From: st1lv@rosie.uh.edu (McLeod, Stephen)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 14:51:00 GMT

In article <mccalley.715646775@topaz1>, mccalley@rtsg.mot.com (Phil McCalley) writes...
>kutem@grouper6.Berkeley.EDU (Jon Kutemeier) writes:
> 
>>In article <mccalley.715623076@lead16>, mccalley@rtsg.mot.com (Phil McCalley) writes:
> 
>>|> While it is true that AIDS can strike anyone, gay males have the highest
>>|> incidence of the disease, and that is very simply because of the way it
>>|> is transmitted.  The risk to a heterosexual male is not very great,
>>|> especially if he is monogomous.  Since you seem to know a great deal about
>>|> this subject, I am sure you would agree.  When you talk about probability,
>>|> gay men get the short end of the stick.  Ooops :)
> 
>>I don't care who you are, or what your sexual orientation is. You should
>>be very frightened, as long as AIDS exists. Sex is not the only means of
>>transmission.
> 
>Yes, but it is the primary means.  
Uh... man, you are a bit behind the times.  For most the world, AIDS is not
a homosexual disease.  For example in Thailand it is very egalitarian.  And
for every new host, there is the distinct chance that it will find a more
efficient way to propigate (sp?).  The last number I heard was something like
100 *million* cases around the globe.
> 
>>As for risk, why would the risk be any greater for a homosexual monogomous
>>couple, or do you still believe AIDS is primarily a "gay" disease, 
>>primarily caused by their "behavior"?
> 

The problem with this is that some homosexual males have sex five times 
per day with different sexual partners.  In the era of "safe" sex, this has
declined I'm told but I have read recently that there are signs that the
young and 'immortal' gays coming up are slipping back to the old ways.

>It wouldn't.  But now you still have the problem of reproducing.  We look
>for success in our mates.  Whether it be good looks, good social skills,
>intelligence, or whatever.  That is what attracts us.  That is what will
>be carried into the next generation.  Homosexuals do not get this.  What
>attracts you is not something that will be carried into the next 
There is a problem with your argument.  First  whenever homosexuality is
activly persecuted, homosexuals are quite capable of marrying females and
even having children just as you are capable of choking down some food
you do not like.  This would be one factor that would prevent the loss
of the 'homosexual' gene.  Second, homosexuality could be of such benefit
to the human race that the genes for homosexuality are not lost due to the
increased fitness it brings to the family group.  Finally, it is possible
that homosexuality was of great benefit in the past (like sickle cell aids
with malaria) even though it is an 'appendix' today.

>	1)  A deadly disease strikes MAINLY one particular group of people.
>	2)  This same particular group has a hard time reproducing.
> 
To sum up: Your first point exhibits a really provencial view that AIDS has
the same population dynamics in the rest of the world as it does in america.
Your second point, IMHO, has some validity, but there may be benefits to
homosexuality that cause it to persist anyway.

>It all sounds like such a pain in the ass though.  Ooops :)  It must
You may think this is funny but it really makes you seem like a bigot and
an asshole.  Do you also joke about lisping around children with hairlips?
Hmmm, just a guess, but are you religious?
---
Stephen McLeod        Chemo sucks.  Don't smoke.  It's not worth it.  
The Eternal? Student  I'm not even sure that bacon is worth it... :(