An Aside Regarding Homosexuality

[Balerion]

I'm just mimicking the prevalent style here. You see now how absurd that style is?

That's called trolling.

The meta-ethical topic also addresses why it is problematic or impossible to go into the whole issue of why someone thinks something is right or wrong.

How do you figure that?

Trying to discuss issues of morality without going into the problems of philosophy of morality is merely a matter of power play.
And typically at Sciforums, issues of morality are expected to be discussed without going into the problems of philosophy of morality. I'm just pointing this out. And I suppose pointing this out is indeed "disruptive" ...

You haven't explained at all why this is problematic. All you've done is say that it is, and condescend to anyone who disagrees with you. Don't you think it would help if you tried to make a case for why you're right?

 

[Sorcerer]

Well, Sorcerer, the original purpose of this thread was to find out precisely that: Why do people believe sexuality is a moral issue?

So far, no one who has made moral claims about it has expressed any interest in explaining their position. Wynn came the closest, but has since retreated behind a fallacious pseudophilosophical defense. Syne, who invited me to start this thread so he could explain his beliefs, hasn't even made an attempt. I expressed my doubt to him when he extended the invite, and it appears I was right to be pessimistic.

Unless we're supposed to believe that the disproportionate levels of HIV/AIDS infections among gay men in the US is supposed to be the reason? I mean, I really can't imagine that being so, since sexuality is quite incidental to the transmission of the disease, and the culture of promiscuity and protectionless sex among gay males is the direct result of anti-homosexual violence and bigotry.

Yeah, yeah, I understand that, but why do we have this thread in the first place?

Suppose I said, "Why do people believe skin colour is a moral issue?" I'd be banned, and rightly so.

Why don't people just f*** off and leave us alone.

Maybe it's because they have conflicted sexuality themselves and can't come to terms with it. I really don't care about their problems as a matter of fact.

 

[Sorcerer]

Because many homophobes are both disgusted and fascinated by what they do, specifically anal sex. Look at any post by (for example) Wellwisher - from his posts you'd think that anal sex defines gays. There is little else he talks about on the subject of homosexuality, and his posts are full of metaphors for uncleanliness, defying nature, disease etc.

I bet they are. They probably fancy some of it too.

 

[billvon]

I bet they are. They probably fancy some of it too.

Well, we know some do. There are a lot of Ted Haggards out there.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Because many homophobes are both disgusted and fascinated by what they do,

I bet they are. They probably fancy some of it too.

That or they're just peeping Toms. In their mind they are at least watching. Then they come running home squealing to Mom and Dad what they caught you doing. It's an infantile version of voyeurism, seated in the need to scapegoat others for their own unresolved guilt, probably sexual in nature. At the root of this is blame-shifting, which is one of the markers of psychopathy. I find it hard to imagine that there could be a personality that expresses homophobia which would not fail a standardized diagnostic for psychopathy.

 

[Balerion]

Yeah, yeah, I understand that, but why do we have this thread in the first place?

Suppose I said, "Why do people believe skin colour is a moral issue?" I'd be banned, and rightly so.

Are you suggesting I should be banned for asking the question?

For whatever it's worth, I doubt you'd be banned for asking why some people are racist. Presumably, you'd be asking in an effort to better understand the reason for the hatred. And, maybe, help the bigots understand they're wrong.

 

[Bells]

Yeah, yeah, I understand that, but why do we have this thread in the first place?

It was in response to a moderator requesting a different thread be started to discuss this issue so he could explain his ermmm.. disturbing and disheartening.. statements..

Suppose I said, "Why do people believe skin colour is a moral issue?" I'd be banned, and rightly so.

Personally, I don't think that should be a ban worthy issue. From the outset, racism is something that is widely discussed and it's a great opportunity to explain to people who are stupid enough to hold such views, how and why they are wrong and hope some of it sinks in.

Why don't people just f*** off and leave us alone.

Because people who believe like that make a part of society and their beliefs unfortunately affect access to health care and block people's civil rights. It's better to know who they are and try to help educate them and show them how and why they are wrong than to try to shove them away and forcing them to fester in their hatred, making the situation even worse.

Maybe it's because they have conflicted sexuality themselves and can't come to terms with it. I really don't care about their problems as a matter of fact.

There have been reports that show that people who are that distinctly homophobic tend to act that way to hide their own homosexuality or attraction to the same sex. Which is sad in and of itself.

 

[Syne]

Correction: not using condoms leaves gay men vulnerable to HIV. That doesn't contradict the fact that a disease is just a disease, there's no such thing as a gay disease.

And? I already said, "No, not the "gayness", just "men who have sex with men", according to the CDC."

And gay black men are most prone of all. Would you also suggest there's something about them, biologically, that makes them higher-risk than non-black gay men? Or would you concede that it has nothing to do with biology?

That link did not go into the possible causes for the increased prevalence of black gay infection, and from everything I have read, it pretty much stumps everyone, as blacks (even gay) are less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior (i.e. use drugs before/during sex or not use condoms).

You have yet to explain why, in your moral judgement, homosexual is wrong.

...Again, what is it that they do to warrant your "moral judgement"?[/QUOTE]

Keep yer shorts on. Having to catch up on all these replies leaves me with less time to compose my reasons. I do have a life outside of this forum.

But you think it is right to judge someone solely for their opinion, whether that opinion causes any direct harm or not?

Opinion and education, or lack thereof can be changed. One's sexuality cannot.

Do you understand the difference?

If I judge your opinion, it is with the knowledge that one's opinion is not permanent. It can easily change with education and education and most importantly, empathy and compassion. One's sexuality is not something that one can change and judging someone based on their sexuality, based on who they are, is simply wrong.

Yes, I understand that, since you may espouse meta-ethical moral relativism, you may believe that moral "opinions" are easily malleable. That is not necessarily so.

Also, I am using the term "homosexuality" in the sense of sexual behavior, not orientation.

Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality​

What harmful behaviour?

Heterosexuals having unprotected sex is just as harmful. Why do you save your moral judgements for homosexuals?

Yet the risk of HIV is so much higher for MSM.

Homosexuals are not to blame for how they are born, just as a person of colour is not to blame for how they are born. To blame them for something that is wholly out of their control is a basis of bigotry. To judge them for how they are born, for something that is wholly outside of their control, is bigotry.

A persons color is readily demonstrable as innate, while all responsible scientists always qualify statements of evidence as "strongly suggesting" rather than any incontrovertible proof. Also, self-reported lack of control is equally prevalent among a host of compulsive behaviors.

Not in the US, according to the CDC:

Because:

In fact, if that kind of intercourse was only as risky as vaginal intercourse, researchers report, HIV cases among gay and bisexual men would shrink dramatically. It would go down even more, they added, if their rates of casual sex declined. - Biology Leaves Gay Men Highly Vulnerable to HIV: Study​

It is trivial that "the majority" of all worldwide transmissions occur through heterosexual contact, as heterosexuals are the vast majority. But by the ratio of each orientation homosexuals are most at risk.

Oh please, can the excuses of why you have your moral judgements against homosexuals. You have declared that homosexuality is not right. You have yet to explain what makes it wrong.

Hiding behind HIV transmissions and pretending to care by using 'harm' as an excuse for your judging homosexuals for their homosexuality is not working for you.

So I give you credible statistics and it is an "excuse".

And as Spider has correctly pointed out what you clearly refuse to acknowledge is that AIDS/HIV is not caused by homosexuality. It is simply a disease.

Straw man. I never said HIV/AIDS was caused by homosexuality, only that transmission rates were higher, which is empirical evidence.

Opinions can only harm you if you allow them to. You cannot be emotionally hurt by an opinion unless you think, or are afraid, it may be true. And I am not concerned with coddling anyone's self-doubt. Their own insecurities are their problem.

Is this why you were so offended when I called you a homophobe and commented on your homophobia?

I can be offended without being emotionally hurt. Perhaps you cannot?

From your source:

Previous research has shown that being on the receiving end of anal intercourse is equally risky whether you're a man or a woman. The risk was estimated at 1.4 percent per sex act with an infected person -- about 18 times more risky than male-to-female vaginal intercourse.​

It's not an issue of being gay, it's an issue of having anal sex regardless of whether or not you're gay, which, on the whole is a 'wellduh' moment...

There's a reason we use medical suppositories...

And? MSM are just more likely to engage in further risky behavior that compounds the problem. That source goes on to say:

The study authors estimate that if receptive anal intercourse were only as risky as vaginal intercourse, HIV cases would fall by 80 percent to 98 percent among gay and bisexual men over five years.​

Astute observers may notice some recurring themes, like, for example:
Peoples moral judgements on MSM are part of the problem.
People passing laws based on their moral judgement that MSM is wrong are part of the problem.
The first steps to solving the problem are legal equality and acceptance..

Yes, because the actions/opinions of others always excuse our responsibility for our own actions [sarcasm].

I have to say, at this point I am a bit surprised the newest mod hasn't taken the opportunity to explain himself. He was the one who said he'd be happy to discuss it in a new thread--which is why I made this one--yet he's balking.

I think if he plans on being a moderator here, he should have to explain himself. Assuage our fears that we're being moderated by a homophobe.

It could not possible be that I have a life outside of this forum and that the limited time I have to devote to it is taken catching up on these very replies [sarcasm]. Perhaps unlike yourself, I prefer to cite references for my reasoning instead of just talking off the cuff. Much more constructive for people to have the opportunity to debate points in references rather than just sling ad hominems.

And regardless of my reasons, I have already said that I condemn the behavior while not demonizing any individual or group. That should suffice, but no doubt you have a much looser definition of "homophobe", as anyone who has any slightest negative opinion of a behavior.

 

[Syne]

Since when does a good excuse pardon actual harm?

How about: all the time? The USA has destroyed what little stability there ever was in the Middle East (by turning Iraq into a Shiite theocracy aligned with Iran and Syria), turned most of the world's Muslim population against us (even in "moderate" countries like Indonesia people are sending money to charities that build madrassas for Al Qaeda), antagonized most of our allies, destroyed our own economy (spending $3T that we got by borrowing it from China), and created an unaccountable power structure that reads our e-mail and looks at our naked bodies in airports... and the excuse is that Saddam and Osama are dead... although the power vacuum they left was quickly filled with even crazier people.

I take you do not agree that a good excuse pardons actual harm then? Kind of my point.

You cannot be emotionally hurt by an opinion unless you think, or are afraid, it may be true.

Huh??? I traveled in Europe during the Vietnam War and I was very hurt by the anti-American opinions that were hurled at me. Even though I was as opposed to the war as they were, I had to take some of the responsibility for my country being the way it was.

See, you were only hurt because you "[took] some of the responsibility for [your] country being the way it was". You had an active role in allowing those opinions to hurt you. Had you made the choice that you bore no such responsibility perhaps you could have simply agreed with the sentiment without feeling hurt.

It is trivial that "the majority" of all worldwide transmissions occur through heterosexual contact, as heterosexuals are the vast majority. But by the ratio of each orientation homosexuals are most at risk.

No it is NOT trivial. 3/4's of all HIV cases globally are transmitted thru heterosexual sex. Which totally blows out of the water your lie that it is just a gay disease. Ofcourse anyone can select individual countries to skew the demographics towards one group or another. But then we're not talking individual countries. We're talking worldwide.

Way to miss the point entirely. Again, you have to talk strictly about the worldwide statistics (where many cultures do not necessarily identify MSM as homosexual), where the US statistics very clearly do attribute the highest rate of transmission to MSM. And again with the straw man. I never said anything like "it is just a gay disease", so your accusation of me lying is transparently false, and demonstrable of you lying.

But I already addressed this. Homosexuals are more at risk. That heterosexuals transmissions are greater worldwide is simply because there are so many more heterosexuals. But keep playing numerology with the statistic.

Opinions can only harm you if you allow them to. You cannot be emotionally hurt by an opinion unless you think, or are afraid, it may be true. And I am not concerned with coddling anyone's self-doubt. Their own insecurities are their problem.

That’s not true, Syne. Social acceptance is very significant.

You are only looking for information that confirms your opinion. Even when you’re presented with evidence debunking it, you continue to dig in your heels. Denial and defensiveness are characteristics of insecurity. People with higher self-esteem are more willing to alter their opinions. Facts are important to them because they value truth over their own beliefs.

If you changed your opinion, would that undermine your future credibility? I don’t think it would, Syne. I think it would strengthen it.

I’m not judgin'. I’m just sayin'.

What evidence has "debunked" anything? Do you have a link to the post, or just talking out of your hat? Where have I been defensive, other than to correct obvious straw man arguments? We are not talking strictly about opinion but about morality, which is a matter of personal integrity.

Sure you are not judging. :bugeye:

Mod Hat — The obvious point

What is this thread supposed to be about? That is to say, despite it looking very suspiciously like a target thread, it also seems to be an all-purpose soapbox about unrelated issues.

Perhaps this thread should find its topic, and at least make an effort to stay close to that subject.

Wait, wait ... okay, there really isn't any perhaps about it.

The point of this thread was explained in the OP. And if this is a "target thread"...

• If I am the target, I have invited it.
• If staff is a target, they made themselves one by posting off-topic about trolling.

The latter should have been handled by either ignoring it or taking mod action, instead of derailing a thread.

If you do not like this thread in EM&J, feel free to move it to Religion, where it started.

That's it? That's your "moral" reason for being anti-gay? LOL. From your link:

"What to do? Another study suggests the greater use of prevention approaches -- such as condoms, more medical treatment for those who are already infected and use of medication that prevent infection"

Wait a minute, doesn't your religion prohibit the use of condoms?

First, you will know when I have given my reasons, no need to guess.
Second, now you have moved from the straw man that I am Christian to the more specific straw man that I am Catholic, even though I have elsewhere advocated increased access to contraceptives.

Nothing a 75 cent condom can't fix. In any case, as stated in your own article:

"The experts were quick to note that, worldwide, it is heterosexual men and women who are by far the majority of those who are infected with HIV.''

So why aren't you condemning heterosexual sex for the harm IT causes? Sounds like a double standard to me.

Yes, but we all know you like to make mountains out of molehills. I do condemn heterosexuals that are irresponsible and promiscuous, as I have already told you elsewhere. But perhaps you need to read the title of this thread.

 

[Syne]

Wynn, do you realize that the meta-ethical topic only explains how Syne applies his morality, rather than why he believes it is wrong?

This is correct.

The meta-ethical topic also addresses why it is problematic or impossible to go into the whole issue of why someone thinks something is right or wrong.

This is incorrect. Having a meta-ethical stance of any kind does nothing to make the reasoning for any give moral judgment problematic.

 

[Syne]

Listen, these are consenting adults and fully entitled to do what they want to each other, whenever they want to do it, and without being condemned by anyone.

Turn it around and substitute blacks or Hispanics or Asians or women for the gays and you'll be banned, and rightly so.

Now shut the hell up about what gay people do and go find another group of people to demonise. (I don't mean 'hell').

No one has the right to legislate acceptance (i.e. "entitled to... [not] being condemned"), as this violates one of the most fundamental humans rights...the right to free thought. Again, "homosexuality" can refer to sexual behavior, not just orientation. And again, ad infinitum, behavior can be condemned without demonizing any person or group, as one "bad" behavior does not dismiss other potential virtues.

 

[Trippy]

And? MSM are just more likely to engage in further risky behavior that compounds the problem. That source goes on to say:

The study authors estimate that if receptive anal intercourse were only as risky as vaginal intercourse, HIV cases would fall by 80 percent to 98 percent among gay and bisexual men over five years.​

Strawman hypothesis. If you were paying attention to what I had actually said you would have noticed that I explicitly acknowledged that anal sex was more risky than vaginal sex, I even explained in broad terms why that should be expected to be the case. The point you're attempting to engage me on is not the point that I was actually making here - that is, it's not an issue of homosexuality, it's an issue of anuses and large intestines.

Yes, because the actions/opinions of others always excuse our responsibility for our own actions [sarcasm].

Predictably, another strawman. This isn't the point I was making, it's not even remotely implied anything I have actually said. The point I was making that all the available evidence suggests that people making moral judgements of homosexuality causes harm to homosexuals and prevents them from accessing the tools that would enable them to prevent themselves from doing harm to themselves. This seems to contradict your stated position.

Finally, you're a moderator. More than that, you're a moderator who has had much to say about the conduct of their fellow moderators. You're not doing a very good job of comporting yourself in the way that you appear to suggest others should.

 

[Bells]

Keep yer shorts on. Having to catch up on all these replies leaves me with less time to compose my reasons. I do have a life outside of this forum.

And as I advised you previously, if you are going to take the time to make such obscene statements, you need to ensure you are able to explain why you happen to hold such obscene views - such as the views you are yet to explain as to why you believe "homosexual behaviour" is wrong.

Yes, I understand that, since you may espouse meta-ethical moral relativism, you may believe that moral "opinions" are easily malleable. That is not necessarily so.

I'm sorry, I was under the belief that your homophobia stemmed from a lack of education. I had not realised your outdated beliefs stem from your personal morals.

Also, I am using the term "homosexuality" in the sense of sexual behavior, not orientation.

Because this makes it better?

Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality​

Yes, we know what it means.

Perhaps you can explain why you think "homosexual behaviour" is wrong.

Yet the risk of HIV is so much higher for MSM.

And as you have been reminded numerous times, homosexual behaviour does not cause HIV. Lack of protection is what makes it a problem and we have explained why this was the issue.

A persons color is readily demonstrable as innate, while all responsible scientists always qualify statements of evidence as "strongly suggesting" rather than any incontrovertible proof. Also, self-reported lack of control is equally prevalent among a host of compulsive behaviors.

Do you choose what sex you are attracted to? Is your heterosexuality your behaviour?

So I give you credible statistics and it is an "excuse".

No, it is your misrepresentation of credible statistics while openly disregarding the factors for such figures is what makes it an excuse. For example:

Straw man. I never said HIV/AIDS was caused by homosexuality, only that transmission rates were higher, which is empirical evidence.

As you are constantly reminded and continue to misrepresent and disregard, why transmission rates are higher. Really, it's even in the links you provide and misrepresent.

I can be offended without being emotionally hurt. Perhaps you cannot?

If you call your butt hurt response not being emotionally hurt, sure.

And? MSM are just more likely to engage in further risky behavior that compounds the problem. That source goes on to say:

The study authors estimate that if receptive anal intercourse were only as risky as vaginal intercourse, HIV cases would fall by 80 percent to 98 percent among gay and bisexual men over five years.​

That's not exactly what he was saying....

If you do not like this thread in EM&J, feel free to move it to Religion, where it started.

Religion is now "Open Government"?

My conviction is just fine, and if you wish to engage me on the topic in a new thread dedicated to the subject, I would be happy to oblige.

Time to start obliging.

 

[Randwolf]

And? I already said, "No, not the "gayness", just "men who have sex with men"

Syne, do you not realize how absurd this statement is, on its face?

 

[Balerion]

And? I already said, "No, not the "gayness", just "men who have sex with men", according to the CDC."

Again, you're misrepresenting the report. It isn't men who have sex with men that is the root cause of such numbers, but unprotected anal sex. At least according to the report. The headline "Biology leaves gay men susceptible" is erroneous. It has nothing to do with biology. Gay men do not all by default engage in anal sex, nor do they by default do it without protection.

That link did not go into the possible causes for the increased prevalence of black gay infection, and from everything I have read, it pretty much stumps everyone, as blacks (even gay) are less likely to engage in risky sexual behavior (i.e. use drugs before/during sex or not use condoms).

That's ridiculous. First, the article absolutely did go into possible causes for the increased prevalence among gays in general when it advocated condom use and a change in how some areas treat homosexuality as a crime. Secondly, it isn't exactly a secret as to why gay black men are so disproportionately at risk for infection. This paper sheds some light on the matter. In short, many black MSMs do not identify as gay, and therefore do not heed the warnings directed at the gay community. The reason for this is likely due to the amount of homophobia in black culture.

Keep yer shorts on. Having to catch up on all these replies leaves me with less time to compose my reasons. I do have a life outside of this forum.

So do we. And you've never been anything less than verbose in your time here, so let's drop the act. Try prioritizing your time: This thread was your idea, so let's go ahead and answer the central question first, then worry about the rest of the replies.

Yet the risk of HIV is so much higher for MSM.

So for you it's all about what presents the greatest risk? You don't condemn, say, heterosexual vaginal intercourse?

How about lesbian sex? Do you condemn that, as well?

A persons color is readily demonstrable as innate, while all responsible scientists always qualify statements of evidence as "strongly suggesting" rather than any incontrovertible proof. Also, self-reported lack of control is equally prevalent among a host of compulsive behaviors.

So you don't believe it's innate, then?

And? MSM are just more likely to engage in further risky behavior that compounds the problem. That source goes on to say:

The study authors estimate that if receptive anal intercourse were only as risky as vaginal intercourse, HIV cases would fall by 80 percent to 98 percent among gay and bisexual men over five years.​

What "further risky behavior?"

It could not possible be that I have a life outside of this forum and that the limited time I have to devote to it is taken catching up on these very replies [sarcasm]. Perhaps unlike yourself, I prefer to cite references for my reasoning instead of just talking off the cuff. Much more constructive for people to have the opportunity to debate points in references rather than just sling ad hominems.

We all have lives outside of the forum, and you've never been shy about expressing yourself here. You've also posted several lengthy replies in the days since this thread was started, leaving me--and others--to believe that you're just trying to duck the question.

And regardless of my reasons, I have already said that I condemn the behavior while not demonizing any individual or group. That should suffice, but no doubt you have a much looser definition of "homophobe", as anyone who has any slightest negative opinion of a behavior.

And we're just supposed to take your word for it?

Let's hear your reasons, then we can decide if you're full of crap.

 

[Syne]

Strawman hypothesis. If you were paying attention to what I had actually said you would have noticed that I explicitly acknowledged that anal sex was more risky than vaginal sex, I even explained in broad terms why that should be expected to be the case. The point you're attempting to engage me on is not the point that I was actually making here - that is, it's not an issue of homosexuality, it's an issue of anuses and large intestines.

No, you made the erroneous assumption that I ever said it was solely about homosexuality. Seeing as that demographic is the most at risk and, in some countries, account for the most new infections, they just so happen to have the highest risk of causing harm. But this thread is about homosexuality, so why should I be talking about anal sex in general? That would be a bit off-topic.

Yes, because the actions/opinions of others always excuse our responsibility for our own actions [sarcasm].

Predictably, another strawman. This isn't the point I was making, it's not even remotely implied anything I have actually said. The point I was making that all the available evidence suggests that people making moral judgements of homosexuality causes harm to homosexuals and prevents them from accessing the tools that would enable them to prevent themselves from doing harm to themselves. This seems to contradict your stated position.

Really? So if a homosexual really wants to use a condom someone's moral judgment will somehow prevent that? And access to treatment may be problematic:

Many white and interracial couples believed that if the HIV positive partner has a low viral load and is taking HIV medication, the risk of HIV transmission is lower. The findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that some gay couples are abandoning condom use in response to beliefs about advances in HIV treatment and testing. - http://news.sfsu.edu/gay-couples-condom-decision-making-and-condom-use-varies-race​

Finally, you're a moderator. More than that, you're a moderator who has had much to say about the conduct of their fellow moderators. You're not doing a very good job of comporting yourself in the way that you appear to suggest others should.

How so? Is simply having an opinion that is not shared by the majority of moderators somehow inherently wrong? And other moderators have also already had plenty to say about my conduct. Your point?

And as I advised you previously, if you are going to take the time to make such obscene statements, you need to ensure you are able to explain why you happen to hold such obscene views - such as the views you are yet to explain as to why you believe "homosexual behaviour" is wrong.

I do not need to "ensure" anything of the sort. Like I told Balerion, if you really want my reasons in a timely fashion, quit wasting my time arguing about not getting them. I have a life, and demands on my time, outside of this forum.

So now opinions that differ from yours are "obscene", huh?

I'm sorry, I was under the belief that your homophobia stemmed from a lack of education. I had not realised your outdated beliefs stem from your personal morals.

Yes, backhanded ad hominem duly noted.

Also, I am using the term "homosexuality" in the sense of sexual behavior, not orientation.

Because this makes it better?

I suppose it does not if you insist that condemning a behavior necessarily requires demonizing the person/group. I do not. That is your personal problem.

And as you have been reminded numerous times, homosexual behaviour does not cause HIV. Lack of protection is what makes it a problem and we have explained why this was the issue.

And as you have been reminded, it is a straw man (lie) that I ever said homosexuality causes HIV.

No, it is your misrepresentation of credible statistics while openly disregarding the factors for such figures is what makes it an excuse. For example:


As you are constantly reminded and continue to misrepresent and disregard, why transmission rates are higher. Really, it's even in the links you provide and misrepresent.

Again, do excuses condone harmful behavior? I suppose for a group that is so adamant about having "no choice" perhaps their ability to exercise their choice of safe sex in the face of condemnation is out of the question?

I can be offended without being emotionally hurt. Perhaps you cannot?

If you call your butt hurt response not being emotionally hurt, sure.

Whatever comforts you.

If you do not like this thread in EM&J, feel free to move it to Religion, where it started.

Religion is now "Open Government"?

Well, you might want to split all the off-topic troll talk first.

Time to start obliging.

You have no entitlement to my time. Get over it.

 

[Balerion]

I think it's clear now that Syne has no intention on answer the central question of this thread. A regular member would likely face moderation for such a stunt. But, thanks to the impeccable decision-making of the administration, Syne is no longer subject to the rules of the forum.

I'm done chasing cowards. Close it if you like.

 

[Trippy]

No, you made the erroneous assumption that I ever said it was solely about homosexuality.

No, you framed the discussion in those terms when you used the risks associated with anal sex to justify your morality in regards to homosexuality, and now that you have been, once again, shown to be misrepresenting the science for the - what is this, the second time now? Or is it the third?

So which is it? Are you morally opposed to homosexuallity? Or are you morally opposed to Anal sex?

Seeing as that demographic is the most at risk and, in some countries, account for the most new infections, they just so happen to have the highest risk of causing harm. But this thread is about homosexuality, so why should I be talking about anal sex in general? That would be a bit off-topic.

Because it is specifically anal sex that puts them at the most risk (role versatility exacerbates this further).

Really? So if a homosexual really wants to use a condom someone's moral judgment will somehow prevent that?

Now you're just being outright dishonest (well, even more so). Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I originally said, but yes, when laws are framed around peoples moral judgements it does prevent that.

And access to treatment may be problematic:

Many white and interracial couples believed that if the HIV positive partner has a low viral load and is taking HIV medication, the risk of HIV transmission is lower. The findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that some gay couples are abandoning condom use in response to beliefs about advances in HIV treatment and testing. - http://news.sfsu.edu/gay-couples-condom-decision-making-and-condom-use-varies-race​

Maybe you should go back and reread my previous posts, or take some time perusing some of the original papers rather than (once again) relying on someone elses interpretation of it for you.

How so? Is simply having an opinion that is not shared by the majority of moderators somehow inherently wrong?

Once again, you're being dishonest and twisting my words to suite your own ends and construct a strawman hypothesis.

And other moderators have also already had plenty to say about my conduct. Your point?

If you're comfortable being a hypocrite that's fine, I guess, but you're giving the rest of us free passes to ignore any criticisms you might offer about moderators trolling chatters or conflicted interest.

You have no entitlement to my time. Get over it.

You think you're the only person with carbon world obligations?

Maybe if you can't meet the time requirements it's time to think about stepping down.

 

[Trippy]

I think it's clear now that Syne has no intention on answer the central question of this thread. A regular member would likely face moderation for such a stunt. But, thanks to the impeccable decision-making of the administration, Syne is no longer subject to the rules of the forum.

I'm done chasing cowards. Close it if you like.

Seconded.

 

[Syne]

Again, you're misrepresenting the report. It isn't men who have sex with men that is the root cause of such numbers, but unprotected anal sex. At least according to the report. The headline "Biology leaves gay men susceptible" is erroneous. It has nothing to do with biology. Gay men do not all by default engage in anal sex, nor do they by default do it without protection.

That headline is not erroneous, as anal sex is a biological susceptibility prevalent among MSM and contributory to the transmission rate among that demographic. But who said that "all by default engage in anal sex, [or] by default do it without protection"? Seems to be a straw man.

That's ridiculous. First, the article absolutely did go into possible causes for the increased prevalence among gays in general when it advocated condom use and a change in how some areas treat homosexuality as a crime.

The only thing that article said about the cause was:

There were other differences: black men were less likely to have access to medical care and more likely to have sex with other black men.​

So no idea what article you are talking about.

Secondly, it isn't exactly a secret as to why gay black men are so disproportionately at risk for infection. This paper sheds some light on the matter. In short, many black MSMs do not identify as gay, and therefore do not heed the warnings directed at the gay community. The reason for this is likely due to the amount of homophobia in black culture.

So black men who have sex with men or men and women are less likely to use condoms than black men who solely have sex with women. So even though straight black men are generally the most likely to use a condom, this does not hold for other black sexual orientations.

Good to know.

So do we. And you've never been anything less than verbose in your time here, so let's drop the act. Try prioritizing your time: This thread was your idea, so let's go ahead and answer the central question first, then worry about the rest of the replies.

I set my own priorities.

So for you it's all about what presents the greatest risk? You don't condemn, say, heterosexual vaginal intercourse?

How about lesbian sex? Do you condemn that, as well?

I do condemn irresponsible and promiscuous behavior of any orientation, and HIV risk is not the entirety of my reasoning.

So you don't believe it's innate, then?

I do not believe it has been conclusively proven so.

What "further risky behavior?"

Drug use, mental illness, etc..

We all have lives outside of the forum, and you've never been shy about expressing yourself here. You've also posted several lengthy replies in the days since this thread was started, leaving me--and others--to believe that you're just trying to duck the question.

Believe what you like. You can always test your hypothesis, and I have already told you how.

And regardless of my reasons, I have already said that I condemn the behavior while not demonizing any individual or group. That should suffice, but no doubt you have a much looser definition of "homophobe", as anyone who has any slightest negative opinion of a behavior.

And we're just supposed to take your word for it?

Let's hear your reasons, then we can decide if you're full of crap.

Oh, I am sure you have already formed an opinion on that which my reasons will do nothing to change.