This is why affirmative should remain in tact

[dashrashi]

The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

[Lindbergh]

For what it's worth, it would appear that gay sex is more likely to transmit AIDS pretty much anywhere on the planet.  And again, Sowell doesn't say that AIDS doesn't ever effect straight people -- he's simply saying that it is particularly devastating to the gay community, and has killed many gays -- which it clearly is, and clearly has. However, Sowell, is also clearly focused on the U.S., as indicated by his other statements. 

I certainly support AIDS education generally, as long as it is taught objectively and accurately -- that any unprotected sex can be dangerous, but that certain kinds of sex are more dangerous than others, and that AIDS rates are higher, for whatever reason, within certain communities.  People can then draw truly informed conclusions from that.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Is there anything here you disagree with?  I'll take your silence (or future nonresponsive statements) as a no.

[Lindbergh]

I said that gay people are more likely to contract AIDS than straight people. That is, the overall rate of infection is higher in the gay population than the straight one.

Your argument was that this is incorrect, and that straight people are just as likely, or more likely to contract AIDS as gay people. That is, the overall rate of infection is equal or higher in the straight population than the gay one.

You attempted to support your conclusion with evidence that most AIDS cases are due to straight sex.

However, the relevant statistic is not the proportion of AIDS cases arising from straight sex vs. arising from gay sex, but the infection rate between the two populations.

Since the straight population is much larger than the gay one, it is possible that the AIDS rate is lower in the straight community than the gay community, even though it has a larger number of overall infections.

Since the statistics you provided don't provide information on the infection rates in the gay and straight populations, your conclusion is not supported by them.

Saying something about a memo, or appealing to what "is well known in the medical community," does not change the fact that the conclusion you provided is not supported by your evidence.

The stats I provide include both and specify those transmissions that result from gay sex and heterosexual sex. Click the link...that's why I provided them.

Please paste the section that shows that a straight person is more likely to catch aids than a gay person.

::sigh:: 

U.S.

In 2005, males made up 74% of adults and adolescents diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Of that 74%, gay male sex alone accounted for 67% of new HIV/AIDS diagnosis.

Females accounted for 26% of adults and adolescents diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Of that 24%, 80% was from heterosexual sex.

This does indeed translate into a nearly 50% diagnosis rate for male-to-male sexual contact in the U.S.

(CDC; http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/At-A-Glance.htm)

----------------------------------------

In other words, even though gays are under 10% of the population, they constitute about 1/2 of all cases, and the vast majority of male cases.  Clearly, gay males are are more risk of catching AIDS than any other group, and are far more likely to catch it than straight males.

With all that said, HIV/AIDS, as you and others are trying to manipulate, is not an American disease.

No one said it was.  What we did note was that Sowell was clearly discussing this in the context of the United States.  Therefore, other nations are essentially irrelevant to this dicussion.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/womenhiv.htm) It is, therefore, disingenuous to even hint that HIV/AIDS is a gay problem or as Sowell suggests, "the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a deathstyle in the AIDS era."

Look, I never said that AIDS was JUST a gay problem, and neither did Sowell.  What he did say was that homosexuality was a deathstyle in the AIDS era.  In other words, that a homosexual lifestyle, especially as practiced my many in the past, was risky and often deadly with the advent of AIDS.  Can anyone seriously dispute this? 

It is problematic, Lindbergh, that you would suggest that the risk associated with anal and vaginal sex are the same in Uganda because "because there's simply far more promiscuity, unprotected sex, and consequent infection." Why is Uganda far more promiscuous than the States?

I imagine it's due to different cultural norms. We probably have more judeo-christian hangups.  (I never said the risks are the same, though.)

A reasonably and scientifically proven justification (even though some disagree) for this phenomenon is that circumcision, which is unique on a broad basis in only some nations, decreases the risk of infection from woman to man.

Possibly. However, this ignores the fact that other uncircumcised nations don't have the same problem.

[Lindbergh]

By the way, it is just as arguable that cars are more dangerous than motorcycles (because of the overall number of fatalities they cause) as it is the reverse (because of different fatality rates).

No, it's not.  Motorcyles are clearly more dangerous than cars by any measure.  More people die in cars, but that's only because so many more are used. 

Generally speaking, Sharks are more dangerous than coconuts, and most people wisely avoid them for the most part.  However, coconuts kill more people on a yearly basis.  Does that mean that you're safer next to a shark, or next to a coconut?

So insisting that AIDS can be construed as more of a problem for gay people in the US because the rate of infection in that population is higher isn't true. You could just as easily say that AIDS is more of a problem for the straight community, because of the vastly larger number of infected people. Therefore, it's intellectually dishonest to insist that one is true over the other. By calling AIDS a gay problem, that's what you are doing.

No, what I'm saying is that you're more at risk of catching AIDS if you're gay.  And there's no qustion that the gay community takes AIDS far more seriously than the straight community, because it affects them far more on a per-capita basis than it does the straight community.

No one is saying that AIDS isn't a problem for everyone.  What we are saying is that it's a greater problem for the gay community, because it affects them far more. 

[Lindbergh]

The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

Well, if he's referring to the popular 1970's gay lifestyle of promiscuous, anonymous, unprotected sex, he's clearly right about that.  My point is that homosexuals can in fact have different lifestyles including monogamy, etc.  And lesbians, as noted, have the lowest rates of all.

In other words, even though a traditional male gay lifestyle could be described as a deathstyle, a more monogamous and/or protected gay lifestyle wouldn't necessarily be.  Also, honest AIDS education could certainly help, rather than hurt, in this area.

[Lindbergh]

The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

I don't believe he said anything about straight people.

I believe the primary reason to support marriage in this country is to ensure that children are provided for.  This rationale doesn't apply to the same extent with gay couples.  Therefore, the primary justification for supporting gay marriage (with the added financial costs) is presumably to encourage monogamy and reduce STD's.

[dashrashi]

The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

I don't believe he said anything about straight people.

I believe the primary reason to support marriage in this country is to ensure that children are provided for.  This rationale doesn't apply to the same extent with gay couples.  Therefore, the primary justification for supporting gay marriage (with the added financial costs) is presumably to encourage monogamy and reduce STD's.

The bolded clearly implies that those actions are analogous to the conditions of hetero marriage. Furthermore, it's a question of equality, not utility. Quite obviously to me, the state should only offer civil unions, gay or straight.

[PNym]

The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

I phrased the statement you bolded that way in order to contrast the choice of monogamy with the choice of the stereotypical "gay lifestyle" of promiscuous sex. I didn't mean to imply that monogamy was a necessary condition for health care benefits and such. Sorry if my original statement was misleading.

Even though not all married couples are faithful, I believe that one primary purpose for the institution of marriage is to promote monogamy between a couple by providing a disincentive for infidelity. After all, infidelity has traditionally been grounds for social condemnation and ostracism in many cultures (although certainly not to an equal extent between cultures and parties).

FWIW, I think it fundamentally unwise for the state to intervene in the insurance market, despite however much such interventions may benefit the careers of the intervening politicians. The distortion of the risk market by those unaccountable (or, at the most, tangentially accountable) for the effects of their decisions will inevitably lead to misallocation of resources.

[PNym]

The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

I don't believe he said anything about straight people.

I believe the primary reason to support marriage in this country is to ensure that children are provided for.  This rationale doesn't apply to the same extent with gay couples.  Therefore, the primary justification for supporting gay marriage (with the added financial costs) is presumably to encourage monogamy and reduce STD's.

The bolded clearly implies that those actions are analogous to the conditions of hetero marriage. Furthermore, it's a question of equality, not utility. Quite obviously to me, the state should only offer civil unions, gay or straight.

I don't think a principle of equality can be applied to resolving the gay marriage issue. A same-sex union is fundamentally different than a normal marriage because, well, the pairing is not between two members of the opposite sex. Currently, gay people can marry a person of the opposite sex, just as any other person can. A straight person cannot marry a person of the same sex, just as a gay person cannot. The current state of the laws in most American jurisdictions isn't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation on this issue.

However, I think civil unions should be statutorially defined because having this classification does make it easier for people who want to assume the restrictions of rights that marriage current provides for (such as inheritance rights, property rights, etc.) to do so. Defining this legal arrangement as extraneous to the current institution of marriage should neuter complaints that people will conflate the two.

If you were to argue that the state should stop providing benefits for people on the basis of their marital status, I think we could find some common ground.

[Lindbergh]

The reason Sowell is wrong in his overall conclusion (rather than his basic premise) is because not all gays are promiscuous, and not all gays engage in anal sex, at least not with more than one partner.  In fact, lesbians pretty much never engage in anal sex, which is one reason they have the lowest AIDS rate of any group.

What conclusion are you referring to? Where he says that living the homosexual lifestyle is akin to a deathstyle?

For the record (and to stave off the accusations of bigotry I'm sure H4CS will level), I favor state governments opting or not opting to set up "civil union" arrangements for gays who want to voluntarily restrict their rights as a sign of their intent to remain faithful to their partner. Since married couples enjoy some legal benefits from their status (such as extension of health insurance coverage to the spouse), and these benefits may have been arranged by institutions assuming that marriage is between a man and a woman (as it has traditionally been), it doesn't seem fair to me to force institutions who were granting benefits to married straight couples to grant those same benefits to gay couples by changing the definition of marriage. But allowing gay couples the "civil union" legal designation would allow institutions to decide whether or not to extend these benefits to the "unioned" couple, rather than forcing them to do so as a matter of pre-existing policy.

And, real quick, I can't believe you let this all go unremarked upon. Did I miss the memo where straight people are required to be and indeed are faithful to their partners, and that that's a condition of receiving the government-mandated benefits of marriage, such as health insurance coverage? Because if that's the case, there are a hell of a lot of people receiving benefits who shouldn't be.

I don't believe he said anything about straight people.

I believe the primary reason to support marriage in this country is to ensure that children are provided for.  This rationale doesn't apply to the same extent with gay couples.  Therefore, the primary justification for supporting gay marriage (with the added financial costs) is presumably to encourage monogamy and reduce STD's.

The bolded clearly implies that those actions are analogous to the conditions of hetero marriage.

How so? Again, to require the state to bear burdens, there presumably should be some justification for it.  Children are a clear potential justification in straight marriage, but is not likely to emerge from a gay union itself.  Therefore, some other justification must be found, like increasing monogamy.

Furthermore, it's a question of equality, not utility.

Well, to you, maybe.  Equality is a nice ideal, but no one is saying that gays can't marry people of the opposite sex, so they already technically have the same rights as everyone else.  Aside from that, there are tons of inequalities in life that we don't seek to remedy through government intervention, and many we clearly shouldn't.  The question is why we should create a marriage privilege for gays when the same rationale doesn't precisely apply.  If you want to persuade people to support that, you should probably work up a pragmatic justification.

Quite obviously to me, the state should only offer civil unions, gay or straight.

I'm not sure what exactly this means.  Are you saying the state shouldn't support/encourage straight marraige as much, despite the practical importance of the family unit?  Or are you saying the name should just be changed so gays don't feel left out?

Obviously, anyone be religiously married through any church that supports gay marriage, and they can say they're married if they want.  The only question is what kind of state benefits they'll get, and what the state will call that institution.