Gay Marriage page 104

3420 posts

Flag Post

Well I went researching for a bit and found a few sites about HIV and AIDS

Renco basically says they aren’t related to gays.
For the US….
However “aids.gov”http://aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/ says that gays and Bi’s have a higher chance of getting HIV (IK the site above mentioned AIDS).
Graph from aids.gov

Avert.org agrees with aids.gov.

Being gay clearly increases the chance of getting HIV, however while there is a correlation between HIV and AIDS, some people can get HIV and not develope AIDS.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they all got aids and croaked.

Kind of off-topic, but aren’t you the one who all th time complains how today’s generation is deprived of a moral compass and how back in the day everything was much better and people cared for each other?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they all got aids and croaked.

Geez, that’s a little harsh. They’re people too.

 
Flag Post

The reason there is a correlation between homosexuality and HIV is that HIV is most often transmitted during anal sex, and often in homosexual relationships both partners will ‘receive’ anal sex, which carries the highest transmission risk of all sexual activity.

(In my experience) Heterosexual anal sex is not actually as widely practised as TV and the internet claim, and the transmission risk during normal vaginal sex is much lower than anal sex. The ‘giving’ party have the lowest risk of all so the risk to the man from a HIV+ woman is comparatively low as he is always the ‘giving’ party rather than receiving (apart from oral, small risk, and toy use which should carry no risk).

I am not sure why this is even in a thread on homosexual marriage (apart from the obvious troll post that started it all). The HIV risk between two HIV- men is always going to be zero, same as between a HIV- man and a HIV- woman. Also marriage usually means that you stop having sex with people other than your partner, so even if the homosexuals involved were HIV+ it would be contained to them if they were married.

There is a reason GRID (gay related immunodeficiency virus) was renamed, and that reason wasn’t to make it politically correct but because it is not ‘gay related’. It is most highly transmitted when a HIV+ man anally penetrates someone without protection but there is no difference in risk if the receiver is male or female, and other transmission methods exist; from heterosexual sex to drug use and others.

 
Flag Post

I’m sorry for this long post in advance, but it contains Recent Facts For Gay Marriage.

1. It is no one Else’s business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples.

2. There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered “unnatural” in evolutionary terms.

3.Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.” US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was “unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.”

4. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.

5. Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were “as well-adjusted” as those adopted by heterosexual parents.

6. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or “family values.” A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that “Laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock…”

7. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.

8. Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man,” and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as “one of the key civil rights struggles of our time.”

9. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called “marriage penalty”), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City’s economy and $184 million to the State’s economy over three years.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they all got aids and croaked.

You are truly a disgusting human being with an inferior sense of morality. Please tell me how your statement here is moral. Please tell me why your wife, who follows Jesus—a man who told everyone to love each other, never mentioning sexuality or race or such factors—presumably agrees with such a statement in such a syncretic manner. Please tell me how holding on to stereotypes on the 1980s (gay people all having AIDS) is advantageous to the society of today.

No need to reply. We all know your “morality” is based off the neo-conservative zealotry with no regard to equality, humanity or progress.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Please tell me why your wife, who follows Jesus—a man who told everyone to love each other, never mentioning sexuality or race or such factors—presumably agrees with such a statement in such a syncretic manner.

In all fairness Jaume, we don’t know that his wife would approach this in the same manner. I follow Jesus too, and I try to keep in mind that we should love each other and leave the judging up to Him.

That being said, if someone upsets you, just try to target them for their own arguments, not (presumably) those of others.

 
Flag Post

All I was pointing out is the hypocrisy of many religious people. Not all; I repeat, not all. However, I’m sure you can agree that many, e.g., Christians in the United States are against homosexuality on a religious basis. Indeed, I am making the assumption that his wife is homophobic; I don’t believe it to be likely for jhco to marry someone who isn’t.

And I did target him for his arguments, you merely pointed out the only one in which I wasn’t. Everything else in that post is directed at him, his hypocrisy, and his syncretism.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

And I did target him for his arguments, you merely pointed out the only one in which I wasn’t. Everything else in that post is directed at him, his hypocrisy, and his syncretism.

Well fair enough…although, opposites attract, so we don’t know if his wife would have that kind of reaction. Actually, to my knowledge, jhco isn’t even a Christian, so his arguments against gay people aren’t Biblically based, just a personal thing.

 
Flag Post

To be honest, I find there to be more despicability in irreligious homophobes rather than their counterparts; but yeah, I guess that’s slightly off-topic.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

To be honest, I find there to be more despicability in irreligious homophobes rather than their counterparts…..

Just out of curiousity, why? Is it because they have nothing to guide them into homophobia but their own (repugnant) personality? I would be interested to see your reasoning behind this.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they all got aids and croaked.

You are truly a disgusting human being with an inferior sense of morality. Please tell me how your statement here is moral. Please tell me why your wife, who follows Jesus—a man who told everyone to love each other, never mentioning sexuality or race or such factors—presumably agrees with such a statement in such a syncretic manner. Please tell me how holding on to stereotypes on the 1980s (gay people all having AIDS) is advantageous to the society of today.

No need to reply. We all know your “morality” is based off the neo-conservative zealotry with no regard to equality, humanity or progress.


Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:

To be honest, I find there to be more despicability in irreligious homophobes rather than their counterparts…..


Just out of curiousity, why? Is it because they have nothing to guide them into homophobia but their own (repugnant) personality? I would be interested to see your reasoning behind this.

Ninj…I see those who follow a “man of love” as having a moral code that is far more limiting//constrictive than those who don’t. This IS NOT to say that atheists can’t be//aren’t moral. It appears they well enough have their own codes (moral compass?) by which they manage to be nicely sociable.

I don’t think bigots, "egocentrists"*, etc. have much of a moral code at all.
That is…unless ya consider utter selfishness to be a code.
And, from my experiences….I’ve heard it rationalized by saying: “survival of the fittest.”
AND, they tend to “borrow from” ideology that they can pervert & twist to their own devices….the U.S. Constitution being a favorite for exuberant patrotism, “flag-wrapping-around-self”, “ya-can-always-leave-America-if-ya-don’t-like-it(me)”, etc.

If you won’t leave THEIR America and your thinking prevails….then THEY will RE-move themselves from the country via the ridiculous notion of ceceding. How truly ignorant can some ppl REVEAL themselves to be? How insane are they to even consider such an idea and waste other’s time on it?

I say: Let the whining losers blow off their petty steam….amongst themselves. I don’t want it done via their assholes and the resulting farts harshing my buzz-of-elation over how America might acutally have a chance to EVOLVE.

They call ANYONE,, who might dessent w/ their ideology,, totally UNAmerican and wanting to destroy American life and rewrite the Constitution, blah, blah, blah…right on into the immortal halls of hyperoblic demagoguery.

It matters NOT A WHIT whether their ideology is popular or not…
It matters not if it is moral and of spirit w/ the Constitution…
It matters ONLY that their blind eyes see what they want//need..
It matters ONLY that their deaf ears hear what they want//need.

They have all manner of “protective” mechanisms in order to stave off the evilness of enlightenment. Do I need elaborate…?

  • “Egocentric people are unable to fully understand or to cope with other people’s opinions and the fact that reality can be different from what they are ready to accept.”
 
Flag Post

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they all got aids and croaked.

Jesus Jhco, really? I hope that is just the reflection of a moment rather then a deeply held belief. You’re wishing a great deal of misery on a great deal of people on the basis of their sexual acts. That’s rather brutal. Further, I think you have not seriously considered what the world would lose. There are brilliant individuals out there doing great work that you would callously snuff out – people who’s welfare could only possibly enrich your own.

Consider, as if oft repeated, but a fair example AlanTuring a keystone for the computers you now use. Alternatively DaVinci, (whom, I can’t say I am convinced was gay. But he was prosecuted for it) or Michelangelo (who almost certainly was). Are you so deeply concerned with someones practices within the bedroom that you feel it overshadows any other characteristic?

 
Flag Post

To accentuate Ung’s point:
one Yeah, good ol’ Abe was extreeeemly likely Gay.
two: Please note: 1 – 25 of 1839 listed.
three

AND, that infamous “conservative”, right-doer, crime-fighter…Edgar J. Hoover.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they all got aids and croaked.

Jesus Jhco, really? I hope that is just the reflection of a moment rather then a deeply held belief. You’re wishing a great deal of misery on a great deal of people on the basis of their sexual acts. That’s rather brutal. Further, I think you have not seriously considered what the world would lose. There are brilliant individuals out there doing great work that you would callously snuff out – people who’s welfare could only possibly enrich your own.

Consider, as if oft repeated, but a fair example AlanTuring a keystone for the computers you now use. Alternatively DaVinci, (whom, I can’t say I am convinced was gay. But he was prosecuted for it) or Michelangelo (who almost certainly was). Are you so deeply concerned with someones practices within the bedroom that you feel it overshadows any other characteristic?

I wasn’t going to post anymore in this thread as the arguments from the left are just so much BS and I really get tired of the pandering and patting each other on the back they do. As I have said many times, I don’t really give a damn what they do in the bedroom. It’s when they have to broadcast it that really ticks me off. I don’t care if they are gay or not, they can keep it to themselves…but they don’t.

I am not the one giving them AIDS, they are giving it to themselves with their abnormal behavior. I am honest, I don’t really care if they get it and croak, they ask for what they get. Then they want the straight people to pick up yet another tab. Don’t you think it funny that they can’t find a cure for cancer, but got right on the AIDS epidemic and came up with a possible cure? If people are obese, others come down on them and persecute them. If a person smokes, people shun them and treat them as lower than low people. Yet let a gay get HIV and liberals want to move the world for them.

Then you have all of the do-gooders like Karma who really don’t have a stake in the movement but feel they can get a little attention if they make a big showing. They don’t have the money, or refuse to give their money up for all of their feel good BS so they insist others pay for it. It is old, the arguments are old, and I’m tired of listening to the bleeding hearts spew their trash.

 
Flag Post

jhco, it’s not quite that they have “BS” arguments as much as you have no rational response to them—which consequently leads to your vile retributions towards a group which has inflicted no harm to you in the entirety of your life.

It’s when they have to broadcast it that really ticks me off.

If same-sex marriage was legalised across the world, would it be broadcasted? No. Because no-one would care near as much as they do now. Id est, they would not be broadcasted and your issue would be solved. However, your constant discrimination towards this group, with your desire to limit their rights, is what is broadcasted. In an alike manner to which women’s suffrage is not near as reported as it once was, same-sex marriage will not be reported or broadcasted when it’s legalised.

they are giving it to themselves with their abnormal behavior.

More heterosexuals in quantity have AIDS than heterosexuals. Moreover, homosexuality is a “behavior” seen in thousands upon thousands of animal species. Therefore, we can conclude it is not abnormal, rather it is normal.

they ask for what they get.

Not many people ask for their death. Most gay people are happy with their lives and enjoy sex. By enjoying sex they are not asking to get killed by a disease, much to your dismay.

Then they want the straight people to pick up yet another tab.

Incorrect. The cure to AIDS was researched by both gay and straight scientists. Your statement has no factual basis.

Don’t you think it funny that they can’t find a cure for cancer, but got right on the AIDS epidemic and came up with a possible cure?

Your ignorance in this remark is nothing but apparent. “Cancer” is a generic name for a multitude of diseases found in different areas of an immune system. Testicular cancer is not similar at all to lung cancer; the only commonalities are the name and that as of yet their cure is not evident.

If people are obese, others come down on them and persecute them.

You complain about the persecution of obese people, but choose to disregard the persecution of a group which for millennia has been oppressed in a much more vile and despicable manner. Again, you are not the epitome for appropriate morality with regard to sociological factors.

Yet let a gay get HIV and liberals want to move the world for them.

“Liberals” here is indeed a misnomer. Scientists are conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc.; their job has little to no basis on their political ideologies. Furthermore, seeking a cure to prevent death is not an erratic idea; the opposite of such would indeed be erratic—id est, what you criticise.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MidnightWerewolf:

I’m sorry for this long post in advance, but it contains Recent Facts For Gay Marriage.

1. It is no one Else’s business if two men or two women want to get married. Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples.

Your definition of marriage is an opinion, not a fact. It can become sort of a public fact, when many(50+%) people agree with your definition. Legal rights seem to be a different matter than public opinion in USA, so it isn’t even that simple there. I agree with your second sentence, though, on social reasons.

2. There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered “unnatural” in evolutionary terms.

Are you saying that heterosexual marriage hasn’t always been the most common of all those? Or how do you define traditional? And this also depends on your perspective, we should look at the history of western world to inspect what is/was the traditional marriage.

4. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.

Depends of your definition of marriage. Gays can have legal equality and not marriage. They are not mutually exclusive (See my post in previous page).

5. Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were “as well-adjusted” as those adopted by heterosexual parents.

I don’t know, there’s a lot of unclarity in these studies. For example in Finland it was found that being a child of same sex couple likely had some negative consequences. I should know, I took a course of developmental psychology in uni.

6. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or “family values.” A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that “Laws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock…”

This is very culture specific, I think. I learned that from my psochology studies. There is different results in USA and Finland in many studies.

7. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.

So, are those connected because in states where [legally equivalent relationship statuses] for gays were banned, there were many gays living in a relationship with the opposite sex? I can’t think of another reason. But probably I’m not a right person to interpret the study.

8. Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man,” and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as “one of the key civil rights struggles of our time.”

I’d say that the same legal benefits for gay couples is a civil right. Except, of course, if the legal definition of marriage in USA isn’t dependant on opinions of the people living there, as karma implied in the former page. Then same civil rights and gay marriage might be interchangeable terms.

9. Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called “marriage penalty”), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City’s economy and $184 million to the State’s economy over three years.

This is interesting, but it’s probably only true in (some parts of?) USA. I don’t know, I don’t live there.


Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Ninj…I see those who follow a “man of love” as having a moral code that is far more limiting//constrictive than those who don’t. This IS NOT to say that atheists can’t be//aren’t moral. It appears they well enough have their own codes (moral compass?) by which they manage to be nicely sociable.

Just to jump in… Yeah, I can see why you think that way. The way I see it, however, is that every teaching has a thought behind it… I don’t find “law-spirited”(for lack of a better term) following to be very frutious. Early christians addressed their religion as the “road”. That tells much how christians of that time thought about their religion. But this is off-topic.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I wasn’t going to post anymore in this thread….

One of the better “thinking” ya’ve presented.
YET, ya reenter w/ a statement as vile as it is terse.
Ya do NOTHING to explain this new attack of yours againt Gays.

…as the arguments from the left are just so much BS

Guess what?
I think YOU are soooooo fucking far right on this issue that even MOST moderate conservatives will call YOUR “arguements”—such as they are: REALLY NONE AT ALL—much more than simple bovinefeces.
All of us dispicable “lefties” have resorted to badgering (and more?) to get YOU to explain this vile hatred of Gays.
Yet, ya’ve done nothing but act as the politicians ya so loathe.

… and I really get tired of the pandering and patting each other on the back they do.

Don’t forget PRANCING…we like to prance about as we high-five, fist-bump, etc. as we celebrate a decent, humanistic, progressive hope that the AMERICAN-SPIRIT rights of fellow humans will be finally recognized.

Yeah, our behavior truly should “tire” the deeply rooted bigotry of ppl who tout themselves as being “true” Americans.

As I have said many times, I don’t really give a damn what they do in the bedroom.

As do they, I, and likely 99.999999999% of other ppl do about what YOU do there either.

SO?

It’s when they have to broadcast it that really ticks me off.

OH?
Which channel is the “Gay channel” on TV?
Where are the ads promoting “Gaydom”?
Where are the full-page ads in newspapers, mags, etc?
Where are posters stapled to utility poles next to “lost dog” ones?

OH, maybe ya mean how mainstream drama//sitcom presentations are now INCLUDING Gays—as they did Blacks a few generations ago (YOU should remember this since ya so luv to tout how age affords a "certain perspective)—and near non-exisstence protesting is noticed….at least in sane, rational circles.

OR, maybe ya mean those horrid Gay Pride Parades that “force” YOU & your kinfolk to attend and place open-eye clamps on ya and bind your heads into a forward-facing position so that ya miss NONE OF THE PRANCING?

Ya know, jake-o…ya really NEVER, NEVER, NEVER did mount a rational defense of your objection to Gays in general or their right to Marriage. Ya did repeatedly spew a lot of rhetoric that was equally shot down for the tawdry crap is it..

I don’t care if they are gay or not, they can keep it to themselves…but they don’t.

And, this is a problem for anyone other than YOU?
Please, do explain.
I am not the one giving them AIDS, they are giving it to themselves with their abnormal behavior.

Ah, there it is….the ol’ “be-all-end-all” arguement ya luv to toss in.
It seems to help ya forget that teens (as well as adults, it just that teens have a greater incident rate per capita) are subjecting themselves to a host of STD’s. What about unwanted pregnacies….are these a Gay-only “sin” in our society?

I am honest, I don’t really care if they get it and croak, they ask for what they get.

OOOOOH….NOOOOO! ! !
The dreaded HONESTY.
Your statement there has to be the most inane of your many on this issue.
It’s likely that, instead of “ask for”, ya meant: bring upon themselves.
BUT, this is tantamount to saying that ppl who drive their cars at 2:00 AM are asking to be hit & killed by drunk drivers leaving closing bars.

Then they want the straight people to pick up yet another tab.

Hyperbole aside (ya just can’t shake this bane…can ya?), ya really ought to get some education on this particular “arguement” of YOURS.

Don’t you think it funny that they can’t find a cure for cancer, but got right on the AIDS epidemic and came up with a possible cure?

Don’t ya think it funny that the same thing has happened for cancer, polio, alzhiemers, etc.?

If people are obese, others come down on them and persecute them.

AGAIN…drop the hyperbole.
OR, can I say that if ppl are of a kind, compassionate, caring nature that it is okay for facist, egocentric, rabid “far-righters” to come down on them?

If a person smokes, people shun them and treat them as lower than low people.

OH, FOR FUCKS SAKE….DROP THE HYPERBOLE.
First: ALL ppl don’t shun smokers….SOME do yes.
But, mostly because of logical reasons….HEALTH being at the top of the list.

Second: I tend to feel very compassionate about how sadly ADDICTED to smoking a great number of them are….something the tobacco companies strived to induce. I take the time to express my concern for their health and their endeavor to “kick the habit”. I guess a lot of them must be “self-loathing” because of how I see them VOLUNTARILY smoking away from their children and other ppl.

Yet let a gay get HIV and liberals want to move the world for them.

YES…just as we REAL HUMANS do for most aflictions.
Things such as hunger for a great number of children.
Things such as lack of good health and corresponding health care for a great number of ppl.
Things such as the “lessening-of-the-middle-class” due to the greed of the 1%’ers.

This old “liberal” (as YOU so luv to call me) is simply a person WHO CARES about other ppl…because it is the RIGHT THING to do.
After all, we’re all in this world together.
I just wish, hope, pray that very soon, more of us will behave like it.

Then you have all of the do-gooders like Karma who really don’t have a stake in the movement but feel they can get a little attention if they make a big showing. They don’t have the money, or refuse to give their money up for all of their feel good BS so they insist others pay for it. It is old, the arguments are old, and I’m tired of listening to the bleeding hearts spew their trash.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Going to bump thread by introducing this video discussing National Coming Out Day. On this note, how does everyone feel about having a day specifically set aside for his (a sexual orientation)? Do you feel it’s a bit much, or completely appropriate insofar as this was previously a taboo? Discuss.

 
Flag Post

Absolutely alright with it.
Events like this show people that they don’t have to and in fact should not be ashamed of who they are.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Going to bump thread by introducing this video discussing National Coming Out Day. On this note, how does everyone feel about having a day specifically set aside for this (a sexual orientation)? Do you feel it’s a bit much, or completely appropriate insofar as this was previously a taboo? Discuss.

Are ya meaning some kind of “official” day?
Not necessarily some Federal Day off from work…
just a national (privately sponsored?) event.

Can we all prance about with impunity….lol

Seriously tho,,,
why not extend it into a total sexual celebration?
A SEX DAY….where we acknowledge our one huge commonality (at the very least, it took sex for us to even exist….a whole new spin on Mother’s//Father’s Day…lol). It could be a lot like Thanksgiving for some ppl…..like the 4th of July for others….like Christmas for a few….Labor Day for too many…Valentine for a whole lot of lovers……all of these special days rolled into ONE….one that focuses on the sexual side of our lives.

I’m “in”…
let’s “do it”. 0¿~

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they all got aids and croaked.

you reduced yourself to trolling now?

Originally posted by basicbasic:

Avert.org agrees with aids.gov.

Being gay clearly increases the chance of getting HIV, however while there is a correlation between HIV and AIDS, some people can get HIV and not develope AIDS.

alright, so all women should be lesbians! (the right chart is about women with HIV)

Originally posted by jhco50:
I don’t really give a damn what they do in the bedroom. It’s when they have to broadcast it that really ticks me off. I don’t care if they are gay or not, they can keep it to themselves…but they don’t.

by far the majority of them do. i wonder whom you’re talking about. if you don’t go looking for it, i doubt you’d ever come across any such “broadcasting”.

I am not the one giving them AIDS, they are giving it to themselves with their abnormal behavior

having sex with men is abnormal eh? tell that to any women you know. also you do realise many straight people engage in sodomy, don’t ya?

and anyway, wouldn’t it be much more direct and effective to advocate safe sex instead?

Don’t you think it funny that they can’t find a cure for cancer, but got right on the AIDS epidemic and came up with a possible cure?

we’ve come up with hundreds of cures for cancer, but there are thousands of types of cancer. you’re equating a type of desease with a specific virus. not a good comparison at all.

If a person smokes, people shun them and treat them as lower than low people

all your exaggerations are instant classics. but also, gay ≠ licentious.

They don’t have the money, or refuse to give their money up for all of their feel good BS so they insist others pay for it. It is old, the arguments are old, and I’m tired of listening to the bleeding hearts spew their trash.

who’s talking money? and what’s this about bleeding hearts? are you saying caring about others is a condition or something? what kind of justification for injustice is “oh, your heart is just bleeding”?

i don’t like it when desire for comfortable ideas is put before reason either, if that’s what you mean, i just don’t see the relevance.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Seriously tho,,,
why not extend it into a total sexual celebration?
A SEX DAY….where we acknowledge our one huge commonality (at the very least, it took sex for us to even exist….a whole new spin on Mother’s//Father’s Day…lol). It could be a lot like Thanksgiving for some ppl…..like the 4th of July for others….like Christmas for a few….Labor Day for too many…Valentine for a whole lot of lovers……all of these special days rolled into ONE….one that focuses on the sexual side of our lives.

Well….everyone’s certainly entitled to their opinion, but I personally wouldn’t be for a sex celebration. I mean, I guess there’s some venues where this is a celebrated occassion, but I am always for keeping personal relations behind closed doors—gay or straight. I thought it was a little off color when my former college, a California State University, had a “gay day” where there was a makeshift closet they were encouraging people to step out of, and wide distribution of rainbow condoms. It could be me, but it’s not really the type of thing I’d like to take my daughter to, unlike a state fair, health fair, or more generic activity.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Don’t you think it funny that they can’t find a cure for cancer, but got right on the AIDS epidemic and came up with a possible cure?

Is there a cure for AIDS I don’t know about? The only thing close to an effective AIDS treatment I know about are protease inhibitors, and they only slow/stop the progression, not cure it. As far as cancer goes, it’s a difficult etiology, you know—the uncontrolled growth of cells in any number of the body’s systems. But to my knowledge, research and progress have been ongoing. I’d say in terms of “cure” it’s about toe to toe with AIDS right now.

Also, you know that people other than gays contract AIDS, right? Through blood transfusions, heterosexual sex and all that? It’s not just strictly their disease.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Don’t you think it funny that they can’t find a cure for cancer, but got right on the AIDS epidemic and came up with a possible cure?

Is there a cure for AIDS I don’t know about?

Ironically, HIV is one potential cure for cancer. In the lab, at least.