• 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.
See in order to make your argument work there has to be at least some form of law in the Constution you can base your argument on alternative lifestyle which there isn't. Nice try.

The Judge in this case did in fact find such a constitutional basis. So by your argument, FilmFestGuy was 100 % correct.
 
A Fox News Viewer Poll shows good support for the ruling:

fox-news-prop8-poll-290x420.png
 
Those Fox internet polls get intentionally flooded by anti-Fox liberals all the time. One of them about the Tea Party showed the by far most popular result being the option for the Tea Party being racist bigots. No surprise, really; internet denizens tend to be extremely anti-Fox, and those who are tend to be extremely organized and militant about it.
 
Those Fox internet polls get intentionally flooded by anti-Fox liberals all the time. One of them about the Tea Party showed the by far most popular result being the option for the Tea Party being racist bigots. No surprise, really; internet denizens tend to be extremely anti-Fox, and those who are tend to be extremely organized and militant about it.

... So if FOX has a lot of viewers, it's because they are the most fair and balanced. If their internet polls show something you disagree with, it's because most people on the internet are from the left. It's a conspiracy I tell yah! A conspiracy! All the anti-semitic libruls got together to vote on FOX - yeops.

conspiracy-poster.jpg
 
Those Fox internet polls get intentionally flooded by anti-Fox liberals all the time. One of them about the Tea Party showed the by far most popular result being the option for the Tea Party being racist bigots. No surprise, really; internet denizens tend to be extremely anti-Fox, and those who are tend to be extremely organized and militant about it.

So not only are you suggesting that there is 300,000+ people that sit around and wait for this stuff to come up (I had to dig around on the actual site before I found it, after reading the post on another site) but you also suggest that most conservatives don't understand the concept of a mouse?


lolcatz
 
They do? Wouldn't that kind of be a silly assumption? Since part of what constitutes a heterosexual is how they make love? LOL You can't be that serious? Were you joking with me?


Tim-

From another post of mine:


According to a 2005 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, some studies put the incidence of anal sex in the heterosexual population as low as 24 percent and some as high as 56 percent. Averaging those numbers, let’s say 38.8 percent of heterosexuals engage in anal sex. Ninety-six percent of Americans are straight. There are 190,000,000 adults between the ages of 18 and 65 in the United States, so that means 70,771,200 adults are engaging in heterosexual anal sex. Four percent of the adult population is gay, or 7,600,000 people. Roughly half—3,800,000—are gay males. Polls indicate that between 55 and 80 percent of gay males participate in anal sex. Taking the average—67.5 percent—that means the number of gay men having anal sex comes to 2,565,000.

70,771,200 is more—a whole lot more—than 2,565,000. Anal sex in America is primarily a heterosexual pursuit.
 
CC - you appear to be utterly ignorant on what a "risk factor" is. A "risk factor" implies no causal relationship whatsoever. It refers simply to a variable that is related to increased risk. The relationship can be causal OR correlational.

That you would accuse someone of "lying" for using a term YOU did not understand is quite simply outrageous.

I'm sure he'd appreciate a public apology.

So you would say, for example, that having a lot of fouls is a "risk factor" for scoring a lot of points in Basketball since there's a correlation between individuals who have given a lot of fouls and individuals who score double digit points?

Naturally then by your peoples logic one can assure themselves a higher likelihood of scoring double digit points in the NBA by fouling people continually.

:roll:
 
No internet poll should ever be trusted, on either side, including many of the ones on this site.
 
So you would say, for example, that having a lot of fouls is a "risk factor" for scoring a lot of points in Basketball since there's a correlation between individuals who have given a lot of fouls and individuals who score double digit points?

Naturally then by your peoples logic one can assure themselves a higher likelihood of scoring double digit points in the NBA by fouling people continually.

:roll:

You can't be serious. You are trying to equate conditions that produce results without interference with conditions where the results are intentionally driven? How did that possibly work out in your head?
 
Homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality, does not make one any more likely in and of itself to be able to contract HIV. If you expose a straight person and a homosexual person to HIV they have the exact same likelihood of gaining the disease. This obvious tells us its something else in the community that is causing disproportionately large numbers of homosexual men to have HIV rather than heterosexual men, and that said thing can not simply be their status as homosexuals because it can easily be proven that being homosexual in and of itself doesn't make you more or less prone to gaining the disease. Thus, there is likely an additional factor/factors that is more prevalent in the homosexual male community than in heterosexual male communities. Most evidence seems to point to a high proliferation of more casual sex mixed with the smaller community pool of potential partners to engage in said sexual style with, leading to the higher proliferation of this. Both factors can arguably be contributed to the fact that society and the rule of law denies them the traditional incentives for monogamous relationships while also ostracizing them from being "normal" thus increasing the seeming need to require them to go about things more "discreetly" and on the down low than possible rather than traditional relationships.

Heterosexual people performing the same type of irresponsibility also are more likely to catch STD's than other heterosexuals. For example, individuals that are college aged are more likely to contract an STD than those that are in their 30's and 40's. Shall we suggest then that college causes STD's? Or is it perhaps that the atmosphere and sexual standards at most colleges are different than those that are older and it is that, not necessarily college itself nor the age of the people, that are responsible for the variations?

Similarly with basketball, you'll see that those players who most routinely average double digit points are also the ones that tend to have given the most fouls in a season. One could incorrectly assume then that fouling people leads to scoring more points. OR, you could be more intelligent and look for a more direct relationship, namely that those who play more minutes are both more likely to score points and more likely to have more opportunities to get fouls and thus it is not the fouling but the time played (The behavior) that is the issue.
 
So you would say, for example, that having a lot of fouls is a "risk factor" for scoring a lot of points in Basketball since there's a correlation between individuals who have given a lot of fouls and individuals who score double digit points?

Naturally then by your peoples logic one can assure themselves a higher likelihood of scoring double digit points in the NBA by fouling people continually.

:roll:
Please address the real issue, which is CC accusing Hicup of "lying" about making a "causational relationship" in saying that homosexuality is a risk factor for contracting HIV.
 
Please address the real issue, which is CC accusing Hicup of "lying" about making a "causational relationship" in saying that homosexuality is a risk factor for contracting HIV.

He did. And you're playing your usual word games. Homosexuality itself doesn't put you at a higher risk of contacting HIV. Unprotected sex does. So yes, Hiccup was lying or at the very least showing a serious case of ignorance. What other word games do you want to play today?
 
He did. And you're playing your usual word games.
No.. he posted an analogy illustrating problems with correlational data. It was not relevant to the issue I was raising with my post.

Homosexuality itself doesn't put you at a higher risk of contacting HIV. Unprotected sex does. So yes, Hiccup was lying or at the very least showing a serious case of ignorance.
Show me where Hicup claimed that it wasn't unprotected sex that causes HIV, but "homosexuality itself."
 
Homosexuality, specifically male homosexuality, does not make one any more likely in and of itself to be able to contract HIV. If you expose a straight person and a homosexual person to HIV they have the exact same likelihood of gaining the disease.

That could not be more false. Absolutely false. Read the study. Male homosexual sex clearly shows it makes it far more likely to contact HIV. I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this isn't true.

This obvious tells us its something else in the community that is causing disproportionately large numbers of homosexual men to have HIV rather than heterosexual men, and that said thing can not simply be their status as homosexuals because it can easily be proven that being homosexual in and of itself doesn't make you more or less prone to gaining the disease. Thus, there is likely an additional factor/factors that is more prevalent in the homosexual male community than in heterosexual male communities. Most evidence seems to point to a high proliferation of more casual sex mixed with the smaller community pool of potential partners to engage in said sexual style with, leading to the higher proliferation of this. Both factors can arguably be contributed to the fact that society and the rule of law denies them the traditional incentives for monogamous relationships while also ostracizing them from being "normal" thus increasing the seeming need to require them to go about things more "discreetly" and on the down low than possible rather than traditional relationships.

My God this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever seen. We all know what the cause is. Male homosexual intercourse makes it far eiser to contract the disease. The study says it specifically yet you in this fatal attempt to provide cover for CC's failed argument can't even admit to basic biological facts.

If they have condoms, If they are in committed relationships is complete nonsense. You are throwing out as many "what ifs" as you can possibly think of to ignore the facts around male homosexual sex.

“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC


Thats it, PERIOD end of story. Stop the pathetic excuses. Those are the FACTS. And since male homosexuality's main form of sex IS anal sex its only logical they are more at risk.


I have never EVER seen anyone provide more cover for a failing argument like trying to claim you can limit marriage based on the positive and negative benifits to a society.

For many of you have completely forgotten the claim you keep trying to defend that CC made. This was simply an example of how weak that argument is and why it fails true scrutiny.
 
No.. he posted an analogy illustrating problems with correlational data. It was not relevant to the issue I was raising with my post.
Show me where Hicup claimed that it wasn't unprotected sex that causes HIV, but "homosexuality itself."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ban-overturned-report-147.html#post1058904298

Hicup said:
It is true that people of all stripes that practice safe sex have no risk factors associated with contracting HIV, but it does nothing for any meaningful analysis of this data. For instance, one cannot separate an individual experience from a broad sample. It is therefore incumbent on the one analyzing the date to include the figures of the entire sample on the face. Clearly homosexuals as a group are responsible for more than half the cases of HIV in the USA. Assuming that, safe sex practices do not differ from one sexual orientation to another, or one categorical group over another, we must only conclude that homosexuals practices unsafe sex more so than any other group in the sample. Therefore it is reasonable, and in fact completely conclusive that homosexuals, as a group, are a risk factor in contracting HIV.

Again, that is either intentionally dishonest or ignorant. The reality is that while it is a certain type of behavior which causes you to be more prone to being infected. That behavior is called 'promiscuity'. Stating that homosexuality is a risk factor is as redundant as saying heterosexuality is a risk factor. The overwhelming majority of infections in Africa are from male to female relationships. Does that mean that heterosexuals are a risk factor for HIV? No. Promiscuity is. I'm tired of your silly word games now.
 
That could not be more false. Absolutely false. Read the study. Male homosexual sex clearly shows it makes it far more likely to contact HIV. I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this isn't true.



My God this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever seen. We all know what the cause is. Male homosexual intercourse makes it far eiser to contract the disease. The study says it specifically yet you in this fatal attempt to provide cover for CC's failed argument can't even admit to basic biological facts.

If they have condoms, If they are in committed relationships is complete nonsense. You are throwing out as many "what ifs" as you can possibly think of to ignore the facts around male homosexual sex.

“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC


Thats it, PERIOD end of story. Stop the pathetic excuses. Those are the FACTS. And since male homosexuality's main form of sex IS anal sex its only logical they are more at risk.


I have never EVER seen anyone provide more cover for a failing argument like trying to claim you can limit marriage based on the positive and negative benifits to a society.

For many of you have completely forgotten the claim you keep trying to defend that CC made. This was simply an example of how weak that argument is and why it fails true scrutiny.

Your whole argument is based on the fallacy that male homosexual sex= anal sex. It doesn't, not every gay man has anal sex, and anal sex isn't exclusive to male homosexuals. If it were you'd have a point, but it isn't.
 
That could not be more false. Absolutely false. Read the study. Male homosexual sex clearly shows it makes it far more likely to contact HIV. I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this isn't true.

"Male Homosexual Sex"?

What is that exactly?

Is that receiving anal sex or is that giving anal sex?

Because I'm pretty sure that first one can be done by females, and that second one can be done with females. Unless you're saying that a guy getting it up the ass is somehow physically proven to be more likely to contract HIV that way then females getting it up the ass. Or that males giving it up the ass are more likely physically to get HIV from doing it to a guy then doing it to a women.

Please, what is this "male homosexual sex" that you speak of?

My God this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever seen.

You really should read your own posts in that case.

We all know what the cause is.

Yep, we do. People infected with HIV having unprotected intercourse with those that don't.

Male homosexual intercourse makes it far eiser to contract the disease.

There's that mythical magical fake thing you keep responding to. It must be nice to live in the texmaster world where you can make **** up to please your pathetic little points.
 
That could not be more false. Absolutely false. Read the study. Male homosexual sex clearly shows it makes it far more likely to contact HIV. I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this isn't true.



My God this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever seen. We all know what the cause is. Male homosexual intercourse makes it far eiser to contract the disease. The study says it specifically yet you in this fatal attempt to provide cover for CC's failed argument can't even admit to basic biological facts.

If they have condoms, If they are in committed relationships is complete nonsense. You are throwing out as many "what ifs" as you can possibly think of to ignore the facts around male homosexual sex.

“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC


Thats it, PERIOD end of story. Stop the pathetic excuses. Those are the FACTS. And since male homosexuality's main form of sex IS anal sex its only logical they are more at risk.


I have never EVER seen anyone provide more cover for a failing argument like trying to claim you can limit marriage based on the positive and negative benifits to a society.

For many of you have completely forgotten the claim you keep trying to defend that CC made. This was simply an example of how weak that argument is and why it fails true scrutiny.

So do you think an HIV-negative gay male couple, monogomous and in a committed relationship, will spontaneously catch HIV from one another?

Is that what you're saying?

Or do you believe that it's poor decision making in sexual practices by largely promiscuous uncommitted single people?

If you think it's the former, then it would make sense that banning gay marriage would somehow lessen HIV infection rates.

If you believe that it's in poor decision making in sexual practices, then promoting the commitment and responsibility that comes with marriage would actually be better for gay men and for society in general.

Thus your views are contradictory.
 
"Male Homosexual Sex"?

What is that exactly?

Is that receiving anal sex or is that giving anal sex?

Because I'm pretty sure that first one can be done by females, and that second one can be done with females. Unless you're saying that a guy getting it up the ass is somehow physically proven to be more likely to contract HIV that way then females getting it up the ass. Or that males giving it up the ass are more likely physically to get HIV from doing it to a guy then doing it to a women.

Please, what is this "male homosexual sex" that you speak of?



You really should read your own posts in that case.



Yep, we do. People infected with HIV having unprotected intercourse with those that don't.



There's that mythical magical fake thing you keep responding to. It must be nice to live in the texmaster world where you can make **** up to please your pathetic little points.

.... Dude, this is the person who asks how the sexual stimuli of heterosexual women and homosexual women(i.e. Lesbians) differ.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ue-gay-group-claim-bias-4.html#post1058705756

You cannot argue with people who are for all intended purposes, ignorant of sexuality as a subject. A person who when confronted with biological and social arguments behind a particular issue responds with fallacy laden questions that are in turn constructed by their weak understanding of genetics is not somebody you want to have a discussion with about this particular issue. Their arguments are based on the inability to not understand the evidence provided in context.
 
Last edited:
.... Dude, this is the person who asks how the sexual stimuli or heterosexual women and homosexual women(i.e. Lesbians) differ.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ue-gay-group-claim-bias-4.html#post1058705756

You cannot argue with people who are for all intended purposes, ignorant of sexuality as a subject.

Trust me Hautey, I should know better. The guy can't properly read, comprehend, and respond to clearly articulated arguments stated two dozen times in a single thread...I'm probably asking a lot for him to actually understand the basic sexual abilities of the two sexes. Still, the argument of "homosexual male sex" is ridiculous as stating that somehow it proves homosexuals are naturally more prone to HIV. Again, he's looking at a relationship where there's a correlation and acting as if there's causation to prove his assertion that somehow homosexuality leads to increased chance of HIV when in reality its not the homosexuality but in the case he's speaking about anal sex. But you know, honesty doesn't help his argument...ever.
 
Last edited:
That could not be more false. Absolutely false. Read the study. Male homosexual sex clearly shows it makes it far more likely to contact HIV. I cannot believe you are still trying to argue this isn't true.

Once again, I know you guys are making a political argument and don't actually care about the scientific facts, but the reality is that unprotected anal sex is the most common way that HIV is spread. Two homosexual men who are HIV negative, monogamous to each other, and who practice unprotected anal sex will never give each other HIV. HIV has nothing to do with sexual orientation. That being said, men who have sex with men (MSM) represent a smaller population pool, and as such, it is much more likely for promiscuous men who have unprotected anal sex with several other MSM to come in contact with the disease. As such, it is the sexual behaviors of unprotected anal sex and promiscuity that lead to higher HIV infection risk, not the sexual orientation. To argue otherwise is ignorant of the simple fact that it is sexual behaviors and not sexual identity that leads to such risk. That is exactly what your study shows.

And yes, I know I'm wasting my time trying to explain this to someone who clearly has an agenda and will distort statistics to fit their worldview, but I want to make it as clear as possible. Men who have sex with men are a smaller population which means that diseases like HIV can spread more easily among the promiscuous members. It is unprotected anal sex, promiscuity, and a smaller population that is the deadly combination that leads to higher infection rates, not the sexual orientation. If you can prove that two homosexual men who are clean, and who practice monogamy with each other, can give each other HIV, then you might have a case, but otherwise, it is illogical to argue that homosexuality leads to HIV.
 
Last edited:
Once again, I know you guys are making a political argument and don't actually care about the scientific facts, but the reality is that unprotected anal sex is the most common way that HIV is spread. Two homosexual men who are HIV negative, monogamous to each other, and who practice unprotected anal sex will never give each other HIV. HIV has nothing to do with sexual orientation. That being said, men who have sex with men (MSM) represent a smaller population pool, and as such, it is much more likely for promiscuous men who have unprotected anal sex with several other MSM to come in contact with the disease. As such, it is the sexual behaviors of unprotected anal sex and promiscuity that lead to higher HIV infection risk, not the sexual orientation. To argue otherwise is ignorant of the simple fact that it is sexual behaviors and not sexual identity that leads to such risk. That is exactly what your study shows.

'Skuze me for chiming in here. Maybe I'm not reading back far enough. But it seems that people are making an argument that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the transmission of HIV. Well, it does. From the CDC:

Transmission Category - Stats for 2008 Diagnoses

Male-to-Male Sexual Contact: 22,469
Drug Use Males: 2,539 -- Females: 1,571 = 4,110
Male-to-Male Sexual Contact and Drug Use: 1,141
Heterosexual Contact with a person who either has HIV or is at high risk: Men: 4,496 -- Women: 8,864
Other: Men: 110 -- Women: 77

From th CDC: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

Male to Male sexual contact is more causitive than all other reasons combined. If I'm missing something, please forgive me. I may have misread posts.
 
'Skuze me for chiming in here. Maybe I'm not reading back far enough. But it seems that people are making an argument that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the transmission of HIV. Well, it does. From the CDC:

Transmission Category - Stats for 2008 Diagnoses

Male-to-Male Sexual Contact: 22,469
Drug Use Males: 2,539 -- Females: 1,571 = 4,110
Male-to-Male Sexual Contact and Drug Use: 1,141
Heterosexual Contact with a person who either has HIV or is at high risk: Men: 4,496 -- Women: 8,864
Other: Men: 110 -- Women: 77

From th CDC: Basic Statistics | Statistics and Surveillance | Topics | CDC HIV/AIDS

Male to Male sexual contact is more causitive than all other reasons combined. If I'm missing something, please forgive me. I may have misread posts.

I notice you did not list lesbians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom