BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 04:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Lord heterosexual marriages need to be supported as they are the engive for raising the next generation in this society.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how does my above statement express any opinion concerning the number of persons that should or should not be in the next generation?

Can you think at all my friend ? It only assume there will be a next gneration of some size between one child and a billion or so and that we should have some concern about their welfare after they are born.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 05:05 pm
@BillRM,
You say a) homosexuals cannot reproduce, so b) they should not have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.

Your support for "birth" ignores the simple fact that we have a human population crisis. How does homosexuals contribute to this "crisis?"

You want your cake and eat it too, but your conflicting stand on the "why's and wherefore's" leaves much to be desired when the subject is "equal rights."

We already have an explosion of "the next generation," and it's getting worse.

You can't see your own bias and bigotry.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 05:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You know I am still amaze that in spite of my never expressing an opinion of the ideal rate of population growth or tie population growth into the subject of homosexuality you are off some where in the wild blue concerning population numbers.

What the hell does population gowth rates have to do with gay married?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 05:20 pm
You wrote this, or did you forget?

Quote:
The state does have an interest in heterosexual love as one plus one can result in three or four or five or six or seven or…….more citizens and if the relationship that love start does not last most of the remainder of the lovers lifetimes then all kinds of bad outcomes are far more likely to occur then not to defenseless children.


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 05:22 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Aganst I am truely amaze at how your mind work or in this case do not seem to work.

How does my position that as gay couples are not doing the hard work of raising the next generation for the most part and therefore need not be license by the state have anything at all to do with family sizes?

What the hell is the connection between that and the average size of families or the average rate of growth of the population?

I guess if we assume that everyone will stop having childen and allow the race to die out then neither heterosexuals or gays should be license by the state.

Or are you saying we should punish heterosexual couples for having children as there are already too many and reward gays as they are not producing children?

Where are you...............
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 05:31 pm
BillRM, You always begin and end your belief that homosexuality is a "disorder." That's the reason why your position on homosexuality is bigoted and biased. Homosexuals are humans, and all they wish for themselves are the same legal rights afforded all others.

You wrote:
Quote:
Only same sex couples are and always will be the main engine for producing and caring for the next generations and therefore the society does had a strong stake in encourging these relationships to be stable over decades.


Your idea that heterosexuals should be the only couples who deserve more legal rights than homosexuals because they can "reproduce" shows your ignorance about world population growth. Homosexuals have children of their own, and many adopt children, and take responsibility for them. Your homophobic bigotry will never change, because of ignorance.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 05:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes a small percent of gays couples have children one way or another in their families but nothing at all compare to number or percent of heterosexual couples and that is a simply a fact.

Over and over I had however clearly stated that if and when the percent of gay couples raising children come anywhere near that of straight couples then of course there would be no problem with gay married!

Now would you care to give me some nice sold figures showing that gay couples are in fact doing the hard job of raising the next generation in anywhere near the percent of straight couples doing so?

Sorry my freind the numbers will never be there as if we place every child that could be adopted into gay households and run the sperm banks 24/7 it just not going to happen.

But feel free however to post numbers of studies showing my above statements are wrong with links to those studies.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 05:57 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Quote:
Over and over I had however clearly stated that if and when the percent of gay couples raising children come anywhere near that of straight couples then of course there would be no problem with gay married!


You are not only a homophobic bigot, you are also an imbecile.

You've just wasted cyberspace with your ignorance.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2008 06:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes I am surely an imbecile and I am sure you will shortly prove that fact by giving links to studies showing that the percent of gay couples raising children are anywhere near straight couples.

Hell if the percent is proven to be half or more of what it is for straight couples I will even send a hudred dollars to any gay right group you name.

Lord it is a holiday season I will write that check for a proven 30 percent of the ratio gay to straight couples with children.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 12:11 am
Bill - You keep talking about children and raising children, but this isn't about that. This is about gays getting marriage rights.

If this country is going to deny gays marriage rights because they don't-can't-but-wait-many-actually-do raise children, then we have no interest in providing marriage licenses to straight couples that can't, don't, or won't have children.

Don't half ass this Bill. Stick to your guns. You need to lobby to invalidate straight married couple with no children and stop infertile couples from getting licenses.

T
K
O
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 06:27 am
@BillRM,
You are surely an imbecile because you wish to "control" what other people wish to do. That you even think you have that right shows you are an idiot.

In the human race, we have many unlawful and unethical acts; if there were ways to stop them, it would have already happened. Man cannot control what other people do whether for good or bad. Your sense of what is bad for society goes beyond the realm of common sense.

As repeated many times before, "to create a more perfection union...." That is accomplished by providing all of its citizens with the same rights to achieve happiness in their lives. People like you don't understand the basics of human dignity or equality.

Yeah, you're an imbecile.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 06:57 am
@Diest TKO,
Once more as a class heterosexuals couples are the one doing the heavy lifting of raising the society children and when that does change to include gay couples I am more then willing to support the changes of the laws to allow them to married.

Seem more then fair to me. Yes I know some gays wish an unearned windfall at everyone else expend but it not going to happen.

Oh as far as your silliness about worrying about the small percent of married heterosexual couples that for one reason or another can not or do not wish to have children, I don’t see any practice way of declaring who they would be or not be and we both know that unless they happen to be 60s when they do tie the knot for example. Hmm was there not a married woman with help from medical science in the news lately that produce a child at 65? Oh well.

The logic that just because a system is not perfect we should add a whole sub group that have zero chance of having children the old fashion way is silly, but the best anyone could do in your position I guess to defend an unearned windfall.

Maybe we could raid the countries south of the border and kidnapped children wholesale for homosexuals to rise?

Oh as an amusing side note it is my understanding that gay males in this country are even lock out of being sperm donors because of their group high risk of HIV.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 09:53 am
@BillRM,
We have already risen.

I believe there should be a law banning straight marriage as half of them end in divorce, the majority of those not amicable, and the effects on the children of these divorced couples are deeply negative.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 10:04 am
@BillRM,
"Oh as an amusing side note it is my understanding that gay males in this country are even lock out of being sperm donors because of their group high risk of HIV."

Amusing?

Besides the sick side on that comment, anyone donating sperm is required to have a blood test and that includes AIDS -- straight or gay. Why on Earth would a gay male go in to donate sperm if he is HIV positive? Why would, sand a lesbian couple, as for a friend or relative's sperm donation without requiring a blood test. You're one of the most wrong-headed posters to reach this forum this year.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 11:37 am
@Lightwizard,
Why would someone knowingly inflect others with a deadly disease?

Who know however there had any numbers of publicly known cases of people so doing.

One that come to mind is the case of the gay dentist who seem to had gone out of his way to inflect his patients and no one is completely sure why.

If memory serve me correctly however there was claims afterward that he had made statements that only when straight people begin to suffer from AID would the society care enough to do something.

As it now stand a gay male would need to sign his name to a lie in order to give blood or sperm in this society and somehow I do not think most people would be happy if they found out that a person who blood or sperm they was using had so lied.

And the reason for the ban is simple and logical if not PC correct. No test for HIV is 100 percent and some number of people will pass the test even if they are inflected.

If the number of people who are inflected With HIV is say five times less in the general public then the gay male community then the number of people who will sadly end up being inflected by the same rate of test failure will be five times more.

So unless a test is 100 percent it is very wise to keep high risk groups out of the donor pool.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 01:11 pm
@BillRM,
The dentist story is ancient history -- 1990 -- link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C0CEFDE103DF934A15754C0A9669582

There was no "out of his way" and if you can find a factual link, lead me to it, other than some nutcase blog conspiracy theorist.

The sperm is also screened -- it's very near impossible to have HIV positive sperm in any sperm bank, or any case where a gay man donated sperm to a gay Lesbian and transmitted AIDS.

Inflected? Is the person being tested an orator or a singer?

I doubt that after being as thoroughly screened by the sperm donor banks doctors and technician that there isn't a certain percentage of sperm stored that is from the gay population. So don't get impregnated by using sperm from a sperm bank, BRM.

You really slid over the fact that "marriage" has become made not-too-sacred by the straight population and that any man, straight or gay, is wired genetically to spread their seed, and that means to more than one partner.

I frankly think you are uneducated on the history, the science and the sociology of the subject your are attempting to pass opinion on. In other words, nearly clueless.




BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:07 pm
@Lightwizard,
The tests are very good so out of the 10 of millions of blood donations every year only a few added people a year will get infected if we allow gay men to donate and you see nothing wrong with so doing is that correct?

You telling us that you have no problem with gay men lying on the form so they can donate blood/sperm as it is their right to overrule the judgment of the CDC and other health experts and place other humans at unneeded added risk, is that you position?

If that happen to be your position you are one sick SOB no matter if you are gay or straight.

And so what if the story of the gay dentist is old, human nature had perhaps change in the last decade of so?

Hell if you are willing to place others at risks by supporting a very high risk group donating blood against the rules of public health you are a brother in arms of that dentist.

And the dentist did do his best to infected those poor people as HIV is very hard to catch under any condition and yet some tens of his patient just happen to come down with his type of HIV.

I had not look at the story in years but anyone can find the truth by doing a web search.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:39 pm
@Lightwizard,
There was no "out of his way" and if you can find a factual link, lead me to it, other than some nutcase blog conspiracy theorist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh one point HIV only survive for a very short time in open air ten of minutes or so if memory service me correctly so dry blood on instruments would not do it!

Selections from New York Times Dec 19, 2008

possible motive was suggested by Edward Parsons, a nurse who was a friend of Dr. Acer. He told The Palm Beach Post last year that Dr. Acer had said to him in 1988 that mainstream America was ignoring AIDS because it affected mostly homosexuals like himself, hemophiliacs and drug addicts. "When it starts affecting grandmothers and younger people, then you'll see something done," Mr. Parsons said Dr. Acer told him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acer knew he was infected as early as 1986. The six patients, all of whom were probably infected by mid-1988, include four women and two men ranging in age from about 15 to about 65.

There are several ways he might have infected them, accidentally or deliberately.

The initial assumption was that his equipment had blood on it, passing the virus from him to patients or from patient to patient. But the investigating team virtually ruled that out.

All the strains of the virus are the same as his.

No pattern in the dates of appointments is apparent; as far as can be told from Dr. Acer's records, no more than two of the infected patients were ever in his office on the same day. When they were, it seemed unlikely the same instruments would have been used on them.

Investigators said Dr. Acer did not always sterilize his equipment but that he was no more sloppy than other dentists in the area.

A second theory is that he accidentally cut his own finger while working and bled into his patients' mouths, or jabbed himself with a hypodermic without noticing it and injected his blood along with the anesthetic.

But that explanation has been weakened by the latest case; the teen-ager only had fillings done, something unlikely to cut a dentist's fingers. The others had extractions, crown placement or other invasive work.

Many AIDS patients suffer nerve damage in their fingers; but Dr. Acer's medical records do not show that he had.

Moreover, no infected patient or office worker recalled Dr. Acer hurting himself that way, and no one suggested that he suffered AIDS-induced dementia that would have led him to ignore injuries.

"It seems very unlikely that these patients could have been infected simply by having a drop of Dr. Acer's blood falling into their mouths," Dr. Jaffe said.

Transmission through sex or rape was ruled out -- his infected patients denied having sex with him and none were under general anesthesia.

Another possibility is that Dr. Acer used instruments on himself, say at lunchtime, then did not sterilize them. No staff member reported seeing him do so -- and the idea seems a little far-fetched. It's not easy to do dental work on oneself.

If Dr. Acer did it deliberately, he has outwitted his investigators. They cannot figure out how.

Almost certainly, he would have had to inject patients with his own blood. The Case Against

His staff said he used a fresh vial of clear-colored lidocaine -- a local anesthetic injected in the gums -- for each patient. No one noticed a reddish tinge to it. No one noticed any second hypodermics that might have contained blood or other infectious fluids. His staff said nothing in his behavior made them suspicious.

And even if he did inject blood, epidemiologists are baffled by his success rate. Health-care workers have been infected by accidental needle sticks while treating AIDS patients -- but studies have shown that only about one stick in 300 transmits the infection.

Anecdotes have been cited of some AIDS victims who were so furious at having contracted the disease that they seduced other people and then taunted that that they'd passed on the infection. But no one suggested that Dr. Acer harbored such anger. He kept his homosexuality largely secret, but that may not be surprising in a city of under 10,000 people.

And Dr. Acer's friends and colleagues said he was -- as he described himself -- a gentle man, and they could not believe he would have knowingly infected patients.

He cooperated with investigators, giving them a blood sample when asked, knowing that new molecular tests would show whether his patients had the same H.I.V. strain he did.

Some have suggested that his strain was unusually virulent or that his blood unusually full of the virus. But virulence can't be tested in fatal human infections, and tests for virus concentrations weren't performed.

In a way, the Acer case was a long time coming.

Infectious disease experts had predicted that a health worker would someday give AIDS to a patient, because it has happened with hepatitis B, a liver-damaging virus spread, like AIDS, through blood or semen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National AIDS Commission never held a session to discuss deliberate infection. Its co-chairman, Dr. David E. Rogers, who is a critic of attempts to restrict the practice of H.I.V.-infected health workers, said he now believes the omission was a serious mistake.

"It is so unthinkable to view another health professional as doing something dastardly that I guess I shied away from it," Dr. Rogers said. "But it certainly should have been on the table. It is a perfectly logical reason for not promulgating those Draconian solutions."

< Previous Page1 2 3
More Articles in Health >
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 02:55 pm
@BillRM,
Now that you've dissected an article showing how inconclusive this case was at the time and further news on it had died out over eighteen years ago, you are still blathering on about nothing. I'd be careful addressing any behind a podium about your theories -- you may find flip-flops, Bostonians, cowboy boots (from Brokeback Mountain) and other footware flung your way. Oh, I am sorry, I just figured out that the Shrub is even more educated about AIDS the you. But the, he is anti-gay marriage for religious reasons.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 03:10 pm
Before this thread gets entirely highjacked by a purposeless discussion of AIDS, which only has peripheral relevancy to the subject, here's the latest news on Prop 8:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/gay-marriage-de.html
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 39
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 08:23:03