Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

Aren't you trying to attack someone for just posting an article?

 

Bisexuality 101: How many bisexuals are out there?

Keep denying the stats all you wish, your 3.2% is WAY TOO LOW.

 

the part you ignore is that the gay population is rougly only 4%, so an infection travels through that population much faster than it does through a population that makes up 96%. yet that 96% population has the higher infection rate.

I wish people would just admit they don't like homosexuals, that they are grossed out by them. It would atleast be an honest statement, rather than the logical gymnastics you guys are forced to perform to try and justify denying them equal rights.

 

The exclusive self-interest of private entrepreneur which is as a singularity sublimation of female principle in capitalism takes the place of the supreme principle of the state - that universal, the male principle. Derogation of the state and its principle formed in this way, in the last stage of capitalism, appears as a common affirmation and triumph of gay culture.

 

Well, isn't that special. No facts and a confused belief.

 

once again I must post the link to the Gallup poll

the article was written in "The Advocate" which is a gay magazine so clearly this isn't slanted

http://www.advocate.com/society/2012/10/18/32-percent-americans-identify-lgbt

the 3.2% covers everyone who is NOT straight heterosexual so that's gay female sex, gay male sex, bi-sexual sex and cross dressers

So, feel free to argue with "the advocate" as well as Gallup

you can want the number to be higher all that you wish; it doesn't make it so.

 

And there are numerous other studies that say otherwise.

But since you are anti-LGBT, you'll believe what fits in your own little world.

 

nope, it's your warped way of trying to spin reality.

and the number of pure gay is less than 3% so don't push it to 4%. I again state that it should be of no surprise that the total number of HIV cases would be found in a group which comprises of 96.8% of the population.

I also would not be shocked to discover that indulging in the licking of a penis which was previously in the anal cavity or inserting said penis and making a delivery into an area with open wounds would increase the risk of HIV transfer. And, since a very small sector of the population has a high occurrence of performing those acts then it makes sense to see a higher per-capita occurrence of HIV. Also, with NO RISK of impregnating the recipient there is probably higher occurrence of going in the rain without a rain coat.

Instead of denying, why not address what can be done to help educate this group into better behavior so we can have them around us for a long time?

 

and at the end if the day, that's all you have, to label as anti-xxxx any person who won't accept your nonsense.

 

Qurantine HOMOSEXUAL/BISEXUAL males, and SAVE MORE LIVES than ANY GUN BAN.

17,000 AIDS deaths in 2009...ALONE.


("MSM"- males having sex with males)

•MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available).
•CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.

2% of the POPULATION; MORE THAN 60% of the HIV/AIDS infections...and they ARE PROMISCUOUS.

Deal with the FACTS. I have no need to SPIN, as does the OP...

 

Wanting equal rights is nonsense?

 

Sorry, with what i read on this thread, rstones199 has sure brought out a bunch of homophobes by printing one article.

 

No, wanting SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS in the rules of marriage for your genital preference is.

 

nope. it's called math.

but as I just mathematically showed, the higher rates should be in the smaller population. It isn'.

yet heterosexuals are still by far the majority infected.

I'm not the one denying reality. you somehow think that because heterosexuals have a higher infection rate, that means we must punish/quarantine/deny rights to homosexuals.

the logical gymnastics you guys have to perform has to be exhausting. why not just admit you don't like gays, and you think they're "icky"?

 

why not quarantine heterosexuals? since they represent the majority of HIV/AIDS infections.

 

HORSECRAP.



("MSM"- males having sex with males)


•MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2009, as well as nearly half (49%) of people living with HIV in 2008 (the most recent year national prevalence data is available).


•CDC estimates that MSM account for just 2% of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, MSM accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses.



2% of the POPULATION; MORE THAN 60% of the HIV/AIDS infections...and they ARE PROMISCUOUS.


Make up some more COMPLETE LIES, why don't you?

 

.
MOre BULLCRAP. HOMOSEXUALITY is sex with the SAME GENDER, REGARDLESS of the AGE(s) INVOLVED.

There absolutely ARE HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILES.

Try seom MORE attempts to "redefine" homosexuality.

 

This would be expected among a group in which long term relationships are discouraged. And it makes that long term relationships would increase once society stops discouraging them (or even encouraging them).

The "gay life" is now coming to include monogamy as a viable option which was not true before.

 

The author of this thread should be sued for reckless or purposeful public endangerment via the distribution of false information that can be predicted to worsen an increasing epidemic:

To wit:

The "study of studies" [the CDC raw data] says that HIV is on the increase, specifically contracted via sodomy [anal sex] between gay men who are being MORE, not "less" promiscuous; evidenced by the facts.

Shame on you. Young men may die from just reading the title of this thread. I suggest the mods at PF cover themselves legally and modify the title to reflect the CDC's findings. You can never be too sure.

 

Uh-huh. The unquestionable promiscuity which defines the homosexual male lifestyle was "forced upon them", is that it?

Why was MONOGAMY not an option, already?

Utter nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, with what I read in your post, presenting the MEDICAL FACTS about the homosexual male lifestyle has sure brough out a lot of senseless denial, from the Truthophobes, by printing one longterm, CDC report.

The "FACTS" are the FACTS. Period.

 

LOL! Hyperbole FTW!

I think you greatly overestimate the impact that anonymous political forums have on public health decisions.

I have openly suggested on this forum that someone outta kill the President. I was warned that this could lead to legal action against the owners of the forum. None ever materialized.

I think they are safe from a lawsuit over this as well, heh heh.

 

It is just the opposite. A lot of homos did not have marriage as a viable option until now.

Because the guarantees are not there. Inheritance rights, benefit rights, medical rights, ect. Monogamy was possible anyway, but is a lot more attractive now. Vows mean a lot more when they are legally binding as well.

 

Polygamy will enjoy the same as the Brown v Utah case vies neck and neck for legalization each increment gays make.

 

As long as all parties involved in a Polygamy Marriage is of legal consent, what legal consenting adults do is no one else's business and all should have the same exact rights.

 

Marriage and monogamy are not the same thing.are they? One is not required to practice the other.