I think that your wording (possibly English as non-primary language?) is getting in the way. Are you trying to say that you think it's a mix of environment and genetics?



As opposed to...what, the people who are just dabbling in homosexuality? (Or maybe, thinking sims here, as opposed to the Playful homosexuals?)

They're being taken care of next week, right after clowns, colored clowns, and anything else silly.

Will someone please tell me what this so-called "gay lifestyle" is?! I keep seeing references to it throught these threads, and even started a thread of its own (which I'm too lazy to find right now) and am STILL waiting for an answer.

I'll bet that my "lifestyle" is 99.999999999999999~ identical to what would be considered a "normal lifestyle".

Stop spouting the myth that there is any significant difference.

Pizza, Minecraft, reading books.

Excuse me but it does not make a person mentally ill to choose an orientation that others don't find normal. Your wording there is really offensive and othering.

I think we're misunderstanding Countessa, some of us. It sounds like she's saying that homosexuality is caused by a mixture of both nature and nuture. That you'd have to be fool to merely choose such discrimination, which to a *very* limited degree I agree with. And finally, that we should live and let live.

That all sounds like commendable stuff, if said in a rather difficult to follow, broken English. I rather like Contessa's contribution.

It's not very clearly stated, but I interpreted "choose" as being the key word in that statement, not the "sane." I.e. what rational person would choose to be gay (per the opinions of people who believe it is a choice, and one made lightly at that) when it yields largely ostracism and ridicule.

No, I got that she was saying she thinks it's a mixture of nature and nurture and that I agree with. I take issue with the suggestion that no sane person would choose to be gay. That's putting a mental illness label where it doesn't belong and is really offensive to the people who have made that choice.

See, I identified as straight and then through a painful process of letting go of some serious self-hatred I realized that I am also attracted to other women. I'm still in a heterosexual relationship and will probably be for a while. Now, in the future should I become single again, I could choose to get into another heterosexual relationship as it's easier and certainly my world would better accept me as a woman who appears to be straight. But if I choose to get into a relationship with a woman, well then I'm making a choice to be in a homosexual relationship and will face the same crap that other homosexual people have to face. Are you seriously suggesting I should ignore my desires because only a mentally ill person would make the choice. I mean, I could be just as happy in a heterosexual relationship so why go through that? Really?

I am a person with mental illness, an illness that at times is really fucking crippling but make no mistake, one has nothing to do with the other.

Edit: So I know the above sounds really defensive and probably doesn't make my point exactly as I had intended. The point I was trying to get to before I let my emotions control the course of the post is this: there's a long history of homosexuality being labeled as a mental illness and a really horrid history of people trying to "fix" homosexual people because of that. The suggestion that someone must be mentally ill in order to make that choice gives credibility to that idea even if they didn't mean any harm by it. It's not that I think Countessa meant to harm but the language is harmful either way and that's what I was replying to.

Last edited by wickedblue : 18th Jun 2011 at 11:41 PM.

Ditto, except that I just take exception with the perception that somehow the way homosexuals live their lives is intrinsically different from the way heterosexuals live theirs; yet no-one can come up with specific examples of how its diffrent, other than the basic gender difference. (Two of the same gender as opposed to two different genders.)

Yeah, but wickedblue, I don't believe Countessa meant that only insane people would choose to be homosexual. I have a mental illness too, but I wasn't offended by his/her statement. That's actually an argument that I tend to use against people who are determined to believe that homosexuality is a choice. Because, why would anyone in their right mind choose to be gay? Knowing that they would have to endure all of the bullying and isolation from ignorant people that can't tolerate their life choice. Maybe I'm not getting my point across well, because I suck at debating. I just think you misinterpreted Countessa's statement.

If it's just the semantics bothering you and none of what acid_paradox explained, Countessa didn't say only a "mentally ill" person would do that, she said "no sane person" would. You're reading way too much into a set of words that seem to me to be making colloquial use of "sane." E.g. No sane person would take those two classes at the same time, or No sane person would eat 10 ghost peppers in one sitting!

Further, it's interesting that you're repeating the word choice from Countessa's comment at face value. Certainly you have the choice of acting on your attraction to women by dating one or not, but you didn't choose to feel that attraction in the first place (or else you wouldn't have had such a problem with self-hatred, I reckon).

Personally, I do believe that homosexuality, like a cleft lip or a missing liver function or muscular dystrophy, is a genetic disorder. People are born gay. However, it is their choice whether or not to act upon an impulse which is destructive to humanity.

I love it when people claim I am a "closeted homosexual man" or a "ignorant conservative."

The truth is that gays are ignorant of how destructive their lifestyle is, according to the Center of Disease Control, homosexual men are 50 times more likely to contract AIDS or HIV than any other demographic! And I'm ignorant! At least I'll live beyond the age of 50!

If you're having unprotected sex with people it really doesn't matter what your orientation is. Other than that I can't say for certain if you're ignorant or conservative. You are without a doubt an offensive ass though. That's what we call people who "love" it when people call them out for saying offensive things they know are offensive. I bet you love it when you call black people nigger and they punch your smug face in too.

Hey, you may live beyond 50...but you don't deserve to.

I'm just going to throw my opinion out there for kicks.
I am a christian. I am not proud of the acts of other christians who have judged and discriminated.
I love homosexuals. I have many friends who are and I think they're great! I'm all for homosexuals, but I'm completely against homosexuality. I think it is wrong, and yes, a sin. But it is also wrong to judge those who have committed said sin, especially since we're all sinners. I'm only a human, who am I to judge another for what they have done?
I believe that man was made for woman and woman was made for man.
Honestly? I believe it's a choice. I don't think babies are born homosexual. Nor do I believe they are born rapists, murderers, thieves, liars, etc. I know that people are hurt by others everyday because of the way they live or what they do, and I know that they didn't choose to be hurt or judged. But I still believe that at sometime in their life, whether they were consciously aware of it or not, they chose to be homosexual or bisexual. This may sound cruel and discriminatory of me, but that is not my will for it to sound or seem to be. This is just what I believe. I'm not trying to change your opinion. I'm not trying to start an argument or anything along the lines of such. It's just what I believe.
I wish you a pleasant day or night.

Wow. The truth hurts doesn't it?

You claim I am a racist, and yet it is you who is brandishing such terminology. I refer to Blacks, Whites, and of course gays with respect in all my offline ventures (including my very own family members with homosexual tenancies). I just wish the latter would stop having anal and oral sex with each other...

To quote the Center of Disease Control:
"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died."

My source: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

You can fight the truth, but all you will do is harm your own health and the health of others by wallowing in ignorance and spreading disease...

Sure - in the US at least, HIV is more common in MSM (bear in mind that in many other countries, particularly sub-saharan African ones, it's more common in straight women). HIV was first introduced into the US via the gay social circles of San Francisco, and the vast majority of "MSM" are just gay men, who only have sex with men and never have any straight relationships. So, as a sexually transmitted disease, HIV, having originally infected many more gay men than straight men, is more likely to be spread to other gay men than to women and, from there, other straight men. Claiming that this is somehow a mystical punishment is an example of the same logic as that which marked the doors of an entire household of people because one of them got sick - a case of "we know this can spread, but we don't really understand how, so let's just assume there's something inherently wrong with those people over there and that's why they're getting it".

Now, that doesn't change the fact that HIV rates are increasing, in the US, among gay men. So, why is that? Because gay men, when they are having sex, are totally aware that there is no chance of unwanted pregnancy if they don't use protection. The chances of contracting various other STIs are also decreased, especially for things like thrush which cannot, as far as I know, survive in an ass. So protection sometimes isn't used. It's the same reason why teenage pregnancy is on the rise, and really only negligibly less stupid (I'd say HIV is scarier possibility than pregnancy...). In the 80s, a lot of people were terrified of HIV; nowadays, that fear has died down, and the result is more carelessness.
If HIV was nearly as common in straight people as it is in gay people, in the US, then the numbers of straight people with the disease would be skyrocketting as we speak. The way that countries with a low rate of HIV maintain that rate is by a self-sustaining system - if there are very few people who don't have HIV or do have it and are careful to use protection, then they're unlikely to spread it very far; if there are more people with HIV who don't use protection, then in total they will have more sexual partners between them and thus the disease will spread more quickly. The same system can apply to sexually active populations.

People with HIV don't die before they're 50. Modern HIV treatments can, in almost all cases, guarantee a pretty much normal lifespan.

Furthernore - guess what! I'm sure as fuck not straight, and I am not harming my health or the health of others, nor am I wallowing in ignorance. As far as the latter goes, do you know what seroconversion is, or what its effects are in HIV infection? Do you know what the effect of one person being infected with multiple strains of HIV is? Do you know how HIV replicates? Do you know how anti-retrovirals work? Do you know why the body's immune system can't beat HIV on its own? Do you know how long HIV can survive outside of the body, in a condom or used needle? Can you name all of the methods of transmission? Maybe - but probably not. I do know all that, because I've educated myself - that's what it's called when you think about what you say before saying it, and decide that before you express an opinion you should make sure you're basing it on all the facts - but I also know that I know less than half of what there is to know, because my gay HIV treatment researcher friend is far far more educated on this topic than I am.
I am not harming my health or that of others. Why? Because when I have sex, I use a condom, unless I know for sure that both or all of the people involved have no STIs. In fact, if I don't know, I don't generally have sex with them; but if I did, I'd use a condom. I get tested. I don't take IV drugs (nor ever will). Being infected with HIV is not a lottery. It's not like gay people have an x% chance of being infected and straight people have a y% chance - both have the option to never get infected, barring the exceptional cases, like accidental sticks in medical professionals or rape, which make up a very small fraction of new infections.

Feel free to tell people that you disapprove of a promiscuous lifestyle because it increases the risk of HIV infection, particularly for gay men who are more likely to be promiscuous with HIV infected people. But if you want to say that being gay is dangerous because of HIV, then first, you're gonna have to explain how two HIV negative men in a monogomous civil partnership, or a lesbian who rarely has sex, or a bisexual person who has sex with their various boy or girlfriends over the years and always uses a condom, or a gay/lesbian/bisexual person who simply doesn't have sex, is at a greater risk of catching HIV than a straight person in similar circumstances.

Also, please stop thinking of "gay" as being synonymous with "buttsex". I never have buttsex, it sucks, and I'm gay every minute of the damn day anyway.

What I am saying is that there are people who are very much "in their right mind" that do choose to be gay.

Just like there are people "in their right mind" who choose to be in interracial relationships though that comes with its own set of bullying from ignorant people. We all make choices that other people will not tolerate and others who tolerate but do not understand and it's just wrong to call them crazy because of those choices.

As I said before, I'm not saying that Countessa meant to harm anyone and I wasn't offended. I'd just like to see people stop throwing around phrases like that when they are hurtful to people who make the choices they suggest you'd be crazy to make. I'm not just nitpicking- words mean things.

This is not entirely true according to the CDC.

The reason why HIV/AIDS/MRSA/Amoeba Infections/etc are so common in homosexual men is because over 60% of them admit to engaging in anal sex with over 100 sex partners during the course of a lifetime. This is not true of all gay men, of course, and it's commendable that you do not engage in anal sex, but it is true for most.

Anal sex is also becoming a more common sex practice in straight couples as well. Humans, male and female, are also known to contract diseases from performing oral sex on a male organ moreso than on female organs. Hence, why sexual diseases like gonorrhea and syphilis are also more common in the gay community according to the CDC. There are even studies proving that men react inversely to contact with semen of other men, but that's for another discussion...

While sexual promiscuity does indeed impact one's chances of encountering diseased persons, it is anal sex/contact with fecal matter which is creating many diseases, hence why gay men will always be at a greater risk since 60% of them participate in anal sex!



Even if HIV-positive persons don't typically die before 50, why would someone want to live a compromised life dependent on medication to sustain living, simply so they can "bust a nut" for ten minutes? HIV will not dramatically shorten one's life, but AIDS will. Especially if you have not only AIDS but a host of other sexually transmitted diseases as well...

The fact that gay men (by virtue of being male) are highly sexually promiscuous does not help their chances of not encountering diseased persons either...



Excuse me, but yes, I am quite well researched in these matters. Did I not quote the CDC in a previous post using factual, objective material as a basis for my thoughts? Additionally, a relative of mine does HIV research and has informed me much about these matters, and this same person has stated that the means through which gay men have sex promotes disease.

Some gays are like religious fanatics--even when people pick out flaws in their religious doctrines, they still hold onto their crumbling worldview. Being gay doesn't make a person unhealthy, but engaging in gay sex does... If a straight person had gay sex, they would be putting themselves at just as much risk...

The reason why some people dislike homosexuality is out of spite, but for many others, it is simply as a health concern for both gays and the general population. As you can recall, I have gay men in my family who I do not want to see ailing and sick...

you know what else is "destructive to humanity"?

war.
famine.
poverty.
discrimination.
sexism.
greed.
rape. murder. etc.

cant blame all those much more destructive acts on homosexuals alone.



okay, well then to quote your precious CDC:

Complex Factors Increase Risk
t High prevalence of HIV: The high prevalence of HIV among gay and bisexual men means MSM face a
greater risk of being exposed to infection with each sexual encounter, especially as they get older. For young
black MSM, partnering with older black men (among whom HIV prevalence is high) may also lead to increased risk.
t Lack of knowledge of HIV status: Studies show that individuals who know they are infected take steps to protect
their partners. Yet many MSM are unaware of their status and may unknowingly be transmitting the virus to others.
Additionally, some MSM may make false assumptions or have inaccurate information about their partner’s HIV status.
It is critical to ensure that sexually active MSM get tested for HIV at least annually, or more frequently as needed.
t Complacency about risk: Among young MSM in particular, complacency about HIV may play a key role in HIV risk,
since these men did not personally experience the severity of the early AIDS epidemic. Additional challenges for many
MSM include maintaining consistently safe behaviors over time, underestimating personal risk, and the false belief
that because of treatment advances, HIV is no longer a serious health threat. We must reach each generation of MSM
and develop programs that can help MSM remain uninfected throughout the course of their lives.
t Social discrimination and cultural issues: For some MSM, social and economic factors, including homophobia, stigma,
and lack of access to health care may increase risk behaviors or be a barrier to receiving HIV prevention services.
t Substance abuse: Some MSM use alcohol and illegal drugs, contributing to increased risk for HIV infection and other
STDs. Substance use can increase the risk for HIV transmission through risky sexual behaviors while under the
inf luence and through sharing needles or other injection equipment.

congratulations, you are officially contributing to the problem with just your shitty attitude/regard for homosexual men.
and you know what else "spreads disease"? not washing your hands. not covering your mouth when you cough or sneeze. not properly cleaning food utensils, or cooking meat all the way through. if youre going to go on an OMG U R SO STOOPID N YUCKY tirade, may as well include all the ways you can catch/spread a disease.

Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 20th Jun 2011 at 07:14 PM.

I was debating whether or not to reply to your post, as it seems rooted in human emotion and not much else, but I will give you the satisfaction of belittling me on this forum amidst your peers...



Most wars are started by heterosexual men--who is debating this?

No one in this world has attained perfection. Most straight men and women do not honor marriage as they should, but at least they can reproduce and prolong the lifespan of this species without creating new strains of MRSA.



This statement intrigues me, as though my sentiments only hold true within the context of this website (the CDC). I have used this source because it is a government-funded organization, and therefore scientifically objective, but I have plenty more sources that will back up my claims as well--would you like to see them?



I have gay men in my family. I treat them with much more respect that you treat me.

I don't think homosexual men should be killed.

I don't think homosexual men should be exiled.

I don't think homosexual men should be teased or violated.

I just want them to stop having sex with each other, because it spreads disease. Why is this so hard to grasp?

And if two homosexual men are in a committed, monogamous relationship and have no sexually transmitted diseases (clean tests repeatedly or were both virgins) - what then? How would that not be okay? I know many gay couples like this - nice quiet married couples just like any straight couple, only they both have penises.

First off, I'd love to know sourcing and dates for that information (as well as comparative information for heterosexual couples' sex rates.) Also, MRSA isn't an STD. It can be a complication of HIV/AIDS, but trying to say "gay sex causes MRSA" is like saying "gay sex causes cancer" - it's not the direct cause.

I do grant that I remember seeing data somewhere that male-male couples > male-female couples > female-female couples in number of partners, but that's more a somewhat controversial evolutionary biology point about differences in male vs. female attitudes on sex, and not inherently something that's wrong with homosexuality, which is the point it seems you're trying to make. (Unless you'd like to advocate that gay is bad, but lesbianism is ideal?)

Second, I'm well aware of bathhouse culture in San Francisco, particularly in the 1960s-80s. I'll grant you the existence of lots of men having casual sex with multiple anonymous partners. But I think that you need to acknowledge (and this is going to turn into a minor history lesson) that part of the reason why AIDS spread through the gay population so quickly, and part of the reason that it became epidemic was because the government was slow to react - and because it really didn't care so much when AIDS was known as GRID ("gay-related immunodeficiency disease.") The Reagan administration basically buried their collective heads in the sand, allowing the epidemic to get going - and then, when they did try to deal with the bathhouses, did it in such a way that they didn't have the trust of the community (also for historical reasons - the US government has a history of being non-gay-friendly), which led to significant resistance in bathhouse closure, which could have limited the spread of the disease in North America at an earlier point.



I have no idea why you seem to equate anal with fellatio, unless it's because you're only against male homosexuality and not female. I'm getting completely confused. Should the government start advocating that all women stop giving head to men and start pleasuring one another to lower STI rates?

Dropping the sarcasm, I'm just confused about what the overall point you're trying to make here is; homosexuality includes men and women, and if you're so worried about disease, you should technically be advocating that women turn to women for sexual satisfaction, since STI rates among lesbians are lowest of all, as are number of sexual partners, etc. (Since you are, after all, arguing that homosexuality is a choice, the opposite should be true as well!)

Whiterider has excellently responded to why gay men are less likely to use protection, so I'll just say I agree and move on.



One, you mean "adversely." Two, study link? (I can pull most reputable journal articles if you can provide an author and title.) I can't critique it if I can't read it.



The contact with fecal matter isn't what makes anal sex a higher-risk activity for contracting AIDS, it's the tissue irritation that can result from lack of proper lubrication. Contact with fecal matter could technically put you at risk for other infections (and technically could pass virus) but I'd be much more concerned about the semen (which is also why oral sex on males is riskier - typically exposed to more virus-containing bodily fluid.) Also, contact with fecal matter doesn't "create" diseases, nor does anal sex. They transmit disease, and since AIDS was first spread to the gay male population to begin with in North America, AIDS happened to become a primarily-gay-male disease (again, see whiterider's excellent post.) I also feel the need to point out that, having worked in HIV clinics, transmission to heterosexual females is also a big issue that shouldn't be ignored. Also, there are challenging issues around the subject of men who have sex with men but don't identify as gay or bisexual, but that's a topic for a completely different conversation...



The men who are having unprotected sex are typically teens/20-year-olds who feel immortal and aren't thinking about STIs, as many teenagers are wont to do. It's not that they want to contract HIV/AIDS, it's that they don't really think about it - and that goes for straight males as well as gay ones, and straight females as well. (I have no personal experience with HIV-positive lesbian teens, which is the only reason I'm omitting them from the discussion.)

As for "why would someone want to have anal sex even if it meant risking getting HIV/AIDS," there are plenty of people, gay and straight, who are willing to risk protected sex (which isn't 100% - condoms can be misapplied/break) with their HIV-positive partner in order to express a culmination of their love and relationship. Why does anyone take the risks that come with sex (even protected sex)? To be close to someone they love.

Thus far, all of your arguments have been more along the lines of "unprotected anal is bad." Why aren't you advocating for a change in social practice? Rather than saying "gay = bad because of unprotected sex," you could be advocating for less unprotected sex across the board.

As for your view that homosexuality is a genetic disorder - it's got a genetic basis, but why are you calling it a disorder? Why do you believe it's wrong?



Again, this is an argument for being against unprotected sex, not "gay sex." (you mean anal, I assume...with a same-sex partner? Is that necessary? And are we ignoring lesbians again?)



I really, really doubt this. Unless it's an argument along the same lines as the people who hound fat people about their weight, shouting "But it's for your own health!"



Terrific statement.

PS. As for my own background, I'm a straight white female with a doctorate in pharmacy and a bachelor's in molecular biology, meaning I'm well-versed on how HIV works, along with the drugs used to treat. I took a comparative sexuality course entitled "Sexuality in Ancient and Modern Times" in undergrad, which is how I know about the bathhouse scene. I also enjoy epidemiology reading as a hobby, so I know at least a basic history of HIV. I have worked in both pediatric and young adult-focused HIV clinics.

Last edited by Julieryc : 20th Jun 2011 at 08:20 PM. Reason: I fixed quote tags. And then I fixed someone else's spelling in a quote.

I have to wonder, EndIsNigh, what your definition of "promicuous" is too. My husband and I might sleep, once or thrice a year perhaps, with close male friends who we trust, care about, and know are clean. We have protected, safe sex. We know the risks, and we use plenty of lube. We don't go pick people up in bars or alleyways every weekend. Are we, thus, "promiscuous"? Are we spreading disease?

My husband's grandparents had a relationship not unlike ours in terms of structure and openness. So it's not a uniquely gay thing, before you accuse.

I think I get what you're saying, but I also get why people see it's not a big deal. It's just that the comment's wording is more personal to you than it is to other people.

I know that my words here aren't coming out like I'd like them to, but I think it's like the reaction I have sometimes on the "would you rather die or live extremely ill?" thread when people make comments like, "A life spent in horrible pain isn't worth living. How could you choose to live with no quality of life?" Because I spend my life in constant pain, sometimes it's easy to look at statements like those and think, "Wow, so apparently they're saying my life is worthless and I'd be better off dead." But that's not what the person means at all; that's taking it on a level it wasn't intended at.

I think that you've got a valid point; people choose to be discriminated against because they love someone enough to face that discrimination. I think that Countessa was more looking at it from the point of, "If you had a binary discrimination/no discrimination choice" (being with somebody you love either way), would you pick discrimination? No, and I don't think anyone would. But, as you pointed out, real life is never that easy. The "no sane person" part was just unfortunate wording.

Julieryc: If I could click on the little "agree" button 10,000x's, I would. That was an excellent rebuttal.

Shadowside: Thank you and yes but no. The reason I "nitpick" at wording (as some call it) is because words mean things. I think people should say what they mean. And if you do not mean to say that only a person with mental illness would make those choices, then do not use that word.