Smart Card Technology

However, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the young gay male community is a small subset of the population as a whole, therefore statistics can easily be skewed.  If you compare HIV or other STD infection rates among prostitutes to women as a whole, then you will probably find similar statistical skewing.

The statistic is based on the population of people with AIDs, not the population of gays. At no point in time is the population of any sexuality taken into account. If anything, your point shows that despite gays having a lower population, they have a higher percentage of the AIDs population. You effectively supported Thork's argument.

I want to punch everyone in each half of this thread. YOU GUYS AGREE why are you still arguing for gods sake

Basically, this:

Smoking does cause lung cancer. It is however not the sole cause of lung cancer. What is being argued here is analogous to calling lung cancer "smoker's disease". Which it would not be called. Many other things can give you lung cancer. Just like other activities can cause you to contract AIDS. So you can't call AIDS "gay's disease", because being gay is not the cause, anal sex is. Like you said, gay people more commonly have anal sex. But so do straight people. Dirty needles can spread it. Infected blood transfusions can spread it. It just so happens that, like Thork said, anal sex more easily tears the flesh, and can spread the AIDS easier.

Jesus.

Also, irrelevant, but I love when people assume anal sex is the only kind of sex gay people can have. I'm pretty sure the statistic of how many gay men have anal sex is somewhere around 66% or something. There's an entire subset that decries it as gross.

I want to punch everyone in each half of this thread. YOU GUYS AGREE why are you still arguing for gods sake

It's... fun to argue.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 18, 2012, 07:09:44 AM

Also, do you believe that smoking causes lung cancer?  Because it doesn't by your logic.  Not everybody who gets lung cancer is a smoker, after all.

Incorrect.  You are assuming that you can smoke yet somehow not inhale

whooosh!  And I'm out of here.

Quote from: Supertails on July 18, 2012, 03:17:44 PM

I want to punch everyone in each half of this thread. YOU GUYS AGREE why are you still arguing for gods sake

It's... fun to argue.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on July 18, 2012, 10:38:16 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 18, 2012, 07:09:44 AM

Also, do you believe that smoking causes lung cancer?  Because it doesn't by your logic.  Not everybody who gets lung cancer is a smoker, after all.

Incorrect.  You are assuming that you can smoke yet somehow not inhale

whooosh!  And I'm out of here.

I don't understand the cartoon sound effects, but it did make me chuckle.

I want to punch everyone in each half of this thread. YOU GUYS AGREE why are you still arguing for gods sake

Basically, this:

Quote from: ThinkingMan on July 18, 2012, 07:16:12 AM

Smoking does cause lung cancer. It is however not the sole cause of lung cancer. What is being argued here is analogous to calling lung cancer "smoker's disease". Which it would not be called. Many other things can give you lung cancer. Just like other activities can cause you to contract AIDS. So you can't call AIDS "gay's disease", because being gay is not the cause, anal sex is. Like you said, gay people more commonly have anal sex. But so do straight people. Dirty needles can spread it. Infected blood transfusions can spread it. It just so happens that, like Thork said, anal sex more easily tears the flesh, and can spread the AIDS easier.

Jesus.

Also, irrelevant, but I love when people assume anal sex is the only kind of sex gay people can have. I'm pretty sure the statistic of how many gay men have anal sex is somewhere around 66% or something. There's an entire subset that decries it as gross.

Yes, we were agreeing, but some people don't like to admit that they're saying the same thing. Other people (like me) will say what they're saying over and over and over again until the other person either realizes that they're saying the same thing, or there's no point in continuing to argue cause I'm not gonna shut up. Unless I'm blatantly proven wrong. In which case it will take me a few minutes to admit it, because (if you excuse the racial slur) I'm a stubborn Kraut.

I'm glad that we can all agree homosexuality causes AIDS.

I'm glad that we can all agree homosexuality causes AIDS.

I love your one liners to try and spark the arguing again.

Why call it a gay disease when it can affect non-gays, it spreads the dangerous and false notion that straight people don't or can't get it.

Also: gays need to start using condoms more.

People are under the illusion, for some strange reason, that condoms are solely a contraceptive.

That's one of the biggest issues, the rate of unprotected sex in the gay community is staggering because "Well, we can't get babies" A friend of mine volunteered for a HIV Charity who gave out leaflets and condoms at gay nightclubs and couldn't believe the blase' attitude.


This from a gay man who feels nauseas, literally, at the thought of anal sex.

Everyone that gets AIDS is gay, some just don't know it yet.

That's one of the biggest issues, the rate of unprotected sex in the gay community is staggering because "Well, we can't get babies" A friend of mine volunteered for a HIV Charity who gave out leaflets and condoms at gay nightclubs and couldn't believe the blase' attitude.


This from a gay man who feels nauseas, literally, at the thought of anal sex.

No, unprotected anal sex is not the biggest issue. That is educating people badly. Without a condom your odds of getting HIV from an infected partner are 500:1 as my source earlier shows. And with a condom the odds are 5000:1. So the odds drop by 10 fold. But 5000:1 is still enough to spread the disease. Unprotected vaginal sex the odds are 5,000,000:1 and 50,000,000:1 if you use a condom. So the message is clear. Its not just to throw on a rubber and hope for the best. The message is not to have anal sex. That is the only way to stop the virus in a real way.

Don't go around telling gay people using a condom makes it all ok. It doesn't. Its still 1,000 times more risky than straight people having unprotected sex and 10,000 if they too use condoms.

People* would have anal sex even if the chances were 1:1, the message is to reduce the chances of infection as much as possible if you are going to do it.

If we were being very sensible about this, the advice should be to get yourself checked before any and all sexual encounters and if you discover that either yourself or your partner have HIV or AIDs, don't have anal sex (Unless you both have it, in which case it's a moot point.)

*yes I said 'people' not 'gay people.'

People* will murder each other. However legislating against it severely reduces the amount of homicide. It is the law of the land in every country on earth. Sometimes governments need to legislate to prevent people from harming themselves. Outlawing harmful drugs and suicide are other similar laws. It is my position that we have been a little too hasty repealing laws in recent years and that this act should once again be criminalised for the protection of the nation's citizens.

Sodomy was historically known in England and Wales as buggery, and is usually interpreted as referring to anal intercourse between two males or a male and a female. In England and Wales buggery was made a felony by the Buggery Act in 1533, during the reign of Henry VIII. The punishment for those convicted was the death penalty until 1861. A lesser offence of "attempted buggery" was punished by 2 years of jail and some time on the pillory. In 1885, Parliament enacted the Labouchere Amendment,[34] which prohibited gross indecency between males, a broad term that was understood to encompass most or all male homosexual acts. Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, Northern Ireland in 1982, UK Crown Dependencies Guernsey in 1983, Jersey in 1990 and Isle of Man in 1992.

People* still take drugs, but not being able to buy them at Tescos at the tobacco counter reduces the amount of use. If children could buy Heroine from a vending machine, the country would be a very different place. The same should be said of buggery. It has always been and remains a risk to ones health and should be criminalised as a deterrent once again.

Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world (approximately 36%);

Its not an unheard of way to protect a country's citizens.

People* will murder each other. However legislating against it severely reduces the amount of homicide. It is the law of the land in every country on earth. Sometimes governments need to legislate to prevent people from harming themselves. Outlawing harmful drugs and suicide are other similar laws. It is my position that we have been a little too hasty repealing laws in recent years and that this act should once again be criminalised for the protection of the nation's citizens.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

Sodomy was historically known in England and Wales as buggery, and is usually interpreted as referring to anal intercourse between two males or a male and a female. In England and Wales buggery was made a felony by the Buggery Act in 1533, during the reign of Henry VIII. The punishment for those convicted was the death penalty until 1861. A lesser offence of "attempted buggery" was punished by 2 years of jail and some time on the pillory. In 1885, Parliament enacted the Labouchere Amendment,[34] which prohibited gross indecency between males, a broad term that was understood to encompass most or all male homosexual acts. Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967, in Scotland in 1980, Northern Ireland in 1982, UK Crown Dependencies Guernsey in 1983, Jersey in 1990 and Isle of Man in 1992.

People* still take drugs, but not being able to buy them at Tescos at the tobacco counter reduces the amount of use. If children could buy Heroine from a vending machine, the country would be a very different place. The same should be said of buggery. It has always been and remains a risk to ones health and should be criminalised as a deterrent once again.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world (approximately 36%);

Its not an unheard of way to protect a country's citizens.

Thork is an idiot.  Those are laws are not in place to prevent HIV in most cases, they are there to prevent the sin/cultural scourge that is homosexuality.

I don't suppose you would like to provide a citation with your outrage?

Ninety-five percent or more of the AIDS infections among gay men result from receptive anal intercourse.

The risk of anal cancer "soars" by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive.  A Michigan homosexual newspaper admits there is no such thing as "safe sex" to prevent this "soaring" cancer risk. Condoms offer only limited protection.

Homosexual men face a significantly higher risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices.

Men who engage in sodomy are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD)

Anal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection is nearly universal among HIV-positive homosexual or bisexual men and about 60% in HIV-negative men exhibiting the same sexual behavior.

A 1997 study in British Columbia found the life expectancy of men who engage in sodomy to be comparable to that of the average Canadian man in 1871.  Researchers estimate that nearly half of the 20 year old men currently engaging in sodomy will not reach their 65th birthday.

Sodomy is clearly a public health risk and in light of extensive scientific research, laws should be passed to protect people from this activity.

Today, consensual homosexual acts between adults are illegal in about 70 out of the 195 countries of the world (approximately 36%);

Its not an unheard of way to protect a country's citizens.
[/quote]

That was not done to protect a country's citizens from HIV.

I just showed you. HIV isn't the only thing sodomites risk.

Jamaica is under considerable pressure from the UK to repeal its buggery laws. The UK has threatened to withdraw aid if they don't "Conform to proper human rights".
However Jamaica argues that they already spend $590 million a year tackling AIDS and that not being a first world country with medical facilities like that of Britain, repealing the law will give them a serious epidemic which they will have no power to handle.

So there is a country that legislates specifically to prevent disease. With the stats I gave you above, it is irresponsible to ignore the health risks in all countries.

I was gonna make a gay joke, butt fuck it.

Does Jamaica think their buggery law is keeping people from having anal sex?

Sodomy Sexual activity is clearly a public health risk and in light of extensive scientific research, laws should be passed to protect people from this activity.

In all seriousness, I don't get how it's a public health risk for anyone who isn't gay.  From what do you need to be protected?  You're not planning on having anal sex with another man, are you?  No?  Well, then I don't suppose you're going to get ass chlamydia or whatever else you're so scared of.  Don't be such a pussy.

First, why is it me that needs protecting? Should we not be protecting homosexuals? Outlawing buggery will improve their sexual health.

Secondly, bisexuals transmit disease from the gay community to the rest of society. Sodomy is a general public health risk.

In all seriousness, ...  Don't be such a pussy.

That's a very flippant attitude towards public health.

Ugh...  This whole discussion is annoying.

Look, let's get some facts straight about the gay community of the 80s.

1. Being openly gay wasn't considered good.
2. There was no obvious way to know if someone was gay.
3. Without knowing about AIDS, gay sex was considered relatively safe.
4. The internet wasn't developed enough to allow gay message boards.

What do all these facts add up to?  It was butt hurt hard to find gay people.
So when you found someone who was gay, you were introduced to people he knew was gay.  They introduced you to people they knew were gay.  And so on and so forth.  It's called networking.

Because of that, the lack of easily identifiable partners, the limited supply of willing partners, and the lack of message boards, sex with multiple partners wasn't uncommon.  As a result of that and lack of protection, sex among gay men quickly spread HIV.

This wouldn't happen today as the Internet allows gay men and women to freely and anonymously hook up, thus increasing the ability to find a partner.  And with that increased ability, the need to network and have multiple sex partners drops significantly.  And with testing being relatively quick, the ability to spread AIDS decreases.  So long as precautions are taken mind you.


Also:
Gays cover lesbians too.  And they don't generally spread HIV.

First, why is it me that needs protecting? Should we not be protecting homosexuals? Outlawing buggery will improve their sexual health.

Secondly, bisexuals transmit disease from the gay community to the rest of society. Sodomy is a general public health risk.

Quote from: garygreen on July 19, 2012, 12:47:08 PM

In all seriousness, ...  Don't be such a pussy.

That's a very flippant attitude towards public health.

Protect homosexuals by making them criminals and aids patients?  They are not going to stop having sex.

@LordDave
Citation please. Those are your opinions. Opinions I disagree with. Specifically that a lack of internet is responsible for the spread of AIDS and that infection rates have dropped as a result of its presence. Because I think you just made all that up.

Protect homosexuals by making them criminals and aids patients?  They are not going to stop having sex.

Of course they will. If drugs were legalised, more people would take them. It won't stop all people committing acts of sodomy but the numbers will plummet and with it the rates of infection. Legislation is always effective. Its why societies do it.

@LordDave
Citation please. Those are your opinions. Opinions I disagree with. Specifically that a lack of internet is responsible for the spread of AIDS and that infection rates have dropped as a result of its presence. Because I think you just made all that up.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on July 19, 2012, 12:56:14 PM

Protect homosexuals by making them criminals and aids patients?  They are not going to stop having sex.

Of course they will. If drugs were legalised, more people would take them. It won't stop all people committing acts of sodomy but the numbers will plummet and with it the rates of infection. Legislation is always effective. Its why societies do it.

Tell that to the American Bootleggers in the early 20th century. I don't think they'd agree with you.

But Thork, I'm glad to see you've changed your tune from being a "gay's disease" to being a "disease easily spread by anal sex". Because that's what it is. Maybe it should be named ESBASIDs. That's, "Easily Spread By Anal Sex Immune Deficiency." And I coined the phrase. I want my name on that shit. I'd better make a lot of money off of this, or I'm gonna be seriously butt-hurt (pun clearly intended).

@LordDave
Citation please. Those are your opinions. Opinions I disagree with. Specifically that a lack of internet is responsible for the spread of AIDS and that infection rates have dropped as a result of its presence. Because I think you just made all that up.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on July 19, 2012, 12:56:14 PM

Protect homosexuals by making them criminals and aids patients?  They are not going to stop having sex.

Of course they will. If drugs were legalised, more people would take them. It won't stop all people committing acts of sodomy but the numbers will plummet and with it the rates of infection. Legislation is always effective. Its why societies do it.

HAHAHAH,  Legislation is always effective.  I guess that depends on which measure.  Will it reduce the amount of anal sex, sure, but plummet?  I will need to see evidence of that.  As for what measure we are using, I would argue that legislation is not always effective.  Take marijuana in the U.S.

We could save an estimated 10-14 billion dollars a year by legalizing it.http ://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

Interestingly enough people in Denmark are only half as likely to have tried marijuana when compared to Americans, where is is illegal.  42% of individuals had tried once, and the numbers are increasing as time goes on.  52% of 21 year olds have tried it.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1821697,00.html

So we spend an extra to keep it illegal, yet smoke more of it percentage wise than countries where it is legal.  Usage is increasing with time and nearly half of all Americans have tried it. . . According to Thork, it was a success!  You must have low standards.

My prediction for what would happen if you made sodomy illegal, is that nothing much would change.  Some people would stop, but most would understand that so long as you did it in your own home that there would be no way of enforcing said law without a breach of privacy.  You would just be making a bunch of people criminals, and you would make it harder for them to receive treatment for wounds inflicted in this manner.

But its your claim that numbers would "plummet" so its up to you to show that this would be the case. 

@LordDave
Citation please. Those are your opinions. Opinions I disagree with. Specifically that a lack of internet is responsible for the spread of AIDS and that infection rates have dropped as a result of its presence. Because I think you just made all that up.

It's not the internet specifically but a way to easily find other gay people. 

Let's say everyone wore masks and large jackets so you couldn't tell who was a woman and who was a man.  How would you go about finding a woman without asking everyone "are you a chick"?

First, why is it me that needs protecting? Should we not be protecting homosexuals? Outlawing buggery will improve their sexual health.

Secondly, bisexuals transmit disease from the gay community to the rest of society. Sodomy is a general public health risk.

No, we should not 'protect' homosexuals by banning homosexuality.  That's asinine.  It's nice of you to pretend to give a shit about people who aren't exactly 100% identical to you, but your 'protection' has to be weighed against depriving some set of humans of their natural right to bang any consenting adult(s) they please in any manner they please.

Just to be clear: you're saying that we should outlaw sodomy because maybe a gay man will have anal sex with your girlfriend/wife and give you both AIDS?  Is that the gist?

Nothing that you're describing is exclusive to homosexuality or to sodomy.  Sexual activity is inherently risky.  The state doesn't have a right to ban it.

In all seriousness, ...  Don't be such a pussy.

That's a very flippant attitude towards public health.
[/quote]

You want the state to outlaw some sexual activities because you're scared of gays.  Yeah, that makes you a huge pussy.

HAHAHAH,  Legislation is always effective.

Of course. That is why we legislate. There would be no point if it had no effect. QED.

I guess that depends on which measure.  Will it reduce the amount of anal sex, sure, but plummet?  I will need to see evidence of that.  As for what measure we are using, I would argue that legislation is not always effective.  Take marijuana in the U.S.

We could save an estimated 10-14 billion dollars a year by legalizing it.http ://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

Interestingly enough people in Denmark are only half as likely to have tried marijuana when compared to Americans, where is is illegal.

Interestingly enough Denmark is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The USA has far more poverty and hence drug use.

So we spend an extra to keep it illegal, yet smoke more of it percentage wise than countries where it is legal.  Usage is increasing with time and nearly half of all Americans have tried it. . . According to Thork, it was a success!  You must have low standards.

Your laws are hardly firm about it. Its not like you get 15 years in prison for possession. Sodomy used to come with the death sentence in the UK. That deters people. 

My prediction for what would happen if you made sodomy illegal, is that nothing much would change.  Some people would stop, but most would understand that so long as you did it in your own home that there would be no way of enforcing said law without a breach of privacy.  You would just be making a bunch of people criminals, and you would make it harder for them to receive treatment for wounds inflicted in this manner.

If being able to prove and prosecute the activity resulted in a life sentence and the government and law enforcement were serious about catching offenders, instances of such behaviour would indeed plummet.

Quote from: Thork on July 19, 2012, 01:00:45 PM

@LordDave
Citation please. Those are your opinions. Opinions I disagree with. Specifically that a lack of internet is responsible for the spread of AIDS and that infection rates have dropped as a result of its presence. Because I think you just made all that up.

It's not the internet specifically but a way to easily find other gay people. 

Let's say everyone wore masks and large jackets so you couldn't tell who was a woman and who was a man.  How would you go about finding a woman without asking everyone "are you a chick"?

Gay people have minced for hundreds of years. That voice they do is also a bit of a give away.

No, we should not 'protect' homosexuals by banning homosexuality.

I said nothing of banning homosexuality. Only the practise of sodomy which is a high-risk health issue.

  That's asinine.  It's nice of you to pretend to give a shit about people who aren't exactly 100% identical to you, but your 'protection' has to be weighed against depriving some set of humans of their natural right to bang any consenting adult(s) they please in any manner they please.

Is it people's right to self-medicate and take heroin if they like? Governments often make laws to protect citizens from themselves in the interest of the greater good. Preventing disease would be a justifiable reason.

Just to be clear: you're saying that we should outlaw sodomy because maybe a gay man will have anal sex with your girlfriend/wife and give you both AIDS?  Is that the gist?

Just to be clear I have provided statistics showing the health impact sodomy has on society.

Nothing that you're describing is exclusive to homosexuality or to sodomy.  Sexual activity is inherently risky.  The state doesn't have a right to ban it.

I never said it was exclusive, and I'm advocating a ban on sodomy, not homosexuality. It applies to everyone. Vaginal sex is no where near as risky. not even in the same ball park as the sources I provided showed.

You want the state to outlaw some sexual activities because you're scared of gays.  Yeah, that makes you a huge pussy.

I said nothing about outlawing homosexuality. I only advocated outlawing sodomy. there is a massive difference. My suggestion does not discriminate on grounds of sexuality. It is also purely in the interests of public health. This hardly makes me scared of gays. You are trivialising the issues.

Quote from: Lorddave on July 19, 2012, 01:45:12 PM

Quote from: Thork on July 19, 2012, 01:00:45 PM

@LordDave
Citation please. Those are your opinions. Opinions I disagree with. Specifically that a lack of internet is responsible for the spread of AIDS and that infection rates have dropped as a result of its presence. Because I think you just made all that up.

It's not the internet specifically but a way to easily find other gay people. 

Let's say everyone wore masks and large jackets so you couldn't tell who was a woman and who was a man.  How would you go about finding a woman without asking everyone "are you a chick"?

Gay people have minced for hundreds of years. That voice they do is also a bit of a give away.

Ummm... not all gay men have some kind of high pitched voice.  Most actually don't.

And yes they have.  Yet AIDS didn't exist until the 1980s.  How odd... 

Also, it wasn't as taboo at various times in human history so propositioning a guy in say... England during the 1600 likely wouldn't get you stoned to death.