- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidDid you actually read the article? Anyway, are you not going to deign to answer my question specifically addressed to you?
Yes, his statistic was actually too conservative.
Here in the US at least, 75% of AIDS cases are directly caused by male-to-male sexual contact.
http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
06 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KI didn't read the article I saw the graph and posted a link to it. Just a quick google, I'm no expert. Was i wrong? is 24,000+ not roughly 75% of 32,000+ reported AIDS cases?
Did you actually read the article? Anyway, are you not going to deign to answer my question specifically addressed to you?
Anyway I didn't see where you asked me a question but now I'm replying to it.
Conrau K said
I am unclear. Are RJhinds and Sumydid suggesting that some homosexual relationships are morally acceptable? What distinction in homosexual relationships do you consider morally significant?
As if I have to explain after all these posts... posts that either you are not bothering yourself to read, or just aren't comprehending.
The relationship between a same sex couple is not condemned by God. Unless that relationship includes the act of fornication. There is not a shred of evidence I'm aware of that supports God condemning 2 men holding hands, or feeling love for one another.
Is that clear enough? Should I rephrase in some other manner?
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidThe site you cite gives 66%
Yes, his statistic was actually too conservative.
Here in the US at least, 75% of AIDS cases are directly caused by male-to-male sexual contact.
http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
not sure what your point is regardless of the statistic.
?
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by wolfgang59I saw 24,000+ out of 32,000+ reported cases of AIDS are causes by male-to-male sexual contact. That's 75%.
The site you cite gives 66%
not sure what your point is regardless of the statistic.
?
And all I was doing was defending someone else's claim that over 50% of AIDS cases are due to homosexual sexual contact, which Conrau K challenged. I had no "point."
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidYou have misinterpreted the statistics. 73% of reported cases of AIDs were male. 63% of those were the result of male-to-male sex. That would mean that 45.99% of cases overall were the result of male-to-male sex. I will pass over the fact that there is a discrepancy between the statistics and the graph. It does not confer any credibility when there is such a blatant error. These statistics however only concern the period of 2009 and only in the USA. How could the year of 2009 in the USA be representative of all cases of AIDs?
I didn't read the article I saw the graph and posted a link to it. Just a quick google, I'm no expert. Was i wrong? is 24,000+ not roughly 75% of 32,000 reported AIDS cases?
Anyway I didn't see where you asked me a question but now I'm replying to it.
As if I have to explain after all these posts... posts that either you are not bothering yourself t ...[text shortened]... ng love for one another.
Is that clear enough? Should I rephrase in some other manner?
Another shortcoming, though perhaps answered elsewhere on the site, is that the nature of these male-to-male sexual interactions is not defined. We do not know what type of sexual activity was engaged in, whether contraceptives were used, whether the partners were in a serious relationship or whether they have multiple partners. It may turn out, for example, that the majority of diagnosed cases of AIDs occurred in prisons or as a result of prostritution. How do we know that these figures are representative of the gay community of 2009 America?
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidWhat is more telling is that all of the arguments he presented were previously brought up in this forum by atheists. So much for "believing" in the Christ.
Nope. I specifically asked for you to back up your assertion that God outlaws two people of the same sex to have love for one another.
And of course my reply was rhetorical, for God does not outlaw any such thing and you won't find a reference to it anywhere.
Funny that you diverted the whole thing with a rant on a completely different subject, but, that wasn't unexpected.
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." -- Matthew 7:17
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -- Matthew 7:20
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by SuzianneFor the win.
What is more telling is that all of the arguments he presented were previously brought up in this forum by atheists. So much for "believing" in the Christ.
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." -- Matthew 7:17
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." -- Matthew 7:20
Well played, my lady. Well played.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KThat is too many anyway you calculate it.
You have misinterpreted the statistics. 73% of reported cases of AIDs were male. 63% of those were the result of male-to-male sex. That would mean that 45.99% of cases overall were the result of male-to-male sex. I will pass over the fact that there is a discrepancy between the statistics and the graph. It does not confer any credibility when there is such ...[text shortened]... tion. How do we know that these figures are representative of the gay community of 2009 America?
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI gave you a thumb up for the first time, shame I had to read that last line though 😀
Although I am not one that believes homosexual relationships are morally
abominable, I believe the only solution is the education of the general
public in a similiar way that Whites and Blacks were educated to get along
better. You will probably have certain groups that will do things to exclude
others and bully them in school age children that will be ...[text shortened]... n a common solution. However, I doubt
that there will be a real solution until Christ returns.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThis isn't a matter of calculation. It is a matter of how meaningful and representative these statistics are. For all we know, as I said, the majority of cases of AIDs in men could be the result of gang rapes in prison. How could that meaningfully apply to this thread?
That is too many anyway you calculate it.
06 Nov 11
It is true that aids was more prevelant in gay communities, especially before aids was detected.
I would venture to guess, that becuase anal is such a high risk of transmitting std's, (much more than vaginal), most homosexuals are prolly even more cautious because of this fact.
Most gay people I know are more discreet than hetero's, in my experience.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI agree. I would be surprised if HIV cases were still more prevalent among gay men. There is much greater awareness. I believe cases of infection as a result of male-to-male sex would be from fringe groups, such as the pornography industry where 'bare back' pornography (that is, without a condom) is generally considered better.
Most gay people I know are more discreet than hetero's, in my experience.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by Conrau KWhen AIDS first began, it was considered a homosexual disease because
This isn't a matter of calculation. It is a matter of how meaningful and representative these statistics are. For all we know, as I said, the majority of cases of AIDs in men could be the result of gang rapes in prison. How could that meaningfully apply to this thread?
homosexuals were the ones getting it. Now it has spread to others.