Ireland becomes first country to legalize gay marriage via pop vote

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2015, 03:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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?

I have absolutely no idea what had me "shot down" in this or any of the other mentioned threads. 
 
Was it folks being facetious? 
 
Was it me providing quotes from others stating that SSM would decrease the spread of disease? 
 
The fact that you declare "WE win, you lose" really holds very little water.  
 
I will give you a word of advice: When one participant in a debate starts attacking the other participant and not the message (ie calling them ignorant and homophobic), that person has already conceded defeat in the exchange and has resorted to demonstrating his or her petulance.
 
I am sure name calling and declaring yourself the victor is important in your classroom; unfortunately, it means very little in the adult word. I have heard of this phenomenon, in which, teachers adopt the traits of their students.  I have been told it is caused by the fact that they spend much more time with children than they do adults, so they begin acting like children.

[BmorePat87]

(05-28-2015, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have absolutely no idea what had me "shot down" in this or any of the other mentioned threads. 
 
Was it folks being facetious? 
 
Was it me providing quotes from others stating that SSM would decrease the spread of disease? 
 
The fact that you declare "WE win, you lose" really holds very little water.  
 
I will give you a word of advice: When one participant in a debate starts attacking the other participant and not the message (ie calling them ignorant and homophobic), that person has already conceded defeat in the exchange and has resorted to demonstrating his or her petulance.
 
I am sure name calling and declaring yourself the victor is important in your classroom; unfortunately, it means very little in the adult word. I have heard of this phenomenon, in which, teachers adopt the traits of their students.  I have been told it is caused by the fact that they spend much more time with children than they do adults, so they begin acting like children.

I actually responded to your biggest post and your response was "are you being facetious". It was at that point that I accused you of trolling.

I will give you a word of advice: when you try to suggest that the other person didn't address your message and attacked you, make sure they didn't actually respond to your message because otherwise you'll look like a fool.

lol

[BmorePat87]

Maybe post this in the member picture thread?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2015, 03:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I also showed you 2 large countries where it's not legal and their rates dropped dramatically in the number of infections and deaths.

1. So how come it fell dramatically in 2 countries where's it's not legal and yet stayed the same or slightly increased in those that made it legal?
2. Again, you seem to have difficulties understanding the simple concept that I laid out for you. Let me say it slower..

Small % of total population makes a choice (are you still with me?)

Consequences (almost done)

Spread a deadly disease amongst the population. (now that wasn't so difficult was it?)


Now that fact that it is so much harder to get Aids yet at the rate that it is growing should be even more alarming (no no, ignore this sentence, it will probably just confuse you or send you round the bend because you want to play the technicalities game).

3. LOL I guess if you likey the ickey then you can manipulate the data anyway you want. I clearly included 2 countries where it's not legal and showed how the numbers are going down vs countries where it's legal where the infected pop has almost doubled and the rate remained the same or slightly increased. I guess you can ignore that if you want, but it's still there and supports my views about SSM more so than yours.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2015, 03:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: 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?

By not allowing it, hopefully it will dissuade a few from participating in it and the numbers will come down over time. Just like I showed in the charts where the countries that it's not legal in it has started dropping vs those that allow it showing that the number of infected people has practically doubled since it was legalized. View the charts on the website yourself, it's not hard to use.

That's a good question, and I don't know a good answer to that one, but just cause we don't know the answers at this time, does not make it a valid argument for allowing SSM, when we have data clearly shows otherwise.

[Belsnickel]

(05-28-2015, 06:04 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I also showed you 2 large countries where it's not legal and their rates dropped dramatically in the number of infections and deaths.

1. So how come it fell dramatically in 2 countries where's it's not legal and yet stayed the same or slightly increased in those that made it legal?
2. Again, you seem to have difficulties understanding the simple concept that I laid out for you. Let me say it slower..

Small % of total population makes a choice (are you still with me?)

Consequences (almost done)

Spread a deadly disease amongst the population. (now that wasn't so difficult was it?)


Now that fact that it is so much harder to get Aids yet at the rate that it is growing should be even more alarming (no no, ignore this sentence, it will probably just confuse you or send you round the bend because you want to play the technicalities game).

3. LOL I guess if you likey the ickey then you can manipulate the data anyway you want. I clearly included 2 countries where it's not legal and showed how the numbers are going down vs countries where it's legal where the infected pop has almost doubled and the rate remained the same or slightly increased. I guess you can ignore that if you want, but it's still there and supports my views about SSM more so than yours.

1. There could be any number of reasons for the decline in prevalence. Your interpretation of data doesn't take this into account and is overly simplistic.

2. Still a false equivalency. But you can just keep ignoring that since it seems to confuse you.

3. Onto the whole overly simplistic approach you take to these numbers. I'm sure it is no coincidence you chose those countries instead of looking at someplace like Russia, where the HIV prevalence increased and has stayed steady as well, or maybe Pakistan, or any number of other countries where SSM is not legal and the rates are steady or even growing. Picking and choosing countries for your argument like that shows an attempt to manipulate the data in a biased way. You're not taking into account public health initiatives that may have been implemented for instance. That's just the tip of the iceberg for the number of variables involved with this sort of thing and why your attempt to interpret the data in such an overly simplistic way is falling flat. You can't just compare country to country on a whim for any real sort of statistics example. The only value this has for this conversation is one country sprwad over the years, and the fact is that the prevalence did not significantly change after SSM was legalized.

So no, there is no support for your argument for anyone with even a modicum of understanding of statistics.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2015, 06:12 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: By not allowing it, hopefully it will dissuade a few from participating in it and the numbers will come down over time. Just like I showed in the charts where the countries that it's not legal in it has started dropping vs those that allow it showing that the number of infected people has practically doubled since it was legalized. View the charts on the website yourself, it's not hard to use.

That's a good question, and I don't know a good answer to that one, but just cause we don't know the answers at this time, does not make it a valid argument for allowing SSM, when we have data clearly shows otherwise.

So you stand my your belief that allowing SSM will INCREASE the amount of people infected by HIV and dying of AIDS?

And that if we continue to treat the gay people in society as some sort of lesser American citizen they will learn to stop having "wrong sex"?

Using that "logic" perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?

http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/TUESDAY-Married-or-single-why-STD-rates-in-Utah-are-skyrocketing-125445.shtml#.VWeRks-6eM8

Quote:Married or single, why STD rates in Utah are skyrocketing

It’s a skyrocketing problem in Utah that no one wants to talk about.

Married or single, STDs are on the rise among all ages – in some cases up more than 700 percent.

“20s, 30s, 40s, and I’ve certainly had my share of patients in their 50s,” says one doctor.

2News’ Heidi Hatch investigates the cause of this public health crisis and reveals the source that has Utahns facing a higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases than ever before.

Of course ALL STDs being up has nothing to do with it...of course.

http://www.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2015, 06:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 1. There could be any number of reasons for the decline in prevalence. Your interpretation of data doesn't take this into account and is overly simplistic.

2. Still a false equivalency. But you can just keep ignoring that since it seems to confuse you.

3. Onto the whole overly simplistic approach you take to these numbers. I'm sure it is no coincidence you chose those countries instead of looking at someplace like Russia, where the HIV prevalence increased and has stayed steady as well, or maybe Pakistan, or any number of other countries where SSM is not legal and the rates are steady or even growing. Picking and choosing countries for your argument like that shows an attempt to manipulate the data in a biased way. You're not taking into account public health initiatives that may have been implemented for instance. That's just the tip of the iceberg for the number of variables involved with this sort of thing and why your attempt to interpret the data in such an overly simplistic way is falling flat. You can't just compare country to country on a whim for any real sort of statistics example. The only value this has for this conversation is one country sprwad over the years, and the fact is that the prevalence did not significantly change after SSM was legalized.

So no, there is no support for your argument for anyone with even a modicum of understanding of statistics.

The criteria I used was developed countries, non-communist and large populations, so yes I didn't include Russia or China. I figured there might be some issues with the numbers from those countries.

1. sure, Ignore it again.
2. Still hung up on technicalities. It's ok if you want to play that game.
3. Sure and there could've public health initiatives done in the countries where SSM is legal too, but it's not showing much effect now is it? We can do this game all day long.

Don't know what's going on in Russia, but considering the numbers, they are all over the place, which going back to my criteria, I was probably correct in stating that numbers from that country would be messed up. Nice try to use their abnormal numbers as a means to dispute everything up to this point.

If you want to keep you heads buried in the sand about it, then that's fine. That's on you. I don't want that, I want it to stop spreading.

Currently the number one means of HIV/AIDS spreading is via MSM. I guess all of you just want to sit back and wait for it to become number 2 (the general population becomes infected) and then you can say see it's working.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2015, 07:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you stand my your belief that allowing SSM will INCREASE the amount of people infected by HIV and dying of AIDS?

And that if we continue to treat the gay people in society as some sort of lesser American citizen they will learn to stop having "wrong sex"?

Using that "logic" perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?

http://www.kutv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/TUESDAY-Married-or-single-why-STD-rates-in-Utah-are-skyrocketing-125445.shtml#.VWeRks-6eM8



Of course ALL STDs being up has nothing to do with it...of course.

http://www.livescience.com/48100-sexually-transmitted-infections-50-states-map.html

Nice charts, but HPV alone is more than triple of the SUM of all of the other STD's listed.

Don't you think that should mean it's a problem? Or do you just want to keep your head buried in the sand?

[Belsnickel]

(05-28-2015, 08:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Don't know what's going on in Russia, but considering the numbers, they are all over the place, which going back to my criteria, I was probably correct in stating that numbers from that country would be messed up. Nice try to use their abnormal numbers as a means to dispute everything up to this point.

If you want to keep you heads buried in the sand about it, then that's fine. That's on you. I don't want that, I want it to stop spreading.

Currently the number one means of HIV/AIDS spreading is via MSM. I guess all of you just want to sit back and wait for it to become number 2 (the general population becomes infected) and then you can say see it's working.

I don't need to use their numbers to dispute your claims. There are a number of other countries out there as well as any number of other variables. You're right, we can play this game all day long. But in the end the result is the same, there are too many variables to do a country to country comparison that has any validity based on the information available. Unfortunately for you, without the country to country comparison the only thing available to see is that the prevalence rates remained steady, showing little to no impact of SSM on the rate. You said I was ignoring things but I'm not ignoring anything. I just recognize the fallacious reasoning you are using to come to your conclusions.

I'd like it to stop spreading, but nothing you have presented here has shown there is a correlation to allowing SSM and a rise in the prevalence of HIV infections and so there is no logical step to make to preventing it due to that.

I am curious about that last part, though. How does the general population become infected? Are you expecting more bisexual activity with SSM becoming a thing? How does it make that leap?

[Belsnickel]

(05-28-2015, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Nice charts, but HPV alone is more than triple of the SUM of all of the other STD's listed.

Don't you think that should mean it's a problem? Or do you just want to keep your head buried in the sand?

You realize HPV is not HIV, right?

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2015, 08:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If you want to keep you heads buried in the sand about it, then that's fine. That's on you. I don't want that, I want it to stop spreading.

Currently the number one means of HIV/AIDS spreading is via MSM. I guess all of you just want to sit back and wait for it to become number 2 (the general population becomes infected) and then you can say see it's working.

Mike, I’m right there with you on the same-sex marriage issue; however, I believe we are against it for different reasons, as I think I read in an earlier post that you stated you weren’t religious.

Your concern about same-sex relationships and STDs is well warranted, as this was a recent statement from the CDC:

Quote:Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent an incredibly diverse community. However, these men are disproportionately impacted by syphilis, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

I think we do differ on the stance that simply allowing SSM will increase the spread of HIV, syphilis, and other STDs (but it damn sure won’t reduce it ass some have suggested). The act is what causes the spread of the disease, not allowing them to marry. IMO the only thing that will increase the spread is if the active homosexual population grows; which is a possibility as it is accepted more and more by society.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2015, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Nice charts, but HPV alone is more than triple of the SUM of all of the other STD's listed.

Don't you think that should mean it's a problem? Or do you just want to keep your head buried in the sand?

(05-28-2015, 08:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You realize HPV is not HIV, right?

[GMDino]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/rhode-island-finds-increase-stds-rise-social-media/story?id=31339541

Quote:Increases in the rates of three major sexually transmitted diseases in Rhode Island have led local health officials to warn that high-risk behaviors could be to blame, including the use of social media to “arrange casual and often anonymous sexual encounters."

Among the statistics, HIV rates have risen 33 percent, gonorrhea cases are up 30 percent and syphilis cases are up a whopping 79 percent.

"These data send a clear signal that despite the progress we have made in reducing STDs and HIV over the years, there is more work to do," Dr. Nicole Alexander-Scott, director designee at the Rhode Island Department of Health, said in a statement. "This trend reminds us that we cannot become complacent."

The department, according to a written statement, found that high-risk behavior, including “using social media to arrange casual and often anonymous sexual encounters, having sex without a condom, having multiple sex partners, and having sex while under the influence of drugs or alcohol,” as well as increased testing, was the likely cause for the spike in STDs. While the department was able to track STD rates from 2013 through 2014, national data is only available until 2013 and it’s unclear if STDs are going up nationally, as well.

At least one other county has seen a startling rise in STDs, and it is such a problem that health officials at the STD clinic for Salt Lake County, Utah, have started to ask about specific dating apps when meeting with patients.

Lynn Beltran, an epidemiologist at the clinic, said she’s not surprised to see a rise in STDs, given the rise of those dating apps and what she sees as changing attitudes on sexual relations.

“It’s been the perfect storm,” said Beltran. “Our attitude kind of shifted, where it became more acceptable to engage in casual sex ... then to find someone in a certain mile radius.”

Beltran said she and her team ask about the dating apps to understand if patients' partners could be at risk. She said that when websites were more popular, she and her staff would register as users to reach out to people who may have been exposed to STDs, including HIV. Now that apps are more popular, she said, it is more difficult to reach out and alert users of potential exposure.

“My staff would register as users on those on sites and go in and send them a message,” she told ABC News. “They would go on and say, 'Can you please call me? I have some important medical information for you.'”

In her county, she said, she has seen an uptick in syphilis and gonorrhea, and many of the newly diagnosed patients say they are sexually active through dating apps.

Some HIV experts say the dating apps likely are not to blame, but instead blame a lack of funding for education and prevention.

“Don’t blame social media -- this is about our failure to provide young people with comprehensive, effective sex education and access to condoms" and affordable medical care, said Anthony Hayes, managing director of public affairs and policy for the Gay Men's Health Crisis

He also cited lack of available medications that can help stop an HIV infection after exposure.

"Until we make these crucial investments that will save lives and money, these numbers are going to keep going up," he said.

Beltran added that the Rhode Island report does not mean people should be shamed for using dating sites, but that they should be educated on staying safe.

“I think this is the wave of the future, and we need to approach it not with a shame,” she said.

She said it will be important for health departments are able to “help people be informed and know what their risks are.”

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2015, 08:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You realize HPV is not HIV, right?

My bad there.
I got it now.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-28-2015, 08:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't need to use their numbers to dispute your claims. There are a number of other countries out there as well as any number of other variables. You're right, we can play this game all day long. But in the end the result is the same, there are too many variables to do a country to country comparison that has any validity based on the information available. Unfortunately for you, without the country to country comparison the only thing available to see is that the prevalence rates remained steady, showing little to no impact of SSM on the rate. You said I was ignoring things but I'm not ignoring anything. I just recognize the fallacious reasoning you are using to come to your conclusions.

I'd like it to stop spreading, but nothing you have presented here has shown there is a correlation to allowing SSM and a rise in the prevalence of HIV infections and so there is no logical step to make to preventing it due to that.

I am curious about that last part, though. How does the general population become infected? Are you expecting more bisexual activity with SSM becoming a thing? How does it make that leap?

Frankly after reviewing the numbers from Russia, I'm embarrassed that you actually tried to use them in your argument. You clearly don't understand how to analyze statistics.

No it's not unfortunate for me. The numbers are what they are. I don't make them up, neither do you. You can point to as many variables as you want, but it's not going to suddenly make all of the numbers invalid like you wish for them to be.

What I have presented is that in countries where SSM is not legal, the rates have started to fall (due to what ever variable you want to use). Where SSM has been made legal, more of the general population got infected (due to whatever variable you want to use), where as in the other the numbers dropped by half. Pretty telling considering the population sizes of India and Japan vs Netherlands.

I'll get back to you later on that last part.

[BmorePat87]

(05-28-2015, 08:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The criteria I used was developed countries, non-communist and large populations, so yes I didn't include Russia or China.

Russia and China meet all three of those...

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2015, 02:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Frankly after reviewing the numbers from Russia, I'm embarrassed that you actually tried to use them in your argument. You clearly don't understand how to analyze statistics.

No it's not unfortunate for me. The numbers are what they are. I don't make them up, neither do you. You can point to as many variables as you want, but it's not going to suddenly make all of the numbers invalid like you wish for them to be.

What I have presented is that in countries where SSM is not legal, the rates have started to fall (due to what ever variable you want to use). Where SSM has been made legal, more of the general population got infected (due to whatever variable you want to use), where as in the other the numbers dropped by half. Pretty telling considering the population sizes of India and Japan vs Netherlands.

I'll get back to you later on that last part.

I used Russia because it was a random country I picked. I wasn't really analyzing anything, just looking at the surface of it all because looking any deeper is a waste of time since you will continue to lack the understanding of a thorough breakdown. Anyway, how about the UK, Germany, Sweden, or France. Does that do better for you? Their prevalence rates are all steady throughout the same time period during which SSM was not legal.

Also, the fact that you are using the larger population sizes to try to say using India and Japan in comparison to the Netherlands somehow makes your argument more solid shows you know nothing about comparing entities externally as you should always choose similar comparisons. The population sizes, cultures, and economies of Japan and India both make them horrible comparisons to pretty much any country in western Europe for just about anything.

[StLucieBengal]

Doesn't russia jail gays?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-28-2015, 09:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Mike, I’m right there with you on the same-sex marriage issue; however, I believe we are against it for different reasons, as I think I read in an earlier post that you stated you weren’t religious.

Your concern about same-sex relationships and STDs is well warranted, as this was a recent statement from the CDC:
I think we do differ on the stance that simply allowing SSM will increase the spread of HIV, syphilis, and other STDs (but it damn sure won’t reduce it ass some have suggested). The act is what causes the spread of the disease, not allowing them to marry. IMO the only thing that will increase the spread is if the active homosexual population grows; which is a possibility as it is accepted more and more by society.

What did the CDC recommend to reduce the spread of STDs?  A mutually monogamous relationship. Why?  Because that is what the data from disease surveillance suggests. I've explained it to you twice already.  You can check with the CDC for the STD rates. My chance of contracting HIV, HPV, HSV, HBV, HCV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, chancroid, lymphogranoma venereum is zero. Why is my risk significantly less than the general population?  Because I'm in a mutually monogamous relationship called marriage.