- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Texas is... progressive?
Texas is... progressive?Follow
But it's obvious!
gbaji wrote:
I'm starting with a belief about what marriage is
Which you fantastically can only apply to a world that doesn't exist.
Gbaji wrote:
Against that he simply insists that he's right because... well... that's just the way it is!
Gbaji wrote:
It's funny how those who are working really hard to change the times keep saying that as though it justifies what they are doing.
Edited, Oct 6th 2009 4:03pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
gbaji wrote:
Why are there incentives to marry then?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. And No. Care to support this position with more than self certainty?
I'm starting with a belief about what marriage is and why we apply it the way we do in our society.
.
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
Why does everyone keep bringing up this STD thing?
Quote:
Most AIDS cases are found in homosexual or bisexual males and intravenous drug abusers, and these two groups make up about 77 percent of all AIDS cases
http://books.google.com/books?id=TEiuWP4z_QIC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=homoesexual+percentage+of+aids+cases&source=bl&ots=uE8Axha0jV&sig=llvDGN40_lbitZdcjcjRFVPsiMw&hl=en&ei=U6_LSqelKtSvtgeetpjlAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Edited, Oct 6th 2009 5:03pm by publiusvarus
Quote:
To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm
You see, it's the **** that spreads disease. You boys are warned. Your widdler should be illegal.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
Why does everyone keep bringing up this STD thing?
Quote:
Most AIDS cases are found in homosexual or bisexual males and intravenous drug abusers, and these two groups make up about 77 percent of all AIDS cases
http://books.google.com/books?id=TEiuWP4z_QIC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=homoesexual+percentage+of+aids+cases&source=bl&ots=uE8Axha0jV&sig=llvDGN40_lbitZdcjcjRFVPsiMw&hl=en&ei=U6_LSqelKtSvtgeetpjlAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Edited, Oct 6th 2009 5:03pm by publiusvarus
Quote:
To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm
You see, it's the **** that spreads disease. You boys are warned. Your widdler should be illegal.
Edited, Oct 6th 2009 4:09pm by Sweetums
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Your widdler should be illegal.
Mine's registered as a deadly weapon, baby.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Castration for a better America! It'll be like a John Irving novel.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Jophiel wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Your widdler should be illegal.
Mine's registered as a deadly weapon, baby.
Honestly Gbaji? Marriage evolved due to property rights. Men wanted to ensure that they had sole ownership of the women they married. There is also a strong component of social obligation and support, which is played out in the duty of a brother to marry his dead brothers wife. Children were always the property of the man, the marriage had nothing to do with it. Kids were often also raised by the entire extended family and friends. The nuclear family is a fairly new concept.
At some point the rich people who controlled everything saw that if they "payed" their wife part of their salary then they could end up paying less taxes. Being in control they used their power to make this the standard.
As woman's rights evolved, a lot of tweaks were added to the system to make it less one sided. The evolution of unions also played a role in this. I'm sure you could trace back a lot of changes to codified marriage and find a lot of different reasons. You could also review different religions and their significant impact on marriage.
No one is disagreeing that a stable family is a good place to raise children, but saying it's somehow the sole meaningful reason for marriage evolving is absurd.
Stable households being better for society is sufficient reason for me to provide the benefits we do. It's more then just living together, you're bound to support one another in bad times. The cost of breaking said bond is not insignificant.
It's amazing you can't see it, when it's so obvious.
At some point the rich people who controlled everything saw that if they "payed" their wife part of their salary then they could end up paying less taxes. Being in control they used their power to make this the standard.
As woman's rights evolved, a lot of tweaks were added to the system to make it less one sided. The evolution of unions also played a role in this. I'm sure you could trace back a lot of changes to codified marriage and find a lot of different reasons. You could also review different religions and their significant impact on marriage.
No one is disagreeing that a stable family is a good place to raise children, but saying it's somehow the sole meaningful reason for marriage evolving is absurd.
Stable households being better for society is sufficient reason for me to provide the benefits we do. It's more then just living together, you're bound to support one another in bad times. The cost of breaking said bond is not insignificant.
It's amazing you can't see it, when it's so obvious.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Castration for a better America! It'll be like a John Irving novel.
Sorry, Anna, I need my ***** to marginalise women.
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
Why does everyone keep bringing up this STD thing?
Quote:
Most AIDS cases are found in homosexual or bisexual males and intravenous drug abusers, and these two groups make up about 77 percent of all AIDS cases
http://books.google.com/books?id=TEiuWP4z_QIC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=homoesexual+percentage+of+aids+cases&source=bl&ots=uE8Axha0jV&sig=llvDGN40_lbitZdcjcjRFVPsiMw&hl=en&ei=U6_LSqelKtSvtgeetpjlAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Edited, Oct 6th 2009 5:03pm by publiusvarus
It's a good thing that HIV statistics have no weight when it comes to discussing the legal ramifications of allowing gays to marry or else varus might of actually had a point for the first time in his miserable, lonely, self-loathing life.
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Castration for a better America! It'll be like a John Irving novel.
Sorry, Anna, I need my *****
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
And you want to stop us from talking about artificial insemination and adoption for some odd reason. As if the way a child is produced is incredibly important.
I never said that. My argument is specific to whom we should apply incentives to marry (ie: marriage benefits). That's it. If someone chooses to artificially inseminate themselves, that's their choice. If someone chooses to adopt, that's their choice. I'm looking at the volume of births which will occur society-wide because people choose to have sex.
But why only that class of children created, gbaji? Why are they the only ones that matter?
gbahu wrote:
Ok. Why are there incentives to marry then?
It helps people cope with hardships better. It improves overall happiness in society because people aren't so lonely. It helps people with their taxes. There are a huge number of reasons which you discount because you want to.
gbaji wrote:
Would there be incentives if there was no connection between parents and children? I don't think so.
My husband and I are married. We get the incentives that come with being married. We do not have a connection to a child. So, yes. Those incentives still exist. And I do not need to be married to my husband in order to get a tax credit for having a child.
gbaji wrote:
No. And No. Care to support this position with more than self certainty?
That's rich, coming from you.
gbaji wrote:
I've explained in great detail the position I hold and the reasons I believe it to be correct. Against that he simply insists that he's right because... well... that's just the way it is!
First of all, I am a she, not a he. Not a big deal, but I've corrected you on that before, and you expressed surprise. I'm just surprised you don't remember.
Second of all, I am doing no more and no less than you are doing. Your "Marriage for the children" theory is an opinoin, and you've told us how wrong we are to think that the reasons for marriage differ from your own simply because "you know better" than we do.
Edited, Oct 6th 2009 4:27pm by Belkira
Oh! Oh! Varus is doing that "GAYS ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY SPREAD AIDS" bs again? Good thing I saved this post!
CBD wrote:
Your 70% figure is radically inaccurate using CDC data. The majority of the following number crunching comes from the following tables: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure
16,749 cases out of a total 34,271 cases in 2007 were from MSM. This is 49% of the cases. I'm going to project this 49% to the 468,578 people who are "currently living with AIDS" as of 2007. That gives 224,917 people with AIDS solely from MSM.
The fastest site I found with U.S. population in 2007 is http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf. This gives the U.S. a population of 302 million. 4% of that number is 12,080,000 people.
Out of all gay people given the percentage you chose, approx. 1.08% of them have AIDS.
I'm aware this isn't the best reasoning. In addition, you probably meant to discuss transfer of HIV rather than cases of AIDS. Franky, if you don't care to know the difference, I don't care to do the math for that as well. The point is still there. AIDS and HIV are not running amok among gay people. Very, very few people with respect to the entire U.S. population have AIDS/are infected with HIV. Very, very few gay people with respect to the entire homosexual U.S. population have AIDS/are infected with HIV.
I know it's fun to thrown numbers like 4% and 70% around without having any idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately some simple math and research shows your premise as drastically faulty. Give it up already. Find a different one.
HIV is also more likely to spread from male to female than female to male. Probably has something to do with *****. Maybe we should mandate men to store sperm at the tender age of 15, and then castrate them to save the world a lot of trouble.
Tell that to Haiti.
Any sex has a direct connection with the spread of HIV. Your thought process goes haywire from "People who have sex without knowing if their partner is HIV+ are likely to get HIV." to "1.08% OF THE GAY POPULATION HAS AIDS. AND IT ACCOUNTS FOR 48% OF ALL AIDS CASES. THEREFORE GAY SEX SPREADS HIV."
No. Not at all. If anything, getting married would encourage homosexual couples to stay monogamous, thus decreasing the chance of one of them getting a partner who is HIV+.
16,749 cases out of a total 34,271 cases in 2007 were from MSM. This is 49% of the cases. I'm going to project this 49% to the 468,578 people who are "currently living with AIDS" as of 2007. That gives 224,917 people with AIDS solely from MSM.
The fastest site I found with U.S. population in 2007 is http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf. This gives the U.S. a population of 302 million. 4% of that number is 12,080,000 people.
Out of all gay people given the percentage you chose, approx. 1.08% of them have AIDS.
I'm aware this isn't the best reasoning. In addition, you probably meant to discuss transfer of HIV rather than cases of AIDS. Franky, if you don't care to know the difference, I don't care to do the math for that as well. The point is still there. AIDS and HIV are not running amok among gay people. Very, very few people with respect to the entire U.S. population have AIDS/are infected with HIV. Very, very few gay people with respect to the entire homosexual U.S. population have AIDS/are infected with HIV.
I know it's fun to thrown numbers like 4% and 70% around without having any idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately some simple math and research shows your premise as drastically faulty. Give it up already. Find a different one.
publiusvarus wrote:
Notice how regular heterosexual sex isn't considered a transmission category while male to male sexual contact is?
HIV is also more likely to spread from male to female than female to male. Probably has something to do with *****. Maybe we should mandate men to store sperm at the tender age of 15, and then castrate them to save the world a lot of trouble.
Quote:
High risk heterosexual contact is primarily people who are sleeping with hookers.
Tell that to Haiti.
Quote:
So yes homosexuality, specifically male to male, does appear to have a direct connection with the spread of aids. And this behaviour should not be recognized as anything other than a deviant one by the govn of the people.
Any sex has a direct connection with the spread of HIV. Your thought process goes haywire from "People who have sex without knowing if their partner is HIV+ are likely to get HIV." to "1.08% OF THE GAY POPULATION HAS AIDS. AND IT ACCOUNTS FOR 48% OF ALL AIDS CASES. THEREFORE GAY SEX SPREADS HIV."
No. Not at all. If anything, getting married would encourage homosexual couples to stay monogamous, thus decreasing the chance of one of them getting a partner who is HIV+.
Bardalicious wrote:
It's a good thing that HIV statistics have no weight when it comes to discussing the legal ramifications of allowing gays to marry or else varus might of actually had a point for the first time in his miserable, lonely, self-loathing life.
Sure. Oh, except that he insists that all homosexuals are at a higher risk for STD and HIV when the book he quoted shows that homosexual women are not. The percentage of women with HIV is rising, but that's if they have a heterosexual encounter with an infected partner.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
It's a good thing that HIV statistics have no weight when it comes to discussing the legal ramifications of allowing gays to marry or else varus might of actually had a point for the first time in his miserable, lonely, self-loathing life.
Sure. Oh, except that he insists that all homosexuals are at a higher risk for STD and HIV when the book he quoted shows that homosexual women are not. The percentage of women with HIV is rising, but that's if they have a heterosexual encounter with an infected partner.
African Americans are also more likely to transmit HIV
We should kill all the black people, that'd show HIV who's boss.
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Honestly Gbaji? Marriage evolved due to property rights.
God save me for posting but I'll quit after this, I promise. Well, I might still laugh at Gbaji's inane comments.
Most of the "incentives" for getting married, aren't. I suppose these days they make marriage seem more practical but they weren't put into law for the purpose of making people want to get married, they were put into law because people who already were married were demanding them. Largely for the purposes of property rights, gender equality issues and all that sort of thing. So asking why those "incentives" exist as though you had to justify why else someone wants you married is a ridiculous question starting from a false premise. They didn't want you married, they wanted extra things out of their marriage.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Honestly Gbaji? Marriage evolved due to property rights.
God save me for posting but I'll quit after this, I promise. Well, I might still laugh at Gbaji's inane comments.
CBD wrote:
Oh! Oh! Varus is doing that "GAYS ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY SPREAD AIDS" bs again? Good thing I saved this post!
Edited, Oct 6th 2009 4:39pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Castration for a better America! It'll be like a John Irving novel.
Sorry, Anna, I need my *****
You struck out the word "to", too. Sorry, Anna, maybe you'd be better suited to, say, cooking.
Quote:
Homosexual acts decrease ones immune system. [citation needed]
Absent the HIV virus, how do you figure this to be the case?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 561
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (561)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Texas is... progressive?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC