Survey finds excess health problems in lesbians, gays, bisexuals

[Starlight]

So, you're equating gays with other sin and degradation - drunkenness, boobs on bikes, etc.

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse. But in case it wasn't 100% clear, I was comparing gay people with Irish people, Turkish people, and straight people, and noting that each of their pride parades seems to bring out some of the worst behavior in each particular group that is not really "normal" for the group as a whole.

Meanwhile, while we can close our eyes and pretend really hard that this is all about "stress" from discrimination, that would necessitate ignoring sources such as the CDC....

Source: CDC

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) have been rising among gay and bisexual men, with increases in syphilis being seen across the country. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 83% of primary and secondary syphilis cases where sex of sex partner was known in the United States. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men often get other STDs, including chlamydia and gonorrhea infections. HPV (Human papillomavirus), the most common STD in the United States, is also a concern for gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Some types of HPV can cause genital and anal warts and some can lead to the development of anal and oral cancers. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to get anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who do not have HIV to get anal cancer.

© Copyright Original Source

Sure, STDs are, to a significant degree, within the control of gay men. While they don't generally have much control as to whether their parents kick them out of home and onto the street at a young age, or whether their church condemns them, they do have control over their own sexual behavior.

As fm93 has rightly pointed out, STDs are not really relevant for gay women, nor for monogamous gay men. So when we talk about homosexuality and STDs we're talking about a minority among gay people. Obviously that minority ought to take standard safe-sex precautions, get what vaccinations are available, and have regular sexual health check-ups so it they've caught something they can get it treated.

There have been various problems due to discrimination, however, with regard to STDs.

For example, there is a vaccine for HPV, one of the most common STDs, mentioned in your quote. When that vaccine came out here, the government funded it free to all young women, with the idea that HPV could be wiped out from the population if all the women were immune. The vaccine cost $450 for any gay men wanting to get vaccinated. It took a lengthy campaign for gay groups to point out to the government that gay men actually existed, and their idea of just vaccinating women was a silly one.

To give another example, when HIV was first discovered, authorities were particularly slow to act because it seemed to be affecting only gay people. There was a very long delay in even acknowledging that the disease existed, and a great unwillingness to commit funding to research a cure for it.

But there have been some structural problems of discrimination that have worsened STDs among gay people: For decades gay people were told by Christians that they weren't allowed to marry. They were told that gay people were immoral and promiscuous, and that committing to one another for life in marriage was a Christian thing. Christians were very much responsible for creating and perpetuating a societal expectation and stereotype about how gay people behaved sexually. They deliberately prohibited gay people from accessing the institution of marriage that existed to acknowledge and strengthen, committed monogamous relationships. I think this historical discrimination was very much the primary cause of a higher than usual level of promiscuity that was historically present in many gay sub-cultures.

[Starlight]

If homosexuality is, in some large way, attributable to biological abnormalities caused by unusual levels of hormones and chemicals rather than a largely environmental phenomena (environmental being the prevailing scientific view at this time)

According to the APA, the prevailing view is:

sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

And it's worth noting that when scientists use the word "environmental" in that context they are talking about things like chemical exposure, diet, exercise and stress. They are not meaning social ideas like "if they child is raised by parents who follow strict gender roles and clearly articulate the difference between male and female to the child", that all too often are in the minds of Christians when they think about homosexuality.

one wonders if folks like Starlight would object to the abortion or infanticide of children by parents upon learning of their children suffering from these abnormalities.

If the child has a seriously debilitating disorder sure. Generally doctors already try to perform pre-birth checks for that sort of thing. But as I said earlier, simple variance in and of itself is not a bad thing, and can lead to greater than usual talent and success just as often as to worse-than-usual outcomes.

[Cow Poke]

According to the APA,...

Yeah, that sold me!

[Cow Poke]

Those conditions weren't mentioned in the survey.

EGGzackly!!!!

No one is claiming that STDs are caused and spread by discrimination-rooted stress.

Correct.

And anyhow, as usual, there are two issues worth considering:

1. Those risk factors are greatly reduced for gay couples who use protection, and are entirely eliminated for monogamous gay couples.

No, that's not true. Check your facts.

2. Those risk factors don't exist for women who have sex with women.

That part seems to be (more) true.

[fm93]

No, that's not true. Check your facts.

Are you arguing that two gay men whose only partners have been (and will always be) each other can somehow still get and spread STDs? And that using protection doesn't reduce the risk of getting STDs?

[Cow Poke]

Are you arguing that two gay men whose only partners have been (and will always be) each other can somehow still get and spread STDs? And that using protection doesn't reduce the risk of getting STDs?

AH, you added some factors!

That's a bit more detailed than....

1. Those risk factors are greatly reduced for gay couples who use protection, and are entirely eliminated for monogamous gay couples.

[Adrift]

According to the APA, the prevailing view is:

sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors...is shaped at an early age...[and evidence suggests] biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality.

And it's worth noting that when scientists use the word "environmental" in that context they are talking about things like chemical exposure, diet, exercise and stress. They are not meaning social ideas like "if they child is raised by parents who follow strict gender roles and clearly articulate the difference between male and female to the child", that all too often are in the minds of Christians when they think about homosexuality.

If the child has a seriously debilitating disorder sure. Generally doctors already try to perform pre-birth checks for that sort of thing. But as I said earlier, simple variance in and of itself is not a bad thing, and can lead to greater than usual talent and success just as often as to worse-than-usual outcomes.

So you only believe in abortion if a child has a serious debilitating disorder, and not, say, if a woman is unprepared or unfit, or simply does not desire to have or take care of a child. Is that correct?

[rogue06]

That only focuses on quantity of life, rather than quality.


I don't think the argument was that simply being a minority causes substantial psychological stress, but that being a minority in a certain context can cause it. For instance, there are many reports of LGBT teenagers being disowned by their parents for being LGBT. Obviously, being disowned by your parents can cause substantial psychological stress, but those who weren't disowned could also suffer from substantial psychological stress if they hear about those cases and worry that they too might someday be disowned.

On the other hand, Hispanic teenagers typically aren't disowned by their parents for being of Hispanic descent, since, you know...the parents are also of Hispanic descent.

You're missing the overarching point. If being a minority was such a physical and mental burden we should see its effect across the board in various minorities.

[Starlight]

If being a minority was such a physical and mental burden we should see its effect across the board in various minorities.

True, being a minority in and of itself, must have a very very small effect on health, if it even has one at all.

Whereas, the severe discrimination and prejudice that some minority groups are subjected to, has a demonstrably very large negative effect on their health.

[Cow Poke]

True, being a minority in and of itself, must have a very very small effect on health, if it even has one at all.

Yet the social scientists bend over backward to make that the primary problem.

Whereas, the severe discrimination and prejudice that some minority groups are subjected to, has a demonstrably very large negative effect on their health.

Hmmmm.... if true, yet another reason not to engage in risky sexual behavior and lifestyle!

[fm93]

You're missing the overarching point. If being a minority was such a physical and mental burden we should see its effect across the board in various minorities.

But as the aforementioned studies suggest, there ARE in fact some mental and physical burdens that seem to disproportionately affect various minorities. And once again, the argument is not that merely being a minority has a severe physical and mental burden.

[fm93]

Yet the social scientists bend over backward to make that the primary problem.

Actually, they advanced the plausible answer that the primary problem is rooted in stress from discriminatory policies and extensive prejudice, not merely in being a minority.

Hmmmm.... if true, yet another reason not to engage in risky sexual behavior and lifestyle!

I honestly don't understand why you harp on this point so much. Have you seen anyone here suggest that gay people should engage in risky sexual behavior such as not using protection and having many partners? I certainly have never advocated that. I've simply pointed out that there are examples of same-sex behavior that involve substantially or even entirely reduced risk.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, they advanced the plausible answer that the primary problem is rooted in stress from discriminatory policies and extensive prejudice, not merely in being a minority.

No, they chose the explanation they want to use.

I honestly don't understand why you harp on this point so much.

Harp?

Have you seen anyone here suggest that gay people should engage in risky sexual behavior such as not using protection and having many partners? I certainly have never advocated that. I've simply pointed out that there are examples of same-sex behavior that involve substantially or even entirely reduced risk.

Well, you had to be led there, but... Do you have even a clue how unusual, in the gay community, it would be for your 'amended' scenario to occur? Let's look at that again.....

Are you arguing that two gay men whose only partners have been (and will always be) each other can somehow still get and spread STDs? And that using protection doesn't reduce the risk of getting STDs?"

What percentage of the gay population do you honestly think that represents?

[fm93]

No, they chose the explanation they want to use.

Which, contra your initial claim, is not remotely like "simply being a minority has severely detrimental health effects."

Well, you had to be led there, but... Do you have even a clue how unusual, in the gay community, it would be for your 'amended' scenario to occur? Let's look at that again.....



What percentage of the gay population do you honestly think that represents?

I have no idea what the real percentage is (although I definitely suspect it's higher than certain conservative-minded commenters would have us believe), but I do know that it isn't zero, and more importantly, I don't think the percentage really matters.

If literally 100% of sexually active heterosexuals were promiscuous, didn't use protection, and wound up spreading STDs (all of which are entirely possible), would you declare that all heterosexual behavior is inherently harmful? Of course not. At worst, all known instances of heterosexual behavior would be harmful, but that's not the same thing as heterosexual behavior being inherently harmful. Heterosexuals could always start using protection or stop being promiscuous. There always exists the capacity for heterosexual behavior that is not harmful. The same principle applies to homosexuality.

[Cow Poke]

Which, contra your initial claim, is not remotely like "simply being a minority has severely detrimental health effects."

Ya lost me on that one.

I have no idea what the real percentage is (although I definitely suspect it's higher than certain conservative-minded commenters would have us believe), but I do know that it isn't zero, and more importantly, I don't think the percentage really matters.

WOW... that was a BRILLIANT statement! I suspect you did what I did - a quick Google to see how bad the situation really is. I found a number of places where gays propose that successful marriage involves an "open marriage", and they recommend that hetero marriages would work better if we did likewise.

The reason you don't think the percentage really matters is that it doesn't benefit your perverse worldview.

If literally 100% of sexually active heterosexuals were promiscuous, didn't use protection, and wound up spreading STDs (all of which are entirely possible)

What kind of sick planet did you come from?

would you declare that all heterosexual behavior is inherently harmful? Of course not. At worst, all known instances of heterosexual behavior would be harmful, but that's not the same thing as heterosexual behavior being inherently harmful. Heterosexuals could always start using protection or stop being promiscuous. There always exists the capacity for heterosexual behavior that is not harmful. The same principle applies to homosexuality.

The fact remains, fm, much as you would like to ignore it, that OVERALL, homosexual sex, particularly male/male, has significantly more risk factors than heterosexual sex. Look up "the dirty little secret in 'monogamous' homosexual marriages."

Here's a sample....

They call them "San Francisco relationships."

A term coined by the local gay community, it's defined as two men in a long-term open relationship, with lovers on the side.

A new study released this week by the Center for Research on Gender & Sexuality at San Francisco State University put statistics around what gay men already know: Many Bay Area boyfriends negotiate open relationships that allow for sex with outsiders.

After studying the sexual patterns of 566 gay male couples from the Bay Area for three years, lead researcher Colleen Hoff found that gay men negotiate ground rules and open their relationships as a way to build trust and longevity in their partnerships.

"I think it's quite natural for men to want to continue to have an active and varied sex life," said 50-year-old technology consultant Dean Allemang from Oakland, who just ended a 13-year-open relationship and has begun another with a new boyfriend.

"I don't own my lover, and I don't own his body," he said. "I think it's weird to ask someone you love to give up that part of their life. I would never do it."