Man Up - Repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell "

[Iwannaplay]

I guess I'll just mess around with Asian and other Pacific Islander women then.

[AUChizad]

I guess I'll just mess around with Asian and other Pacific Islander women then.

I mean, that's pretty much a given anyway. At least I'm playing it safer with my hispanic girlfriend than I was with any cracker hoes from my past.

[GarMan]

I'm the least politically correct guy on the planet. The numbers just don't add up, though. The odds of being exposed to hepatitis, herpes, and the like are higher with heterosexuals simply because there are more of us.

I understand you point, but here's something to consider.  According to the CDC, more than half of all new HIV cases every year occur with homosexual and bisexual males.  Playing the odds, the numbers seem pretty serious, and that's only one of the many fringe benefits.  

Unprotected sex is unprotected sex; be it with a chick or a dude.  

I can't discount that fact...  However, these numbers aren't based on opinion polls or surveys.  They're legit stats.  I suppose that you could argue that the "traditional" non-monogamous lifestyle of the homosexual community plays a significant role in this.

Repealing DADT isn't going to open a floodgate to deviants. Also, every swinging tool and split tail in the military is required to undergo mandatory HIV testing annually, in addition to normal bloodwork common with a physical.

Seems like a gamble if you ask me...  Recognizing that we have options/choices outside of the military, I wouldn't assume the risk with my own health or life.  Additionally, I wouldn't impose such a risk on others.  

[GarMan]

Blacks are almost twice as likely as whites to contract HIV!!! Better kick the negros out as well!!! 

The sad thing is if you probably agree with that logic. And if you don't now, I guarantee you did (or would have) forty years ago. 

I believe that science has proven the increased incidents to be associated with behavior rather than race, but nice try from a race-baiting perspective...   

[AUChizad]

I suppose that you could argue that the "traditional" non-monogamous lifestyle of the homosexual community plays a significant role in this.

So you endorse same sex marriage? You'd like to see them be monogamous is what you're saying, right? But yeah, I'm with you. No heterosexuals have sex with more than one person in their lifetime.

How in the hell can you make these two quotes:

I understand you point, but here's something to consider.  According to the CDC, more than half of all new HIV cases every year occur with homosexual and bisexual males.  Playing the odds, the numbers seem pretty serious, and that's only one of the many fringe benefits.

I can't discount that fact...  However, these numbers aren't based on opinion polls or surveys.  They're legit stats.

And then say this:

I believe that science has proven the increased incidents to be associated with behavior rather than race, but nice try from a race-baiting perspective...  

...boggles the mind.

So black people contract AIDS as a victim of circumstance, but homosexuals deliberately contract AIDS because they're gay? I'm sorry to break this to you, but all people, homosexual or not, contract AIDS the same way. Sharing needles, and more commonly fucking.

The statistics are apples and apples. 51% of new HIV cases are from a population that only represents 10% of the general population. If your statistics are correct, a random black person you meet on the street is MORE likely to have HIV than a random homosexual you meet.

The point is, it's not fucking likely. It's yet another stupid red herring argument you're desperately trying to cling to

The only difference? You've probably met a few black people. You even know some you think are decent people (I'm assuming). In your twisted mind, ALL homosexuals are evil fuck machines whose sole objective in life is to spread AIDS to the general population.

[Tiger Wench]

Also from the CDC:

HIV/AIDS:   Number of Persons Living with Chronic Infection  1,106,400 persons (95% confidence interval 1,056,400-1,156,400) with 21% undiagnosed.

Hepatitis B:  Number of Persons Living with Chronic Infection  800,000 - 1.4 million persons

Hepatitis C:  Number of Persons Living with Chronic Infection  2.7–3.9 million persons (the most common chronic blood borne infection in the U.S.)

I know what disease I would be more worried about. 

[GarMan]

So you endorse same sex marriage? You'd like to see them be monogamous is what you're saying, right? But yeah, I'm with you. No heterosexuals have sex with more than one person in their lifetime.

That's a ridiculous unrelated stretch.  Of course not, but are you suggesting that same sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter, guarantees monogamy?  I mean, seriously??? 

How in the hell can you make these two quotes:And then say this:...boggles the mind.

Yes...  It does boggle the mind.  Try this from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm...

The term men who have sex with men (MSM) refers to all men who have sex with other men, regardless of how they identify themselves (gay, bisexual, or heterosexual). In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous impact on MSM. Consider these facts:

- AIDS has been diagnosed for more than half a million MSM. Over 300,000 MSM with AIDS have died since the beginning of the epidemic.

- MSM made up more than two thirds (68%) of all men living with HIV in 2005, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States reported having sex with other men.

- In a 2005 study of 5 large US cities, 46% of African American MSM were HIV-positive.

...

Whatever the reasons, in 2005, MSM still accounted for about 53% of all new HIV/AIDS cases and 71% of cases in male adults and adolescents.

I didn't pull that out of my ass...  Would you refute the CDC's claims? 

So black people contract AIDS as a victim of circumstance, but homosexuals deliberately contract AIDS because they're gay?

We've already established that it's likely behavior-based, but why would it be so prevelant in the gay community?  Perhaps, the predominant lifestyle is not just about having homosexual interests/urges...  Is it that hard for you to "swallow"? 

I'm sorry to break this to you, but all people, homosexual or not, contract AIDS the same way. Sharing needles, and more commonly phuking.

Don't disagree...

The statistics are apples and apples. 51% of new HIV cases are from a population that only represents 10% of the general population. If your statistics are correct, a random black person you meet on the street is MORE likely to have HIV than a random homosexual you meet.

Wrong...  See above... 

The point is, it's not phuking likely. It's yet another stupid red herring argument you're desperately trying to cling to 

So, CDC stats are less reliable than opinion polls and other surveys?  Right... 
 

The only difference? You've probably met a few black people. You even know some you think are decent people (I'm assuming). In your twisted mind, ALL homosexuals are evil phuk machines whose sole objective in life is to spread AIDS to the general population. 

Nice characterization...  My personal opinion of homosexuals doesn't matter, but I'd bet you'd prefer for the "thought-police" to jam some of those "enlightened" politically correct views of yours down my throat.  No thanks!

[GarMan]

I know what disease I would be more worried about. 

Me too!

[AUChizad]

That's a ridiculous unrelated stretch.  Of course not, but are you suggesting that same sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter, guarantees monogamy?  I mean, seriously???  

Who said anything about a guarantee? I guaranfuckingtee you that you can survey ten married guys and ten single guys and let's see who had the most sexual partners over the last year, I'm pretty sure I know how those results will turn out. You insinuated something about the "tradition" of promiscuity in homosexuals. That's a complete crock of shit. Again, it goes back to your propagandized perception of the average homosexual as some predator. I can't change that. It's bigoted stereotyping, but hey, that's your bag.

Yes...  It does boggle the mind.  Try this from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm...I didn't pull that out of my ass...  Would you refute the CDC's claims?  
We've already established that it's likely behavior-based, but why would it be so prevelant in the gay community?  Perhaps, the predominant lifestyle is not just about having homosexual interests/urges...  Is it that hard for you to "swallow"?

What are you insinuating here? I'm assuming that there is an insidious plot by the homosexual community to spread AIDS throughout the world. If not, explain yourself now, so that you don't come back 10 threads later and say I interpreted one of your vague accusations incorrectly.

Wrong...  See above...  

So, CDC stats are less reliable than opinion polls and other surveys?  Right...  

No wonder you don't like statistics. You have a hard time comprehending them.

The only statistic I utilized at all was the one you presented that homosexuals account for half of new AIDS cases. I assumed you were correct, and made my point based upon it. Then you post this link from the CDC that confirms it, yet try to pin me for refuting the CDC's claims. Where did I refute any of that? Your study shows 53%.

I then presented another study that shows African Americans accounted for 51% FROM THE SAME SOURCE.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

The point is, you realize how ridiculous it would be to suggest that African Americans are unfit for military service because they're at a higher risk of HIV infection than Caucasions (again, I'm left to assume this). You simply can't wrap your ahead around the same rules applying to homosexuals.

Here are more graphs from the same link.

So, yes, contracting HIV is more likely to occur during homosexual sex than heterosexuals sex. I never contested that. But really? 32% vs. 53%? That's grounds to ban a faction of society from military service? Talk about a stretch.

And when you look at the other graphs, you'll see that really the only reason homosexual sex is more likely to pass on AIDS is because you have twice the dudes fucking.




The only way to be safe is to bar all men from service. We don't want the women risking their lives by getting some male blood on them!

The bottom line is your entire argument, especially this portion of it as it pertains to worrying about having to dig a bullet out of a gay person because it's a foregone conclusion that they are HIV positive, is beyond ridiculous and doesn't dignify the lengthy response I just gave it.

[Saniflush]

All that chart tells me is if I want some advice on window treatments then I am twice a likely to get good advice from an African American.

[Kaos]

The disease I'm most worried about is stupidity. 

There are a couple of Sanchos spreading that shit in here.

[AUChizad]

All that chart tells me is if I want some advice on window treatments then I am twice a likely to get good advice from an African American.

Then perhaps you're statistically impaired as well, since I stated what it represents and provided the link to the CDC page I pulled it off of to show it in the context it was presented.

[AUChizad]

The disease I'm most worried about is stupidity. 

There are a couple of Sanchos spreading that shit in here.

Tell me about it. Nothing's as ignorant as blind bigotry.

Failure to comprehend simple pie charts is up there, though.

[Saniflush]

Then perhaps you're statistically impaired as well, since I stated what it represents and provided the link to the CDC page I pulled it off of to show it in the context it was presented.

Apparently we could also use a pie chart for the sarcasm impaired.

[GarMan]

Who said anything about a guarantee? I guaranphukingtee you that you can survey ten married guys and ten single guys and let's see who had the most sexual partners over the last year, I'm pretty sure I know how those results will turn out.

Hey man...  You're the one stretching here.  And, I suppose you know this from "experience"...  This doesn't even relate to this discussion. 

You insinuated something about the "tradition" of promiscuity in homosexuals. That's a complete crock of poop. Again, it goes back to your propagandized perception of the average homosexual as some predator. I can't change that. It's bigoted stereotyping, but hey, that's your bag. 

There you go with that PC-crap again...  Whah!  That's bigoted stereotyping!!!  You can't say that!  You F-tards have no problem stereotyping anyone you disagree with, but if somebody else does it, you cry foul.  More than two-thirds of all known HIV cases in the US belong to a proud homosexual.  What do you think?  Is there some evil right-wing mastermind behind it infecting gay males?  Or, is it a result of the behavior of the individual?  And, if so many heterosexuals are swapping partners and behaving just as "badly" as those helpless poor homosexuals, why wouldn't HIV be more prevalent among heterosexuals?  Play the numbers...  If only 5-7% of our society is gay, why would 68% of all HIV infections reside in the gay community? 

What are you insinuating here? I'm assuming that there is an insidious plot by the homosexual community to spread AIDS throughout the world. If not, explain yourself now, so that you don't come back 10 threads later and say I interpreted one of your vague accusations incorrectly.No wonder you don't like statistics. You have a hard time comprehending them.

I'm "insinuating" that the stats are a direct result of their behavior.  Try again...  If only 5-7% of our society is gay, why would 68% of all HIV infections reside in the gay community?

The only statistic I utilized at all was the one you presented that homosexuals account for half of new AIDS cases. I assumed you were correct, and made my point based upon it. Then you post this link from the CDC that confirms it, yet try to pin me for refuting the CDC's claims. Where did I refute any of that? Your study shows 53%. 

So, what's the problem?  I assumed your "boggles the mind" comment meant that I was somehow wrong for pointing out the obvious.  Or, were you "boggled" that 68% of all HIV cases still reside in the gay community?  Or, are you still confused that behavior somehow relates to the increased infection rates in the gay male community? 

I then presented another study that shows African Americans accounted for 51% FROM THE SAME SOURCE.
<snip>
The point is, you realize how ridiculous it would be to suggest that African Americans are unfit for military service because they're at a higher risk of HIV infection than Caucasions (again, I'm left to assume this). You simply can't wrap your ahead around the same rules applying to homosexuals.

Now, I see where you're going with this.  You're attempting to play the race card with homosexuality.  These people were born gay just as much as an African American would be born black.  I understand you're point.  The only problem is the behavior aspect of this.  Race doesn't typically involve behavior unless you're an inner-city thug. 

Here are more graphs from the same link.
<snip>
So, yes, contracting HIV is more likely to occur during homosexual sex than heterosexuals sex. I never contested that. But really? 32% vs. 53%? That's grounds to ban a faction of society from military service? Talk about a stretch.

Wait a minute...  That's intentionally misleading.  It's male-to-male versus "high-risk" hetersexual contact, not gay sex versus straight sex...  Not homosexual versus heterosexual...  Talk about comprehending stats... 

And when you look at the other graphs, you'll see that really the only reason homosexual sex is more likely to pass on AIDS is because you have twice the dudes phuking. 

What?   
Do you think that really accounts for more than half of all new cases and 68% overall? 

The only way to be safe is to bar all men from service. We don't want the women risking their lives by getting some male blood on them!

Nice...  While you're stretching, why don't you throw gay marriage in there?

The bottom line is your entire argument, especially this portion of it as it pertains to worrying about having to dig a bullet out of a gay person because it's a foregone conclusion that they are HIV positive, is beyond ridiculous and doesn't dignify the lengthy response I just gave it. 

You're being absolutely ridiculous.  That was not my "entire argument", and "this portion of it" actually pertains to all communicable diseases.  But, I forgot...  You have all the fuggin' answers.  You're oh-so-much-more enlightened than everyone else. 

[GarMan]

Nothing's as ignorant as blind bigotry. 

Yeah!  There's got to be a pie chart on that somewhere.  Blind bigotry...  Really? 

[Saniflush]

Yeah!  There's got to be a pie chart on that somewhere.  Blind bigotry...  Really?  

Not sure there is a pie chart on blind bigotry but here is one just for the blind.

http://home.comcast.net/~grand_uncle_mark/black.html

[AUChizad]

The vast majority of your last post can be paraphrased simply by "I hate fags, so fuck them and any basic human right they think they're entitled to." Again, I can't change that. Go right ahead and live in ignorance.

As for the rest of your post...

Hey man...  You're the one stretching here.  And, I suppose you know this from "experience"...  This doesn't even relate to this discussion.

Tell me about it. Very little of your "arguments" have anything to do with the original topic. Wait, you think I brought that up?

Could you really not read the line just above the line you just quoted there, where I quoted you? I'll repost for you.

That's a ridiculous unrelated stretch.  Of course not, but are you suggesting that same sex marriage, or any marriage for that matter, guarantees monogamy?  I mean, seriously???

Your stupid argument, not mine.

What?  
Do you think that really accounts for more than half of all new cases and 68% overall?
Nice...  While you're stretching, why don't you through gay marriage in there?

Read the fact sheet I linked to.

Males are three times as likely to contract HIV than females are. Do you dispute the CDC's claims?

[Kaos]

The vast majority of your last post can be paraphrased simply by "I hate fags, so fuck them and any basic human right they think they're entitled to. Again, I can't change that. Go right ahead and live in ignorance.

As for the rest of your post...
Tell me about it. Very little of your "arguments" have anything to do with the original topic. Wait, you think I brought that up?

Could you really not read the line just above the line you just quoted there, where I quoted you? I'll repost for you.
Your stupid argument, not mine.
Read the fact sheet I linked to.

Males are three times as likely to contract HIV than females are. Do you dispute the CDC's claims?

Congratulations. 

You have attained the rank of major in the confederacy. 

[Vandy Vol]