[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Oh! ANd Long Island, my home, has the highest rate in the nation. And we have relatively few gays. We also have the highest rate of teenage AIDS by a long shot. Or at least that’s what they tell us in assemblies <_<[/quote]
Relatively few gays? What, did you take a poll and go door to door to see how many gays you have? LOL!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Oh! ANd Long Island, my home, has the highest rate in the nation. And we have relatively few gays. We also have the highest rate of teenage AIDS by a long shot. Or at least that’s what they tell us in assemblies <_<
Relatively few gays? What, did you take a poll and go door to door to see how many gays you have? LOL![/quote]
…Er… NYC has the highest concentration of gays on Earth. So… I’m pretty sure the suburbia of Long Island has both fewer and relatively fewer.
And I’ve met seven kids with AIDS from LI. Two were gay. So part of that assumption is anecdotal experience.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Having compassion for people with a deadly illness is “liberal PC” now?
In this statement you are saying that it isn’t there fault for contracting the disease.
If a person is stupid enough to not take the necessary precautions for contracting the virus, then why do you have compassion for them? AID’s is a completely avoidable virus if you aren’t a fucking idiot (In nearly all cases).
Dumbest post I’ve read since yesterday.
So, America is now the land of people who don’t give a shit about the sick? Because you think every person with AIDs got it from unprotected sex?
Because there are no kids with AIDs?
Dumbass.[/quote]
Next time you see someone with lung or throat cancer, refuse to call him a victim and tell him how easily that could have been avoided.
Cause thats what sick people need to hear.
How can you be a doctor and not know that?
[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Having compassion for people with a deadly illness is “liberal PC” now?
In this statement you are saying that it isn’t there fault for contracting the disease.
If a person is stupid enough to not take the necessary precautions for contracting the virus, then why do you have compassion for them? AID’s is a completely avoidable virus if you aren’t a fucking idiot (In nearly all cases).
Dumbest post I’ve read since yesterday.
So, America is now the land of people who don’t give a shit about the sick? Because you think every person with AIDs got it from unprotected sex?
Because there are no kids with AIDs?
Dumbass.
Next time you see someone with lung or throat cancer, refuse to call him a victim and tell him how easily that could have been avoided.
Cause thats what sick people need to hear.
How can you be a doctor and not know that?
[/quote]
No, that is what they needed to hear 20 years ago when they were smoking 2-packs a day.
Regardless of what people tell themselves or would like to believe, all of the major diseases affecting people are mostly preventable. So whether it makes them feel warm and fuzzy or not, it’s the truth.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Having compassion for people with a deadly illness is “liberal PC” now?
No, but acting like it was not their fault is nothing but liberal PC bullshit.
Unless you are a hemophiliac, or unlucky SOB who gets the wrong transfusion, there is no fucking way you can contract AIDS with out voluntarily ignoring precautions.
Personally, except in the very rare case, most everyone who contracts AIDS is a fucking idiot, and there is no reason whatsoever to act as if they are anything but a fucking fool.
I am speaking about North America only, if that even matters to the idiotic fucking PC police.
Who in the hell claims it wasn’t there fault? “Yeah, one of my last few random partners FORCED me to not use a condom.” Oh yeah. People totally say that all the time.
I don’t suppose you are old enough to remember, but they had a quilt that had the names of all the AIDS “victims” on it.
People who have AIDS are referred to as VICTIMS. Just the very term suggests that it was not their fault.
People are pissed that the government is not spending enough on a disease that is voluntarily contracted.
Doesn’t really sound like taking responsibility for one’s actions.
[/quote]
Does anybody remember the gay socialists at Bush 1 rallies during the 92 campaign screaming, [quote]murderer, you killed my lover!!![/quote] because King George hadn’t cured AIDS.
He had the audacity once to respond by saying [quote]Change your behavior[/quote] and was drawn and quartered in the media for his outrageous and incomprehensible insensitivity.
Yes. Because everyone knows that one gay man can speak for all gay men.
I’ve said it before, but if you want to decrease the rate of STDs among gays you should allow them to get married. The research has shown a clear decrease in disease for gay married couples.
Of course, that isn’t what the anti-gay crowd wants to hear. They would rather tell people not to be gay than provide a social institution that would directly address the symptom they claim they want to cure.
It’s not about reducing the rate of disease among gays. It’s about reducing the number of gays. Offer them a way to do the former without doing the latter, and they will shut you down every time.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’ve said it before, but if you want to decrease the rate of STDs among gays you should allow them to get married. The research has shown a clear decrease in disease for gay married couples.
Of course, that isn’t what the anti-gay crowd wants to hear. They would rather tell people not to be gay than provide a social institution that would directly address the symptom they claim they want to cure.
It’s not about reducing the rate of disease among gays. It’s about reducing the number of gays. Offer them a way to do the former without doing the latter, and they will shut you down every time.[/quote]
Horse shit.
If you call horse shit, I can only conclude that you fully support gay marriage as a viable means of reducing the disease rate among gays. Kudos.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you call horse shit, I can only conclude that you fully support gay marriage as a viable means of reducing the disease rate among gays. Kudos.[/quote]
You would be concluding wrong.
Since when did the AIDS virus start looking at marriage licenses?
If the gay community wanted to be monogamous, they would be - with or without the blessings of the government.
You think heterosexual sex is strictly a monogamous thing? Why then, are STD’s proliferating?
With or without gay marriage, AIDS will still be a problem for the gay community.
The answer to every problem is not to legalize gay marriage. You are starting to sound like lixy - where every issue discussed can be turned into a lament against the US involvement in Iraq.
That’s like saying if the straight community wanted to be monogamous, they would be. You’re ignoring the stability provided by the legal responsibilities and benefits uniquely associated with marriage.
Marriage doesn’t guarantee fidelity, but it increases the likelihood of it. The research bears this out, for both heterosexuals and for homosexuals.
I agree that marriage isn’t the only solution to the AIDS epidemic, but if you truly cared about gays you would encourage them to do everything they can to avoid the chance of getting infected.
[quote]forlife wrote:
That’s like saying if the straight community wanted to be monogamous, they would be. You’re ignoring the stability provided by the legal responsibilities and benefits uniquely associated with marriage.
Marriage doesn’t guarantee fidelity, but it increases the likelihood of it. The research bears this out, for both heterosexuals and for homosexuals.
I agree that marriage isn’t the only solution to the AIDS epidemic, but if you truly cared about gays you would encourage them to do everything they can to avoid the chance of getting infected. [/quote]
I really don’t care about lifestyle choices beyond those which I make for myself.
Why should I?
If you don’t care about lifestyle choices, but you do care about reducing disease in the gay population, support gay marriage. Simple as that.
I do see this as a bigger issue though. HIV isn’t a joke, and is actually more common among heterosexuals than among gays outside of the U.S. Blows me away that denialists (including some national leaders) are still claiming that there is no connection between HIV and A.I.D.S.
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you don’t care about lifestyle choices, but you do care about reducing disease in the gay population, support gay marriage. Simple as that.
I do see this as a bigger issue though. HIV isn’t a joke, and is actually more common among heterosexuals than among gays outside of the U.S. Blows me away that denialists (including some national leaders) are still claiming that there is no connection between HIV and A.I.D.S.[/quote]
AIDS is about 20th on my list of diseases I give a shit about. So, I don’t guess I need to think about supporting gay marriage until we figure out how to cure diseases that afflict those who don’t have a choice in whether they contract said disease, or not.
I really truly don’t care about the health, or well being those involved in a lifestyle choice that I have not chosen. Simple as that.
So your value system doesn’t allow for helping anyone that might have avoided the situation? People get what they deserve and all that?
I have a different value system, but you’re entitled to whatever makes sense to you.
[quote]forlife wrote:
So your value system doesn’t allow for helping anyone that might have avoided the situation? People get what they deserve and all that?
I have a different value system, but you’re entitled to whatever makes sense to you.[/quote]
I never said I wouldn’t help, but I don’t want my tax dollars going to a disease that is a disease of choice at the expense of others that are not.
Like I said - I don’t really give a shit about AIDS. You do. I don’t fault you for thinking AIDS should be the #1 priority, do I?
Your only evidence that it will help is that it reduced syphilis amongst homosexuals in Europe. The data for gonorrhea and HIV was much less supportive.
Please, you are a fanatic. I’m starting to think that the description of homosexuality-run-amok in Genesis is right on target.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Hey…here’s an idea. They could keep their unprotected dicks out of the assholes of other men.[/quote]
The same could be said of heterosexuals that have unprotected sex.
The problem is with unprotected sex, not with sexual orientation.
If marriage reduces the likelihood of unprotected sex, it is a good thing for both heterosexuals and for homosexuals.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Like I said - I don’t really give a shit about AIDS. You do. I don’t fault you for thinking AIDS should be the #1 priority, do I?
[/quote]
I don’t see it as a black and white issue, where it has to be the #1 priority or you ignore it entirely. I agree that there are other diseases which should get more funding, but that doesn’t mean AIDS should get no funding at all. Not that you’re suggesting that should be the case.