Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My turn:
Now, you can either learn that information or kill yourself, because if you don't know how to learn then you are entirely useless to the human race.
75% of new infectees are gay or IDU. Of the remaining 25%, 2/3 were women, mostly black women. That leaves about 11% and since sexual activity is self reported (i.e. men engaged in gay sex but wouldn't tell anyone) I'd say you proved our case pretty well.
What case, you dumb fuck? You're trying to claim that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. That's not at all what the CDC says, that's just how you want to read it.
The rate of new HIV infections is higher among homosexuals and the black community. That's what the CDC says.
CDC ? HIV in the United States ? Statistics Overview ? Statistics Center ? HIV/AIDS
You read this as "proof" that AIDS can't be spread among heterosexuals.
POST ONE LINK which states that "heterosexual women have to have unprotected sex with an infected person multiple times before contracting the disease."
POST ONE LINK which states that "40 million people have died from AIDS".
POST ONE LINK to back up your stupid fucking ignorant bullshit.
The reason AIDS is not "exploding" is that, contrary to public belief, it is a disease that is extraordinarily difficult to transmit or contract, even by the standards of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Whereas mere juxtaposition of genitalia is enough to transmit syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes simplex 11, and chlamydia, all of which require only direct contact with the mucous membrane, HIV (like hepatitis B) is bloodborne, the most inefficient mode of transmission an STD can enjoy. A sore, even an undetectably small one such as often accompanies herpes, might offer a passageway for these viruses, but some sort of passageway is needed and in the case of most Americans such passageways do not exist.
Even where they do, moreover, AIDS is more difficult to contract than, for example, hepatitis B. Thus, while approximately 27 percent of hospital workers who have accidentally been stuck with hepatitis B-contaminated needles contract the disease, HIV infection occurs in less than I percent of those stuck with HIV-contaminated needles. One hapless worker who was stuck with a needle containing both the hepatitis B virus and HIV quickly developed the former but remained free of HIV-indicating antibodies.
That HIV is a bloodborne virus obviously explains the high incidence of AIDS among hemophiliacs and intravenous drug users who share needles, as well as among homosexuals. (Hepatitis B has also primarily plagued homosexuals and IV drug abusers, as opposed to heterosexuals. From 35 to 80 percent of homosexual men attending STD clinics, and 60 to 80 percent of IV drug users, are found to be carrying hepatitis B.)
Why homosexuals? Because with sexually-transmitted AIDS, the overwhelming risk factor, especially for the passive or recipient partner, is anal sex. According to B. Frank Polk, director of the Johns Hopkins University’s component of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, "In gay men, 95 percent or more of the infections occur from receptive anal intercourse." A study published in the April 1987 American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) found that of 240 men who became infected over the course of the study, all but four had engaged in receptive anal sex.
The reason anal as opposed to vaginal sex is so dangerous has to do with the difference in tissue construction between the male urethra and rectum and the female vagina. While the vagina is constructed of tough platelike cells that resist rupture and infections agents, and are designed to withstand the motions of intercourse and childbirth, the urethra and rectum are constructed primarily of columnar cells which tear or rupture easily. This allows semen to enter the more readily accessible blood vessels of the rectum or, conversely but much more rarely, allows blood from a ruptured rectum to seep into the urethra of the active partner. (The April 1987 AJPH study found that men who reported rectal bleeding were far more likely to become HIV positive than those who did not.)
There are other factors in the AIDS-anal sex connection. The vagina provides natural lubrication, whereas there is little in the anus. Anal douching, a practice many homosexuals engage in prior to intercourse, can remove what lubrication there is. The absence of lubrication not only increases the chance of rupture, but at the same time it reduces the efficiency of condoms by allowing them to tear.
At the height of the AIDS hysteria, condoms were venerated to a point of virtually becoming deities. For heterosexuals, condoms are extremely effective in preventing all forms of sexually transmissible diseases, from the nonlethal but bothersome and incurable herpes simplex 11 to the deadly AIDS virus. But even the condom, which many have touted as the way to turn unsafe homosexual sex into safe sex, has an alarmingly high breakdown rate during anal intercourse. According to one Australian study reported in the July 1987 AJPH, 27 percent of homosexuals using condoms reported "a few" or "many" breaks, with an additional 4 percent indicating "other problems" with condom strength.
Discussing the sexual transmission of AIDS without mentioning homosexual behavior in general and anal sex in particular is like discussing syphilis without mentioning intercourse. But this is precisely what the media and other responsible authorities do. Most articles and wire-service stories on AIDS do not so much as mention the words anal sex, much less indicate that it is the overwhelming risk factor. Similarly, one AIDS book designed for use by elementary-school students refers to heterosexual sex while making no reference to homosexuality, and one sex-education text formerly distributed in Seattle took the final step by stating that "AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease."
You have zero ability to judge what is rational, zero.You keep on repeating that like a mantra. You might as well add: A marriage license isssued by a state is a bilateral contract between a man and a woman.
BINGO! The gay marriage tards want us to ignore one part of the law, but keep the rest. However, they have no rational justification.
It is a bi-lateral contract that establishes a new legal entity. A next of kin relationship. It should not be excluded to those who love one another and want to establish that next of kin relationship simply because there are individuals who find their relationship "icky". That is not a standard by which rights are excluded. If no laws are being broken, sentiment cannot repress rights. Popular rights don't require such fervent protections. Unpopular rights do because there are folks who would arbitrate based on their own limited standards.You keep on repeating that like a mantra. You might as well add: A marriage license isssued by a state is a bilateral contract between a man and a woman.A marriage license is issued by the state as a bi-lateral contract. If a group wants to establish a contract between them, the protections of the marriage license does not extend to that particular contract.You are just making stuff up. A contract is not limited to two parties, it's whoever wants to sign the contract. Many rental leases have more than two parties, for example. There never was a block to two men or more in making up a legal contract between themselves. Gay marriage is designed to promote the idea that there is no significant difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. And the last I heard, people are still being made the old fashioned way.
Marriage is a contract establishing a new legal entity. It is a bi-lateral contract. That means two people and only two people. Polygamy is a separate issue as it is not, by definition, bi-lateral.My analogy shows that no matter what, the Conservatives can be relied upon to provide resistance to the notion of equal justice under law and personal freedoms for all American citizens.
wrong, conservatives want everyone to have equal justice, freedom,rights, and opportunity. Everyone equal, no special rights.
BTW, marriage is not a right. Society as a whole decides what the word "marriage" means. How do you feel about bigamy and polygamy? better think about it, because if gay marriage is allowed then there is absolutely no legal defense to block all forms of "marriage".
Why would you deny the rights and beliefs and justice to a man and 3 women who are committed to each other and want to marry? That will be the argument, get ready.
If two sober, tax paying, law abiding adults without an existing next of kin relationship want to legally establish that next of kin relationship, what real harm will befall all other marriages? Will they be rendered legally exempt?
You don't say that heterosexuals can't get AIDS? "The chances are virtually zero." Yeah, stupid ignorant fuck, that's saying that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. You're saying that heterosexuals have to TRY to get AIDS. That's fucking retarded and not based on any science at all.75% of new infectees are gay or IDU. Of the remaining 25%, 2/3 were women, mostly black women. That leaves about 11% and since sexual activity is self reported (i.e. men engaged in gay sex but wouldn't tell anyone) I'd say you proved our case pretty well.
What case, you dumb fuck? You're trying to claim that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. That's not at all what the CDC says, that's just how you want to read it.
The rate of new HIV infections is higher among homosexuals and the black community. That's what the CDC says.
CDC ? HIV in the United States ? Statistics Overview ? Statistics Center ? HIV/AIDS
You read this as "proof" that AIDS can't be spread among heterosexuals.
POST ONE LINK which states that "heterosexual women have to have unprotected sex with an infected person multiple times before contracting the disease."
POST ONE LINK which states that "40 million people have died from AIDS".
POST ONE LINK to back up your stupid fucking ignorant bullshit.
So now you're reduced to the straw man fallacy. No one said straught men could not get AIDS. That's a fabrication on your part.
AIDS is primarily a disease of gay men and drug abusers in this country. That has been proven conclusively, even by your links. That was the claim. It has been supported. Now on to the next time you get pwned.
A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.A marriage license is issued by the state as a bi-lateral contract. If a group wants to establish a contract between them, the protections of the marriage license does not extend to that particular contract.You are just making stuff up. A contract is not limited to two parties, it's whoever wants to sign the contract. Many rental leases have more than two parties, for example. There never was a block to two men or more in making up a legal contract between themselves. Gay marriage is designed to promote the idea that there is no significant difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. And the last I heard, people are still being made the old fashioned way.
In many states that is still true, and will be fixed shortly.You might as well add: A marriage license isssued by a state is a bilateral contract between a man and a woman.
Another problem is the Constitutional requirement for states to honor contracts issued in other states. If Massachucetts says you are married, how can Texas say you are not?
A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.A marriage license is issued by the state as a bi-lateral contract. If a group wants to establish a contract between them, the protections of the marriage license does not extend to that particular contract.You are just making stuff up. A contract is not limited to two parties, it's whoever wants to sign the contract. Many rental leases have more than two parties, for example. There never was a block to two men or more in making up a legal contract between themselves. Gay marriage is designed to promote the idea that there is no significant difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. And the last I heard, people are still being made the old fashioned way.
You don't say that heterosexuals can't get AIDS? "The chances are virtually zero." Yeah, stupid ignorant fuck, that's saying that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. You're saying that heterosexuals have to TRY to get AIDS. That's fucking retarded and not based on any science at all.What case, you dumb fuck? You're trying to claim that heterosexuals can't get AIDS. That's not at all what the CDC says, that's just how you want to read it.
The rate of new HIV infections is higher among homosexuals and the black community. That's what the CDC says.
CDC ? HIV in the United States ? Statistics Overview ? Statistics Center ? HIV/AIDS
You read this as "proof" that AIDS can't be spread among heterosexuals.
POST ONE LINK which states that "heterosexual women have to have unprotected sex with an infected person multiple times before contracting the disease."
POST ONE LINK which states that "40 million people have died from AIDS".
POST ONE LINK to back up your stupid fucking ignorant bullshit.
So now you're reduced to the straw man fallacy. No one said straught men could not get AIDS. That's a fabrication on your part.
AIDS is primarily a disease of gay men and drug abusers in this country. That has been proven conclusively, even by your links. That was the claim. It has been supported. Now on to the next time you get pwned.
Just because HIV infections are higher in the gay community doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of heterosexuals contracting the disease each year. In fact, according to the CDC, the rate of heterosexuals contracting the disease is higher than that of drug users.
AIDS, we have been told, is not just a "gay disease," or a disease of intravenous (IV) drug abusers passing contaminated needles.
It can break out into the general heterosexual population at any time, and when it does it will become (in the words of one concerned clergyman) "a national disaster as great as a thermonuclear war."
Indeed, to judge by a poll taken last May indicating that AIDS has replaced cancer as the nation’s most feared disease, it would seem that most Americans believe the "breakout" has already occurred.
Well they might, if they have been following the lead of our major newsmagazines:
Most articles like the ones from which these quotations come tend to begin with anecdotes, then to add a few statistics showing that the incidence of AIDS among heterosexuals has doubled in the past two years, then to cite experts predicting the rate will soon rise much higher.
- Newsweek, April 18, 1983: "AIDS is creeping out of its well-defined, epidemiological confines..."
- Life, July 1985 (cover): "Now No One Is Safe From AIDS."
- Time, August 12, 1985: the threat to heterosexuals appears to be growing."
- U.S. News & World Report, January 12, 1987: "The disease of them is suddenly the disease of us. The slow death presumed just a few years ago to be confined to homosexuals, Haitians, and hemophiliacs is now a plague of the mainstream, finding fertile growth among heterosexuals."
- Time, February 16, 1987: "The proportion of heterosexual cases . . . is increasing at a worrisome rate. . . . The numbers as yet are small, but AIDS is a growing threat to the heterosexual population."
- U.S. News & World Report, April 20, 1987: "Now, however, the disease is spreading so rapidly beyond homosexuals and drug abusers that the old rules no longer apply."
- U.S. News & World Report, June 15, 1987: "With an approximate seven-to-ten year latency period before the symptoms become evident, compelling evidence of a breakout of AIDS may come too late. That’s a ’breakout’ into what the government calls ’the general population.’ That’s you, Mr. President. That’s heterosexuals. Put most simply: AIDS is a fatal disease-always-and everyone is at risk."
Clearly such articles have taken their toll in terror, as clinics that test for the AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) have reported being swamped by heterosexuals. Yet the very figures used to demonstrate the supposed spread of AIDS into the general population also happen to illustrate the old saying about lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Thus, we may read that heterosexual AIDS victims at one time comprised 2 percent of the total, but that this figure has now doubled to 4, and that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta predict that by 1991 it will have increased to 9 percent. What we are not told is that the jump from 2 to 4 percent came about not through an increase in the number of victims but by a lumping together of two different categories of victim which had previously been kept distinct-native-born Americans (2 percent) and Africans and Haitians who have recently moved to the United States.
CDC originally classified the recently arrived Africans and Haitians as a separate category unto themselves, because it appeared that the disease was following a different pattern in their native countries from that in the United States. As the classification turned into a stereotype, however, the Haitian government lobbied the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a subunit of the U.S. Public Health Service, to "redesignate" this category.
At first the Haitian-African groups were shifted to the cases labeled "undetermined." But in July 1986 CDC arbitrarily placed them into the heterosexual category-despite strong evidence that many of the Haitians probably acquired the illness homosexually and that much of the transmission among Africans was also not attributable to heterosexual activity. The supposed 100-percent jump from 2 to 4 percent in the number of heterosexual transmissions was thus nothing more than a statistical artifact.
As for the figure of 9 percent, this comes from the Coolfont conference held in June 1986. Within four months of that conference, two papers presented at it were released in Public Health Reports. One, by CDC’s chief statistician Meade Morgan and CDC’s AIDS program director James Curran, predicted that by 1991 the heterosexual-transmission category will have increased from 4 to 5.3 percent. The other, published anonymously but under the official title of "The Coolfont Report," put the percentage at 9. The media have almost universally ignored the lower in favor of the much more ominous higher figure.
This 9-percent figure, however, includes an entirely new set of cases, those in which the origin of exposure is unexplained. In this category are patients who either have no idea what the source of contact was, blame prostitutes, refuse to be interviewed, or have died. Because some scientists think a portion of these unexplained cases is attributable to heterosexual contact, the statistician who created the 9-percent figure simply aggregated them all to form a "worst-case" projection.
Yet how many, if any, of the unexplained cases belong in the heterosexual category is surely debatable, and the fact that our public-health authorities would classify all as heterosexual transmissions is, to put it mildly, curious. When I asked Dr. Morgan about this he replied that "the report was prepared in only a day and a half to two days," that "it was probably an omission" not to state explicitly that cases of undetermined origin had been lumped together with the heterosexuals, but that "if somebody called we’d set them straight." Virtually no one has called.
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop is among those who have asserted that AIDS is "exploding" into the heterosexual population. In one magazine interview he estimated that AIDS cases overall were "going to increase ninefold between now and 1990. But among heterosexuals there are going to be twenty times as many cases, so that perhaps 10 percent of the patients will be heterosexual." He said that "the curve for heterosexuals contracting AIDS is going up more than twice as fast because they are not taking the precautions homosexuals have learned are essential." But the real reason the curve is going up "twice as fast" is to be sought elsewhere, in the aforementioned shoddy statistical practices.
The only plausible argument that has been offered for expecting an "explosion" into the heterosexual population rests on the fact that the average incubation period for the HIV infection to become either AIDS or AIDS-related complex (ARC)* is thought to be about five to seven years; hence, heretofore hidden infections contracted in 1982 might suddenly show up in 1987. But the word "average" means exactly that: the cases making up the average incubate in anywhere from several months to perhaps ten years or more. Hence, infectious contacts made in 1982 will show up a few percent a year each year up to and well past the five-year point, not suddenly and all at once.
[*ARC includes diseases that occur as a result of the weakened condition of the patient whose immunological system has been damaged by HIV.]
This is why CDC’s chief epidemiologist, Dr. Harold Jaffe, has stated that "Those who are suggesting that we are going to see an explosive spread of AIDS in the heterosexual population have to explain why this isn’t happening." The question needs to be asked first of all of Dr. Jaffe’s boss, the Surgeon General.
In many states that is still true, and will be fixed shortly.You might as well add: A marriage license isssued by a state is a bilateral contract between a man and a woman.
Yes, teh Supreme Court will rule that the 10th Amendment actually means something and that states have traditionally and rightly set marriage criteria.
Yes, it can be. Not all "traditions" are worthy or have any rational basis, and we shouldn't base our laws on such things regardless.You have zero ability to judge what is rational, zero.BINGO! The gay marriage tards want us to ignore one part of the law, but keep the rest. However, they have no rational justification.
So saying we should ignore one tradition and not another is "rational?"
There is nothing in the US Constitution defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. That's just your religious fantasy. Marriage is a contract between two people, recognized by the nation in which they live.
If two drunks who just met can get married at a drive-through window then marriage is not as sacred as you think it is.
One reason to at least think twice before voting Republican is to consider the company you would be joining, as represented here.
One reason to vote Democrat is defend the liberal principles of the Founders, not thar Democrats always honor them. They just honor them more than Republicans do.
A marriage license is still limited to a male/female union in most states but has changed in others. So what it was doesn't matter. What you are really saying is that it can only change the way you want and there's no logical basis for it. If it can be changed to include same genders that obviously it can be changed to whatever. There's no Constitutional basis to limit a state to two people anymore than regulating genders.A marriage license is issued by the state as a bi-lateral contract. If a group wants to establish a contract between them, the protections of the marriage license does not extend to that particular contract.You are just making stuff up. A contract is not limited to two parties, it's whoever wants to sign the contract. Many rental leases have more than two parties, for example. There never was a block to two men or more in making up a legal contract between themselves. Gay marriage is designed to promote the idea that there is no significant difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. And the last I heard, people are still being made the old fashioned way.
Aberration? There it is! You oppose marriage equality because you find homosexuality icky. Is that a legitimate basis to deny rights? Are you the arbiter of icky? What other human conditions do you find abhorrant? What other set of law abiding citizens should we shun?Marriage is a contract establishing a new legal entity. It is a bi-lateral contract. That means two people and only two people. Polygamy is a separate issue as it is not, by definition, bi-lateral.wrong, conservatives want everyone to have equal justice, freedom,rights, and opportunity. Everyone equal, no special rights.
BTW, marriage is not a right. Society as a whole decides what the word "marriage" means. How do you feel about bigamy and polygamy? better think about it, because if gay marriage is allowed then there is absolutely no legal defense to block all forms of "marriage".
Why would you deny the rights and beliefs and justice to a man and 3 women who are committed to each other and want to marry? That will be the argument, get ready.
If two sober, tax paying, law abiding adults without an existing next of kin relationship want to legally establish that next of kin relationship, what real harm will befall all other marriages? Will they be rendered legally exempt?
whose definition of marriage are you relying on? in many cultures marriage can include one man and multiple women, in some one woman and multiple men. It the USA marriage has always been one man and one woman.
again, why is the word 'marriage' so critical to the gay agenda? Its not really about equality is it? admit it. the gay agenda is about government forced societal acceptance of the human aberation known as homosexuality. the only way to implement this forced acceptance is by calling a gay union a marriage----------we know it, you know it.
why not admit it, so we can move the debate back into reality?
One reason to at least think twice before voting Republican is to consider the company you would be joining, as represented here.
One reason to vote Democrat is to defend the liberal principles of the Founders, not that Democrats always honor them. They just honor them more than Republicans do.
Yes, it can be. Not all "traditions" are worthy or have any rational basis, and we shouldn't base our laws on such things regardless.You have zero ability to judge what is rational, zero.
So saying we should ignore one tradition and not another is "rational?"
And that's not an answer for you, you won't understand it.
One reason to at least think twice before voting Republican is to consider the company you would be joining, as represented here.
One reason to vote Democrat is to defend the liberal principles of the Founders, not that Democrats always honor them. They just honor them more than Republicans do.
