Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homosexuality Statistics"
m (→Dutch Study) |
Conservative (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:::provide a link to the study. You can use PUBMED. Are you referring to this study: http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=05020&article=00012&type=fulltext ? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT) | :::provide a link to the study. You can use PUBMED. Are you referring to this study: http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=05020&article=00012&type=fulltext ? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT) | ||
::::Yes, that's the study. My memory of the study is apparently not quite what I remembered(Must have been a similar study that had heterosexual participants) since it has been a couple years since I've read it but my concerns remain much the same. The study was on HIV+ men in Amsterdam under the ate of 30 and was designed to figure out the pathways(social, not biological) through which HIV/AIDS was spread because it was done by epidemiologists. The study was never intended to study relationships or anything about them. Monogamous relationships were purposely excluded from the study because it was concluded that a monogamous relationship would exclude the possibility of spread/infection of HIV. This study does not claim to represent anyone other than the subjects in the study because they were chosen for their high-risk behaviors. If the point of including it here is to just further the Conservative viewpoint of the site than that's fine. But this inclusion is a misrepresentation of the study's findings and brings down the accuracy of this page. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 17:54, 8 October 2011 (EDT) | ::::Yes, that's the study. My memory of the study is apparently not quite what I remembered(Must have been a similar study that had heterosexual participants) since it has been a couple years since I've read it but my concerns remain much the same. The study was on HIV+ men in Amsterdam under the ate of 30 and was designed to figure out the pathways(social, not biological) through which HIV/AIDS was spread because it was done by epidemiologists. The study was never intended to study relationships or anything about them. Monogamous relationships were purposely excluded from the study because it was concluded that a monogamous relationship would exclude the possibility of spread/infection of HIV. This study does not claim to represent anyone other than the subjects in the study because they were chosen for their high-risk behaviors. If the point of including it here is to just further the Conservative viewpoint of the site than that's fine. But this inclusion is a misrepresentation of the study's findings and brings down the accuracy of this page. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 17:54, 8 October 2011 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::Fair enough. I will remove it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:59, 8 October 2011 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:59, October 8, 2011
On might argue that the HIV statistic reveals more about the "true nature" of HIV than it does about homosexuality...PaulH 18:13, 29 November 2007 (EST)
That first talking point...could it have been that homosexuals in the fifties feared for their saftey (you could go to prison for homosexual acts back then) and weren't as 'out' as they are today, now that those laws have been repealed? Maestro 19:43, 29 November 2007 (EST)
If someone wants to make the point that homosexuality is more or less common in certain societies, I'd like to see a study that's less than half a century old - and that finds a way to get people to admit to homosexuality when legal and cultural mechanisms make that difficult, dangerous or impossible.PaulH 20:39, 29 November 2007 (EST)
- Why do you want to exclude good data from other time periods if it was done by very good scientists? It seems fishy and that you have an agenda. Conservative 16:27, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Statistics?
These aren't statistics. This article is just a list of select anecdotal evidence and quotes. SMI 16:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)
- Would you like some cheese with that whine? Conservative 16:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Dutch Study
I'm concerned about the inclusion of the "Dutch Study" in this list. The study was designed to look at the sexual habits of HIV+ people in Amsterdam and studied both heterosexual and homosexual people. It defined a "relationship" as anything from a single date to a lifelong, monogamous relationship. The study found identical results between the heterosexual and homosexual participants. You can go read the study if you don't believe me.Ayzmo 12:53, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
- provide a link to the study. You can use PUBMED. Are you referring to this study: http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=05020&article=00012&type=fulltext ? Conservative 16:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
- Yes, that's the study. My memory of the study is apparently not quite what I remembered(Must have been a similar study that had heterosexual participants) since it has been a couple years since I've read it but my concerns remain much the same. The study was on HIV+ men in Amsterdam under the ate of 30 and was designed to figure out the pathways(social, not biological) through which HIV/AIDS was spread because it was done by epidemiologists. The study was never intended to study relationships or anything about them. Monogamous relationships were purposely excluded from the study because it was concluded that a monogamous relationship would exclude the possibility of spread/infection of HIV. This study does not claim to represent anyone other than the subjects in the study because they were chosen for their high-risk behaviors. If the point of including it here is to just further the Conservative viewpoint of the site than that's fine. But this inclusion is a misrepresentation of the study's findings and brings down the accuracy of this page. Ayzmo 17:54, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
- provide a link to the study. You can use PUBMED. Are you referring to this study: http://journals.lww.com/aidsonline/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2003&issue=05020&article=00012&type=fulltext ? Conservative 16:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
- Fair enough. I will remove it. Conservative 17:59, 8 October 2011 (EDT)