News How Are American Evangelists Influencing Anti-Homosexuality Laws in Uganda?

[Gokul43201]

Anti-Homosexuality in Africa - and the influence of American Evangelists

Earlier this month, a Presidential Commission in Uganda recommended against passing an anti-homosexuality bill (proposed last year) which punishes homosexuals with life imprisonment (and the death penalty for repeat "offenses" or being an HIV-positive gay) and imprisonment for others who refuse to inform the police about people they know to be homosexuals.

The African nation of Uganda proposed an Anti-Homosexuality Bill on 13 October 2009 that would, if enacted, broaden the criminalisation of homosexuality by introducing the death penalty for people who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or engage in same sex acts with people under 18 years of age. The bill also includes provisions for Ugandans who engage in same-sex sexual relations outside of Uganda, asserting that they may be extradited for punishment back to Uganda, and includes penalties for individuals, companies, media organisations, or non-governmental organisations that support LGBT rights.

Homosexuality is currently illegal in Uganda—as it is in many sub-Saharan African countries—punishable by incarceration in prison for up to 14 years. The proposed legislation in Uganda, however, has been noted by several news agencies to be inspired by American evangelical Christians. A special motion to introduce the legislation was passed a month after a two-day conference was held where three American Christians asserted that homosexuality was a direct threat to the cohesion of African families. The bill, the government of Uganda, and the evangelicals involved have received significant international media attention and criticism from Western governments, some of whom have threatened to cut off financial aid to Uganda. The bill may soften the strongest penalties for the most egregious offenses to life imprisonment.

Uganda's parliament was predicted to enter discussions about passing the bill in late February or March 2010.[1] However, intense international reaction to the bill caused President Yoweri Museveni to form a commission to investigate the implications of passing the bill. In May 2010 the committee recommended withdrawing it.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Anti-Homosexuality_Bill

While the bill appears to be overwhelmingly supported by the public, the only reason it hasn't yet passed is because Uganda's economy is hugely supported by foreign aid (to the extent of about a third), and there has been a strong backlash from donor nations. Sweden, for instance, has threatened to pull all aid if the bill passes.

I recently watched an investigative report on this issue made by Peabody Award winner and journalist, Mariana van Zeller, working with the Vanguard documentary series:

LINK to documentary (watch it!) ====>[/color] http://www.hulu.com/watch/150328/vanguard-missionaries-of-hate

We will have to wait and see how this plays out over the coming months. Among the American Evangelical preachers who were key players in Uganda, the only prominent one who has openly denounced the bill appears to be Rick Warren. Others, like Scot Lively support the bill, but oppose the death penalty requirement. Within Uganda, some proponents of the bill (especially Catholic churches) are pushing for a version of the bill without the death penalty, expecting that it will then see weaker opposition from foreign influences.

Feel free to voice your thoughts on the issue, but please stay on topic. It is much too easy to drift away into tangential discussions, so let's try to be mindful of that.

Other references:

1. " Homosexuality in “Traditional” Sub-Saharan Africa and Contemporary South
Africa" (2005), Stephen O. Murray - [link to pdf file]

2. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow ran a series on this issue:


3. AP article about progress of the bill, Jan 2010: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/08/AR2010010803673.html

 

[zomgwtf]

Lol, I love the 'Uganda be kidding me' hahahahahaha.

I believe however that an anti-homosexuality thought line has been in Africa for a fairly long time. I'm tempted to say prior to Christian missions there but I'm not entirely sure so I'll look it up. The Evangelical preaching probably led to a belief that they need to make it a more 'severe type of crime'.

Personally I think that all nations have the right to act on their own and in the best interests of their nation. So if they feel this is a law they must pass then so be-it. If Sweden feels that they must pull aid out of Uganda, then so be it... I think that it'd be more than just Sweden pulling out aid however, even if they follow the Catholic Churches version.

I think that it would be fair game to play hardball with Uganda if this bill goes through, I mean really what does Uganda have to offer to the world? A bit of copper? Who cares? The only reason people really help them is specifically to help the people. I do not think they get anything in return for that investment other than knowing the people have a better chance to live in one of the poorest nations in the world. If they start killing or jailing people of the nation which the support nations are specifically trying to protect(all the citizens) then I don't see any further reason support should flow in.

QUESTION: Does any other African nation hold a similar law already in place and actively used?

 

[leroyjenkens]

Personally I think that all nations have the right to act on their own and in the best interests of their nation. So if they feel this is a law they must pass then so be-it.

This is basically just as bad as what Hitler was doing to the Jews. You don't think that deserves intervention?

 

[zomgwtf]

This is basically just as bad as what Hitler was doing to the Jews. You don't think that deserves intervention?

If other nations think it's in their best-interest to intervene then of course that means intervention. I don't see how that's hard to understand and I don't see why you had to fall to Godwins Law so early on in the thread.

I'm pretty sure I drew out that a country acting in it's best interest certainly can take support out and even go further. Way to selectively quote and then try to 'attack' a misrepresentation of what I had actually said.

 

[Gokul43201]

Lol, I love the 'Uganda be kidding me' hahahahahaha.

I believe however that an anti-homosexuality thought line has been in Africa for a fairly long time. I'm tempted to say prior to Christian missions there but I'm not entirely sure so I'll look it up. The Evangelical preaching probably led to a belief that they need to make it a more 'severe type of crime'.

Yes, homosexuality has been taboo in Africa since long before the missionaries got there. In fact, if I recall correctly, one of the US pastors (in the documentary) cites this as a big reason for their focused interest in spreading Christianity through Africa.

QUESTION: Does any other African nation hold a similar law already in place and actively used?

At least a dozen countries in sub-Saharan Africa have banned homosexuality, but the punishment has never risen to the level of life imprisonment or death. While some countries, like China, have never had laws banning sodomy, most western countries have lad laws in the books until only relatively recently. Among the earliest countries in the west to fully legalize homosexuality were the Scandinavians, early in the 20th Century. Most other countries followed suit between 1960 and the 80s. Texas' sodomy law was struck down by the US Supreme Court less than a decade ago. Some Commonwealth countries (like India) that did not previously have laws against sodomy, inherited them from the British penal code. India's Supreme Court finally struck down its anti-gay part of the penal code only last year. Singapore still retains section 377 (the part of British Penal Code that bans homosexual acts), but has reduced the punishment to 2 years in jail (a walk in the park, compared to their drug violation terms). Russia threw out its sodomy laws when the USSR broke up, and it started out with a fresh constitution. Of course, some countries that no longer have laws against gays in general still discriminate against them in the military.

 

[zomgwtf]

At least a dozen countries in sub-Saharan Africa have banned homosexuality, but the punishment has never risen to the level of life imprisonment or death. In that regard, they are really not that far behind Texas!

Hmm, well I hope that this bill does not pass through, and I hope that if it does pass that countries do withdraw support in Uganda. This could very well set a precedent for the other nations to take a more severe approach to dealing with homosexuality if they perceive that 'nothing will come of it' in terms of support they receive. We can't allow that to happen (not saying it will 100% but we shouldn't allow an opportunity to arise).

I'd imagine though that homosexuality is 'rare' in African, at least open homosexuality.

 

[leroyjenkens]

If other nations think it's in their best-interest to intervene then of course that means intervention. I don't see how that's hard to understand and I don't see why you had to fall to Godwins Law so early on in the thread.

I had to look that one up, I didn't know what Godwin's Law is. But you used it wrong.
"Godwin's Law" isn't just the referencing of Hitler.

I'm pretty sure I drew out that a country acting in it's best interest certainly can take support out and even go further. Way to selectively quote and then try to 'attack' a misrepresentation of what I had actually said.

Yeah, they can do this and they can do that. They can do anything they want. I was just asking if you thought it deserved intervention. I do. Like if someone is getting attacked on the street, my position is that if someone sees it, they should do what they can to help. Not "well if they want to help, they can, if they don't want to, they can do that too".

 

[zomgwtf]

Yeah, they can do this and they can do that. They can do anything they want. I was just asking if you thought it deserved intervention. I do. Like if someone is getting attacked on the street, my position is that if someone sees it, they should do what they can to help. Not "well if they want to help, they can, if they don't want to, they can do that too".

You'd be surprised how many people don't help. It is a choice we have, I like you agree that we should help. We also shouldn't allow gross crimes against humanity occur, but we allow that to happen to. (ever heard of Darfur? Rwanda? yes even the Holocaust.) There's always a choice to not help.

If you go on youtube I'm sure you can find plenty of videos where people are recording someone fighting for their life, or dying on the floor and people just walk on by them. There was security footage of this one guy who was shot, he was laying there bleeding to death and NO ONE attempted to help him, in fact one guy even stopped and took a picture of him... We lived in a messed up world.

As well here's Godwins Law:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

 

[leroyjenkens]

You'd be surprised how many people don't help. It is a choice we have, I like you agree that we should help. We also shouldn't allow gross crimes against humanity occur, but we allow that to happen to. (ever heard of Darfur? Rwanda? yes even the Holocaust.) There's always a choice to not help.

If you go on youtube I'm sure you can find plenty of videos where people are recording someone fighting for their life, or dying on the floor and people just walk on by them. There was security footage of this one guy who was shot, he was laying there bleeding to death and NO ONE attempted to help him, in fact one guy even stopped and took a picture of him... We lived in a messed up world.

I'm aware of all of that. Everything's a choice, but I believe there are things people should or shouldn't do, regardless of the fact that they have a choice. I'd like to believe other good people think the same way and not "well if they want to help that dying man, they can, but if they don't, that's their choice".

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

I don't see how that applies to me. The mere utterance of his name doesn't fit that definition.

 

[zomgwtf]

I'm aware of all of that. Everything's a choice, but I believe there are things people should or shouldn't do, regardless of the fact that they have a choice. I'd like to believe other good people think the same way and not "well if they want to help that dying man, they can, but if they don't, that's their choice".

Well first of all I don't see how your personal opinion matters much to what I had originally stated. But, to bring this back on topic, dealing with international sanctions and withdrawl of personal aid to one of the poorest nations in the world is hardly a simple choice to make. I think I expressed my opinion on this matter quite clearly in my original post.

I don't see how that applies to me. The mere utterance of his name doesn't fit that definition.

Well first, yes that's what Godwins Law DOES mean(unless it's a thread specifically about Hitler and Nazi's then it obviously doesn't apply). It just means that as any online discussion continues (on for infinity) the probabilty of a comparisson being made to Nazi's or Hitler approaches 1 (100%). You fulfilled that within the first 3 posts of this thread . As an aside you didn't 'merely utter his name' You made a direct comparisson to what 'Hitler did to the Jews'. So your wrong on both counts here. You sure do love to argue I've noticed and it seems to me more often than not that you are always on the side with little to no support. Do you just like playing devils advocate or are you just a very argumentatitive person?

 

[leroyjenkens]

Well first of all I don't see how your personal opinion matters much to what I had originally stated. But, to bring this back on topic, dealing with international sanctions and withdrawl of personal aid to one of the poorest nations in the world is hardly a simple choice to make. I think I expressed my opinion on this matter quite clearly in my original post.

And then I asked a question which you lost your temper over for no apparent reason.

Well first, yes that's what Godwins Law DOES mean(unless it's a thread specifically about Hitler and Nazi's then it obviously doesn't apply).

So any time someone compares anything with Hitler, it's "Godwin's law"? No. That's just the probability of it happening (which is a fake probability in the first place).

You sure do love to argue I've noticed and it seems to me more often than not that you are always on the side with little to no support.

I like to discuss things, which is something people like you aren't capable of without getting upset and resorting to ad hominem.
1.) I can't argue with myself. That's pretty interesting that someone arguing with me is calling me out for being argumentative.
2.) I have no support in here, as opposed to your hordes of supporters? Please name them.

 

[Proton Soup]

we should send http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard" on a fact-finding mission

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm confused - if black people had bad things done to them in the past , doesn't that mean that anything black people do can't be bad?

 

[Mu naught]

If other nations think it's in their best-interest to intervene then of course that means intervention. I don't see how that's hard to understand and I don't see why you had to fall to Godwins Law so early on in the thread.

I'm pretty sure I drew out that a country acting in it's best interest certainly can take support out and even go further. Way to selectively quote and then try to 'attack' a misrepresentation of what I had actually said.

This type of logic is completely flawed. It might be in my best interested to kill you and steal your money - so that makes it permissible?

 

[zomgwtf]

This type of logic is completely flawed. It might be in my best interested to kill you and steal your money - so that makes it permissible?

Permissible to who? To yourself? Of course. To me? No... now let's see who has got the bigger guns, or the most support.

You forget, we're talking about an entire nation here. I don't think my logic is flawed at all... in fact it's somewhat borrowed from von Clausewitz.

Actually I'd say your logic is flawed. Do you really think it's in your best interest to kill me and steal my money? Worth going to jail over the 80$ in my wallet? I don't know... you might be being dishonest to yourself. It'd probably be in your best interest to ask me to borrow some money though.

 

[aquitaine]

Evanglical christrianity, like what we saw backing up the Bush administration, has been growing rapidly, not just in the US but also in many parts of the non-islamic third world, spreading their poison and intolerance to places where there is little to no firmly established progressivists to moderate their hate. What's also interesting to note is at the same time in the islamic world there has been a big rise in their version of evangelism: wahabbist islam. Personally I feel with both of these groups on the rise after a few decades it will cause a lot of trouble.EDIT:

While some countries, like China, have never had laws banning sodomy

This isn't true, it was decriminalized in 1999 and there has been a huge bias against homosexuals for a few centuries now.

 

[Gokul43201]

EDIT:

This isn't true, it was decriminalized in 1999 and there has been a huge bias against homosexuals for a few centuries now.

I am not well-read on this subject, and what little knowledge I have comes from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_China

From what I read, while there has long been a cultural bias against homosexuality, it has never risen anywhere near the level of homophobia prevalent in the west. In fact, Taoism preaches that it is good for everyone to have a balance of yin and yang. Some dynasties treated homosexuality as a mild crime, but the taboo grew significantly only as recently as the mid-20th century.

The Qing Dynasty instituted the first law against consensual, non-monetized homosexuality in China. It has been construed that this may have been part of an attempt to limit all personal expression outside government-monitored relationships, coming in response to the social chaos at the end of the Ming Dynasty. The punishment, which included a month in prison and 100 heavy blows, was actually the lightest punishment which existed in the Qing legal system.[44]

The homosexual tradition in China was largely censured as antiquated by the Self-Strengthening Movement, when homophobia was imported to China along with Western science and philosophy, but some interest in the past remained.
...
A notable change occurred during the late 1990s and early 2000s with the removal in 1997 of "hooliganism" from the criminal law, a de facto decriminalization of homosexuality. In April 20, 2001, the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders formally removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses.[45][46]
...
Many cases show that gay people still have to endure prejudice from the justice system and harassment from police, including detention and arrest. In October 1999, a Beijing court ruled that homosexuality was "abnormal and unacceptable to the Chinese public",[53] which was the first time this official attitude was stated openly. Another notable case happened in July 2001, when at least 37 gay men were detained in Guangdong. In late April 2004, the State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (国家广播电影电视总局) initiated a campaign to clear violence and sexual content from the media. Programmes related to homosexual topic, scene, or language are considered to be "going against the healthy way of life in China", and are banned.

PS: I do not wish to get into detail about gay rights in China. If you wish to add anything to this, I will let that be the last word on the Chinese situation, lest we derail the thread from its primary intent.

 

[Pattonias]

Evanglical christrianity, like what we saw backing up the Bush administration, has been growing rapidly, not just in the US but also in many parts of the non-islamic third world, spreading their poison and intolerance to places where there is little to no firmly established progressivists to moderate their hate.

Seriously? We are going to lump in all evangelical Christians with the few radicals who claim the title?
This would be like saying all Catholics are pedophiles, or all Muslims are terrorists.

 

[zomgwtf]

Seriously? We are going to lump in all evangelical Christians with the few radicals who claim the title?
This would be like saying all Catholics are pedophiles, or all Muslims are terrorists.

No, Evangelical beliefs automatically come with no-nonsense acceptance of the bible. They believe the bible is infallible and everything in the gospels is to be followed exactly as is. So yes, they are against gays because it says so in the bible. They believe that dinosaurs existed alongside man, they believe that the Earth is quite young.

Your comparisson is wrong because part of being Catholic doesn't involve the belief in being a pedophile, and part of being Muslim doesn't require the belief of being a terrorist. Part of being an Evangelical Christian however requires 100% acceptance of the bible as infallible. The bible is also at the highest point of authority in their lives. If you've ever read the bible you can quickly see why this would be considered as 'poison' and 'intolerance'.

 

[mgb_phys]

If you've ever read the bible you can quickly see why this would be considered as 'poison' and 'intolerance'.

I heard there was a 'new' sequel out by some guy that was all about the meek and sinners and how you shouldn't cast the first stone.
Perhaps we could club together and get a few sent out to these people, should be a simple 'mission'.

 

[zomgwtf]

I heard there was a 'new' sequel out by some guy that was all about the meek and sinners and how you shouldn't cast the first stone.
Perhaps we could club together and get a few sent out to these people, should be a simple 'mission'.

I don't think the amount of 'right' sequels that are 'new' would be able to fit in their churches.

 

[Pattonias]

The Bible doesn't require its followers to hate a sinner either. The Bible doesn't require its followers to hate a sinner either. Without getting into a religious discussion on this website, I can say firmly that just like any other religion certain people take their own interpretation of the Bible and somehow think that they can pass out the judgement that God is supposed to have reserved for himself.

While I have my own issues with the bible and many who are in the church, I can tell you that most people that are evangelicals would be upset and against the imprisonment or execution of a person for being a homosexual.

If you choose to associate these people with the entire church then that is your won opinion, but it doesn't show an accurate representation of the people in the church. his website, I can say firmly that just like any other religion certain people take their own interpretation of the Bible and somehow think that they can pass out the judgement that God is supposed to have reserved for himself.

While I have my own issues with the bible and many who are in the church, I can tell you that most people that are evangelicals would be upset and against the imprisonment or execution of a person for being a homosexual.

If you choose to associate these people with everyone else who claims to be evangelical then that is your own opinion.

 

[zomgwtf]

The Bible doesn't require its followers to hate a sinner either. The Bible doesn't require its followers to hate a sinner either. Without getting into a religious discussion on this website, I can say firmly that just like any other religion certain people take their own interpretation of the Bible and somehow think that they can pass out the judgement that God is supposed to have reserved for himself.

While I have my own issues with the bible and many who are in the church, I can tell you that most people that are evangelicals would be upset and against the imprisonment or execution of a person for being a homosexual.

If you choose to associate these people with the entire church then that is your won opinion, but it doesn't show an accurate representation of the people in the church. his website, I can say firmly that just like any other religion certain people take their own interpretation of the Bible and somehow think that they can pass out the judgement that God is supposed to have reserved for himself.

While I have my own issues with the bible and many who are in the church, I can tell you that most people that are evangelicals would be upset and against the imprisonment or execution of a person for being a homosexual.

If you choose to associate these people with everyone else who claims to be evangelical then that is your own opinion.

Indeed and the varying interpretations of the bible are what give Christianity its 10s of thousands of different sects. Evangelical being a major one and it has a 'set' interpretation of the bible as set out in the churches. If a person doesn't agree with that interpretation then that doesn't mean that's not what Evangelical beliefs are it means that they probably aren't truly Evangelical Christian. Of course this doesn't take into account that Evangelical churches vary in their beliefs as well but the overlaying belief system has to do with authority of the bible and the infallibility of the bible(as they accept it).

Just as an aside are you going to provide another reaonable explanation for what was being discussed?

 

[Proton Soup]

No, Evangelical beliefs automatically come with no-nonsense acceptance of the bible. They believe the bible is infallible and everything in the gospels is to be followed exactly as is. So yes, they are against gays because it says so in the bible. They believe that dinosaurs existed alongside man, they believe that the Earth is quite young.

Your comparisson is wrong because part of being Catholic doesn't involve the belief in being a pedophile, and part of being Muslim doesn't require the belief of being a terrorist. Part of being an Evangelical Christian however requires 100% acceptance of the bible as infallible. The bible is also at the highest point of authority in their lives. If you've ever read the bible you can quickly see why this would be considered as 'poison' and 'intolerance'.

evangelical simply means that you believe in preaching your beliefs and converting others to your faith. catholicism is certainly evangelical, as is islam.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would imagine the strongest push for this is the prevalence of AIDS and the strongly perceived association between AIDS and homosexuals.

 

[Geigerclick]

I would imagine the strongest push for this is the prevalence of AIDS and the strongly perceived association between AIDS and homosexuals.

That, or just the same issues the rest of the world seems to have. Being different doesn't pay sometimes, especially in a world of intolerant and ignorant bastards.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That, or just the same issues the rest of the world seems to have. Being different doesn't pay sometimes, especially in a world of intolerant and ignorant bastards.

There are certainly the normal factors at work most likely. Considering though that efforts to contain the spread of AIDS in Africa have been only mildly effective and it has been commonly perceived as a "homosexual disease" the fact that they wish to pass a law making homosexuality a crime punishable by death, especially if one has AIDS, seems to make more sense. Not "make sense" as in its a good idea but "make sense" in that they would consider it a good idea.

 

[magpies]

Ok so I guess I shouldn't have said what I did here but I was just in rage at this whole concept. I don't think people should go to jail over this regardless of if aids does spread via it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Aids and homosexuality do go hand and hand...

This is a fairly stereotypical idea. There is a higher incidence of AIDS among homosexuals. There is also a higher incidence of AIDS among IV drug users, blacks, and prostitutes. Whites are not terribly far behind blacks in incidents of AIDS so perhaps we should consider it to go hand in hand with white people too? Or just black people since they have a larger portion of the statistical pie?
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm

 

[magpies]

Not that I trust thouse stats but it looked like most people who got aids got it from sex with men...

 

[Geigerclick]

It would be fairer to say that the #1 risk factor is being female, followed by any kind if anal intercourse. The misapprehension about homosexuality largely comes from the patient 0 of HIV, and how it was initially spread. If you go through life acting as though this is a "gay disease", you'll regret it however.

 

[magpies]

Well the cdc says 60% of aids comes from homosexual activity and only 15% from non gay sex. So that says to me that unless your doing drugs or having gay sex your chances of getting aids is fairly low. At least in america. My gripe wasn't really about homosexual activity is was more for the mind set that you can have sex with anyone you want when ever and not have to worry. I have heard from just about anyone who to my knowledge says they gay openly that they more or less agree with doing anything and anyone for pleasure. So again my point is it's the care free attitude that is the risk factor imo.

Like I personally have almost no chance of getting aids as I don't do drugs or have sex with people I don't know arnt safe. However if I go to down town and pick up a random man and have sex with him my chances just went up a ton wouldn't you agree?

 

[Phrak]

good grief. Is anyone going to bring up the topic of anal sex as primary cause, or is this off limits on PF? Why is AIDS associated with homosexuals? Is the homosexual lobby so powerful we are made so drooling stupid? Why is AIDS not associated with heterosexuals, lesbians or even hookers? AIDS is far more likely to be passed by anal sex. Africans have a real problem as they kill each other via infindelity, birth control by anal sex, homosexuality, and casual sex. This lastest act by Ugandan law makers demonstrates desperation.

 

[zomgwtf]

good grief. Is anyone going to bring up the topic of anal sex as primary cause, or is this off limits on PF? Why is AIDS associated with homosexuals? Is the homosexual lobby so powerful we are made so drooling stupid? Why is AIDS not associated with heterosexuals, lesbians or even hookers? AIDS is far more likely to be passed by anal sex. Africans have a real problem as they kill each other via infindelity, birth control by anal sex, homosexuality, and casual sex. This lastest act by Ugandan law makers demonstrates desperation.

To be passed through unprotected sex PERIOD. I haven't seen any studies suggesting anal sex leads to a greater probability but it probably does exist. (read: could you cite your source please) I think the greater culprit is the amount of reckless unsafe sex habits found in the gay community.

As well it was talked about I'm quite sure but some posts had ended up getting deleted, not for inappropriatness of talking about sex and such though for other comments in them. (I think at least)

 

[Phrak]

To be passed through unprotected sex PERIOD. I haven't seen any studies suggesting anal sex leads to a greater probability but it probably does exist. (read: could you cite your source please)

Desperate, aren't you? It's not a popular topic, and you will have to do some work to find knowledge that anyone can acquire motivated to find it. Let's add the disparity of casual sex favoring homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, and we have both a pandemic and a sexual orientation war. Have your buds been lying to you. How does that make you feel? Maybe they aren't your friends.

 

[zomgwtf]

Desperate, aren't you? It's not a popular topic, and you will have to do some work to find knowledge that anyone can acquire motivated to find it. Let's add the disparity of casual sex favoring homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, and we have both a pandemic and a sexual orientation war. Have your buds been lying to you. How does that make you feel?

I don't get it... are you trying to say I'm gay? Or that I have protected anal sex cause my 'buds' tell me it's ok or something? I don't understand what the point of this post is at all and I'm kinda surprised that a long standing member of PF would post this non-sensical crap.

 

[Phrak]

I don't get it... are you trying to say I'm gay? Or that I have protected anal sex cause my 'buds' tell me it's ok or something? I don't understand what the point of this post is at all and I'm kinda surprised that a long standing member of PF would post this non-sensical crap.

Well, excuse me. There's nothing wrong about being gay, right? As long as you are not misidentified. So what did your research tell you?

 

[magpies]

Ok I got a question? In countrys like the one in this example do the laws passed by government even really make a difference? I mean I just figure it's total chaos there anyhow right?

 

[Geigerclick]

good grief. Is anyone going to bring up the topic of anal sex as primary cause, or is this off limits on PF? Why is AIDS associated with homosexuals? Is the homosexual lobby so powerful we are made so drooling stupid? Why is AIDS not associated with heterosexuals, lesbians or even hookers? AIDS is far more likely to be passed by anal sex. Africans have a real problem as they kill each other via infindelity, birth control by anal sex, homosexuality, and casual sex. This lastest act by Ugandan law makers demonstrates desperation.

I brought it up several posts ago. To be precise, see post #31. To be clear I am relaying fact, I have no issue with being gay, straight, bisexual, or anything in that spectrum.

Magpies: There is chaos in some regions, but generally no.

Zomgwtf: Even protected anal sex carries higher risks of condom failure, and a higher risk of small quantities of blood being exchanged from small (microscopic usually) tears of the anus.

 

[Geigerclick]

Here is some research for people so that we can stop seeing the uglier side of humanity on this thread:

Why is anal sex a high risk activity for HIV infection?

The walls of the anus and rectum are thin and richly supplied with blood vessels which can be injured during anal sex. HIV infected semen can be easily absorbed through these thin walls and into the bloodstream. Injured tissue in the anus and rectum can expose the penis to blood containing HIV, as well. Unprotected anal sex with a partner who is infected or whose HIV status is unknown is the most risky sexual activity for both men and women. While latex condoms provide protection, their failure rate during anal sex is greater than that for vaginal or oral sex.

http://www.albany.edu/sph/AIDS/aids101_2.html

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is some research for people so that we can stop seeing the uglier side of humanity on this thread:


http://www.albany.edu/sph/AIDS/aids101_2.html

You got there before me. Good job.

 

[Proton Soup]

good grief. Is anyone going to bring up the topic of anal sex as primary cause, or is this off limits on PF? Why is AIDS associated with homosexuals? Is the homosexual lobby so powerful we are made so drooling stupid? Why is AIDS not associated with heterosexuals, lesbians or even hookers? AIDS is far more likely to be passed by anal sex. Africans have a real problem as they kill each other via infindelity, birth control by anal sex, homosexuality, and casual sex. This lastest act by Ugandan law makers demonstrates desperation.

i don't think this can be the whole story, though. currently, the incidence of HIV among young black women in the United States is about 25%. and i seriously doubt it's because they're all having anal sex. something else is going on. perhaps whites have a higher resistance to HIV from surviving past plagues. or it could be related to a high incarceration rate of young black males. maybe it is related to lack of more basic health care services and that HIV transmission is secondary to other infections.

 

[zomgwtf]

Well, excuse me. There's nothing wrong about being gay, right? As long as you are not misidentified. So what did your research tell you?

I never said there was anything wrong with being gay. I don't even think I've ever implied it... You however took the opportunity to apparently poke fun at myself by alluding to me being gay. So who in this thread really thinks being gay is 'wrong' or 'funny' something to joke about? Not myself. As well I think your comments were quite inappropriate and completely unnecessary.

As well I'm not the one who has to conduct any sort of research. You came in with an opinion you need to support it, which I asked you to do. I stated that I had not read anything suggesting that anal sex has a greater chance of contracting AIDS but I felt it was probably true, so I asked for you to CITE A SOURCE. Your response was hardly worthy of the forums.
I had an opinion that the main reason that AIDS is most prevalent amongst the male homosexuals is lack of education and awareness which leads to reckless sexual behaviour. I provided a reference with my opinion. Where's yours?

As an aside:
There are proper ways to have anal sex WITH condoms such that they are almost guranteed not to break. The problem isn't that gay men use condoms for anal sex and they break, the problem is that they don't use condoms period.

 

[Geigerclick]

I never said there was anything wrong with being gay. I don't even think I've ever implied it... You however took the opportunity to apparently poke fun at myself by alluding to me being gay. So who in this thread really thinks being gay is 'wrong' or 'funny' something to joke about? Not myself. As well I think your comments were quite inappropriate and completely unnecessary.

As well I'm not the one who has to conduct any sort of research. You came in with an opinion you need to support it, which I asked you to do. I stated that I had not read anything suggesting that anal sex has a greater chance of contracting AIDS but I felt it was probably true, so I asked for you to CITE A SOURCE. Your response was hardly worthy of the forums.
I had an opinion that the main reason that AIDS is most prevalent amongst the male homosexuals is lack of education and awareness which leads to reckless sexual behaviour. I provided a reference with my opinion. Where's yours?

As an aside:
There are proper ways to have anal sex WITH condoms such that they are almost guranteed not to break. The problem isn't that gay men use condoms for anal sex and they break, the problem is that they don't use condoms period.

That would certainly be the case with black women, who are at a higher risk being female (those are the breaks), and having higher incidence of unprotected sex. Nothing I have read about homosexual males indicates that use of condoms is uncommon, and failure rates for anal sex are universally higher.

If gay men were not using condoms, they would be the fastest infected group per capita. They are not, black women are.

 

[zomgwtf]

That would certainly be the case with black women, who are at a higher risk being female (those are the breaks), and having higher incidence of unprotected sex. Nothing I have read about homosexual males indicates that use of condoms is uncommon, and failure rates for anal sex are universally higher.

I posted a source earlier which specifically dives into problems within the gay community and not using condoms. As well, I've known quite a few gay men and none of them use condoms and they all are pretty promiscuous. So these comments from a group whos main focus is AIDS coupled with personal experience leads me to believe that it is definitely a problem.

Black women are at most risk? By what statistics? If we're talking about American then I don't believe that's correct, gay men are the most infected. If we are talking about world-wide then no-duh Africa has around 66% of the worlds total AIDS and HIV population. Since the majority of Africa is black and most rapes occur against females I would conclude that black females in the world are most likely to get AIDS.

If gay men were not using condoms, they would be the fastest infected group per capita. They are not, black women are.

Source? On the black woman being the fastest group infected. As well I would love to hear your reasoning as to why if gay-men weren't using condoms they would be the fastest group infected. Just because you have unprotected sex doesn't mean you get AIDS or HIV... I'd say they have a higher probability of contracting the disease though coupled with promiscuous behaviour.

 

[Proton Soup]

there are plenty of stats here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

as for what is going on? who knows, but the second graphic http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf" seems to indicate there there is either something behavior- or biology-related that slows the infection rate among white MSM. black men seem to get infected early, whereas white men seem to have about the same infection rate regardless of age.

 

[Geigerclick]

I posted a source earlier which specifically dives into problems within the gay community and not using condoms. As well, I've known quite a few gay men and none of them use condoms and they all are pretty promiscuous. So these comments from a group whos main focus is AIDS coupled with personal experience leads me to believe that it is definitely a problem.

Black women are at most risk? By what statistics? If we're talking about American then I don't believe that's correct, gay men are the most infected. If we are talking about world-wide then no-duh Africa has around 66% of the worlds total AIDS and HIV population. Since the majority of Africa is black and most rapes occur against females I would conclude that black females in the world are most likely to get AIDS.



Source? On the black woman being the fastest group infected. As well I would love to hear your reasoning as to why if gay-men weren't using condoms they would be the fastest group infected. Just because you have unprotected sex doesn't mean you get AIDS or HIV... I'd say they have a higher probability of contracting the disease though coupled with promiscuous behaviour.

I don't care about your anecdotes, especially when you haven't put the effort to read basic stats that are readily available. Here are some, from a little-known group called the CDC. Literally, the first result when you google "incidence HIV black women". I can see you're really investing effort in this discussion.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/aa/resources/factsheets/aa.htm

In 2007, the rates of AIDS diagnoses decreased among blacks but were still higher than the rates of any other race/ethnicity. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black adults/adolescents were 10 times the rate for whites and nearly 3 times the rate for Hispanics. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black women was 22 times the rate for white women. The rate of AIDS diagnoses for black men was almost 8 times the rate for white men [3].

Do. The. Math. You're entitled to your opinions, but not to argue based on them here. You ask for citations, well, start sourcing something other than "I have friends who...".

More CDC http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/women.htm

And some raw stats:

http://www.avert.org/usa-race-age.htm

 

[zomgwtf]

What does your stats of comparisson between whites and blacks have to do with a comparisson between black women and gay men? Just face it those same stats, which were already posted before from a different source, do not support that claim you made. That's what I was asking a source for.

How about you put more effort into the discussion?

It's funny how you cite the same group I cited before but you say you don't care for my anecdotes.

 

[Geigerclick]

What does your stats of comparisson between whites and blacks have to do with a comparisson between black women and gay men? Just face it those same stats, which were already posted before from a different source, do not support that claim you made. That's what I was asking a source for.

How about you put more effort into the discussion?

It's funny how you cite the same group I cited before but you say you don't care for my anecdotes.

I don't care for anecdotes, period. For comparisons, you have the numbers, run the comparison if you wish. Did you miss the second CDC link which deals specifically with women? This is enough to figure out the numbers with pen and paper man. I can't imagine that you could contribute less here, without actually being absent. You demand citations, then run off a quick bit of fluff that shows you didn't bother to read much. Read the stats, or bring your own showing relative promiscuity. Do something other than chatter and start arguments that are somewhat tangential.

 

[zomgwtf]

I don't care for anecdotes, period. For comparisons, you have the numbers, run the comparison if you wish. Did you miss the second CDC link which deals specifically with women? This is enough to figure out the numbers with pen and paper man. I can't imagine that you could contribute less here, without actually being absent. You demand citations, then run off a quick bit of fluff that shows you didn't bother to read much. Read the stats, or bring your own showing relative promiscuity. Do something other than chatter and start arguments that are somewhat tangential.

Sigh, you're the one making the claims, I'm asking for sources. Mostly I'm asking for sources because they seem to contradict what research I have done and it counter my position. I did look at all your sources, in fact well before you had even posted them. Can you say the same about what I've been saying the entire time? Clearly, you have not looked at the sources already cited earlier but it's ok.

MSM (Men who have sex with other men) accounts for 53% of all new cases of AIDS/HIV They account for 71% of all new cases of men with AIDS/HIV.

Only 4-7% of men in America reported as MSM yet they make up nearly 70% of all men with AIDS/HIV and they account for 48% of ALL cases of people living with HIV/AIDS.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

I think that these numbers do not suppot your theory that black women are at the highest risk of contracting AIDS/HIV.

The CDC also supports my statement that the leading reason for men getting AIDS/HIV is:

1. having unprotected sex with another man who has HIV

Not due to condom breakages during anal sex (that's not how I read this or the avert source earlier provided at least).

Since you want to look at race. In America the majority of new AIDS/HIV cases comes specifically from white msm males. Close to double the amount of black heterosexual females.

In both of the races white and black msm males have more new cases than black females, even if you group all the black females together (bisexual/hetero)...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

I just don't understand how you are trying to counter my position by citing such stats. They pale in comparisson to the gay male community. The CDC as I have also posted above supports my position that it comes down to unprotected sexual relations. The avert citation I used also supports this and shows that homosexual men tend to be more promiscuous. I believe it has to do with lack of educational resources for gay men as well as a lack of places to go to be tested or at least an 'unwillingness' to go and get tested.(which goes back to lack of educational resources)


EDIT: Anyways this is pretty tangetal to the OP you're right, maybe if a mentor could separate the posts for us. It didn't need to get so out of hand but Phrak kind of pissed me off by poking fun at the idea I could be a homosexual and people continually attempt to counter my conclusion on homosexuals and AIDS. Most of the countering is seemingly done through harsh remarks and little evidence but alas, it's the internet.