• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why is it taboo to call AIDS a "gay disease"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Evander

"industry expert"
jmdajr said:
the type of lifestyle is the problem....

Being Gay DOES NOT make you have that kind of lifestyle. It just happens to be a popular lifestyle in the Gay community, BUT there are plenty of Heteros who live that lifestyle, and there are plenty of Gays who live "normal" lifestyles.



Again, the real issue here is why are people so hell bent on refering to AIDS as a Gay disease? Why is that important to them?
 

jmdajr

Member
Evander said:
Being Gay DOES NOT make you have that kind of lifestyle. It just happens to be a popular lifestyle in the Gay community, BUT there are plenty of Heteros who live that lifestyle, and there are plenty of Gays who live "normal" lifestyles.



Again, the real issue here is why are people so hell bent on refering to AIDS as a Gay disease? Why is that important to them?

I never said it did
 

Gaborn

Member
Kinitari said:
I wasn't -urged- to get circumcised. I was like... 3 days old. There was no discussion.

And most people get the majority of sex ed information from their parents. What's your point? People who are circumcised, whether at a young age by their parents, or at an older age at the suggestion of a health care worker are more likely to be given health information, therefore it's more difficult to establish whether circumcision is correlation or causation to reducing HIV infection.
 

Evander

"industry expert"
Gaborn said:
And most people get the majority of sex ed information from their parents. What's your point? People who are circumcised, whether at a young age by their parents, or at an older age at the suggestion of a health care worker are more likely to be given health information, therefore it's more difficult to establish whether circumcision is correlation or causation to reducing HIV infection.

Is there any data onHIV/AIDS rates among Africans for whom ritual circumcision is a tradition?
 

Tamanon

Banned
Gaborn said:
And most people get the majority of sex ed information from their parents. What's your point? People who are circumcised, whether at a young age by their parents, or at an older age at the suggestion of a health care worker are more likely to be given health information, therefore it's more difficult to establish whether circumcision is correlation or causation to reducing HIV infection.

Wait...where are you even getting this thing about circumsized kids being more likely to be given sexual health information? That seems to be a MAJOR leap in logic.
 
I guess this is why....

1981: The Beginning

In 1981, the first cases of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) were identified among gay men in the United States, acquiring the designation, GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency)
 

Gaborn

Member
Tamanon said:
Wait...where are you even getting this thing about circumsized kids being more likely to be given sexual health information? That seems to be a MAJOR leap in logic.

Well, I was responding to someone's question about the article's contention that circumcision itself leads to a 60% reduced risk of HIV transmission. I believe that studies that make a causal link between circumcision and HIV transmission being reduced are flawed because there may be other accompanying factors. One factor that plays into it I think is that there are many healthcare workers in Africa right now advising (not forcing, but advising) people to get circumcised. I would suggest that it's more likely that rather than the link being circumcision, the reason HIV transmission in those populations is reduced is the healthcare worker gives out additional information about STDs and potentially even access to contraceptives such as condoms.

Afterall, if someone is willing to listen about having their foreskin sliced off you think they're going to have a hangup about putting on a condom? (at least in an area such as Africa where neither is necessarily culturally the norm, even though some tribes in Africa do doubtlessly ritually circumcise.)
 

Evander

"industry expert"
Agent Ironside said:
I guess this is why....

1981: The Beginning

In 1981, the first cases of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) were identified among gay men in the United States, acquiring the designation, GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency)

As said efore, that argument is a genetic fallacy. The fact that a thing was once one way is not in and of itself a justification for it to continueto be that way.
 

Evander

"industry expert"
Gaborn said:
Well, I was responding to someone's question about the article's contention that circumcision itself leads to a 60% reduced risk of HIV transmission. I believe that studies that make a causal link between circumcision and HIV transmission being reduced are flawed because there may be other accompanying factors. One factor that plays into it I think is that there are many healthcare workers in Africa right now advising (not forcing, but advising) people to get circumcised. I would suggest that it's more likely that rather than the link being circumcision, the reason HIV transmission in those populations is reduced is the healthcare worker gives out additional information about STDs and potentially even access to contraceptives such as condoms.

Afterall, if someone is willing to listen about having their foreskin sliced off you think they're going to have a hangup about putting on a condom? (at least in an area such as Africa where neither is necessarily culturally the norm, even though some tribes in Africa do doubtlessly ritually circumcise.)

Circumscision has existed in Africa since LONG before those workers arrived, though. Also, why are they there and advocating it in the first place, if there had not already been a correlation before they got there? You are jumping to conclusions based on conjecture, and then asserting things to be the norm with nothing to back it up other than it sounds good to you.



Circumcision is not universally recognized as a superior medical practise, so the idea that circumcised individuals inherently have access to superior medical advice is flawed.
 

Gaborn

Member
Evander said:
Circumscision has existed in Africa since LONG before those workers arrived, though. Also, why are they there and advocating it in the first place, if there had not already been a correlation before they got there? You are jumping to conclusions based on conjecture, and then asserting things to be the norm with nothing to back it up other than it sounds good to you.

I'd think that the fact that a good deal of the health care workers being Christian missionaries would answer why they're advocating it. You're right, I'm jumping to conclusions (oh no, an opinion on a message board!) and guessing that there's more of a correlation than a causation but I stand by my statement.


Circumcision is not universally recognized as a superior medical practise, so the idea that circumcised individuals inherently have access to superior medical advice is flawed.

I'm not sure where I said "superior medical advice" I said MEDICAL ADVICE. That is, information on STDs and HIV transmission. Is everyone going to listen? Obviously not, and just as obviously not everyone who is suggested to be circumcised (speaking of the adult population that gets circumcised) is going to listen, but where they DO listen they're more likely to listen to other information such as condom use, which is a major hurdle in much of Africa.
 

Evander

"industry expert"
Gaborn said:
I'd think that the fact that a good deal of the health care workers being Christian missionaries would answer why they're advocating it.

Why would christian missionaries, specifically, preach circumcision?

You're right, I'm jumping to conclusions (oh no, an opinion on a message board!) and guessing that there's more of a correlation than a causation but I stand by my statement.

Despite what your kindergarten teacher might have told you, not all opinions are equally valid. If you're just guessing at things that sound good to you, and then fighting that you are absolutely right, and others are absolutely wrong, you are just wasting EVERYBODY'S time.

Thanks for admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about so I can stop paying attention, though.
 

Gaborn

Member
Evander said:
Why would christian missionaries, specifically, preach circumcision?

For most Christians, circumcision is seen as the "covenant with abraham" (even though that was originally jewish) most active Christian churches and evangelicals advocate Christianity, and an aspect of that is circumcison.



Despite what your kindergarten teacher might have told you, not all opinions are equally valid. If you're just guessing at things that sound good to you, and then fighting that you are absolutely right, and others are absolutely wrong, you are just wasting EVERYBODY'S time.

Thanks for admitting that you have no idea what you're talking about so I can stop paying attention, though.

Show me where I stated I was absolutely right. I advanced a theory (Even used words such as "think" and "in my opinion" throughout), and I expanded on that theory when prompted. Your over the top reaction seems to be disproportionate to this discussion, are you feeling alright?
 

Evander

"industry expert"
Gaborn said:
For most Christians, circumcision is seen as the "covenant with abraham" (even though that was originally jewish) most active Christian churches and evangelicals advocate Christianity, and an aspect of that is circumcison.

There are a million reasons why this does nothing at all to back up your arguments.

First off, Christianity does perform the ritual circumcision of Judaism, and the entire ritual was the covenant with Abraham, not just snipping the tip.

Secondly, Jesus was supposed to pre-empt that covenant, and Paul specifically said it wasn't needed any more.

Third, Christianity is a religion, not a proper source of medical advice.

Finally, many branches of Christianity oppose condoms, to begin with.



You are grasping for straws.
 

B!TCH

how are you, B!TCH? How is your day going, B!ITCH?
Love To Love You Baby said:
Please prove that homosexual sex is the main cause of HIV spread in Africa, or it was the origin of the spread of it. You're basing your argument on the American example and assuming the factors are identical in Africa.



You're responding to one example I posted. I'm not stating that "dry sex" is the main cause of heterosexual spread - I listed it as one factor, and so have multiple health organizations monitoring the spread of the disease in the continent.

There is nothing ignorant about highlighting that heterosexual Africans engage in unprotected sex (and many don't know they can spread the disease that way), which has led to higher infection rates. It isn't nonsense to state that high rape rates have led to higher HIV infection - South Africa has the highest rape rate in the world, and has the highest rate of new HIV infections. It isn't ignorant to discuss the standard practice of heterosexual men who work hundreds of miles away from home who commonly have sexual partners outside of their wives, leading to higher rates of infection.

All of those factors have led to increased HIV rates in Africa at a higher rate than homosexual sex has. Many people in Africa simply don't know how HIV is spread, and don't adjust their sexual behavior accordingly.

Unprotected sex, lack of education, misinformation, social stigma = larger factors than homosexual sex.



You're basing what happened in America - an entirely different continent - two decades ago on the African HIV problem. You're assuming that HIV began in homosexual populations in Africa and spread to heterosexuals because that seemingly occurred in America, which there is no evidence for. I'll repeat what I posted, because you didn't respond to it:

HIV is thought to evolved from SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) from wild chimpanzees in Cameroon. No one is sure how it spread to human populations, although there are different theories. The disease originated in sub-Saharan Africa, where it continues to reek havoc at a much higher rate than any other place on earth. Blaming gay men for the spread of the disease in an entirely different continent in the late 70s/early 80s and assuming the same factors apply in Africa really ignores the greater context and the specific circumstances that apply to the situation there. Africa is not America. You can't say "Oh, gay men spread the disease two decades ago here at a higher rate than other populations - so they must be spreading it in Africa, too!"




South Africa has the most accepting climate for homosexuality in Africa - and was one of the first countries in the world, developing or not, to legalize gay marriage. It also has the highest HIV infection rate in the world - many of which are heterosexual women. So, a country in which homosexuality is less taboo still has high infection rates amongst heterosexuals.



No one is stating that those who engage in anal sex are less likely to contract the disease. There are simple biological factors at work here - the same factors that make heterosexual women more likely to contract HIV than heterosexual men. Homosexuals are not the only group in the developed world that are at higher risk for HIV - and it isn't politically incorrect to ask why any group is at higher risk, even if it involves looking at factors outside simple biology (why are straight black women 13 times more likely to get HIV than straight white women, for instance, when one is no more biologically susceptible to the disease than the other)? It's only politically incorrect to claim AIDS as a "gay disease" or "black disease."

What I take issue with is your assumption that the AIDS epidemic in African is a carbon copy of the situation in America, when there are different factors at work here. Homosexual sex in Africa does spread the disease, sure. But because HIV was first notably contracted amongst gay men in one country doesn't mean it is the case in another.



This is an absurd statement. The modern gay rights movement began in the late 60s with the Stonewall riots, and gays had increased visibility throughout the 70s - even gaining some goodwill. The HIV epidemic created a huge stigma on homosexuality that harmed the gay rights movement and offset it for two decades. No one who is educated in any way on contemporary gay rights would say HIV helped the cause.


Are you gay?

You are getting way too defensive about this. Now you are just grasping at straws and putting words in my mouth.

There aren't many studies detailing a higher rate of infection among homosexuals versus heterosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa due to the social stigma associated with homosexuality in sub-Saharan Africa. If you had any knowledge of how these statistics are collected in the first place you would understand why that is. No the situation in sub-Saharan Africa is not the same as the situation in America but it isn't that far fetched to infer that if the rate of infection is high among American homosexuals relative to heterosexuals then it should also be high among sub-Saharan African homosexuals relative to heterosexuals. You yourself have claimed to have an understanding of how HIV/AIDS now spreads among heterosexuals in Africa and the unique situation facing them there due to poverty. Heterosexuals in the developed world do not face the same challenges which would explain why HIV/AIDS among heterosexuals is not at epidemic levels in the developed world. I find a lot of what you said about sexual practices in sub-Saharan Africa to be "utter nonsense" because you don't have any numbers to back up your statements that would account for the high number of people infected with HIV/AIDS. All you have are a couple of stories you read on the internet and knowing the nature of how the western world interprets and disseminates information on African cultures as "uncivilised" as well as my own experiences living in Africa, I feel confident in calling bullshit on a lot of what you posted. Not saying that it doesn't happen at all, but it is not nearly as wide spread as you are trying to make it seem.

I don't see why what I'm saying offends you so deeply as I am not in any way opposed to homosexuality or LGBT rights and I'm simply trying to open up a discussion on the subject and understand why things are the way they are myself. You are much too sensitive to approach this subject maturely.


Homosexuality is not a part of traditional societies in Sub-Saharan Africa [44, 49]. The few instances of homosexuality noted are related to societal institutions where an older man has authority over younger males. In the Bwamba of Central Africa, a male teacher of some young boys was reported to have exposed his penis and then asked the boys to "blow it like a whistle" [50]. Homosexuality probably also exists to some extent in migrant labor camps, where few women are present. These anecdotal accounts do not indicate widespread homosexuality like that which seems to occur in some societies. Nowhere is traditional African society is there the kind of sequential homosexual activity between men that is found in urban Western societies.

This pattern seems to hold in urban areas of Africa. Most Africanists uniformly deny the presence of significant homosexual activity, as do Africans themselves. It was reportedly difficult to obtain African labor for railroad work in East Africa because Africans were revolted by the homosexual practices of Indian laborers that they refused to work with them [51]. It is likely that, as elsewhere in the world, there are pockets of homosexuality in Africa, but homosexuality does not seem to be practiced as overtly and commonly as in other parts of the world.

The apparent lack of AIDS among homosexuals in Africa also supports the absence of significant homosexual activity. However, a caveat must be injected here: many field workers have noted that it is difficult to obtain accurate information on sexual practices that Africans perceive to be offensive to Westerners. In addition, homosexuality is illegal in many African countries. Moreover, there is a common desire for informants to answer any question with the answer that the questioner is perceived to want. An accurate survey of homosexuality in urban areas has probably never been conducted.

Although the spread of AIDS in Africa seems to be primarily a heterosexual process, studies of the frequency and distribution of homosexuality in Africa need to be done. Needless to say, such studies would be difficult to carry out because of the sociologic and political obstacles that have already been mentioned.

Another practice that is correlated with the acquisition of AIDS in Western societies is anal intercourse. There is less information available on anal intercourse than on homosexuality. Again, this as a practice whose existence is denied by Africanists who specialize in Central African societies (e.g., K. Obbo and I. Schuster, personal communications) as well as Africans themselves. The only significant reports of significant rates of anal intercourse are claims made by students of genital mutilation [8, 9], who state that anal intercourse is used of necessity in cases of infibulation. However this practice is mostly limited to Arabic-influenced areas rather than Central Africa. It must be mentioned that societal disapproval of the practices of homosexuality and anal intercourse also exists as a result of the prevalence of Christianity in Central and East Africa. Catholicism, which is one of the strongest forces opposing homosexuality, is common in Central Africa, encompassing over 50% of the population in Rwanda and eastern Zaire. Any study of the practice of anal intercourse would be limited by all of the factors mentioned above.



So is it more reasonable to conclude that there simply aren't any homosexuals in Africa or is it more reasonable to conclude that social pressure forces them to decrease their visibility? You asked me to prove that homosexuals were the main reason for the spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa which wasn't really my position on the matter given that the disease has now reached epidemic levels. What I've been trying to get at is that the rate of infection among homosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa is probably higher than the rate of infection among heterosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa. Now if you have any understanding of statistics I strongly suggest you apply that knowledge here before you respond to this post.


Homosexuals are a key contributor to rising infection numbers in many African and Middle East countries, according to research findings presented at a June meeting in Rwanda of people who implement HIV prevention and care programs.

Stigma and sex discrimination against gays are widespread and, with the exception of South Africa, homosexuality is criminalized in Africa. This means homosexuals are rarely reached by AIDS campaigns, while lubricants they use have often resulted in frequent breakage of condoms, said researchers.

The annual meeting, organized by the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, was for the first time co-organized with WHO, UNAIDS, UNICEF and the Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission's Cary Johnson said African lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities were being decimated with a speed and breadth reminiscent of the impact of the epidemic on gay men in New York, San Francisco and other North American and European cities in the 1980s.

“Sero-prevalence rates among [homosexuals] are higher than in the general population.… Homophobia is fuelling the AIDS epidemic in Africa,” said Johnson.

Research by the Population Council at the Kenyan tourist city of Mombasa involving 425 male sex workers revealed that while 58% reported using a condom during anal sex with their last male client, only 36% consistently used condoms.

Researcher Scot Geibel said “HIV [and sexually transmitted infection] prevention and care programs need to reach [men] who sell sex, with specific prevention messages regarding anal transmission of HIV, and to encourage consistent condom use.”

Studies by the International HIV/AIDS Alliance showed that HIV prevalence in the Middle East and North Africa is under 0.2% for the general population but much higher among homosexuals. “Increased vulnerability and poor sexual health of [these men] is due to conservative legal, socio-cultural and religious contexts and limited availability of STI/HIV services,” it stated.

High HIV rates among homosexuals are also reported for India and Cambodia. UNAIDS states that 25% of all people living with HIV/AIDS in Latin America are related to a homosexual. UNAIDS head Peter Piot said these men, drug users, sex workers and migrants were among the drivers of the epidemic. — Wairagala Wakabi, Kampala, Uganda



Love To Love You Baby said:
South Africa has the most accepting climate for homosexuality in Africa - and was one of the first countries in the world, developing or not, to legalize gay marriage. It also has the highest HIV infection rate in the world - many of which are heterosexual women. So, a country in which homosexuality is less taboo still has high infection rates amongst heterosexuals.

It is disingenuous to characterize the LGBT rights in South Africa as an indicator that homosexuals are accepted in South Africa. South Africa may be the most progressive in terms of LGBT rights but it is important to consider the history of discrimination and human rights in South Africa when approaching the issue. The reason for that legislation is because South Africa does not want to discriminate against anyone. It is not a genuine indicator that homosexuality is any less taboo or more socially accepted in South Africa than in other sub-Saharan African countries. You can't legislate social acceptance unfortunately.



CAPE TOWN, South Africa - The South African parliament Tuesday overwhelmingly approved legislation recognizing gay marriages — a first for a continent where homosexuality is largely taboo.

By a vote of 230-41 with three abstentions, the National Assembly passed the Civil Union Bill, a compromise that resulted from months of heated public discussion. Both traditionalists and gay activists have criticized the measure, and there have been warnings that it might be unconstitutional.

African National Congress veterans heralded the bill for extending basic freedoms to everyone and equated it with liberation from the shackles of apartheid.

“When we attained our democracy, we sought to distinguish ourselves from an unjust painful past, by declaring that never again shall it be that any South African will be discriminated against on the basis of color, creed culture and sex,” Home Affairs Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula told the National Assembly.

But a Christian lawmaker, Kenneth Meshoe, said it was the “saddest day in our 12 years of democracy” and warned that South Africa “was provoking God’s anger.”

One church leader in Nigeria denounced the move as “satanic,” reflecting the views on a deeply conservative continent where some countries are debating constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriages.

But gay rights groups in Europe hailed South Africa as a shining example of progressiveness.

President to sign
The vote in the National Assembly followed months of heated public debate, and its outcome was expected, given the ANC’s huge majority. It now has to go to the National Council of Provinces, which is expected to be a formality, before being signed into law by President Thabo Mbeki.

The bill provides for the “voluntary union of two persons, which is solemnized and registered by either a marriage or civil union.” It does not specify whether they are heterosexual or homosexual partnerships.

But it also says marriage officers need not perform a ceremony between same-sex couples if doing so would conflict with his or her “conscience, religion and belief.”

South Africa recognized the rights of gay people in the constitution adopted after apartheid ended in 1994 — the first in the world to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The bill was drawn up in order to comply with a Constitutional Court ruling in December 2005 that said existing marriage legislation was unconstitutional for discriminating against same-sex couples.

The court gave the government a Dec. 1 deadline to change the laws, saying that otherwise, same-sex marriages would be legalized by default.

“In order to give effect to the Constitutional Court ruling, same sex couples have to be allowed to marry so that they can enjoy the status, obligations and entitlements enjoyed at the moment by opposite sex couples,” Mapisa-Nqakula said.

The Roman Catholic Church and many traditional leaders objected to the use of “marriage” saying this denigrated the sanctity of traditional marriages.

'Opt-out' clause for ministers
To try to ease some of these concerns, the drafters of the bill allowed both religious and civil officers to refuse to marry same sex couples.

Gay rights groups criticized this “opt-out” clause, saying they should be treated the same as heterosexual couples.

But in general, they hailed the new measure as a “rejection of previous attempts to render lesbian and gay people as second-class citizens.”

“It demonstrates powerfully the commitment of our lawmakers to ensuring that all human beings are treated with dignity,” said Fikile Vilakazi of the Joint Working Group, a national network of 17 gay and lesbian organizations.

Homosexuality is still largely taboo in Africa. It is illegal in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana and most other sub-Saharan countries. Even in South Africa, gays and lesbians are often attacked because of their sexual orientation.

Denmark in 1989 became the first country to legislate for same-sex partnerships and several other European Union members have followed suit. In the United States, only the state of Massachusetts allows gay marriage. Vermont and Connecticut permit civil unions, and more than a dozen states grant lesser legal rights to gay couples.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


dark steve said:
I'm not going to try and tell you anything. Just passing comment on your method of discussion.

I might not be the most convincing speaker but I can back up what I'm saying in this thread so I don't see what the problem is tbh.


Evander said:
I mean that the relationship between Gays and AIDS is one of correlation, and not of causation.

The odds of getting AIDS are stacked against Gay people, for a variety of reasons related to Gay culture and the percentage of AIDS already within the Gay community, but being Gay, ceteris paribus, does not make you more likely to get AIDS.

Thanks. I understand exactly what you are saying.
 

B!TCH

how are you, B!TCH? How is your day going, B!ITCH?
dark steve said:

What exactly is your problem?

It's a genuine question. If he is gay, I would at least understand why he is so defensive about the issue. I don't think I am saying anything that warranted his rude response.
 

FoxSpirit

Junior Member
The main reason AIDS is more widespread among homosexuals in the west is because the risk of infection during anal intercourse is higher. The second reason is that homosexual people are much less likely to use protection since the "risk" of a pregnancy isn't there.

But in no way does this make AIDS a "gay" disease. Anyone can get it, some people are just more likely to contract it.
 
I don't understand the point of labeling diseases for certain parts of the population. A disease is a disease. If a Doctor walked into the office after running some tests and said, "Your black disease of sickle cell anemia is complicating matters with your gay disease of AIDs, but your african malaria disease is what will kill you.." I think you'd call him on the absurdity of refering to those like that let alone a number of other things.
 

Gaborn

Member
Evander said:
There are a million reasons why this does nothing at all to back up your arguments.

First off, Christianity does perform the ritual circumcision of Judaism, and the entire ritual was the covenant with Abraham, not just snipping the tip.

Secondly, Jesus was supposed to pre-empt that covenant, and Paul specifically said it wasn't needed any more.

Third, Christianity is a religion, not a proper source of medical advice.

Finally, many branches of Christianity oppose condoms, to begin with.



You are grasping for straws.

Are you denying that some people allow their faith to bleed into their professional opinions? As to your other points I agree completely, but many people who support condom use believe that circumcision should be practiced for largely religious or cultural reasons (with the culture rooted in a Judeo-christian ethic). Are you denying that for a significant portion of circumcisions there is a socio-religious basis?
 

Kunan

Member
In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

The argument doesn't take into account Africa? There's a reason why you know, the number of hetero sex/rape resulting in it there is very high.
 
B!TCH said:
So is it more reasonable to conclude that there simply aren't any homosexuals in Africa or is it more reasonable to conclude that social pressure forces them to decrease their visibility? You asked me to prove that homosexuals were the main reason for the spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa which wasn't really my position on the matter given that the disease has now reached epidemic levels. What I've been trying to get at is that the rate of infection among homosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa is probably higher than the rate of infection among heterosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa. Now if you have any understanding of statistics I strongly suggest you apply that knowledge here before you respond to this post.

Interestingly enough, REVIEWS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES (Chicago), Volume 9 Number 6: Pages 1109-19, November-December 1987., the article you sourced, states just a few paragraphs earlier:

The recent spread of AIDS throughout Africa raises the question of whether the mode of transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in Africa is different from that in the United States and other Western countries. Although there is widespread seropositivity to HIV in Central and East Africa [1,2] and to the related T cell-lymphyocytic virus Type III (STLV-IIIAGM) in West Africa [3], the absence of risk factors of intravenous drug abuse and homosexuality points to patterns of transmission that are different from those in Western society. The difference is especially apparent because the male-to-female ratio of affected individuals is ~1:1 in Africa vs. 19:1 in the United States and Europe [4]. This report briefly examines cultural practices that may contribute to the spread of AIDS in Africa and highlights areas that require further research.

While I agree that we have a very poor picture of actual sexual behavior in Africa, it seems a bit tenuous to infer a "homosexual root" underneath the distortions of cultural repression. It's particularly weak when it forms the basis of the conclusion, "AIDS is a gay disease."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom