Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 11 of 20
Quote:However, according to AVERT (an international AIDS charity) 55% of all diagnosed cases of AIDS in the USA were the result of Male homosexual activity, while only 16% of the cases were the result of heterosexual activity. AIDS may be down among gay people, as you claim; nevertheless, it is over three times what it is in heterosexual people. And all those other factors that you claim I ignored, actually constitute only 29% of the diagnosed cases of AIDS in the US. It is not a stereotype that I buy into, rather it is the facts.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Actually, you're quite wrong about this. AIDS is actually down among gay people …
Buying into a stereotype like the one you, Finn, just presented, ignores the people who were poisoned by a tainted blood supply before all blood was tested for HIV (hepatitis was also a big problem), as well as drug users, and heterosexual people who passed the virus amongst themselves and others. And this is without mentioning the current epidemic of AIDS in the African subcontinent, where it is spread mainly by heterosexual sex.
Promiscuity has little to do with the spread of disease. A good little sexual connoisseur (and I am one, so I know whereof I rant) is aware of risk factors, and always practices safe sex. Naturally, there are exceptions, as there always will be, but blaming a disease on the presumed promiscuity of a certain group of people, or using it as proof of the promiscuity of a certain group of people, is as stupid as it is ignorant. It's a lack of knowledge that prevents someone from practicing safe sex, not the number of partners with whom one boinks.
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
The CDC agrees with these statistics, although their information is about a year behind. Not sure why. I probably just couldn't find their 2003 or 2004 information.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/hispanic.htm
So basically, you're the one who's wrong. The facts are clear. AIDS is predominately spread through the activity of Male homosexuality. While this is not proof of sexual promiscuity (and I never said it was), it is certainly suggestive.
Quote:Then the whole argument of gay marriage and polygamy would seem to be moot.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
People can marry each other, without the marriage being recognized by the state.
Quote:First of all, why do you care?
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Why does this even bother you? Why do you care? It's not like it's any of your business who marries whom, even in multiples. How is the marriage of two men to each other, or two women, or even two men and two women, going to affect you in any way, shape, or form? Just because you "disapprove," for whatever reason (and I think the guesses as to your reason are perfectly reasonable), doesn't mean you're affected in any meaningful way.
Second, how it affects me depends a great deal on how the laws are structured.
Third, I never said I disapproved. In fact I said right the opposite. This is something you invented, much like (it would appear) your understanding of AIDS epidemiology.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
From the same page:
"
The term "male-to-male sexual contact" includes gay men, bisexual men and some men who consider themselves to be neither gay nor bisexual.
"
This would include all the many people in marriages that practice homosexual sex "on the side" or what have you. It would also include those that "experiment" in college, etc who need not be gay.
Also, it seems to me that this stat is from the total since the beginning of all this. Therefore those stats wouldn't reflect the current situation. I get this opinion from the same page, this:
"
The total number of people diagnosed with AIDS in the USA is fast approaching one million. This total increases by more than 40,000 each year.
"
and this:
"
since the beginning of the epidemic
"
From the paragraph preceeding and within the same paragraph as from what you quoted from, respectively.
Again, from the same page for the 2003 stats:
Male-to-male sexual contact 14,532
Heterosexual contact 10,983
These numbers are quite close.
Also, doctors highly recommend to there gay patients that they get tested regularly. So, it would be more likely that a gay man/woman would test positive since heteros are more irresponsible in this regard. Especially since HIV can lay dormant in the system for what, 10 years or so. So, since most people need a reason to get tested, how would they be diagnosed and reflected in this study?
The funny thing is that stats can say a lot of things as long as you read all the notes and know where the numbers are coming from, time frame, etc.
Did you read the notes at the end and fully read the text? Because from where I sit, you haven't. You've just read quickly picking up what supported your way of thinking, ignoring the rest.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The CDC agrees with these statistics, although their information is about a year behind. Not sure why. I probably just couldn't find their 2003 or 2004 information.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/hispanic.htm
You are aware that one minority cannot reflect the whole of society right? So, why did you post data that only reflects Hispanics?
This just futher supports my conjecture above.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
While this is not proof of sexual promiscuity (and I never said it was), it is certainly suggestive.
This does not prove anything. All it suggests is that in the beginning of all this, gays had a certain mentality.
What decade are you living in?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Then the whole argument of gay marriage and polygamy would seem to be moot.
No, what it means is that people can marry unofficially. The discussion here is not about that, it's about official recognition of a fundamental right of a people that is currently being denied.
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First of all, why do you care?
Continuing to be evasive aren't we? Why can't you just answer a question that is put to you?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Second, how it affects me depends a great deal on how the laws are structured.
How?
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Third, I never said I disapproved. In fact I said right the opposite. This is something you invented, much like (it would appear) your understanding of AIDS epidemiology.
You say one thing and argue and support another. This is logically inconsistent.
And it does appear that your knowledge of HIV epidemiology is accurate for knowledge gained in the 80's. Care
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really sorry I brought up AIDS.
But yes, it remains factualy even if there are a higher propertion of homosexuals with AIDS in America than heterosexuals that's certianly not true in a world scale. In Africa the people most likely to die from AIDS are married women, and their children.
Why did I bring up christian thought? well because some of the people that are against gay marriage here have been alluding to it but not actually using it to back up their arguments of what the ideal of marriage is actually about.
Since the argument that marriage is meant to promote procreation is a valid one if not one I necessarily agree with I thought it was worth bringing up.
I think religion does have something to say on moral issues, and will remain to have some as long as people believe in religions - i mean, i realise the pope is practically dead but i think we ought to get some actual yay or nay opinions from him sometimes, and i think that a lot of preachers twist the bible to suit their own ends and that this has happened *a lot* in reference to homosexuality.
the point is, I'm not a christian, I can assure you I don't hate christians either, believe it or not I find religion (and their consideration or moral issues) really interesting.
I'm not intolerant, most of the bible makes perfect sense, I'm just not afraid of saying something in scripture is a bit stupid, or has blatantly been interpreted wrong. As all but one of my christian friends do as well. Scripture was written down by humans - so even if it was 'word of God' originally there's no doubt it's been messed around with since then. You have to take it with a pinch of salt.
Anyway that's my opinion on ALL religions, not just christianity.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To balance SigmaNunki deceptions I’ll simply reiterate the conclusion drawn from the site.
"Around half of all people diagnosed with AIDS were probably infected with HIV through male-to-male sexual contact, while people exposed through heterosexual contact comprise around 16% of the total." http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
The statistics support this conclusion. It is indeed factual.
I did a little bit of math and determined that weighted by percent of population the number of diagnosed cases of AIDS as a result of male homosexual activity (not including the use of illicit drugs) was over 24 times that of cases diagnosed among heterosexuals in 2003. This means that homosexual males are over 24 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals in 2003. (If you use 4%, gay males are 60 times more likely to be diagnosed with AIDS then heterosexuals.)
Statistics were taken from the CDC and an upper bound of 10% was used for the total number of homosexuals in the US. The number of gay people in the US is probably closer to 4% of the population.
Weasy: I don’t believe you’ve said anything that I would construe as intolerant towards Christians.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm a bit confused actually as to whether people think I'm being intolerent towards christians or towards homosexuals. I'm really not trying to be either - I was actually trying to point out that the two can play nicely together.
I'm sorry Finn but you're still only concentrating on the US - on a world wide scale AIDS those stats simply aren't relevent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can’t speak for people in general; I can simply say that I don’t see you as either.
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm a bit confused actually as to whether people think I'm being intolerent towards christians or towards homosexuals. I'm really not trying to be either - I was actually trying to point out that the two can play nicely together.
Quote:The issue is not about gay marriage in Africa. It is about gay marriage in the US. I understand that AIDS in Africa is a different thing, but we’re talking about the US, so it is relevant. The African statistics are not relevant to the current discussion. If you would like to talk about Africa, then just say so.
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm sorry Finn but you're still only concentrating on the US - on a world wide scale AIDS those stats simply aren't relevent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn:
Quote:
First of all, why do you care?
Ah, but you've been asked, first, and have yet to answer it.
I think it should be obvious, why I care. I care because people are people, and all should be treated as such, not one group here or there denied rights, privileges, and benefits that everybody else has simply because they're not a part of a particular group.
As for your statistics - all I know is what I've experienced. I'm very leery of stats because they tend to be gathered and used for the particular reasons of the group gathering and/or using the information. Statistics can be skewed to provide any kind of answer wanted, no matter what the numbers actually may be.
For AIDS organizations, the motivation would be to make the disease look more widespread than it is, to make people afraid and take better precautions. I'm not saying that's a bad motivation, but it is bad science. I'm not saying they would all do this, either, but the possibility is there.
As for yourself, you clearly want the statistics to prove your point. You may do so, I don't really give a rat's ass. Because what you do when you do what you do do, is show everybody where you're really coming from, what you're personally afraid of, and what you really believe, despite what you say and keep reminding us that you said.
But, please, keep up the entertainment. You're funny!
"There is no grace under pressure for a cat on fire." Cosi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The issue is not about gay marriage in Africa. It is about gay marriage in the US. I understand that AIDS in Africa is a different thing, but we’re talking about the US, so it is relevant. The African statistics are not relevant to the current discussion. If you would like to talk about Africa, then just say so.
I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue that AIDS is a reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage in America shouldn't that be true of all countries? And the fact is that two-thirds of all people infected with AIDS live in Africa, so if it actually applied there I could see your logic in saying it should apply in the US - but it doesn't.
so your logic is not logical!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s not obvious. In fact, at times it has appeared as if I were the only one in this discussion that actually did care. All I see from many of you is a desire to attack people who disagree with you, not to argue in favor of an institutionalized gay marriage. Unfortunately for the gay community, many gay rights activists seem to have usurped the issue of gay marriage as a platform from which to attack the Right, not to promote gay rights. It has been argued by me (and further demonstrated by you) that such ideals represent a lack of maturity in the gay rights activists’ arguments.
Originally posted by ReeQueen:
Finn:Quote:
First of all, why do you care?
Ah, but you've been asked, first, and have yet to answer it.
I think it should be obvious, why I care. I care because people are people, and all should be treated as such, not one group here or there denied rights, privileges, and benefits that everybody else has simply because they're not a part of a particular group.
But to answer your question I care because the Declaration of Independence sets forth the “pursuit of happiness” as an inalienable right. Now, even though the Declaration of Independence is not a legally enforceable document it still defines the ‘spirit’ of how our legal system should seek to interpret itself. While I believe in the tradition of marriage and precedent of its historical and cultural definition as existing between a man and woman, I also believe in the tradition of Pursuit of Happiness and therefore contend that gay marriage, in some form, should be allotted in a democratic manner in furtherance of this doctrine.
Quote:That's not what I'm arguing.
Originally posted by Weasy:
I'm sorry, but if you're going to argue that AIDS is a reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage in America shouldn't that be true of all countries? And the fact is that two-thirds of all people infected with AIDS live in Africa, so if it actually applied there I could see your logic in saying it should apply in the US - but it doesn't.
so your logic is not logical!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME