This press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention serves up some hard facts that support one of the issues brought up in the post below entitled "A Mature And Reasoned Objection".
In the debate over the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, activists and their enablers cry out for justification over the (sarcasm alert) heinous bigotry of those who support the current Uniform Code of Military Justice policies banning homosexuals from serving. One such justification came from the CDC and the link provided here provides the stats that suggested to mature and reasonable people that there does indeed seem to be a far greater concern regarding health issues from a group of people who engage in this behavior forbidden under the UCMJ. That 2% of the population can be responsible for the majority of new cases of STDs says something about the group that justifies a discriminating attitude and policy.
The study didn't seem to mention "marriage", either legitimate marriage or the faux marriages of the homosex community. Thus, it would be difficult to comment authoritatively on what possible difference it would make if they removed "married" homos and married heteros from the equation. But as they based the numbers on the overall groups, that is, all the homos over a particular age compared with the rest of the population over that age, it's likely the numbers wouldn't change all that much.
Sadly, the press release seems to have a bit of a pro-homo slant (which makes the numbers all the more important in determining whether the military should bother changing their policy). For example, one quote from Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention:
"It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts."
Prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men? I thought they were supposed to prioritize the needs of the country in general. There is a percentage of the population that still smokes. Do they ever think in terms of "prioritizing the needs" of smokers? How about fat people? Do they prioritize the needs of fat people? I don't think so. For all other people who engage in unhealthy and self-destructive behavior, I believe the CDC is looking to get such people to change their ways. But here they worry about their "needs"? What does that mean, exactly?
It goes on to speak of contributing factors for the high rates among the homo population which...
"include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services."
So here we have a group of people who show a marked lack of self-control even with a higher probability of negative effects. How difficult is it really to consistently maintain safe behaviors, anyway? And dig that last sentence of the quote! They blame normal people for not seeking prevention, testing and treatment services! The noive!
This next bit is especially rich:
"There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men," said Fenton. "We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men."
The mature and reasoned individual knows immediately what's wrong with this picture. There is indeed one single AND simple solution for reducing STD rates, not only among homos, but among normal people as well. Everybody knows what it is. It's never been a secret, even though it is the solution who's name no one will mention.
This study shows that there is indeed one important consideration regarding whether or not DADT should be tossed, or whether or not the UCMJ should be revised as regards homos in the military. These stats indicate a burden no organization should have to bear for the sake of so small a percentage of the population.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Completely O/T, but do check out my comments re: National Review, at your AmDsnt post, here.
Why do you use the nominative construction, "homosex," as an adjective, "homosex community"?
It makes you sound even more like an idiot in addition to a bigot.
And "homosex" doesn't even seem to be recognized syntax.
"Why do you use the nominative construction, "homosex," as an adjective, "homosex community"?"
Because I want to and can.
"It makes you sound even more like an idiot in addition to a bigot."
Only an idiot would think so.
"And "homosex" doesn't even seem to be recognized syntax."
Only an idiot would care.
Grammar be for dummies, stoopid.
I'm not a fan of the term and how Marshall uses it, which is why I don't follow suit, but there are worse signs of bigotry and idiocy -- such as the frequent ad hominem attack that those who do not condone homosexual behavior are all themselves closeted homosexuals.
And, Dan, if you don't have the time or inclination to actually explain the logic and biblical basis of your beliefs, or at least substantiate your accusations against us, that we're guilty of gossip and a host of other sins, then you probably should leave well enough alone.
At the risk of commenting on the point of the post, it is amazing how these communicable disease rates would be extended-play front page news if they belonged to any other group.
"The data, presented at CDC's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.
The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women."
Because I want to and can?
Moving from idiocy to childishness.
Your desire and capacity to be an idiot was not under question. The question is why do you exhibit it publicly?
Neil,
They MSM protects them as if they are some endangered species, which apparently they hope to be based on such numbers.
Feodor,
I'm not really up to trading barbs at this point in time. You're not good at it, and you're tedious.
But I will say that to coin a term or use an abbreviation, such as "homosex", is hardly indication of idiocy, even if YOU do it (there's far more evidence of YOUR idiocy with every comment you leave here---such as the last one). Further, bigotry, as YOU mean to use the term, is a term only an idiot would use to describe the righteous position that homosexual behavior is a wicked and harmful one. Also, to charge me with bigotry in my position on the subject demonstrates your own moral corruption, which is expected from a false priest.
That such as you would deign to question my intelligence and sense of morality is like a pile of dung disparaging the smell of a spring day in the meadow. The source, then, is well considered.
You seem touchy, Marshall. And hyper-inflated.
Post a Comment