Gay Marriage and AIDS

[Maze1125]

OK, so I simplified it a little. There will be small traces of a virus inside the extracellular matrix of an infected person since it needs to find new host cells to infect. However the only cells that it can possibly infect are helper T-cells which is a lymphocyte with a certain CD4 proteins on their membrane along with a receptor for cytokines. If the virus is not in the bloodstream it will soon seize to function because it requires rapid change of hosts.

Now I can go deep into the molecular biology here if you want me to, but I am sick of having intellectual discussions with people who think they know more than someone who actually has them academical background to talk about it.

Because, of course, you're the only person on the internet with your particular academical background, and, of course, your personal education has been perfect, and there's no way you could ever say something that's inaccurate, right?

HIV exists in bodily fluids other than blood, and if those fluids enter another's blood stream, they can infect that person. That is a simple fact and contradicts claims you made in your previous post. No amount of technical language, or claims of education, will change that.

 

[WolfThomas]

OK, so I simplified it a little. There will be small traces of a virus inside the extracellular matrix of an infected person since it needs to find new host cells to infect. However the only cells that it can possibly infect are helper T-cells which is a lymphocyte with a certain CD4 proteins on their membrane along with a receptor for cytokines. If the virus is not in the bloodstream it will soon seize to function because it requires rapid change of hosts.

Now I can go deep into the molecular biology here if you want me to, but I am sick of having intellectual discussions with people who think they know more than someone who actually has them academical background to talk about it.

Wow. Just. Wow. I could understand a response like this if I had initiated the discussion. I however simply stated fact which you then refuted, a little rudely might I add.

In four and half years of medical school I likely learnt all the molecular biology (and promptly forgot it after an exam, I'm not the best student). But I learnt a pretty surefire thing. That is you don't want the semen of someone with HIV in you. Which was my initial point.

 

[Yopaz]

OK, so I simplified it a little. There will be small traces of a virus inside the extracellular matrix of an infected person since it needs to find new host cells to infect. However the only cells that it can possibly infect are helper T-cells which is a lymphocyte with a certain CD4 proteins on their membrane along with a receptor for cytokines. If the virus is not in the bloodstream it will soon seize to function because it requires rapid change of hosts.

Now I can go deep into the molecular biology here if you want me to, but I am sick of having intellectual discussions with people who think they know more than someone who actually has them academical background to talk about it.

Because, of course, you're the only person on the internet with your particular academical background, and, of course, your personal education has been perfect, and there's no way you could ever say something that's inaccurate, right?

HIV exists in bodily fluids other than blood, and if those fluids enter another's blood stream, they can infect that person. That is a simple fact and contradicts claims you made in your previous post. No amount of technical language, or claims of education, will change that.

Well of course I'm not the only one. However someone with the same academic background would know these things.

However you're right. No amount of technical terms can change the nature of a HIV virus, but neither can ignorance. Whenever HIV is outside a host cell it is short lived. The host cell is a helper T-cell. A helper T-cell is a lymphocyte. A lymphocyte is present in the blood stream and sometimes blood is present in small amounts in semen. So even if HIV can be found in the extra cellular matrix in a vulnerable state where it is unable to live it's not correct if you say that it resides there. It would be like calling me a water dwelling creature because I swim 2 hours a week. Sure I can be found there, but I can't survive the day nor can the HIV virus survive a day outside blood.

 

[Maze1125]

OK, so I simplified it a little. There will be small traces of a virus inside the extracellular matrix of an infected person since it needs to find new host cells to infect. However the only cells that it can possibly infect are helper T-cells which is a lymphocyte with a certain CD4 proteins on their membrane along with a receptor for cytokines. If the virus is not in the bloodstream it will soon seize to function because it requires rapid change of hosts.

Now I can go deep into the molecular biology here if you want me to, but I am sick of having intellectual discussions with people who think they know more than someone who actually has them academical background to talk about it.

Because, of course, you're the only person on the internet with your particular academical background, and, of course, your personal education has been perfect, and there's no way you could ever say something that's inaccurate, right?

HIV exists in bodily fluids other than blood, and if those fluids enter another's blood stream, they can infect that person. That is a simple fact and contradicts claims you made in your previous post. No amount of technical language, or claims of education, will change that.

Well of course I'm not the only one. However someone with the same academic background would know these things.

However you're right. No amount of technical terms can change the nature of a HIV virus, but neither can ignorance. Whenever HIV is outside a host cell it is short lived. The host cell is a helper T-cell. A helper T-cell is a lymphocyte. A lymphocyte is present in the blood stream and sometimes blood is present in small amounts in semen. So even if HIV can be found in the extra cellular matrix in a vulnerable state where it is unable to live it's not correct if you say that it resides there. It would be like calling me a water dwelling creature because I swim 2 hours a week. Sure I can be found there, but I can't survive the day nor can the HIV virus survive a day outside blood.

You're just twisting words to try and hide the fact you said something that is explicitly false:

Blood spreads HIV. Only blood.

This is simple not true.
Many many bodily fluid contribute the spread of HIV, not just blood.
Yes, HIV is a blood dwelling virus. But, to use your own analogy, just because humans are a land dwelling species doesn't mean we can't traverse seas and oceans in order to reach new lands.

 

[Yopaz]

OK, so I simplified it a little. There will be small traces of a virus inside the extracellular matrix of an infected person since it needs to find new host cells to infect. However the only cells that it can possibly infect are helper T-cells which is a lymphocyte with a certain CD4 proteins on their membrane along with a receptor for cytokines. If the virus is not in the bloodstream it will soon seize to function because it requires rapid change of hosts.

Now I can go deep into the molecular biology here if you want me to, but I am sick of having intellectual discussions with people who think they know more than someone who actually has them academical background to talk about it.

Because, of course, you're the only person on the internet with your particular academical background, and, of course, your personal education has been perfect, and there's no way you could ever say something that's inaccurate, right?

HIV exists in bodily fluids other than blood, and if those fluids enter another's blood stream, they can infect that person. That is a simple fact and contradicts claims you made in your previous post. No amount of technical language, or claims of education, will change that.

Well of course I'm not the only one. However someone with the same academic background would know these things.

However you're right. No amount of technical terms can change the nature of a HIV virus, but neither can ignorance. Whenever HIV is outside a host cell it is short lived. The host cell is a helper T-cell. A helper T-cell is a lymphocyte. A lymphocyte is present in the blood stream and sometimes blood is present in small amounts in semen. So even if HIV can be found in the extra cellular matrix in a vulnerable state where it is unable to live it's not correct if you say that it resides there. It would be like calling me a water dwelling creature because I swim 2 hours a week. Sure I can be found there, but I can't survive the day nor can the HIV virus survive a day outside blood.

You're just twisting words to try and hide the fact you said something that is explicitly false:

Blood spreads HIV. Only blood.

This is simple not true.
Many many bodily fluid contribute the spread of HIV, not just blood.
Yes, HIV is a blood dwelling virus. But, to use your own analogy, just because humans are a land dwelling species doesn't mean we can't traverse seas and oceans in order to reach new lands.

OK, go back a step.

OK, so I simplified it a little

I did admit that I simplified it and said that it can be found outside blood on occasions. Did you choose to ignore that part in attempt to make me look stupid?

Yes, the virus can be found outside of blood, but when it's being spread it's dependent on either being in blood before, or quickly getting in touch with new blood. So even on those occasions that semen carries the virus it has to get in touch with blood in order to spread.

I admit that my first statement was a little inaccurate and that there are special occasions where it's invalid. Should we leave it at that and call it a day?

 

[michaelknives52]

This whole gay marriage thing can be easily solved. The only reason a lot of homosexual couples want to be officially ready is so that they can receive secular civil rights such as tax, pension, and death benefits, etc. The argument of Bible thumpers is that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman before a God that clearly condemns homosexuality in the Bible. Sure god loves you but if you violate his commandments your going to be blasted out of existence after judgement day.

Now why would a homosexual couple really want to symbolize and define their love for one another with a ceremony from a religion that condemns their life style.

The easy solution is to use the principle of a separation of church and state. Which means everyone files a civil union to receive benefits from the secular government. If people want to continue with a married... it would simply be a religious ceremony that would accompany a civil union license. Problem solved.

I swear the founding fathers never wanted to mix in religion with the government of the country but somewhere along the line bible thumpers gained political power and mixed principles from the christian God with the laws of the land.

This whole thread is silly. Just because a person is gay doesn't mean they are sex crazy and whore themselves out to each other. Aid's and HIV are a risk of a promiscuous lifestyle. I am pretty sure there are some morally upstanding homosexual individuals (THAT AREN"T CHRISTIANS) ... the only difference is that they prefer sex with their same sex.

I honestly remember a scripture somewhere only God can judge people. So yeah. People need to start worrying about their own morality. I mean so what Billy wants to have sex with a rough trick named Ted... How does it effect you in the end? IT DOESN'T so mind your business and wait for the inter-dimensional beings with control over time and space to swoop down from their dimension called heaven and cleanse the planet. I am sure if you are good you will be able to ascend. :3

On another note if Obama is in support of Gay marriage then he technically needs to announce that he isn't a Christian in the traditional sense. Sorry you can't pick and choose sins that you can and can not follow... Just saying. Either you follow the rules or yah don't. God made everyone with free will!!!

 

[Maze1125]

OK, go back a step.

OK, so I simplified it a little

I did admit that I simplified it and said that it can be found outside blood on occasions. Did you choose to ignore that part in attempt to make me look stupid?

Yes, the virus can be found outside of blood, but when it's being spread it's dependent on either being in blood before, or quickly getting in touch with new blood. So even on those occasions that semen carries the virus it has to get in touch with blood in order to spread.

I admit that my first statement was a little inaccurate and that there are special occasions where it's invalid. Should we leave it at that and call it a day?

So you said something that was false, people pointed it out, and you got upset and shouted "Wah wah wah. You don't know anything. I'm smarter than you. I have an EDUCATION. You shut up now."

Yeah, I'm fine with us leaving it at that.

On another note if Obama is in support of Gay marriage then he technically needs to announce that he isn't a Christian in the traditional sense. Sorry you can't pick and choose sins that you can and can not follow... Just saying. Either you follow the rules or yah don't. God made everyone with free will!!!

Glad to hear you're the authority on exactly what makes a Christian a Christian now. People have been debating that for centuries, and you've just come in and solved it all, you really need to go and get your message out into the Christian population as a whole, it'd solve a whole lot of problems.

 

[wrightguy0]

No, Aids infection rates in homosexual men have declined over the last decade as many jurisdictions legalize gay marriage. When Partners engage in a monogamous relationship the risk of catching the HIV virus drop to near nothing, but since HIV is a blood disease the risk of infection is never going to go away. Promiscuity is the real issue here, and many people with HIV/AIDS are on antiretroviral drugs and will make their status known to their partner. When an HIV positive person receives treatment risk of transmission drops by over 90%.

your Question also shows a level of ignorance about how HIV/AIDS works. HIV cannot be conjured out of thin air, and Having anal sex with a partner will not spontaneously cause the disease to manifest in either person. You have to have intercourse with someone who is HIV Positive, But the risks of that drop when people are in a committed relationship, Legalizing Gay Marriage will actually cause infection rates to drop as more men enter into committed partnerships or become more open about their sexuality.

The AIDS epidemic first ravaged the Gay community in the 80's because in those days we kept quiet about our sexuality, there were fewer men in long term relationships and even the ones that were wouldn't be open about it. People would engage in one night stands more often and they were less open about their sexual history.

Infection rates among Gay men have dropped in the last decade so substantially that we are now no longer the group with the highest susceptibility, the people most at risk of new infections are Actually middle aged heterosexual women, and senior citizens. Gay marriage will not cause a spike in HIV/AIDS infections, at least not in the Gay Community, we cannot guarantee a spike in infections in other demographics will not happen.

HIV/AIDS is an insidious disease and the fact that it's origins on this continent were in a stigmatized group make spreading AIDS awareness in america difficult, and i can guarantee if patient zero had contracted HIV through blood transfusion and had not been a Homosexual man we would be further along in AIDS research today than we are, we would possibly even have a cure by now. Social Stigma is the worst thing you can have while fighting a Pandemic.

Educate, Fight, Start a Conversation about HIV/AIDS, practice safe sex and encourage honesty with your partners, male or female. AIDS does not discriminate and we are all at risk.

 

[Yopaz]

OK, go back a step.

OK, so I simplified it a little

I did admit that I simplified it and said that it can be found outside blood on occasions. Did you choose to ignore that part in attempt to make me look stupid?

Yes, the virus can be found outside of blood, but when it's being spread it's dependent on either being in blood before, or quickly getting in touch with new blood. So even on those occasions that semen carries the virus it has to get in touch with blood in order to spread.

I admit that my first statement was a little inaccurate and that there are special occasions where it's invalid. Should we leave it at that and call it a day?

So you said something that was false, people pointed it out, and you got upset and shouted "Wah wah wah. You don't know anything. I'm smarter than you. I have an EDUCATION. You shut up now."

Yeah, I'm fine with us leaving it at that.

Well, it can't infect unless the bodily fluids get in contact with blood, but I'm happy leaving it at you being right if that makes you feel better or superior than me. Call humans a water living animal. Say that the sun is an orange. If your ignorance is bliss, let's leave it like that. I wont take that away from you.

 

[Maze1125]

OK, go back a step.

OK, so I simplified it a little

I did admit that I simplified it and said that it can be found outside blood on occasions. Did you choose to ignore that part in attempt to make me look stupid?

Yes, the virus can be found outside of blood, but when it's being spread it's dependent on either being in blood before, or quickly getting in touch with new blood. So even on those occasions that semen carries the virus it has to get in touch with blood in order to spread.

I admit that my first statement was a little inaccurate and that there are special occasions where it's invalid. Should we leave it at that and call it a day?

So you said something that was false, people pointed it out, and you got upset and shouted "Wah wah wah. You don't know anything. I'm smarter than you. I have an EDUCATION. You shut up now."

Yeah, I'm fine with us leaving it at that.

Well, it can't infect unless the bodily fluids get in contact with blood, but I'm happy leaving it at you being right if that makes you feel better or superior than me. Call humans a water living animal. Say that the sun is an orange. If your ignorance is bliss, let's leave it like that. I wont take that away from you.

What exactly is it that you think I'm ignorant about?

 

[Yopaz]

OK, go back a step.

OK, so I simplified it a little

I did admit that I simplified it and said that it can be found outside blood on occasions. Did you choose to ignore that part in attempt to make me look stupid?

Yes, the virus can be found outside of blood, but when it's being spread it's dependent on either being in blood before, or quickly getting in touch with new blood. So even on those occasions that semen carries the virus it has to get in touch with blood in order to spread.

I admit that my first statement was a little inaccurate and that there are special occasions where it's invalid. Should we leave it at that and call it a day?

So you said something that was false, people pointed it out, and you got upset and shouted "Wah wah wah. You don't know anything. I'm smarter than you. I have an EDUCATION. You shut up now."

Yeah, I'm fine with us leaving it at that.

Well, it can't infect unless the bodily fluids get in contact with blood, but I'm happy leaving it at you being right if that makes you feel better or superior than me. Call humans a water living animal. Say that the sun is an orange. If your ignorance is bliss, let's leave it like that. I wont take that away from you.

What exactly is it that you think I'm ignorant about?

Clearly winning this debate means a lot to you, so I will let you keep that victory and just give up here. Go on have a nice day and forget all about this.

 

[Maze1125]

OK, go back a step.

OK, so I simplified it a little

I did admit that I simplified it and said that it can be found outside blood on occasions. Did you choose to ignore that part in attempt to make me look stupid?

Yes, the virus can be found outside of blood, but when it's being spread it's dependent on either being in blood before, or quickly getting in touch with new blood. So even on those occasions that semen carries the virus it has to get in touch with blood in order to spread.

I admit that my first statement was a little inaccurate and that there are special occasions where it's invalid. Should we leave it at that and call it a day?

So you said something that was false, people pointed it out, and you got upset and shouted "Wah wah wah. You don't know anything. I'm smarter than you. I have an EDUCATION. You shut up now."

Yeah, I'm fine with us leaving it at that.

Well, it can't infect unless the bodily fluids get in contact with blood, but I'm happy leaving it at you being right if that makes you feel better or superior than me. Call humans a water living animal. Say that the sun is an orange. If your ignorance is bliss, let's leave it like that. I wont take that away from you.

What exactly is it that you think I'm ignorant about?

Clearly winning this debate means a lot to you, so I will let you keep that victory and just give up here. Go on have a nice day and forget all about this.

What the hell are you on?
You called me ignorant in your last post, and my only response to that was asking you to clarify what you meant when you made that personal attack, and from that you conclude that "winning this debate means a lot to me"? Really?

You: "You're so ignorant."
Me: "What do you mean by that?"
You: "God, you're so obsessed with winning."
Me: "WTF?!?"

Are you just trolling at this point?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume not, so I'll ask again: What is it that you think I'm ignorant about?

 

[Yopaz]

OK, go back a step.

OK, so I simplified it a little

I did admit that I simplified it and said that it can be found outside blood on occasions. Did you choose to ignore that part in attempt to make me look stupid?

Yes, the virus can be found outside of blood, but when it's being spread it's dependent on either being in blood before, or quickly getting in touch with new blood. So even on those occasions that semen carries the virus it has to get in touch with blood in order to spread.

I admit that my first statement was a little inaccurate and that there are special occasions where it's invalid. Should we leave it at that and call it a day?

So you said something that was false, people pointed it out, and you got upset and shouted "Wah wah wah. You don't know anything. I'm smarter than you. I have an EDUCATION. You shut up now."

Yeah, I'm fine with us leaving it at that.

Well, it can't infect unless the bodily fluids get in contact with blood, but I'm happy leaving it at you being right if that makes you feel better or superior than me. Call humans a water living animal. Say that the sun is an orange. If your ignorance is bliss, let's leave it like that. I wont take that away from you.

What exactly is it that you think I'm ignorant about?

Clearly winning this debate means a lot to you, so I will let you keep that victory and just give up here. Go on have a nice day and forget all about this.

What the hell are you on?
You called me ignorant in your last post, and my only response to that was asking you to clarify what you meant when you made that personal attack, and from that you conclude that "winning this debate means a lot to me"? Really?

You: "You're so ignorant."
Me: "What do you mean by that?"
You: "God, you're so obsessed with winning."
Me: "WTF?!?"

Are you just trolling at this point?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume not, so I'll ask again: What is it that you think I'm ignorant about?

Honestly I just don't see any point in doing this. I know when I'm beat. Really, I give up discussing this. Call me a troll if you want to, but I honestly just want this thing to end. Feel free to bug me for the reason I am calling you ignorant, but I wont bother to read your next post so there's really nothing to gain from it. Please, go on and have a great day.

 

[Maze1125]

Honestly I just don't see any point in doing this. I know when I'm beat. Really, I give up discussing this. Call me a troll if you want to, but I honestly just want this thing to end. Feel free to bug me for the reason I am calling you ignorant, but I wont bother to read your next post so there's really nothing to gain from it. Please, go on and have a great day.

So you happy to call me ignorant, but you're not even willing to tell me what I'm ignorant about?
Why not?
What do you have to lose by simply explaining what you think I don't know?

I honestly do not understand why you'd call someone ignorant and then refuse to explain any further.

 

[Stu35]

As, sadly, gay men having sex equals greater chance of HIV/AIDS, more men having gay sex would mean more HIV/AIDS, yeah?

Same thing is true of heterosexual sex though... Yeah we don't have as MUCH AIDS as gay men, but still more than Lesbians...

So... Following on your ridiculous logic through to it's equally ridiculous conclusion, we should ban heterosexual marriage and only allow lesbians to have sex?

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

As, sadly, gay men having sex equals greater chance of HIV/AIDS, more men having gay sex would mean more HIV/AIDS, yeah?

Same thing is true of heterosexual sex though... Yeah we don't have as MUCH AIDS as gay men, but still more than Lesbians...

So... Following on your ridiculous logic through to it's equally ridiculous conclusion, we should ban heterosexual marriage and only allow lesbians to have sex?

Why would you ban anything? I said I support gay marriage. In the OP. I also said I'm bi. And gender queer. I want gay marriage, lol. You can talk about a possible problem with something and not be against it, you know.

Nice knee-jerk reaction there.

 

[Stu35]

As, sadly, gay men having sex equals greater chance of HIV/AIDS, more men having gay sex would mean more HIV/AIDS, yeah?

Same thing is true of heterosexual sex though... Yeah we don't have as MUCH AIDS as gay men, but still more than Lesbians...

So... Following on your ridiculous logic through to it's equally ridiculous conclusion, we should ban heterosexual marriage and only allow lesbians to have sex?

Why would you ban anything? I said I support gay marriage. In the OP. I also said I'm bi. And gender queer. I want gay marriage, lol. You can talk about a possible problem with something and not be against it, you know.

Nice knee-jerk reaction there.

Interesting, you ignore the fact that I pointed out the horrendous flaw in your logic to focus on a minor and irrelevant point.

So, let me rephrase:


You believe that Gay Marriage = more gay sex must = more gay AIDS.

I would say that, if true, then Straight Marriage must therefore = more straight sex = more straight AIDS.

So, whilst it is, for reasons already discussed in this thread by others, mechanically easier for Gay men to contract HIV/AIDS, that doesn't quite answer the question that, if Marriage = More AIDS, why is there so little AIDS amongst straight married couples?

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

As, sadly, gay men having sex equals greater chance of HIV/AIDS, more men having gay sex would mean more HIV/AIDS, yeah?

Same thing is true of heterosexual sex though... Yeah we don't have as MUCH AIDS as gay men, but still more than Lesbians...

So... Following on your ridiculous logic through to it's equally ridiculous conclusion, we should ban heterosexual marriage and only allow lesbians to have sex?

Why would you ban anything? I said I support gay marriage. In the OP. I also said I'm bi. And gender queer. I want gay marriage, lol. You can talk about a possible problem with something and not be against it, you know.

Nice knee-jerk reaction there.

Interesting, you ignore the fact that I pointed out the horrendous flaw in your logic to focus on a minor and irrelevant point.

So, let me rephrase:


You believe that Gay Marriage = more gay sex must = more gay AIDS.

I would say that, if true, then Straight Marriage must therefore = more straight sex = more straight AIDS.

So, whilst it is, for reasons already discussed in this thread by others, mechanically easier for Gay men to contract HIV/AIDS, that doesn't quite answer the question that, if Marriage = More AIDS, why is there so little AIDS amongst straight married couples?

You seemed to have missed the entire point... By a lot...

The theory being that the de-demonizing (totally not a word, but whatever) of homosexuality and the awareness of a more general acceptance would cause more men (and women) to openly express themselves and feel less trepidation about embracing their sexuality.

Wouldn't more general acceptance encourage more open behavior? For example, if playing D&D became "cool," wouldn't the people who pay D&D do it more and more openly? Wouldn't people who have thought about it, but never done it, also feel brave enough to give it a go? Many people fear "coming out" or even acting on their feelings at all. Gay people are still beaten, abused, disowned and murdered, sadly.

Heterosexuality is already commonly accepted. So you're arguing... well, you're arguing as if you hadn't read or understood the topic at all :/

 

[Argonaut]

Its all about awareness, the reason why it was so huge in the 80s/90s was because people were becoming aware

and lets not kid ourselves, HIV/AIDS doesn't discriminate but those who think homosexuals are in anyway special when it comes to the disease do discriminate

letting your partner know if you have a disease, having regular screenings and using protection lower the odds of contraction significantly


all gay marriage will do is bring the equality that america preaches but seldom practices