same sex marriage

[Cecilie1200]

It seems women are getting aids predominently from heterosexual activities, and men are getting it more from homosexual activity.

I dont think aids is a gay or straight disease, and its misguided to blame gays for aids.

we need a cure, even if 99 our of 100 gays were getting the disease, because we should value human life, period

Yup. This is because women are very likely to get AIDS from a husband or boyfriend who is secretly engaging in high-risk behavior.

It's not a matter of "blame", dear. It's matter of knowing what you're dealing with and being honest about it, precisely because one does not find treatments and cures by lying to oneself about the disease in question. Trying to pretend that homosexual activity doesn't put you at a high risk for HIV so that you don't "blame" homosexuals is like pretending smoking doesn't put you at high risk for lung cancer so that you don't "blame" smokers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thank You. I was having trouble finding the most up to date facts on aids.

Yes, you are correct, its predominently in females, from heterosexual activies.

I wonder why its still so high from homosexual activity in men

correction: it's 15% male transmission from heterosexual acts, and another 14% from IV drug use. in females, it's 74% from heterosexual acts
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/epidemiology/slides/EPI-AIDS_10.pdf

Because the membranes in the anus are highly conductive. That's one reason that anal suppositories are very popular methods for introducing medication into the body. Also, homosexual sex often tears the membranes, making open wounds for germs to then enter. I'm not sure, but I think IV drug users are also more often male than female. And, of course, lesbian sex generally does not include flesh-to-flesh penetration or the introduction of one person's bodily fluids into the body of the other person.

 

[Cecilie1200]

because of all the transfer methods of sexual practices, it's actually hardest for men to pick it up with vaginal intercourse (not that it's difficult, but just relative compared to the others)

I think that's because men with open wounds on their genitals are unlikely to feel like having sex, which in turn makes it difficult for germs present in the woman's body to enter the man's.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.

And how did they invent the epidemic in Africa, as that is where HIV originated?

As you can see, the vast majority of AIDS victims are in Africa, where over 20% of the population in certain countries are infected. People in southern Africa were dying from HIV for decades before western science identified the virus.

Not one of your brighter statements, Cecillie...

Actually, there's still a lot of argument about where it originated, at least among medical professionals. The general public, of course, hears a story repeated a few times and blithely accepts it as truth and goes on with it.

And yes, showing me a map repeating the story that there are lots of AIDS cases in Africa certainly proves the story that there are lots of AIDS cases in Africa . . . oh, wait. It doesn't, any more than YOU repeating it proves it.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Nice try, but no. Leftists have been telling us scare stories about heterosexual AIDS epidemics since Reagan was President, and it still stubbornly insists on clinging to high risk-behavior groups, of which homosexual males are one.

And, if it wasn't the government, who are these mysterious "leftists" you mention? Source? Anything?

I said "leftist", not government, fool, so try to at least PRETEND to read the posts before spouting off, okay?

Oh I see, it wasn't bit bad government plotting the conspiracy, it was the evil leftists! They all got together 20 years ago and tried to figure out how best to screw with Zuul.

What I believe, and the evidence bears me out, is that most of the so-called "AIDS cases" in Africa are, in fact, people suffering from other diseases entirely and being misdiagnosed as having AIDS to serve a political agenda.

WHO Weekly Epidemiological Record, No. 10, March 7, 1986

The evidence.... where? You mean that article from over two decades ago when our knowledge of hiv was miniscule? Or you mean the rapid blood tests we can do today that very quickly and accurately identify hiv markers? Please, put forth this "evidence".

 

[eagleseven]

For an alternative perspective, or "Why would anyone ever choose to be homosexual?":

1. There is a serious danger element, and danger is exciting. For many gay and bisexual men, they have family and/or friends who would likely be shocked at their orientation, and for some, it might even be career-ending (Larry Craig). For these men, choosing homosexuality is much like skydiving -- a massive thrill.

2. The underground homosexual community provides the same sense of belonging and intrigue as secret societies and organizations like the Free Masons. Even with today's gay-friendly media, a large portion of the subculture remains out of the public spotlight.

3. For whatever reason, said bisexual man finds it easier to bond and relate with men than women. Backstab a closeted bisexual enough, and he may just switch teams.

4. Said person is genuinely anti-conformist, and few behaviors still carry a stigma like male-male homosexual relationships. It's the one rebellious activity you won't find people doing on the MTV music awards.

5. Said person unintentionally falls in love with a same-sex friend, and finds his feelings overwhelm his rationality at an inopportune moment (likely when drunk).


Things to think about...

 

[Cecilie1200]

you are correct, I always wondered why that was, but i have heard the same so you are correct.

because of all the transfer methods of sexual practices, it's actually hardest for men to pick it up with vaginal intercourse (not that it's difficult, but just relative compared to the others)

HIV/AIDS is what is known as a "bloodborne pathogen", which means it is conveyed by contact of infected blood or other bodily fluids with an open wound. If, for example, a doctor gave a shot to a patient with HIV/AIDS and then accidentally stuck his finger with the used needle, he would be at risk for contracting HIV/AIDS himself. This is why intravenous drug users, like heroin addicts for example, are a high risk group.

Homosexual men are a high risk group because homosexual sex is invasive by definition, and because it frequently results in tearing of the anal membranes. Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the anal membranes are very conductive, absorbing things very easily, which is why anal suppositories are a very popular method of introducing medicine into the body.

On the other hand, a man contracting germs from a woman's body would pretty require that he have an open wound on his genitals for the germs to pass through. A man with an open wound on his genitals probably doesn't feel much like having sex, and the woman probably isn't going to be all that turned on by it, either.

 

[eagleseven]

The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.

And how did they invent the epidemic in Africa, as that is where HIV originated?

As you can see, the vast majority of AIDS victims are in Africa, where over 20% of the population in certain countries are infected. People in southern Africa were dying from HIV for decades before western science identified the virus.

Not one of your brighter statements, Cecillie...

Actually, there's still a lot of argument about where it originated, at least among medical professionals. The general public, of course, hears a story repeated a few times and blithely accepts it as truth and goes on with it.

And yes, showing me a map repeating the story that there are lots of AIDS cases in Africa certainly proves the story that there are lots of AIDS cases in Africa . . . oh, wait. It doesn't, any more than YOU repeating it proves it.

Is the World Health Organization part of this grand liberal conspiracy?

WHO | Global Health Observatory | Map Gallery

 

[Modbert]

Is the World Health Organization part of this grand liberal conspiracy?

WHO | Global Health Observatory | Map Gallery

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXyB7niEc0]YouTube - gooble gobble[/ame]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Their is an interesting fundamental question

are gays men made that way, do you have a choice to whom your attracted to.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

And ill give my opinion later

why in the world would anyone CHOOSE to endure the social ostracism that befalls homosexuals in America?

Yeah, because people never choose to be victims. Women never choose abusive husbands, minorities don't choose to waste their lives in poverty, bitching about how "the man" is keeping them down, deaf people don't choose to forego operations to restore their hearing . . . human beings NEVER choose things that are bad for them and make them miserable.

 

[eagleseven]

On the other hand, a man contracting germs from a woman's body would pretty require that he have an open wound on his genitals for the germs to pass through. A man with an open wound on his genitals probably doesn't feel much like having sex, and the woman probably isn't going to be all that turned on by it, either.

Shaving your pubic hair creates plenty of micro-cuts that are large enough to allow the transmission of HIV. If both partners regularly shave, they are putting themselves at a greater risk for all viral STIs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I dont know, what are peoples motivations to do anything?

for example, gay men that are effeminate, do they choose that way, or is that in their dna

what makes some gay men more masculine and some more effiminite

I wonder

Their is an interesting fundamental question

are gays men made that way, do you have a choice to whom your attracted to.

I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

And ill give my opinion later

why in the world would anyone CHOOSE to endure the social ostracism that befalls homosexuals in America?

I frankly don't think it matters. Even if homosexuality WAS genetic, lots of undesirable traits are, and it doesn't stop us from considering them undesirable or looking for ways to change them. Does anyone, for example, consider Down's Syndrome to be "just an alternative lifestyle"? Hell, most babies diagnosed in the womb with Down's Syndrome are aborted! Shows you how normal and acceptable THAT genetic condition is.

We know that certain things like alcoholism and mental illnesses like schizophrenia have genetic components and are hereditary. Does that stop us from disapproving of alcoholism and having therapy to help people deny their alcoholic behavior? Does it stop us from having medications to keep people from exhibiting schizophrenic behavior and make them act like other, non-schizophrenic people? Of course not.

So "genetic" clearly does not equal "normal" in other instances.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened. The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.

That just may top RGS's "people who commit suicide aren't looking for help" comment earlier in the week for stupidest comment all year.

Congratulations on being batshit insane.

Coming from you, that means . . . absolutely nothing. Next time, register your disapproval with someone 'batshit insane" enough to thinik your opinion matters.

 

[eagleseven]

Coming from you, that means . . . absolutely nothing. Next time, register your disapproval with someone 'batshit insane" enough to thinik your opinion matters.

Don't worry, he has...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/90440-so-is-cecilie-right-on-this-statement-poll-enclosed-2.html#post1585233

 

[Modbert]

Don't worry, he has...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/90440-so-is-cecilie-right-on-this-statement-poll-enclosed-2.html#post1585233

 

[Cecilie1200]

perhaps I am mistaken. When I volunteered with the local gay pride office, they said gays were not able to see their partners when they got sick.

Ill take your word, on the housing. Because it is illegal to discriminate, and i thought you couldnt leave money in a will, but i guess im wrong

my bad

They say a lot of things. It's called "lying to promote an agenda".

I am sure there are people who wind up unconscious in intensive care - a place where visitation is somewhat more restrictive - and their family/next of kin refuse to have their partners included on the visitation list because they don't approve of their homosexuality. However, this is a family problem, not a public policy problem, and legally sanctioned homosexual marriage ain't gonna make their families like their orientation any better. If one is in a position where he worries that his family will disregard his feelings and wishes when he is incapacitated, there are already a number of legal options readily available, such as living wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. It doesn't require legalized homosexual marriage to handle it.

I have no idea where you got the idea that people are prevented from putting any damned thing in their wills that they want. The law might refrain from imposing unreasonable behavior requirements on other people - like "you can have all my money if you never get married" or something like that - but it certainly doesn't tell you who your beneficiaries can be.

 

[Cecilie1200]

do they know how you feel about their homosexuality?

does it cause any friction?

curious

my dilemma is that I truly believe God: Hashem, Jesus, And Allah are against homosexuality.

I believe in some ways Im going against god, by condoning homosexuality/gay marriage.

on the other hand, I like gay people. They are a very accepting community. I volunteered for 5 months off and on with my local pride, and I want them to have the same basic rights

So do I tell god he is wrong, and accept gays or do I accept god's word without question

im honestly jealous of everyone on the board, cause this question seems easier for everyone else

I'm curious. Do you always think that liking someone means you have to agree with everything they do, say, and think, and that you have to support them when they're doing something you think is wrong?

I have many friends who are homosexual or bisexual, as well as transsexual and transgendered. I like them very much. I don't consider that the point here.

How I feel about their homosexuality? I don't feel anything about their homosexuality. It's none of my business who they choose to have sex with, live with, whatever with. You mistake a belief that legalized homosexual "marriage" is bad public policy with an opinion about homosexuality itself. But yes, my alternative friends are well aware that I am politically conservative and do not support legalized homosexual "marriage", just as I am aware that they DO support it. It does not change their feelings about me any more than their support changes my feelings about them. It doesn't cause friction because we are all mature, well-mannered adults, and therefore avoid conversations about politics, religion, and social issues, particularly those which can only cause hard feelings.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't just look at AIDS, you have to look at all STDs. Why? Because the rate is growing in the heterosexual community. The statistics you see now in other states, is where you will see the most AIDS in just a few more years. It's going to happen. It's unavoidable. Then, no one can say it's a "gay" disease.

Texas Citizens for Science

Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened. The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.

Seriously? You want to go with that? A lot of people are going to read that, maybe you want to edit it or something...

I'm supposed to avoid stating the truth simply because a lot of people are going to see it? Sounds to me like MORE reason to tell the truth.

 

[eagleseven]

Speaking of something that's twenty years out-of-date . . . haven't we been hearing that "soon most of the AIDS cases will be heterosexual, so you can't say it's a 'gay' disease" line almost since AIDS was first known, and it still hasn't happened. The left had to invent an epidemic of heterosexual AIDS in Africa to cover up the fact that it didn't happen.

Seriously? You want to go with that? A lot of people are going to read that, maybe you want to edit it or something...

I'm supposed to avoid stating the truth simply because a lot of people are going to see it? Sounds to me like MORE reason to tell the truth.

Someone get this woman a straightjacket...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously? You want to go with that? A lot of people are going to read that, maybe you want to edit it or something...

Too late for that:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...ie-right-on-this-statement-poll-enclosed.html

Only a dumbshit leftist thinks right and wrong are decided by a poll. Intelligent people know that the truth can't be voted out of being true.