Maximus, go back and read what I wrote and maybe you’ll understand the point I was actually making.
I wasn’t talking about 64% vs 70%. I was pointing out that 64% of HIV cases in the US happening to gay men doesn’t mean that 64% of gay men have anything to do with HIV.
That 64% only translates to 2% of gay men, a tiny minority. Judging the remaining 98% based on that tiny minority is completely unjustified.
See the prostate cancer example of the same twisted logic if you still don’t get it.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For life,
You lost a lot of credibility when you state that 64% of new HIV cases come from men. You are bitching between someone else’s reference of 70% when it’s 64%? Dude, you need to rethink your strategy.[/quote]
I have been through these debates with forlife many, many times. He feels compelled to argue right up to the point where the facts are shown, as I did in the above post. When the facts start raining down forlife usually runs for for cover. Ehh, it’s fun to do once, maybe twice a year.
Zeb, your response comes as no surprise. I actually predicted that instead of apologizing for lying about the CDC statistic, you would instead copy and paste your standard tripe, hoping that the flurry of quotes would divert attention from the obvious. You blatantly lied about 70% of gay men having anything to do with HIV, and when we called you on it, you resorted to the same old tricks. Predictable, but disingenuous and sad.
You also deliberately misquoted me. I specifically said that I find the spreading of HIV to be reprehensible, but instead you insinuated that I believe just the opposite. Who’s the liar here?
HIV is bad, whether it happens to gay men here in the US or to black women in Africa. But using that tiny minority (2%) to demonize an entire population is morally wrong as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality, despite your sad attempts to prove otherwise.
As I said, it’s obvious that you have a moral aversion toward gays, and feel justified in twisting any statistic to support your moral convictions.
forlife,
We’ve already established that over half of all HIV cases are from homosexual men. By the way that is 44 times greater than heterosexual men according to the CDC. In fact, further information from the CDC reveals that homosexual men are the only group where HIV is increasing. HIV has actually decreased in heterosexual men and even injection drug users (according to the CDC).
And surprise, surprise, according to the CDC men who have sex with men (MSM) have the highest increase in syphilis. They even list the cities where the increase is greatest: Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco (no surprise there) are the three greatest. One more for you forlife, According to the CDC as of 2006 64% of all syphilis cases were among MSM. GO FIGURE!
When you can explain all of that AND also (try to) refute all of the statistics that I’ve posted above we can talk again.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Maximus, go back and read what I wrote and maybe you’ll understand the point I was actually making.
I wasn’t talking about 64% vs 70%. I was pointing out that 64% of HIV cases in the US happening to gay men doesn’t mean that 64% of gay men have anything to do with HIV.
That 64% only translates to 2% of gay men, a tiny minority. Judging the remaining 98% based on that tiny minority is completely unjustified.
See the prostate cancer example of the same twisted logic if you still don’t get it.[/quote]
I completely disagree. It doesn’t matter that the “HIV spreaders” are a tiny minority. As long as there exists some that don’t, legislating against them as a group is immoral. Not to mention legislating against the “HIV spreaders” is immoral anyway, unless they are using force of some sort.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Maximus, go back and read what I wrote and maybe you’ll understand the point I was actually making.
I wasn’t talking about 64% vs 70%. I was pointing out that 64% of HIV cases in the US happening to gay men doesn’t mean that 64% of gay men have anything to do with HIV.
That 64% only translates to 2% of gay men, a tiny minority. Judging the remaining 98% based on that tiny minority is completely unjustified.
See the prostate cancer example of the same twisted logic if you still don’t get it.[/quote]
I completely disagree. It doesn’t matter that the “HIV spreaders” are a tiny minority. As long as there exists some that don’t, legislating against them as a group is immoral. Not to mention legislating against the “HIV spreaders” is immoral anyway, unless they are using force of some sort.[/quote]
How does that contradict anything that I said?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Maximus, go back and read what I wrote and maybe you’ll understand the point I was actually making.
I wasn’t talking about 64% vs 70%. I was pointing out that 64% of HIV cases in the US happening to gay men doesn’t mean that 64% of gay men have anything to do with HIV.
That 64% only translates to 2% of gay men, a tiny minority. Judging the remaining 98% based on that tiny minority is completely unjustified.
See the prostate cancer example of the same twisted logic if you still don’t get it.[/quote]
I completely disagree. It doesn’t matter that the “HIV spreaders” are a tiny minority. As long as there exists some that don’t, legislating against them as a group is immoral. Not to mention legislating against the “HIV spreaders” is immoral anyway, unless they are using force of some sort.[/quote]
How does that contradict anything that I said?[/quote]
I’m saying you are right, but for the wrong reasons. the fact that it’s a small minority doesn’t matter. It’s immoral to legally attack the group anyway. Once 100% of gays begin spreading HIV by force, then I’ll be okay with some laws against homosexuality.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, your response comes as no surprise. I actually predicted that instead of apologizing for lying about the CDC statistic, you would instead copy and paste your standard tripe, hoping that the flurry of quotes would divert attention from the obvious. You blatantly lied about 70% of gay men having anything to do with HIV, and when we called you on it, you resorted to the same old tricks. Predictable, but disingenuous and sad.[/quote]
What on earth are you smoking? Never mind don’t answer that. I said repeatedly that over half of all cases of HIV are from homosexual men. How am I wrong on that? Do you ever bother to actually read the depressing health statistics on homosexuals?
Glad we agree.
I dunno ole’ buddy, when you have to where a layer of latex before you engage in the primary act or possibly suffer a life altering disease that doesn’t say much. But like I said earlier we have have moral standards, your’s are different than mine, but you have them none the less. The issue here is disease and the homosexual - it seems prevalent in the gay community.
Now get busy and answer all of the many statistics that I posted. Tell us all again how safe and healthy it is to practice homosexuality.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Maximus, go back and read what I wrote and maybe you’ll understand the point I was actually making.
I wasn’t talking about 64% vs 70%. I was pointing out that 64% of HIV cases in the US happening to gay men doesn’t mean that 64% of gay men have anything to do with HIV.
That 64% only translates to 2% of gay men, a tiny minority. Judging the remaining 98% based on that tiny minority is completely unjustified.
See the prostate cancer example of the same twisted logic if you still don’t get it.[/quote]
I completely disagree. It doesn’t matter that the “HIV spreaders” are a tiny minority. As long as there exists some that don’t, legislating against them as a group is immoral. Not to mention legislating against the “HIV spreaders” is immoral anyway, unless they are using force of some sort.[/quote]
How does that contradict anything that I said?[/quote]
Oh forlife you are so misunderstood. Now get busy and tell us why homosexual men account for the highest rates of HIV, syphilis, and other STD’s, anal cancer, suicide and many other physical and emotional diseases. Is it because homosexual practices are perfectly healthy?
Please tell us your thoughts on my lengthy post above. Or do you not want to do this anymore?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Maximus, go back and read what I wrote and maybe you’ll understand the point I was actually making.
I wasn’t talking about 64% vs 70%. I was pointing out that 64% of HIV cases in the US happening to gay men doesn’t mean that 64% of gay men have anything to do with HIV.
That 64% only translates to 2% of gay men, a tiny minority. Judging the remaining 98% based on that tiny minority is completely unjustified.
See the prostate cancer example of the same twisted logic if you still don’t get it.[/quote]
I completely disagree. It doesn’t matter that the “HIV spreaders” are a tiny minority. As long as there exists some that don’t, legislating against them as a group is immoral. Not to mention legislating against the “HIV spreaders” is immoral anyway, unless they are using force of some sort.[/quote]
How does that contradict anything that I said?[/quote]
Oh forlife you are so misunderstood. Now get busy and tell us why homosexual men account for the highest rates of HIV, syphilis, and other STD’s, anal cancer, suicide and many other physical and emotional diseases. Is it because homosexual practices are perfectly healthy?
Please tell us your thoughts on my lengthy post above. Or do you not want to do this anymore?
[/quote]
First, you do realize that you are talking correlation and not causation?
You haven’t proven that homosexuality causes any of that. Maybe the societal pressure to not be gay has driven depression that results in suicides, reckless actions like unprotected sex, and the like.
Or maybe homosexuals have a higher instance of abuse as children and there higher levels of problems go away when the statistics are correlated for this.
There are really dozens of alternative reasons for those statistics other than “homosexuality is inherently unhealthy”
Heck the lack of an ability to marry could even cause many of these things. Outlawing straight marriage could have a similar effect on straight people.
In reality even with your statistics it is entirely possible that people like you with your discrimination are what cause all these horrible things, and not the homosexuals themselves. At least the homosexuals would just be damaging themselves, you could actually be hurting others.
Who the hell do you think you are to assume that power and authority about what is and isn’t healthy? How about we start listing out Public deemed “unhealthy” activities and will see how many of those you are in favor of taking legal action against.
For Life,
Stopping the spread of HIV should be the main priority, and if 64% of new HIV cases involve gay men, that is where problem should start. Yes you could argue that the remaining 36% should also be approached too, and it should, but you are talking about 2/3 of new cases. Come on dude, stop dilly-dallying around the issue. If it was 64% of straight men, I would say the same thing.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For Life,
Stopping the spread of HIV should be the main priority, and if 64% of new HIV cases involve gay men, that is where problem should start. Yes you could argue that the remaining 36% should also be approached too, and it should, but you are talking about 2/3 of new cases. Come on dude, stop dilly-dallying around the issue. If it was 64% of straight men, I would say the same thing. [/quote]
The problem is with 2% of gay men. I agree it Is a problem for that 2%. But Zeb was trying to draw sweeping conclusions about the gay population based on that 2%, which is outright dishonest.
If 64% of new HIV cases involved straight men, would you then conclude that heterosexuality is unhealthy and everyone should be gay instead? That’s exactly the kind of crap that Zeb is pushing,
DoubleDuce is 100% correct, and in fact his points about the damage caused to gays by discrimination have been supported by the major medical and mental health organizations. I can provide direct quotes from these organizations (American Medical Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.) based on 30 years of research on these issues.
According to Zeb, every single one of these organizations is politically biased, and their unanimous conclusions on homosexuality should be stubbornly ignored.
Right.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce is 100% correct, and in fact his points about the damage caused to gays by discrimination have been supported by the major medical and mental health organizations. I can provide direct quotes from these organizations (American Medical Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.) based on 30 years of research on these issues.
According to Zeb, every single one of these organizations is politically biased, and their unanimous conclusions on homosexuality should be stubbornly ignored.
Right.[/quote]
You don’t need to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the guy who wants to take action against something.
The fact that it’s possible there is nothing inherently bad about homosexuality makes anyone wanting to legally discriminate against the activity an idiot.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
The fact that it’s possible there is nothing inherently bad about homosexuality makes anyone wanting to legally discriminate against the activity an idiot.[/quote]
Have you been following this debate? I don’t want to discriminate against anyone for any reason. I’m merely pointing out health risks regarding homosexual behavior.
For the record, what two consenting adults do in their own home is no ones business, as I’ve said numerous times. So tell me now who is trying to discriminate here?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce is 100% correct, and in fact his points about the damage caused to gays by discrimination have been supported by the major medical and mental health organizations. I can provide direct quotes from these organizations (American Medical Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, etc.) based on 30 years of research on these issues.
According to Zeb, every single one of these organizations is politically biased, and their unanimous conclusions on homosexuality should be stubbornly ignored.
Right.[/quote]
I’ve already schooled you on the political climate of the APA which took the lead in the 70’s in declassifying homosexuality as a mental disease. Not through testing, or trials etc., but because the APA was hijacked by actual homosexuals who held offices and made this determination. I could repost the information for you, it’s rather lengthy but you obviously didn’t get it the first time around.
Also, I’m always amazed when someone says that because of discrimination homosexuals are driven to depression and suicide. When in the Netherlands where gay marriage has been around for almost 10 years the suicide rate for homosexuals is just as high as the US. I wonder, could it be the lifestyle that drives many homosexuals into depression? No, that couldn’t be it because that’s not politically correct to say. F
I would be willing to bet that the majority of deviant sexual behavior (harmful sex like with kids and forced) comes from the Religious and not the the gay community.
Zeb, you’re fond of picking on the APA but what about the American Medical Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and every other major mental health and medical association?
That you so readily dismiss the unanimous conclusions of every single one of these organizations, whose professional expertise and responsibility is to determine what actually Is psychologically and physically healthy and what is not, says volumes about your revulsion toward gays.
As I’ve said many times, bigots never see themselves as such. They will twist any statistic, and ignore any scientific evidence, that disproves their beliefs and biases. You are a classic case in point.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Have you been following this debate? I don’t want to discriminate against anyone for any reason. I’m merely pointing out health risks regarding homosexual behavior.
[/quote]
And I’ve directly pointed out how your haven’t backed up your claims.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Also, I’m always amazed when someone says that because of discrimination homosexuals are driven to depression and suicide. When in the Netherlands where gay marriage has been around for almost 10 years the suicide rate for homosexuals is just as high as the US. I wonder, could it be the lifestyle that drives many homosexuals into depression? No, that couldn’t be it because that’s not politically correct to say. F[/quote]
Yeah, because the only thing that could cause societal pressure is marriage laws. Your claim is once again retarded. You are ignoring the millions of other variables rendering your assertions entirely invalid.