Do you have any citations to support this?
https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics...
In 2014 in the US, men who have sex with men constitute more than two-thirds of new HIV diagnoses despite being 1-10% of the population.
In the 21 worst-off US cities, 1 out of every 5 gay men (!) have HIV: http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20100923/1-in-5-gay-bi-me...
None of that, of course, means discrimination is not involved. Frankly, I don't think enough attention is being paid to the problem, if we have these grand plans of ending AIDS by 2030 while 20% of a subpopulation has the disease.
The issue is that when there is active discrimination against men who have sex with men, those men are more likely to contract HIV – for a whole bevy of obvious reasons.
Looking at this from the perspective of HIV spreading fastest in "groups that are more liberal" is obviously missing the whole point.
It is correct that men who have sex with men are far, far more likely to be diagnosed with HIV in developed countries – this is kind of disconnected from the issues being discussed in developing countries, where infection of young girls in particular is far more of a problem.
Edit: compounding makes this even worse. Having the same kind of sex 10 times makes the best case odds 16 in 10,000 but the worst case odds become 540 in 10,000.
Gays are at higher risk for contracting this disease because they have more sexual partners. The same is true for any person (doesn't matter if heterosexual or homosexual) that has more than average sexual partners.
You know it's called a sexually transmitted disease for a reason, so anyone that has lots and lots of sexual partners has a higher risk.
People are less likely to seek testing, diagnosis or treatment if they will or think they will be at the receiving end of discrimination. Avoiding discrimination that could put your job, living situation or life at stake could also prevent treating a disease that does the same.
> You know it's called a sexually transmitted disease for a reason, so anyone that has lots and lots of sexual partners has a higher risk.
You're right, but there's a reason that certain subpopulations have a higher risk and occurrence rate and it has little to do with number of partners.
I think it would be reasonable to speculate the other major contributing factors are (as posted elsewhere) the hugely increased likelihood to transmit HIV during anal sex vice other kinds of sex and discrimination.
Still common though admittedly less acceptable for families to disown other family members over being homosexual.
Step outside of any major city for a reminder of what the rest of the US is actually like.
And I do agree that this type of shaming and rejection can definitely drive people to engage in reckless/self destructive behaviour.
When did those went out of fashion?
Science is for getting additional and more rigorous confirmation (or refutation) of some empirical observation or theory.
Not for forgetting to make empirical observations and thinking independently and relegating all that to "citations" in the first place.
It's not like we're inside some huge institution and we are required to have 10 levels on bureaucracy and massive statistical findings before we even attempt to discuss anything.
Everyone in my family has brown hair and is at least 5'8". This anecdote doesn't support the claim that everyone in your family is the same.
> It's not like we're inside some huge institution and we are required to have 10 levels on bureaucracy and massive statistical findings before we even attempt to discuss anything.
If you want your argument to have a leg to stand on, using facts and citations are key.