At least he didn't resort to the "narrow minded", "hate", or "un-acceptance" (is that really a word?) cards. Classic stuff from the side that touts its - well, its "liberalism". They are, after all, quite liberal and accepting; rejecting all labels and stereotypes. Until you dissagree with them. Then the same tired old labels and stereotypes get brandished about. At least in the case of some liberals, they go too far out of their way to prove snowman's original point about maturity and arrested mental development.

This is another group the thoughtfull, serious left must find a way to distance itself from if it ever hopes to regain a toehold. They need folks, particularly in leadership positions, that can add intellectually to the debate. Examples of the breed that are easily confused and overwhelmed, unable to keep up with the conversation and thus resorting to childish name calling, stereotyping, and baseless assumptions, give all of liberalism a bad rap.

Agree with you, Nostatic...not so much with wludavid...

Nostatic you are correct in saying that the attraction to the opposite sex doesn't increase risk. Acting on that attraction DOES. That action is the choice part. I agree that some people have heterosexual tendencies and some have homosexual tendencies. Some people have a desire to murder people too, acting on that urge is what gets you.

wludavid: Don't worry, you aren't going to make me squirm with talk of *GASP* unprotected homosexual sex. There are a few flies in your ointment though.

You do not mention the fact that a significant portion of gay men engage in sex with multiple partners at any given time, also a risk factor. Some would say this is part of the gay lifestyle. Things like "circuit parties" are also seen in the gay population at rates higher than the heterosexual population. These activities all increase risk. And while I would agree with you that the risk is "more or less" the same with condom use, condom use among gay men is low.

And not to nit pick, but there is still increased risk for transmission during anal intercourse even with condom use. Anal intercourse has a HIV transmission rate of about .5 - 3% while vaginal intercourse is more around .002% or less. Using the widely accepted 90% effectiveness rate of condoms in preventing transmission of HIV we come up with a risk of .005% for anal and .0002% for vaginal intercourse, 25 times the risk...and that's even using the lowest transmission rates.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. I'll shut up now.

By the way, I'm not against some sort of legal government sanctioned union for gay couples. I'm just against changing the definition of marriage.

Here I go agreeing with Todd again...shoot me now.

The homophobes around this place are hard to defend or reason with......who cares if gays want a committed relationship? I don't....just like I don't care if a OT poster sleeps with sheep or is even....gasp....a right winger.....as long as it's between consenting adults there should NOT be a RULE/LAW/POLICY against it....

Isn't that the conservative platform??? Get Government out of our lives???? Or is it just for straight white dickheads that run for Congress and take bribes?

Some of the most gifted writers, philosophers, pundits, actors, Moms and Dads have been gay.....YUP....live with it they reproduce......

As to comparing mainstream gays to pedophiles????? C'mon....that's like comparing straights to guys that like 5 YO girls.....

Educate yourself before you point fingers.

Who is saying that there should be a rule/law/policy against gay relationships?? Didn't see that one anywhere.

It's current armed service policy and there is a ban against gay marriage.....gays are also considered a higher security risk in most jobs......

What's the difference? I ask that in all seriousness.

I'm near the end of a divorce right now. At this point it is simply business negotiations. When you distill it down, "marriage" is simply a legal partnership between two people who are "committed" (or should be...ha!).

Is it just the word? So we keep marriage for man/woman, and "legal union" for gays, and both have identical tax/benefits/etc? If so, I think most gays/liberals would be fine with that. I don't think you'd find many conservative/republicans who are. But I could be wrong...

I, as a "conservative Republican", have no problem with gay civil unions... in fact, I like the idea... but I do have a problem with gays or lesbians adopting and raising children. Children deserve to be raised with a mother and father. That is why I think civil unions and marriage should be differentiated. And before anyone responds by saying that it's better to be raised by gays or lesbians than in a foster home or orphanage, I'll point out that there is a long waiting list for heterosexual couples waiting to adopt...

Yep, you're wrong. What the "gay rights" folks have been lobbying for is MORE than "equal rights"...they seem to want special rights and privileges. Much the same as "rights" demanded by the NOW (aka NAG) folks...

I think children deserve to be raised by loving parents.

Just because they (the parents) are opposite sex doesn't guarantee the child will be raised "right." And just because they are the same sex doesn't guarantee the child will be raised "wrong."

But that's my opinion. Ymmv.

;) Well, it would have amused me if it had. Always better to speak frankly about things, even when they're things we don't much care for.

Quote:

There are a few flies in your ointment though.

I don't feel like pursuing this line of argument, because it's really beside the point. The marginal difference between the risk factors of gay and straight sex is lost in the noise of the myriad of other risks we take everyday. AIDS and HIV rising most rapidly in uneducated and poor demographics, not homosexuals. It's an easily preventable disease that takes education (and condoms) to prevent.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please cite some.

The difference, to me anyway, is that marriage (although also a legal term) is originally a religious union between a man and a woman. At least this is what marriage is to me. To redefine that union to accept couples other than man and woman changes marriage in a way that affects all married people, myself included. Again, this is just the way I feel about it...not saying it's the right or wrong way.

And yes, I would absolutely be ok with a legal union giving gays/lesbians the same legal and financial rights as a married couple but without using the term "marriage".


--wludavid-- Sorry bro, but you're wrong again...

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051118-122021-1117r.htm

HIV infections among homosexual and bisexual men in the United States rose 8 percent last year, after remaining relatively stable the three previous years, new federal data show.
The increase for the virus that causes AIDS compares with average annual declines of 4 percent among heterosexuals and 9 percent among intravenous-drug users from 2001 to 2004, according to a report in this week's issue of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report. ***snip***
"By transmission category, men who have sex with men continued to account for the largest number of [HIV] diagnoses overall" between 2001 and 2004, comprising 44 percent of the total caseload and 61 percent of male infections,

Now the rate of transmission in blacks is certainly going through the roof, but I'm not sure you can say that blacks are an "uneducated and poor demographic" overall without having a study to support that. This is in the US mind you...if you want to talk worldwide it's a different story...

Pardon me, but gays do NOT contribute to society the same way a true marriage does. Gays CANNOT produce children. Adoption is NOT producing children. Therefore gays cannot contribute to society the SAME way as a hetrosexual couple can. Without childeren, society CANNOT CONTINUE. Put simply, gays cannot contribute to society in a meaningful way and therefore do not warrent any special recognition or support, like a married couple does.

Winsoton Churchhill NAILED it, right on.

True AMERICANS, that predates the USA, RESPECT others. They RESPECT their religion, their beleifs, their social standing. Modern liberals DO NOT SHOW RESPECT to anyone or anything, therefore they are UN american. That said, all americans please stand up and take a bow, all others, please leave and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Anyone who cannot show RESPECT for others is not an american.

Well when individuals claim special priveleges due to past transgressions then I stand up and HELLFUCHIN no....but hey that's me.

As to some people I know that were raised by drunk hetero trailer trash and gays....gee....the gay kids happen to be better citizens. The gay kids also turned out to be straight...much to the chagrin of Dad and Dad....

You mean "uncle dad"?

Paraphrased excerpts from the modern liberals' lexicon:

Poor, underpriveledged whites = trailer trash, rednecks, crackers, Jeff Foxworthy jokes. Open to ridicule and openly expressed disdain; laughed at by otherwise caring "liberals". Very PC and sophisticated to make fun of them.

Poor, underpriveledged minorities = people that need our help and understanding. People that are not responsible for their situation. Deserving of our love and support, not open disdain and ridicule. Very non-PC, demonstrating a lack of sensitivity, upbringing, and education to make fun of them.

Another modern liberal disconnect. Another one that drives thinking, caring people away.

You cite yours...I'm tired of typing long responses...especially to those who wouldn't read them.

So breeding is the key criteria for "contribution" to society.

wow.

that is truly one of the funniest things I have ever had the pleasure of reading. Thanks for making my night. SmileWavy

I told you, he's a funny guy. Give him props.

I didn't say that. You're choosing to frame the choice as between a hypothetical "rotten" hetero couple and a "wonderful" gay couple. All other things being equal, the ideal to be pursued is adoption by a mother and father.