Gay Men Account for 61% of Aids Infec...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#21 Feb 28, 2012
Actually, the CDC estimates that only 1 in 4 HIV+ heteros are aware of their condition.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes they are, but at a much, much lower rate. Try as you must, but you positively can not convince anyone that HIV and AIDS is as significant of a problem among heteros as it is among homos. It's simple math, but obviously not simple enough for you to comprehend.
The Ultimate Kaptoz

Indianapolis, IN

#22 Feb 28, 2012
Most men that claim to be bisexual are actually gay also. Yes they may of gotten with women and had a few kids, They sneak out to the parks and restrooms and have sex with Gay men.Not about beating up on any particular group , The true facts show whose the most promiscuous in society. I worked with this one gay man and all he did was talk about the sex he had with young teen boys, He was 36 yrs old, He said young teen boys don't know what they want yet, They are not sure what they like he told me, He would hand out calling cards at east gate mall to the teen boys in the restrooms there.I wouldn't even call so called gay men totally gay, That same man I worked with that was so called born gay always flirted with women and made sexual references about their bodies.I guess when you are a gay man you can do that and a woman won't file sexual harassment charges or when a gay man fondles you, He did that many times also.Yes you may have more so called bisexual men spreading the disease now, That makes sense being the population is larger along with more doing illegal drugs.The gay men that contracted aids have long since died from the 80's.Their lifestyle choices have left a legacy of death behind too remain until we stop treating people who make bad choices sexually like real humans.I know it sounds hardcore and cruel to say such a thing. But like I said before we use to quarantine people with diseases to prevent it's spread.To prevent an epidemic. We have that in aids and hiv. This President lifted a law Bush passed preventing people with aids from other countries from coming to America.Mainly out of Africa.
Linda Bledsoe

Cincinnati, OH

#23 Feb 28, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Actually, the CDC estimates that only 1 in 4 HIV+ heteros are aware of their condition.
<quoted text>
Actually, that has nothing to do with the erroneous point you are trying to make.

While it is obviously a problem, it is one that fails in comparison to the homosexual HIV and AIDS problem. Nothing you post about heteros will change this, but please continue to try if it adds a sense of worth to your day. ;)
Repubs Are Often Bi

Freetown, IN

#24 Feb 28, 2012
The Ultimate Kaptoz wrote:
Most men that claim to be bisexual are actually gay also. Yes they may of gotten with women and had a few kids, They sneak out to the parks and restrooms and have sex with Gay men.Not about beating up on any particular group , The true facts show whose the most promiscuous in society. I worked with this one gay man and all he did was talk about the sex he had with young teen boys, He was 36 yrs old, He said young teen boys don't know what they want yet, They are not sure what they like he told me, He would hand out calling cards at east gate mall to the teen boys in the restrooms there.I wouldn't even call so called gay men totally gay, That same man I worked with that was so called born gay always flirted with women and made sexual references about their bodies.I guess when you are a gay man you can do that and a woman won't file sexual harassment charges or when a gay man fondles you, He did that many times also.Yes you may have more so called bisexual men spreading the disease now, That makes sense being the population is larger along with more doing illegal drugs.The gay men that contracted aids have long since died from the 80's.Their lifestyle choices have left a legacy of death behind too remain until we stop treating people who make bad choices sexually like real humans.I know it sounds hardcore and cruel to say such a thing. But like I said before we use to quarantine people with diseases to prevent it's spread.To prevent an epidemic. We have that in aids and hiv. This President lifted a law Bush passed preventing people with aids from other countries from coming to America.Mainly out of Africa.
You worked with Phil Hinkle?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25 Feb 28, 2012
Wow...such extensive research...you KNEW one guy! If they are attracted to men and women, they are bisexual, regardless of their various approaches to find companionship.

The park and restroom scene is almost solely the province of closeted gays or bi's. Few openly-gay men have any need for such covert activities unless they live in a very isolated or rural settings without much gay social life.

If you wnt to quarantine people who harm the health and lives of others, quarantine smokers. The fact is that they cause a lot more damage, and through casual contact at that.
The Ultimate Kaptoz wrote:
Most men that claim to be bisexual are actually gay also. Yes they may of gotten with women and had a few kids, They sneak out to the parks and restrooms and have sex with Gay men.Not about beating up on any particular group , The true facts show whose the most promiscuous in society. I worked with this one gay man and all he did was talk about the sex he had with young teen boys, He was 36 yrs old, He said young teen boys don't know what they want yet, They are not sure what they like he told me, He would hand out calling cards at east gate mall to the teen boys in the restrooms there.I wouldn't even call so called gay men totally gay, That same man I worked with that was so called born gay always flirted with women and made sexual references about their bodies.I guess when you are a gay man you can do that and a woman won't file sexual harassment charges or when a gay man fondles you, He did that many times also.Yes you may have more so called bisexual men spreading the disease now, That makes sense being the population is larger along with more doing illegal drugs.The gay men that contracted aids have long since died from the 80's.Their lifestyle choices have left a legacy of death behind too remain until we stop treating people who make bad choices sexually like real humans.I know it sounds hardcore and cruel to say such a thing. But like I said before we use to quarantine people with diseases to prevent it's spread.To prevent an epidemic. We have that in aids and hiv. This President lifted a law Bush passed preventing people with aids from other countries from coming to America.Mainly out of Africa.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26 Feb 28, 2012
On the contrary, this came up because of blood donations. Gays are far more likely to be tested and those who are positive don't give blood. Heteros are far less likely to give blood and therefore have no reason NOT to give blood.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that has nothing to do with the erroneous point you are trying to make.
While it is obviously a problem, it is one that fails in comparison to the homosexual HIV and AIDS problem. Nothing you post about heteros will change this, but please continue to try if it adds a sense of worth to your day. ;)
Linda Bledsoe

Cincinnati, OH

#27 Feb 29, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
On the contrary, this came up because of blood donations. Gays are far more likely to be tested and those who are positive don't give blood. Heteros are far less likely to give blood and therefore have no reason NOT to give blood.
<quoted text>
Gays are more likely to have HIV and AIDS. That's the bottom line. Testing or not, they are exponentially more likely to be infected. You have no concept of statistics if you don't understand the logic behind the ban on gay donors. All blood is potentially infected, but gays are hundreds of times more likely to have HIV and AIDS, so that is why they are banned. It's simple math and statistical analysis based on facts, not some evil agenda against the homos. At times I think you might possibly have a shred of intelligence in you, but then you post crap like this that totally verifies my initial thoughts relating to your irreversible idiocy. You are either a complete fool with an IQ of around 75 or a troll.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#28 Feb 29, 2012
No, we are not "hundreds of times more likely" to have HIV. Even taking the 61% overstatement of the topic, that does not mean hundreds of times higher risk.

If ALL blood is potentially infected, then ALL blood donors need to be screened and/or all blood taken needs to be tested. Writing off an entire portion of the population is the work or a fool and a coward.

On the other hand, as I noted earlier, keeping me from donating endangers other people, not me. Anyone who dies because they can't get my blood type is the responsibility of those who make these idiotic policies. No skin off my tuchus.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
Gays are more likely to have HIV and AIDS. That's the bottom line. Testing or not, they are exponentially more likely to be infected. You have no concept of statistics if you don't understand the logic behind the ban on gay donors. All blood is potentially infected, but gays are hundreds of times more likely to have HIV and AIDS, so that is why they are banned. It's simple math and statistical analysis based on facts, not some evil agenda against the homos. At times I think you might possibly have a shred of intelligence in you, but then you post crap like this that totally verifies my initial thoughts relating to your irreversible idiocy. You are either a complete fool with an IQ of around 75 or a troll.
Linda Bledsoe

Cincinnati, OH

#29 Feb 29, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, we are not "hundreds of times more likely" to have HIV. Even taking the 61% overstatement of the topic, that does not mean hundreds of times higher risk.
If ALL blood is potentially infected, then ALL blood donors need to be screened and/or all blood taken needs to be tested. Writing off an entire portion of the population is the work or a fool and a coward.
On the other hand, as I noted earlier, keeping me from donating endangers other people, not me. Anyone who dies because they can't get my blood type is the responsibility of those who make these idiotic policies. No skin off my tuchus.
<quoted text>
You are not being realistic, troll. They exclude gays because they are hundreds of times more likely to have HIV and AIDS. Yes, hundreds of times is accurate language to use here. I won't do your research for you, troll. Your blood is simply too risky and dangerous for them to even bother wasting time analyzing. They want to help as many people as possible with the lowest amount of time wasted on HIV/AIDS blood and ruined samples. You don't have to like it, but crying about it won't change anything, troll.
MOOTOWN

United States

#30 Feb 29, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Wow...such extensive research...you KNEW one guy! If they are attracted to men and women, they are bisexual, regardless of their various approaches to find companionship.
The park and restroom scene is almost solely the province of closeted gays or bi's. Few openly-gay men have any need for such covert activities unless they live in a very isolated or rural settings without much gay social life.
If you wnt to quarantine people who harm the health and lives of others, quarantine smokers. The fact is that they cause a lot more damage, and through casual contact at that.
<quoted text>
Let's think about this for a moment. Sex in public bathrooms? No wonder these deviants spread disease. Certainly one could be discreet and carry on in a clean hotel. Public encounters have more to do with a sickness because the perversion is drawing them into preying on kids, exposing themselves in public venues and the like.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#32 Feb 29, 2012
Ultimately, it doesn't harm me at all. If the patient dies due to a blood shortage, well, that's just too fu**ing bad.

But you still aren't addressing all the infected heteros who pose the same risk. It's almost impossible to determine if gays pose a greater risk since straights are far less likely to get tested and thus are more likely to donate when positive.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not being realistic, troll. They exclude gays because they are hundreds of times more likely to have HIV and AIDS. Yes, hundreds of times is accurate language to use here. I won't do your research for you, troll. Your blood is simply too risky and dangerous for them to even bother wasting time analyzing. They want to help as many people as possible with the lowest amount of time wasted on HIV/AIDS blood and ruined samples. You don't have to like it, but crying about it won't change anything, troll.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#33 Feb 29, 2012
Are you one of those idiots who think you get the clap from a toilet seat? Unprotected sex is the danger, not the venue. The encounters I noted are due more to being closeted than to being gay. Nobody mentioned kids; that's your fantasy.

BTW--heteros have bathroom sex as well.
MOOTOWN wrote:
<quoted text>Let's think about this for a moment. Sex in public bathrooms? No wonder these deviants spread disease. Certainly one could be discreet and carry on in a clean hotel. Public encounters have more to do with a sickness because the perversion is drawing them into preying on kids, exposing themselves in public venues and the like.
garf

Indianapolis, IN

#34 Feb 29, 2012
MOOTOWN wrote:
<quoted text>Let's think about this for a moment. Sex in public bathrooms? No wonder these deviants spread disease. Certainly one could be discreet and carry on in a clean hotel. Public encounters have more to do with a sickness because the perversion is drawing them into preying on kids, exposing themselves in public venues and the like.
True. What kills me is the gay men who have sex with men or little boys and scream that they aren't gay. Suuuurrrree you aren't!!! Quit spreading aids.
Linda Bledsoe

Cincinnati, OH

#35 Feb 29, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
But you still aren't addressing all the infected heteros who pose the same risk. It's almost impossible to determine if gays pose a greater risk since straights are far less likely to get tested and thus are more likely to donate when positive.
<quoted text>
I am not addressing it because it most surely is not the same risk. Your failure seems to be in understanding statistical probability. Nothing is guaranteed to keep AIDS 100% out of the blood supply, but restricting homosexuals is an easy way to greatly minimize the risk. Entities who consider themselves to be gay are a very small percentage of the total population, yet they account for over half of all reported AIDS diagnoses. By banning gays, the blood bank is still accepting over 95% of the population as donors while cutting out well over half of the AIDS patients with one simple decision based on nothing more than mathematical probability, elementary school level common sense, and basic medical integrity. I am sorry you are offended and don't understand the numbers, but you're old enough to know better.

Now, I also realize that you deeply desire there to be multiple millions of heteros running around out there un-tested and infected with HIV and AIDS, but that simply isn't happening. They would eventually get sick and need to be treated, and therefore diagnosed and noted in medical journals. You are flat-out wrong on this (which I have a feeling you already know), but please continue to keep trolling. I enjoy proving you wrong on a public forum. ;)

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#36 Feb 29, 2012
Chuckles, the CDC says only 1 in 4 heteros is aware of their HIV status. Moreover, blacks are 7 times morel likely to have it than whites, so why aren't you banning blacks from giving?

The stats would require not just the number of MSM's who are HIV+, but how many donate blood. THAT is your risk factor, not those who are tested and found to be negative.
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not addressing it because it most surely is not the same risk. Your failure seems to be in understanding statistical probability. Nothing is guaranteed to keep AIDS 100% out of the blood supply, but restricting homosexuals is an easy way to greatly minimize the risk. Entities who consider themselves to be gay are a very small percentage of the total population, yet they account for over half of all reported AIDS diagnoses. By banning gays, the blood bank is still accepting over 95% of the population as donors while cutting out well over half of the AIDS patients with one simple decision based on nothing more than mathematical probability, elementary school level common sense, and basic medical integrity. I am sorry you are offended and don't understand the numbers, but you're old enough to know better.
Now, I also realize that you deeply desire there to be multiple millions of heteros running around out there un-tested and infected with HIV and AIDS, but that simply isn't happening. They would eventually get sick and need to be treated, and therefore diagnosed and noted in medical journals. You are flat-out wrong on this (which I have a feeling you already know), but please continue to keep trolling. I enjoy proving you wrong on a public forum. ;)
Linda Bledsoe

Cincinnati, OH

#37 Mar 1, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
the CDC says only 1 in 4 heteros is aware of their HIV status. Moreover, blacks are 7 times morel likely to have it than whites, so why aren't you banning blacks from giving?
The stats would require not just the number of MSM's who are HIV+, but how many donate blood. THAT is your risk factor, not those who are tested and found to be negative.
<quoted text>
Even if that were all true (I am not going to bother to verify your numbers), your position is inherently flawed because of the huge descrepancy between the per-capita HIV and AIDS patients amongst homosexuals versus any other demographic of people you can think of in this country. It's the equivalent of a cup of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool in that it doesn't have a significant effect on the whole. You simply don't understand statistics and are desperate to make this a hetero or black issue because you are a troll and a bigot. AIDS is predominantly a gay issue in this country...always has been and probably always will be. The fact that you hate blacks and heteros has nothing to do with the reality of it.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#38 Mar 1, 2012
Since gays can't donate, it's not an issue at all. Since heteros who ARE HIV+ aren't getting tested and are donating, THAT is the issue here. Allowing gays to donate isn't the risk you seem to think it is, since you are working solely of presumptive numbers and not on the reality of the situation. Gays are far mroe likely to get tested and those with HIV don't donate blood; moreover, however YOU want to play the numbers, that is only 5% of ALL gay men.

If someone you know dies because they can't get enough A+ blood, don't blame me. I am HIV- and I used to donate a lot. Maybe you;ll get some nice straight ex-con to come in and give a bag; since they are hetero, it must be completely safe, right?
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if that were all true (I am not going to bother to verify your numbers), your position is inherently flawed because of the huge descrepancy between the per-capita HIV and AIDS patients amongst homosexuals versus any other demographic of people you can think of in this country. It's the equivalent of a cup of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool in that it doesn't have a significant effect on the whole. You simply don't understand statistics and are desperate to make this a hetero or black issue because you are a troll and a bigot. AIDS is predominantly a gay issue in this country...always has been and probably always will be. The fact that you hate blacks and heteros has nothing to do with the reality of it.
Linda Bledsoe

Cincinnati, OH

#39 Mar 1, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Since gays can't donate, it's not an issue at all. Since heteros who ARE HIV+ aren't getting tested and are donating, THAT is the issue here. Allowing gays to donate isn't the risk you seem to think it is, since you are working solely of presumptive numbers and not on the reality of the situation. Gays are far mroe likely to get tested and those with HIV don't donate blood; moreover, however YOU want to play the numbers, that is only 5% of ALL gay men.
If someone you know dies because they can't get enough A+ blood, don't blame me. I am HIV- and I used to donate a lot. Maybe you;ll get some nice straight ex-con to come in and give a bag; since they are hetero, it must be completely safe, right?
<quoted text>
I was explaining to you why homos can't donate. Those who manage the blood supply made their decision to ban gays based on logic, safety, and statistical analysis. Your fantasies about this being some sort of crusade against gays by heteros is just so far off-base, even for a bigot like you. Nobody is going to die because the blood centers won't allow the highest risk demographic to donate blood into their donor supply, it will be the exact opposite...people will live because of the ban on gay donors. Do you ever stop and think before you post on here?
whatareyoutalkin gabout

Saltville, VA

#40 Mar 31, 2012
well simple solution don't have sex.. Lol.. just do test tube babies.. sex isn't that important..
John

Carmel, IN

#41 Jun 5, 2012
Linda Bledsoe wrote:
<quoted text>
I was explaining to you why homos can't donate. Those who manage the blood supply made their decision to ban gays based on logic, safety, and statistical analysis. Your fantasies about this being some sort of crusade against gays by heteros is just so far off-base, even for a bigot like you. Nobody is going to die because the blood centers won't allow the highest risk demographic to donate blood into their donor supply, it will be the exact opposite...people will live because of the ban on gay donors. Do you ever stop and think before you post on here?
Many people are harmed or die every year from having to use old blood (or just having a shortage)... and with testing the way it is, the expected increased incidence of HIV transmission by allowing MSMs to give (with the standard deferral) is something like one person every few hundred years. This restriction, especially given the leniency on other things and the refusal to consider other hugely important demographics to the statistics (education, income, race, etc), just doesn't make much sense. Example: A lifetime manogomous gay couple, who were even tested negative for HIV, can't give ... ever ... but some guy who had unprotected anal sex with hundreds of HIV+ prostitutes could try and give a year later (if the prostitutes were female).

This ban is primarily political in nature. The blood banks are against the ban BTW. I'm not saying all MSMs should be allowed to give, but there surely a better way to do this. And, just FYI, I keep saying MSM because there are a heck of a lot more of them than just gay-identified men (and I doubt many of those non-gays with a SS experience know or pay attention to the MSM restriction anyway).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Indianapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mike Flynn takes the Fifth 6 hr Lock Flynn Up Now... 4
Carrier moving jobs to Mexico in spite of Trump... 6 hr Trumped Carrier W... 1
Fox News 19 hr Buh Bye Fox 24
Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back ag... 20 hr Lock Him Up 1
Mike Flynn Lied to Pentagon on Security Clearan... 20 hr Lock Him Up 1
Manafort, Stone Turn Over Russia Documents to S... Mon Lock Em Up 1
Trumpís Budget Proposals Raising Concerns Over ... Mon Trumped Farmers 1

Indianapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Indianapolis Mortgages