NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's face it, the HIV, and as a consequnce the AIDS (unless your name is Magic go hand in hand.

In these times, hiv is not something that straight people who don not use IV drugs ever worry about, yet saying that, HIV/AIDS has its own day, and the premium on research.

Now, prsotate cancer is a much bigger killer than HIV/AIDS. And the biggest is heart disease. Yet do they get funded? No. Because they are not gay diseases.

Gay people now want to get married like straight people. They claim it is a "right."

Well gays, cut down on your promiscutity and start behaving like straight people, and soon enough most of the HIV/AIDS problem will disappear in the US. Then we can talk about marriage. (You see the trick is to meet people half-way).

Maybe if I make a new thread, they won't realize I said the exact same bullshit in another thread and didn't cite any sources there, either!

**coughs...again**

When you are banned, then we will celebrate. :mp5:

Yep, all those children in South Africa that are born with HIV are just gays getting hit early....

**coughs...again**

*:fluffle:s Goed*

I honestly don't know why you bother debating with these people... oh wait, it's because they're wrong... silly me ^.^

Yep, all those children in South Africa that are born with HIV are just gays getting hit early....

OMG LOGIC!
*puts a sack over Monkeypimp's head and drags him out of the thread*

We can't be having with *logic* in a thread like this, now, can we?

Yep, all those children in South Africa that are born with HIV are just gays getting hit early....

Baby raping is not the issue here. If you want to start a thread about the foul practices of the southern africans, go ahead. I am debating the legitmacy of gay marriage in the USA in light of the HIV/AIDS problem.

When you are banned, then we will celebrate. :mp5:

Who have I flamed? No-one. So why should I be banned?

Baby raping is not the issue here. If you want to start a thread about the foul practices of the southern africans, go ahead. I am debating the legitmacy of gay marriage in the USA in light of the HIV/AIDS problem.

Born with. Unless you think they're being raped in utero, you didn't read the post. HIV can be passed from mother to unborn child.

Who have I flamed? No-one. So why should I be banned?

Hmmmm... I don't know. Maybe because the gods* are essentially benevolent (even though they don't like to admit it :p)



*well, the mods

OMG LOGIC!
*puts a sack over Monkeypimp's head and drags him out of the thread*

We can't be having with *logic* in a thread like this, now, can we?

That's not logic.

Typicall leftism, you resort to cheap shots when you have no true argument. In any event, I should not be forced to support Gay Marriage, becuase that would require my labor being diverted to provide for a cuase that I have not voted for. And nowhere in history has that ever been allowed.

That's not logic.

Typicall leftism, you resort to cheap shots when you have no true argument. In any event, I should not be forced to support Gay Marriage, becuase that would require my labor being diverted to provide for a cuase that I have not voted for. And nowhere in history has that ever been allowed.

Actually, your taxes go to a bunch of things you don't personally give the thumbs up to. That's why there are elected officials. You elect people to make choices for you. Sometimes they don't agree with you. Like in cases where your stance is based on a lack of scientific understanding.

Who have I flamed? No-one. So why should I be banned?
You are wrong, now stop being a puppet for those despicable homosexuals.
Not only are you flaming Goad Twee in that statement, you are also flaming approximately 20% of the United States population and probably a large number of members here. Plus, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about; you're clearly completely miseducated on the subject, and you're a racist bigot to boot.
Plus, though this is just icing on the cake, you're clearly a Republican and a supporter of Bush. In short, all of it is more than enough for banning in my eyes.
Oh, and I noticed you didn't reply to my refuting of your argument in my own thread. Care to say why?

Hmm, so the reasoning here is that since homosexuals are promiscuous, and this has caused the proliferation of the HIV virus among the population, then we should remove their ability to form legally binding, and traditionally monogamous pair bonds...

Not to mention the fact that most of your "facts" (including the ones I paraphrased above) are garbage, and your assumptions are even worse, you've come up with a faulty (and even detrimental) solution to the "problem"...

Good job!

Baby raping is not the issue here. If you want to start a thread about the foul practices of the southern africans, go ahead. I am debating the legitmacy of gay marriage in the USA in light of the HIV/AIDS problem.


this whole gay thing is becoming a big pain in the ass. pun intended.

aids can be contracted through straight sex too, ever heard of bisexuals?

patient zero, a flight steward, was a bisexual man that had sex with hundreds of people, making him the perfect carrier. this isnt strictly gay, just more.

and, BABY RAPING? wtf you talking about? mothers of these children have aids, and give it to the baby in the womb occassionally.

sure, it'd be great if we took the easy way out with disease: eliminate everyone who gets it! but we prefer to be humane, and try to find cures to such diseases.

you know, even ANIMALS are gay. you know that 90% of buffalo are found to have sex with other male buffalos?and that humpback whales take love rides on eachother? or what about those queer lions? LETS KILL EM ALL!

hey, what about anyone in history thats been gay! no more shakespere, burn leonardo davinci's work! hes a fag!

Seeing as how your a republican by A: your military name thing
b: your attitude
and c: your reaction to 'defying gods holy law' by being born gay.

i respond with this: take yer hand off the shotgun, the other off your crotch, and get some sunlight. your pale.

Not only are you flaming Goad Twee in that statement, you are also flaming approximately 20% of the United States population and probably a large number of members here. Plus, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about; you're clearly completely miseducated on the subject, and you're a racist bigot to boot.
Plus, though this is just icing on the cake, you're clearly a Republican and a supporter of Bush. In short, all of it is more than enough for banning in my eyes.
Oh, and I noticed you didn't reply to my refuting of your argument in my own thread. Care to say why?

Whoa, ease up on the 'Bush supporters and republicans = deserve banning'. I don't agree with them either, but saying they deserve to be banned errs on the side of flaming. Everything else I agree with.

And he doesn't reply to questions that he can't answer with ranting. Look at how he picked my frivilous post, instead of the constructive ones, to reply to. That's because he probably didn't realise HIV can be passed from mother to unborn child, and he'll be damned if he'll admit it. In short, don't hold your breath for a reply.

Whoa, ease up on the 'Bush supporters and republicans = deserve banning'. I don't agree with them either, but saying they deserve to be banned errs on the side of flaming. Everything else I agree with.

And he doesn't reply to questions that he can't answer with ranting. Look at how he picked my frivilous post, instead of the constructive ones, to reply to. That's because he probably didn't realise HIV can be passed from mother to unborn child, and he'll be damned if he'll admit it. In short, don't hold your breath for a reply.
I still would like to see a reply. And I must admit I added the Republican plus Bush supporter bit on my own; it wasn't intended as an actual reason for banning. I'm tired so I'm snapping. ;)

Born with. Unless you think they're being raped in utero, you didn't read the post. HIV can be passed from mother to unborn child.

Actually not so much, however, the cases you are referring to generally are the result of a rape.

Nevertheless the topic here is the US, and marriage rights thereof. Unless of course you think the US should invade and put things right.

Let's face it, the HIV, and as a consequnce the AIDS (unless your name is Magic go hand in hand.

In these times, hiv is not something that straight people who don not use IV drugs ever worry about, yet saying that, HIV/AIDS has its own day, and the premium on research.

Now, prsotate cancer is a much bigger killer than HIV/AIDS. And the biggest is heart disease. Yet do they get funded? No. Because they are not gay diseases.

Gay people now want to get married like straight people. They claim it is a "right."

Well gays, cut down on your promiscutity and start behaving like straight people, and soon enough most of the HIV/AIDS problem will disappear in the US. Then we can talk about marriage. (You see the trick is to meet people half-way).

Tell me sir, medically, how is HIV transmitted?

I still would like to see a reply. And I must admit I added the Republican plus Bush supporter bit on my own; it wasn't intended as an actual reason for banning. I'm tired so I'm snapping. ;)

Don't worry about being snappy. I know I was wayyyy flamy in some of the abortion debates when I got over tired... it's because people are so stubborn, and the same incorrect 'points' get repeated over and over and over until I just wanted to throttle people. Needless to say, I tend to avoid abortion debates now.

And I just don't want to see this guy turn around all 'OMG I'M BEING FLAMED'. Because I agree with you, and don't want to see you give him any leeway to screw you over. Although I suspect the mods would be having far too much fun with him to notice you anyway :p

Actually not so much, however, the cases you are referring to generally are the result of a rape.

Nevertheless the topic here is the US, and marriage rights thereof. Unless of course you think the US should invade and put things right.
No, it is not generally the result of rape, you uneducated fool. It is the result of unprotected sex being a constant amongst most Africans as they are not able to be educated on contraception and sexually transmitted diseases. And please, would you respond to my rebute of your post in my thread? If you do not, I, and everyone else, will see that as proof that you admit THAT I'M RIGHT.

Tell me sir, medically, how is HIV transmitted?

Anal sex, and IV use. There used to be a lot throughn blood tranfusions, but they screen for that now.

Before you ask, a lot of straight women have anal sex with their partners, so if you are in an unsafe relationship, that's how they get infected.

its not just anal sex you stupid pile of shit! its oral, straight, ear, ass, any kind of fluid exchange!


hey, if someone sticks it in your EAR your gonna get i, depending on how it was done

Anal sex, and IV use. There used to be a lot throughn blood tranfusions, but they screen for that now.

Before you ask, a lot of straight women have anal sex with their partners, so if you are in an unsafe relationship, that's how they get infected.

HIV/AIDs can be spread via vaginal sex! RARG Anal sex does not have anything to do with it. Dear lord. How can you even argue this topic with so little factual information?

Indeed; it is the result of bodily fluids being transferred; it has nothing to do with the kind of sex. Plus, it can be transmitted from a women to a man if that man is giving her oral sex. You need to learn about AIDS, sir, before you continue this debate.

this guy is like bill o'reilly, going off absofuckinglutely nothing, with pure shit spewing out of his mouth, then shutting everyone else out.







*awaits whining to mod causing ban*

this guy is like bill o'reilly, going off absofuckinglutely nothing, with pure shit spewing out of his mouth, then shutting everyone else out.







*awaits whining to mod causing ban*
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=384564
There; feel free to post your opinions on why he should be banned, though if you're not civil about it the mods won't listen.

*awaits whining to mod causing ban*

Shhh, we want to wait until Myrth is online before we get this locked. That way we might get lucky and get amusing closing commentary.

Boy, oh boy, do you need to pay some attention in health class...

The transmission of HIV is not limited to anal sex and drug use...

HIV can be transmitted through virtually any infected bodily fluid, through virtually any contact between bodily fluids...

Some bodily fluids (like saliva) aren't very likely to spread the virus (which is why I say "virtually any"), but even that is still possible...

The fact is that any form of sex, homosexual, or heterosexual, is just as likely to transmit the disease... HIV is not discriminatory...

The fact that you felt it necessary to make a point that "heterosexual women sometimes have anal sex" as a way to explain why heterosexuals transmit it is proof enough that you don't know exactly how it works... Any form of sex, including vaginal, heterosexual sex, can transmit HIV...

HIV/AIDs can be spread via vaginal sex! RARG Anal sex does not have anything to do with it. Dear lord. How can you even argue this topic with so little factual information?

Yes but it is quite unlikely.

Look at the size of a pore on a condom, now measure the size of HIV(VII). :rolleyes:

aqhah, no, i was awaiting someone to get me banned, its all backwards!

he is free to his opinion. no matter how wrong and stupid and ignorant it sounds to me.



i really should live in canada...

So THAT'S why I'm so wrong. I actually have no fucking clue about what I'm talking about! Silly me. Oh well, lol internet!

**adds a hack to the coughing**

Indeed; it is the result of bodily fluids being transferred; it has nothing to do with the kind of sex. Plus, it can be transmitted from a women to a man if that man is giving her oral sex. You need to learn about AIDS, sir, before you continue this debate.

So it's really infectious then.

Why don't we quarantine hiv carriers?

Yes but it is quite unlikely.

Look at the size of a pore on a condom, now measure the size of HIV(VII). :rolleyes:
What the hell kind of reasoning is that? You're talking about contraception which isn't even the subject matter. We're talking about how AIDS is transmitted if the person is unprotected.
Also, I'm taking your silence about my post back in my thread refuting your own post there as admitting that I'm right. See you when you're banned by Myrth...uneducated Republican sheep...

Yes but it is quite unlikely.

Look at the size of a pore on a condom, now measure the size of HIV(VII). :rolleyes:

So... either you're saying no one ever uses condoms during anal sex, or you think that every act of vaginal intercourse occurs with a condom being used.

Either way you're wrong, I'm afraid.

**adds a hack to the coughing**

I don't edit your posts that way Goed. Please do me the same courtesy.

civilrights reasons.


lets say you get a disease that is not contagious in public, but if your intimate with another person. people in bio suits pummel you and drag you into a roomwith rather normal looking people. to die.



it isnt quaranteened because it isnt the general definition of an epedemic, its much harder to catch then the flu.


I don't edit your posts that way Goed. Please do me the same courtesy.

dont like it eh?

I DO, however, like it up the ass

well thats interesting.

So it's really infectious then.

Why don't we quarantine hiv carriers?

Or we can just kill them. Because, you know, why not? You already have no respect for human life whatsoever, don't be wussy about. Just say it-you wanna kill them all off. It's ok. We all have those urges. Well, ok, only people who are really fucked up in the head want to murder or cast out tons of innocent people. Which is where you come in. Damn, I had a point there somewhere.


What the hell kind of reasoning is that? You're talking about contraception which isn't even the subject matter. We're talking about how AIDS is transmitted if the person is unprotected.
Also, I'm taking your silence about my post as admitting that I'm right. See you when you're banned by Myrth...uneducated Republican sheep...
Dude, seriously, cut out the republican stuff. It's not helping your cause.

I don't edit your posts that way Goed. Please do me the same courtesy.

It's easy and funnier then me just saying "you have no proof or evidence." Besides, it's a bit obvious.

Or we can just kill them. Because, you know, why not? You already have no respect for human life whatsoever, don't be wussy about. Just say it-you wanna kill them all off. It's ok. We all have those urges. Well, ok, only people who are really fucked up in the head want to murder or cast out tons of innocent people. Which is where you come in. Damn, I had a point there somewhere.



Dude, seriously, cut out the republican stuff. It's not helping your cause.
*bows apologetically* I shall henceforth end my comments about Republicans. However, that doesn't mean he's not uneducated; he is. He doesn't know what he's talking about, he refuses to address posts that actually beat his argument down and replace it with their own, and he makes up facts on the spot.

Yes but it is quite unlikely.

Look at the size of a pore on a condom, now measure the size of HIV(VII). :rolleyes:

So, all heterosexual sex is protected sex?

You're saying that HIV can't be passed through vaginal sex because there's always a condom involved?

Right...

And before you go and say something like "but anal sex is never protected!", let me save you the trouble of making your case look even worse by saying that that statement is incorrect... Homosexuals use condoms, too, and in probably about the same percentage as heterosexuals...

If this disease were only a homosexual disease, then heterosexuals wouldn't have it... And if a few did "catch" it from some contact with a homosexual, the disease would cease to be transmitted around between the heterosexual population, because they "all use condoms, and HIV can't be passed through vaginal sex"... However, HIV is very prevalent among the heterosexual population... Care to explain that one away?

So... either you're saying no one ever uses condoms during anal sex, or you think that every act of vaginal intercourse occurs with a condom being used.

Either way you're wrong, I'm afraid.

No that is exactly not what I am saying:

If you assume the "safe sex" diatribe, that is vaginal sex using a condom is "safe" then you are obliged to realize one of two things:

1. Either the condom blocks aids; or.

2. Vaginal sex is an exceptionally low risk behavior.

Now given that a condom does not actually provide a prophylactic barrier and that anal sex with a condom is listed as a far riskier behavior, (ask your GP), then you are forced to assume 2.

Look, face it, Gay people get the virus, and on the whole striaght people don't. I gave a link. HIV AIDS, hgas not manifested itself in the straight community, despite over a decade to do so. Women get the virus because they have bi lovers who generally won't admit it.

Frankly, if we were sincere about doing something about this disease, we would put it outside of politics and really examiine behavoir. But we don'. It's all polotics, thus gay people don't have the right to get married.

So, all heterosexual sex is protected sex?

You're saying that HIV can't be passed through vaginal sex because there's always a condom involved?

Right...

And before you go and say something like "but anal sex is never protected!", let me save you the trouble of making your case look even worse by saying that that statement is incorrect... Homosexuals use condoms, too, and in probably about the same percentage as heterosexuals...

If this disease were only a homosexual disease, then heterosexuals wouldn't have it... And if a few did "catch" it from some contact with a homosexual, the disease would cease to be transmitted around between the heterosexual population, because they "all use condoms, and HIV can't be passed through vaginal sex"... However, HIV is very prevalent among the heterosexual population... Care to explain that one away?


No, HIV(VII) is smaller than a condoms pore.

Vaginal sex is low risk behavior.

No, HIV(VII) is smaller than a condoms pore.

Vaginal sex is low risk behavior.



WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT A GODDAMN LIQUID FORM! it comes from the human body- ATTACHED!


if sperm cant get through a condom (which is what it is for) then hiv cant. its fucking rubber.

this makes me swo angry that... i have to...

fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck
FUCK FUCK FUCK! FUUUUUUUUUCK!


YOUR JUST WRONG NOW! DAMN!

No, HIV(VII) is smaller than a condoms pore.

Vaginal sex is low risk behavior.

If HIV is smaller than a condom pore, your initial assumption (that vaginal sex is safer) is incorrect. I assume that groups putting that theory forward are either biased, or not equipt with up to date facts.

Yes but it is quite unlikely.

Look at the size of a pore on a condom, now measure the size of HIV(VII). :rolleyes:

As has been stated before and as is actually fact, HIV relies on fluid transmission to result in infection.

HIV itself is quite fragile. The virus can be killed by ordinary hand soap, and it'll die in 30 minutes at room temperature.

But it does quite well in biological fluids like semen and blood. Let me make a nice list of how it's transmitted:

It can be absorbed through the lining of the rectum (anal sex)
It can be absorbed through the lining of the vagina (vaginal or "traditional" sex)
It can be absorbed through microcuts that form on the skin of the penis (an extremely common, if not universal occurance) during oral, vaginal, or anal sex.
It can be absorbed through cuts in the mouth or the lining of the throat (oral sex)
It can be transmitted through infected blood or blood plasma (transfusions)
It can be transmitted through infected blood entering open cuts
It can be transmitted through infected needles (IVs and hypodermic syringes)

HIV, and consequentially, AIDS, are actually far more dangerous to heterosexuals because it is transmitted as easily through vaginal sex as it is through anal sex, but vaginal sex between heterosexual partners is much more common than any kind of homosexual sex, because there are many more heterosexuals than homosexuals.

In addition, no one knows with absolute certainty how the AIDS virus came in to being. There are theories, certainly, but none that have been validated.

No, HIV(VII) is smaller than a condoms pore.

Vaginal sex is low risk behavior.
If HIV is smaller than a condom's pore, then doesn't that make it easier for it to get THROUGH the pore and into the body of the other person?
Oh, and if vaginal sex is a low risk behavior, how do you explain all of the other sexually transmitted diseases that occur quite frequently with vaginal sex?

Exactly... The virus doesn't just move from person to person on its own... It can't fly... It can't jump... It has to be carried over within a infected cell, or the surrounding fluid...

Prevent those from being transmitted, and you prevent HIV from being transmitted...

So yes, condoms are a deciding factor in preventing the transmission of HIV, not the "low risk" of vagnial sex...

I can grant that perhaps there is some difference between the risk factors of the two forms of intercourse, but I think you're giving it far too much credit...

If HIV is smaller than a condom's pore, then doesn't that make it easier for it to get THROUGH the pore and into the body of the other person?
Oh, and if vaginal sex is a low risk behavior, how do you explain all of the other sexually transmitted diseases that occur quite frequently with vaginal sex?

HIV won't infect despite being smaller than the pores in the rubber because it relies on fluid transmission. Despite its debilitating effects on the immune system, the virus itself is quite delicate and doesn't travel very well. One needs direct fluid transfer for even a CHANCE of infection.

HIV won't infect despite being smaller than the pores in the rubber because it relies on fluid transmission. Despite its debilitating effects on the immune system, the virus itself is quite delicate and doesn't travel very well. One needs direct fluid transfer for even a CHANCE of infection.
I know that; the point was to show that his points were contradicting themselves. But thank you for stating it implicitly for everyone else. :)

I know that; the point was to show that his points were contradicting themselves. But thank you for stating it implicitly for everyone else. :)

I like to spread great heaping piles of logic and factual data around. It's a hobby of mine.

Included in my other hobbies are activities like breathing. Do you like breathing?

Let's face it, the HIV, and as a consequnce the AIDS (unless your name is Magic go hand in hand.

In these times, hiv is not something that straight people who don not use IV drugs ever worry about, yet saying that, HIV/AIDS has its own day, and the premium on research.

Now, prsotate cancer is a much bigger killer than HIV/AIDS. And the biggest is heart disease. Yet do they get funded? No. Because they are not gay diseases.

Gay people now want to get married like straight people. They claim it is a "right."

Well gays, cut down on your promiscutity and start behaving like straight people, and soon enough most of the HIV/AIDS problem will disappear in the US. Then we can talk about marriage. (You see the trick is to meet people half-way).

What you have written there is so stupid and misinformed that you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Oh, and your "logic" is ridiculous: "Gays are promiscuous, and that's why we won't give them an opportunity to be monogamous."

Seriously, shame on you for being so stupid.

Actually, his points (on this particular aspect) weren't contradicting...

He was trying to prove that vaginal sex must be inherently low-risk, because the HIV virus can travel through a condom...

He is basing this assumption on some flawed facts, but the underlying reasoning is still fairly sound...

He is starting with the "knowledge" that heterosexually transmitted HIV is rare, and that condoms do nothing to prevent it from spreading, so they are not a factor... Thus, the only other possibility for this supposed rarity of vaginally transmitted HIV, is that vaginal sex is low-risk for transmission...

Logically, that works out... However, the reasoning is based on incorrect information, so the resulting conclusion is false...

look at the topic name!he says that without all these gays, aids would not exist! bull!


man, you know that someone was gonna have sex with a monkey at one time or another. it just ended up being a gay guy is all.

Actually, his points (on this particular aspect) weren't contradicting...

He was trying to prove that vaginal sex must be inherently low-risk, because the HIV virus can travel through a condom...

He is basing this assumption on some flawed facts, but the underlying reasoning is still fairly sound...

He is starting with the "knowledge" that heterosexually transmitted HIV is rare, and that condoms do nothing to prevent it from spreading, so they are not a factor... Thus, the only other possibility for this supposed rarity of vaginally transmitted HIV, is that vaginal sex is low-risk for transmission...

Logically, that works out... However, the reasoning is based on incorrect information, so the resulting conclusion is false...

Flawlessly logical. The General can hardly be faulted for his reasoning, as lack of information isn't a crime.

This is quite fascinating to discuss. If I may share a quote with all present;

"I do not agree with a word you are saying but will defend with my life your right to say it."

-Voltaire

man, you know that someone was gonna have sex with a monkey at one time or another. it just ended up being a gay guy is all.

WTF are you on about?

WTF are you on about?
He's talking about one of the major theories of how AIDS developed; supposedly, it was the result of a monkey and a human copulating.
Still, General Curtis is being incredibly ignorant, not to mention uncaring about all of the people in Africa. "End AIDS Research." Bah.

hah, we knew it was inevitable:


monkeys hav had hiv/aids for some time, but are unaffected by it. it is believed that hiv came from haiti, *the last place patient zero landed before going to the states* where 90% of the population (no joke, national geographic as my source) has hiv/ aids.



im saying that somewhere in that messed up island, some dude butt raped a monkey.

WTF are you on about?

Reference to the theory that AIDs was spread to humans via intercourse with monkeys.

Personally, I believe the much more likely theory that it jumped the barrier through mingled blood between an infected monkey and a human hunter.

But some people just like thinking about people having sex with monkeys, I guess :p

Actually, his points (on this particular aspect) weren't contradicting...

He was trying to prove that vaginal sex must be inherently low-risk, because the HIV virus can travel through a condom...

He is basing this assumption on some flawed facts, but the underlying reasoning is still fairly sound...

He is starting with the "knowledge" that heterosexually transmitted HIV is rare, and that condoms do nothing to prevent it from spreading, so they are not a factor... Thus, the only other possibility for this supposed rarity of vaginally transmitted HIV, is that vaginal sex is low-risk for transmission...

Logically, that works out... However, the reasoning is based on incorrect information, so the resulting conclusion is false...


But it is rare. The straight community is still relatively hiv free in the US.

And as to the Picard dude, the reason why other STD's are transmitted in the straight comunty - like herpes I assume you mean - is because they are much more transmissble. (One can only imagine the infection rates in the Gay community however.)

Speaking of which, hepititis is also much more prevelant in the gay community than in the straight community. Draw your own conclusions.

oh comeon! its hilarious! ow, i think i broke my pinkyhitting shift so damn much. damnit. no more capitals for me. or exclamation points, ow.


anyway... 'ooh ooh ahh aah! eee! eee! *hump hump hump hump*'
just imagine...


that last sentence did it for me pinky.

Reference to the theory that AIDs was spread to humans via intercourse with monkeys.

Personally, I believe the much more likely theory that it jumped the barrier through mingled blood between an infected monkey and a human hunter.

But some people just like thinking about people having sex with monkeys, I guess :p

Your theory does bear significant merit. It COULD just be me, but last I checked more people were shooting primates than boinking them.

hey, if your reaaaly reallly lonely, some furry monkey butt starts lookin a lot like carmen electra, ya know.

hey, if your reaaaly reallly lonely, some furry monkey butt starts lookin a lot like carmen electra, ya know.

I don't think we want you to explain how you know that, kthnx.

hah, we knew it was inevitable:

monkeys hav had hiv/aids for some time, but are unaffected by it. it is believed that hiv came from haiti, *the last place patient zero landed before going to the states* where 90% of the population (no joke, national geographic as my source) has hiv/ aids.

im saying that somewhere in that messed up island, some dude butt raped a monkey.

You seriously have no clue what you're talking about.

Nobody has to have sex with a monkey for it to infect them with this proto-HIV.

HIV does not come from Haiti.

Haiti has an adult prevalence rate of HIV-infection that lies at 6,1 % (2001). http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/haiti_statistics.html#4
http://www.indexmundi.com/haiti/hiv_aids_adult_prevalence_rate.html

The fact that the virus has spread more rapidly among gays in the West has no bearing on wether or not the first person infected was gay or straight (he/she was probably straight, though) - it has more to do with epidemiology and societal factors.

hey, its just a funny possibility...

im trying to take a wee bit of the edge off in here, if you havent noticed.





and, if your into monkeys, consider bamboons, those rainbow asses would be hot for you.

im trying to take a wee bit of the edge off in here, if you havent noticed.

By pulling "facts" about Haiti out of your ass?

Speaking of which, hepititis is also much more prevelant in the gay community than in the straight community. Draw your own conclusions.

Are you really this ignorant of basic epidemiology or is it just how you come across?

Are you really this ignorant of basic epidemiology or is it just how you come across?

But it is, hence the free vacinations for the .I mean Gays in NYC and San Fransico.

I hope that once they get marriage rights such programs are dissallowed.

Homosexuals are not the problem. Unprotected, non-monogamous sex is the problem. If you have a humanitarian cell in your body, you should be encouraging gay marriage.

By pulling "facts" about Haiti out of your ass?


huh? no, that wasnt out my ass.

some percent of haiti does have aids, its not a nice place to live.

the monkey thing was merely a possibility :p


Edit: sorry, i was kind of going off something i read a long time ago on haiti in there. its still a rather large amount.

but, you still have to count the ammount that dont know because they havent been tested, and the fact that such things are not allowed for public viewing.

But it is, hence the free vacinations for the .I mean Gays in NYC and San Fransico.

That has everything to do with epidemiology. Let's see if you can understand simple ideas:

One gay person makes up, percentage wise, a lot bigger part of the gay community than a straight person does in the straight community, since the gay community is smaller.

Now, imagine one gay person and one straight person getting infected with hepatitis B. That from the start makes the gay prevalence of infection higher than the straight kind. Now let's say that gay person infects three more people. We'll have the straight person do the same. Compared to straights, the gay prevalence rate logarithmically increases.

Can you figure out what that means for those uninfected? Are you so clever to realise that the smaller the population, the greater the prevalence and the greater the risk for an uninfected to become randomly infected?

Are you smart enough to realise that this has very little to do with sexual orientation, and more to do with epidemiology visavi group dynamics? Do you also now realise why it is more worth while to offer those preventative measures to gays than to straights?

Say it with me: Epidemiology - Group size - Dynamics! Good, Gen Curtis! Learn something new?

Dunno bout him, but i sure did!

But it is rare. The straight community is still relatively hiv free in the US.

And as to the Picard dude, the reason why other STD's are transmitted in the straight comunty - like herpes I assume you mean - is because they are much more transmissble. (One can only imagine the infection rates in the Gay community however.)

Speaking of which, hepititis is also much more prevelant in the gay community than in the straight community. Draw your own conclusions.

According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), out of 920565 male HIV infections that have occured in the US since HIV was discovered, 417261 (or about 45.3%) infections occured by reasons that had nothing to do with sexual contact with other men. And among the 170679 female HIV infections since the virus's discovery, 93586 (or about 54.8%) infections were caused by heterosexual sex. Less than 3.8% of female infections were caused by sex with a member of the same gender.

Statistics also show that since 1999, the percentage of HIV infections caused by heterosexual sex has been increasing. Homosexual sex is still projected to be the highest cause of infection, but one can hardly be justified in saying that 581405 HIV infections NOT caused by same-gender sex is an insignificant number.

That has everything to do with epidemiology. Let's see if you can understand simple ideas:

One gay person makes up, percentage wise, a lot bigger part of the gay community than a straight person does in the straight community, since the gay community is smaller.

Now, imagine one gay person and one straight person getting infected with hepatitis B. That from the start makes the gay prevalence of infection higher than the straight kind. Now let's say that gay person infects three more people. We'll have the straight person do the same. Compared to straights, the gay prevalence rate logarithmically increases.

Can you figure out what that means for those uninfected? Are you so clever to realise that the smaller the population, the greater the prevalence and the greater the risk for an uninfected to become randomly infected?

Are you smart enough to realise that this has very little to do with sexual orientation, and more to do with epidemiology visavi group dynamics? Do you also now realise why it is more worth while to offer those preventative measures to gays than to straights?

Say it with me: Epidemiology - Group size - Dynamics! Good, Gen Curtis! Learn something new?

Not really. :rolleyes: Given your assumption, it still reaches the same ultimate proportions in both communities. Good try though to baffle me with specious logic.

The reason why teh gays get it is because their infection rate is much higher, and they tend to introduce things into the straight community via the bi-sexuals. Heading it off at the disease bag pass it the most effective method.

there goes the facts machine! kickass!

but, how do they disclose such information? aids cases are gaurded for rights reasons.

Well gays, cut down on your promiscutity and start behaving like straight people, and soon enough most of the HIV/AIDS problem will disappear in the US. Then we can talk about marriage. (You see the trick is to meet people half-way).
Gays are no more promiscuous than straight people. In the media stereotype, yes they are, but in reality, no.

Surely gay marriage would cut down promiscuity anyway?

this guy is getting the debated ass whooping of a lifetime.

Not really. :rolleyes: Given your assumption, it still reaches the same ultimate proportions in both communities. Good try though to baffle me with specious logic.

Yes, left uninterupted, but over a very longer period of time for straights - a sufficiently long period to let those infected die off and new, uninfected be born thus keeping the percenteges down. You see - it's all population dynamics over time. It also explains why it is so epidemic in straights in Africa, because once you reach such a high infection rate as to outbalance those who die and enough to raise the relative risk of getting infected for those uninfected, you see the same accelerated transmission as you see in gay communities, since, effectively the size of the straight group no longer matters - it is in a sense reduced to relatively small, geographic group by then.

The reason why teh gays get it is because their infection rate is much higher, and they tend to introduce things into the straight community via the bi-sexuals. Heading it off at the disease bag pass it the most effective method.

I gave you too much credit. It was obviously too complex for you to understand, so you had to resort to idiocy.

Gays are no more promiscuous than straight people. In the media stereotype, yes they are, but in reality, no.

Surely gay marriage would cut down promiscuity anyway?

Gay men are far more promiscuous than straights or lesbians. It was first noted by Kinsey.

And no, marriage would not cut down on it. Maybe they should cut down, and then they will get marriage.

there goes the facts machine! kickass!

but, how do they disclose such information? aids cases are gaurded for rights reasons.

People infected with HIV pretty much have to disclose how they may have gotten it so that the authorities can keep track of spread so as to better be able to prevent it. That's how it works where I live, but I don't know how they do it in the US.

Yes, left uninterupted, but over a very longer period of time for straights - a sufficiently long period to let those infected die off and new, uninfected be born thus keeping the percenteges down. You see - it's all population dynamics over time. It also explains why it is so epidemic in straights in Africa, because once you reach such a high infection rate as to outbalance those who die and enough to raise the relative risk of getting infected for those uninfected, you see the same accelerated transmission as you see in gay communities, since, effectively the size of the straight group no longer matters - it is in a sense reduced to relatively small, geographic group by then.


Let me think. Okay it is population dynamics, which means it would be second in numbers, first in time.

So given a set population size for the gays and the straights, yes initially the infection would spread more quickly thorugh the gays. However, given the greater number of the straights there is a greater chance at a later stage than infected individual does not meet with already infected individuals. Thus the rate of infection will acellerate in the straights (being more numerous) than in respect of teh gays.

Thus without exact infection rates, and relative population sizes it is imppoosible to judge which community will hit saturation first. It may well be that the straights hit thier equilibrium first.



(Two distinct direction fields you see,)


Don't give me credit though.

Gay men are far more promiscuous than straights or lesbians. It was first noted by Kinsey.

And no, marriage would not cut down on it. Maybe they should cut down, and then they will get marriage.
Look, you're not helping your case, General; all you do is make yourself look like a bigot. Which you are, as far as I'm concerned.
And with that, I'm headed to bed. Keep at him peeps; he might actually listen eventually. Or he'll be banned by Myrth. Either way, good luck.

Not really. :rolleyes: Given your assumption, it still reaches the same ultimate proportions in both communities. Good try though to baffle me with specious logic.

The reason why teh gays get it is because their infection rate is much higher, and they tend to introduce things into the straight community via the bi-sexuals. Heading it off at the disease bag pass it the most effective method.

And how do you propose to "Head it off at the disease bag pass"? One can't simply round up all of those who choose to like someone of their same gender and have them shot, because homosexuals won't go away. They will always exist. It is not a lifestyle choice, but a lifestyle fact; that is, people do not choose to be gay, they just are, or aren't. Therefore, some part (statistics say anywhere from 5%-15%) of the population will always try to go at it with someone who has the same equipment as them. It's human nature.

Consider; All animals (yes, humans are animals too) are inherently bisexual. Being heterosexual just means you greatly prefer the opposite gender over the same gender, and the same applies to homosexuals as well.

Do you propose to grab 1 out of every 10 people and prevent them from ever having sex with the justification that they're spreading disease?

Yes, left uninterupted, but over a very longer period of time for straights - a sufficiently long period to let those infected die off and new, uninfected be born thus keeping the percenteges down. You see - it's all population dynamics over time. It also explains why it is so epidemic in straights in Africa, because once you reach such a high infection rate as to outbalance those who die and enough to raise the relative risk of getting infected for those uninfected, you see the same accelerated transmission as you see in gay communities, since, effectively the size of the straight group no longer matters - it is in a sense reduced to relatively small, geographic group by then.



I gave you too much credit. It was obviously too complex for you to understand, so you had to resort to idiocy.




Do not demean him for expressing his opinion. Merely that you don't agree with him doesn't mean you have to insult his intelligence.

Let me think. Okay it is population dynamics, which means it would be second in numbers, first in time.

So given a set population size for the gays and the straights, yes initially the infection would spread more quickly thorugh the gays. However, given the greater number of the straights there is a greater chance at a later stage than infected individual does not meet with already infected individuals. Thus the rate of infection will acellerate in the straights (being more numerous) than in respect of teh gays.

Exactly! Why gays are more susceptible because all of that is accelerated earlier. It's just what I've been saying - given similar modes of infection, the smaller group is more vulnerable than the larger, but when the larger group gets to a certain point (that point being a lot further into the future), its transmission rates skyrocket - but that also means that they have a lot longer time to adapt, for those infected to die/get cured without infecting anyone else, and for new individuals to replenish the group...

Thus without exact infection rates, and relative population sizes it is imppoosible to judge which community will hit saturation first. It may well be that the straights hit thier equilibrium first.

... which of course renders that false.

Exactly! Why gays are more susceptible because all of that is accelerated earlier. It's just what I've been saying - given similar modes of infection, the smaller group is more vulnerable than the larger, but when the larger group gets to a certain point (that point being a lot further into the future), its transmission rates skyrocket - but that also means that they have a lot longer time to adapt, for those infected to die/get cured without infecting anyone else, and for new individuals to replenish the group...



... which of course renders that false.

Well how do you know they will adapt. As far as I know, no community has adapted to heptitis. So given that shouldn't straights be the priority to prevent the skyrocketing infection rate.

That doesn't happen because both you and I know, it is not just population size, but also infection rate. Which is higer with teh gays.

Well how do you know they will adapt. As far as I know, no community has adapted to heptitis. So given that shouldn't straights be the priority to prevent the skyrocketing infection rate.

Actually, most people have adapted to hepatitis in the sense that they have an effective immune responce to it. Some 10% of the population (at least where I live) hasn't and they mount no defence, and vaccinations don't work on them. It's all quite interesting. And straights are the priority in places where hepatitis is endemic. In places where it isn't, it's again the smaller group that is more vulnerable, and thus the one that needs more preventative measures directed at it.

That doesn't happen because both you and I know, it is not just population size, but also infection rate. Which is higer with teh gays.

The RATE of infection depends on the size of the population. :rolleyes:

Actually, most people have adapted to hepatitis in the sense that they have an effective immune responce to it. Some 10% of the population (at least where I live) hasn't and they mount no defence, and vaccinations don't work on them. It's all quite interesting. And straights are the priority in places where hepatitis is endemic. In places where it isn't, it's again the smaller group that is more vulnerable, and thus the one that needs more preventative measures directed at it.



The RATE of infection depends on the size of the population. :rolleyes:

Is it? Only in part, and only if you assume an identical transmission rate. I see no evidence to assume similar rates in the gay male community and the straight community. If anything, I would expect completely different results - given their well documented promiscuity.

Is it? Only in part, and only if you assume an identical transmission rate. I see no evidence to assume similar rates in the gay male community and the straight community. If anything, I would expect completely different results - given their well documented promiscuity.
Are you that willing to go enforce a 'no sex' rule for gays/lesbians? (I'm straight tho)

*If the government starts w/homosexuals, what keeps them from enforcing rigid sex laws for straight people?
*Enforcing such a concept is a direct invasion of one's privacy
*If you follow the 'slippery slope' argument soon the government will start invading your privacy even worse!

Is it? Only in part, and only if you assume an identical transmission rate. I see no evidence to assume similar rates in the gay male community and the straight community.

I think you're confusing "rate", "incidence" and "prevalence".

If anything, I would expect completely different results - given their well documented promiscuity.

Again, the presumed promiscuity (which is not at all "well documented") is a higher vulnerablity to a smaller group. The amount of straight promiscuity is not as much a liability in the bigger group as it is an evolutionary advantage (presumably more unifected children).

Which of course brings us to your ludicrous tendency to in one hand accuse gay males of promiscuity and point to its detrimental effects, and then in the other deny gay males a presumably monogamous institution. It makes no sense. The detrimental effects of promiscuity are otherwise, in sane environments, the primary arguments for monogamy.

The fastest growing demographic of HIV infected persons in the United States is young women. Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use.

While heterosexual sex is lower risk to MEN than anal sex is, it is extremely high risk to women. Indeed, transmition of AIDS between lesbian couples is virtually unheard of, as is the transmition of most STDs. In this sense, the safest and "cleanest" sexual orientation is lesbianism. Unsurprisingly, the CDC has reported that being exclusively homosexual will lower a woman's chances of contracting HIV.

World wide, the most common means of HIV transmition is, far and away, heterosexual sex. Aside from the partner-to-partner transmition, there is also mother-to-fetus transmition to be concerned with. Homosexuality is actually a factor in less than 5% of HIV/AIDS cases world wide, while heterosexual contact is a factor in roughly 85%.

Would the founder of the thread kindly post some facts or statistics, along with sources for us all? If not, I suggest this thread be ignored or locked as the worthless piece of trolling it is.

World wide, the most common means of HIV transmition is, far and away, heterosexual sex.
Correct. While instances of homosexual sex "sparked" the AIDS situation in the first place, it was mostly spread through unsafe heterosexual sex

If not, I suggest this thread be ignored or locked as the worthless piece of trolling it is.

You're right. I shan't help to perpetuate this anymore.

You're right. I shan't help to perpetuate this anymore.
Same here; no use arguing w/this guy, seeing how he wants to invade privacy in the name of stopping homosexual promiscuity.

*fires shots at this thread with his I.G.N.O.R.E. Guncannon*

Let's face it, the HIV, and as a consequnce the AIDS (unless your name is Magic go hand in hand.

In these times, hiv is not something that straight people who don not use IV drugs ever worry about, yet saying that, HIV/AIDS has its own day, and the premium on research.

Now, prsotate cancer is a much bigger killer than HIV/AIDS. And the biggest is heart disease. Yet do they get funded? No. Because they are not gay diseases.

Gay people now want to get married like straight people. They claim it is a "right."

Well gays, cut down on your promiscutity and start behaving like straight people, and soon enough most of the HIV/AIDS problem will disappear in the US. Then we can talk about marriage. (You see the trick is to meet people half-way).


ROFL! Well, Malaria kills more people than aids, are we going to ban people that live in tropical nations? ooh! Besides, you idiot, promiscuity has no sexual option, there are many straight people that are promiscuous, and many people that are neither gay or promiscuous that belong to risk-groups for aids.

Anyone calling Gen Curtis a bigot is intolerant and should think about whether or not they are a hypocrite in wanting him banned. Use argument if you dont like his views not flames.

Plus wheher I agree with homosexuality or not he makes a point. AIDS has its innocent vitims but there are far more innocent victims of malaria, polio or if you want a western problem, heart disease. If you want to save lives divert all funding from AIDS research and other over funded groups like breast cancer and into those diseases. That way you save many more innocent lives and the people who die of AIDS, (with a few exceptions) will be dying as a consequence of their own preventable actions. Maybe its selfish I dont know but I know I am far more likely to die of a heart attack than AIDS so I want funding into its prevention thank you very much.

Anyone calling Gen Curtis a bigot is intolerant and should think about whether or not they are a hypocrite in wanting him banned. Use argument if you dont like his views not flames.

Gen Curtis is a bigot, according to the definition of the word "bigot" and gen Curtis' statements thus far. to call him a bigot is merely to use a term correctly as it applies to this particular person.

now, to call for him to be banned is hypocritical and wrong. that's why i haven't done that. Gen Curtis is fully within his rights to spout whatever ignorant and unsupported tripe he likes, and i will strongly defend his right to do so. but i encourage other forum goers to hold him to task: expect him to provide more than his own imagination as evidence for his case, and if he cannot show basic respect by being truthful and attentive to fact then we need not grant him the respect of hearing him out.

big·ot n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Apologies, yes by this defintion he is a bigot. However if you are strongly in favour of homosexuality and its right to exist and on a particular view of AIDS ie it should be well funded and you are intolerant of his view, (ie thats itw rong). Then you too are a bigot. By being intolerant of him, regardless of whether you believe he should have the right to speak then you are a bigot.

(PS I use 'you' here as a general 'you' not as a specific reply to the person who replied to my thread)

Garrota is correct.

HOwever we are sidetracking from the topic talking about Gen Curtis being a Bigot.

---------------------------------------------------

Here's some statistics on Aids if you want to know more.

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

Note however that 77% of HIV are male, and from those 58% had sex with men.

The fastest growing demographic of HIV infected persons in the United States is young women. Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use.

While heterosexual sex is lower risk to MEN than anal sex is, it is extremely high risk to women. Indeed, transmition of AIDS between lesbian couples is virtually unheard of, as is the transmition of most STDs. In this sense, the safest and "cleanest" sexual orientation is lesbianism. Unsurprisingly, the CDC has reported that being exclusively homosexual will lower a woman's chances of contracting HIV.

World wide, the most common means of HIV transmition is, far and away, heterosexual sex. Aside from the partner-to-partner transmition, there is also mother-to-fetus transmition to be concerned with. Homosexuality is actually a factor in less than 5% of HIV/AIDS cases world wide, while heterosexual contact is a factor in roughly 85%.



A fantastic post. I quote it so its message can be again read and REALLY considered, and hopefully not thrown out the window like other perfectly valid criticisms of General Lee May.... (whatever the name is) and his proposition.

So look at this, and let the facts hang deeply considered over future posts.

Very disappointing.

Forum regulars should know better than to feed the trolls. And flaming the trolls isn't allowed either.

Thread locked for excessive trolling, flaming and flamebaiting by several posters.