This is why affirmative should remain in tact

[7S]

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.

[7S]

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)

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

With all that said, HIV/AIDS, as you and others are trying to manipulate, is not an American disease. The statistics for rates of infection among demographics varies from country to country. So to limit the scope of data only manipulates the findings, as Sowell so masterfully does. As mentioned prior, "Worldwide, more than 90 percent of all adolescent and adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse." (NIH; 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."

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? 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.

[dashrashi]

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). 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.

[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.

[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.

[7S]

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.

provide documentation...


and gay sex accounts for 50% of all cases in 2005, not gays.

[7S]

Gays themselves claim that they represent 10% of the population, though others claim this is a exaggeration.  If we assume that 10% is the correct numbers, everything else still follows. 

provide documentation...

So you're saying that straights are the ones having the gay sex?

sure.

[dashrashi]

I don't even know what to say to the argument that gays can marry members of the opposite sex. It's so intellectually dishonest that I'm sort of speechless.

Straight people can marry people they are sexually attracted to. That's the underlying motivation in this day and age for getting married, generally speaking. Most straight people I know try to avoid marrying people to whom they are not, have never been, and will never be sexually attracted, because that doesn't make for a good marriage by pretty much anyone's standards. Gay people cannot marry people to whom they are sexually attracted. That's inequality. 

If we separate the state action from the "institution of marriage" which is what right-wingers get all het up (no pun intended) about, then there's no argument that "marriage is historically meant to be this that and the other." The state should perform civil unions (with the normal benefits of civil marriage) for everyone.

And I don't think that the state can really justify performing marriages for the children. Otherwise, why would they so willingly perform unions that won't result in offspring, like third marriages in the old folks' home? Marriage has gone beyond silly little economic calculations, clearly, and attempting to "find a reason" to let gays marry is clearly just hemming and hawing, out of what motivation I can only assume is homophobia.

Oh my god, this is seriously not that hard.