Gay marriage legal in MD

[MMDad]

Because the chance of a heterosexual non-IV drug user contracting it is next to nothing. And since gays can't get married, and you typically know if you're marrying an IV drug user, it's not considered a big risk. Lesbians don't even get AIDS - just gay guys and drug shooters.

They test you for AIDS if you give blood, but that's about it.

You, Hessian, should not spend one second of your life worrying about AIDS.

There's also the fact that AIDS kills very few people compared to other diseases. It is popularized in the press because it is a dramatic issue, but there are many diseases that should, and do, have higher priority.

 

[vraiblonde]

It is popularized in the press because it is a dramatic issue

It's popularized in the press because of the gay agenda - the libs want to make it sound like ANYONE can get AIDS because if they told the truth (that 99% of all who contract AIDS are gay men and IV drug users) nobody will give a crap. Especially since AIDS is preventable and, if people took proper precautions (like not shooting up and not having unprotected gay sex), the stats on it would be very very small.

 

[MMDad]

It's popularized in the press because of the gay agenda - the libs want to make it sound like ANYONE can get AIDS because if they told the truth (that 99% of all who contract AIDS are gay men and IV drug users) nobody will give a crap. Especially since AIDS is preventable and, if people took proper precautions (like not shooting up and not having unprotected gay sex), the stats on it would be very very small.

Unfortunately, the hetero world has become a large part of the problem:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

 

[Esprix]

Notice how political correctness even imperils our health?

They won't conduct a simple test to reveal HIV/Aids but they'll test for sickle cell?

WHY ISN'T OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CONCERNED WITH THE SPREADING OF A FATAL DISEASE?

Aids testing at a marriage blood test would be required if people weren't afraid of the gay lobby..or horrified at having their behavior exposed.
Thus...the disease (which could have been diagnosed) will continue to spread.

Once Blood tests are required again....
Go ahead...issue civil unions to gays: unless they test positive for HIV/AIDs in the mandatory blood test. (might as well include std's too)
Or, the state is giving sanction to the spreading of debilitating & fatal diseases.

If people get married, the idea is that they're going to be together, monogamously, for the rest of their lives. If one has a disease, only one other person would, in theory, get it.

Regardless, what does HIV/AIDS, or really any other disease, have to do with marriage? And what does getting married have to do with the spread of those diseases? You're not making any sense.

Esprix

 

[bcp]

Unfortunately, the hetero world has become a large part of the problem:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

The problem with it being in the hetero crowd now is due to the "Bi" (pronounced "Im a filthy animal that will stick my winky anywhere" crowd bringing across the not normal/normal lines.

 

[Esprix]

It's popularized in the press because of the gay agenda - the libs want to make it sound like ANYONE can get AIDS because if they told the truth (that 99% of all who contract AIDS are gay men and IV drug users) nobody will give a crap. Especially since AIDS is preventable and, if people took proper precautions (like not shooting up and not having unprotected gay sex), the stats on it would be very very small.

Where are you getting your statistics? The heterosexual community is just as in danger of getting HIV as the gay community, because it has to do with the exchange of bodily fluids, which know no orientation. Yes, the transfer from a woman to a man is fairly statistically low, but men can give it to women, anyone can get it from a blood transfusion (although screening has made this, too, statistically low), health care workers can get it from patients (hence all the precautions), and, as you mention, drug users from sharing needles.

Although I totally agree with you that prevention is the best cure here, I disagree that it's all part of some "gay agenda" (and frankly I wish someone would send me a copy - you'd think I'd have one by now!), and I question where your 99% figure comes from (I'm not up on my CDC statistics lately, but perhaps I ought to be).

Esprix

 

[bcp]

Regardless, what does HIV/AIDS, or really any other disease, have to do with marriage? And what does getting married have to do with the spread of those diseases? You're not making any sense.

Esprix

Im just going to say public health threat.

Im sure that you can come up with the rest of the reasons that disclosure of AIDs status might just be a good thing as far as the population as a whole goes.

Its just wrong that those with AIDs should be allowed to work in fields that allow for easy transfer of the illness....

 

[Esprix]

Unfortunately, the hetero world has become a large part of the problem:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

Hey, thanks for the link.

A quick review of the estimated cases through 2003 shows:

48% through male-to-male sexual contact
27% through injection drug use
7% through both
-----
82%

16% through heterosexual contact
2% through other, including hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified
-----
18%

So your 99% figure is off.

Regardless, we *all* need to be careful with ourselves. PLEASE!

Esprix

 

[Esprix]

Im just going to say public health threat.

Getting married is a public health threat?

Esprix

 

[Toxick]

Where are you getting your statistics? The heterosexual community is just as in danger of getting HIV as the gay community, because it has to do with the exchange of bodily fluids, which know no orientation.

I don't think that anyone said that heterosexuals are less suseptable to the disease. It's all about who is putting their pee-pees in whom.


If I were to take 20 people, and then put 10 in Room A, and then 10 in Room B, and then fill one of the rooms with nerve gas, only the ones exposed to it are going to die. Even though all the people are equally vulnerable to nerve gas.


Gay people don't ordinarily have children, even if they're as fertile as the Tennesee Valley. Because they don't have sex with people that give it to them. Even though SOME gay people have children, most don't.


See?


So take heart in the fact that even though homosexuals dominate the HIV market, very few of them get the deadliest STD of all: Children.

 

[bcp]

Getting married is a public health threat?

Esprix

I dont think even you are so foolish to to realize that I was speaking about hiding the fact that someone has AIDs.
That one persons rights can not outweigh the rights of all of those he/she threatens

 

[Esprix]

I dont think even you are so foolish to to realize that I was speaking about hiding the fact that someone has AIDs.
That one persons rights can not outweigh the rights of all of those he/she threatens

Who is threatening whom?

Esprix

 

[bcp]

Who is threatening whom?

Esprix

you are slow arent you?

since it is passed on by body fluids, is it just maybe possible that little AIDs victim jr playing school sports could pass it on to his school mates?

Is it possible that the AIDs victim nurse could pass it on to their patients?

or how about the food worker, could that be passed on if they were to cut themselves?

how about the one carpooling with you when you are in that car accident.


yes they do pose a threat to the general population and I think that the general population should be allowed to make a decision for themselves as to the level of risk they choose to take.

 

[MMDad]

Im just going to say public health threat.

Im sure that you can come up with the rest of the reasons that disclosure of AIDs status might just be a good thing as far as the population as a whole goes.

Its just wrong that those with AIDs should be allowed to work in fields that allow for easy transfer of the illness....[/QUOTE]

Since influenza kills far more people every year, perhaps we should ban everyone with influenza from ever having contact with other humans? Make immunization mandatory? Maybe even a prerequisite to receiving a marriage license? Grounds for divorce?

 

[bcp]

Since influenza kills far more people every year, perhaps we should ban everyone with influenza from ever having contact with other humans? Make immunization mandatory? Maybe even a prerequisite to receiving a marriage license? Grounds for divorce?

But Im sure you also realize that if influenza is treated even in the worse cases,, it is rarely deadly, and it does not linger on in the body as a threat to the public for the rest of that persons natural life.

 

[Esprix]

you are slow arent you?

since it is passed on by body fluids, is it just maybe possible that little AIDs victim jr playing school sports could pass it on to his school mates?

Is it possible that the AIDs victim nurse could pass it on to their patients?

or how about the food worker, could that be passed on if they were to cut themselves?

how about the one carpooling with you when you are in that car accident.


yes they do pose a threat to the general population and I think that the general population should be allowed to make a decision for themselves as to the level of risk they choose to take.

What does any of that have to do with marriage?

Esprix

 

[bcp]

another thing. total deaths for AIDs is around 20% of the cases per year.

the total deaths for the flu is less than 1 %, and the majority of those cases are in the elderly that are already weak from some other illness when they get it.

 

[MMDad]

But Im sure you also realize that if influenza is treated even in the worse cases,, it is rarely deadly, and it does not linger on in the body as a threat to the public for the rest of that persons natural life.

Wow, you are seriously disillusioned. I'll give you numbers shortly, but you do little to prove your case by being inaccurate.

 

[Esprix]

Since influenza kills far more people every year, perhaps we should ban everyone with influenza from ever having contact with other humans? Make immunization mandatory? Maybe even a prerequisite to receiving a marriage license? Grounds for divorce?

Hey, and let's not forget all the other diseases out there - hepatitis (A, B & C), mono, strep, and on and on and on. You are FAR more likely to contract any of those than HIV. Then I guess we'll need to start screening people for cancer, heart disease, liver problems, and the like. After that, perhaps alcoholism and drug use, smoking, and then maybe swearing.

Hmmm. This is getting complicated, isn't it?

Esprix

 

[MMDad]

another thing. total deaths for AIDs is around 20% of the cases per year.

the total deaths for the flu is less than 1 %, and the majority of those cases are in the elderly that are already weak from some other illness when they get it.

If all you care about are the percentage of AIDS cases that die, and you want all gays dead, why fight it?

Percentages don't matter when the total deaths are compared....


More to come.