"HIV IS a gay disease" WTF?!

[Xstr8guy]

http://www.ownitendit.org/

Does anyone find this as disturbing as me? Aren't we just giving the right-wing religious wackos what they want?

Article

[slaxxx]

I guess I'm missing the point of the campaign...how are they thinking this is going to stop the spread of hiv?

[Xstr8guy]

I think the message is fine as long as it is delivered exclusively to gay men. But this is reportedly on billboards all over LA. And what do you think straight people will remember after they see these billboards?

HIV=Gay or more alarmingly, Gay=HIV

And don't you think this is also irresponsible to display this message to young, ignorant straight people? "Oh good, only gay people can get HIV! I guess I'm safe then."

[IdolKnights]

so anyone who has HIV/AIDS is gay?

[marcjacob]

i know what their trying to do but that one statement makes me incredibly angry. its simply wrong, even in la. ok so the majority of infections are gay but that tells straight people it doesnt apply to them and it does. in any case weve thought long and hard in the uk to get away from that idea. if this was here theyd get slated by the gay lobby for that statement.

i applaud anyone tackling the issue and i welcome them trying hard to end hiv. i just disagree with there use of those words.

maybe they want this reaction though? after all, were all talking about hiv again. the more we talk about it the more aware people are.

[MiamiB]

I think that this sort of thinking is so 80's...certainly a step back in time and I see nothing positive about it at all. It is a human disease and doesn't see gender, sexual preference, or skin color. :thumbsdown:

Lee

[Squirt]

Diseases do not know sexual orientation, class, religion, etc. Back during the plagues people used to blame those who were dying as being punished by God. Now those dying of AIDS are being punished by God. Religion is fucked and ignorance gives way to statements like "HIV IS a Gay disease". When people attribute any disease to a particular class/group of people, you are spreading ignorance, no matter how well intentioned you are.

Yeah I know it's a community organization trying to make our community take responsibility for our actions, but it's the wrong message to send because not only the Gay community sees it, amongst other things.

Ever tried giving blood? See on the questionaire where it lists risky behavior for getting HIV/AIDS that you shouldn't give blood?

"You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV. "

"You are at risk for getting infected if you: "

"are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977" SOURCE

The last thing we need is our own community spreading this paranoia :drunk:

[HotMaleVideos]

The "hook" for the ad is ridiculous. They put that tag line out there in big letters to get attention, but then explain it away on the website.

HIV is a Gay Disease*


*Not it's not, but now that we got your attention check out our website.

[Squirt]

that's like saying

GOD IS GAY! *

*not really, but now that we got your attention goto our website



Totally stupid

[Paco]

pylons!

My 57-y.o. friend has been positive for 30-years (+/-). MAN will he ever be floored when I tell him he is gay! Wait a minute, he's not gay!
That's right: one night at a bar he picked-up a dirty whore of a needle. So IT must be gay! (and I thought I was on a different wave-length!)

Once again L.A. is the center of the universe! What do I mean?
"but in Los Angeles, more than 75%.." [http://www.ownitendit.org/]

AND, if that (% posted on page) is true, it MUST be correct ... world-wide!
Even in the ever-so homophobic roman catholic regions.

Hmm, does anybody here think th@ the pylons ever stopped to think ... th@ MAYBE they should boost the numbers to something more viable.

Such as: (out of two-hundred people surveyed)
75 gay persons are positive
25 needle users (drugs) are positive, however the other seventy-five were lost, because they were too stoned! (adjusted total 100)
25 str8's that have unprotected with a pos. partner

adjusted percentages:
Needle (drug) users = 50%
Gay= 37.5%
Straight = 12.5%

I pulled the above figures from the same magical silk top-hat as the white crusaders.

I do not like coming off as a fanatic, but I fail to see how so many people (except for those cut from the same cloth) can still put so much of themselves in to a system that perpetuates and rewards mentalities and ideals, such as those on that site.

I was beyond offend, but not surprised.

[Xstr8guy]

Ever tried giving blood? See on the questionaire where it lists risky behavior for getting HIV/AIDS that you shouldn't give blood?

"You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV. "

"You are at risk for getting infected if you: "

"are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977" SOURCE

The last thing we need is our own community spreading this paranoia :drunk:

I am negative but I tried to give blood at my old job for a Red Cross blood drive. Of course, I anonymously checked the "sexually active gay male" box. So I went through the hassle and pain so they could just throw my blood out and my co-workers wouldn't know I was gay.

C'mon... "sex with a male, even once since 1977???" Shouldn't this rule apply to all sexually active people?? Don't they screen the fucking blood?! I don't ever want to hear how the Red Cross is in desperate need for blood.

FUCK THE RED CROSS!

Where is the outrage in the gay community about this stupid rule?

[Matt 26z]

Where is the outrage in the gay community about this stupid rule?

I don't think it's a stupid rule at all. It is my understanding that HIV can take a number of months to show up in blood testing after infection.

Let me ask you this. If you were in an accident and could choose to receive the blood of a straight man or a gay man, which blood would you pick?

[Squirt]

By your logic it would be smart to reconsider accepting blood donated by women because women represent 48% of those living with HIV/AIDS. Of course you probably think that the 51% of men with HIV/AIDS are all Gay, as well. We also should rule out anyone 15-24 years of age because they represent 50% of all new infections recorded every year.

Blood doesn't have a sexual orientation

Blood is blood

The red cross screens all blood

So I'd take any persons blood from the red cross

You're implying that "Gay" blood has a higher chance of being diseased then "straight" blood because of HIV/AIDS? You think there are no blood diseases that affect mainly straight people?

Worldwide the vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases are amongst heterosexuals, and 48% of AIDS cases world wide are women.

But think whatever you want, don't let things like facts get in your way

I don't think it's a stupid rule at all. It is my understanding that HIV can take a number of months to show up in blood testing after infection.

Let me ask you this. If you were in an accident and could choose to receive the blood of a straight man or a gay man, which blood would you pick?

[Matt 26z]

But think whatever you want, don't let things like facts get in your way

Your statistics were worldwide. The straight HIV infections of the undeveloped world offset the fact that HIV is primarily a gay disease in western countries.

Why does everyone make a fuss over not being able to give blood anyway? It's not like your human rights have been violated. As long as there isn't a shortage to the point where people are dying, who cares of they have filters in place for higher risk blood? This isn't about YOU the donor anyway. It's about the person receiving the blood, and I don't think too many people would want to be given gay blood if straight blood were also available.

[Matt 26z]

Blood is blood

The red cross screens all blood

So I'd take any persons blood from the red cross

I just looked it up and it's on many sites. Definitive HIV test results can only be obtained three months after exposure.

Here's a quote from a Doctor...

"The antibodies in the blood need to reach a certain level before they can be detected conclusively," Dr Johan Miedema, Quality Manager and founder of Mirates explains. "Therefore, people who are worried after a sexual encounter have to wait three months before they take the test. There is no point in testing 'the morning after'; there will be no detectable amount of antibodies." "In that case, you will very probably test 'negative' while in fact you are 'positive'.

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aidstest1.html