Sexually Transmitted Disease Rates: As High as Our Hormones

By Bob Ellis on January 14th, 2009

diseaseReuters is reporting on the latest release from the Centers for Disease Control on Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

I wrote yesterday about the increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases in South Dakota at my Red County blog, but it seems South Dakota isn’t the only place to see an increase.  Nationwide, STDs are skyrocketing.

While the full report shows increases all across the country in many demographics, some of the worst are very interesting.

The Reuters article says this:

Syphilis has increased each year since 2000 — its rate is up 81 percent — with gay and bisexual men representing 65 percent of cases, the CDC said.

This, when homosexuals only make up 2.9% of the population. The implications are staggering: 2.9% of the population is responsible for 65% of Syphilis cases. You do the math.

But syph wasn’t the only area where homosexuals had vastly disproportionate infection rates. 

With gonorrhea, homosexual men were four times more likely to have the disease than heterosexual men (36% versus 9%).

And according to the CDC, some 72% of male AIDS cases are linked to homosexual behavior.

There are several other STDs where homosexuals usually have historically disproportionate infection rates, such as HPV and herpes, but I did not see statistics for these diseases broken down by sexual behavior.

These high disease transmission rates are not new in the homosexual community.  Ironically, rather than launch a massive public service campaign to warn people away from this dangerous behavior (as we do with smoking, drinking, drug use, etc.), our government agencies are waging an aggressive campaign to get people to believe that homosexual behavior is moral, normal and healthy.

Black Americans were also disproportionately represented in these infection rates.  While making up 12% of the population, as Reuters says,  

account for about 70 percent of gonorrhea cases and almost half of chlamydia and syphilis cases

It is a long-established fact that the black community has been hit hard by the effects of sexual irresponsibility.  For decades, promiscuity has been rampant, and black Americans have paid the price in teen pregnancies, unwed motherhood, children growing up without fathers in the home, and as this report highlights, high rates of STDs.

Here, too, society fails to encourage restraint and responsible behavior.  Some have called such cowardice the “soft bigotry of lowered expectations.  Do we really believe that homosexuals and blacks are incapable of controlling themselves?  Do we really believe they are no better than animals who know only how to follow an urge?  

Or is it really just simple cowardice?  Pure, moral cowardice.  We might appear “judgmental” if we called for moral and responsible behavior.  Someone might call us a “prude.”  Someone might say we are “bigoted.”  So we allow our fear of peer pressure and a little name-calling to scare us into gutlessness.

There are many reasons why God warns human beings about sex outside of his design for it (marriage), and none of them include simply spoiling our fun.  Rather, as the creator of human beings, God knows the kind of physical, emotional and spiritual tolls promiscuity can take on us.

If we were a rational civilization, we would stop pretending we can beat the odds, that we can somehow defy the law of consequences.  If we were thinking clearly, we would abandon this our juvenile lust to have our cake and eat it, too, and would promote sexual responsibility with all the resources at our disposal.

Obviously, we are not a rational society that is thinking clearly. And as long as we embrace irresponsibility,  the suffering behind this report will continue…

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark

Categories: Commentary
Tags: , , ,

  • BacterialVaginosis
  • John
    Why is it that your conclusion for blacks to lower their STD rates is for them to wait until marriage to have sex, but your solution for gays to do the same is for them to stop being gay? It seems to me that it would make more sense if you promoted the same solution for both groups. Either encourage monogamous relationships inside of marriage for gays, or tell black people to stop being black. Personally, I think the former is more logical than the latter.

    Furthermore, why the focus on specific STD's? Showing that gays are more likely to get three types of STD's does not prove that gays in general are more likely to get STD's. There are WAY more than 3 STD's.

    Also, if you're going to use statistics on STD's from the CDC, then why not just use THEIR statistics on how much of the general population is gay (or MSM)?

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

    And why do conservatives never mention that gay and lesbian groups have done more for HIV/AIDS prevention than any other type of group in the world (certainly more than any religious group)? And that in the world, gays only make up about 15% of AIDS cases. This whole "AIDS is a gay disease" is an almost exclusively western idea, because the vast majority of AIDS cases in other countries (especially African countries) are in straight women.

    By the way, the CDC also says this about gays:

    "The issues surrounding personal, family, and social acceptance of sexual orientation can place a significant burden on mental health and personal safety"

    In other words, higher rates of suicides, depression and sexual promiscuity are most likely the result of people with beliefs like yours. This is from the CDC, and you can find similar sentiments from almost any psychological group, like the APA, for example.
  • The correct action for all groups to reduce (and end, actually) STDs would be to stop having sex outside of marriage. STDs would completely stop if people would simply behave in a sexually responsible manner.

    Since the blacks in question are already behaving in a heterosexual manner--which is at least one step closer to normal and correct sexual relations--they only have one more step to go: confine it within marriage. Homosexuals need to go a bit further: confine their sexual relations to the opposite sex and within marriage.

    Any time we act outside the proper parameters for something, we can expect problems. The proper place for sex is within marriage.

    If homosexuals have done more for HIVAIDS prevention, that is both positive on their part, and appropriate since they are generating the overwhelming majority of those cases with their irresponsible sexual behavior--an overwhelming majority far beyond their ratio of the population. Why don't they truly take ownership of the problem and stop doing the thing that causes the vast majority of AIDS transmission cases in the first place? That would be truly commendable.

    Yes, those health issues do place an additional burden--on top of stressing their consciences by committing immoral and unnatural acts--on their mental health and personal safety. In fact, those very acts place a significant burden on their mental health and personal safety.

    Rational people would therefore seek to stop such behavior, both for their own welfare and the welfare of others in danger.

    Obviously there are a lot of irrational people out there.
  • John
    This is very inconsistent. Having gay sex doesn't magically procure AIDS. Gays should not be discouraged from being gay, they should be discouraged from being promiscuous, just like straight people are. And your conclusion that gays are less healthy mentally than straights because they engage in same-sex behavior is completely false. High rates of depression among gays results from societal disapproval of homosexuality. This is not speculation, but a demonstrable fact. Many studies have shown it and to verify all you have to do is ask a gay person. Your "solution" will only further stigmatize gays and cause even higher rates of depression among them.

    Also, you can believe that homosexuality is immoral if you want, but I don't understand the conclusion that it is "unnatural". You don't need any human-made objects to be gay or engage in homosexual activity. What definition of natural are you using?
  • You are right, John: engaging in homosexual behavior does not magically produce or procure AIDS.

    But the rational, observant person recognizes that the vast majority of AIDS cases are already in the homosexual community. That same rational, observant person also recognizes that transmission rates correspond to the homosexual community. Therefore, the rational, observant person would recognize that, gee, if I have homosexual sex, I run a high risk of getting AIDS. The rational, observant person would therefore avoid such behavior. Sadly, this reality and the resulting lack of safe behavior reveals there is little rational about homosexual behavior or the homosexual community.

    Homosexuals should indeed be encouraged not to be promiscuous. But don't stop there, because that isn't the only problem with their sexual behavior. They also engage in homosexual sex, which is unnatural, immoral and unhealthy (even AIDS and other STD transmission rates aside). They should therefore be encouraged to stop that behavior, as well.

    Blaming depression and associated problems in the homosexual community on all those people who recognize that homosexual behavior is immoral and unnatural is a cop-out. One person can't force another person to be depressed or abuse substances.

    Even in areas and countries where homosexual behavior has been widely accepted for years, these same problems persist. People can run from their consciences, but they always pay a price, and that price is in depression and associated problems. I used to be a hard-drinking promiscuous heterosexual, so I have some experience in running from the conscience.

    Surely I shouldn't need to explain to you why homosexual behavior is unnatural, John. I know that at every turn you are trying to deny the hard reality that homosexual behavior is just a bad idea all around, but come on--this is obvious! It is an aberrant behavior far outside the norm, exhibited by only a small percentage of organisms. Homosexual behavior has no legitimate biological function; it is contrary to the natural use of the sex organs. Male and female sex organs were obviously designed to be used in a heterosexual fashion; it couldn't be more plain, from the reproductive characteristics of those organs to the very way they prepare for one another and function in concert during the act of coitus; male-to-male or female-to-female attempts to create a facsimile of quite obviously fail to produce the same or even similar harmonious and concerted results. I can stick a pencil up my nose, but it is quite obviously and laughably not a natural act, nor is homosexual behavior.

    Please, John, for your own good and for the good of other homosexuals: please stop trying desperately to avoid the truth. A mature person deals with reality and learns to live harmoniously with it. Stop fighting it and you'll find that your life is far better in almost every way.
  • John
    "Therefore, the rational, observant person would recognize that, gee, if I have homosexual sex, I run a high risk of getting AIDS"

    No, I don't agree with that. However, if you have promiscuous male homosexual sex, then you are more likely to get AIDS than you would if you had promiscuous heterosexual sex. But a monogamous gay couple is no more likely to get AIDS than a monogamous straight couple.

    "One person can't force another person to be depressed or abuse substances."

    Once again, I completely disagree. Other people certainly can force you to be depressed. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people who are depressed were made depressed by other people. You're right that others don't force you to abuse substances, but you have to recognize that depression is what results in higher substance abuse rates, not homosexuality itself.

    "It is an aberrant behavior far outside the norm, exhibited by only a small percentage of organisms"

    That is a complete non-argument! Only a small percentage of animals reproduce sexually. An even smaller percentage have a vagina (only mammals do). But you certainly wouldn't argue that vaginas are unnatural, would you? Being outside the norm does not mean unnatural.

    "Male and female sex organs were obviously designed to be used in a heterosexual fashion"

    I agree, but you assume that sex organs are only supposed to be used one way. They have more than one function, you know.

    This will be my last reply as I fear that I'm spamming your website. Thanks for the respectful dialogue.
  • Well, I'm not surprised you don't agree with my glaringly obvious statement, John. You have more than adequately demonstrated that you are not a rational, observant person.

    You have, rather, demonstrated that you have your head in the sand with regard to moral and health issues, and consider sexual gratification a higher priority than safety or morality.

    You can't even accept the fact that homosexual behavior is abnormal and unnatural. Even the Human Rights Campaign funded a study which found only 2.9% of the population are homosexual. And in case it escaped you, zero percent of the human population reproduce in other than a heterosexual manner. You really must come to terms with reality; you probably have no idea how silly you look, saying such ludicrous things.

    It must be really sad to live in your world, feeling powerless to control your own life or your own welfare, constantly at the mercy of negative vibes from other people and oblivious to dangers that other people easily detect.

    Others have found the courage to face up to these realities, have admitted their need for change, and many of them have found freedom from these delusions and health risks. I hope that one day you can join that number before it's too late.
  • Patrick
    For someone who thinks he's thinking rationally or clearly, you sure don't look like it. For example, what's your source for stating that homosexuals make up 2.9% of the population? Credible estimates of the proportion of homosexuals range as high as 10%, and few, if any, are as low as the figure you've claimed.

    But that's the least of your logical problems. You claim to be talking about "homosexuals", but then you spew out a bunch of statistics about men who have sex with men - which is not the same thing. For example, Sen. Larry Craig, who was arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover police officer, is not generally considered homosexual, yet he has sex with men. Also, approximately half of homosexuals are lesbians, but you don't cite any statistics about lesbians. All your statistics are about gay men, but you just assume that they apply equally to lesbians. In fact, you could find many sources which show lesbians have far lower STD rates than heterosexuals. Should more women see if they can form lesbian relationships?

    Your claim to promote "sexual responsibility" is a dubious one, although certainly the goal of teaching sexual responsibility is a laudable one. The biggest challenge to teaching sexual responsibility is the insistence of some religious fundamentalists that we teach abstinence-only programs in schools. Abstinence-only programs prohibit sexual responsibility by failing to teach of the dangers of sex and the ways in which those dangers can be reduced. Other surveys have found, for example, that children who are taught abstinence-only programs are more likely to get STDs, and more likely to become teenage parents.

    The worst part of your post is your insistence that this increase in STDs has occurred because we as a society are not thinking clearly. You imply that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions does so because s/he does not think clearly. This is a silly writing device to use. Law schools teach lawyers that they should argue using the facts, and that if there's no way to spin the facts to support their clients, the lawyers should call the other side names in an attempt to convince the jury that the other side isn't believable. This is what you've done, in the absence of any facts supporting your contention.

    Have you written using logic or rational thought? Have you written responsibly, considering the consequences of your decision to write? No. You've just spouted off, driven by your hormones. Perhaps you shouldn't write anymore until you've had a chance to calm down and think clearly.
  • Patrick, it seems abundantly clear that you haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

    My statement that homosexuals make up 2.9% of the population is based on a survey done in the last year by Hunter College, commissioned by the pro-homosexual HRC; for homosexual apologists, the source couldn't possibly be more credible.

    Also, lesbians STD rate is as high or higher than heterosexual women. This in addition to much higher rates of depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. Homosexuality is simply not a healthy choice, no matter what your sex.

    It is obvious that not only is society as a whole not thinking clearly,YOU are not thinking clearly. If the subject behavior was water skiing, or bowling, or picking your nose, and health statistics like those associated with homosexuality were associated with skiing/bowling/picking your nose, both you and society as a whole would mount a massive campaign to discourage people from engaging in the dangerous behavior.

    But because the dangerous behavior in question involves an orgasm, suddenly all that normal logic and reason go flying out the window.

    Under no circumstances could such a logical dichotomy be considered rational.
  • Kristie
    But its not just homosexual sex that results in STDs. Let's ban straight sex too!
  • If you're ready to end the human race, go ahead and advocate the end of heterosexual sex. You could be that self-centered, but somehow I doubt it.

    Your silly quip does however bring to light a very simple yet very profound truth: heterosexual sex obviously has a legitimate biological function, while homosexual sex does not.
  • Adrienne
    "Also, lesbians STD rate is as high or higher than heterosexual women."
    Could you please present a source for this information?
    And Patrick owned you just so you know.
  • If Patrick is your hero, you're in trouble.

    Health information on lesbians is notoriously scarce, a source of considerable consternation in the health community. Nevertheless, even the limited information available paints a dangerous health picture for female homosexuals.

    Amy Hendel at Health Central reports on a study which found a 4% incidence of multiple STDs among women who exclusively had sex with women, and a 5% multiple STD rate among exclusively heterosexual women--statistically the same. For bisexual women, that rate rose to 15%, and most research indicates a lot of women who call themselves lesbians do occasionally to frequently have sex with men also.

    According to a study published in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections a couple of years ago, lesbians had a 25.7% infection rate of Bacterial Vaginosis while heterosexual women was 14.4%.

    The Medical Journal of Australia puts the HPV rate among lesbians at 21%, and the CDC in the United States says it can be as high as 30%.

    The same Medical Journal of Australia article says there is no difference in the STD infection rate of lesbians and the average woman.

    Lesbians also have higher rates (even higher than male homosexuals, if I remember correctly) of depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence.

    It's just a simple fact of life that when you live life in ways other than those recommended by the manufacturer (your Creator), the product (your body, mind and emotions) tend to have problems, just like using a manufactured tool or appliance in ways it was never intended to operate can result in a broken tool.
blog comments powered by Disqus
« »