lets talk about it... - Page 7

[twomers]

Not quite brother-sister incest, in this case:

On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.

[twomers]

Also this is where polygamy was a good thing!

[GrimJack]

Originally Posted by GrimJack View Post

HIV/AIDS - this is not a 'gay' disease, was not started in the gay community, is not god's punishment for anything. Of the worlds populations that have HIV/AIDS, 80% is transmitted through heterosexual contact.

I guess someone needs to learn to read...

Personal attack - carries no weight in a discussion.

If you would have read the whole thing, you would have noticed this point was already discussed...

Not by me nor in my particular way - why does it bother you? You have no problem repeating your dislike for gays - like if you had read the complete thread, you would have noticed that the 'I dislike gays' has already been discussed.

"gayness is not a choice - if it were a choice why would all those Republicans keep getting caught in bathrooms and those preachers keep getting outed??

wtf??

To refresh your memory, a Senator 'wide-stance' (Senator Craig, R ) was busted in a men's room stall, Representative 'text message a page" (Representative Foley,R ) was busted for sending disgusting messages to high school students working as pages at the nations capitol. I am not suggesting that there are no Democratic gays in congress (Barney Frank comes to mind) it is just that they are open about who they are and thus no one is surprised. If it was a choice, I am sure they would have chosen to remain faithful to their wives. The other was a reference to Ted Haggard and Lonnie Frisbee - both were televangelists who were caught in same-sex relationships, both were 'prayed straight' but it did not take.

i insist... if you will comment on a thread, you should read the whole thing first... ok?

You insist? Thread cop, hunh. When I reply to a thread, I open it and keep it open until I am satisfied with what I am saying -- I am trying to be a thoughtful poster and I think about what I post, I go do other things and I come back. I click preview post, look for errors, try to clean up personal attacks and stick to discussion; I change my phrasing, flip to google to check my facts, walk away and think some more; when I am satisfied with my post I post it. I really don't give [strikethrough]a rat's patootie[/strikethrough] <<sorry, I still haven't figured out how to insert strike-through diacriticals, sigh>> much concern to how you personally feel about my posts unless you actually have a cogent argument to present

I already corrected myself... i underestimated the value of the word hate around here... so i already stated... i don't hate gays... i dislike them

When someone states "I hate all... I hate everything about... I hate...." they don't leave a lot of room for dislike. How could you think repeating the word hate multiple times in reference to gays could be taken in any other way but hate. Hate speech is considered a crime when connected with physical violence because hate speech is different from other speech. I do not think you were suggesting violence but someone who thinks "I hate broccoli" is even slightly close to "I hate gays" does not understand language as well as they should.

[GrimJack]

Would you please cite your proof for the numeric statistic? It was my understanding that, in the United States at least, ~90%+ of occurences did appear among the somewhat overlapping groups of homosexuals and shared-needle drug addicts, and I would like to know where you get your statistics from.

world wide AIDS stats
Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.

Mea Culpa - I should have reversed the statistics and stated only 5-10% of world wide aids is spread by homosexual sex.

Do not think that the US is the world

[GrimJack]

As to your bringing up the scriptures,

I think I was mis-using the quote a bit - you are correct, but.... Do you believe that slavery is okay? Slavery is supported in the bible - so I would guess that when you judge, you should use the holy spirit and realize that the holy spirit teaches change.

Again, I will try to find the original survey and verify the data.

Please do, thanks

[twomers]

That's an interesting link, GrimJack. I was always lead to believe that it was the other way around, that about 60% of AIDS/HIV was caused by homosexual relationships ... Will have to research further.

[EnderX]

Would you please cite your proof for the numeric statistic? It was my understanding that, in the United States at least, ~90%+ of occurences did appear among the somewhat overlapping groups of homosexuals and shared-needle drug addicts, and I would like to know where you get your statistics from.

world wide AIDS stats
Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.

Mea Culpa - I should have reversed the statistics and stated only 5-10% of world wide aids is spread by homosexual sex.

Do not think that the US is the world

I don't think the US is the world. I admit I haven't looked at your stats yet (I'll try to get around to it), but if you don't mind, how much of that count is located within Africa?

As to the survey, I've got the book I saw it mentioned in on hand, I just need to go back over the book and find the reference to follow the footnotes. More a matter of how much free time I have right now than anything else.

[GrimJack]

I don't think the US is the world.

That came out wrong - I meant the world is a very big place - please, no insult was meant so I hope none was taken/

I admit I haven't looked at your stats yet (I'll try to get around to it), but if you don't mind, how much of that count is located within Africa?

The stats are 68.8% Africa, 14.4% Asia, the US is lumped into the category of 'High Income Countries' which is 6.4%, 5.5% Latin America & Caribbean, and 4.8% for Eastern Europe & Central Asia.
As you can imagine that getting these stats out the more tightly regulated (read despotic leadership) counties. These stats are for 2005 (the page was updated a couple weeks ago) from UNAIDS/WHO 2006 and 2007 reports. One thing to keep in mind is that HIV/AIDS was not diagnosed until US citizens started dropping dead - no one really knows thow long it was spreading through Africa and India before anyone know what was going on.
Most of stats are in pie-chart form with good legends and then follow up descriptions.

As to the survey, I've got the book I saw it mentioned in on hand, I just need to go back over the book and find the reference to follow the footnotes. More a matter of how much free time I have right now than anything else.

I understand the problem of digging through foot-notes and I do not envy you that task - take your time.

[GrimJack]

That came out wrong - I meant the world is a very big place - please, no insult was meant so I hope none was taken/ The stats are 68.8% Africa, 14.4% Asia, the US is lumped into the category of 'High Income Countries' which is 6.4%, 5.5% Latin America & Caribbean, and 4.8% for Eastern Europe & Central Asia.
As you can imagine that getting these stats out the more tightly regulated (read despotic leadership) counties. These stats are for 2005 (the page was updated a couple weeks ago) from UNAIDS/WHO 2006 and 2007 reports. One thing to keep in mind is that HIV/AIDS was not diagnosed until US citizens started dropping dead - no one really knows thow long it was spreading through Africa and India before anyone know what was going on.
Most of stats are in pie-chart form with good legends and then follow up descriptions.

I understand the problem of digging through foot-notes and I do not envy you that task - take your time.

I don't think the US is the world. I admit I haven't looked at your stats yet (I'll try to get around to it), but if you don't mind, how much of that count is located within Africa?

As to the survey, I've got the book I saw it mentioned in on hand, I just need to go back over the book and find the reference to follow the footnotes. More a matter of how much free time I have right now than anything else.

You know that I am still waiting on your references. If you do not have the time to click on a link to see my references, I begin to doubt your intellectual honesty.

[EnderX]

I have some extra free time this evening; I'll follow on what you linked then. I apologize, but most of my free time is on weekends, and I tend not to think of Daniweb then.

[scru]

Gays will all burn in eternal hellfire...

[EnderX]

@GrimJack:

I've looked over the site a bit; I'll admit what I've done is more skim than scan, but I've looked at some of it. I'll try to get more done over the coming weekend, or over the week if I discover extra free time; this is looking to be a possibility, although I cannot yet say how probable.

I do, however, have one question: In looking over the history listings, I saw that the CDC had the US definition of AIDS upgraded occasionally, but that appeared to be it. Has the African definition ever been upgraded, or are they still using the 1985 Bangui definition?

[GrimJack]

@GrimJack:

I've looked over the site a bit; I'll admit what I've done is more skim than scan, but I've looked at some of it. I'll try to get more done over the coming weekend, or over the week if I discover extra free time; this is looking to be a possibility, although I cannot yet say how probable.

I do, however, have one question: In looking over the history listings, I saw that the CDC had the US definition of AIDS upgraded occasionally, but that appeared to be it. Has the African definition ever been upgraded, or are they still using the 1985 Bangui definition?

That is the WHO definition as of 1985 which updated a previous document produced in 1982. The definition of AIDS as a collection of symptoms as stated in the 'Bangui definition" called this because Bangui is the city in which the WHO, CDC, and other health organizations came together to develop a serveiling case definition of AIDS for use in countries where testing for HIV antibodies was not available. I imagine that as the cost and complexity of testing for the antibodies are reduced, reliance on the definition will also be reduced.

Thanks for the response - I went hunting (as I did not know the name of the definition so had to research it) and found this quote:
The first human known to be infected with HIV was a man from Kinshasa in the nearby country of Congo who had his blood stored in 1959 as part of a medical study, decades before scientists knew the AIDS virus existed.
If i.r.c. the blood tests were part of a inoculation program in the area - and I have vague recollections of problems with the program and somehow simian blood contaminated the vaccine and this might have been how SIV crossed species to become HIV. But this is vague recollection so don't hold me to it.

[GrimJack]

Gays will all burn in eternal hellfire...

You are joking right? and not just a babbling idiot, I hope.

[scru]

You are joking right? and not just a babbling idiot, I hope.

Dare you refer to me as such things? You will burn in eternal hellfire as well!

[ndeniche]

lol

[GrimJack]

Okay, Okay - not a babbling idiot, (sometimes I think I am but then <in the background I am listening to Dave Attel on "the Best of Insomniac: Uncensored" in a head-banger club chanting "I am Satan, I am Satan" -- we don't have cable so we have to get our Comedy Central via netflix> er where was I - dang there is the theme song, "stay with me and you will see a late night freak-show jubilee")
Never mind, I lost my place

[Agilemind]

I don't know if this has been addressed or not but humans could have evolved to be gay if the "gay-gene(s)" usually convey an advantage which counters the effect of homosexuals not passing on their genes. eg. sickle-cell anemia has evolved in African populations because a single copy of the gene doesn't cause disease but protects them from malaria. Besides cultural factors often result in gays entering heterosexual relationships and producing children. Current evidence suggests it has something to do with hormones during pregnancy but it is still preliminary.

Secondly there is a lot of ethical issues surrounding looking for "gay gene(s)" which has greatly slowed research in the area (and I should point out most of the human genome is still a complete mystery).

As others have said HIV is mostly transmitted by heterosexuals and it originated in chimps as (SIV) but it is not known when or how it got into the human population.

[GrimJack]

The really interesting part of the research is that evolution re-uses and/or builds on what is there and this means that there is not necessarily one gene per attribute. Why don't people have purple hair? Why do redheads exist? What makes dogs different from wolves? (link)

There is an experiment in Russia in which a geneticist is trying to tame foxes. Only the most docile foxes are allowed to breed and any fox that was fearful or aggressive were 'culled'. After 54 years of research and 51 generations of foxes. What they ended up with were foxes with floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended breeding seasons, and morphological changes like the size and shape of the skull and teeth - they also lost the 'musky, fox smell' and changes in fur color. Of the original batch, they kept a base-line batch that were not culled. There were also physiological changes especially in certain hormone balances.

My point in bringing this up is that if 'gayness' is genetic, it is probably a consequence of a mutation that offers some advantage or, at the very least, does not lead to its own extinction despite the difficulties in same-sex couples reproducing. Like protecting the offspring of relatives. I am starting to get bogged down in the details. Anyway, I hope you see what I mean.