BBC: India top court reinstates gay sex ban.

If those statistics are statistically correct and sound then it seems, at least at first sight, that there is a correlation between being gay and the probability of contracting HIV. It wouldn't add up why such a small portion of the population accounts for two thirds of all new HIV cases in a particular year.

Its all due to the nature of transmission with HIV. Its much easier to contract the virus through semen than it is through vaginal secretions. This coupled with unprotected sex is the main culprit. Anal sex increases the risk of opening up tears in the skin which are the primary points of infection. Then again proper condom usage solves all these problems.

Yeah. That was the point I was trying to make. In fact there's actually a real concern about the HIV epidemic getting out of hand in the US because apparently gay men are having more and more unprotected sex each year. (Souce)

It's not about having an 80's mindset. It's about facing the facts..

@HoolaHoopMan: Although he may somehow come off as a bigoted fundi for some people, I'm not entirely sure if his point is as moot as you're trying to make it appear. Whether his claims and those statistics account for lesbians or not has nothing to do with the idea behind his claims and those statistics: the idea that HIV/AIDS is considerably more prevalent among gay men, something that those statistics and your own previous post agree with.

However this should not necessarily be used against gay men but that doesn't mean it should be denied and dismissed at all cost. For instance, women are prone to certain fungi infections because of their anatomy or physiology (having a vagina and whatnot). Its not discrimination or bigotry to state such a fact, as long as its supported by evidence. However, this shouldn't be used against women normally. If some women do not take good care of themselves and smell like rotten fish down there, then they're ought to be reminded of it and held responsible too. This "example" isn't the best in relation to the subject of this topic since women do not have a choice in their anatomy but they do have a choice in whether they take good care of themselves or not.

Back to the topic. According to those statistics and to the reasons you mentioned already, gay men in particular should be cautious enough and use condoms. If they fail to do so then others do have the liberty to associate being gay with higher risk of contracting HIV.

@HoolaHoopMan: Although he may somehow come off as a bigoted fundi for some people, I'm not entirely sure if his point is as moot as you're trying to make it appear. Whether his claims and those statistics account for lesbians or not has nothing to do with the idea behind his claims and those statistics: the idea that HIV/AIDS is considerably more prevalent among gay men, something that those statistics and your own previous post agree with.

However this should not necessarily be used against gay men but that doesn't mean it should be denied and dismissed at all cost. For instance, women are prone to certain fungi infections because of their anatomy or physiology (having a vagina and whatnot). Its not discrimination or bigotry to state such a fact, as long as its supported by evidence. However, this shouldn't be used against women normally. If some women do not take good care of themselves and smell like rotten fish down there, then they're ought to be reminded of it and held responsible too. This "example" isn't the best in relation to the subject of this topic since women do not have a choice in their anatomy but they do have a choice in whether they take good care of themselves or not.

Back to the topic. According to those statistics and to the reasons you mentioned already, gay men in particular should be cautious enough and use condoms. If they fail to do so then others do have the liberty to associate being gay with higher risk of contracting HIV.

@HoolaHoopMan: Although he may somehow come off as a bigoted fundi for some people, I'm not entirely sure if his point is as moot as you're trying to make it appear. Whether his claims and those statistics account for lesbians or not has nothing to do with the idea behind his claims and those statistics: the idea that HIV/AIDS is considerably more prevalent among gay men, something that those statistics and your own previous post agree with.

However this should not necessarily be used against gay men but that doesn't mean it should be denied and dismissed at all cost. For instance, women are prone to certain fungi infections because of their anatomy or physiology (having a vagina and whatnot). Its not discrimination or bigotry to state such a fact, as long as its supported by evidence. However, this shouldn't be used against women normally. If some women do not take good care of themselves and smell like rotten fish down there, then they're ought to be reminded of it and held responsible too. This "example" isn't the best in relation to the subject of this topic since women do not have a choice in their anatomy but they do have a choice in whether they take good care of themselves or not.

Back to the topic. According to those statistics and to the reasons you mentioned already, gay men in particular should be cautious enough and use condoms. If they fail to do so then others do have the liberty to associate being gay with higher risk of contracting HIV.

I'm not seeing the correlation between homosexuality and promiscuity. Why homosexuals in particular would be prone to promiscuous inclinations more than heterosexuals? If there was in reality a correlation between one's sexuality and his susceptibility to promiscuity, I think it would be the other way around since statistically speaking, homosexuals must be finding it somehow harder to find a partner, more than heterosexuals do.

I'm aware of the prevalence of HIV in the gay community and I've already acknowledged as to why its prevalent. However I should probably clarify again why I started going down this line of conversation. He originally insinuated, whether jokingly or not, that the ban was instituted to curb the epidemic of HIV. At face value its preposterous and damaging to the actual topic of HIV/AIDS to imply that banning gay sex should be used as a means to curb a virus which afflicts tremendously more straight people. By saying its a gay disease you're saying that simply being gay increases your chance of catching it. Your sexual orientation doesn't increase your risk of infection, engaging in certain sexual activities with out protection does.

As for the bolded; No. That same line of reasoning could be applied to associating HIV with blacks just as easily.

1) Blacks are infected as much higher rates with HIV each year than non blacks. Statistics can clearly back this up.

2) Therefore we can conclude that HIV is clearly a 'Black' disease.

3) Our plan of action is to ban sex between black people in order to curb the HIV epidemic.

Statistics mean nothing to the individual.

But they do, often in a non-straightforward or subconscious way. It is true that as an individual that is a part or a sample of some statistics that quantify some phenomena that the individual is largely in control of, you'll feel that those statistics do not concern you since you're in charge of your own behavior and habits and your whole mode of existence. But the fact is, as social beings we cannot be fully in control in many of the matters that mostly concern no one but ourselves which appear to be subject to your sovereignty and are your own responsibility.

For example you live in the Netherlands, a first world country that is known for its high level of civility and standards of living. I'll go out on a limb and assume that you're a hygienic person and you're conscious about what you put in your body too. But just like any other person, you'll let something go here and there. You'll eat some street food now and then even if you're under the impression that it has a higher risk of contamination than the food that meets your regular standards. Also, you'll occasionally eat without washing your hands in advance. You do these things despite the fact that they oppose your regular behavior and do not meet your standards because you're living in the Netherlands. You know from personal experience and years of observing your surrounding and people around you that your country has high standards of civility, of public awareness and is highly developed that the chances of something going wrong are close to zero. But if you visit India one day, then you'll take your original standards and behaviors to the extreme because the environment dictates this much.

The same, more or less, applies to gay men and HIV/AIDS. I think that the assertion that statistics do not concern the individual is rather simplistic and too one-dimensional.

It all depends on the context of the statistics. In this context, homosexuals aren't more susceptible to AIDS/HIV than heterosexuals, it simply means that they, for example, use less protection (condoms and whatnot) because they figure they can't impregnate their SO. Things like that are a more probable reason for the high percentage of homosexuals among HIV/AIDS patients, than that being gay makes you more susceptible to it. You could argue that being gay increases your chances because of the reasons I mentioned, but this has no bearing on the individual.

You're looking at it from a distorted angle, at least in relation to what I was trying to convey. I'm not saying HIV/AIDS is a gay disease, that is absurd and quite ridiculous. I'm saying gay men are more likely to contract the disease because gay people are a minority which means they have much fewer options and less availability of sexual partners, because of the nature of their sexual intercourse and finally the evident prevalence of the disease among gay men. These reasons combined together should, ideally speaking, make a gay man more aware and conscious about the disease.

Everyone should be aware about the disease. As long as you use the proper protection, you aren't more likely to get it, unless you're just an unlucky SOB whose condom tears during sex or whatever. Unless you're one of those unlucky people, it's pretty much entirely in your control whether or not you get hiv/aids. In this context, statistics mean nothing to the individual.

Its not as simple and clear cut as you make it look like. Its 101 probability theory really but live and let live I guess.

Let me ask you this though, would you agree to having sex with an HIV/AIDS patient as long as you're going to use protection?

Given the statistical minority of gay men in a country like the U.S, I still can't get my head around the idea of how two thirds of new HIV/AIDS cases were among gays in a given year. I'm not trying to stigmatize gays or anything. It is true that I personally do not approve of or applaud homosexuality but I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible.

When you have such high HIV/AIDS statistics among gay men compared to the entire population, I think its quite hard for the average individual not to make any kind of correlation between being gay and the likelihood of contracting the disease, at least at first sight. Whether this correlation is justifiable or whether such claim has any truth to it is something else.

I do however recognize the idea that "banning" gay sex is not a viable answer and maybe an absurd idea too because gays will have sex whether you ban it or not and because I'm not an expert on the subject of HIV/AIDS to support or approbate such a measure. With that said though and given the statistics, it is at least rational and pretty straightforward to assert that being gay with the current state of affairs does have the possibility of increasing one's chances of contracting the disease for two simple consequential reasons. First, gays are a minority, they do not have as many options as heterosexuals have for a partner. Second, HIV/AIDS is significantly more prevalent among gays. Those two reasons in addition to what you mentioned about the nature of sexual intercourse that takes place between gay men are sufficient to increase the likelihood for a gay man to get infected. Now as a gay man, its up to you to practice safe sex and take all necessary measures to protect yourself and to not find yourself one day among those statistics.

You seem to be under the impression that I support or call for the banning of gay sex as a means to curb the HIV/AIDS epidemic, something that I didn't even touch on in my post. As far as your black people example, the conclusion that I'd reach is that being black does in reality increase the chances of contracting the disease, in relation to such state of affairs in which black people have higher rates of HIV/AIDS infection.

To take the spotlight little bit away from gay men, I'd also go as far as saying that promiscuous heterosexuals have a higher probability for contracting the disease simply because they have higher number of sexual partners. If I present you with a sample of 100 people, of whom 10 are infected with HIV/AIDS. Its only rational to assert that those belonging to the sample and had 30 sexual partners have a higher probability of having been infected with the disease than those who had 5 partners. The former have a probability of 0.3 and the later have 0.05. Apply the same scenario to gay men and you'll find out why being gay in the U.S will increase one's chances of being infected. This is speaking from a strictly quantitative/statistical perspective.