Title Change - "Two gay men in Texas fined for having sex"

[eakers]

this thread makes me want to scream.

imo:
1. the law shouldnt be able to tell two consenting adults that they cant have sex.
2. aids is everywhere and if you think that by stopping gay sex or even anal sex that will stop the spread of aids think again
3. just because someone is gay it does not make them permiscious same as just because someone is straight it doesnt make them monogomous


grow up.

*kat. <-- cant believe people think the way you guys do sometimes.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< There are fanatics from every walk of life. Don't forget the wanted posters for abortion doctors, or the abortion doctor killers/clinic bombers.

Yep, hard core, fanatical right-wingers do the same damn thing.

That site in no way invalidates the travesty of privacy and freedom a law like this represents. >>


Yes, there are "fanatics" in every group, but, I found it funny that drivel such as that originates from the same source........... Left Wingers, Right Wingers, Gays, Straights, Whites & Blacks all do things............does that make it anymore "right"???? You come close to sounding as if that should just be dismissed because it comes from "fanatics" but if the same was found and subsequently posted against gays I bet some opinions in here would be quite different now wouldn't they????

 

[Amused]

<<

<< If there were equal numbers of homosexuals and heterosexuals then this statistic would mean something.
We need to know the amount of heterosexual intercourse compared with homosexual intercourse before this statistic can have a valid meaning. >>



Thank you.

If 5% of the world population is causing 20% of AIDS worldwide, then that 5% has a very troubling problem. >>



You didn't even read the page did you. Is arguing from ignorance something you do often?

Quote:

"Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse."

This means that another signifigant percentage stems from IV drug use. You ignorantly assume the entire 20% is from homosexuality. Why?

 

[Amused]

<<

<< There are fanatics from every walk of life. Don't forget the wanted posters for abortion doctors, or the abortion doctor killers/clinic bombers.

Yep, hard core, fanatical right-wingers do the same damn thing.

That site in no way invalidates the travesty of privacy and freedom a law like this represents. >>


Yes, there are "fanatics" in every group, but, I found it funny that drivel such as that originates from the same source........... Left Wingers, Right Wingers, Gays, Straights, Whites & Blacks all do things............does that make it anymore "right"???? You come close to sounding as if that should just be dismissed because it comes from "fanatics" but if the same was found and subsequently posted against gays I bet some opinions in here would be quite different now wouldn't they???? >>



The only thing on that page that is being talked about here is a case that can be verified by other news sources. I'm not saying anything else on that page is valid, nor am I defending the validity of that page as a whole.

And if you knew me as many here do, I am equally critical of liberal and conservative fanatics. Most of the liberals on this board think I'm a conservative, and most of the conservatives now probably think I'm a liberal because I defend the right of gays and lesbians to live free.

So be it. I figure if I piss off both sides equally, I MUST be right

 

[Czar]

<<

<< If there were equal numbers of homosexuals and heterosexuals then this statistic would mean something.
We need to know the amount of heterosexual intercourse compared with homosexual intercourse before this statistic can have a valid meaning. >>



Thank you.

If 5% of the world population is causing 20% of AIDS worldwide, then that 5% has a very troubling problem. >>


And the other part isnt a problem?

 

[Czar]

AmusedOne


<< And if you knew me as many here do, I am equally critical of liberal and conservative fanatics. Most of the liberals on this board think I'm a conservative, and most of the conservatives now probably think I'm a liberal because I defend the right of gays and lesbians to live free.

So be it. I figure if I piss off both sides equally, I MUST be right >>


Kudos to you , I´v always thought you were a conservative but lately i´v been thinking that you are a liberal. It is best to be in the middle I think.

 

[potatosalad]

<< And the other part isnt a problem? >>



AIDS itself is the problem. You curb it by progressively eliminating the highest risk factors one after another.

The highest risk factor for HIV transmission is gay sex. So you have to start with that.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

<<

<< Only if they argue that. If they argue this specific case based on the law, they dont stand a chance.

And I higly doubt if it ever goes to the Supreme Court it will be deemed unconstitutional. No where in the consitiution does it even come close to endorsing homosexual sexual behavior.

You may not like it, but thats fact. >>



This is what is called discrimation, it would be the same as if banning blacks to have sex, does that make sense to you? >>



Czar, last time I checked, homosexuals were not a race. Has this changed since I went to work last night?

 

[Czar]

potatosalad,

Banning people from having sex wont solve anything. In some african country the president there banned people from having sex in 1 year because aids is a big problem there (way way way more of a problem than in the the west), later he was found violating his own law. Banning sex is impossble so just quit it.

ShotgunSteve,
I know that but in the legal system gays are treated like blacks used to be treated. This isnt about raceis, it is about grouping people and using laws to support grouping.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< And the other part isnt a problem? >>



AIDS itself is the problem. You curb it by progressively eliminating the highest risk factors one after another.

The highest risk factor for HIV transmission is gay sex. So you have to start with that. >>



No, the highest risk factors are promiscuity and IV drug use in the US. The highest risk factor worldwide is promiscuous heterosexual sex, followed by IV drug use, then homosexual promiscuity.

The sex itself is not the risk factor. Two HIV negative gay men can have sex all day long and not cause HIV.

You can never stop homosexuality. It's existed since the beginning of history, and no laws have ever been able to stop it.

The obvious key is to promote monogamy. Something that has never even been tried.

 

[Amused]

<<

<<

<< Only if they argue that. If they argue this specific case based on the law, they dont stand a chance.

And I higly doubt if it ever goes to the Supreme Court it will be deemed unconstitutional. No where in the consitiution does it even come close to endorsing homosexual sexual behavior.

You may not like it, but thats fact. >>



This is what is called discrimation, it would be the same as if banning blacks to have sex, does that make sense to you? >>



Czar, last time I checked, homosexuals were not a race. Has this changed since I went to work last night? >>



Discrimination is not confined to race. It can be applied to religion, politics, hair style, and... inherent sexual preferences.

 

[potatosalad]

<< potatosalad,

Banning people from having sex wont solve anything. In some african country the president there banned people from having sex in 1 year because aids is a big problem there (way way way more of a problem than in the the west), later he was found violating his own law. Banning sex is impossble so just quit it. >>



A law doesn't have to be 100% effective to be pretty effective.

If a law stops 90% of the incidence of high-risk gay sex, I'd say that the law has been pretty effective.

Your example is meaningless. Rich, influential people always arrogantly break laws and get away with doing so. This is nothing new. Ever heard of O.J. Simpson?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

I have doubts as to whether or not those preferences are inherent. I am not saying they are not, but I have seen studies that...er...swing both ways. Race is definitely due to the genetic make-up of your parents, but the jury is still out on whether genetics truly influences sexual preference. One study shows that a high percentage of homosexual males hit puberty early, and the supposition was that due to the peer group being largely male at the younger age, those people had a greater tendency to develop homosexual tendencies.

 

[ToBeMe]

<< I figure if I piss off both sides equally, I MUST be right >>


LOL! Or just totally out to lunch.......... j/k
I've been around here about a year longer than you, and at one point or another pissed off Conservs., Libs., and everyone in between......if you knew me as most do........you'd be well aware of that! LOL! I just don't post half as much as you, but, I know where and how I stand on things and I won't be swayed.

My position on the Texas matter is, they are wrong about the law they are enforcing......that's a no brainer! It's outdated as are laws across this nation.........the town I grew up in had a law on the books in the seventies that no blacks could be in town after sunset, and another that all firearms must be checked in with the sherriff before doing business in the town! This won't stick and I think (hope) everyone realizes that.......... The reason I posted the article was to guage reaction............and it was just as I figured.......on the other hand, I've seen posts in the past concerning remarks or such against gays that were not so drastic as the one I quoted garner 300 posts! Point is, why does it seem OK in some peoples eyes that certain groups bash others, but, if they are the ones being bashed it is an atrocity??????

 

[ToBeMe]

<< No, the highest risk factors are promiscuity and IV drug use in the US. The highest risk factor worldwide is promiscuous heterosexual sex, followed by IV drug use, then homosexual promiscuity. >>




<< She went on to say that despite the decline in infection rates among gay and bisexual men, that group was still at the highest risk of contracting the disease. In recent years, the number of reported cases had risen dramatically among gay and bisexual men of colour. CDC studies now indicated that while about one in ten men in the age group were already infected with HIV, among African American and Latino men of that same age group, the number in some cities was as high as 30 per cent. Echoing the concerns of the other panellists, Dr. Gayle noted the corollary increase in other sexually transmitted diseases as a ?worrisome? harbinger of things to come. >>



UNAIDS WORLDWIDE/CDC UPDATE 2001

 

[skace]

AmusedOne, your argument is solid but why bother? It is clearly obvious that potatosalad is homophobic, I'm suprised he hasn't said "we should kill all homosexuals to save ourselves from aids" yet.

Banning a sexual preference is sheer stupidity and the law is a joke.

Oh yea, I thought you were a conservative also AmusedOne

 

[potatosalad]

<< It is clearly obvious that potatosalad is homophobic >>



How is it obvious?

How is it wrong to want to curb the incidence of AIDS?

We ban smoking in many areas to curb the incidence of secondhand smoke and therefore cancer.

Is that too a violation of the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Amused]

<< I have doubts as to whether or not those preferences are inherent. I am not saying they are not, but I have seen studies that...er...swing both ways. Race is definitely due to the genetic make-up of your parents, but the jury is still out on whether genetics truly influences sexual preference. One study shows that a high percentage of homosexual males hit puberty early, and the supposition was that due to the peer group being largely male at the younger age, those people had a greater tendency to develop homosexual tendencies. >>



I doubt homosexuality is genetic as well. I believe it's an anomaly that occurs in the womb. That would explain the varying ranges of homosexuality, and gender misindentification.

Either way, I believe sexual orientation is inherent.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< I figure if I piss off both sides equally, I MUST be right >>


LOL! Or just totally out to lunch.......... j/k
I've been around here about a year longer than you, and at one point or another pissed off Conservs., Libs., and everyone in between......if you knew me as most do........you'd be well aware of that! LOL! I just don't post half as much as you, but, I know where and how I stand on things and I won't be swayed.

My position on the Texas matter is, they are wrong about the law they are enforcing......that's a no brainer! It's outdated as are laws across this nation.........the town I grew up in had a law on the books in the seventies that no blacks could be in town after sunset, and another that all firearms must be checked in with the sherriff before doing business in the town! This won't stick and I think (hope) everyone realizes that.......... The reason I posted the article was to guage reaction............and it was just as I figured.......on the other hand, I've seen posts in the past concerning remarks or such against gays that were not so drastic as the one I quoted garner 300 posts! Point is, why does it seem OK in some peoples eyes that certain groups bash others, but, if they are the ones being bashed it is an atrocity?????? >>



It's not the bashing (verbal) that I consider an atrocity, here. It's the government persecution and prosecution that I consider an atrocity. The bashing (verbal) is just a damn shame.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< It is clearly obvious that potatosalad is homophobic >>



How is it obvious?

How is it wrong to want to curb the incidence of AIDS?

We ban smoking in many areas to curb the incidence of secondhand smoke and therefore cancer.

Is that too a violation of the pursuit of happiness? >>



Banning smoking in public areas is a matter of popular vote. Banning smoking on private proerty is a violation of our rights.

The fact remains that homosexuality does not CAUSE HIV. It is promiscuous sex that causes it. The fact that gays may be more promiscuous than straights only means that monogamy must be condoned and encouraged among gays as it is among straights.

This is not an issue that laws can address any more than laws have been able to curb drug use or smoking. This is a social issue that must be addressed by social standards and education.

And yes, it's obvious that you have an ulterior motive here. If HIV didn't exist, you'd find another excuse for your hate.

At any rate, banning homosexuality has never worked... even in the most oppressive countries on earth. So your idea is absurd on more than one level.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Ummm, this thread seems to have gotten sidetracked. This statute was signed into law in 1973 by Governor Dolph Brisco, so the trying-to-curb-AIDS argument doesn't really hold water.

 

[Amused]

<< Oh yea, I thought you were a conservative also AmusedOne >>



Actually, I lean towards libertarianism. So it kinda figures that both liberals and conservatives would have issues with me.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Oops, sorry AmusedOne, you were using the word "inherent" and my tired brain was replacing it with "inherited." I now realise why your arguments were confusing me. I was perceiving them wrong. Off to class. I will be a hazard in this state.

 

[Amused]

<< Oops, sorry AmusedOne, you were using the word "inherent" and my tired brain was replacing it with "inherited." I now realise why your arguments were confusing me. I was perceiving them wrong. Off to class. I will be a hazard in this state. >>



Heh, that's cool. I get like that too

 

[CountZero]

Ok, so you say that by banning homosexual sex you help curb AIDS? Well then we need to move on since homosexual sex has been banned since 1861 I guess we'll have to see the next group of people at risk..oh its African Americans and Latino Americans, sorry guys no more sex for you WE'RE curbing AIDS. I know its rough and I know that if you are HIV negative as is your partner there is no risk but lets not forget that you are the second highest risk for spreading AIDS and your personal rights do not supercede our right to stamp out a disease based on statistics. Our lawmakers might see it as wrong if they weren't straight white men but they are straight white men so you are just out of luck today. But hey cheer up once we've gotten rid of AIDS if there are any of you guys left you can start having sex again so its not ALL bad. <I was being sarcastic here in case that didn't come through>

Saying that a law put into the books in 1861 is there to curb AIDS is plain idiotic. Having it limited to only same sex partners only shows that the people who changed that law believe gay sex is immoral and think their morals should be pushed on everyone. I highly doubt their concern was whether or not some gay men give each other AIDS and die.

As for cigarettes are you allowed to smoke in your own house? It does cause cancer yet in the privacy or your home you can do it, not a valid example really.

The law is wrong, what the cops did was legal, dumb, but legal.