[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
My point is that I don’t believe even a little that allowing gay marriage will destroy society. The evidence I’ve gained from my personal experience simply does not support such a conclusion.[/quote]
It’s just one more step in the wrong direction. Jerry Springer didn’t destroy society either, but does it help? You know, oral sex in the oval office, runaway budget deficits, half the country supporting the other half. Two wars that can never really be won without our constant presence. I could go on, but you get the idea. Everything seems to be pulling us down. Where are the positive institutions that help build our country. Legalize gay marriage today and on Tuesday Polygamists will want their shot- And can you blame them? The spiral continues. I think I’ll just get a tub of popcorn and watch the demise from my picture window.
[/quote]
Every generation says this. My parents also predicted that my generation would see the demise of civilized society. We’re still here. I don’t know where you live or what kind of people you meet, but the kids and parents I meet now give me lots of hope for the future. Lots. And I’m a very cynical person. I realize that I’m part of a small group of people who have very bright children who go to a special school for gifted kids, and that things are much worse in the regular schools. It’s too bad that all kids can’t be gifted, but I have no control over that. So I just concentrate on my little corner of the world because things look pretty good here.
[/quote]
And every generation is correct. So, at some point we must go downhill. I think we are nearing (not there yet) that point. Don’t make me quote the statistics to you, it’s time consuming and I just don’t want to do it, I’m just too busy.[/quote]
So the advances in medicine, science, and technology are all meaningless? You don’t think we’re better off than we were 20 or 30 years ago?[/quote]
Of course we are technologically better off. When did I ever say that were not?
but educating and making people take responsibility via knowledge and awareness. Both of which have been the best measures so far, which have helped prevent a spread into the wider heterosexual population.
Makkun[/quote]
According to a study done in San francisco pouring millions of dollars into educating homosexual men on the dangers of unprotected anal sex did nothing. In fact, the number of HIV positive cases went up after the process was complete.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
ZEB wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
Ct. Rockula wrote:
What will stop me from marrying another species if gay marraige is moved forward? My puppy and I love each other very much…don’t we deserve to be happy?
AND Polygmy has to be the norm too
I’m trying to marry a bunch of puppies
you cant stop my love its not your call
I wouldn’t care if you wanted to enjoin yourself in a polygamous civil union with consenting adults.
You can’t prove the puppies are consenting, or adult, something people need to be to enter into a contract, so no you can’t enter into your ridiculous analogy.
But you can with incestuous relationships, if both brother and sister are consenting adults, right?
Would you care to pay even higher insurance bills and watch the crime rate go up because of the ill and deranged children that such a union would produce? Sure why not? We have to let everyone do whatever it is they want, right?
I wonder how low we can sink in this country before, well, we sink?
Zeb, I don’t know if I would be in favor for incestuous civil unions. I do think you are given to hyperbole.
You seem to set a big precedent on tradition so you must know that in some cultures it was the tradition for brothers to marry sisters or nieces to marry uncles, even mothers to marry sons.[/quote]
Yes, I am aware of this. And in some cultures they pray to snakes, and still others used to throw virgins into volcano’s. Now how does this make for a better America? Oh yea, it doesn’t.
[/quote]
and daughter abuse… like in the bible
you didn’t include that when you quoted me
[/quote]
Yeah, I get it you want to stomp on the bible (yawn) good for you. I’ve never seen anything like that before on these forums. WOW, you are just so, um so new age wonderful. I’d get in to a discussion regarding the bible with you, but honestly would it make a difference? Nope.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t make a difference for me because I think that ALL religions (and that includes most “new age” religions which you seem to dislike) are just bullshit stories.
[/quote]
There you go, now don’t you feel better? Being a young male who works out there is no need, or even the slightest desire to believe.
Got it.
[/quote]
You’re making an assumption here without even knowing much about me. And you’re also very wrong. First, I don’t know that I’m that young anymore. At 42, I feel young, but I guess I’d be considered middle aged. And religion makes less and less sense the older I get. Second, I want to believe, I really do. Who wouldn’t? Belief in a benevolent being who loves us is a great deal. The idea that I’m totally responsible for my own life is a bit scary. And I tried to believe, I really did. But the side of my brain that is responsible for logic and reason kept getting in the way. I don’t deny the possibility that there might be a force in the universe that started everything and holds it together - I can’t prove this one way or another. But anything more than that is just a myth. Third, contrary to what you might think, I do not think that my lack of belief gives me license to do anything I want. If I mess up, there is no invisible man in the sky to save me. So I don’t cheat, lie, do drugs, drive drunk, or anything like that.[/quote]
I apologize for assuming that you were younger. You look good for your age, what can I say?
but educating and making people take responsibility via knowledge and awareness. Both of which have been the best measures so far, which have helped prevent a spread into the wider heterosexual population.
Makkun[/quote]
According to a study done in San francisco pouring millions of dollars into educating homosexual men on the dangers of unprotected anal sex did nothing. In fact, the number of HIV positive cases went up after the process was complete.
Odd huh?
[/quote]
Looking at the rate of increase, and if that changed, would be more important than looking to see if the overall number of cases continued to go up. The population continues to grow at a mind-blowing rate (literally, I don’t think people realize how overpopulated we are getting, and how quickly). I wouldn’t expect the overall number of new HIV cases to drop ever until there’s a real cure.
but educating and making people take responsibility via knowledge and awareness. Both of which have been the best measures so far, which have helped prevent a spread into the wider heterosexual population.
Makkun[/quote]
According to a study done in San francisco pouring millions of dollars into educating homosexual men on the dangers of unprotected anal sex did nothing. In fact, the number of HIV positive cases went up after the process was complete.
Odd huh?
[/quote]
Looking at the rate of increase, and if that changed, would be more important than looking to see if the overall number of cases continued to go up. The population continues to grow at a mind-blowing rate (literally, I don’t think people realize how overpopulated we are getting, and how quickly). I wouldn’t expect the overall number of new HIV cases to drop ever until there’s a real cure.[/quote]
Or an epidemic or natual disaster of biblical proportions.
but educating and making people take responsibility via knowledge and awareness. Both of which have been the best measures so far, which have helped prevent a spread into the wider heterosexual population.
Makkun[/quote]
According to a study done in San francisco pouring millions of dollars into educating homosexual men on the dangers of unprotected anal sex did nothing. In fact, the number of HIV positive cases went up after the process was complete.
Odd huh?
[/quote]
Looking at the rate of increase, and if that changed, would be more important than looking to see if the overall number of cases continued to go up. The population continues to grow at a mind-blowing rate (literally, I don’t think people realize how overpopulated we are getting, and how quickly). I wouldn’t expect the overall number of new HIV cases to drop ever until there’s a real cure.[/quote]
Good thought but the rate of infection is far outgrowing the rate of the population.
According to the CDC, the HIV infection rate has been stable since the mid nineties. I quoted that in my earlier posts. While by far still too high, it seems as if a large scale epidemic has been averted, thanks to education and information. It’s endemic though where other diseases are rife as well - amongst poor minorities.
Whatever the chances? The CDC is clear about this, and targets those populations specifically. Seems reasonable to me. Not blame and criminalisation, but analysis and rationality should prevail.
[quote]makkun wrote:
According to the CDC, the HIV infection rate has been stable since the mid nineties. I quoted that in my earlier posts. While by far still too high, it seems as if a large scale epidemic has been averted, thanks to education and information. It’s endemic though where other diseases are rife as well - amongst poor minorities.
Whatever the chances? The CDC is clear about this, and targets those populations specifically. Seems reasonable to me. Not blame and criminalisation, but analysis and rationality should prevail.
Makkun [/quote]
As if criminalization for those who spread HIV is not rational - - Ho hum, nothing new from you same old politically correct liberal talking points which help no one.
As long as you brought up the CDC let’s take a closer look at the facts shall we?
MSM = Men Who Have Sex With Men (for those who do not know)
-MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
That means that while homosexual, and bisexual men account for perhaps only 4% (at most) of the population they also account for about half the HIV cases. Where is the rationality in that?
MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
Again, a tiny fraction of the population accounting for half of all NEW HIV cases. But let’s do nothing about it, let’s just whine about their freedom to infect other people with no consequences, right?
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522â??989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
Nice huh?
And the following is the pay off pitch:
MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing.
Increasing they say? I wonder what you meant when you said it was “Stable.”
While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
Oh I think I know what you meant (but didn’t spell out) above. Since HIV is going down in heterosexuals, and drug users, but rising in Homosexuals it’s a wash.
Hey wait – all of the above means that there is a serious problem of homosexual men spreading HIV. It’s amazing isn’t it? No matter how much of a politically correct spin that you try to put on the facts, they just keep rising to the surface.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[…] As if criminalization for those who spread HIV is not rational - - Ho hum, nothing new from you same old politically correct liberal talking points which help no one.[/quote]
The test for whether it is rational would be if it helps reduce infections. I have yet to see evidence of that.
But if you want to see an irrational example, check out this recent case:
Punishment for threatening, spitting at an officer and resisting arrest - sure, perfectly legitimate. 34 years for spitting at an officer because his saliva is a deadly weapon? That is pretty crass given that there has been no case ever recorded of transmission via spitting, or anything else that does not require a deep, deep bite.
I have also yet to find any useful policy ideas from you with regards to how things should be handled differently. We have established that people who endanger others can be prosecuted (even to a level of irrationality as seen in the above example) and that the CDC has a measured approach that this based on prevention by education. What specific change in policy are you looking for, which would help improve the above?
[quote]As long as you brought up the CDC let’s take a closer look at the facts shall we?
MSM = Men Who Have Sex With Men (for those who do not know)
-MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
That means that while homosexual, and bisexual men account for perhaps only 4% (at most) of the population they also account for about half the HIV cases. Where is the rationality in that?
MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
Again, a tiny fraction of the population accounting for half of all NEW HIV cases. But let’s do nothing about it, let’s just whine about their freedom to infect other people with no consequences, right?
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522â??989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
Nice huh?
And the following is the pay off pitch:
MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing.
Increasing they say? I wonder what you meant when you said it was “Stable.”[/quote]
I wrote ‘According to the CDC, the HIV infection rate has been stable since the mid nineties.’, which pointed to the fact that overall figures have levelled at ca. 40,000 (if I remember correctly) per year. They say that within that stable number the percentage of MSM contracting HIV is increasing. I talked about the overall total number - you focus on the relative number of MSM within that (completely ignoring their stats about ethnic and socio-economic minority groups). I’ve covered the reasons and risk factors for that in length above.
[quote]While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
Oh I think I know what you meant (but didn’t spell out) above. Since HIV is going down in heterosexuals, and drug users, but rising in Homosexuals it’s a wash.
Hey wait – all of the above means that there is a serious problem of homosexual men spreading HIV. It’s amazing isn’t it? No matter how much of a politically correct spin that you try to put on the facts, they just keep rising to the surface.
There is a serious problem with MSM contracting HIV. I’ve covered this - including the CDC’s explanations and measures (which doesn’t agree with your conclusions) in length above. I’m seeing that this is going the usual circular route, so I don’t care to try again. Should you care to read my earlier posts (and their sources in full), you will find that the CDC does identify MSM as a risk group (no one would doubt that - I’ve even posted a detailed explantion), but does not see a need to reduce homosexual behaviour in pursuit of reducing HIV transmissions - it focuses on the risk factors that partially correlate with the circumstances in which many MSM live. It does also identify socio-economic and ethnic minority status as well as cultural factors (specifically homophobia) as the important drivers promoting risk behaviours. To alleviate these, criminalisation (and blaming the victim) is not being recommended by the CDC, neither is displaying ‘less’ homosexual behaviour. Those CDC guys are surely some liberal politically correct bunch - or they have an understanding of their own statistics and focus on what works rather than what appeases the habitually enraged. Go figure.
[quote]makkun wrote:
ZEB wrote:
[…] As if criminalization for those who spread HIV is not rational - - Ho hum, nothing new from you same old politically correct liberal talking points which help no one.
The test for whether it is rational would be if it helps reduce infections. I have yet to see evidence of that.[/quote]
Certainly the pc nonsense that got us where we are today is NOT rational.
What have you ever posted that was actually something that could help these folks? NOTHING. Your remedy is no remedy at all- “leave them alone they have a right to infect whomever they want, boo hoo.”
It has to do not only with policy, but with how the pc media and universities handle information that flows through. Homosexuality should not be made fun of, or allowed to seem like it has no consequences. Also, laws need to be tightened up regarding the spread of HIV. There are a handful of prosecutions each year and that needs to rise into the hundreds if not thousands. The fact is homosexual men HIV positive are having sex and not informing their sleep over of the night.
[quote]As long as you brought up the CDC let’s take a closer look at the facts shall we?
MSM = Men Who Have Sex With Men (for those who do not know)
-MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
That means that while homosexual, and bisexual men account for perhaps only 4% (at most) of the population they also account for about half the HIV cases. Where is the rationality in that?
MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
Again, a tiny fraction of the population accounting for half of all NEW HIV cases. But let’s do nothing about it, let’s just whine about their freedom to infect other people with no consequences, right?
While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522�¢??989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
Nice huh?
And the following is the pay off pitch:
MSM is the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing.
Increasing they say? I wonder what you meant when you said it was “Stable.”
I wrote ‘According to the CDC, the HIV infection rate has been stable since the mid nineties.’, which pointed to the fact that overall figures have levelled at ca. 40,000 (if I remember correctly) per year. They say that within that stable number the percentage of MSM contracting HIV is increasing. I talked about the overall total number - you focus on the relative number of MSM within that (completely ignoring their stats about ethnic and socio-economic minority groups). I’ve covered the reasons and risk factors for that in length above.[/quote]
You are a typical pc liberal. You ignore the fact that if it were not for homosexual men there would be virtually no HIV. We all know where the problem is. It has nothing to do with education, or heterosexuals. It has to do with a bunch of selfish bastards who want to have sex at any cost and refuse to inform the person that they’re having sex with that they are HIV. Difficult to admit the facts isn’t it?
[quote]While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
Oh I think I know what you meant (but didn’t spell out) above. Since HIV is going down in heterosexuals, and drug users, but rising in Homosexuals it’s a wash.
Hey wait – all of the above means that there is a serious problem of homosexual men spreading HIV. It’s amazing isn’t it? No matter how much of a politically correct spin that you try to put on the facts, they just keep rising to the surface.
Should you care to read my earlier posts (and their sources in full), you will find that the CDC does identify MSM as a risk group[/quote]
No big revelation here. I’ve been pointing out the statistics for about 5 years on this forum.
How can a pc government institution tell homosexual men to reduce a dangerous behavior? But, if you look at all of the non pc topics you’ll see that the recommendation is to “reduce dangerous behavior.” This fact has probably flown right past you.
Possibly the dumbest thing that you’ve written on a topic where you’ve written a lot of dumb things over the years. Tell me, how is “homophobia” related to homosexual men practicing risky behavior? Are they so stressed out because someone made a joke about them that they say “that did it I’m going to spread this HIV virus of mine to the next guy I hook up with, that’ll show em.” I sometimes think that Rush Limbaugh is correct: Liberalism is a mental disease.
By the way in the Netherlands where homosexual marriage has been allowed for almost 10 years, there is just as much HIV, STD’s, suicide, depression and a long list of other disease’s within the male homosexual population. The pc crowd hates hearing this as it blows a hole in the false belief “if only they were accepted then all would be well.” All will never be well as long as homosexual men who are HIV are allowed to infect others with impunity, this much I KNOW.
IF you logically carried over your liberal pc very beliefs to other major health problems this is what you’d have:
Alcoholics have a right to drink, we shouldn’t try to stop them. They should just throw up right away after drinking so the alcohol wouldn’t fully get into their system.
It’s peoples right to spread the flu.
The list of stupied ideas is endless - If the pc liberals got to deal with the rest of the health problems like they get to deal with homosexuality as it pertains to HIV we would be knee deep in dead bodies.
This is yet more proof of pc language. Homosexuality was removed as a mental disease in the early 70’s. Not because of any lengthy studies, or some startling new information, but because of a takeover of the APA’s organization by those who were either homosexual, or pc. I’d post the link that describes the specifics, but you wouldn’t read it. The CDC can only go so far in describing behavior, or they will be in trouble. What they do well is collect facts. And the facts clearly demonstrate that homosexual men are the reason that HIV has spread into the general population at the rate that it has. Where are the public service announcements warning people about this epidemic? They’re absent for the air waves-one more victim of political correctness.
Society has taken a marked turn for the worse because of people like you - pc has become more important than the truth. And the truth is the only thing that will save countless lives. You value pc behavior over the health of your fellow citizens and that’s sad!
-MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
Just to put it out there, Boobuddy is a troll who makes threads but is not a part of the thread.
I hope in the future Boobuddy is banned from making threads until it demonstrates it will be a part of the thread, or that Boobuddy is only alllowed to comment on threads already living.
Boobuddy is a bit of a troll and should probably be banned.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Just to put it out there, Boobuddy is a troll who makes threads but is not a part of the thread.
I hope in the future Boobuddy is banned from making threads until it demonstrates it will be a part of the thread, or that Boobuddy is only alllowed to comment on threads already living.
Boobuddy is a bit of a troll and should probably be banned.[/quote]
Quick update, since it’s been a while. Despite the dire warnings and (apparently) against all statistical odds, my partner and I are still happily monogamous, healthy, and enjoying life after 3 years together. The same is true of every one of the gay couples we count as friends. From this thread, apparently it’s impossible for gay couples to actually be committed to one another instead of sleeping around…I guess we live in the twilight zone here in Dallas.
Not that I expect that to ameliorate anyone’s concern about the evil gay agenda, but there it is.
Zeb, I’m under no illusion that anything I say will ever change your mind, but I’m curious. All of your arguments have been focused on wanting to help gay men have healthier sex lives. Given that, do you have any problem with lesbians?
Zeb, I really resent how you generalize gays as some sort of homogenous group and then state that it’s an “unhealthy lifestyle.” I’ve been with my partner for a year and a half. We have both been tested and we still use protection even though there’s very very little chance either of us have any transmittable disease.
There are a lot of gays out there just like me, yet you insist on making generalizations about gays as a whole based solely off of the actions of certain individuals. For the record, I fully agree that if a person who knows that they are HIV positive has unprotected sex with another person, they should be sitting in prison for a while. What I don’t agree with is how you take the statistics on disease rates and conclude that homosexuality as a whole is an unhealthy lifestyle and compare it to alcoholism.
Bigotry is essentially overgeneralization. It is the willingness to extrapolate undesirable characteristics true of certain individuals in the population, in order to draw incorrect conclusions about the entire population. It is true for misogynists, it is true for racial bigots, and it is true for homophobes. They insist on ignoring the “exceptions to the rule” in order to justify discriminating against an entire class.
People like you and your partner, me and my partner, and every gay couple we count as friends don’t matter to these people. Unfortunately, no amount of objective argument will make any difference. I’ve come to accept that, and instead rely on the common sense of the majority, as people become progressively enlightened over time. It happened with other areas of bigotry, and it is happening in our lifetime with gays. Hang in there, it’s just a matter of time.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve come to accept that, and instead rely on the common sense of the majority, as people become progressively enlightened over time. It happened with other areas of bigotry, and it is happening in our lifetime with gays. Hang in there, it’s just a matter of time.[/quote]
This is what keeps me sane in the wake of all of the ridiculous bigoted things I continue to hear about gays as a whole. Regardless of your opinion, the way society views gays is changing and you’d have to be blind not to see it. Whether you like it or not, someday homophobes will be viewed in exactly the same way we currently view people who are still openly racist.
like heterosexuals, homosexuals should be allowed to marry
but
like heterosexuals, homosexuals should wait 2500+ years before having the right to divorce.
and obviously, during these 2500+ years, each gay family would only get one vote.
[quote]maxxbot wrote:
What I don’t agree with is how you take the statistics on disease rates and conclude that homosexuality as a whole is an unhealthy lifestyle and compare it to alcoholism.[/quote]
That is an unfair comparison, alcoholics, as a group are much healthier and live longer.
[quote]maxxbot wrote:
What I don’t agree with is how you take the statistics on disease rates and conclude that homosexuality as a whole is an unhealthy lifestyle and compare it to alcoholism.[/quote]
That is an unfair comparison, alcoholics, as a group are much healthier and live longer.
[/quote]
Sweet way to ignore everything me and forlife were trying to say and just repond to a tiny part of one of my posts.
It’s an unfair comparision because there are countless numbers of healthy monogamous gay couples whereas alcoholism is inherently unhealthy for anyone. I think it’s terrible that HIV is spread so easily via anal sex when compared to other forms of intercourse too but the solution isn’t to try to repress and eliminate homosexuality, that’s just not going to happen.
The biggest problem with your argument is that as I stated before, (and I’m now restating because you glossed over and ignored my post) gays are not some big homogenous group that you can make generalizations about. The solution to solving the HIV problem is not to eliminate homosexuality, which is impossible, it’s to get people to start getting tested on a regular basis and using protection.
What exactly do you think should be done about the HIV issue anyways?
