Talk:Homosexuality
From Conservapedia
Contents |
Homosexuality in animals myth
This subtitle is confusing. According to this page's definition on homosexuality - "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex" - it is clear that there exists homosexuality in animals, it is not a myth. While there might be other definitions of homosexuality, it is confusing to use a different one here, and that should be explicitly stated anyway. The question is how relevant the observed homosexuality in animals is - not its existence. The subtitle should be renamed "Homosexuality in animals", or there should be included a clear definition and a rationale for calling it a "myth".Crucialwood 01:19, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
- Crucialwood, are you a animal mind reader? The reason I asked this question is how I was wondering how you differentiate merely acts of dominance among animals vs. acts that are more sexual in nature? conservative 09:34, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
Suggested resource
R. V. Young; The Gay Invention http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-036-fDaniel1212 11:28, 19 August 2009 (EDT)
New Stats
Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups. Male-to-male sexual contact accounted for 53% (28,700) of estimated new HIV infections in 2006. CDC’s historical trend analysis indicates that HIV incidence has been increasing steadily among gay and bisexual men since the early 1990s, confirming a trend suggested by other data showing increases in risk behavior, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and HIV diagnoses in this population.
High-risk heterosexual contact accounted for 31% (16,800) of estimated new HIV infections in 2006. The historical analysis suggests that the number of new infections in this population fluctuated somewhat throughout the 1990s and has declined in recent years.
Injection drug use (IDU) accounted for 12% (6,600) of estimated new HIV infections. CDC’s historical trend analysis indicates that new infections have declined dramatically in this population; between 1988-90 and 2003-06, HIV infections among injection drug users declined 80%.[1][2]
[These more accurate figures are the result of] new technology developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) can be used to distinguish recent from long-standing HIV infections. CDC has applied this advanced technology to develop the first national surveillance system of its kind that is based on direct measurement of new HIV infections. This new system represents a major advance in HIV surveillance and allows for more precise estimates of HIV incidence (the annual number of new infections) than ever before possible.
CDC’s first estimates from this system reveal that the HIV epidemic is—and has been—worse than previously known. Results indicate that approximately 56,300 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2006 (95% CI: 48,200–64,500). This figure is roughly 40% higher than CDC’s former estimate of 40,000 infections per year, which was based on limited data and less precise methods AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.
“We are at a turning point as a country. Either we choose to get used to HIV/AIDS … to accept that it is a permanent feature of society … to be satisfied with lengthening lives instead of saving them, or we decide to double our efforts and start bringing the number of new infections down,” said U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius on Monday.
On Monday (Aug. 24, 2009) U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said President Obama has called "on us to focus our efforts to reducing HIV incidence, getting people living with HIV into care and working to reduce HIV-related disparities,” Steps are being taken by the Obama administration to target these specific populations which continue to be hardest hit by HIV in the U.S. (From Wash. Blade report) The Obama-Biden national health plan will ensure that people living with HIV have access to lifesaving treatment and care. Obama is also a cosponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which would help provide Medicaid coverage to more low-income, HIV-positive Americans. http://change.gov/pages/the_obama_biden_plan_to_combat_global_hiv_aids/
The overall cost of treating AIDS in the United States was $16 billion in 2002. http://www.redribbon.net/what-is-hiv-aids.htm
The lifetime cost of treating an AIDS patient in the United States was $102,000. in 1992. [3].[4]
The average patient diagnosed with HIV today can expect to live 24.2 more years, more than triple the life span of those diagnosed with the AIDS-causing virus in the early 1990s, according to a new study.
But with HIV/AIDS patients living longer and taking more sophisticated drug regimens, a lifetime of treatment could cost more than $600,000 per patient, straining the federal government’s ability to provide for those in need. http://www.bloggernews.net/11972
The monthly medical cost now (Nov 2006) for people with HIV from diagnosis until death is averages to be $2,100. The lifetime (now 24.2 years avg.) HIV care cost per person in optimal HIV care is now $618,900 per person.[5].[6]
The above is sobering, and by no means does my posting it denote a lack of compassion for those suffering with it, and after my last bout with a severe toothache, i do not want anyone to suffer needlessly. But prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the laws of God work towards our benefit when obeyed, and our detriment (and that of those we influence) when neglected. With 1 out of 4 college students infected with at least one STD, and over a half a million Americans dead of AIDS, the War against God is costing America plenty in souls as well as in money. (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html) That it is such a war is manifest in the incongruous actions or rather inactions which are taken to prevent these needless afflictions and deaths, while if taking part in the Lord's Supper resulted in a greatly increased incidence of infectious diseases and premature death, there is no doubt this consensual practice would be severely restricted, rather than celebrated.Daniel1212 21:28, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
The lifetime cost of treating an AIDS patient in the United States was $102,000. in 1992. [7].[8] The average patient diagnosed with HIV today can expect to live 24.2 more years, more than triple the life span of those diagnosed with the AIDS-causing virus in the early 1990s, according to a new study. But with HIV/AIDS patients living longer and taking more sophisticated drug regimens, a lifetime of treatment could cost more than $600,000 per patient, straining the federal government’s ability to provide for those in need. http://www.bloggernews.net/11972
- Are you saying that people who have AIDS should not get any medication or that only homosexual people should not get any medication? I can't find the moral in it. I just can't understand which kind of arguments you use to come to such an idea. And what do you mean with: 'those in need'. Are people which are doomed to die not in need? And that those people don't have the right of die in dignity or should just homosexual people not have the right of die in dignity ? (Considering that euthanasia is not an option, and I would in no case agree with it..)
- I also differ about gays should not have the same right as the so called 'normal' people and that 'normal' people who think that homosexuality is not a disease should have the same rights as the homosexual. And the fact of being gay or lesbian does NOT increase the possibility of getting AIDS get off that idea please. Ever heard about Homophobia? You guys should be familiar.
The argument of "we are just expressing our affection"
- Although they may choose such acts as means of experiencing personal intimacy, the resulting experience cannot be the experience of any real unity between them.
- ... [[[sodomy]]] is hardly an appropriate way to express friendship.[9]
A few minor things that need fixing.
In the Further Reading section, there is a wikilink to Homosexual, which redirects back to Homosexuality; this should be delinked.
In the subsection Forensic Journal Articles on Homosexual Murders and Overkill, there is a wikilink to Lesbian, which redirects back to Homosexuality. There are also wikilinks to Lesbian under the sub-subsection Dr. William Eckert on Homosexual Homicides and Overkill and the section Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot. These three should probably either be delinked or directed to Lesbianism instead. -CSGuy 13:18, 18 October 2009 (EDT)
- Thanks. It's fixed now. conservative 03:16, 13 November 2009 (EST)
