From: dp
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:16:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan07.184407.23631@microsoft.com>, fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan6.202458.10613@csc.ti.com> dp writes:
|> | 
|> | Maybe you should talk to the over 6000+ people that were exposed to
|> | Hepatitis-A at various parties catered by a company in Texas that had a
|> | practicing homosexual male food handler contaminate their food at several
|> | holiday parties last month and see if they think that it's stupid.  Maybe you
|> | should talk to the 20+ people that are still in the hospital and see if either
|> | they or their insurance company thinks that it's stupid.
|> 
|> Do you propose that all food workers be tested for hepatitis?  Are gay
|> hepatitis carriers more contagious than het hepatitis carriers?

I propose that the food handling laws that are already in place be applied to
all food workers.

An individual had been called "stupid" for not wanting homosexuals to serve
their food.  The fact of the matter is that the male homosexual lifestyle does
carry certain health risks.  Hepatitis-A is a risk of the practice of anal sex
followed by oral sex.  Studies conducted in health clinics in the San
Francisco area indicate that ~45% of the male homosexuals are infected with
Hepatitis-A.  My point was not that homosexuals were more contageous.  My
point was that practicing homosexual men are more likely to be carriers
because of their lifestyle.  While the person was (IMHO) overly fearful, the
fear may well have been founded in factual data.

|> 
|> | Isn't it stupid to ignore the fact that sodomy (specifically anal/oral sex,
|> | performed in that order) IS a public health issue.  To ignore this is a
|> | "stupid".
|> 
|> I assume that you are in favor of explicit "safe sex" instruction, therefore.
|> Condoms, after all, are effective in stopping the transmittal of hep viruses
|> as well as HIV.

I am more in favor of teaching the health risks of certain types of sexual
behaviors.  For example, anal sex carries with it risks beyond Hep.-A .  There
are very serious infections which can occur when the walls of the colon are
torn open (as often occurs in anal sex), which a condom will not protect the
person's colon from.  One area where AIDS education is doing some damage is by
misrepresenting other health risks in various sexual practices.  Good sexual
hygene is more than the male(s) wearing condoms.  It should also be taught
that condoms are thought by some researchers to fail as much as 40% of the
time.  {Their reasoning goes something like this: pregnancies occur in ~10% of
the cases (where those who are educated in their proper use, since the
failure rate is much higher for the "un-educated") use them as the only means
of birth control.  Pregnancies occur at a rate of about 25% of the time where
no birth control is used at all.  It could be inferred that condoms actually
fail at a rate of ~40%.}  Combining the failure rate with the fact that the
HIV is small enough to pass through the walls of most condoms, the approach
must be one of education of the risks of certain modes of behavior and not
simply one of "safe sex" instruction.  If that scares the kids, so be it, the
risks are both very great and very real.  CNBC discussed this in some
detail last week with their "guest from Kinsey".

|> 
|> | True, but so is pretending to fighting for "homosexual rights" by giving the
|> | AIDS virus "civil rights". 
|> 
|> I am aware of no move to grant voting status to viruses.  What are you talking
|> about?
|> 
|> |  I have a cousin who died last fall because of the
|> | "civil rights" that the so-called "defenders of the gay community" were able
|> | to win for the AIDS virus.  Sure, he chose (his words, not mine) to live the
|> | homosexual lifestyle that eventually killed him (once again, his words),
|> 
|> A virus killed him.
|> 
|> |   but
|> | the "leaders" of the gay community must accept responsibility for their
|> | fighting against an early quarantine of those suffering from the AIDS virus.
|> | How many people are now dead because these "leaders" fought against such a
|> | quarantine.
|> 
|> Probably not many, since people are able to spread the virus for years before
|> any symptoms appear.
|> 
|> | He also would raise the question of how homosexuality fits the evolution
|> | model.  Would homosexual male animals ever reproduce in nature?  If they did,
|> | they would clearly be bisexual, NOT homosexual.  How could male homosexuality
|> | have ever evolved?
|> 
|> First, many/most people who identify themselves as gay are not Kinsey-6.
|> 
|> Second, there are certainly ways in which a trait that lowers fertility in
|> an individual can be selected for, if the trait can enhance fertility in
|> the group as a whole (which tends to include a lot of close relatives).
|> One possible selective advantage would be for some percentage of the males
|> in a group to be interested in each other and whumping predators on the
|> outskirts of the troup, rather than fighting over females.

But those mails would still have to mate with those females if the
the trait was to be passed on.  Are you saying that there is "social pressure"
to mate with females even though the animal's sexual orientation is
homosexual?  Or are you saying that the only reason that homosexual men exist
today is that their male ancestors who were homosexual were forced to marry
and mate females?

His point was that it was easier to fight against laws against rape based upon
the behavior of other animals or human history (especially during wars when
raping the women of the conquested nation was "normal".) than it was to use
those arguments to justify the homosexual lifestyle.

|> 
|>    Fritz
|> 
***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11884 talk.politics.misc:66646