| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2010 05:22:30 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Siggav:
Also taking the stats from CDC, the HIV incidence is 53% (if we take the new cases) the original linked study assumed it was 95%, I also think that the portion of gay/bi men in a population is higher than 4% but that's a hard number to pin down. For example a study done in the UK by the HM Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry in 2005 set it at 6%, that's the UK not the US but I don't think that should make that much difference.
Anyway HIV is still a lot more common in the gay/bi population but not quite as drastically as the originally linked study makes it out to be.
Then there are all the other factors that have been brought up. I find the most ironic part that the website is trying to use that study to fight against gay marriage when how to put it.. Ok a quote from a PSA: "If you are against the 'homosexual lifestyle' then support same sex marriage and make them get married, like the rest of us" :D |
The 95% may have been true in 1997 and is no longer true now. Plus this study was a Canadian, urban population versus a general, US population. |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:28:10 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
From the same article, right before Achoo's quoted section:
It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes, then people making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used."
|
I think what the others were trying to say is that the increased mortality is not solely due to sexual orientation, and therefore it would be irresponsible for actuaries to base rates on tables using gay and bisexual men only. Because gay and bisexual men are included in official tables for all males, regardless of sexual orientation, those are the appropriate tables to use. I wouldnt consider this tom foolery. |
Look at it this way. If your job was to make sure your life insurance company made a profit and knew what to charge in premiums to do so, would you ignore a study that says if you are a homosexual male your life expectancy is significantly shorter? No way. Just like smoking. If you smoke you are part of those general actuary tables, but you sure as hell are going to pay a higher premium (because you have a higher risk of dying). The author is really making a feeble attempt at asking the life insurance companies to not utilize this data to their benefit (good luck with that). |
I dont think the authors attempt was feeble. I think it was responsible. As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between monogamous gay men, and promiscuous straight men. Promiscuity is a greater determining factor for health that orientation. The author would prefer insurane companies and actuaries to look beyond orientation, and look at the other mitigating factors instead.
I have no doubt that insurance companies would want to use such information, and base their tables on gay and bisexual men only. They would also want everyone to submit a DNA sample, and use that to base rates too, but thankfully they are not allowed. Can insurance companies ask about sexual orientation?
|
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:30:47 PM · #28 |
All kinds of spin abound. I was curious about the actual study and thanks to my poor reading skills, I actually thought that an actual "study" occurred. You know, where actual people are involved.
Am I reading the following correctly? This study is just based on mathematical projections? I can see where this was an easy article to spin lol.
//ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:31:38 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
I dont think the authors attempt was feeble. I think it was responsible. As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between monogamous gay men, and promiscuous straight men. Promiscuity is a greater determining factor for health that orientation. The author would prefer insurane companies and actuaries to look beyond orientation, and look at the other mitigating factors instead.
I have no doubt that insurance companies would want to use such information, and base their tables on gay and bisexual men only. They would also want everyone to submit a DNA sample, and use that to base rates too, but thankfully they are not allowed. Can insurance companies ask about sexual orientation? |
I don't know if they can or not. A question for the OP was whether this is new or not? The article is from 1997. The author's response is from 2001. Is this decade old news? |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:32:19 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Can insurance companies ask about sexual orientation? |
Im answering my own question.
Ohio Law
Excerpt
Section B, 1-3
(B) In processing an application for an individual policy of life or sickness and accident insurance or in determining insurability of an applicant, no insurer shall:
(1) Take into consideration an applicant̢۪s sexual orientation;
(2) Make any inquiry toward determining an applicant̢۪s sexual orientation or direct any person who provides services to the insurer to investigate an applicant̢۪s sexual orientation; |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:32:45 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Look at it this way. If your job was to make sure your life insurance company made a profit and knew what to charge in premiums to do so, would you ignore a study that says if you are a homosexual male your life expectancy is significantly shorter? No way. Just like smoking. If you smoke you are part of those general actuary tables, but you sure as hell are going to pay a higher premium (because you have a higher risk of dying). The author is really making a feeble attempt at asking the life insurance companies to not utilize this data to their benefit (good luck with that). |
1. The study is about the past. The present is different. It's been 18 years since the end of the study, and I'd have to be beyond ignorant to say nothing's changed in gay rights, STD education, and STD awareness.
2. You can't compare something descriptive and indirect ("In the past, more gay men blah blah blah") with something prescriptive and direct ("Smoking kills"). "Smoking kills" is (1) true (see numerous studies) and (2) direct (smoking leads to disease leads to death). "Being gay kills" is wrong because it's based on a study that (1) is old, (2) makes an indirect connection, and (3) applies to those who already have AIDS.
So unless there's a direct "be gay -> die" cause-and-effect sort of thing, it will stay descriptive and should stay out of insurance policies. Smoking is more of "smoke -> get a disease -> potentially die," so it SHOULD be considered by insurance companies. Being gay is not a more risky lifestyle - being gay in 1992 and already having AIDS was considered a high-risk category.
Message edited by author 2010-08-09 17:43:46. |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:35:50 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by George:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Look at it this way. If your job was to make sure your life insurance company made a profit and knew what to charge in premiums to do so, would you ignore a study that says if you are a homosexual male your life expectancy is significantly shorter? No way. Just like smoking. If you smoke you are part of those general actuary tables, but you sure as hell are going to pay a higher premium (because you have a higher risk of dying). The author is really making a feeble attempt at asking the life insurance companies to not utilize this data to their benefit (good luck with that). |
As stated in the article and reiterated above, this is descriptive and not prescriptive. That means that in the past, more gay men have died blah blah blah. Not that if you're gay, you have a higher risk of dying. So unless there's a direct "be gay -> die" cause-and-effect sort of thing, it will stay descriptive and should stay out of insurance policies. Smoking is more of "smoke -> get a disease -> potentially die," so it SHOULD be considered by insurance companies. |
That doesn't make sense George.
Smoke ----> some get emphysema or lung cancer (overall at a much higher rate than non smokers) ---> they die early
Be gay ----> some get HIV (overall at a much higher rate than non-gays) ----> they die early
How does an insurance company distinguish between the two? |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:37:41 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That doesn't make sense George.
Smoke ----> some get emphysema or lung cancer (overall at a much higher rate than non smokers) ---> they die early
Be gay ----> some get HIV (overall at a much higher rate than non-gays) ----> they die early
How does an insurance company distinguish between the two? |
Simply being gay doesnt increase your chance of getting HIV though. Being promiscuous does.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:42:39 PM · #34 |
| I edited my post. Hopefully this one makes sense. Sorry you caught the old one before I had a chance to edit it. |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 05:52:28 PM · #35 |
And let's not forget, for whatever it's worth, that the actual thrust of the original, linked article was to call our attention to how bad it was that we are allowing our schools to promote a "deadly lifestyle". It's scary... We can't allow tolerance because children will die...
R.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2010 06:58:03 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And let's not forget, for whatever it's worth, that the actual thrust of the original, linked article was to call our attention to how bad it was that we are allowing our schools to promote a "deadly lifestyle". It's scary... We can't allow tolerance because children will die...
R. |
I sometimes ask myself if I'm not dreaming of living in 2010 and am actually stuck in 1610. Someone pinch me, or maybe that's not a good idea; what if it really is 1610. O_O! |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 07:50:36 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And let's not forget, for whatever it's worth, that the actual thrust of the original, linked article was to call our attention to how bad it was that we are allowing our schools to promote a "deadly lifestyle". It's scary... We can't allow tolerance because children will die...
R. |
I sometimes ask myself if I'm not dreaming of living in 2010 and am actually stuck in 1610. Someone pinch me, or maybe that's not a good idea; what if it really is 1610. O_O! |
a bit off topic but in line with your thinking...cnn.com headline today is 1 in 4 still believe obama is not a citizen. Three of us at work laughed about it saying "so if we three all are normal then for each group like us there's a 4th as dumb as a gumball" sure enough a neighbor walked up and started making the case that obama is hiding his real citizenship.
long story short (too late) ...never underestimate the stupidity of people, nor their willingness to follow blindly what they WANT to believe |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:08:01 PM · #38 |
| It shouldn't surprise anyone that rate of STDs (and related deaths) will be higher among individuals for whom marriage is not an option. Society effectively discourages committed, monogamous relationships, so what would you expect? In a twist of irony, the AIDs rate among Catholic priests (75% heterosexual) is apparently over four times the general U.S. population. |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:19:40 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That doesn't make sense George.
Smoke ----> some get emphysema or lung cancer (overall at a much higher rate than non smokers) ---> they die early
Be gay ----> some get HIV (overall at a much higher rate than non-gays) ----> they die early
How does an insurance company distinguish between the two? |
Simply being gay doesnt increase your chance of getting HIV though. Being promiscuous does. |
Stop bringing logic into the equation. It'll only get ignored.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:22:51 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It shouldn't surprise anyone that rate of STDs (and related deaths) will be higher among individuals for whom marriage is not an option. Society effectively discourages committed, monogamous relationships, so what would you expect? In a twist of irony, the AIDs rate among Catholic priests (75% heterosexual) is apparently over four times the general U.S. population. |
Astonishing but why am I surprised?
I'm going to have to look this up. Any links? |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:23:44 PM · #41 |
putting the Religion aspect of this away for a moment. I have many friends who are gay. Many of these friends are under 25. The lifestyle that they lead and is normal to them is unbelievable. I am not sure how many 18-25 year olds you all go out with or have a close friends, but the lifestyle they choose is dangerous. Even the 'sensible' ones live a dangerous life.
It is very common to just hook up , with anyone and everyone at any given moment. Hooking up with more than one person at a time is the norm. I have one person I know that has full blown Aids at 20. Another is 22 with HIV. One night/three night stands are not uncommon in the young gay community. One of my closets friends didn't have full blown sex with a person (cos you can not get HIV from 'fooling around") found out the next day, the person he was 'fooling' around with had full blown HIV. People I know in their 40's thru to 60's do the swingers, parties one night stands and hope it turns out all right.
I can not see a lot of my friends being around for a long life, they will die. They are all educated, been to college, heck one of them is a Doctor. Doesnt matter how much information they have shoved down their necks, it is always the same thing.
"It wont happen to me"
So life expectancy is shortened |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:23:55 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It shouldn't surprise anyone that rate of STDs (and related deaths) will be higher among individuals for whom marriage is not an option. Society effectively discourages committed, monogamous relationships, so what would you expect? .... |
What kind of logic is this? |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:26:36 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It shouldn't surprise anyone that rate of STDs (and related deaths) will be higher among individuals for whom marriage is not an option. Society effectively discourages committed, monogamous relationships, so what would you expect? .... |
What kind of logic is this? |
Infinitely better logic than any logic that ends up with the conclusion, "there is a god." |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:32:24 PM · #44 |
| What does God have to do with his logic? You just had to throw your hatred in there at me didn't you? You are so sad. |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:33:12 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That doesn't make sense George.
Smoke ----> some get emphysema or lung cancer (overall at a much higher rate than non smokers) ---> they die early
Be gay ----> some get HIV (overall at a much higher rate than non-gays) ----> they die early
How does an insurance company distinguish between the two? |
Simply being gay doesnt increase your chance of getting HIV though. Being promiscuous does. |
Stop bringing logic into the equation. It'll only get ignored. |
So, if 1 in 9 American gay males has HIV and 1 in 568 non-gay people have HIV, what is the distinguishing factor? Promiscuity?
Look people, there's no spinning the data. Somehow I get this feeling that it's verboten to say that being gay, on average, may shorten your life. That doesn't make any judgement on it, it's merely stating fact (or possible fact). |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:37:15 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It shouldn't surprise anyone that rate of STDs (and related deaths) will be higher among individuals for whom marriage is not an option. Society effectively discourages committed, monogamous relationships, so what would you expect? .... |
What kind of logic is this? |
Actually it does make perfect sense. People in a committed relationship, who take their vows seriously are not apt to engage in sexual activities with anyone other than their spouse, with the ensuing results being that you have eradicated the possibility of aids being transmitted.
Make sense now?
Ray |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:40:54 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That doesn't make sense George.
Smoke ----> some get emphysema or lung cancer (overall at a much higher rate than non smokers) ---> they die early
Be gay ----> some get HIV (overall at a much higher rate than non-gays) ----> they die early
How does an insurance company distinguish between the two? |
Simply being gay doesnt increase your chance of getting HIV though. Being promiscuous does. |
Stop bringing logic into the equation. It'll only get ignored. |
So, if 1 in 9 American gay males has HIV and 1 in 568 non-gay people have HIV, what is the distinguishing factor? Promiscuity?
Look people, there's no spinning the data. Somehow I get this feeling that it's verboten to say that being gay, on average, may shorten your life. That doesn't make any judgement on it, it's merely stating fact (or possible fact). |
It should be verboten to say that being gay (period) even on average, may shorten your life. Instead, you could word it as "Having some forms of homosexual encounters may, on average, shorten your life should you contact HIV" would be accurate. Simply saying "being gay" would be like saying "being black, on average, shortens your life span." while trying to convince someone that more blacks get shot on average than whites, or some dumb thing.
Seriously, cut the crap :) |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:41:14 PM · #48 |
| Ray, it really is different in the gay world. I know people that have been in a 20 year partnerships and couples that have been married, that do not consider having a threesome cheating. It is the norm. It is really a completely different culture. |
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:43:04 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It shouldn't surprise anyone that rate of STDs (and related deaths) will be higher among individuals for whom marriage is not an option. Society effectively discourages committed, monogamous relationships, so what would you expect? In a twist of irony, the AIDs rate among Catholic priests (75% heterosexual) is apparently over four times the general U.S. population. |
Well well looky here.
How Many Priests and Bishops are Homosexual?
Robert Sungenis: Sex, Lies and Video Tape:
During a press conference in Rome on April 24, 2002, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Wilton Gregory, was interviewed regarding the homosexual problem in the Catholic Church. In his own words he said: "...it is an ongoing struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men" (Newsweek, May 6, 2002, p. 23). The implications of this statement are obvious. Since "struggles" implies victories and defeats, then not only have homosexuals established themselves in the Catholic priesthood, but they have, at one time or another, "dominated" the priesthood. Not surprisingly, the statistics reported by Newsweek bear out the allusion to "dominated," since "between 35 and 50 percent of Roman Catholic priests are homosexual" (ibid). "The facts show that there is 20 times as much homosexuality as there is pedophilia, and the whole structure of many seminaries and many chancery offices promotes and protects it" (The Wanderer, May 2, 2002).
So, one can conclude that homosexuality is accepted in the Catholic church, but not by its followers. These are very disturbing facts.
Getting back on topic.
Do priests live longer than the rest of the population? Or do they die younger?
Kirbic, about stress, how about this? You're a priest and a homosexual but cannot talk about either, in fact you have to decry it as part of your vows. How do these guys get to reach 50 is beyond me. lol ( If indeed stress does have something to do with homosexual life expectancy.)
|
|
|
|
08/09/2010 08:45:15 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That doesn't make sense George.
Smoke ----> some get emphysema or lung cancer (overall at a much higher rate than non smokers) ---> they die early
Be gay ----> some get HIV (overall at a much higher rate than non-gays) ----> they die early
How does an insurance company distinguish between the two? |
Simply being gay doesnt increase your chance of getting HIV though. Being promiscuous does. |
Stop bringing logic into the equation. It'll only get ignored. |
So, if 1 in 9 American gay males has HIV and 1 in 568 non-gay people have HIV, what is the distinguishing factor? Promiscuity?
Look people, there's no spinning the data. Somehow I get this feeling that it's verboten to say that being gay, on average, may shorten your life. That doesn't make any judgement on it, it's merely stating fact (or possible fact). |
How do you even know the number of gay men in America? Since a lot are discreet about their sexuality, I doubt the accuracy of those statistics... Though I don't dispute the fact that incidences of HIV/AIDS is higher amongst the homosexual population, I think 1-in-9 might be an exaggeration. |
|
