Gay Life Expectancy.. different?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

08/11/2010 01:45:41 AM · #104

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Jac:

Originally posted by scalvert:
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?

Here ya go.

I did a little checking on that source and found:

Originally posted by :

One survey done by the Kansas City Star found that "three-fourths of [priests] responding described themselves as heterosexual, 15 percent said they were homosexual, and 5 percent bisexual" (Judy Thomas, "AIDS in the Priesthood," Kansas City Star, Jan. 29, 2000; online at www.kcstar.com/projects/priests/poll.htm).

The difficulty with this study, as with all others that have been done, is that it was unscientific. The Star mailed questionnaires randomly to 3,013 priests, of whom 801 responded. This means that almost three-quarters did not respond. Because responding to the survey involved time and inconvenience, only those most motivated tended to do respond. The newspaper issued the disclaimer, "The Star cannot ensure that the priests responding are demographically and geographically representative of all Roman Catholic priests" (www.kcstar.com/projects/priests/survey.htm) .

If you're going to use this data, you might want to check if it's actually valid.

Originally posted by ApertureJack:

What I am talking about the the argument that homosexuals are seen as "worse people" and many (not all) religious people's minds. More specifically catholic/christian. My friend is VERY religious, and says that he "has nothing against gays", but they're just "wrong", "freaks of nature" and "children of the devil".

Not very religious if he calls someone a "[child] of the devil." It's sad to hear a fellow Catholic/Christian call someone that.

Simms

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

08/11/2010 07:31:42 AM · #105

It's all that dancing to high-energy Euro-pop. It takes it out of a man.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/11/2010 09:02:50 AM · #106

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Bottom line: You are 44 times more likely to contract HIV if you are gay than if you are not. (quote from the CDC).

BTW, being black does mean you have a shorter life expectancy in this country. I don't know how much/little homicide has to do with it, but it's true.

I think that you need to be very careful with words. It may be accurate to say:

1) As a class, gay people may be 44 times more likely to contract HIV than non-gay people.
2) As a class, black people suffer a shorter life expectancy than white people.

However, what you have then been doing is confusing cause with correlation. Possibly my favourite cartoon ever.

Black people in the USA are also likely to earn less and there is a far more compelling correlation between wealth and life expectancy. So your statement that "being black does mean you have a shorter life expectancy in this country" is almost certainly a falsehood.

As others have pointed out, the risk for gay men is principally behavioural (especially in terms of contracting HIV). Men are more promiscuous than women and it should be no real surprise that gay male relationships tend to involve greater promiscuity than relationships that involve women. However, there is still a break in the logic - because not all gay men are promiscuous. So the statement "You are 44 times more likely to contract HIV if you are gay than if you are not" is also untrue.

In the article by lifesitenews.com. they acknowledge that the aim of the research was to assist health planners assess the impact of HIV - not to hinder the rights of gay men. The researchers were looking for corellations through statistical analysis (if you read the article), not causation. The lifesitenews.com article does the same as you have done in these posts: it uses research into correlation as evidence of causation. This is, as you must be aware, unsound science.

08/11/2010 09:35:56 AM · #107

Originally posted by Nullix:

I did a little checking on that source...

Apparently very little. "In light of such criticism, The Star pursued other methods of documenting the scope of the deaths. The most statistically accurate -- and time-consuming -- approach was a state-by-state examination of thousands of death certificates over several years, aided by consultation with the CDC in determining death rates and comparisons. In states where records weren't available, the newspaper interviewed dozens of family members, doctors, colleagues and religious superiors who had firsthand knowledge of priests' deaths." "Those AIDS death rates exceeded the estimates and projections reported earlier this year by the newspaper."

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/11/2010 10:56:40 AM · #108

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want an interesting account of the search for HIV, I suggest The Coming Plague. It's a good read and covers the history of other diseases as well like Ebola, Hanta, Legionaire's. You can probably find it at your library since it's been out a while.

That looks like an interesting read, but it's 15 years old. Is it still relevant?

As it is a historical account it is still relevant, although I'm guessing there may be some factual errors of understanding that we know about now of exactly how HIV works.

Matthew, I understand your point, but think it doesn't totally hold in this case. Mistaking association and causation is common. The quote itself is from the CDC so you may want to alert them. I also clearly stated in a post above that "being gay" wasn't the cause for getting HIV. I agree it is behavioral, both in an increased risk of promiscuity but also combined with specific sex acts (ie. anal sex) which increases your risk as well.

For clarity I will quote the CDC: "While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4% of the US male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. "

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/11/2010 12:58:50 PM · #109

Originally posted by Matthew:

Black people in the USA are also likely to earn less and there is a far more compelling correlation between wealth and life expectancy. So your statement that "being black does mean you have a shorter life expectancy in this country" is almost certainly a falsehood.

Blacks have a higher incidence of some diseases (prominently hypertension and diabetes) than the population as a whole, which cannot be entirely attributed to economic status, though this certainly worsens the problem through lack of access to health care, poorer diet, and higher stress levels. However, if the incidence is higher, I'd still expect the morbidity and mortality rates to be higher even if the other factors are evened-out.

Then again, whites are more prone to some other diseases (e.g. melanoma) ...

"Being" gay is likely to have zero impact on life expectancy. Life choices and behaviors (e.g. smoking or promiscuity) will ...

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I'm not sure whether to be insulted or not ;)

In Hollywood they say any publicity is good publicity as long as they spell your name right ...

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/11/2010 01:04:07 PM · #110

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want an interesting account of the search for HIV, I suggest The Coming Plague. It's a good read and covers the history of other diseases as well like Ebola, Hanta, Legionaire's. You can probably find it at your library since it's been out a while.

That looks like an interesting read, but it's 15 years old. Is it still relevant?

As it is a historical account it is still relevant, although I'm guessing there may be some factual errors of understanding that we know about now of exactly how HIV works.

Matthew, I understand your point, but think it doesn't totally hold in this case. Mistaking association and causation is common. The quote itself is from the CDC so you may want to alert them. I also clearly stated in a post above that "being gay" wasn't the cause for getting HIV. I agree it is behavioral, both in an increased risk of promiscuity but also combined with specific sex acts (ie. anal sex) which increases your risk as well.

So let me get this straight are you taking back what you said earlier? In your post to George you compared being gay to smoking, which can and does cause emphysema and cancer. When you made that comparision you didn't say "being promiscuous" you said "being gay" as if that's the cause. When I agreed with

VitaminB when he said promiscuous is what leads to the risk of HIV you took issue with it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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

Message edited by author 2010-08-11 13:07:39.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/11/2010 01:30:17 PM · #111

Originally posted by yanko:

No, I'm not taking it back. It's all semantics. You could take the smoking example to show that 80% of people who smoke never get cancer or empysema (and this includes serious two or three pack a day smokers). So it isn't the smoking that kills you, it's the genetic predisposition to get cancer from smoking. But nobody gets that nuanced, they just say smoking kills.

If it makes you feel better I am fully willing to concede that a celibate male who is attracted to other males is at baseline no more likely to contract HIV than anybody else.

I'll also note that we've only been talking about HIV in North America. In Africa HIV is a very heterosexual diseease. This is probably due to at least two factors: 1) Potential receptor polymorphisms make it easier to transmit HIV among africans and 2) vertical transmission from mother to child is much more common (although getting better) because of lack of access to retroviral drugs.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/11/2010 01:46:23 PM · #112

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

In Africa HIV is a very heterosexual diseease. This is probably due to at least two factors: 1) Potential receptor polymorphisms make it easier to transmit HIV among africans and 2) vertical transmission from mother to child is much more common (although getting better) because of lack of access to retroviral drugs.

You left out male promiscuity and their general refusal to use condoms. How do you suppose those mothers got HIV in the first place -- from their kids?

Promiscuous gay men are more likely to get a variety of diseases than males overall. Gay men in stable monogamous relationships are not.
Celibate gay men are unlikely to get any of those particular diseases.

Promiscuous hetersexual men are likely to get a variety of diseases than males overall.
Heterosexual men in stable monogamous relationships are not.
Celibate heterosexual men are unlikely to get any of those particular diseases.

I see a strong correlation between degree of sexual promiscuity and risk of contracting certain diseases, and zero correlation between sexual orientation and such risk.

It is possible (though not all that likely) that rates of promiscuity are higher among homosexual males than heterosexual, but this has to be taken in the context of the current situation that the option of a stable relationship 100% equal to that enjoyed by heterosexual males is denied them.

Message edited by author 2010-08-11 14:00:44.

08/11/2010 02:13:36 PM · #113

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It's all semantics.

It certainly is. Smoking is an activity that causes disease. Homosexuality is a trait that does not cause disease. You can be gay your entire life, but unless you engage in risky activity, you have a near zero chance of infection. However if you smoke your entire life, your chance of associated disease increases dramatically. Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of gay men (let alone women) never have anal sex, and if a legitimate option for socially recognized long-term relationships existed (marriage), it would surely lead to fewer partners and reduced risk.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I am fully willing to concede that a celibate male who is attracted to other males is at baseline no more likely to contract HIV than anybody else.

Actually that person would be far LESS likely to contract HIV than the general population (same as celibate heterosexuals) because you've eliminated a primary source of infection.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

08/11/2010 02:14:01 PM · #114

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In Africa HIV is a very heterosexual diseease. This is probably due to at least two factors: 1) Potential receptor polymorphisms make it easier to transmit HIV among africans and 2) vertical transmission from mother to child is much more common (although getting better) because of lack of access to retroviral drugs.

You left out male promiscuity and their general refusal to use condoms. How do you suppose those mothers got HIV in the first place -- from their kids?

Promiscuous gay men are more likely to get a variety of diseases than males overall. Gay men in stable monogamous relationships are not.
Celibate gay men are unlikely to get any of those particular diseases.

Promiscuous hetersexual men are likely to get a variety of diseases than males overall.
Heterosexual men in stable monogamous relationships are not.
Celibate heterosexual men are unlikely to get any of those particular diseases.

I see a strong correlation between degree of sexual promiscuity and risk of contracting certain diseases, and zero correlation between sexual orientation and such risk.

It is possible (though not all that likely) that rates of promiscuity are higher among homosexual males than heterosexual, but this has to be taken in the context of the current situation that the option of a stable relationship 100% equal to that enjoyed by heterosexual males is denied them.

I don't disagree with you Paul, but I would add the caveat that:

Promiscuous homosexual males are more likely to contract HIV than promiscuous heterosexual males.

This maybe due to a variety of possible factors (number of sexual partners may be higher, risky sexual behavior (ie anal sex) rates maybe higher, liklihood of encountering a HIV positive partner is higher). So it would be incorrect to assert there is a "zero correlation" between sexual orientation and such risk.

I'm not sure why everybody is so keen on whitewashing the facts. It doesn't do anybody any service. If anything, vigilance needs to be maintained in the gay community with the realization of their increased risk. Fewer sexual partners and less risky behavior is the prescription of the day.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

08/11/2010 02:16:41 PM · #115

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am fully willing to concede that a celibate male who is attracted to other males is at baseline no more likely to contract HIV than anybody else.

Actually that person would be far LESS likely to contract HIV than the general population (same as celibate heterosexuals) because you've eliminated a primary source of infection.

Ever since I started shooting crack, I haven't been able to afford sex. It's a trade-off.

08/11/2010 02:19:34 PM · #116

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's all semantics.

It certainly is. Smoking is an activity that causes disease. Homosexuality is a trait that does not cause disease. You can be gay your entire life, but unless you engage in risky activity, you have a near zero chance of infection. However if you smoke your entire life, your chance of associated disease increases dramatically. Roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of gay men (let alone women) never have anal sex, and if a legitimate option for socially recognized long-term relationships existed (marriage), it would surely lead to fewer partners and reduced risk.

I think you are missing the point about smoking. It turns out that some people can smoke their whole life and have a near zero chance of morbidity (at least COPD and cancer) due to their genetic makeup. So if you are one of those people your risk does not increase (akin to the celibate gay). So to say that "if you smoke your entire life, your chance of associated disease increases dramatically" is no more or less true than "being gay increases your risk of contracting HIV". They are both generalizations about classes of people and we can understand there are more nuanced answers on both sides. But there is no use in nuancing one side and not the other and there is no use being upset about one generalization when we clearly are comfortable with the other.

I'm not even going to get into the idea that a marriage license will reduce promiscuity.

Message edited by author 2010-08-11 14:20:41.

08/11/2010 02:24:53 PM · #117

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't disagree with you Paul, but I would add the caveat that:

Promiscuous homosexual males are more likely to contract HIV than promiscuous heterosexual males.

The caveat you added was promiscuity (and later, multiple sex partners)... the risky activities. Orientation itself is not the risk factor.

08/11/2010 02:38:13 PM · #118

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't disagree with you Paul, but I would add the caveat that:

Promiscuous homosexual males are more likely to contract HIV than promiscuous heterosexual males.

The caveat you added was promiscuity (and later, multiple sex partners)... the risky activities. Orientation itself is not the risk factor.

But you must understand that if you are statistically coming up with odds ratios, that it will be higher for a promiscuous gay male as compared to a promiscous heterosexual male. So orientation IS a risk factor (though a risk factor does not need to be a causative agent. Don't confuse those. I'm not saying just being gay gets you HIV. I've made that clear a number of times now.)

I added the "promiscuity" because Paul did. A non-promiscuous gay male is also at higher risk for contracting HIV than a non-promiscous heterosexual male primarily due to the risk of encountering a HIV positive partner (with which to be non-promiscuous) and due to the risk of risky activity (receptive partners, male or female, are at higher risk for contracting HIV than their counterparts. Anal receptive partners are at a much higher risk (versus vaginal or oral receptive)). A heterosexual male is less likely to be a receptive partner than a homosexual male.

Message edited by author 2010-08-11 14:39:26.

08/11/2010 02:46:38 PM · #119

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Some people can work in the sun their entire lives and not get skin cancer. Some people can be infected with HIV and not get AIDs. So if you're one of those people your risk of morbidity doesn't increase. By your reasoning, that must mean overexposure to the sun doesn't cause melanoma and HIV doesn't cause AIDs, or being a farmer causes skin cancer. Don't play stupid. Promiscuity and multiple partners are the risk factors, not merely being gay. Likewise, farming doesn't cause melanoma� being out in the sun does that, but not every farmer works outside every day (or fails to use sunscreen).

08/11/2010 02:56:30 PM · #120

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I added the "promiscuity" because Paul did.

Horsefeathers. You added promiscuity because being gay is not a cause of AIDs. If it were, then homosexuals wouldn't need ANY partners to get AIDs. Smoking requires nothing else to contract lung cancer. Being gay by itself only increases the risk of outsiders abandoning reason.

08/11/2010 03:01:38 PM · #121

Originally posted by scalvert:

Promiscuity and multiple partners are the risk factors, not merely being gay.

Fine. If you want to say it this way then fine. Include anal receptive sex. And include sleeping with a HIV positive partner. And also include that being gay is associated with (not necesssarily the cause of) increased incidence of both promiscuity and anal receptive sex and we're all good. (All of those are true BTW.)

Message edited by author 2010-08-11 15:03:06.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

08/11/2010 03:19:48 PM · #122

Sounds like you're negotiating. If so don't forget about silk persian rugs. I hear many a sex have been performed on such things. Might be a risk factor.

08/11/2010 03:34:09 PM · #123

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If you want to say it this way then fine. Include anal receptive sex. And include sleeping with a HIV positive partner. And also include that being gay is associated with (not necesssarily the cause of) increased incidence of both promiscuity and anal receptive sex and we're all good. (All of those are true BTW.)

All of those are also true of males in general (not just gay).

08/11/2010 03:45:18 PM · #124

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you want to say it this way then fine. Include anal receptive sex. And include sleeping with a HIV positive partner. And also include that being gay is associated with (not necesssarily the cause of) increased incidence of both promiscuity and anal receptive sex and we're all good. (All of those are true BTW.)

All of those are also true of males in general (not just gay).

Being male is associated with anal receptive sex outside of sexual orientation? I'd highly doubt that but am open to any data you have.

Look at it this way. If promiscuity were the only risk factor, then why is HIV a disproportionately gay disease in North America (especially if you remove IV drug abuse as a factor)? If we assume that 5% of the population is "promiscuous" (however you want to define it, and I'm just making up numbers here), why wouldn't we find that the HIV positive rate simply falls out equally across orientations and 5% of gays and 5% of heteros are HIV positive? Instead we find an incidence that is 44 times higher in gays (or technically MSMs). You are left with one of a few inescapable conclusions:

1) Gays, as a group (note that), are much more promiscuous.
2) Other behaviors or factors (such as anal receptive sex) play into the equation that disproportionately affect gays.
3) You could argue that gays are much more likely to be IV drug abusers, but I've never seen data to this effect.

Where am I incorrect?

yanko