Bitcoin Forum

Is this natural selection?

Although gays form just 4% of the US population, they account for 63% of all the new HIV infections. Almost 90% of all the new cases are linked to gay / bisexual men, as more than 80% of the women newly identified with HIV were also infected by bisexual men.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_basics_factsheet.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/images/statistics/basics/hiv-infections-graph-700x302.png

So far in the United States, some 311,087 gays have died due to the HIV infection, since the first case was diagnosed in the 1980s. Out of the ~1,200,000 people currently living with HIV in the United States, some 624,000 are gay.

This means that a total of 935,000 HIV infections have occurred among the gays ever since 1980s, out of a total population of 12 million. That represents an incidence rate of 7.8% against the general prevalence rate of 0.4% and a prevalence of <0.1% among heterosexual men.

the Only reason that Homosexual men gets ''easier'' infected is due to the fact that HIV has a HIGHER risk of spreading while preforming Anal Sex instead of Vaginal Sex....it has nothing to do with being Homosexual.......

I disagree with your argument. A majority of the heterosexual men (including myself) engage in anal sex (although with the opposite gender).  ;D But the big difference here is that heterosexual men will be having only one partner (very rarely more than that), while the homosexual men engage in sex with dozens or even hundreds of partners every year.

The reason why homosexuals are so frequently infected with HIV is due to the fact that they have multiple partners unlike the heterosexual men.

that's Bullshit. this is a typical statement made by those who can only get laid once or twice a year....

Homosexual and Heterosexual men sleep around equally much.

Would like to know your opinion about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexualities:_A_Study_of_Diversity_Among_Men_and_Women


Ever heard about a heterosexual with 1,000 partners?

And what about this?


Source: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality.

http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3626005.html

homosexuality is death, this was known thousands of years ago and it is no less true today

sodomites love to spread their disease around. i watched a video where an aids ridden sodomite at a fag swingers party said he wanted to get fucked by 300 guys. there are even websites for infected men who want to share the different strains of hiv with each other.

(First paragraph, last sentence)
Notice the use of the word dated, implying that the information is incorrect in the current era. But yeah I'm sure that a book from 1979, a time where homosexuality was widespread considered a sin, is the most reliable source to your argument.

While I'm not going to dispute homosexuals having several partners, heterosexuals are no different.

Do you really need to refer to homosexuals as sodomites? Only religious twats do that.


How much do you pay?  :D I doubt you have much of a sex life or time for sex the amount of time you spend on this forum being bigoted. Most bigots are pretty sexually frustrated and hate the world thus take out their own insecurities and inferiorities out on minorities and immigrants etc.

A study by Paul Van de Ven, Pamela Rodden, June Crawford and Susan Kippax, titled A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men, which was published in The Journal of Sex Research had very similar results. This study was conducted in 1997, when homosexuality was largely legal.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813477

The OP obviously doesn't have much experience with women. I know plenty of gay and straight males, and some of the straight males I know go home with a different girl every night. Also, the risk of spreading HIV is higher in anal sex than vaginal sex, so the studies done on that are largely meaningless. Then, there's the fact that biological women are not sexually attracted to the male form(but they are to the female), and that may be why women do not "put out" as much, at least to men.

OMG.  Is someone really using the term "sodomite" in 2015?  I know most of the users here are not bigots but the few that are want to remind us they are constantly.  As for the topic, so what?  They know the risk and roll the dice.  When you have straight sex you are rolling the same dice.  I really don't know why you are so passionate about putting down gay folk.  My guess is either you are pretty low class citizen and it makes you feel better or you secretly love the D and are butt hurt (no pun intended  :D) you're god would hate on you for wanting that big, juicy D in your mouth.

This is the latest propaganda item from the LGBT lobby. According to them all the women are Lesbians and they have no interest in sex with the males. All these arguments are based upon a flawed research study conducted by Dr. Meredith Chivers, herself a vocal advocate of the LGBT lobby. It has been rejected by most of the other reliable sources.

http://jezebel.com/5015942/are-all-women-a-little-bi-in-a-word-no

Well, it may have something to do with the fact, that gays dont have vaginas, dont you think so?  ;) Also the fact, that homosexual community is promiscous doesnt exactly help.

It can be seen as natural selection. Sure.

The OP was probably comparing married heterosexual couple to married homosexual couple. It is quite rare to find multiple sexual partners among the married heterosexual couples. However, for the married homosexual couples, it has been the norm.

This is natural selection.

According to various studies, somewhere from 1% to 4% of the American population is LGBT. According to the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, July 2014), 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent considered themselves bisexual.

That amounts to a total of 2.3%. That means that out of the 242,542,967 adults, some 2.3% or 5,578,488 are gay. Of them 1 million are infected with HIV.

This means that 16.76% of all the LGBT are infected. It seems that HIV infection rate is lower among the lesbians, when compared to the gays. So my guess is that 3.5% of the Lesbians are infected by HIV, while some 30% of the gays are infected by the same virus.

You're still pissed off about gay marriage being legalised aren't you? :D

Have you ever been to alphabet city (east village) during Halloween? I have.
What I saw was around mid 2000. One dude sitting in a restaurant, another one passing by on the sidewalk. They did not know each other. The dude at the restaurant was eating with a friend. He called the dude passing by. He turned and they started to talk. He started a deep examination the dude's penis on the sidewalk 2 min after starting talking. In full view of everyone walking by, children, etc.  :o I saw mothers hiding the eyes of their kids.

My first thought was 'no wonder aids killed so many of them in the 80's. not even a "Hello! What's your name?"
My second thought was about what I used to believe, that it was unfair to keep gays from giving their blood. I do not give my blood. They do. Why should anyone refuse their blood? Obviously I was not a doctor...

I am not saying and believe the whole gay community behaves like that today. I could also blame it on the naughty nature of Halloween night that evening...

You got smarter and safer. Good for you and good for everyone else.


Also there is no need to believe my story if you need to defend your totem no matter what.

 :)

Definitely not an isolated incident. And the problem is that they want to do perversities like this in the open, especially in front of little children.  These idiots think that doing so can get them more recruits from the children.


For most of the 80s, HIV-AIDS was confined to the faggot community. Fags were dying like flies, and no one was giving any importance to it. Then the fags developed a plan. They participated in mass blood donations, knowingly infecting large numbers of innocent people. This is how HIV was introduced in to the general population.

I'm really wondering why there were Homosexual , lesbian, etc...
I mean why these have to exist ? We are actually built as Yin and Yang , girl and boy, complement each other.

Well about the OP, I'm understand because homosexual is really really disgusting  >:( and they are deserve for it

You know what that article on jezebel says? It talks about romantic attraction, not sexual. Sexual attraction defines you sexuality no matter how you look at it, and every single study done on female sexuality shows there there is No such thing as a straight woman. Want to test it yourself? Get your mother, daughter, aunt, whatever, to go to sexologist and have their arousal "rate" taken while watching lesbian porn. Wake up and smell the coffee body, because over 50% of people on this earth are Bisexual. Dr Meredith Chivers identifies as a "straight woman" romantically, she has a husband. So stop lying please, you seem all the more childish and pathetic. In fact, did I type correcty? Every single study done on female arousal since the Kinsey era in the 1960s shows that all biological women are bisexual. Not just Dr Chivers, every one. Take a quick google or read a few books, it'll help you.

The studies don't show women are lesbians, they show that women are not sexually attracted to males physically, but they are very sexually attracted to other women physically. This means on a sexual level, they are bisexual.

All those religions that talk against homosexuality are wrong, or has a evil god who seeks to suppress the true sexuality of females, and that's been confirmed by science.

I am tired of arguing with you. Perhaps in your country, women are not physically attracted to men. But in my country that is not the case, as has been going on for the past 1 million years. I don't need to refer research articles written by lesbians such as Meredith Chivers to find that out. Any kid with an IQ of >60 would be able to do so. And an advice for you - why just limiting this LGBT theory to the women? Go ahead and say that all the men and women are bisexual. So there will be no straight people left in the world. Pathetic.

How short are you? Are you wealthy or poor(Likely the latter since you're in a sig compaign), ehm, are you physically attractive or ugly? Can you take care of a family? No? Then you're part of this natural selection.

This so called "natural selection" of yours is everywhere, most straight couples have HPV and that'a a std transmitted through contact such as kissing.

"HPV (the virus): About 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. About 14 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that most sexually-active men and women will get at least one type of HPV at some point in their lives."

How much do I have to tell you, it doesn't matter what country. This is something biological, not mental. Just like how straight males get erect when viewing an attractive, naked women, so do "straight" women get aroused by viewing a attractive, naked woman(but not man). Your own views on homosexuality means that you despise more than half the people living on this planet. You probably grew up to some faulty, crackpot religion. But oh well, that's natural selection for you.

Keep living in denial, Dr Meredith Chivers is romantically "straight" and married to a man. Your lies are pretty pathetic. This is biology kiddo, go learn it. You have no clue about the male or female body, yet have the audacity to talk about sex and std's and etc.

The studies done on male sexuality show that males are likely to be either gay or straight. The studies done on female sexuality show that there is no such thing as a straight women, sexually.

Knowing full well you won't believe this, I simply am going to post this as an alternative reasoning for the skewed results. This also shows that Christians should be tolerant of those who sin (no matter what the sin), and pray for them. Not hurt them (physically or emotionally) for sinning.

From Archives of Sexual Behavior, VoL 6, No. 5, 1977

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Rogue%20Theories/Exorcism/Exorcism%20of%20Transsexualism.html

The case features a man, who felt he should be a women. Psychiatrists had him dressing up as a women during the day to see if that went well, and acting like a woman. They got to the point they said he should have the surgery to fully become a woman.

"The physician shared with the owner of the restaurant a fundamental Protestant religion quite foreign to John, who had been brought up as a Baptist but was not religious. The physician administered a total physical exam and said that he could live quite well as a woman, but the real problem was possession by evil spirits. After some discussion of this, John reported a session which lasted 2-3 hr and involved exhortations and prayers over John by the physician and laying on a hands on John's head and shoulders. During this period, John reported fainting several times and arising to the continuing of the prayers and exhortations, resulting in the exorcism of 22 evil spirits which the physician called by name as they left his body. During and after this session John felt waves of God's love coming over him but was physically drained. A letter to us, from the physician, confirmed this basic process. The physician noted in his letter that he showed John that his life was a fake and that Jesus could redeem him and that a standard prescription of Scripture readings caused the spirit of the woman in John to disappear.

Immediately after the session John announced he was a man, discarded his female clothes (hiding his breasts as best he could), and went to the barber shop to have his long hair cut into his current short, masculine style. After this session John returned home and live with his mother for approximately 2 weeks but remembers the beginning of some doubts about his conversion and the reoccurrence of some feminine feelings. At this point he accompained his employer to services of a very well-known faith healer in another state where the miracles that he saw renewed his faith and reaffirmed the correctness of his decision. After waiting 3 hr in line, he confronted the healer who told the patient that he was having sexual problems (having perhaps seen his breasts?) and began the healing process, including praying and laying on of hands once again. During this period, which John estimated as 10 or 15 min, he fainted, regained consciousness, fainted again, and, as he stood to step off the platform down into the audience, realized that his breasts were gone."

Then there are some charts showing his gender reversal scores.

" Examination revealed no residual gynecomastia, although the interval of time between cessation of hormonal therapy and examination was adequate for this "shrinkage" to occur naturally.

He started dating several months later, and at the last interview in December 1975 reported that he had dated approximately ten gifts intermittently but had dated one girl for an extended period of time. He reported some sexual arousal toward these girls but did not masturbate, nor did he consider sexual intercourse, because of his religious beliefs. He did admit having some sexual thoughts of males for several months after returning from his faith healing, but attributed these to the Devil and has not had thoughts of men for almost 2 years. He continued to do extremely well in his job, benefiting from- several promotions, and was looking forward to getting married."

In this particular "convo", I'm talking about non-personalized behavior. I don't care about what the man thinks or feels, I'm talking about our very biology, our very sexuality. Transgender-ism is not a sexuality, in-case you didn't know. So what you've put here is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

You can't take someone's word for anything regarding sexual acts, as shown by the studies done, many participants lie about their attractions. You have to use instruments to record their arousal, and that's what's been done on males and females. Sexologists may take some account of their own feelings into play, but it's entirely miniscule compared to actually recording their sexual arousal. When it comes to just sexual arousal, there is No such thing as a straight female, and since sexuality is primarily defined by sexual attraction, that means that means heterosexuality in biological females does not exist. Romantic and sexual attraction are two very different things, with the former being somewhat flexible and the latter simply being out of our control.

You should also note that the biggest organizations that were focused on "changing people's sexuality through faith", all shut down. It doesn't work, not even a bit, and actually causes negative effects on the participants.

I understand what you're saying about instruments testing things. It was said already that women have been conditioned by the world to see the naked female body more than male. I've always wondered while watching tv and movies, why there is soooooooooooooooo much female nudity and barely any male nudity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/women-film-study-annenberg_n_1107899.html
http://www.bustle.com/articles/50955-why-there-should-be-more-male-nudity-on-tv-starting-with-game-of-thrones
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/sexual-politics-full-frontal-nudity-hbos-hit-television-shows-84737

"Differences in the hyper sexualization of male and female characters were explored. Females (30.2%) were far more likely than males(9.7%)to be shown in sexualized attire(i.e., tight or revealing clothing). Females (29.5%) were more likely than males to be shown with partial or full nudity (11.7%). It was also the case that females were more likely than males to be referenced as physically attractive (13.2% vs. 2.4%)"  (link (http://annenberg.usc.edu/pages/~/media/MDSCI/Gender%20Inequality%20in%20Film%202007-2013%20Final%20for%20Publication.ashx))

So, lets go back to why women are more bi than males in this study you're citing.

Either:
1) Women are really more bi than men because of something innate
or
2) Women are showing up as more bi than men, because of their social upbringing

I think it is far more likely that it's from their social upbringing, otherwise why wouldn't males show up as just as "bi" as women are?


As for the Christian "Re-programing" ... it doesn't shock me that it didn't work out. People are sinful and do things incorrectly, shaming someone for something they think is themselves, if a horrible approach. Also no matter of praying will stop demonic forces if the person doesn't believe in Jesus and doesn't want to change.

What you're saying is also not true because gay men are not sexually attracted to the female form. Guess what that means? That means that the whole story about how women are overly shown in the media and that has an effect on sexuality, is entirely false.

It has nothing to do with social upbringing, because gay men in these studies were only sexually attracted to other men. Your theory would hold up if they weren't but they are, so you're wrong.

The fact is that all biological females on this planet are bisexual, there is no if's or but's and the OT is against homosexuality of that kind(women laying with woman), so therefore, god purposely made women bisexual only to restrict their sexual desires? What a nice, benevolent god you have there /s.

If you want to test this firsthand yourself, get any woman you want, and bring them to a sexologist and have their arousal "tested"(blood flow to the vagina) when looking at pictures/videos of nude women, and see what happens. It's a fact, plain and simple.

I already discussed the other points about homosexuality and demonic forces, you just don't believe them. I've given examples that can explain these results in another way. But I always knew you wouldn't believe it.

I think thats quite a reasonable argument in why gay people generally are banne dfrom blood donation. Their blood is the same as anyone else, but they have  MUCH higher chance of being infected, so theres not really a reason to do it.

So then according to your logic, all women on this planet have demonic forces in them? Wow, interesting theory you have there. What a nice god to have implanted demons in all biological females on earth /s.

Also stop trying to slyly maneuver the conversation. Your initial proposal was that it was environmental factors that led to female bisexuality, to which I obviously shown you to be wrong since gay men aren't sexually attracted to the female form. You only mentioned "demonic forces" in regards to "changing sexuality". So you have nothing to say, and are now going on a random tangent about demonic forces, of which you hardly mentioned.

Look, if you have nothing thoughtful to say, and are going to act like a child that dances around, cease responding.

All people who sin have demonic forces affecting them (that's everyone). Whenever someone sins they let demonic forces in, in some way (not easily detectable for sure!). That's not God adding them, that's sin making us fall from God's grace. If you believe in Jesus (and forgive others), you can ask for forgiveness, and be freed from any consequences of sinning. My initial proposal was the demonic forces can change people's perceived and shown sexuality (as a man losing his breasts when he was freed). I also attempted to show you reason in addition to that.

Men who clearly show tendencies one way, are going to show those tendencies when tested. (my first post, that covers the gay men that show up as gay) Those women who are straight, are showing tendencies based upon social conditioning. (second post)

I know some Christians may even be shocked to hear that theory, but it was the bible that clearly states Jesus drove out demons. To not believe in demonic forces, would be to not be following the bible.

So now you're just making up bullshit. The Catholic Church has less than 100 exorcisms every year. If you believe in demons and angels, etc, then the # of demons on Earth is extremely small and most people definitely do not have "demonic forces affecting them".

I already told you that social conditioning has nothing to do with it, because gay men are not sexually attracted to the female form that you so believe to have an effect on sexuality. You're simply wrong...in everything. Accept it.

You're making zero sense, I don't even know why I continue bothering to respond to you...Well I'm a bit bored and it's always interesting to respond to irrational/illogical people such as yourself.

FDA plan: Gay men who abstain from sex may be allowed to give blood






Gay men who've abstained from sex for one year would be able to donate blood in 2015, ending a lifetime ban for the gay community, under a proposed FDA policy change unveiled Tuesday.

The current lifetime ban by U.S. Food and Drug Administration states dates back to 1983 and forbids men who have had sex with men from becoming blood donors because the group is "at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion," the FDA has ruled.

But the FDA is now seeking a change in that policy and would allow such blood donations based on an independent expert advisory panel's recommendation, the agency said.

The proposed change would align the one-year deferral period "with that of other men and women at increased risk for HIV infection," the FDA said.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/23/health/fda-blood-donation-proposal-gay-men/


------------------------------------------------------------
FDA: "Please make sure you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth when giving your blood... Thank youuuuuuu"

FDA is saying gays belong to a high risk and should stop being gay for one year before giving blood. That is the way I read it.

1) The number of demons on Earth is not small.

One third of all angels are fallen angels, from an innumerable amount of angels (too many to count):

Hebrews 12:22 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels

Daniel 7:10 A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;

Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 "How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?"

legion meaning a unit of 3,000–6,000 men in the ancient Roman army or a vast host, multitude, or number of people or things. And of course by the time Jesus said that the angels who He would have called, their number was 2/3 of all angels (since 1/3 were fallen).

2) The number of demons should never be related to how many exorcisms there are a year in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church over the years has tended to shy away from granting them when asked. They have left people who may have benefited from it, to fend for themselves over and over. It may be out of fear of looking foolish. You changed your tone when I mentioned demons existing as the bible says they do. Lots of people do.

3) However, exorcisms are on the rise. Exorcism Thriving in U.S., Say Experts (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92541), How Pope Francis and the Vatican deal with the devil (2014) (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2014/05/exorcism_in_catholic_church_pope_francis_says_satan_the_devil_is_real.html).

Also I never said all people are possessed, which is usually what exorcism brings to mind. Just that there are demonic forces that get a little more power with every sin (oppression versus possession). Asking for forgiveness for those sins takes away their power.

If anyone is interested, Christians are looking into deliverance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliverance_ministry) from other Christians versus an exorcism from the Catholic Church. Deliverance can be peaceful, just asking for forgiveness and prayers, etc.

"Though many people confuse deliverance with exorcism, they are not the same.....Deliverance ministries seek to remove any influences that allow the demon to take control over the individual. The individual must take responsibility and be involved in the process" (Deliverance ministry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliverance_ministry))

The man who was going to have the sex change operation was prayed for, and had a lessening of impure thoughts of men, and started to get sexually attracted to women and was looking forward to getting married to a wife. It's the only reason I bring it up. Just wanted to counter your theory with another theory. You can call it crackpot all you like, but it would be a bit disingenuous for me to say I believe the bible and ignore Jesus calling out demons and commanding His followers to do the same in the future.

Mark 16:17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues"

If they honestly abstain from sex for more than one year, then they can be allowed to donate blood. After all, the window period for HIV is around three to six months. Infections older than that can be easily identified through a simple blood test. But how we will be sure whether these people are lying or not? After all, they had knowingly created the first HIV epidemic (California) in the 1980s, by donating infected blood.

:D

There's a lot of ambiguous stats being thrown around in here, this is how I'm interpreting them:

I do believe that gays are more segregated from mainstream society. This means that when they do get together in clubs etc, then they are more likely to hook up with other gays and have one-night-stands etc. This would have been especially true in the 70s, when this study was performed.

An analogy for a heterosexual would be if it was socially unacceptable to chat girls up in the street, but once a week there's a party which all the hot girls go to specifically to hook up with you - you'd be inclined to indulge, right? I imagine it feels like you're a kid in a candy shop.

Also, gay men probably have similar sex drive to hetero men, so this would make them promiscuous. All of these things, together with the fact that anal sex is more likely to lead to AIDS, and that men don't have vaginas, explains to me why the statistic is so high in the gay demographic.

It seems that some of you are saying that gays are inherently physiologically more likely to catch AIDS. I don't think there's any evidence to support this, feel free to prove me wrong.

Regarding the ban on blood donation, I feel that it is morally justified to stop people from a high-risk demographic giving blood. However, I don't see why they couldn't be tested for HIV first, and then allowed to donate after a negative result.

Not as simple as that. There is a window period for the HIV virus, which can range from 3 months to 6 months. During this window period, the HIV virus will remain invisible in the blood. If a newly infected person donates his blood even before this window period (i.e before 6 months after he got infected), then there is a chance that the recipient will become HIV +ve.

Again, this is all personalized and your opinion(Obviously wrong). The catholic church disagrees with you, there's less than 100 exorcisms a year. So you're obviously wrong on the fact that there's a lot of "demons" on earth. The reason why there's so little exorcisms(I also highly doubt any of the exorcisms performed by the church have anything to do with "supernatural demons") is because 99% of people claiming to be possessed actually have had some sort of mental illness, and has been treated with medication, not faulty "exorcisms".

Bisexual males aren't common, at least according to studies done on male sexuality. Males are either straight or guy, mostly. However, all studies done on female sexuality show that biological females are all Bisexual.

Therefore, according to your logic, god made males superior to females in the fact that if they were born straight/heterosexual, then they're not sinning in the eyes of god. But females don't have such luxury, right? So that means every female is a sin itself in the eyes of god.


Just admit it, as this pathetic argument is getting tiresome and you'e answered none of my points, and instead referring to opinionated information with no objective basis.

I'd believe the bible over the Catholic Church any day. I already gave reasons, but because of your closed-mind you won't listen to it. My theory is a combination of demonic influences and media influences. But since you ignore one, you can't see it a whole theory. That's ok. I never thought you'd believe it. I just wanted to post another alternative to the theory of yours.

I fully know you think you're right 100%. I don't agree, and I bet many people reading don't believe the conclusion for those results. They may believe the results, but the conclusion doesn't fit. If it was true that all women were bi, ignoring demonic influences, then all men should be bi too. Can you even give a logical reason why men wouldn't be bi in your opinion?

I figured I'd give another theory that explains the results, the only reason I posted in this thread.

There are plenty of theories as to why men are not as likely to be bisexual with the main one being below.

1) Men often fought wars and were away from home, leaving women alone with the children(Countries like Sparta were a perfect example where the husbands only saw the wives once a month). This means that the women would bond together to raise the children, and of course there would need to be sexual attraction for them to get along.

The fact of the matter is that all the studies done on female sexuality already show that women are by default, bisexual, and man are much more likely to be either straight or gay. Your "theories" about "demons" have absolutely no evidence behind them, and even according to the Church is a bunch of hogwash, as shown by the trivial amount of so called "exorcisms" carried out each year.

You obviously don't follow the bible, as the OT is as relevant as the NT. What you are, is a superficial christian who selectively chooses what to listen to in the bible, nothing more.

1) Men fighting in wars with other men, would likely bring them together just as much as women being alone with women. I don't believe that, but your theory doesn't make sense because the same reason you would claim women would bond and grow bi would be the same reason men should, but they don't, so you haven't explained why women do and men don't.

You believe the results come to that conclusion that women are bi, I don't. There's a difference between having results, and having a conclusion. Results can be for many reasons. Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women.

You think demons are hogwash, the bible is full of demon verses, and those Christians who do not believe in them, are ones who aren't following the bible.

Your line about me not following the bible, is silly when it's not backed by anything, and people can clearly read all my posts. Everything I've written has bible verse backing. :)

25 verses about casting out demons (http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Jesus-Casting-Out-Demons)

Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,a drive out demons. "

Mark 16:17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues"

For more reading on getting rid of demonic oppression, here are some books:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5477/139/1600/Christianity%20with%20Power.jpg
Christianity with Power (https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1993/05/christianity-with-power)

https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1328779398l/160261.jpg
Defeating Dark Angels: Breaking Demonic Oppression in the Believer's Life (https://books.google.com/books/about/Defeating_Dark_Angels.html?id=gO6HtDlNLO4C)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/517BwdImm6L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare  (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/830403.Power_Encounters)

Though, these are just a couple, they quote others also. Anyone can look up spiritual warfare and deliverance for more viewpoints and examples.

Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens. You'll sure be in for a surprise as this arugment is a waste of time, you're sprouting off illogical statements and frankly you make no sense. Everything has been answered so far. This fact in itself should show the bible is entirely false(Not gonna mention the indefinite amount of inaccuracies and contractions in it as well).

"Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women. "

I already told you that in these studies, the men did not display any significant sexual arousal to both sexes, they preferred one(gay or straight). The women however were aroused by both sexes during sexual acts, but only aroused when viewing pictures of naked women(doing non sexual acts) and not aroused at all when viewing images of naked men(doing non sexual acts). Hence, men are mostly either gay or straight, and women are entirely bisexual on a purely sexual level(With a slight preference for other women sexually).

There's really no need to swear while posting to me, which you have been doing more recently. I've just been peacefully answering your questions and posting back to the things you have accused me of with examples to prove what I've said.

You have given the results of the test, but you have not given a reason as to why you or the person who ran the test, believe the results should give the conclusion that women are all bi-sexual.

I never argued the results, I was arguing with the conclusion based on the results.

I've already given my conclusion based upon the results and why I think it. But you don't want to hear that.

But you have not given me a reason (that I haven't debunked) for why women would all be bi-sexual and men wouldn't. If you believe these results mean that conclusion, why? Why should men not be bi-sexual just as much as women?

As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.

At least come up with sensible arguments.


I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.

A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.

EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.

Well I know you don't want to hear the theories you think are hogwash. But here we go again.

The world as a whole sees more female nudity and sexualization of women in movies and tv, even now "celebrities", and music stars, are overly sexual in their videos. So the world as a whole will see these images (unless they turn them off and don't tune in, but most won't since it's everywhere), and be far more likely to show arousal when seeing women. This leads to everyone being far more likely to show arousal for women versus men, they've been conditioned to think of women as sexual.  (I gave a bunch of examples in post in this thread for these studies)

Those who sin, and that's everyone, will be subject to demonic forces, those demonic forces want people to sin. They're related to the sins the person has committed. Why then do men not show an arousal to women if they're gay? Because that is being blocked from demonic forces. They hinder the natural arousal for women, and instead pump up the arousal for men. Continuing to sin, and reluctance to ask for forgiveness, will keep this going. Asking for forgiveness, prayers and trying to be less sinful has caused the man (who was going to have the sex-change op) I mentioned to actually be aroused by women, lose his breasts, and he was getting married. There are other examples of homosexuals becoming straight through that process too.

Your theory of males fighting wars and bonding with other males, would lead men to be bi-sexual too for the same reason women would turn bi-sexual for bonding with women. Do you have any other reason?

Please show me any intolerant comments I have made, and I will debunk that (if you're wrong), or apologize (if you're right). Christianity is about tolerance, and I don't want to be intolerant of anything but sin. :)

For the millionth time, that little theory or yours has been debunked, proven false, because Gay Men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, so the whole myth about the over sexualized depiction of females in the media having any effect on sexuality is False.


The males wouldn't turn bisexual and this is because of polygamy. Even in the bible it shows god allowing the males to take the women from lands they conquered as slaves(sexual). Geez, come up with better arguments. Both females and males are shown to learn towards polygamy on a sexual level, but are relatively monogamous romantically.

And also, men being sexual with men has been generally frowned upon once they reached adulthood in different societies throughout the ages(Sparta again is a good example), and this may have caused them to be relatively either/or in sexuality(gay/straight). Queen Elizabeth even had a female lover, it was frowned upon with men but indifferent with women.

In all my life i have never heard so much shit come out of some ones mouth as this guy
GO AND TAKE YOUR FACE FOR A SHIT COZ YOUR MOUTH IS FULL OF POOOOOOOOOOO :D :D

My theory accounts for gay men not being attracted to women. You can re-read it. You just don't believe it. Not believing it, doesn't mean it's debunked.

I agree with your assessment that social constructs may change why straight men don't have the same reaction when viewing males, just like I believe that social constructs change why women may have a reaction when viewing females.

Even Chivers has a problem explaining why her results are the way they are: "Full of scientific exuberance, Chivers has struggled to make sense of her data. She struggled when we first spoke in Toronto, and she struggled, unflagging, as we sat last October in her university office in Kingston" (link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt&pagewanted=all&_r=3&))

Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi.

"Psychologist Richard Lippa teamed up with the BBC to survey over 200,000 people of all ages from all over the world concerning the strength of their sex drive and how it affects their desires. He found a similar inversion of male and female sexuality: for men, both gay and straight, higher sex drive increased the specificity of their sexual desire. Straight guys with higher sex drives tended to be more focused on women, while higher octane gay guys were more intent on men. But with women—at least nominally straight women— Lippa found the opposite effect: the higher her sex drive, the more likely a woman was to report being attracted to both men and women. Self-identified lesbians showed the same pattern as men: a higher sex drive meant more women-only focus. Perhaps this explains why nearly twice as many women as men consider themselves bisexual, while only half as many consider themselves to be exclusively gay." (link (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201006/why-there-will-never-be-viagra-women))

You'll think this strengthens your theory, but I believe that it goes to show there can be many reasons why the results would have shown up the way they did.

However, researching this to discuss it with you, has only strengthened my theory. I personally see it as a result of the demonic influence of lust in women who would be seen as having a high sex-sex drive (to those who don't believe in the sin of lust or demonic influence), the more likely to turn bi/lesbian.

You are making absolutely no sense. Your "theory" stated that the over sexualization of females in the media is what may have caused women to "become bisexual". I responded by saying Gay men were not sexually attracted to women in these studies, debunking your little "theory".

Yes, the only sensible thing you've said so far is, "Another theory is for those humans who are more sexual, they feel strongly one way or the other. Men are more sexual than women, so more men swing one way and one way only. Whereas women are less sexual and tend to be more bi. ", but even that is just a theory and hasn't been proven or had much research done on it. For ex: it's sometimes thought that women with higher testosterone levels are more likely to be bisexual. So it goes either way.

And regardless, they both show that women are bisexual.

And again, I said if you want to test this yourself, get Any female friend you can find, relative, whatever, and have their sexual arousal tested by a sexologist(You can watch), while looking at lesbian porn. Hopefully then you'll see that women truly are by default, bisexual.

Also, men are not more sexual than women, it's actually the opposite. Women can achieve orgasms multiple times in a row, and get aroused by far more stimuli than men, even getting aroused by animals mating, as shown by Dr Chivers, Dr Diamond, and more. Please go research about this.

I already explained that, but you ignored that part of my post. I understand you don't believe in demonic forces. However, you can't debunk a theory when you ignore it. But let's just agree that you don't believe in it. I never thought you would.

I never argued the results of the test. Trying to argue me to re-do the test is pointless, when I said I never was arguing the results of the test.

I just don't think she explained why she thinks her results should mean the conclusion. I can clearly say why what I think happens. I have a theory. She only has results and is confused as to what they mean:

Even Chivers has a problem explaining why her results are the way they are: "Full of scientific exuberance, Chivers has struggled to make sense of her data. She struggled when we first spoke in Toronto, and she struggled, unflagging, as we sat last October in her university office in Kingston" (link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?scp=1&sq=&st=nyt&pagewanted=all&_r=3&))

Yes its tru. Homosexuals way more likely to be infected by HIV couse they changing partners more frequently. Also probabilyty of getting AIDS trough anal sex is way more higher. It's like this everywhere in this world. In america situation not that bad. In some african countryes for example 20% of the population infected with HIV.

are HIV virus still that dangerous i heard that it can be killed at 60°, and there are numerous people that survived it, it's curable already

Can you link me to this study that proves 100% of women are bisexual? Have they tested 100% of women? I don't think so. And being sexually aroused by something does not make them bi or homosexual. I'm sure if you did the same studies with men watching gay porn you'd get a lot of them aroused too but have no real desire to have sex with other men. I would actually pay for bryantcoleman to go do this test because I believe he's actually a latent or repressed homosexual and that's why he's so angry with them because of his fear of getting turned on which he hasn't learnt to deal with yet.

Without the ARV treatment, the HIV will kill 99.99999% of the people within 12 years from the date of infection. Only those with mutations in CCR5 receptors (these people can be counted in a handful) will survive the HIV infection for more than 12 years (Stephen Crohn is a notable example). And no, HIV can't be cured by heating your blood to 60°. People have tried this method, but they failed.  ;D

Read through my posts and you'll see all the linked studies as I don't feel the need to go over this again.

Every single study done on female sexuality objectively(Testing their arousal due to blood flow to the vagina) has shown that women are Bisexual. Sexual arousal is the basis for sexual attraction, so yes that does make then bisexual. The act of bisexuality or homosexuality is different from being bisexual or homosexual(The act can be irrelevant and have no basis on your sexuality). A straight man can kiss another man and be perfectly straight for example.

In all studies done on male sexuality, gay men showed no sexual attraction to females, and straight men no sexual attraction to men.

bryant.coleman is the most pathetic man I've met on this forum, even surpassing the likes of BADecker. Yes I would as well.

So anyone practicing anal or oral sex or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity.

Or anyone who is a resident of Sodom, from the bible of course.

Is this really a surprise?

P.S. Sodomy does not mean homosexual.

Funny, I thought the number would have been higher.

Having said that, I feel slightly dumber after having thumbed through this thread.


OP did not respond.

63% of all the HIV infections in the United States occurs among the Sodomites
sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.

Once again, you are still mad because gay people have gotten a little bit more of freedom, right?

And nearly every infected person in the western world has access to ARV. People with HIV are almost reaching non-infected life expectancy.


Having read most of the thread I can guess most people are mad because gay people have sex more often. Typical cry of those who get laid rarely as has already been pointed out. They do have sex more easily because gay men will want sex and not money, protection etc that women want. Also, women are taught to view sex as bad things (mostly by conservatives as the ones in this thread that are mad gays have sex more often)

Well the stats don't lie
It would explain why blood banks restricted blood transfusions from gay individuals and also the question on that topic referring to the last time they had sex with someone seeing that it takes time for HIV and those type of diseases to emerge.

What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men?

Men who have had sex with other men (MSM), at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

FDA's primary responsibility with regard to blood and blood products is to assure the safety of patients who receive these life-saving products. FDA uses multiple layers of safeguards in its approach to ensuring blood safety, which include donor screening and deferral based on risk factors, blood testing for markers of infection, inventory controls, and deferral registries. The use of these multiple layers helps to assure the safety of the products in the event that one layer fails.

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. Between 2008 and 2010, the estimated overall incidence of HIV was stable in the U.S. However the incidence in MSM increased 12%, while it decreased in other populations. The largest increase was a 22% increase in MSM aged 13 to 24 years. Since younger individuals are more likely to donate blood, the implications of this increase in incidence need to be further evaluated.

Is FDA's policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?

FDA's deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation.

Why are some people, such as heterosexuals with multiple partners, allowed to donate blood despite increased risk for transmitting HIV and hepatitis?

Current scientific data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that, as a group, men who have sex with other men are at a higher risk for transmitting infectious diseases or HIV than are individuals in other risk categories. From 2007 through 2010, among adult and adolescent males, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to MSM increased, while the numbers of infections attributed to other risks among males decreased. Among adult and adolescent females, the annual number of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to injection drug use and heterosexual contact both decreased.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts/QuestionsaboutBlood/ucm108186.htm

Good old FDA providing stats since the 1970s

 ::) ::) ::)

Sure it is. Go have random unprotected anal sex and run right away in a hammam just after. Make sure it is at least 60°. 30 to 45 min. Do this for 48 hrs with 30 min. break between the anti-aids sessions. Don't sleep. Please avoid having anal sex again in the hammam or you'll need to restart the whole anti-aids prescription all over again...

If you've managed to type an url and create a profile to post your question here, there is hope you'll find your answer.

 ::) ::) ::)

Thanks, this makes sense. I may not agree with your opinions on homosexuals but you are clued up on some things. I have nothing against gays but, as I said, I would agree with a ban on gays donating blood seeing as they are a high risk demographic, for whatever reason.

I made my views clear in my previous post about why I think gay men are a high risk HIV group, feel free to pick holes in my conclusions.

Well there can be many reasons behind it. One of the major reasons is , that HIV spreads faster while having anal as compared to the vaginal sex. This is one of the reasons . There are many logical reasons behind it.

Lol of the day right here!


Also, you might want to learn what natural selection is before you try to post about it. Since a gay individual won't pass on their genes without an interest in the opposite sex, "the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring" (Natural Selection) wouldn't be applicable.

OP shouldn't be viewed as anything other than a bigot looking for attention or desperately trying to find other bigots to validate his dying-off worldview.

There are other groups which are banned from donating blood as well. But most of the people only concentrate on homosexual males (homosexual females can donate blood). These groups include intravenous drug users, prisoners, sex-workers, people originating from countries such as Swaziland and Botswana, transplant patients.etc. That said, no blood donation is 100% safe. Even groups which are allowed to donate blood can infect others with HIV and HBV, although the chances are far lower. It is a shame that the medical science can't find a solution to this issue yet.