VaporTrail Posted July 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 I don't know what that has to do with the subject of gay marriage. I'd say nothing. WSS Exactly. Cysko, men who have sex with men are the demographic most likely to have HIV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Wrong. Africans from Africa are the demographic most likely to have AIDS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 But I don't care who is most likely to have AIDS the point is gays don't have an 80% chance of contracting AIDS. That would mean 80% of gays have AIDS which is a false statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted July 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Wrong. Africans from Africa are the demographic most likely to have AIDS. In the US, men who have sex with men are the demographic most likely to have AIDS.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 I posted a graph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 But I don't care who is most likely to have AIDS the point is gays don't have an 80% chance of contracting AIDS. That would mean 80% of gays have AIDS which is a false statement. Technically, that's not what it would mean. You'd need the statistics on the % of gays with AIDs, the # of times he'll have sex, the # partners, the % of contracting it from a partner with it, etc etc but whatever, it doesn't matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 Woodybunker video: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Any of you wiz kids think of looking into what the Centers for Disease Control has to say? Gay and bi men are AIDS factories.. The aids epidemic has nothing to do with gay marriage...the once upheld moral tradition that marriage gives a couple a license to screw has gone by wayside decades ago. The issue is that gay marriage validates, or puts a stamp of approval on a repulsive and perverted lifestyle. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/s index.html Gay and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States . Among all gay and bisexual men, blacks/African Americans bear the greatest disproportionate burden of HIV. From 2008 to 2010, HIV infections among young black/African American gay and bisexual men increased 20%. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for 63% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM. At the end of 2010, an estimated 489,121 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 What's the point? Nobody is arguing that they don't get AIDS. I'm arguing that there is nowhere, anywhere that claims, except for a renob like Erie Dawg, that gays have an "80% chance to contract AIDS" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 There's also no point in arguing with Bunker about his views of it being a "repulsive and disgusting lifestyle". He's a closed minded, ignorant, little man. Too bad there's nothing he can do to stop the eventual nationwide legalization of gay marriage Then polygamy Then beastiality Then pedophilia Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 What's the point? Nobody is arguing that they don't get AIDS. I'm arguing that there is nowhere, anywhere that claims, except for a renob like Erie Dawg, that gays have an "80% chance to contract AIDS" Why are you so hung up on that? Shouldn't the fact that in 2010, 72% of all new Aids cases were of gays between the ages of 13-24 be good enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Like I Said that's not what I'm debating. He also said the majority of people in this country were on welfare but somehow that got lost in the shuffle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 There's also no point in arguing with Bunker about his views of it being a "repulsive and disgusting lifestyle". He's a closed minded, ignorant, little man. Too bad there's nothing he can do to stop the eventual nationwide legalization of gay marriage Then polygamy Then beastiality Then pedophilia Right? Offended much Woody? Explain how beastiality, pedophilia, and incest are acts of perversion and homosexuality is not. I would like to hear this. It is freaks like you that are closed minded...explain why is it OK for you be offended when someone talks religion, but when someone is offended by two men kissing, they are considered bigots? I'd like to hear that one also, Mr. Open Minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 I'm not offended at all when someone talks religion. I think its lost its use. I think intelligent people should be able to step back and take a look at religion and realize how silly it is. But at the same time I know smart people that are religious because their parents really made it a big part of their life. If you want to talk religion go ahead, I'm not offended. I wouldn't be offended if you talked about how you beat your head with a piece of wood until you pass out either. I'll tell you both aren't the best idea though and I'll tell you I don't want any public policy decisions being made based on either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Liar. You are angry, and your woodypeckerhead posts reflect it when the subject comes up. You reek of stupidity, and you can't take part in any discussion intelligently, and you post like a gay, egg-sucking weasel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Liar. You are angry, and your woodypeckerhead posts reflect it when the subject comes up. You reek of stupidity, and you can't take part in any discussion intelligently, and you post like a gay, egg-sucking weasel. There you go with your libtard personal insults again, Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewy Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 I'm not offended at all when someone talks religion. I think its lost its use. I think intelligent people should be able to step back and take a look at religion and realize how silly it is. But at the same time I know smart people that are religious because their parents really made it a big part of their life. If you want to talk religion go ahead, I'm not offended. I wouldn't be offended if you talked about how you beat your head with a piece of wood until you pass out either. I'll tell you both aren't the best idea though and I'll tell you I don't want any public policy decisions being made based on either. Ok, then you wouldn't have a problem with a judge displaying the 10 Commandments in his courtroom, or "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or if they reinstated prayer (moment of silence) in schools, ...after all, none of those things affect policy, nor do they hurt anyone. God bless you for your "open mindedness". ...oh, and unlike most lefties, you're not offended by Tim Tebows display of his religious beliefs either, right? Just makin sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 It's about time you learned to see yourself in the mirror. That has been my point for a long while now. A little slow you are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Ok, then you wouldn't have a problem with a judge displaying the 10 Commandments in his courtroom, or "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or if they reinstated prayer (moment of silence) in schools, ...after all, none of those things affect policy, nor do they hurt anyone. God bless you for your "open mindedness". ...oh, and unlike most lefties, you're not offended by Tim Tebows display of his religious beliefs either, right? Just makin sure. I don't care what Tebow does. Not offended by whatever he does at all. Displaying the 10 Commandments in a govt., public area gives the impression of the endorsement of one religion over another by our govt., which can't happen. Having the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance basically falls under the same category. Both of these examples aren't giant deals to me, but I can see where that side is coming from. As religion becomes less prevalent among citizens its going to be phased out of our country in other places. Reinstating prayer in public school would be a bigger deal. First of all, if it was a mandatory period of the day then you're wasting time when the kids could actually be learning. Second, if it was just one religion then you're endorsing a religion again. I don't see how a public school could do anything to accommodate any religious beliefs in any way really. Its a PUBLIC school. If some kid wants to pray to themselves in their study hall or something though, go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 8, 2013 Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 Wait... all of a sudden Woodypeckerhead's "smartphone" works. Fancy that. Or, he pleaded with Heck to start posting for him to save face. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when me, woodypeckerhead, does deceive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erie Dawg Posted July 12, 2013 Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 So... gay marriage is dangerous because the couple will get aids... alright. Where did your 80% figure come from? What's you source? How does being gay make you more susceptible to aids? Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation? Being gay isn't "dangerous". It doesn't make you more prone to getting aids. If you are gonna have a bunch of unprotected sex with strangers then you are hurting yourself no matter what, gay or straight. I love how the gay marriage debate on here always goes down these roads. Polygamy, pedophilia, beastiality, AIDs, etc... I will post my info maybe this weekend if I get caught up, but I did make a mistake its not 80% its 80 "timeshttp://carm.org/statistics-percentage-population-hiv-infected http://www.theoakinitiative.org/turek-who-are-real-gay-bigots-and-bullies#.UeH7InrD-BZ http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.