BS: major religions-homophobia II

Subject: RE: BS: major religions-homophobia II
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 10:29 AM

Wolfgang, I would judge you are not really looking for a response from me, given your initial statement of prejudice.

I was seriously interested in BDP giving data, but I guess that would just be too damn scientific of me, wouldn't it?

Keep it up Fionn...this is the last post for me. I will not get sucked into another pissing contest with anyone so rigid in their views.

Anyone else who is open and interested in reading about maverick views: click here

kat

Subject: RE: BS: major religions-homophobia II
From: Grab
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 08:46 AM

Fionn - sure. But my posts, like the way I talk, tend to be a bit scatter-gun, so I need to protect my back from anyone with thin skin! ;-)

Wolfgang and BDP, it does sound a bit strange. Anal sex was certainly used by hetero couples in the past for contraceptive reasons, but since modern condoms and the Pill, there's no need. Certainly it's higher risk than the normal variety, but the number of hetero ppl using it (esp unprotected) is likely to be low, and more due to preference than birth control. The risk for normal sex is lower, but the vastly greater number of hetero ppl having unprotected normal sex is likely to give greater absolute numbers of cases.

Wolfgang, not believing it doesn't mean that you wouldn't like the other person to come up with proof, simply that we don't think they're right. If the other person can say "I'm right bcos..." and give numbers and case studies to prove their point, they've got a much stronger case. If we can then say "Ah, but what about...?" and they say "Here's the numbers for that too", then they're pretty damn watertight.

Your first point is dead right, and backs up the para above. Science is all about testing theories against the real world. Sure, someone can have a far-out theory, and sure, that theory may be right, but we'll only find out if he's right when he proves it.

Not being an expert in the field (well, apart from the obvious on-the-job training ;-) I wouldn't know where to get numbers from, though. Anyone who can give numbers for anything should do so. Do we have any doctors/sociologists/epidemiologists on here?

Grab.

Subject: RE: BS: major religions-homophobia II
From: GUEST,Fionn sans cookie
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 06:50 AM

That last guest post was me, folks. (Who else?) Don't where the cookie went. Regards - Peter Kirker (aka Fionn)

Subject: RE: BS: major religions-homophobia II
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 06:46 AM

Grab, I didn't mean you to think I was offended - I thought you said it very well (the virus analogy), and of course you said it even better second time round. Couldn't agree more.

Mouethief, I thought I had become streetwise in the course of my lone crusade for World Atheism, but I am still occasionally surprised at how deep the indoctination can go.

It seems, to use the immortal phrase, that some of your best friends are homosexual - which shows what a decent, tolerant sort you are. But there is that niggling little problem about what they might want to get up to in private. This is where your religion comes in handy, with its pre-packaged off-the-shelf attitudes - one for every occasion, I expect. And the one for sodomy is brilliant! Nothing judgmental - just a nice restrained "expectation" that - unlike good old, respectably orientated you - your homosexual chums will refrain from doing what comes naturally. And the reason for this (wholly unjudgmental) expectation? Just that you happen to know that this is what the Lord himself might prefer. Smug, or what? I'd ask you to push your "expectations" up your ass, except you might enjoy the experience, which would surely be a sin.

Kat, I'm tempted to say that this thread is making strange bedfellows of us, but I don't want your sterling work to be undermined by association with my intemperate invective.*BG*

Subject: RE: BS: major religions-homophobia II
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 05:20 AM

katlaughing and science: two worlds in collision

Some respected researchers seem to have proven that testing HIV positive does NOT cause AIDS, but it is not in the ecomomic interests of the drug companies, etc. to admit this and back further research, etc.

As could have been expected, of all the research on AIDS the position of a maverick scientist who has nearly no backup in the community of researchers (and in the data) appeals to you most.

I'd like Blind Desert Pete to back up his statement claiming that heteros are catching AIDs more because they use anal sex as birth control. I don't believe it....
I've never seen any evidence that heteros are catching it through anal sex

If you don't believe it, you'd not like BDP to be able to back up the statement. Look just at any data on the relative risk of different practices and you'll see that anal intercourse (no condom) has a higher risk than vaginal intercourse (no condom). So people of whatever sexual orientation have a higher risk with the one practise than with the other for whatever reason they use the practise. That's all. But there isn't the no risk variant (except avoiding all close contact) and therefore AIDS would be with us even without any (male) homosexuality. They didn't bring it as Pete wrongly says but they have speeded the arrival (over a certain period of time).

I guess it's too much to hope that you know AIDS is more prevalent among heterosexuals in developing countries, which comprise 95% of new reported AIDS cases.

Perhaps correct (depending upon your comparison; more prevalent than who or than what?, I'd like to know in order to be able to evaluate the truth of your statement) but anyway completely irrelevant.
The prevalence and the incidence (that's what you allude to in the last part of your statement) in e.g. Africa have more to do with the prevailing pattern of sexual practises than with anything else. As for the developed countries, the prevalence of AIDS is here not the interesting datum, the relative risk is. I guess it's too much to hope that you know that in the developed countries the relative risk for homosexuals is still much higher than for heterosexuals (with bisexuals being in between; where else).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: major religions-homophobia II
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 12:21 AM

Well... it was safe enough for them; but maybe not for those on whom they practiced it. Were the Vikings a vector in the transmission of syphilis? I didn't know tha!

A

Subject: RE: BS: major religions-homophobia II
From: blt
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 12:17 AM

This is a response to the posts concerning the connection between the spread of HIV and sexual behaviors. Gender is no protection, obviously, against a disease that is spread by body fluids. Any exchange of body fluids--blood, vaginal fluid, and sperm (some research also implicates saliva)--carries the risk of transmission of HIV, plus diseases such as Hepatitis C and STDs.

Gays/lesbians/bisexuals are not more responsible for the spread of HIV than hetereosexuals, since sexual practices among all groups carry a similar amount of risk, if safer sex is not practiced. Currently, in the US, I believe that the group with the fastest growing rate of infection are young, heterosexual men and women of color. In Africa, anal sex is considered an acceptable practice for heterosexuals, perhaps because if a man is with a prostitute, he is somehow not having "real" sex if he has anal sex. The infection rate among prostitutes in Africa, India, and Indonesia is very high--a man will hire a prostitute, then return home and infect his wife. There are also cultural taboos that prevent sexuality from being openly discussed, similar to the US, which increases the chances that HIV will spread. I think the latest information on HIV rates in the gay/lesbian community is that infection rates are rising among young gay men, although I don't know what the comparison is between this group and the group of young men/women of color.

I think it's interesting to compare the present-day cultural response to HIV/AIDS with the historical response to the spread of syphillis from Europe into Native communities--unless there is evidence that Christopher Columbus was a lesbian and/or wore a condom. And what about Leif Erikson? Did he and his Viking pals (drag queens, every last one--check out their helmets)-- all practice safer sex?

blt

Subject: RE: BS: major religions-homophobia II
From: Gypsy
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 10:12 PM

Hot diggety! And may i add my pro love sentiments as well, speaking as a presbyterian. Love is not so abundant in this world that we need put barriers and limits upon it. Just rejoice whenever you see love. Jesus did. Consider who he dined with, eh?

Subject: major religions-homophobia II
From: GUEST,Liland
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 07:09 PM

This thread, which I haven't had a chance to read much of yet (but as that oddity, the pro-gay Baptist, I definitely want to read and participate in), has reached 115+ posts so I thought it should be continued here. So here it is continued.

Liland
Who hopes to be around a bit more