• 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.
CriticalThought said:
Tell me, which of these facts do you disagree with?

1. Two gay men who are HIV negative and who are monogamous with each other can never give each other HIV no matter how much anal sex they have with one another.
2. Having anal sex does not lead to HIV; having anal sex with someone who is infected with HIV can lead to HIV.
3. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals practice anal sex.
4. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice bad judgment and engage in promiscuous, unprotected sex, thereby increasing their chances of coming in contact with someone infected with HIV.
5. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice good judgment and engage in monogamous sex, and refrain from unprotected sex until they know their partner is clean. If they do so, then regardless of their sexual orientation, they will not get or spread HIV.

I'll wait to hear which ones you disagree with, because that is all I am saying. Anal sex alone, whether heterosexual or homosexual, will not cause HIV, so it doesn't matter to me whether or not you perceive it synonymous with homosexuality. You can only get HIV from coming in contact with an HIV positive person and then engaging in risky behaviors like anal sex.
Click to expand...

I thoroughly agree with your simplistic examples which have nothing to do with this argument.
 
jambalaya said:
I thoroughly agree with your simplistic examples which have nothing to do with this argument.
Click to expand...

What is your argument?

The leading cause of HIV in the United States is promiscuous, unprotected anal sex. Men who have sex with men, as a population, are the most likely to practice promiscuous, unprotected anal sex and are therefore the most likely to get and spread the disease. However, if men who have sex with men do not engage in this risky behavior, then their risk of contracting HIV is no greater than the rest of the population. If they practice monogamy with a clean partner, then they will not get HIV.

That is all I am arguing. Do you have a problem with that arugment?
 
texmaster said:
Completely false and I challenge you to proudce the quote where it supports your claim.
Click to expand...
I gave you a copy of the whole ****ing report in PDF format. I can't exactly quote a PDF, except to type it all out here letter by letter. And then, you're just going to say I made it up, or you'll go actually read the PDF and fnd the information yourself. Instead of wasting my time typing out what is already typed out in the PDF, I'll just let you read the ****ing thing yourself.

You might want to check out the section where they compare to previous surveys. In addition, you might want to notice at the top of each table where it explains what information is being presented.


You have GOT to be kidding. It shows gay men who have contracted HIV. Please explain your theory on how they contracted it besides anal sex that has any statistical backing whatsoever

And thee times now it is completely false. Your study does not break down the sexual preferences between the men in your study. It gives 2 wildly different numbers on gay men without a conclusion on what number is right. Repeating a false claim doesn't help you.
Click to expand...
The two "wildly different numbers" have been averaged for both hetero and homosexuals. That seemed the fairest way to come up with an... average number. The report explains how and why those wildly different numbers came about. (due to survey methodology and the survey sampling.

You are quoting a synopsis of the article not the article itself. Either quote the article directly or don't bother.
Click to expand...
I can't quote a PDF. I gave you the PDF

Please explain my numbers from the CDC if you are going to hold onto this fallacy.
Click to expand...
Explain what, exactly? That unprotected anal sex with HIV positive people is an extremely high risk activity regardless of the genders involved? Or that one's sexual orientation is completely separate from one's risk of contracting an STI?


The whole point is, there are more heterosexuals in the country. So of COURSE more heterosexuals engage in anal sex. The difference is, heterosexuals have a much larger pool of people with which to engage in sex WITH. The smaller the pool of people, the more rampant any disease is going to run within it. But one's sexual orientation is irrelevant to the activities that may or may not increase risk of transmission. What IS relevant is the type of sex involved, and if it's protected or not. Period. End of story.
 
Last edited:
jambalaya said:
Your response is a great example of use of mental gymanstics to avoid addressing an actual point. Congratulations for so artfully denying reality.
Click to expand...

Your response is an excellent example of denial of logic because it doesn't fit your point of view. Congratulations on your denial of reality.
 
CriticalThought said:
What is your argument?

The leading cause of HIV in the United States is promiscuous, unprotected anal sex. Men who have sex with men, as a population, are the most likely to practice promiscuous, unprotected anal sex and are therefore the most likely to get and spread the disease. However, if men who have sex with men do not engage in this risky behavior, then their risk of contracting HIV is no greater than the rest of the population. If they practice monogamy with a clean partner, then they will not get HIV.

That is all I am arguing. Do you have a problem with that arugment?
Click to expand...

that isn't the argument at all.

Again for the 3,421 time the ONLY reason this was brought up was to expose the fallacy of CC's argument when he claimed he could deny marriage to groups based on positive and negative contributions to a society. The higher occurance of HIV in homosexuals particularly male homosexuals was to expose the fallacy of his argument by proving all sexual orientations have negatives and positives.

That's when he began his mental gymnastics and got a few others to play along ignoring the evidence of the CDC report.
 
jambalaya said:
You are just trying to stretch a point to the breaking point to avoid using the term homosexual and anal sex together. Massive straw man argument going on here. Anal sex and gay males is just part of reality. To keep denying that is a little insane. I don't see anything in what I've read so far to support your exaggeration than he thinks homosexual behavior itself created the disease. You took the big leap to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yet another one who doesn't understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. You all should form a club. Oh wait... I think you all are already in the same club. ;)
 
CriticalThought said:
What is your argument?

The leading cause of HIV in the United States is promiscuous, unprotected anal sex. Men who have sex with men, as a population, are the most likely to practice promiscuous, unprotected anal sex and are therefore the most likely to get and spread the disease. However, if men who have sex with men do not engage in this risky behavior, then their risk of contracting HIV is no greater than the rest of the population. If they practice monogamy with a clean partner, then they will not get HIV.

That is all I am arguing. Do you have a problem with that arugment?
Click to expand...

See bold. That is all I am saying. It is people like riverrat who exaggerates that I or anyone else is saying that anal sex is synonomous with homosexuality that accelerated the argument. I never said that and nobody else really did either that I could see.
 
jambalaya said:
Nobody said it was synonymous. Argue points that people actually present. There would be a lot more hetero's engaging in anal sex of their partners would allow it. So what? I am sure you could present some context with those statistics but it wouldn't be very convenient for you.
Click to expand...

Really? Perhaps you should read what you write.

jambalaya said:
You are just trying to stretch a point to the breaking point to avoid using the term homosexual and anal sex together.
Click to expand...

Either that's what you meant, or you might want to take a little more care with how you put sentences together.
 
rivrrat said:
I gave you a copy of the whole ****ing report in PDF format. I can't exactly quote a PDF, except to type it all out here letter by letter. And then, you're just going to say I made it up, or you'll go actually read the PDF and fnd the information yourself. Instead of wasting my time typing out what is already typed out in the PDF, I'll just let you read the ****ing thing yourself.
Click to expand...

So you can't. Got it.

You might want to check out the section where they compare to previous surveys. In addition, you might want to notice at the top of each table where it explains what information is being presented.
Click to expand...

I'm not doing your job for you. Either quote the article directly or retract it.

The two "wildly different numbers" have been averaged for both hetero and homosexuals. That seemed the fairest way to come up with an... average number. The report explains how and why those wildly different numbers came about. (due to survey methodology and the survey sampling.
Click to expand...

QUOTE THE STUDY Where is it?

I can't quote a PDF. I gave you the PDF
Click to expand...

Yes you can. It just takes a little longer. If you don't want to be challenged by being lazy and telling people to read your pdf instead of pointing to the specific area then don't quote it at all. I've quoted PDFs and books online that had to be written out. Its not that hard.

Explain what, exactly? That unprotected anal sex with HIV positive people is an extremely high risk activity regardless of the genders involved? Or that one's sexual orientation is completely separate from one's risk of contracting an STI?
Click to expand...

What part is alluding you? Homosexual men engage in more anal sex per capita. The article shows that specfically. I'm still waiting for you to provide your proof that the much higher numbers of HIV infenction in homosexual men are the result of something other than anal sex.


The whole point is, there are more heterosexuals in the country. So of COURSE more heterosexuals engage in anal sex. The difference is, heterosexuals have a much larger pool of people with which to engage in sex WITH. The smaller the pool of people, the more rampant any disease is going to run within it. But one's sexual orientation is irrelevant to the activities that may or may not increase risk of transmission. What IS relevant is the type of sex involved, and if it's protected or not. Period. End of story.[/QUOTE]
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yet another one who doesn't understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. You all should form a club. Oh wait... I think you all are already in the same club. ;)
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Making things up as you go along. But keep it up.
 
MaggieD said:
It's semantics, isn't it? More homosexuals get HIV because more homosexuals engage in the risky behavior that causes it. Does that mean it's more likely for someone who's homosexual to get HIV? Yes. But it's not a result of their being homosexual.
Click to expand...

This is what many of us have been saying for a bit. tex doesn't seem to understand this concept.
 
jambalaya said:
Wrong again. Making things up as you go along. But keep it up.
Click to expand...

More denial. Let us know when you DO learn the difference. Context is important during discussions.
 
texmaster said:
The higher occurance of HIV in homosexuals particularly male homosexuals was to expose the fallacy of his argument by proving all sexual orientations have negatives and positives.
Click to expand...

The higher occurance if HIV amoung gay men, not homosexuals in general (remember lesbians), is the result of gay men as a population being more likely to engage in a risky behavior. That behavior is promiscuous, unproteced anal sex. Just because gay men as a group are more likely to engage in a risky behavior doesn't mean that it is because they are gay that they engage in that behavior.

In Africa, the situation is reversed. Tens of millions of heterosexuals are infected with HIV. A large contributing reason for that is because unprotected anal sex has been practiced as a form of birth control since contraceptives are not widely avaiable. Those people did not get HIV for being heterosexual anymore than the people in the United States got it for being homosexual. They got it from practicing a risky behavior.

Furthermore, if your argument is that gays should be denied marriage because of their higher infection rates of HIV, then I think you might want to think that one through a bit more. Practiging monogamy with a clean partner is one of the surest ways to protect agaisnt HIV infection. Fighting HIV is an argument for gay marriage.
 
texmaster said:
that isn't the argument at all.

Again for the 3,421 time the ONLY reason this was brought up was to expose the fallacy of CC's argument when he claimed he could deny marriage to groups based on positive and negative contributions to a society. The higher occurance of HIV in homosexuals particularly male homosexuals was to expose the fallacy of his argument by proving all sexual orientations have negatives and positives.

That's when he began his mental gymnastics and got a few others to play along ignoring the evidence of the CDC report.
Click to expand...

Guess what tex? Your HIV argument has been shown to be invalid...as your arguments in this discussion always are. Since being homosexual does not cause HIV, nor does being homosexual, in and of itself, lead to having HIV, your position is refuted.

Now, do you have anything of value to add to this discussiion, or are you going to continue to argue a debunked position?

Oh, and one other thing. Polygamy isn't a sexual orientation. You STILL don't understand basic definitions that concern this issue.
 
Last edited:
texmaster said:
....I'm still waiting for you to provide your proof that the much higher numbers of HIV infenction in homosexual men are the result of something other than anal sex.
Click to expand...

There is no proof for that because it's not true. The much higher numbers of HIV infection in homosexual men are irrefutably because more homosexual men engage in unprotected anal sex. Who's arguing otherwise? You're just arguing past each other. If that's what you believe, Tex, I agree with you.
 
texmaster said:
So you can't. Got it.



I'm not doing your job for you. Either quote the article directly or retract it.



QUOTE THE STUDY Where is it?



Yes you can. It just takes a little longer. If you don't want to be challenged by being lazy and telling people to read your pdf instead of pointing to the specific area then don't quote it at all. I've quoted PDFs and books online that had to be written out. Its not that hard.
Click to expand...
I gave you the study. If you're too ****ing lazy to actually read it like I did, that's not my problem hon. Keep your head in the sand for all I care, surely doesn't affect me any.


What part is alluding you? Homosexual men engage in more anal sex per capita. The article shows that specfically. I'm still waiting for you to provide your proof that the much higher numbers of HIV infenction in homosexual men are the result of something other than anal sex.
Click to expand...
LOL You mean like... UNPROTECTED sex, perhaps?
 
MaggieD said:
There is no proof for that because it's not true. The much higher numbers of HIV infection in homosexual men are irrefutably because more homosexual men engage in unprotected anal sex. Who's arguing otherwise? You're just arguing past each other. If that's what you believe, Tex, I agree with you.
Click to expand...

Not quite. This is the argument he is making that we disagree with...

texmaster said:
The higher occurance of HIV in homosexuals, particularly male homosexuals, was to expose the fallacy of his argument by proving all sexual orientations have negatives and positives.
Click to expand...

He is saying that the fact that homosexuals have a higher occurance of HIV in the United States is proof of the fault of their sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Homosexuality is not the cause of HIV transmission. Risky behavior (unprotected anal intercourse) is one cause of HIV transmission.
Click to expand...
Not true. "Risky behavior" is no more a cause of HIV than homosexuality. Risky behavior is a correlate.
 
Taylor said:
Not true. "Risky behavior" is no more a cause of HIV than homosexuality. Risky behavior is a correlate.
Click to expand...

Bull****.

Risky behavior is the cause of HIV. Unprotected anal sex is the cause of HIV infections.

Nobody is this thread, save you, is denying that fact.
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
LOL - Do you want to rethink that and retract?
Click to expand...

No, I want to clarify. Tell me, which of these facts do you disagree with?

1. Two gay men who are HIV negative and who are monogamous with each other can never give each other HIV no matter how much anal sex they have with one another.
2. Having anal sex does not lead to HIV; having anal sex with someone who is infected with HIV can lead to HIV.
3. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals practice anal sex.
4. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice bad judgment and engage in promiscuous, unprotected sex, thereby increasing their chances of coming in contact with someone infected with HIV.
5. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice good judgment and engage in monogamous sex, and refrain from unprotected sex until they know their partner is clean. If they do so, then regardless of their sexual orientation, they will not get or spread HIV.
 
CriticalThought said:
Bull****.

Risky behavior is the cause of HIV. Unprotected anal sex is the cause of HIV infections.

Nobody is this thread, save you, is denying that fact.
Click to expand...

A better way to put it is this: risky sexual behavior CAN cause HIV. Not every time one engages in risky sexual behavior will one contract the disease. Nor will someone contract HIV every time they engage in risky behavior. However, because it is a behavior, there is a causational link between the two, abait a light one. For example, if you engage in risky sexual behavior and ARE HIV positive, your partner then contracting the disease would be caused by the risky sexual behavior that the two of you engaged in.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
It's semantics, isn't it? More homosexuals get HIV because more homosexuals engage in the risky behavior that causes it. Does that mean it's more likely for someone who's homosexual to get HIV? Yes. But it's not a result of their being homosexual.
Click to expand...

I still want someone to show me where anybody made that claim. Show me exactly where someone made the claim that anal sex has only to do with being homosexual. Srawman, strawman, strawman and more strawman as far as I can see.
 
CriticalThought said:
No, I want to clarify. Tell me, which of these facts do you disagree with?

1. Two gay men who are HIV negative and who are monogamous with each other can never give each other HIV no matter how much anal sex they have with one another.
2. Having anal sex does not lead to HIV; having anal sex with someone who is infected with HIV can lead to HIV.
3. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals practice anal sex.
4. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice bad judgment and engage in promiscuous, unprotected sex, thereby increasing their chances of coming in contact with someone infected with HIV.
5. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals can practice good judgment and engage in monogamous sex, and refrain from unprotected sex until they know their partner is clean. If they do so, then regardless of their sexual orientation, they will not get or spread HIV.
Click to expand...
I didn't read them carefully, but let's say you're correct on all accounts. Risky behavior does not CAUSE HIV it is only a correlate.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
A better way to put it is this: risky sexual behavior CAN cause HIV. Not every time one engages in risky sexual behavior will one contract the disease. Nor will someone contract HIV every time they engage in risky behavior. However, because it is a behavior, there is a causational link between the two, abait a light one.
Click to expand...

True. It is not impossible that an individual can engage in promiscuos, unprotected anal sex their whole life and never contract HIV. Therefore, I can't say say it causes HIV. However, engaging in that behavior puts an individual at a substantially higher risk of contracting HIV, so it isn't correlative. The behavior does effect the likelihood of contracting HIV even if it doesn't directly cause the HIV infection. So as you said, a light causational link.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom