Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Why do people only associate HIV/Aids with homosexual people


Why do people only associate HIV/Aids with homosexual people?
Did you not know that heterosexual people died from AIDS all the time too? It stems from being stupid and not playing it safe....not from your choice of partners. That has got to be the worst argument for the prevention of homosexual marriages.
Religion & Spirituality - 32 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
omg, I agree with you. it's so annoying when people do that... xx
2 :
The creators of America’s Constitution understood, as did Aristotle more than two millennia ago, that man is a social being (zoon politikon). He is not at liberty to live for himself exclusively. He is a person who is both unique and communal. He takes his place among other unique people who work together for the common good. So inclined by nature is the human being to social alliances that one of these alliances, called “marriage,” represents a union of such profound I-Thou intimacy that the time-honored expression, “two-in-one flesh” aptly captures its nature. Moreover, the science of immunology has affirmed on a physiological level the objective reality of this two-in-one flesh unity. Commenting on the Lawrence decision, Professor William E. May, of the Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, states that “the majority opinion completely ignores the intimate bonds between sex, marriage and generation of new life. It is blind to the indispensable contribution married men and woman make to the common good of society.” The contributions of immunology in shedding additional light on the nature of two-in-one flesh warrants further elaboration. Our immune system, certainly one of the great marvels of nature, equips us with 100 billion (100,000,000,000) immunological receptors. Each of these tiny receptors has the uncanny natural capacity to distinguish the self from the non-self. Consequently, they are able to immunize or protect our bodies against the invasion of foreign substances that could be harmful to us. Marvelous as nature is, it is never extremist. From a purely immunological point of view (from the standpoint of an all-out defensive strategy), a woman’s body would reject the oncoming sperm, recognizing it as a foreign substance. But this is precisely the point at which nature, we might say, becomes wise. If our immune system regards sperm as a potential enemy, then fertilization would never take place, and the human race would have come to an early demise with the passing of Adam and Eve. But something extraordinary occurs, which makes fertilization and the continuation of the human race possible. Traveling alongside the sperm in the male’s seminal fluid is a mild immunosuppressant. Immunologists refer to it as consisting of “immunoregulatory macromolecules.” This immunosuppressant is a chemical signal to the woman’s body that allows it to recognize the sperm not as a non-self, but as part of its self. It makes possible, despite the immune system’s usual preoccupation with building an airtight defence system, a “two-in-one-flesh” intimacy. Now that sodomy is talked about as a human right to be exercised by male same-sex couples without discrimination, we may ask how it compares, immunologically speaking. Male sperm, being blissfully unresponsive to political ideologies or cultural trends, go right ahead and behave strictly according to their nature. They penetrate the nucleus of whatever body cell (somatic cell) they might encounter. This fusing, however, does not result in fertilization, the first stage in the life of a new human being, but, as scientists have shown, can and does result in the development of cancerous malignancies. Furthermore, the immunosuppressant aspect explained above does not have the same protective effect; instead, an “immunopermissive environment” is created, as if the immune system becomes confused and welcomes its enemies. Depositing sperm in the “wrong place” (like pouring motor oil into the gas line), by nature’s standards, is courting disaster. Nature, we might add, demands respect. It does not make accommodations to politically based ideologies or individual preferences. From nature’s standpoint, there is no equality between heterosexual and male homosexual intercourse. The same-sex issue is hotly contested. This is par for the course when it comes to moral issues. All too often, as it is commonly said, there is far more heat than light. In order to bring some measure of objectivity to the discussion, a close observation of nature, such as science can provide, is extremely helpful. Science, like nature, is immune to political or fashionable trends. But in looking closely and carefully at what the science of immunology can tell us, we have even more reason for upholding and honouring the wisdom of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. And what is more, we have added reason to feel awe when we re-read the first chapter of Genesis, which refers to marriage as a union of “two in one flesh.”
3 :
Yes, we all have AIDS and love to touch little girls and boys. That's the PERFECT argument. They're sure to win. Oh yes, and you can thumbs down me for being gay. Don't be shy.
4 :
Stupid paranoia tactics to make people toe the line. Pure propaganda at it's worst.
5 :
You can also contract it from drinking water infected with urine that carries the virus. Contact on a wound from infected blood or bodily fluid. There are many ways to contract AIDS. But sex is the most emphasized because people always think about it.
6 :
it started because a black guy ate a monkey true story
7 :
We know that PD. But unfortunately the dumb@rse bigoted nutjobs don't.
8 :
Ignorance and religious dogma.
9 :
I agree. It's just an excuse they use to justify their bigotry.
10 :
This from a gay activist: http://www.aids2008.com/blog/waving-flag-gay-men-everywhere Mexico: gay male HIV prevalence, 25%. General population: under 1%. Thailand: gay: 25%. General: 2%. Senegal: 22% versus 1%. : China: gay HIV prevalence: 3% and apparently increasing. General prevalence: less than 0.1%. Kenya: gay men: 13%. General population: 8%. South Africa: 35% versus 18%.
11 :
Because religion want in on the act and right wing homophobes from America are happy to misinform about the issue.
12 :
The only people running around saying HIV is a "Gay" thing are the bible-thumping retards that use HIV as an excuse to try and deny gays human rights. If you believe that HIV is ONLY a gay thing, then how do you explain Africa? Do you really think that there are THAT MANY GAY MEN IN AFRICA? MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN AFRICA HAVE HIV! There are millions of Aids orphans... Are they all the children of gay men? People that believe such stupidity really need to do their research. <Edit> Urine is a sterile fluid... Unless you have a bladder infection. You could bathe and drink the urine from every HIV Infected human on earth and you would not get HIV. That is a TOTAL myth... A retarded myth at that. Yes, Anal Sex is the most likely way to catch HIV. NO ONE IS ARGUING WITH YOU... What you don't understand is that the instances of Anal Sex are FAR LOWER in Homosexual Relationships then Popular Culture leads you to believe. Gay Men Do Oral FAR FAR FAR MORE OFTEN Then They Do Anal. The reason that so many women get HIV is because heterosexual men have been REALLY in to anal sex of late. Women get HIV from anal sex, drug use, and accidental blood transmission. You bigots REALLY need to get your facts straight. </Edit>
13 :
actually its very very very very very very difficult for a man to get HIV from a woman. Thats why 85% of people with HIV are openly gay, 10% percent from drug use. And 5% "hertosexual" id just say their lying probably the percent of hiv whom never had gay sex is like .001%
14 :
It really is pathetic, isn't it? It's also spread by blood contact, too. And it's not just homosexuals that take drugs.
15 :
Same thing as the Jews being blamed for economic woes it let's people hate somebody that is not in their social group. The term is "Scape Goat"
16 :
Aren't atheists supposed to be logical? Anal sex tears the rectum which allows contaminated blood to be exchanged. Gays engage in this kind of behavior and hence are more susceptible to contracting HIV.
17 :
For some reason apprently HIV rates is higher in homosexual
18 :
For the same reason why there are still people convinced that "all rap music sounds the same" or "Ozzy Osbourne eats live kittens on stage". Some people are just stuck in the 80s.
19 :
If it is was good argument, lesbians have the least amount of STDs including aids.
20 :
Because it makes the disease seem less scary to them, if it's only affecting "those people". The truth (and nobody will tell you this) is that as long as you don't share needles, and wear protection if you are receiving anal sex, you are VERY unlikely to ever get AIDS (you have less of a chance then you would have of winning the lottery) btw let me be the first to point out that the incidence of AIDS is LOWEST among lesbians, than any other group.
21 :
prolly cuz the first time anybody ever heard of it, was when some white homos ,,who people previously thought were cool, and then found out they were'nt, they were gay, died from AIDS. hollywood and personality types who played like they were cool and normal, and we found out they were just sick dying homos.. and so the association began
22 :
NOTE: I am just pointing out where that came from, I am not saying it is a valid arugment now or a reason against gay marriage. I support same sex marriage and this people claiming that it is just a "gay disease" are dumb. It used to be considered a "gay" disease. When it started that is where it spread a lot, before STDs were considered such a huge issue gay men didn't have to worry about pregnancy so they were less inclined to use condoms. There have always been STDs, but AIDS is a whole lot scarier. And without condoms, anal sex (gay or straight) generally leads to more bleeding and more risk of AIDS, so that is another reason why it started in the gay community. It isn't just a "gay" disease anymore. Lesbians have the lowest rates because there is less body fluid/ blood! Homosexuals still often have monogamous relationships and there is a lot more education about condom use out there. It is a stupid argument.
23 :
I didn't think this was one of the arguments against gay marriage
24 :
A) uninformed. B) Deceived.
25 :
It depend on which cost your on. East cost it more prevalent. west cost it was more prevalent with drug's.. West Cost the Hiv-AID's was more prevalent in the blood supply. East cost it bit throw sexuality. South cost the same.
26 :
I always find it annoying. Those people have decided to look at one side of the issue and not the other, which makes it really hard for them to seem smart. If anything, same sex marriage will decrease HIV in the gay community.
27 :
Because in my country, male-to-male sexual contact accounts for a disproportionately high percentage of transmissions. Transmission through heterosexual contact is so rare it doesn't even have a category. The closest category is "HIGH-RISK heterosexual contact" (emphasis mine), which is "Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection."
28 :
People don't these days but that does not change the fact that it is with the homosexual community that it started. Also it is a fact that if the homosexual community did not also contain some bisexuals (who infected their wives and sometimes prostitutes) - who consequently had children born with the disease, the disease would have stayed with them. It is also fact that if some of the homosexual community had not also been involved in drug taking which meant the use of needles (which are often shared and get infected) the disease would have stayed with them. Homosexual drug users might share needles with straight drug users who then get Aids and pass it on to wives, girlfriends and subsequently children. All cases of AIDs (if we can trace them back far enough) started with homosexuals. It was then spread, originally, though immorality of one kind or another and those who say otherwise are deliberately wearing blinkers.
29 :
You know, I can not argue what I am no expert in, I can not say that aids affects one person more than another. What I can say is that people with other defects or disease are not BAN from marriage because of their risk factors. There may very well be science to say that aids is homosexual majority issue, which would further destroy the reasoning for the ban, as there own science would say that what homosexual people do does not wholly affect the heterosexual population. This is a basic issue of freedom. Americans especially are given the "right" to the pursuit of happiness, and that it says "ALL" men are created equal. it says nothing of denial of those freedoms because those men (or women) do not fit the current majority profile. Stop denying your fellow human beings rights based on your prejudices! let Freedom reign!
30 :
That is probably because (in the USA), the most common way of getting AIDS is when two men have (anal) sex. The second most common way is from sharing needles that have the virus. In other countries, blood transfusions are a major problem. But in the USA, it seems to be a higher risk of transfer between gay men.
31 :
because people are ignorant
32 :
i hate when they do that...but they also associate AIDS with black people...imagine much worse the whole AIDS prejudice is if you're black AND gay.



Read more discussions :

Posted by HIV/AIDS at 4:26 PM