• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California gay marriage ban overturned: report

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone needs to learn properly about STD's before saying such ignorant comments.

I was tired, it was late for me on the east coast. What I should have said is that in western societies, heterosexuals with no known risk factors have a statistically zero chance of acquiring HIV. Heterosexuality, in and of itself is not stated as a risk factor to acquiring HIV, whereas homosexuality is, according to the CDC.

Tim-
 
I was tired, it was late for me on the east coast. What I should have said is that in western societies, heterosexuals with no known risk factors have a statistically zero chance of acquiring HIV. Heterosexuality, in and of itself is not stated as a risk factor to acquiring HIV, whereas homosexuality is, according to the CDC.

Tim-

Please provide a link for that information.
 
No, MALE homo and bisexuals have higher incidence of HIV. Female homosexuals have extremely low risk.

And, Hicup said heterosexuals have an "even statistically zero chance of getting HIV," which is about the most ****ing retarded thing I've read on this forum and your little link and graph only proved just how ****ing retardedly ignorant such a claim was.

Well, apparently you don't understand, nor give any weight to the statistical analysis. Lets run thorugh the important parts shall we? There are what, 4% of the population as homosexuals, and if you exclude females, which have almost no chance of getting HIV if they are exclusive homosexual woman, then the number is male homosexuals in the US is roughly about 2 1/2 percent of the population. There are 300 million people in the USA, yet roughly 2 1/2 percent of them make up well over half the infections of the entire US population. Taken as a whole, the "incidence" of HIV infection among heterosexual populations is "statistically" zero. Now, what "statistically zero means, is NOT that it is actually zero, but what statisticians call, insignificant to form an corollary conclusion.

Does that about round it out for you?


Tim-
 
Btw... from the CDC:



I guess that kinda blows the "near 0%" presentation out of the water.

Oh I'm not done with you yet.. I am just spending some time on this HIV thing first in orde to put it to bed. It means nothing to this thread in any meaningful way, and it meant nothing other than to illustrate a galring inconsistency with your whole "negatives" approach to the States interest in marriage. But, this is just a preliminary warning to let you know that I intend to review your responses to me in my absence, and if they have merit, I will address them.


Tim-
 
Last edited:
I was tired, it was late for me on the east coast. What I should have said is that in western societies, heterosexuals with no known risk factors have a statistically zero chance of acquiring HIV.

Do you consider being of African descent a "risk factor"?
Because in sub-saharan Africa, nearly 25 million men, women, and children are infected with HIV.
These are largely tribal people; I doubt they're all homosexuals, and I doubt they're IV drug users, either, unless they're making syringes out of wood and using them to shoot up tree sap. :roll:

In America, as well, individuals of African descent are disproportionately infected with the HIV virus; heterosexual men and women alike, most with no known history of IV drug use.

I read an interesting theory once, that people of Northern European descent may have some level of genetic immunity to HIV which those of African origin typically lack.
The theory was that this is because most people of European origin are descendants of bubonic plague survivors, since "the Black Death", as it was called, swept Europe again and again, every single generation from the 1300s until the 1700s, killing 80% of the population in the hardest hit areas, infecting virtually everyone.
About 20-25% of those infected with bubonic plague survived; a second, slightly less common form of plague (Pneumonic) was even more virulent, killing off 90-95% of those it infected.

The plague never made any real inroads into Africa, however.

It seems far-fetched, but it's remotely possible, I suppose, that having some sort of hereditary immunity to plague, due to our ancestors' recurrent exposure to it, might have given white people some slight immunity to "the plague of the 20th century", HIV, which our African brethren lack.
 
Tex did... That's all I needed. It is also the most current data available. The claim I make is 100% accurate.


Tim-

And I just demonstrated that his information was faulty. Took about 3 seconds.
 
Oh I'm not done with you yet.. I am just spending some time on this HIV thing first in orde to put it to bed. It means nothing to this thread in any meaningful way, and it meant nothing other than to illustrate a galring inconsistency with your whole "negatives" approach to the States interest in marriage. But, this is just a preliminary warning to let you know that I intend to review your responses to me in my absence, and if they have merit, I will address them.


Tim-

Problem is that not only have you NOT put the HIV thing to bed, but you have been refuted. And I'M not done with YOU on the issue, yet. You can't substantiate your information, simply because homosexuality is nothing but a correlation, not a causation to HIV. The causation... or one of them, would be risky sexual behavior. Notice the word in bold? THAT'S the lnk. Homosexuality ie: gay sexual orientation is not. This is yet another example of your inability to debate without logical fallacies.

Now that I have put the HIV issue to bed, feel free to comment on my posts from last night. But do try to get my argument correct, rather than arguing what you WANT me to have said.
 
And I just demonstrated that his information was faulty. Took about 3 seconds.

yeah but you made the same mistake that other poster did, you looked at global statistics. Tex posted the relevant graph, and to what it was I was referring last night. Ok, so I got sloppy, it was late and I was tired. I don't normally make a claim like that with providing a link. It slipped my mind, as my attention was on the legal aspects being brought out in this thread. The comment about HIV was unimportant in the grand scheme.

Look, if you and the others wishing to make this into 20 pages about statistical analysis I'd be happy to join a separate thread on it. I have experience with statistics ya know, and would love to share it with y'all.. :) But, in the interest of moving this thread forward on the central issue, can we please disregard the HIV coment for now?

Pretty please with sugar on top? :)

Now that I have put the HIV issue to bed, feel free to comment on my posts from last night. But do try to get my argument correct, rather than arguing what you WANT me to have said.

CC, you have no idea how wrong you are about the "HIV" thing.. But like I said, if you really and truly believe that my analysis of those statistics is wrong, then start another thread on it. I already gave you the answer, but hey, if that makes no sense to you then have at er.. I'll clarify more for you, and the others..

Just so we're clear though, when and if I do reply to your posts in my absence, I am directly being challenged to refute your argument that you posted in 4/4/2009, correct?


Tim-



Tim-
 
Last edited:
yeah but you made the same mistake that other poster did, you looked at global statistics. Tex posted the relevant graph, and to what it was I was referring last night. Ok, so I got sloppy, it was late and I was tired. I don't normally make a claim like that with providing a link. It slipped my mind, as my attention was on the legal aspects being brought out in this thread. The comment about HIV was unimportant in the grand scheme.

Look, if you and the others wishing to make this into 20 pages about statistical analysis I'd be happy to join a separate thread on it. I have experience with statistics ya know, and would love to share it with y'all.. :) But, in the interest of moving this thread forward on the central issue, can we please disregard the HIV coment for now?

Pretty please with sugar on top? :)



CC, you have no idea how wrong you are about the "HIV" thing.. But like I said, if you really and truly believe that my analysis of those statistics is wrong, then start another thread on it. I already gave you the answer, but hey, if that makes no sense to you then have at er.. I'll clarify more for you, and the others..

Just so we're clear though, when and if I do reply to your posts in my absence, I am directly being challenged to refute your argument that you posted in 4/4/2009, correct?


Tim-



Tim-

The problem with your "statistical analysis" is you are looking at numbers and reaching a faulty conclusion. I repeat: a gay man who engages in low risk activities is less likely to contract HIV than a strait man engaging in high risk activities. Now, I wonder why that is....

Further, you cannot throw gay women out of the "analysis" just because they disprove your claim. They do happen to be...surprise, gay.
 
yeah but you made the same mistake that other poster did, you looked at global statistics. Tex posted the relevant graph, and to what it was I was referring last night. Ok, so I got sloppy, it was late and I was tired. I don't normally make a claim like that with providing a link. It slipped my mind, as my attention was on the legal aspects being brought out in this thread. The comment about HIV was unimportant in the grand scheme.

Look, if you and the others wishing to make this into 20 pages about statistical analysis I'd be happy to join a separate thread on it. I have experience with statistics ya know, and would love to share it with y'all.. :) But, in the interest of moving this thread forward on the central issue, can we please disregard the HIV coment for now?

Pretty please with sugar on top? :)

I have plenty of experience with statistics and statistical analysis. I understand your "refutation" completely. It does not address the core issue which is what I addressed... correlation, not causation. I am quite confident that you are incorrect on this.

But that's fine. We can leave this.



CC, you have no idea how wrong you are about the "HIV" thing.. But like I said, if you really and truly believe that my analysis of those statistics is wrong, then start another thread on it. I already gave you the answer, but hey, if that makes no sense to you then have at er.. I'll clarify more for you, and the others..

No, I have no desire to start a thread like that. Like I said, I am quite confident you are wrong. I'm very familiar with statistical analysis and logical deductions from that analysis. You are incorrect, but we can move on.

Just so we're clear though, when and if I do reply to your posts in my absence, I am directly being challenged to refute your argument that you posted in 4/4/2009, correct?

Yes, that is correct. Do you understand the position I was presenting? Yesterday, you were going with the "proving a negative" route, which was not my argument.
 
The problem with your "statistical analysis" is you are looking at numbers and reaching a faulty conclusion. I repeat: a gay man who engages in low risk activities is less likely to contract HIV than a strait man engaging in high risk activities. Now, I wonder why that is....

Further, you cannot throw gay women out of the "analysis" just because they disprove your claim. They do happen to be...surprise, gay.

Ok, Redress... Start a thread on it, but not here in this one. I'll show you why you're wrong on all counts, except the gay female issue. Even if you include gay woman, I'm still 100% accurate with my analysis. I excluded them because their instance of contracting HIV is even less statistically significant than straight woman. In other words, they didn't matter to the analysis, nor the claim. Now, please, bring it up in another thread.


Tim-
 
Anal sex is a known risk factor for HIV, whether it's practiced by a heterosexual or homosexual couple.

Re: the prevalence of HIV in subsaharan African countries such as Angola, Botswana, Camaroon, etc:
These are countries where FGM (female genital modification) is widely practiced.
I wonder if that is also a factor which increases their risk.
Surely it means that vaginal sex involves a lot of extra tearing and bleeding which would not be present in women who had not been subjected to FGM.
 
Ok, so now can we move on? Thanks for the courtesy, Captain. Give me a bit, I generally like to go back a few pages from where I left off just so I can ease my way back into it.

Shouldn't take more than about 20 min or so..


Tim-
 
Ok, Redress... Start a thread on it, but not here in this one. I'll show you why you're wrong on all counts, except the gay female issue. Even if you include gay woman, I'm still 100% accurate with my analysis. I excluded them because their instance of contracting HIV is even less statistically significant than straight woman. In other words, they didn't matter to the analysis, nor the claim. Now, please, bring it up in another thread.


Tim-

No. This doesn't just get to stand as is. All you are doing is manipulating statistics. You don't get to exclude a group because it counters your position.
 
Ok, so now can we move on? Thanks for the courtesy, Captain. Give me a bit, I generally like to go back a few pages from where I left off just so I can ease my way back into it.

Shouldn't take more than about 20 min or so..


Tim-

I'm logging off for a bit. I'll respond when I return.
 
So I know that I'm just jumping in the middle of this and there is much I didnt read (with 144 pages, how could I?), but I firmly believe that the constitution is ALWAYS meant to protect and give rights and never limit. When CA put a constitution BAN on the civil union (as marriage is a religious thing and the government has no place in that and it no place in the government) between two people of the same gender, they spat in the face of liberty.

And why is HIV even brought up? How does HIV affect your civil rights? My southern baptist preacher has HIV. Do you know how he got it? Blood transfusion...

My grandmother always has very wise things to say in her very, very thick Russian accent. I think we could all learn from something she told me very recently: "Austin... Come here. Why the fu*k do you care? Does it really matter? Will this affect your life in any way?"

Does it really? No.

But hey----At least with gay couples, there is no fear about unwanted pregnancies draining the social security tit.
 
And why is HIV even brought up? How does HIV affect your civil rights?


I was wondering that too; haven't bothered to read the whole thread.
You'd think if these guys believe HIV is a strictly "gay" disease, they'd want gays to get married.
At least then they'd be more likely to be monogamous, thus less spread of HIV.

:shrug:
 
they'd want gays to get married.

No, no. Marriage is only a punishment fit for straight people. It's why the homosexual population hasnt fought hard for it yet... Now they are just greedy, right? hahaha.

Human Rights are never debateable.
The end.
 
No, no. Marriage is only a punishment fit for straight people. It's why the homosexual population hasnt fought hard for it yet... Now they are just greedy, right? hahaha.

Human Rights are never debateable.
The end.

Agreed, but I think marriage is a civil right.
Being together with the partner of one's choice- regardless of their race, religion, or gender- might be a human right.
But getting a marriage license from the government, and all the government-bestowed rights, benefits, and protections that come with it, is definitely a civil right, in my mind.

Not that gays don't deserve equal civil rights; they do, of course.
 
I was wondering that too; haven't bothered to read the whole thread.
You'd think if these guys believe HIV is a strictly "gay" disease, they'd want gays to get married.
At least then they'd be more likely to be monogamous, thus less spread of HIV.

:shrug:

Agree but those straight folks that think of AIDS as a "gay" disease are usually not even monogamous themselves. Just a bunch of haters who hate the gays:(
 
So I know that I'm just jumping in the middle of this and there is much I didnt read (with 144 pages, how could I?), but I firmly believe that the constitution is ALWAYS meant to protect and give rights and never limit. When CA put a constitution BAN on the civil union (as marriage is a religious thing and the government has no place in that and it no place in the government) between two people of the same gender, they spat in the face of liberty.

And why is HIV even brought up? How does HIV affect your civil rights? My southern baptist preacher has HIV. Do you know how he got it? Blood transfusion...

My grandmother always has very wise things to say in her very, very thick Russian accent. I think we could all learn from something she told me very recently: "Austin... Come here. Why the fu*k do you care? Does it really matter? Will this affect your life in any way?"

Does it really? No.

But hey----At least with gay couples, there is no fear about unwanted pregnancies draining the social security tit.

HIV is brought up in ever thread involving gays for the same reason that Incest, bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia is brought up. It's an attempt to tie gay people with unpopular things.
 
Right... My last post was in humour, of course... And in the end, semantics are the downfall of the human race I'm sure...

I think the US gov't has the responibility to the people to protect their rights of any kind. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, right? If you've played the game of LIFE, you know that getting married is typically a part of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom