times [90x] more likely to develop anal cancer than the rest of the population.
Earlier this year, as another example, the Centers for Disease Control released a statistical report indicating that homosexual men made up 65% of the reported primary and secondary syphilis cases in 2007. A report from the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2006 revealed that 51% of people infected with HIV in the country were homosexual men.
----> In fact, the statistics on HIV/AIDS led one group, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, to state in 2006 that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease," in a billboard ad campaign geared to reducing rates of HIV infection.
While homosexualists have actively suppressed such statistics in the past and focused on portraying HIV/AIDS as a disease affecting the whole population in an equal fashion, the statistics' increasing undeniability has forced their hand. Rather than admit any inherent problem with homosexual practice itself, however, the apparent prevalence of disease among practicing homosexuals has led them to switch tactics and use these statistics to urge governments and other organizations to increase support to the homosexual communities.
***
My location is not in or near Dayton, OH.
And I could care less whether or not you believe it.
Even TonyD2 knows that I am not the poster from Dayton, OH.
You just ignored everything I said. It isn't homosexuality itself. It's the unprotected sex that's the issue. Anyone who practices unprotected sex, whether it be anal or vaginal, is at risk for HIV infection. Period. It's the tearing and the fluids in the bloodstream that causes infection. Lesbian sex has almost zero infection chance. Are you telling me lesbians are more moral than heterosexuals? As a man of color, I can tell that the reason why HIV rates are high among black men is because there is huge amounts of homophobia within the black community. They'r shamed into living a life called the "Down Low." This secrecy builds up not dangerous habits that are self-destructive. If people were less homophobic, and more educated about sex(you're against sex education for some reason, even though teen pregnancy rates are at all time highs, HIV wouldn't be that big of a problem.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#523
Jul 9, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
...Lesbian sex has almost zero infection chance. Are you telling me lesbians are more moral than heterosexuals?...
Uh...no.

http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/female-homos...

...Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93% of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs...

Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals. However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion’s share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men, and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian. Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men. Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7% of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.

Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Consequently, the lesbians’ median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. Lesbians were 3 to 4 times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men. The study “demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non-WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports.”

Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners. Intravenous drug abuse was nearly 6 times as common in this group. In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30% had bacterial vaginosis. Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.

In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as “crabs,” genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported. Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#524
Jul 9, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, this post represents my third attempt.
The auto-mod continues to censor this article.
And I can certainly understand why.
A homosexual man sharing the nitty-gritty about the same-sex lifestyle is revolting.
Same-sex Marriage: It’s Not About Monogamy
http://tinyurl.com/qylevlu
This article is BS. Marriage is a legal term within the US that attaches to it over 1,000 different rights that cross all sectors of public life. Civil unions aren't recognized by federal government, so they don't even begin to cover half the the rights given by the word marriage. Also, I like how your article omitted these parts of the New York Times Article:

That consent is key.“With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator,“but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.”

The study also found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions, Dr. Hoff said. A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer

And this:

Open relationships are not exclusively a gay domain, of course. Deb and Marius are heterosexual, live in the East Bay and have an open marriage. She belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and maintained her virginity until her wedding day at 34. But a few years later, when the relationship sputtered, both she and her husband, who does not belong to the church, began liaisons with others.

“Our relationship got better,” she said.“I slept better at night. My blood pressure went down.”

Deb and Marius also have rules, including restrictions on extramarital intercourse.“To us,” Marius said,“cheating would be breaking the agreement we have with each other. We define our relationship, not a religious group.”

Your article blatantly took out these parts in order to smear homosexuals. Heterosexuals engage in open relationships too. It's just that heterosexuals tend to be less honest about it. That's it. Honesty leads to stability and safety. If people were more honest with themselves, then maybe the divorce rate wouldn't be over 50%. Support gay marriage, and sex education in schools, if you genuinly care about HIV infection rates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetr...

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#525
Jul 9, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
You just ignored everything I said. It isn't homosexuality itself. It's the unprotected sex that's the issue. Anyone who practices unprotected sex, whether it be anal or vaginal, is at risk for HIV infection. Period.
You didn't read the post, did you?
Such a shame.
Here's another with a pie chart for visual learners.

http://www.returnofkings.com/3882/the-truth-a...

FTA: "...All told, some 73% of HIV infections are accounted for by men who have sex with men and intravenous drug users, groups that comprise less than 5% of the US population.

...

HIV and AIDS are very rare among straight, drug-free whites and Asians. Hispanic and black straight men are at higher risk, but still vastly below that of homosexual men and intravenous drug users. Comprehensive data on how HIV is being transmitted among heterosexuals is not available in the CDC report. But you can be sure that much of it is occurring because of people sleeping with high risk groups (a woman sleeping with a promiscuous homosexual man, or a man having unprotected anal sex with a heroin addict). Research has consistently shown that even among street hookers, HIV is rare to non-existent so long as the hookers were not using intravenous drugs.

Among men who don’t sleep with men and don’t do intravenous drugs, the prevalence of HIV is about 0.1%, while the comparable figure for gay men is 16%."

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#526
Jul 9, 2013
 
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
...As a man of color, I can tell that the reason why HIV rates are high among black men is because there is huge amounts of homophobia within the black community. They'r shamed into living a life called the "Down Low." This secrecy builds up not dangerous habits that are self-destructive. If people were less homophobic, and more educated about sex(you're against sex education for some reason, even though teen pregnancy rates are at all time highs, HIV wouldn't be that big of a problem.
Homophobia:

1: non-medical, non-scientific pejorative term used to demean and ridicule any disagreement with or disapproval of aberrant, deviant, and unnatural same-sex behaviors.

Opprobrium:

1: something that brings disgrace
2:a: public disgrace or ill fame that follows from conduct considered grossly wrong or vicious

Moral opprobrium: Bring it back.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#527
Jul 9, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh...no.
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/female-homos...
...Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93% of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs...
Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals. However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion’s share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men, and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.
Among the difficulties in establishing the pathologies associated with lesbianism is the problem of defining who is a lesbian. Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men. Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7% of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.
Not only did lesbians commonly have sex with men, but with lots of men. They were 4.5 times as likely as exclusively heterosexual controls to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Consequently, the lesbians’ median number of male partners was twice that of exclusively heterosexual women. Lesbians were 3 to 4 times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV disease-homosexual, bisexual, or IV drug-abusing men. The study “demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non-WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports.”
Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners. Intravenous drug abuse was nearly 6 times as common in this group. In one study of women who had sex only with women in the prior 12 months, 30% had bacterial vaginosis. Bacterial vaginosis is associated with higher risk for pelvic inflammatory disease and other sexually transmitted infections.
In view of the record of lesbians having sex with many men, including gay men, and the increased incidence of intravenous drug use among lesbians, lesbians are not low risk for disease. Although researchers have only recently begun studying the transmission of STDs among lesbians, diseases such as “crabs,” genital warts, chlamydia and herpes have been reported. Even women who have never had sex with men have been found to have HPV, trichomoniasis and anogenital warts.
Your article's homepage cites NARTH. The same NARTH that had one of its co-founders, George Reekers, outed as a homosexual despite NARTH being a part of "Gay Conversion Therapy", which is not supported by any, major, credible, medical organization.

Here's a real source:

"To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005)."

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

7 Users are viewing the Columbus Forum right now

Search the Columbus Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Lois Lerner linked to another erased hard drive 3 min d pantz 64
Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 12 min d pantz 29,093
Little Boy Blue's Got a Job in Town 4 hr Duke for Mayor 6
Columbus to spread more wastewater sludge on fa... 4 hr They cannot kill a Spook 1
Columbus mayor to DNC: Pick us or lose Ohio 4 hr Star On 47 7
OH Who do you support for Auditor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 6 hr They cannot kill a Spook 231
Family Says Murder-Suicide Victim Was Trying To... 6 hr They cannot kill a Spook 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••