Is HIV a gay disease?
Yes
Side Score: 28
|
 |
No
Side Score: 63
|
|
|
|
|
Primarily, yes it is. Not exclusively of course. But mostly. In my coluntry, a full 90% of all reported HIV cases are men who engaged in homosexual behavior. Now....in Africa, where the AIDS level is a staggering 28%, the percentage of those afflicted who are homosexual is much lower. This is due to the fact that the disease there is spread through what we call additional vectors of transmission. Also...you mentioned only HIV in your debate title, and not AIDS. I assume you know that they are not the same? That the human immuno virus is only the initial requisite stage of the pathology which can lead to full blown AIDS? It is worth noting that a DX of hiv nowadays is no longer an all.but.certain sentence to soon getting AIDS. Due to some cocktail combos of meds we have cut that percentage in half of what it was only two decades ago! At least in the USA. In Africa an HIV DX is still all but an AIDS precursor. Thanks. Side: Yes
2
points
Mmm...not quite that simple. Make no mistake, we have indeed come a long way in obtaining a cure for the AIDS virus, but it is by no means as easily put into remission, or totally eradicated, as most other viruses. Those meds you speak of are very expensive, not everybody can afford them. The cocktail combo is complex and intricate and allows very little room for aberration from their scheduled ingestion times. Side effects are common. Some of them very unsavory. Also, we are discovering more and more that an individual's genetic disposition can and does often times affect the efficacy of any medication. The HIV cocktail is no exception. So....as they say in those commercials...........Results May Vary! And it is just flat-out wrong to say that "no one in the Western World gets AIDS anymore." Look........... More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 8 (12.8%) are unaware of their infection. And......we had about 110,000 NEW CASES of AIDS in 2010. Hope this helps! Side: Yes
2
points
Well, the reason that number is so high is because anal sex is the most common transmitter of HIV due to the danger of tearing anal tissue during intercourse. As such, HIV is much easier to spread amongst communities that engage in anal sex often, which is why it is commonly found amongst gay men. However, this is not the only way to transmit and there is nothing inherently gay or male about the desiese, nor is there any exclusivity in methods of transmission. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
GRID? Seriously it's not 1981 anymore. There is proof that it is caused by a retrovirus. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. The primary evidence being that AIDS has only been seen in HIV-positive people and never HIV-negative. So therefore AIDS is clearly caused by HIV. Side: No
There is proof that it is caused by a retrovirus. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. By saying that, you are calling yourself an imbecile. Because these people are obviously more clever than you: Side: Yes
0
points
1
point
|
How can it be called the 'gay disease' when the disease is pretty rare in homosexual women. Only by discounting the female portion of the homosexual population can one call HIV a 'gay disease'. If you want to name a disease after those who may have more likelyhood to transmit the disease why not call it a mans disease? Those that penetrate are more likely to transmit the disease than those who are penetrated. Or how about call it a 'black disease' since black populations have proportionetly higher rates of HIV than other groups? Minorites for that matter have higher rates of the disease than non minorities... I actually do not support calling HIV a disease for any of those groups but just illustrating my point. Using this terminology that needlessly singles a group out when referring to a disease in this manner can be a cultural jab at that group rather than be about the disease. Calling HIV a gay disease is an arbitrary standard of what to measure and doesn't make sense logically nor medically. Side: No
4
points
2
points
Well, I did not dowmvote it but I could have, since you are wrong when you claim that a gay man in Africa started the disease. Actually, started is a misnomer, as people who get infected..even the first ones..don't really start it. A virus is a rogue snippet of DNA encapsulated in a shell of protein. It is dead, or inert, until it finds a host, in which it can hijack their cells as a method for propagation. And we are pretty sure that the virus originally was in chimps. Primates. So it made a cross species jump when butchers in Africa for contaminated with monkey blood during the course of their work. THEN it spread. Sure, that airline steward was Gay. He was instrumental in providing an advantageous vector of transmission. But by that point the pathology had already begun. So the steward was only a link in the chain. The so called cross species jump is actually a misnomer as well. Since we homo sapiens are of the Primate bipedal hominid family. So....cross sub species jump is more accurate. Either way..a gay man was not needed to begin the AIDS transmission process. It's just that they provided an enhanced vector of pathology because of their sexual practices. I trust this clears things up for you. Thanks. Side: No
4
points
What does it mean to say that something is a gay disease? That it is a joyous disease? - Certainly not! That is is a disease which mostly strikes those who are joyous? - Certainly not! That it is a disease which mostly afflicts homosexuals? - That is vastly oversimplifying the issue, for it shows up frequently in heterosexuals either through unprotected sexual intercourse, in drug users who share needles, in people who have received blood transfusions, etc. That it is a disease which would not exist were it not for homosexuals? That is unlikely, though Gaetan Dugas did cause a lot of trouble with his promiscuity. However, had homosexuality been an accepted aspect of society, the consequences could greatly have been mitigated: just as drug users are forced to use their drug in secret, thus they have a difficult time getting help, hide when they inject and thus often overdose without witnesses able to assist them, and have to use a more powerful form of the drug because that is the easiest to smuggle, so too are homosexuals forced to engage in devious behaviors outside of the norm were it not for prohibition/societal condemnation against them! In Canada, I have known many monogamous homosexual couples since the advent of the legalization of gay marriage; however, so long as society insists on persecuting the homosexual, he is forced to take his behavior underground: less education, less safety, fewer restraints and far, far more brief partners: the perfect combination for the spread of HIV amongst homosexuals. If society accepted homosexuals, they would be able to behave as do heterosexuals and have no need to be secretive, which would allow for greater levels of monogamy or, at the least less need for so many sexual partners. In this way, HIV - just like the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism - is not so much the product of the people being persecuted as it is the product of irrational behavior against the people, forcing them to do things they would not otherwise feel the need to do. HIV is a societal ill, and one that can be assuaged with greater acceptance, not less. Side: No
I get that you're trying for a cutesy little double entendre-ish play on words by using the word "diseased" with ignorance, but the adverb is not accurate as used in your context. One cannot be diseased with ignorance. As that would be a double negative. If we break down the etymology of disease we see it means, "dis" (as in out of, or bereft of) "ease." Thus....uneasy. No ease. Uncomfortable. And since ignorance is also a negative condition, more precisely a negative or non-existent understanding of a certain subject, one cannot really be diseased with ignorance. Can they? Now then, although HIV--and its pathological termination DX of AIDS are not per se Gay diseases, it is accurate to say they are PRIMARILY Gay diseases. As I stated in an earlier post--which you really should read--a full 90% of men in the USA who were DX'd with AIDS over the past four years WERE indeed homosexuals. I would posit that 90% constitutes the use of the adjective "primarily." Hope this helps, Mia. Say Hi to Marcellus for me! LOL Side: Yes
I don't recall asking you for an English lesson, Professor SlapShit. And I'm not going to waste my time reading your BS anyway, so don't bother writing anything more. Why don't you run along, little man, and find more posts to down-vote... It's about the only thing you actually seem to really excel in. Hope this helps, Dumbass. Say hi to your pretend fiance for me! LOL Side: No
No. It originated through heterosexual sex with apes and then started among heterosexuals in Africa before spreading to the homosexuals. And whether you're straight or gay having regular sex with an infected person without being careful and using a condom will pretty much make you catch it either way. Side: No
LOL. Really? As humorous as that is, for the sake of enlightening any gullible reader who comes across your post, I am compelled as an educator to state that h. sapiens having sexual intercourse with apes on the African continent is NOT how the disease began. Rather, it jumped species due to the vector transmission of extra-cutaneous blood cross contamination. Not to nitpick, but this is almost my field. (I at one time was going to get my PhD in virology instead of the discipline I finally chose.) See...we think butchers and other h. sapiens working with primate blood first acquired the virus. And this was most likely done back in the 1940s. See this for more...it is a bit technical, but let me know if you have any questions in it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ Thanks. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Yeah..you are correct about the anal sex thing. Much easier to get that way compared to vaginal. Do you know why? I'll give you a chance to respond before I tell you. Which means....on those rare cases where a non IV drug using and heterosexual female gets HIV or AIDS, you can be almost sure (20-1 shot!) That she digs back door action. LOL. Of course women who like this are not nearly as uncommon as they once were. The word is out among them, some of their best and most intense orgasms come thru this method. Most of them, once they try are pretty much addicted to it. And for some, it becomes the only way they can get off. Thanks! Side: No
Assuming that by "gay" you mean sodomite and not happy, HIV is not a sodomite disease, it is a virus easily and usually transmitted among sodomites via tissues which are designed for absorbing fluid and are much more susceptible to passing disease than are the natural usages of gender linked tissues. I have never heard of a happy disease.......I don't think they have enough brains to be happy, they just do what they do without emotion; so no, HIV is not happy and it is a virus, not a disease. Side: No
HIV is a sexually transmitted disease. Anyone with HIV can pass it on to someone (of any sex) during intercourse. It doesn't even need to be during sex. HIV can also be passed on through blood transfusions of infected people. It was called a 'gay disease' because the early people who had it were, coincidentally, gay. How can you say it's a gay disease when you see people such as Magic Johnson and Arthur Ashe? Women and men are equally likely to get HIV. Have protected sex unless you are sure your partner doesn't have any type of STIs. Side: No
Technically, and from a virology standpoint, you of course are correct. Viruses are asexual. Hell, not even alive until they infiltrate a living cell and hijack it's mechanism of reproduction. A virus is simply a bit of DNA encased in a protein capsule. But when the debate author here used the term gay disease he was obviously asking if we thought gays were mainly the people who tended to get infected with it. In other words, he used a figure of speech. Looks if I asked you if sickle cell anemia was a black disease. Or an African American disease. Of course the virus is not black, nor is it of African origin. But you would know what I meant by the question. At least you should know. We all were aware of what the author meant, though some of had differing opinions. So...your pedantic post really answered nothing and told us all whaty we already knew. So....thanks for that. Genius! LOL SS Side: No
|
