Your Political Affiliation

[Shankara20]

http://www.smiliemania.de/smilie132/00001589.gif You are so adorable.

Catalinahttp://home.scarlet.be/~cl898452/index/cats/killer1.gif

auuu, shucks, thanks... *blush*

 

[m wisdom]

This is the "first" good argument you've heard on this? - Man, you need to get out more. Anyway, thanks for the nod of respect, but I don't deserve it.

Perhaps I do, but just looking around at any place discussing this issue my very personal guess is that 99% off all arguments against homosexuality is either based on "homosexuality is unnatural", "I'm a homo fob (as in: I don't understand it and I fear what I don't understand.)" or my favorite "God hate fags"

So while I might not agree with you I do find it refreshing to hear some better arguments for once.

I know it's a mistake (like THAT's ever stopped me!), but I'll attempt an answer to your question. First, as noted previously, there's just the fact that we're thinking about a major re-defining of the foundational relationship of all human society. Marriages - families - communities - villages - cities - states - nations. It all arises from the original joining together of people - marriage. To my feeble mind, you just think long and hard before you start adjusting the foundation stone that everything else is built on top of.

Why did you stop at marriage as the foundation stone? I would say that "People - marriages - families - communities - ..." is a much better definition of the building blocks.
And not all societies do actually have marriages as a building block, even if most do. So to include all human societies I would say, "People - group responsible for child raising - communities - ..." but since most societies do have marriage lets keep that in the list.

Now, since I believe that people is the foundation stone and not marriage, adjusting marriage will not change the foundation, it will however have an impact on everything further up in the list. If those changes will be good or bad can be discussed but my view is that they will be mostly good. As an example; Removing discrimination in the right to marry, should propagate up and make the whole nation less discriminated.

I'd also spin the question around, and ask what's GOOD about homosexual marriage? - in what significant way do we think it will be of benefit to our society to legitimize such relationships?

Love.
Ok, that was a very wage answer but I'll try to explain. If you see marriage as a loving relationship between two people then allowing homosexual marriages would be that same as giving legal backing to love between homosexuals. And I for one believe that more love is good for the society. (Once again back to your list, love at a low level will propagate up through the society).

Discrimination.
I think that a society without any discrimination is a better society then one with.

Economy
One could even argue that given the current average cost of around $100.000 (I believe) for an American wedding, more weddings will have an positive effect on the nations economy,

There isn't a lot of history to go on here, but what little there is isn't very encouraging - the only two major societies/nations in history to in any significant way embrace or legitimize the practice of homosexuality, Greece and Rome, both collapsed within a century. Even without a direct cause-and-effect line drawn on page 84 of your world history textbook, that alone is sufficient reason to give any reasonable person "pause for thought".

This would only be true if other societies from the same time that didn't allow homosexuality would have done better. Since all societies of that time collapsed, it makes your argument invalid. You'll need to show that societies that did not allowed homosexuality did better then the societies that did, in order to make this point.

Even then the whole cause-and-effect would make it difficult to prove or disprove. So lets not go there if we want to keep the whole discussion on a high level

So, I think before you go changing the definition of marriage, the "burden of proof" lies with pro-homosexual-marriage advocates to demonstrate significant benefits to society that would result from such a change, rather than being on traditionalists to show "what's wrong with it".

I understand your point but I don't agree. Why do there have to be proof of significant benefits? While I perfectly understand that you want proof that it's not harmful to society I don't see the point of proving that there are significant benefits to the society. But if you still want some I wrote a few before.

That there are benefits to the individual homosexual persons I think that you agree with.

If you would get proof that it's not harmful and you would still object to it, then what is your reason? In that case I can only see the reason as unfounded fear.

Also, there are at this point dozens of long-term studies that have been done documenting that children suffer when raised in ANY family arrangement other than with their biological mother and father - everything in the world from lower test scores to more likely to commit crimes, more likely to abuse drugs, more likely to suffer divorce, LOWER SEXUAL SATISFACTION (I figure that's a "biggie" in here!). Given that, why would we want to legitimize, give the societal "good housekeeping seal of approval" to, relationships that we KNOW will necessarily result in children not being raised in the traditional societal family arrangement that appears decidedly most beneficial for them? Sure, Mom and Dad may get divorced, and Mom may end up a single parent, or the kids may end up with a step-parent...but maybe not. In contrast, legitimization of homosexual marriage would guarantee that a certain percentage of children would be reared in a familial arrangement less than the ideal one (ideal from the point of view of beneficial to society/most likely to produce happy, successful adults from those little monsters...er, kiddies).

When it comes to child raising I will agree with you somewhat. There is a lack of good unbiased studies on what effects it will have on children to be raised by a homosexual couple.

But for the sake off the discussion let's assume that the studies you point to are true.
You compare all other family arrangement against biological mother and father arrangements. But if two homosexual raise a kid I ask you what arrangement would that kid have been raised in otherwise? Most likely it would have been a single parent household because if marriage are a loving relationship between a man and a women no homosexual would be in one. So what needs to be considered is if it's better for the kid to be raised by a married homosexual couple or by a single parent. Not if it would be better to be raised by the two biological parents since that won't happen in the first place. Unless you plan on forcing people that have kids to get married with the other parent.

Now, If I ever saw a unbiased study that told me that raising children in a married homosexual family is bad. Then I would reconsider my views on this topic, but not on the marriage issue itself since that can be had without any children involved.

And now to make the most unpopular statement I can come up with: Male homosexual behavior is still - eighty gazillion condom ads on TV later - the leading cause of transmission of HIV/AIDS in this country. Do we want to in any way legitimize a practice that has led to - and continues to result in - thousands of unnecessary deaths, thereby costing our society untold billions in health care costs? Again I'd ask, what's the upside to doing that, as compared to the downside?

Actually, if you legitimize homosexual marriage you would more likely slow down the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Giving a reason to stay in a steady relationship would give people less motivation to sleep around, and that would help.

And also see Netzach reply on this since she have some good points.

I've droned on long enough. Welcome to the funhouse - appreciate your comments. Let's try (yeah, I know it's a vain hope) to keep the discussion civil.
Jack

The chance might be small but we can always try

 

[BogartSlap]

and now for my next trick

"(from M Wisdom)
Why did you stop at marriage as the foundation stone? I would say that "People - marriages - families - communities - ..." is a much better definition of the building blocks. And not all societies do actually have marriages as a building block, even if most do....Now, since I believe that people is the foundation stone and not marriage..."

Marriage is the foundational SOCIAL unit. An individual is not a "society" of any kind.
Depsite your possibly being able to make reference to some small tribe in Tanzania or someplace, I would maintain that marriage is a socially universal phenomenon.

"...Removing discrimination in the right to marry, should propagate up and make the whole nation less discriminated."

One of those statements that sounds good at first glance, but doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. The mere removal of "discrimination" against any behavior is not inherently good for society. Your sentence above could just as easily have read, "removing discrimination in the right to"...rob banks, molest children, or be a serial killer "should...make the whole nation less discriminated"<---true, but not necessarily good for society. It is first required to show that the behavior discriminated against is, in fact, a behavior beneficial to society.

"If you see marriage as a loving relationship between two people then allowing homosexual marriages would be that same as giving legal backing to love between homosexuals. And I for one believe that more love is good for the society."

Same response - does not play out logically. You could use the same argument for "more love" to endorse incest, polygamy, etc.

"Economy
One could even argue that given the current average cost of around $100.000 (I believe) for an American wedding, more weddings will have an positive effect on the nations economy, "

Okay, that one I'll buy.

"I understand your point but I don't agree. Why do there have to be proof of significant benefits? While I perfectly understand that you want proof that it's not harmful to society I don't see the point of proving that there are significant benefits to the society."

Because, again, we're talking about changing the structure of a fundamental building block of human society. Before you do that, I think you need to establish significant benefits that will result, not merely that you don't, at this point, foresee significant negative consequences (harken back to my comments about the "free love" generation - at that point, WE didn't see any significant harmful consequences either - AND we used some of the same arguments that you have here, like, "Isn't more love better for society?")

"If you would get proof that it's not harmful and you would still object to it, then what is your reason?"

IF I got proof that it isn't harmful, then I would NOT object to it.

"When it comes to child raising I will agree with you somewhat. There is a lack of good unbiased studies on what effects it will have on children to be raised by a homosexual couple."

Agreed.

"...So what needs to be considered is if it's better for the kid to be raised by a married homosexual couple or by a single parent. Not if it would be better to be raised by the two biological parents since that won't happen in the first place."

Good point. And let me note here that I am NOT opposed to homosexuals adopting children, as, although I can't prove it, I would venture that it's a totally reasonable assumption that a child being raised in that situation is still better off than a child with no family at all. My applause to ANYONE willing to take an orphaned or abandoned child into their home, and accept the responsibility for caring for that child.

"Actually, if you legitimize homosexual marriage you would more likely slow down the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Giving a reason to stay in a steady relationship would give people less motivation to sleep around, and that would help."

That's possible, but not proven. In fact, I doubt few people would care to admit to being so shallow - "Well, since we can't get legally married, I might as well never make a loving commitment of fidelity to anyone, and just be relentlessly promiscuous."

 

[Shankara20]

One of those statements that sounds good at first glance, but doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. The mere removal of "discrimination" against any behavior is not inherently good for society. Your sentence above could just as easily have read, "removing discrimination in the right to"...rob banks, molest children, or be a serial killer "should...make the whole nation less discriminated"<---true, but not necessarily good for society. It is first required to show that the behavior discriminated against is, in fact, a behavior beneficial to society.

It is my understanding that discrimination is making of a judgment, usually negative, about a person based on some classification - white, black, male, female, etc,

"rob banks, molest children, or be a serial killer" seem to be actions that we agree as a social organization to prohibit.

Do you see being a homosexual as the same as being a child molester, serial killer or bank robber?

Same response - does not play out logically. You could use the same argument for "more love" to endorse incest, polygamy, etc.

Incest is an expression of love?


Thanks

 

[BogartSlap]

horseshit - 10, Logic - 0

"(from Netzach]Uh, I believe the leading cause of AIDS transmission worldwide has hopped to heterosexual transmission in the third world, probably about a decade ago. HIV is a virus, last I checked, not a behavior."

Oh, horse fucking shit. First of all, I said "in this country", not "worldwide", so, come to the meetings, take some notes, huh? As to your second utterly meaningless statement, yes, HIV is a virus - but it is virus that is SPREAD, and therefore now nearly epidemic and a significant danger to society, almost exclusively through voluntary behavioral choices (such as the practice of homosexuality and IV drug use).

"I wasn't alive for the giant fuckfest of the 60's and '70s. It was a bad idea, clearly. I do talk to people around at that time frequently, and it sounds really excessive and insane."

My point exactly. NOW, it can be "clearly" seen to have been a bad idea, but that wasn't the case at all THEN. At the time, to those of us advocating it, it appeared to be a very GOOD idea, and not the least bit "excessive and insane". We felt, just as homosexuals do now, that the world would be infinitely bettered if more people accepted our lifestyle, and that everyone railing against it was just being "ridiculous".

"I've always conducted myself responsibly if not perfectly. I've never done drugs, I've not left a litter of bastard children in my wake, and I've never contracted an STD for all my sexual deviancy."

Good for you personally - but has no relevancy to the overall question of whether the practice of homosexuality should be endorsed by society.

"There were plenty of hets hooking up and haunting the VD clinics too, though. It's not like queers had the premium on the casual fuck."

I never said otherwise, so that's a "straw man" argument (in case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means arguing with an assertion that the other person never made in the first place).
Nor does it change the fact that IN THIS COUNTRY (thought if I put it in all caps, you might see it this time) the practice of homosexuality is still the leading cause of transmission of the deadliest of all STDs.

 

[BogartSlap]

error

"(from Shankara)It is my understanding that discrimination is making of a judgment, usually negative, about a person based on some classification - white, black, male, female, etc,"

Thne your understanding is faulty. Discrimination, or the making of a judgments by society, also refers to judgments about BEHAVIORS, not merely about people.

" "rob banks, molest children, or be a serial killer" seem to be actions that we agree as a social organization to prohibit."

Well, yeah...and up until about ten minutes ago (as measured on the timeline of history), so was homosexuality, right?

"Do you see being a homosexual as the same as being a child molester, serial killer or bank robber?"

Actually, I don't see any of those actions as being "the same".

"Incest is an expression of love?"

People engaging in it often assert that it is.

 

[Shankara20]

"(from Shankara)It is my understanding that discrimination is making of a judgment, usually negative, about a person based on some classification - white, black, male, female, etc,"

Thne your understanding is faulty. Discrimination, or the making of a judgments by society, also refers to judgments about BEHAVIORS, not merely about people.

" "rob banks, molest children, or be a serial killer" seem to be actions that we agree as a social organization to prohibit."

Well, yeah...and up until about ten minutes ago (as measured on the timeline of history), so was homosexuality, right?

"Do you see being a homosexual as the same as being a child molester, serial killer or bank robber?"

Actually, I don't see any of those actions as being "the same".

"Incest is an expression of love?"

People engaging in it often assert that it is.

Thank you for the clarifications for your views. It is not my intention to nit-pick but to explore the differences in how we use language. One point, in my common use of "discrimination" it indicates making a judgment about the value of people based on how they look before they act. I do understand that "discrimination" can also mean an ability to discern one item or action from the other based on my own standards - such as establishing a rating system for wine, as an example. I don't see my understanding as faulty as much as I was lazy in not fully defining how I was using the word. My error. I did the same thing in not asking a more detailed question about your statement concerning "more love" and "incest", again my error.

I may have read your "Well, yeah...and up until about ten minutes ago (as measured on the timeline of history), so was homosexuality, right?" incorrectly, but I think there have been prohibition of some acts, such as those some define as sodomy, and same-sexed folks from creating legally sanctioned relationships - but not be homosexual. If I have once again misunderstood your point, I apologies.

Shank

 

[catalina_francisco]

Oh, horse fucking shit. First of all, I said "in this country", not "worldwide", so, come to the meetings, take some notes, huh? ...............Nor does it change the fact that IN THIS COUNTRY (thought if I put it in all caps, you might see it this time) the practice of homosexuality is still the leading cause of transmission of the deadliest of all STDs.

Oh yes, you always manage to get a point across and showing you know what you are talking about by resorting to foul language...I must learn that skill some day. As for facts, I believe Netzach is on the ball when she says it is a disease which in present times is on the increase more in the heterosexual community...and if you want to talk facts, women are outpacing men in alarming numbers of new cases, many of them only having one sexual partner. In the US (as that is what I think you wanted to discuss) the growth rate due to heterosexual contact is 42%, while that of gay men is at the much lower rate of 24%, and those through IV use has dropped 1%...this trend is also reflected in the UK. So perhaps you need to go to some different note taking meetings which present facts based on research as opposed to gay bashing propaganda.

Catalina

 

[BogartSlap]

wake up and smell the coffee

...women are outpacing men in alarming numbers of new cases, many of them only having one sexual partner.

I don't know if you read that in "Gay Propaganda Comics", or just beamed it into your head from the planet Zootron, but it's simply (resisting the temptation to use foul language) not true.

 

[BogartSlap]

try again

... In the US (as that is what I think you wanted to discuss) the growth rate due to heterosexual contact is 42%, while that of gay men is at the much lower rate of 24%, and those through IV use has dropped 1%...

That's an incredibly misleading statistic, as it denies the clear fact that the disease is much more often passed through homosexual, rather than heterosexual, contact. While the "growth rate" due to heterosexual contact may be higher, there are still an overwhelmingly larger number of transmissions from homosexual contact. That's like saying that the "growth rate" in crime is higher in suburban Connecticut than in New York City - maybe so, but New York still has a lot more crime, and is a significantly more dangerous place to stroll down the street at night. To try to put this as simply as possible, a statement that "cases of HIV from heterosexual contact rose 400% last year, while cases from homosexual contact only rose 10%" could translate into heterosexual cases increasing from a total of 1 to a total of 5 and homosexual cases increasing from 1,000,000 to 1,100,000.

 

[BogartSlap]

fine wine

I do understand that "discrimination" can also mean an ability to discern one item or action from the other based on my own standards - such as establishing a rating system for wine, as an example. Shank

And let's face it, if a person isn't discriminating in their choice of wine, well, hetero- or homo-, I think they should be taken out and shot for the good of all mankind.

 

[Shankara20]

- content edited by Shank, link to source at bottom of post -

People living with AIDS

At the end of 2005, the CDC (Center for Disease Control - an US federal agency) estimates that 437,982 people were living with AIDS in the USA.1 The chart below shows the ethnicities of these people, revealing that black Americans have been disproportionately affected.

It is thought that more than one million people are living with HIV in the USA and that more than half a million have died after developing AIDS.

American HIV surveillance data are not comprehensive so many statistics must be based on reports of AIDS diagnoses. In interpreting such AIDS statistics, it is important to remember that they do not correspond to new HIV infections. Most people live with HIV for several years before developing AIDS.

An estimated 1,411 children aged under 13 were living with AIDS at the end of 2005, most of whom probably acquired the infection from their mothers.

People with AIDS are surviving longer and are contributing to a steady increase in the number of people living with AIDS. This trend will continue as long as the number of new diagnoses exceeds the number of people dying each year.


Who is affected by AIDS?

During the 1990s, the epidemic shifted steadily toward a growing proportion of AIDS cases among black people and Hispanics and in women, and toward a decreasing proportion in MSM (men having sex with men), although this group remains the largest single exposure group. Black people and Hispanics have been disproportionately affected since the early years of the epidemic. In absolute numbers, blacks have outnumbered whites in new AIDS diagnoses and deaths since 1996, and in the number of people living with AIDS since 1998.

From 2000 to 2005, the estimated number of new AIDS cases increased in all racial/ethnic groups. Over the same period, the estimated number of new AIDS diagnoses increased by 17% among women and by 16% among men. The number of new cases probably due to heterosexual contact grew by 42%; cases probably due to sex between men grew by 24%; and the number among injecting drug users fell by less than 1%.

During 2005 there were an estimated 58 paediatric AIDS diagnoses, compared to 187 in 1999 and 799 in 1994. The decline in paediatric AIDS incidence is associated with more HIV testing of pregnant women and the use of zidovudine (AZT) by HIV-infected pregnant women and their newborn infants.

The age group 35-44 years accounted for 38% of all AIDS cases diagnosed in 2005. Nearly three-quarters of all people who have died with AIDS did not live to the age of 45.

HIV statistics

At the end of 2005, the CDC estimates that there were 476,749 people living with HIV/AIDS in the 37 areas that have a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting, based on reported diagnoses and deaths4. However, the total number of people living in the USA with HIV/AIDS is thought to be between 1,039,000 and 1,185,0005. The discrepancy between these figures is due to several factors including:


During 2005, an estimated 38,133 new diagnoses of HIV infection were reported from the 37 areas with a history of confidential name-based reporting, a number that has remained relatively stable since 2001. Of these cases, 74% were among adult or adolescent males, 26% were among adult or adolescent females, and less than 1% were among children under 13 years of age. Recent HIV reports represent a mixture of people with recent infection and others who may have been infected in the past but are only now being diagnosed.

source link

 

[Shankara20]

I posted those numbers just to post those numbers. They can be used in any sort of way anyone wants to make the case that being gay is "good" or "bad"


I am going to put on my house dress and make myself some cookies. I'll be back later. I'd willingly become someone's house"wife" if he would just support me in a style I'd like to become accustomed to...

bj's included

and thereby contribute to the total downfall of western civilization.

 

[Netzach]

"(from Netzach]Uh, I believe the leading cause of AIDS transmission worldwide has hopped to heterosexual transmission in the third world, probably about a decade ago. HIV is a virus, last I checked, not a behavior."

Oh, horse fucking shit. First of all, I said "in this country", not "worldwide", so, come to the meetings, take some notes, huh? As to your second utterly meaningless statement, yes, HIV is a virus - but it is virus that is SPREAD, and therefore now nearly epidemic and a significant danger to society, almost exclusively through voluntary behavioral choices (such as the practice of homosexuality and IV drug use).

"I wasn't alive for the giant fuckfest of the 60's and '70s. It was a bad idea, clearly. I do talk to people around at that time frequently, and it sounds really excessive and insane."

My point exactly. NOW, it can be "clearly" seen to have been a bad idea, but that wasn't the case at all THEN. At the time, to those of us advocating it, it appeared to be a very GOOD idea, and not the least bit "excessive and insane". We felt, just as homosexuals do now, that the world would be infinitely bettered if more people accepted our lifestyle, and that everyone railing against it was just being "ridiculous".

"I've always conducted myself responsibly if not perfectly. I've never done drugs, I've not left a litter of bastard children in my wake, and I've never contracted an STD for all my sexual deviancy."

Good for you personally - but has no relevancy to the overall question of whether the practice of homosexuality should be endorsed by society.

"There were plenty of hets hooking up and haunting the VD clinics too, though. It's not like queers had the premium on the casual fuck."

I never said otherwise, so that's a "straw man" argument (in case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means arguing with an assertion that the other person never made in the first place).
Nor does it change the fact that IN THIS COUNTRY (thought if I put it in all caps, you might see it this time) the practice of homosexuality is still the leading cause of transmission of the deadliest of all STDs.

With your stunning example of logic, heterosexual relationships are the leading cause of violent death for women ages 18-45. A public health emergency of the highest order.

What I love is that this brings you round to the logic shared by the most extreme of radical feminists, who even I find laughable.

I can give you one single reason which is laughable to people like you.

It's fair.

Look that up. It's right, if you are talking about a society with equal legal protection. I don't care if you call it marriage, civil union, or "Dolores" it's fair. It's when people like you say "oh well if you want to adopt the retarded baby for a few years till it's bio mom freaks out and wants it back because she doesn't want it raised by queers THAT's ok. But you have no legal recourse nothing that hetero people have at your back. Because you're both guys."

You've been happy to use us in your armies, your arts, your sciences, your wonderful project - as long as we shut the fuck up and felt ashamed of who we are.

Now when we want a place at the table, it's another story.

 

[Netzach]

Shank, get back in here. I'm popping some popcorn and we can watch the disintegration of Canada. The Mongol hordes should be showing up at 11, the Goths sometime tomorrow, the Visigoths are always fashionably late, so I'm not sure.

 

[Shankara20]

Shank, get back in here. I'm popping some popcorn and we can watch the disintegration of Canada. The Mongol hordes should be showing up at 11, the Goths sometime tomorrow, the Visigoths are always fashionably late, so I'm not sure.

o! o! o!

I just love to watch the tyranny of the majority!

there is always all sorts of cool hot non-consensual violence

 

[Netzach]

o! o! o!

I just love to watch the tyranny of the majority!

there is always all sorts of cool hot non-consensual violence

Yeah, unfettered democracy at work, baby, you know it. Because I think the world should be based on popularity contest.

 

[JMohegan]

It is my understanding that discrimination is making of a judgment, usually negative, about a person based on some classification - white, black, male, female, etc

Your addressee notwithstanding, there are many who understand the concept of discrimination all too well.

And from the most unlikely (or is it... likely?) of places, we have the following news.


Cape Town, South Africa
November 30, 2006

South Africa on Thursday became the first country in Africa, and the fifth in the world, to legalize same-sex marriages.

The Civil Union Act went into effect a day ahead of a Dec. 1 deadline set by the country's Constitutional Court, which required that the marriage law be changed to ensure equality for gay men and lesbians.

.....

South African leaders, determined to bury all forms of discrimination, recognized the rights of gay people in the constitution drafted after apartheid ended in 1994.

The constitution, the first in the world to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, provided a powerful legal tool for gay rights activists, even though South Africa remains conservative on issues of sexuality.

Influential traditional leaders said the legislation violated African cultural norms.

The Roman Catholic Church and Muslim groups denounced the law as violating the sanctity of marriage. In the days leading up to the signing of the law, radio talk shows aired strong opposition to the legislation.

The public reaction, said Judge, "forced us to confront the deep-seated prejudice and intolerance against gays and lesbians. It's a day-to-day reality. . . . It's been quite a frightening process to see the level of hatred that has been openly expressed against this minority."

Source: here.

 

[Shankara20]

.... groups denounced the law as violating the sanctity of marriage.

Thanks for that post JM.

With me setting my love of verbal repartee aside, I would welcome a respectful one-on-one conversation with someone who truly, belief system dogma aside, feels that my marriage, it there were one, to a man would seriously threaten their male/female marriage.

I honestly do not understand that argument.

I accept that many are yucked-out about what we might be doing in our bedroom. I know that many see gays as "less-then" people. I know society must nurture systems for population replacement and child development/training.

But how is it different if two men not-at-all into BDSM get hitched and a 60+ year-old male and female into golden-showers get hitched. There will probably be no pregnancy to help with population replacement and I expect many in our society see golden-showers as yucky (some present company excluded). If the old kinksters can wed, why not the fags? I do not understand, well I don't understand if there is no so-called "moral" judgments being made.

Shank

 

[catalina_francisco]

That's an incredibly misleading statistic, as it denies the clear fact that the disease is much more often passed through homosexual, rather than heterosexual, contact. While the "growth rate" due to heterosexual contact may be higher, there are still an overwhelmingly larger number of transmissions from homosexual contact. That's like saying that the "growth rate" in crime is higher in suburban Connecticut than in New York City - maybe so, but New York still has a lot more crime, and is a significantly more dangerous place to stroll down the street at night. To try to put this as simply as possible, a statement that "cases of HIV from heterosexual contact rose 400% last year, while cases from homosexual contact only rose 10%" could translate into heterosexual cases increasing from a total of 1 to a total of 5 and homosexual cases increasing from 1,000,000 to 1,100,000.

Interesting concept you have given it is from research conducted by the government health organisation and corresponds to WHO records as well...then I guess they should all come to you because you are right on top of the figures and facts the rest of the world does not have privy to.

Catalina

 

[Xelebes]

I am a moderate libertarian - fiscally conservative, morally liberal, socially laissez-faire.

 

[BogartSlap]

can't resist

Interesting concept you have given it is from research conducted by the government health organisation and corresponds to WHO records as well...then I guess they should all come to you because you are right on top of the figures and facts the rest of the world does not have privy to.

Okay, I guess there's no way round this - horseshit, catalina. Here are the latest figures from the CDC (definitely more a bastion of "political correctness" than a puppet of conservatives), analysis of cases for the year 2005. Number of cases/rates of infection per 100,000 population:
Males: 28,000/37.0 per 100,000
Females: 9,800/12.4 per 100,000
Cumulative statistics for the previous five years shows that annual diagnoses of HIV/AIDS increased almost 20% from 2001-2005 - however diagnoses for women, during the same period, increased less than 10%.

And cases analyzed by transmission category:
Male to male sexual contact - 48%
IV drug use - 24%
High-risk heterosexual contact - 20% ("high-risk" is defined by the CDC as heterosexual contact with a person KNOWN to have HIV or to be at high risk of having HIV - i.e., someone known to engage in male-male sex or known to be an IV drug user)
Non-high-risk heterosexual contact - LESS THAN 1%

 

[BogartSlap]

That's who you are?

...You've been happy to use us in your armies, your arts, your sciences, your wonderful project - as long as we shut the fuck up and felt ashamed of who we are.

Your choice of sexual practices to engage in is who you are???
If that's true, you have my deepest sympathy for your incredibly shallow existence.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Okay, I guess there's no way round this - horseshit, catalina.

You know what life has taught me...those who have to resort to using a foul mouth, especially repeatedly, have little else to back up their argument and hope their abusive ways will cover it up for them. Good luck but it doesn't work on moi....you have a very narrow and misinformed view of the world and life in general IMHO.

Catalina

 

[Netzach]

I am a moderate libertarian - fiscally conservative, morally liberal, socially laissez-faire.

How's the fabric of society up there by you? Crappy as ever? Must be gay marriage. Don't worry, your soft and decadent society will get what's coming to it. Give the Visigoths a kiss for me.