[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Your only evidence that it will help is that it reduced syphilis amongst homosexuals in Europe. The data for gonorrhea and HIV was much less supportive.[/quote]
If gay marriage reduces syphilis, that alone is a good reason for it. Why do you think marriage would reduce the rate of syphilis, and wouldn’t those reasons extend to the potential reduction of other diseases?
Ad hominem.
I don’t know. Why wasn’t the data there for a reduction in other diseases? Perhaps syphilis is less virulent and harder to catch. Either way, it’s already curable with antibiotics, barring any further mutations. HIV is a life sentence at best, which gays expect everyone else to pay for with their tax dollars.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I don’t know. Why wasn’t the data there for a reduction in other diseases? Perhaps syphilis is less virulent and harder to catch. Either way, it’s already curable with antibiotics, barring any further mutations. HIV is a life sentence at best, which gays expect everyone else to pay for with their tax dollars. [/quote]
In that particular study, the data did show a reduction in HIV but not as large an effect as for siphylus. Hopefully there will be more studies along those lines so we can see how the results hold up over time.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It seems that the male homosexual population (of which YOU are a part) is the group having the most problem with being HIV positive.[/quote]
Not coincidentally, that same population is denied the stability and legal protections inherent to marriage.
I hope you’re not implying that 70% of the gay population is HIV positive. Regardless, HIV is still a huge issue and I think we need to do everything we can to constructively address it.
[quote]You really are a first class ZEALOT. You are the exact same thing as the far right religious fanatics that you rail against.
[/quote]
Ad hominem.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
It seems that the male homosexual population (of which YOU are a part) is the group having the most problem with being HIV positive.
Not coincidentally, that same population is denied the stability and legal protections inherent to marriage.
You think that’s it huh? Well then tell me why the unmarried heterosexual population has far, has less HIV positive in their numbers? And those raw numbers dwarf the homosexual population.
[/quote]
Why? Because they don’t go around sticking their jimmy in some guys pooper!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I never said I wouldn’t help, but I don’t want my tax dollars going to a disease that is a disease of choice at the expense of others that are not.
[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you but how do you define a “disease of choice”? Here is the CDC list of the top 10 causes of death for 2005
Heart disease: 652,091
Cancer: 559,312
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
Lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
Diabetes: 75,119
Alzheimer’s disease: 71,599
Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
Septicemia: 34,136
Of those top ten, at least five, including the top three are greatly influenced by lifestyle choices. So where do you think the money should go?
I don’t know where you draw the line between lifestyle choice, and being at the mercy of fate.
Most all of the things you listed can be contracted by those who live totally healthy lives.
AIDS - with the exclusion of unsuspecting blood transfusion recipients and toher freak accidents - is pretty much exclusively contracted by engaging in dangerous lifestyle.
From unprotected homosexual sex to IV drug users - they didn’t accidentally get HIV.
It is noteworthy, however, that of all the whining and bitching from the militant pro-gay crowd - HIV doesn’t even show up on your list.
My mother died as a result of histocystic lymphoma. She did nothing to bring this on herself. On the other hand, my half brother has AIDS, which is a result of his “alternative” lifestyle. By his own admission, he has had sex with men numbering well into triple digits and contracted every sexually transmitted disease known to man. I have compassion for the true victims of this disease but I’m supposed to feel pity for him and others like him?
The guy actually blamed his doctor for not warning him about the perils of unprotected sex. This is typical liberal bullshit - simply take no personal responsibility for your actions, just blame someone else. Homosexual men are the most sexually promiscuous group of all, so it’s highly unlikely that legalizing same sex unions would have any appreciable effect on AIDS.
Well Mick, in my defense it sounds like you have about as many posts about gays as I do 
To your point though, I think you’re right that the subject has been beaten to death and I’m going to back off addressing it for a while.
[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
Homosexual men are the most sexually promiscuous group of all, so it’s highly unlikely that legalizing same sex unions would have any appreciable effect on AIDS.[/quote]
True, it probably won’t, but I would bet that it increases the divorce rate significantly.
Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene
Haha. Beautiful.
Makkun
Gay Scientists Isolate Christian Gene
Yeah, I thought this was pretty funny.