Ireland becomes first country to legalize gay marriage via pop vote

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guy, you actually had one of the posts I quoted.

I did?    

[Nebuchadnezzar]

In Ireland, what is the legal voting age?

I'm just wondering since in Scotland, the legal age to vote is 16 years old and the voting age was lowered right before Scotland voted to break away from Great Britain.

Just wondering is all.

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2015, 11:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My bad I read this and thought Matt was suggesting same-sex marriage would decrease the rate:

Obviously he was just saying.

Quoting my part talking about something someone else said is me stating that it would happen, now? When followed up with me stating what I think would happen, which is no change in the rate?

Yeah, you're reaching here.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2015, 03:14 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: In Ireland, what is the legal voting age?

I'm just wondering since in Scotland, the legal age to vote is 16 years old and the voting age was lowered right before Scotland voted to break away from Great Britain.

Just wondering is all.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voting+age+in+ireland

Just funning ya...

[BmorePat87]

(05-28-2015, 07:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Quoting my part talking about something someone else said is me stating that it would happen, now? When followed up with me stating what I think would happen, which is no change in the rate?

Yeah, you're reaching here.

He gets to a point in a thread where he isn't capable of actually addressing the topic so he just trolls. It happened in the Views on Gay Marriage thread, it happened in his Boots on the Ground thread, and it is happening here.

That's why he has ignored every post that makes an actual point and is just taking small parts of posts out of context. Anyone who can read at a 5th grade level knows what you said in that post. You literally said "There will not likely be any change in the rate of infection" but he has spent multiple posts ignoring this and suggesting you said otherwise.

Despite all of that, the thing he is shocked about isn't even that shocking. You have some guy suggesting gay marriage will increase AIDS in kids and he is PMSing about people saying that marriage will probably lead to a decrease in STDs. Then he whines in other threads about everyone being liberals and ignoring reality because we don't live in this bubble of his where his religion should trump everything in life.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2015, 07:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Quoting my part talking about something someone else said is me stating that it would happen, now? When followed up with me stating what I think would happen, which is no change in the rate?

Yeah, you're reaching here.

So I was right in stating you were "just saying"? You didn't agree with the statement you just wanted to point it out; unusual?

As have already been stated you might just be making things up as you go along.  (Now I didn't suggest this or necessarily agree with it, just pointing out something stated earlier)

(05-28-2015, 08:45 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He gets to a point in a thread where he isn't capable of actually addressing the topic so he just trolls. It happened in the Views on Gay Marriage thread, it happened in his Boots on the Ground thread, and it is happening here.

That's why he has ignored every post that makes an actual point and is just taking small parts of posts out of context. Anyone who can read at a 5th grade level knows what you said in that post. You literally said "There will not likely be any change in the rate of infection" but he has spent multiple posts ignoring this and suggesting you said otherwise.

Despite all of that, the thing he is shocked about isn't even that shocking. You have some guy suggesting gay marriage will increase AIDS in kids and he is PMSing about people saying that marriage will probably lead to a decrease in STDs. Then he whines in other threads about everyone being liberals and ignoring reality because we don't live in this bubble of his where his religion should trump everything in life.

What is your fascination with me? Is it that if you keep telling everyone the imagined errors in my ways folks will actually start to believe it? I cannot believe a mod cannot see this continued tactic and take appropriate action.

Why do you think Matt quoted an earlier post about monogamy decreasing the rate? Because he agreed with it, because he disagreed with it, because he was just saying?

[Belsnickel]

(05-28-2015, 09:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So I was right in stating you were "just saying"? You didn't agree with the statement you just wanted to point it out; unusual?

As have already been stated you might just be making things up as you go along.  (Now I didn't suggest this or necessarily agree with it, just pointing out something stated earlier)

I don't see anything unusual with pointing out a previously made statement in such a manner. That part of my post was facetious, but the logic in that is more solid than the logic that same-sex marriage will increase rates. Which is why I said there would likely be no change, but if there was, it would be a decrease.

Maybe the way I articulated my thoughts was confusing to you, which is not uncommon. I'm not a words guy, more of a numbers guy.

And I didn't see anyone insinuate I was making it up as I went. That's interesting.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2015, 09:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't see anything unusual with pointing out a previously made statement in such a manner. That part of my post was facetious, but the logic in that is more solid than the logic that same-sex marriage will increase rates. Which is why I said there would likely be no change, but if there was, it would be a decrease.

Maybe the way I articulated my thoughts was confusing to you, which is not uncommon. I'm not a words guy, more of a numbers guy.

And I didn't see anyone insinuate I was making it up as I went. That's interesting.

Yeah, I just found it interesting to point out a post from someone earlier that you neither agree or disagree with. Now I understand that you were just being facetious. 

As to the making it up as you go along part; I was just being facetious. 

[GMDino]

(05-28-2015, 09:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So I was right in stating you were "just saying"? You didn't agree with the statement you just wanted to point it out; unusual?

As have already been stated you might just be making things up as you go along.  (Now I didn't suggest this or necessarily agree with it, just pointing out something stated earlier)

What is your fascination with me? Is it that if you keep telling everyone the imagined errors in my ways folks will actually start to believe it? I cannot believe a mod cannot see this continued tactic and take appropriate action.

Yep.  This is Tommy.

If I could just get video proof....

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-27-2015, 10:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not to open a can of worms; but no. Do you suggest a piece of paper will make homosexual couples more committed to each other? Sorta like suggesting "Hey we can get married, so I'm going to play the field until we can".

Marriage would affect heterosexual couples much more in this monogamy slant, mainly because a high percentage of hetero marriages are based on religion and the textbook states Adultery is a sin. Not sure the gay couple is that concerned with those and other lessons in the textbook.

Let's open it.

I'm not suggesting a piece of paper will make homosexual couples more committed to each other than a piece of paper makes heterosexual couples more committed to each other.  However, married couples are generally more committed to each other than couples who are dating or hooking up or on Tinder or any similar app.  Are you suggesting married homosexual couples are less monogamous than married heterosexual couples?  Show me the evidence.

Infidelity is the second leading cause of divorce in this country.  So those religion based heterosexual married couples aren't following the what the textbook states.  The textbook also list the reasons for divorce.  Can you please explain the Bible based reasons for divorce?

I made a facetious comment to a specious argument that homosexual marriage would actually increase the STD rate and poses a public health threat, e.g. homosexual marriage = public health threat.  That argument is so ridiculous is isn't deserving of a serious reply.  Even though I meant my comment to be facetious it is, in fact, grounded in facts.  Among the recommendations to reduce the spread of STDs is mutual monogamy.  Who is more mutually monogamous, singles or married couples?  You don't need to be married in order to be mutually monogamous, but in general married couples are more monogamous than singles despite the high rate of infidelity among married couples.  CDC statistics show STD rates decline after the age of 24.  Why?  Because high risk sexual behavior decreases with age.  Among those high risk factors is sex with multiple partners.  Single individuals generally have sex with more partners than married individuals.

I'm a former 11B turned 65D turned civilian.  There is hardly a week that goes by that I don't exam, test, or treat someone for an STD.  Easily 98% of those patients are heterosexual (heterosexual singles >>>heterosexual married), followed by homosexual a distant third.  I can state from personal, clinical experience that married individuals contract STDs less frequently than their single peers.  If you have some evidence that can change my mind I would love to read it.  If you have evidence that marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, increases the rate of any STD I challenge any one of you to show me the evidence to change my mind.   If not, stop spouting this ignorant nonsense.

If a person's sexual orientation is homosexual that doesn't necessarily indicate they don't believe in God or religion.  That is a false assumption on your part.  Religion or sexual orientation doesn't make an individual faithful as demonstrated by the rate of divorce due to infidelity.  I'm faithful to my wife and I'm agnostic.  My fidelity is 100% independent of religion.  I view your religion the same way you view Scientology.   While in the military I took at least 7 oaths of enlistment, re-enlistment, or commissioning swearing to defend the Constitution even if it meant sacrificing my life so I take individual rights pretty damn seriously.  You swore to protect the same.  I don't know your reasons, but one of mine was because I believe in "liberty and justice for all," not liberty and justice for some based upon my religious beliefs.  I challenge you to give me a single legitimate reason why homosexuals shouldn't marry the same as their heterosexual peers other than it offends your religious sensibilities.

Lastly, this isn't directed specifically at you but in general, it isn't your place to judge other's sins, that is your god's job.  If you claim you're a Christian then start acting like one.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2015, 10:05 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Let's open it.

I'm not suggesting a piece of paper will make homosexual couples more committed to each other than a piece of paper makes heterosexual couples more committed to each other.  However, married couples are generally more committed to each other than couples who are dating or hooking up or on Tinder or any similar app.  Are you suggesting married homosexual couples are less monogamous than married heterosexual couples?  Show me the evidence.

Infidelity is the second leading cause of divorce in this country.  So those religion based heterosexual married couples aren't following the what the textbook states.  The textbook also list the reasons for divorce.  Can you please explain the Bible based reasons for divorce?

I made a facetious comment to a specious argument that homosexual marriage would actually increase the STD rate and poses a public health threat, e.g. homosexual marriage = public health threat.  That argument is so ridiculous is isn't deserving of a serious reply.  Even though I meant my comment to be facetious it is, in fact, grounded in facts.  Among the recommendations to reduce the spread of STDs is mutual monogamy.  Who is more mutually monogamous, singles or married couples?  You don't need to be married in order to be mutually monogamous, but in general married couples are more monogamous than singles despite the high rate of infidelity among married couples.  CDC statistics show STD rates decline after the age of 24.  Why?  Because high risk sexual behavior decreases with age.  Among those high risk factors is sex with multiple partners.  Single individuals generally have sex with more partners than married individuals.

I'm a former 11B turned 65D turned civilian.  There is hardly a week that goes by that I don't exam, test, or treat someone for an STD.  Easily 98% of those patients are heterosexual (heterosexual singles >>>heterosexual married), followed by homosexual a distant third.  I can state from personal, clinical experience that married individuals contract STDs less frequently than their single peers.  If you have some evidence that can change my mind I would love to read it.  If you have evidence that marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, increases the rate of any STD I challenge any one of you to show me the evidence to change my mind.   If not, stop spouting this ignorant nonsense.

If a person's sexual orientation is homosexual that doesn't necessarily indicate they don't believe in God or religion.  That is a false assumption on your part.  Religion or sexual orientation doesn't make an individual faithful as demonstrated by the rate of divorce due to infidelity.  I'm faithful to my wife and I'm agnostic.  My fidelity is 100% independent of religion.  I view your religion the same way you view Scientology.   While in the military I took at least 7 oaths of enlistment, re-enlistment, or commissioning swearing to defend the Constitution even if it meant sacrificing my life so I take individual rights pretty damn seriously.  You swore to protect the same.  I don't know your reasons, but one of mine was because I believe in "liberty and justice for all," not liberty and justice for some based upon my religious beliefs.  I challenge you to give me a single legitimate reason why homosexuals shouldn't marry the same as their heterosexual peers other than it offends your religious sensibilities.

Lastly, this isn't directed specifically at you but in general, it isn't your place to judge other's sins, that is your god's job.  If you claim you're a Christian then start acting like one.

Nowhere did I state all heterosexual marriages were monogamous and/or perfect. Nor have I stated that same-sex marriage will increase the spread of disease among homosexuals. I simply stated IMO a larger amount of heterosexual marriages are based on religion and part of that religion speaks to adultery and other forms of sexual immorality to include homosexuality. I just went with the notion that the heterosexual couple that believes in the words written might take these words a little more seriously. Sure homosexuals can be religious, but it’s just that practicing homosexuals might be a little more lenient in the sexual immorality aspect.

As to all “I have to be against gay marriage is my religion”: that is correct. However, it is not something I apologize for; regardless, how many on here suggest I should. I am quite sure that same-sex marriage will soon be accepted and legitimized throughout the United States and I will abide accordingly. However, just like abortion; it does not mean I have to agree with the practice.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2015, 11:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Nowhere did I state all heterosexual marriages were monogamous and/or perfect. Nor have I stated that same-sex marriage will increase the spread of disease among homosexuals. I simply stated IMO a larger amount of heterosexual marriages are based on religion and part of that religion speaks to adultery and other forms of sexual immorality to include homosexuality. I just went with the notion that the heterosexual couple that believes in the words written might take these words a little more seriously. Sure homosexuals can be religious, but it’s just that practicing homosexuals might be a little more lenient in the sexual immorality aspect.

As to all “I have to be against gay marriage is my religion”: that is correct. However, it is not something I apologize for; regardless, how many on here suggest I should. I am quite sure that same-sex marriage will soon be accepted and legitimized throughout the United States and I will abide accordingly. However, just like abortion; it does not mean I have to agree with the practice.

As to your first paragraph we will agree to disagree. As to the second, I'm not asking you to apologize, like it, or approve. My point is there shouldn't be a law which discriminates against a specific group based upon their sexual orientation due to another's religious beliefs. Would you like to be governed by sharia law? As a Christian, I will assume "no."  A law which bans marriage for some base upon your Christian beliefs is the equivalent of Christian sharia law. A law based upon a specific religion places that religion over another in the eyes of the government and that is a no no. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-27-2015, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Same-sex marriage and high-risk sexual behaviors do not share the relationship you think they do. It has already been pointed out that marriage promotes monogamy which would slow down the rates. There will not likely be any change in the rate of infection, but if there is it would be a decrease, with the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, I ask again, what do you propose to stem the tide of HIV infections?

And again, you have a false equivalence. If you cannot comprehend the difference in the risk to the public health when you compare an airborne disease to one that requires direct contact that is almost blood to blood, then I don't know what to tell you. You can catch the diseases we were discussing in the other thread by being near someone, or even near someone that was near someone that had it. Meanwhile you have to be anally penetrated by someone with HIV/AIDS to contract the disease (for the most part, there are other scenarios but they are far less likely to lead to contraction and still highly unlikely to happen, and not environmental in nature). If you seriously think that something you have to engage in intercourse to contract poses the same risk as something that you only have to stand near someone to contract then you have gone round the bend.

Where did you provide this information that monogamy relations will slow the growth rate?

I understand that it's harder to get HIV vs the other diseases we were talking about in the other thread and you're ignoring the overall concept.

A small percentage of people infecting others because of choices that they make which can result in deaths to the general population.

At what point can the general population step in and say we need to start protecting ourselves?
Which one is greater? The amount of people that die each year from Aids or from those that aren't vaccinated?


When did the Netherlands legalize SSM? April 1 2001?
use this chart and see how much the Death Rates have increased, the Prevalence rate has increased and the overall number of infected people has almost doubled since it's become legalized all due to HIV/Aids. 

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=35&c=nl&l=en

Would you please tell me again how legalizing SSM it will slow down the spread of HIV/Aids?

[Ben Richards]

Did you guys know that in Leviticus where the man on man stuff is discussed as a no no, there is also a mention of pork being a big no no.
Wonder how many of the 'christians' that point to their favorite sci-fi novel being the 'word' devour bacon and other pork products?

[GMDino]

(05-28-2015, 12:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Where did you provide this information that monogamy relations will slow the growth rate?

I understand that it's harder to get HIV vs the other diseases we were talking about in the other thread and you're ignoring the overall concept.

A small percentage of people infecting others because of choices that they make which can result in deaths to the general population.

At what point can the general population step in and say we need to start protecting ourselves?

Which one is greater? The amount of people that die each year from Aids or from those that aren't vaccinated?


When did the Netherlands legalize SSM? April 1 2001?
use this chart and see how much the Death Rates have increased, the Prevalence rate has increased and the overall number of infected people has almost doubled since it's become legalized all due to HIV/Aids. 

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=35&c=nl&l=en

Would you please tell me again how legalizing SSM it will slow down the spread of HIV/Aids?

How does not allowing gays to marry equate to "protecting ourselves"?

What ARE you suggesting we do with the gays?  Or at least with the gays that are already HIV positive?

[Belsnickel]

(05-28-2015, 12:47 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Where did you provide this information that monogamy relations will slow the growth rate?

I understand that it's harder to get HIV vs the other diseases we were talking about in the other thread and you're ignoring the overall concept.

A small percentage of people infecting others because of choices that they make which can result in deaths to the general population.

At what point can the general population step in and say we need to start protecting ourselves?
Which one is greater? The amount of people that die each year from Aids or from those that aren't vaccinated?


When did the Netherlands legalize SSM? April 1 2001?
use this chart and see how much the Death Rates have increased, the Prevalence rate has increased and the overall number of infected people has almost doubled since it's become legalized all due to HIV/Aids. 

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=35&c=nl&l=en

Would you please tell me again how legalizing SSM it will slow down the spread of HIV/Aids?

Can you read my post again and see where I said it will likely not be a change? I know, we had a lengthy discussion so far about how I made the flippant remark with that second line and then said that there would likely not be a change and how that confused some people. You weren't a part of that so I just need to bring you into the fold on that. As to your chart, you should switch it over to the prevalence numbers, showing the percentage of the population infected. That rate actually has been steady since SSM in the Netherlands, meaning that SSM has no realized impact on the prevalence rate of infection and the increase in numbers is likely a result in population increase since the rate has remained steady at 0.2% since 2001. Showing that my assertion there would likely not be a change in the rate of infection is accurate.

As for the part in bold. I'm not missing the overall concept. You are missing some things.

1. There is no evidence to suggest legalizing SSM will increase the prevalence of HIV infections.
2. There is a false equivalency between a disease requiring active transmission vs. passive transmission in regards to how it is viewed for public health purposes.
3. You have yet to provide anything that could actually be done that would be the equivalent of requiring a vaccine for HIV. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think should be done since the whole SSM thing is a erroneous.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2015, 01:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Can you read my post again and see where I said it will likely not be a change? I know, we had a lengthy discussion so far about how I made the flippant remark with that second line and then said that there would likely not be a change and how that confused some people. You weren't a part of that so I just need to bring you into the fold on that. As to your chart, you should switch it over to the prevalence numbers, showing the percentage of the population infected. That rate actually has been steady since SSM in the Netherlands, meaning that SSM has no realized impact on the prevalence rate of infection and the increase in numbers is likely a result in population increase since the rate has remained steady at 0.2% since 2001. Showing that my assertion there would likely not be a change in the rate of infection is accurate.

As for the part in bold. I'm not missing the overall concept. You are missing some things.

1. There is no evidence to suggest legalizing SSM will increase the prevalence of HIV infections.
2. There is a false equivalency between a disease requiring active transmission vs. passive transmission in regards to how it is viewed for public health purposes.
3. You have yet to provide anything that could actually be done that would be the equivalent of requiring a vaccine for HIV. I'm genuinely curious as to what you think should be done since the whole SSM thing is a erroneous.

You said that you think the spread rate will slow down if we allow SSM, at worst remain the same.

I bring in data showing that it actually increased in a country after they legalized SSM.

I showed that the amount of people living with HIV almost doubled in 10 years. Did the population rate double?  No it did not, so how can you sit there and say it remained the same taking into consideration that Population Growth Rates and Birth Rates have dropped drastically during this same time frame.

1. I just provided you a chart that showed that it did.
2. *sigh. If it's so much harder to get, then why does it keep spreading at such a high rate? What % of the population must be infected before we admit we have a problem?
3. I'm not sure what should be done, but I think that legalizing SSM is not the answer.

Let's look at Belgium.
Prevalence Rate same.
Infected Doubled.
Number of deaths same
Pop Growth rate dropped by 2/3
Birth Rates dipped

Canada
Prevalence Rate increased
Amount infected increased by 50%
Death Rates same
Pop Growth rate dropped by 50%
Birth rates dipped

Let's look at a country where it's not legal.
Japan
Prevalence Rate remained steady
Amount infected dropped by 30%
Death Rates dropped by 80%
Pop Growth rate dropped
Birth rates dropped

How about India.
Prevalence Rate dropped in half
Amount infected dropped by 50%
Death Rates dropped 40%
Pop Growth Rates dropped
Birth Rates dropped

[BmorePat87]

(05-28-2015, 09:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: What is your fascination with me? Is it that if you keep telling everyone the imagined errors in my ways folks will actually start to believe it? I cannot believe a mod cannot see this continued tactic and take appropriate action.

Why do you think Matt quoted an earlier post about monogamy decreasing the rate? Because he agreed with it, because he disagreed with it, because he was just saying?

I don't think I'm telling people anything they don't know. Three of the biggest threads on this young forum involve you trolling after you got shut down and were incapable of forming any intelligent retort to the points made against you.

Maybe stick with Jungle Noise since being ignorant and homophobic doesn't work here?

[Belsnickel]

(05-28-2015, 03:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You said that you think the spread rate will slow down if we allow SSM, at worst remain the same.

I bring in data showing that it actually increased in a country after they legalized SSM.

I showed that the amount of people living with HIV almost doubled in 10 years. Did the population rate double?  No it did not, so how can you sit there and say it remained the same taking into consideration that Population Growth Rates and Birth Rates have dropped drastically during this same time frame.

1. I just provided you a chart that showed that it did.
2. *sigh. If it's so much harder to get, then why does it keep spreading at such a high rate? What % of the population must be infected before we admit we have a problem?
3. I'm not sure what should be done, but I think that legalizing SSM is not the answer.

Let's look at Belgium.
Prevalence Rate same.
Infected Doubled.
Number of deaths same
Pop Growth rate dropped by 2/3
Birth Rates dipped

Canada
Prevalence Rate increased
Amount infected increased by 50%
Death Rates same
Pop Growth rate dropped by 50%
Birth rates dipped

Let's look at a country where it's not legal.
Japan
Prevalence Rate remained steady
Amount infected dropped by 30%
Death Rates dropped by 80%
Pop Growth rate dropped
Birth rates dropped

How about India.
Prevalence Rate dropped in half
Amount infected dropped by 50%
Death Rates dropped 40%
Pop Growth Rates dropped
Birth Rates dropped

I said it would likely remain the same, which it has in those countries with SSM. Looking at the website you provided and basing it upon the adult prevalence rates of HIV in those countries, it is the same in Canada in Belgium, and only 0.01 percentage point higher in the Netherlands, than it was pre-legalization of SSM. I didn't bother looking at population numbers or anything, I was just venturing a guess as to the reason for the prevalence rate remaining the same with an increase in actual numbers. The point of it all is that you have provided no evidence that making SSM legal will increase the prevalence of HIV infections in adult populations because all three of the countries you have listed where it is legal have had little to no change in the rate since it became such.

So, to address these three bullet points:
1. No, you didn't. All of them show no effect on the prevalence of HIV.
2. That doesn't relate to what I stated. Try again. Difficulty of infection doesn't matter as much (yes I know I brought it up before) as the fact that contracting HIV requires an active role in risky behavior. Contracting something like measles requires the action of just being in the vicinity of other people. Since you can take an active role in you not engaging in risky behaviors but you can't really avoid being around other people all your life there is a distinct difference.
3. Except there is no evidence to suggest it has a negative impact on the situation. Essentially, you are attempting to erroneously interpret the data in a way to make your point because you think gay sex is icky. That's really what your entire argument looks like at this point.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2015, 03:07 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You said that you think the spread rate will slow down if we allow SSM, at worst remain the same.

I bring in data showing that it actually increased in a country after they legalized SSM.

I showed that the amount of people living with HIV almost doubled in 10 years. Did the population rate double?  No it did not, so how can you sit there and say it remained the same taking into consideration that Population Growth Rates and Birth Rates have dropped drastically during this same time frame.

1. I just provided you a chart that showed that it did.
2. *sigh. If it's so much harder to get, then why does it keep spreading at such a high rate? What % of the population must be infected before we admit we have a problem?
3. I'm not sure what should be done, but I think that legalizing SSM is not the answer.

Let's look at Belgium.
Prevalence Rate same.
Infected Doubled.
Number of deaths same
Pop Growth rate dropped by 2/3
Birth Rates dipped

Canada
Prevalence Rate increased
Amount infected increased by 50%
Death Rates same
Pop Growth rate dropped by 50%
Birth rates dipped

Let's look at a country where it's not legal.
Japan
Prevalence Rate remained steady
Amount infected dropped by 30%
Death Rates dropped by 80%
Pop Growth rate dropped
Birth rates dropped

How about India.
Prevalence Rate dropped in half
Amount infected dropped by 50%
Death Rates dropped 40%
Pop Growth Rates dropped
Birth Rates dropped

As I already asked once:

How does not allowing gays to marry equate to "protecting ourselves"?


What ARE you suggesting we do with the gays?  Or at least with the gays that are already HIV positive?