First, I'm not sure why you cited this article in Wiki -- it seems to agree with me in general, but...
Second, I never, never, never use Wiki for anything more than a general, least-common denominator warts and all, highly inaccurate read on anything. Like, if I generally want to remember the name of the right fielder playing with Pee Wee Reese in 1958 or something like that. It'll usually give me a place to start (as it'll help job my memory). But if I actually want that ball player's statistics, I go to the source.
I was doing articles on AIDS/HIV since 1989, so I go with my original sources over Wiki. And really, AIDS is hardly just a "homosexual disease."
Oops -- sorry Londor -- I thought it was mystic (didn't read close enough)... never mind.
OMFG... more proof of ignorance. Ever hear of heterosexuals getting AIDS? Ever hear of the ratio of straight to gays having AIDS in Africa? Maybe we shouldn't allow Africans to marry! Dumbfuck.
Quote:
[Regarding consent, likely in regard to paedophilia] not in all cultures
We're not talking about cultural or religious thought here. We're talking about fact.
Quote:
You obviously don't know anything about Polygamy
Please explain this comment. I do know that cases of preferred polygamy (in Mormon and Islamic cultures), 99% of the time it is one man to multiple wives, who are in 100% servitude to the husband. There are a few tiny tribes in Africa where one woman "marries" multiple men, but that is such an extreme outlier that it cannot be used to justify that polygamy is a game of equality.
Quote:
engaging in deviant sexual practices is not a right.
Of course it is!!!!!! As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and as long as it is consentual and private, you can fuck your blind partner's empty eye socket for all anyone else is concerned. It is a matter of privacy and personal rights.
Meanwhile, your definition of "deviant" is just that... yours. Not anyone else's. You absolutely have no RIGHT to force your definition on anyone else. For me, anal sex and oral sex and group sex and multiple partners is not "deviant". It is private. Most of those things I choose not to practice, not because of some "morality", but simply because I'm not interested myself. Just because I don't like anal sex, doesn't mean I have the right to stop you from practicing it, if it is what both you and your partner want to do.
This has nothing to do with "morality" for you people. It has to do with control. Quite simply, you want to control others to do what you approve of, as if you are the morality police.
Newsflash. If you are Christian, you are not the morality police. Neither is your Church. By the word of the Bible, only God can take that role. Unless you are not really a true Christian.
If you are not Christian, than ask yourself this... who has the right to tell you who YOU can love? No one? Then why the FUCK do you think you have that right with regard to others?
Of course it is!!!!!! As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and as long as it is consensual and private, you can f*** your blind partner's empty eye socket for all anyone else is concerned. It is a matter of privacy and personal rights.
You made my evening with that one. But tell me: do you have to use some sort of lubricant first? The new KY his & hers might be good if you both were blind. Or maybe a different color for each eye? Boy, my brain is whirring.
Lie? Is English your second, or maybe third language?
I asked whether you supported interracial marriage.
You did not say you supported it.
You did not say you were against it.
Nevertheless, you said you answered the question.
Lie.
An answer to the question would be saying "I was in support of interracial marriage when some states still opposed it." or "I was against national law to prevent states from banning interracial marriage."
So which is it?
You did not answer the question.
You said you answered the question, when what you did was avoid it.
You lied. You really sounded just like the kind of Republican the "majority" just kicked out of Washington.
First, I'm not sure why you cited this article in Wiki -- it seems to agree with me in general, but...
Second, I never, never, never use Wiki for anything more than a general, least-common denominator warts and all, highly inaccurate read on anything. Like, if I generally want to remember the name of the right fielder playing with Pee Wee Reese in 1958 or something like that. It'll usually give me a place to start (as it'll help job my memory). But if I actually want that ball player's statistics, I go to the source.
I was doing articles on AIDS/HIV since 1989, so I go with my original sources over Wiki. And really, AIDS is hardly just a "homosexual disease."
Oops -- sorry Londor -- I thought it was mystic (didn't read close enough)... never mind.
I asked whether you supported interracial marriage.
You did not say you supported it.
You did not say you were against it.
Nevertheless, you said you answered the question.
Lie.
An answer to the question would be saying "I was in support of interracial marriage when some states still opposed it." or "I was against national law to prevent states from banning interracial marriage."
So which is it?
You did not answer the question.
You said you answered the question, when what you did was avoid it.
You lied. You really sounded just like the kind of Republican the "majority" just kicked out of Washington.
Your questions are not pertinent to this thread, you're trying to spin it somewhere that suits you, with your irrelevant questions. Try to stay on topic.
AIDS is not specific to homosexuals... but you already knew that.
Quote:
engaging in deviant sexual practices is not a right.
I've been waiting for someone to bring this up.
Deviant sexual practices eh? What homosexuals do sexually with one another is hardly specific to homosexuals. The only thing you can say is different is anal sex is more common with homosexuals than it is with heterosexuals, but again, it is not something that only homosexuals practice.
And quite frankly, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not anybody else's business and is most certainly a right.
EVERYONE now a-days is at risk. It's a shame, because years ago sex was not a gamble with a death sentence (once antibiotics were around at least). But even if I take your chart as accurate, that's only a 2 to 1 difference, and that's hardly close to an order of magnitude or anything really stigmatizing. It's obviously a risk to everyone who has sex. One of the statistics that very rarely is brought up in conversations like this are that partners in long-term gay relationships (where neither partner is infected to begin with) have a lower percentage of contracting AID/HIV than partners in long-term hetero relationships. An interesting statistic which is not examined in your chart.
The homosexual population is trying to change the definition of the word "marriage" If Homosexuals can change the definition of the word "marriage then any other group should be able to as well. The word "marriage" has a specific definition. If it is changeable (at the wim of a minority) then it is changeable to anything. How about incest? The same arguments can be made for incest.
And again, you cannot answer the question so you either: 1. conveniently ignore it 2. try to deflect or 3. start to insult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
Your questions are not pertinent to this thread, you're trying to spin it somewhere that suits you, with your irrelevant questions. Try to stay on topic.
It's not "gay sex" that allows for the transmission of HIV. It's unsafe sex (and other non-sexual acts such as needle sharing) that increases the rate of HIV transmission.
Many gay couples do not engage in anal intercourse and many heterosexual couple do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
45% isn't a high enough number to call gay sex high risk? I'll bet you like to play Russian roulette.
EVERYONE now a-days is at risk. It's a shame, because years ago sex was not a gamble with a death sentence (once antibiotics were around at least). But even if I take your chart as accurate, that's only a 2 to 1 difference, and that's hardly close to an order of magnitude or anything really stigmatizing. It's obviously a risk to everyone who has sex. One of the statistics that very rarely is brought up in conversations like this are that partners in long-term gay relationships (where neither partner is infected to begin with) have a lower percentage of contracting AID/HIV than partners in long-term hetero relationships. An interesting statistic which is not examined in your chart.
I was just pointing out that there ARE health risks. (and I think I proved this point.)
Your questions are not pertinent to this thread, you're trying to spin it somewhere that suits you, with your irrelevant questions. Try to stay on topic.
The question is very pertinent to this thread since you are the one using the "redefining marriage" claim to support your weak argument.
No, actually, you were originally trying to suggest that these health risks are only linked to homosexual sex. When you were corrected, then you posted this chart from the CDC, which is unfortunately labeled because it is NOT "45% male to male sexual contact" but rather "45% high risk male to male sexual contact" and all these values become ZERO if none of the people are HIV+ to begin with... again meaning it is not a homosexual disease.
The way you presented it originally, one could easily have said the same thing about being Black:
or being male:
So are there also health risks simply for being black or male?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic
I was just pointing out that there ARE health risks. (and I think I proved this point.)
I was just pointing out that there ARE health risks. (and I think I proved this point.)
No one was arguing that there weren't -- but I think the original poster was trying to say that there were really no differences (in health risk) for gays in particular. You had come back and said there were, and your "proving of a point" simply showed that. So, in fact, you proved his point, actually.
But now, though it's been wonderful chatting with everyone on a truly important topic (though some would claim the lack of firewire on the latest MB more so), I have half a Roller Derby team, three mangoes, a can of whip cream, and if they somehow corralled my German Shepard from out back, all waiting for me in the other room. Sweet dreams to all, and to all a good night.
But now, though it's been wonderful chatting with everyone on a truly important topic (though some would claim the lack of firewire on the latest MB more so), I have half a Roller Derby team, three mangoes, a can of whip cream, and if they somehow corralled my German Shepard from out back, all waiting for me in the other room. Sweet dreams to all, and to all a good night.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
@Mystic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
First, I'm not sure why you cited this article in Wiki -- it seems to agree with me in general, but...
Second, I never, never, never use Wiki for anything more than a general, least-common denominator warts and all, highly inaccurate read on anything. Like, if I generally want to remember the name of the right fielder playing with Pee Wee Reese in 1958 or something like that. It'll usually give me a place to start (as it'll help job my memory). But if I actually want that ball player's statistics, I go to the source.
I was doing articles on AIDS/HIV since 1989, so I go with my original sources over Wiki. And really, AIDS is hardly just a "homosexual disease."
Oops -- sorry Londor -- I thought it was mystic (didn't read close enough)... never mind.
OMFG... more proof of ignorance. Ever hear of heterosexuals getting AIDS? Ever hear of the ratio of straight to gays having AIDS in Africa? Maybe we shouldn't allow Africans to marry!
[Regarding consent, likely in regard to paedophilia] not in all cultures
We're not talking about cultural or religious thought here. We're talking about fact.
You obviously don't know anything about Polygamy
Please explain this comment. I do know that cases of preferred polygamy (in Mormon and Islamic cultures), 99% of the time it is one man to multiple wives, who are in 100% servitude to the husband. There are a few tiny tribes in Africa where one woman "marries" multiple men, but that is such an extreme outlier that it cannot be used to justify that polygamy is a game of equality.
engaging in deviant sexual practices is not a right.
Of course it is!!!!!! As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and as long as it is consentual and private, you can fuck your blind partner's empty eye socket for all anyone else is concerned. It is a matter of privacy and personal rights.
Meanwhile, your definition of "deviant" is just that... yours. Not anyone else's. You absolutely have no RIGHT to force your definition on anyone else. For me, anal sex and oral sex and group sex and multiple partners is not "deviant". It is private. Most of those things I choose not to practice, not because of some "morality", but simply because I'm not interested myself. Just because I don't like anal sex, doesn't mean I have the right to stop you from practicing it, if it is what both you and your partner want to do.
This has nothing to do with "morality" for you people. It has to do with control. Quite simply, you want to control others to do what you approve of, as if you are the morality police.
Newsflash. If you are Christian, you are not the morality police. Neither is your Church. By the word of the Bible, only God can take that role. Unless you are not really a true Christian.
If you are not Christian, than ask yourself this... who has the right to tell you who YOU can love? No one? Then why the FUCK do you think you have that right with regard to others?
Of course it is!!!!!! As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and as long as it is consensual and private, you can f*** your blind partner's empty eye socket for all anyone else is concerned. It is a matter of privacy and personal rights.
You made my evening with that one.
Lie? Is English your second, or maybe third language?
I asked whether you supported interracial marriage.
You did not say you supported it.
You did not say you were against it.
Nevertheless, you said you answered the question.
Lie.
An answer to the question would be saying "I was in support of interracial marriage when some states still opposed it." or "I was against national law to prevent states from banning interracial marriage."
So which is it?
You did not answer the question.
You said you answered the question, when what you did was avoid it.
You lied. You really sounded just like the kind of Republican the "majority" just kicked out of Washington.
First, I'm not sure why you cited this article in Wiki -- it seems to agree with me in general, but...
Second, I never, never, never use Wiki for anything more than a general, least-common denominator warts and all, highly inaccurate read on anything. Like, if I generally want to remember the name of the right fielder playing with Pee Wee Reese in 1958 or something like that. It'll usually give me a place to start (as it'll help job my memory). But if I actually want that ball player's statistics, I go to the source.
I was doing articles on AIDS/HIV since 1989, so I go with my original sources over Wiki. And really, AIDS is hardly just a "homosexual disease."
Oops -- sorry Londor -- I thought it was mystic (didn't read close enough)... never mind.
I didn't say it was, but you can't say that there are no health risks for those that engage in that behavior. this.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei...ted_states.htm
Is the CDC a good enough source?
Where is the definition of "high risk" to go with that graph? Is eye-socket sex included?
I asked whether you supported interracial marriage.
You did not say you supported it.
You did not say you were against it.
Nevertheless, you said you answered the question.
Lie.
An answer to the question would be saying "I was in support of interracial marriage when some states still opposed it." or "I was against national law to prevent states from banning interracial marriage."
So which is it?
You did not answer the question.
You said you answered the question, when what you did was avoid it.
You lied. You really sounded just like the kind of Republican the "majority" just kicked out of Washington.
Your questions are not pertinent to this thread, you're trying to spin it somewhere that suits you, with your irrelevant questions. Try to stay on topic.
And you can't say there are not health risks for engaging in heterosexual contact, either.
Where is the definition of "high risk" to go with that graph? Is eye-socket sex included?
45% isn't a high enough number to call gay sex high risk? I'll bet you like to play Russian roulette.
AIDS is not specific to homosexuals... but you already knew that.
engaging in deviant sexual practices is not a right.
I've been waiting for someone to bring this up.
Deviant sexual practices eh? What homosexuals do sexually with one another is hardly specific to homosexuals. The only thing you can say is different is anal sex is more common with homosexuals than it is with heterosexuals, but again, it is not something that only homosexuals practice.
And quite frankly, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is not anybody else's business and is most certainly a right.
I didn't say it was, but you can't say that there are no health risks to those that engage in that behavior. this.http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/survei...ted_states.htm
EVERYONE now a-days is at risk. It's a shame, because years ago sex was not a gamble with a death sentence (once antibiotics were around at least). But even if I take your chart as accurate, that's only a 2 to 1 difference, and that's hardly close to an order of magnitude or anything really stigmatizing. It's obviously a risk to everyone who has sex. One of the statistics that very rarely is brought up in conversations like this are that partners in long-term gay relationships (where neither partner is infected to begin with) have a lower percentage of contracting AID/HIV than partners in long-term hetero relationships. An interesting statistic which is not examined in your chart.
The homosexual population is trying to change the definition of the word "marriage" If Homosexuals can change the definition of the word "marriage then any other group should be able to as well. The word "marriage" has a specific definition. If it is changeable (at the wim of a minority) then it is changeable to anything. How about incest? The same arguments can be made for incest.
I didn't say it was, but you can't say that there are no health risks to those that engage in that behavior.
Do not fool yourself. There are risks to anyone who engages in unsafe sex whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.
Your questions are not pertinent to this thread, you're trying to spin it somewhere that suits you, with your irrelevant questions. Try to stay on topic.
Many gay couples do not engage in anal intercourse and many heterosexual couple do.
45% isn't a high enough number to call gay sex high risk? I'll bet you like to play Russian roulette.
EVERYONE now a-days is at risk. It's a shame, because years ago sex was not a gamble with a death sentence (once antibiotics were around at least). But even if I take your chart as accurate, that's only a 2 to 1 difference, and that's hardly close to an order of magnitude or anything really stigmatizing. It's obviously a risk to everyone who has sex. One of the statistics that very rarely is brought up in conversations like this are that partners in long-term gay relationships (where neither partner is infected to begin with) have a lower percentage of contracting AID/HIV than partners in long-term hetero relationships. An interesting statistic which is not examined in your chart.
I was just pointing out that there ARE health risks. (and I think I proved this point.)
Your questions are not pertinent to this thread, you're trying to spin it somewhere that suits you, with your irrelevant questions. Try to stay on topic.
The question is very pertinent to this thread since you are the one using the "redefining marriage" claim to support your weak argument.
The way you presented it originally, one could easily have said the same thing about being Black:
or being male:
So are there also health risks simply for being black or male?
I was just pointing out that there ARE health risks. (and I think I proved this point.)
I was just pointing out that there ARE health risks. (and I think I proved this point.)
No one was arguing that there weren't -- but I think the original poster was trying to say that there were really no differences (in health risk) for gays in particular. You had come back and said there were, and your "proving of a point" simply showed that. So, in fact, you proved his point, actually.
But now, though it's been wonderful chatting with everyone on a truly important topic (though some would claim the lack of firewire on the latest MB more so), I have half a Roller Derby team, three mangoes, a can of whip cream, and if they somehow corralled my German Shepard from out back, all waiting for me in the other room. Sweet dreams to all, and to all a good night.
But now, though it's been wonderful chatting with everyone on a truly important topic (though some would claim the lack of firewire on the latest MB more so), I have half a Roller Derby team, three mangoes, a can of whip cream, and if they somehow corralled my German Shepard from out back, all waiting for me in the other room. Sweet dreams to all, and to all a good night.