Discussion:
Vote NO on Prop Eight
(too old to reply)
Nomen Nescio
2008-10-28 21:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.

Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!

Buck Turgidson ***@nym.alias.net
D. Stussy
2008-10-28 23:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
Vote Yes on Prop 8. They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership." We don't need more laws.
Bill Z.
2008-10-29 00:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
Vote Yes on Prop 8. They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership." We don't need more laws.
If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)

Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
Read the decision for details.
D. Stussy
2008-10-29 20:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
Vote Yes on Prop 8. They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership." We don't need more laws.
If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)
Actually, it doesn't. All it does is clarify a definition.
Post by Bill Z.
Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
Read the decision for details.
Courts can be wrong.
Bill Z.
2008-10-29 21:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Bill Z.
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
Vote Yes on Prop 8. They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership." We don't need more laws.
If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)
Actually, it doesn't. All it does is clarify a definition.
Wrong - it eliminates a right that people now have (whether you agree
with that right or not), and the wording of the proposition is not
a definition.

You can't wiggle out of it - if you say "we don't need more laws",
then you should vote against Proposition 8 because it in fact creates
a new law. If you don't like the conclusion, maybe you should do the
sensible thing and change your premise. :-)
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Bill Z.
Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
Read the decision for details.
Courts can be wrong.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
kujebak
2008-10-29 22:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Bill Z.
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
Vote Yes on Prop 8. They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership." We don't need more laws.
If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)
Actually, it doesn't. All it does is clarify a definition.
Wrong - it eliminates a right that people now have (whether you agree
with that right or not), and the wording of the proposition is not
a definition.
You can't wiggle out of it - if you say "we don't need more laws",
then you should vote against Proposition 8 because it in fact creates
a new law. If you don't like the conclusion, maybe you should do the
sensible thing and change your premise. :-)
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Bill Z.
Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
Read the decision for details.
Courts can be wrong.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
But it's less likely to be right than a majority of voters, as
in this particular case. Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
A Browne
2008-10-30 01:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.

Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.

If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
Billzz
2008-10-30 02:51:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Browne
Post by kujebak
Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
I am mostly apolitical, and don't enter into politicized argument, and I am
not a constitutional scholar (although there were a few lawyers teaching the
subject at the US National War College, when I was a student, and I wondered
why this was so important, so now I am beginning to find out.)

Anyway, if the majority of the people decide anything, and get the
constitution amended, then, whatever it is, is.

Probably the majority of the people will not be re-enacting slavery, nor
will they be taking California Proposition Eight nationwide, but there is no
bar against that happening. Anything is subject to the popular vote.

Good luck to all people of good will, and God protect the next President of
the United States. He is going to need all the good luck and good will that
he can get.
A Browne
2008-10-31 03:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billzz
Anyway, if the majority of the people decide anything, and get the
constitution amended, then, whatever it is, is.
First, it's take more than "the majority" to change the constitution..

And Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.

If 51% agree that slavery should be re-instated....it doesn't get
re-instated.
Post by Billzz
Anything is subject to the popular vote.
Human rights, civil rights...are not. That's the consitituion we live
under.

If 51% believe they should take your houe, the cannot.
Bill Z.
2008-10-31 20:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Browne
Post by Billzz
Anyway, if the majority of the people decide anything, and get the
constitution amended, then, whatever it is, is.
First, it's take more than "the majority" to change the constitution..
Via an initiative, it only takes a majority to change the California
State Constitution. Some people think making it that easy to change
was a mistake. Proposition 8 takes the wording of the unconstitutional
Proposition 22 and puts it into the state constitution instead of the
family code. I'm not sure how a judge declares part of the state
constitution to be unconstitutional, unless there is an argument based
on the federal constitution.

As I recall, it takes more signatures to get a constitutional amendment
on the ballot than an ordinary initiative, but that is merely a matter
of cost - the proverbial bar is rather low in either case.
kujebak
2008-10-30 06:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Browne
Post by kujebak
Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
It has nowhere been established "homosexual marriage"
is a civil right. It has merely been opined to be possibly
so by the courts by reference to inappropriate precedents.
Precedents held inappropriate by a majority of Californians.
The purpose of Proposition 8 is to clarify the legal ambi-
guity of homosexual marriage as a civil right. That's all
there is to it.
Post by A Browne
If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
Inappropriate precedent. Besides, there are numerous other
illegal family arrangements, which no one would ever consider
a civil right guaranteed by the constitution.
Though perhaps they should ;-)
Post by A Browne
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A Browne
2008-10-31 03:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Browne
Post by kujebak
Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
It has nowhere been established "homosexual marriage"
is a civil right. <

In some states it has. It will be up to your state supreme court.

When you grant some people the right to marry, and deny other the same right
it is discriminatory....and discriminatory based on sexual
preference...which is typically considered unsonstitional. At least
that's whats been found by supreme judicial courts in some of the states.
Post by A Browne
The purpose of Proposition 8 is to clarify the legal ambi-
guity of homosexual marriage as a civil right. That's all
there is to it.<

But the judges can still overrule it. You cannot pass a proposition that
the courts deem against the state consitution/charter.
Post by A Browne
If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
Post by kujebak
Inappropriate precedent.
OK, if 51% of the populous decides that inter-racial marriage should not be
allowed (as they have)....it cannot be made into law (and was struck down by
the supreme court).

This is a right granted by the founders......and not up for popular
vote..unless you change the documents or the people interpreting them.

Even then, changing the documents usually take more than a simple majority.
kujebak
2008-11-01 01:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Browne
Post by A Browne
Post by kujebak
Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
It has nowhere been established "homosexual marriage"
is a civil right. <
In some states it has.  It will be up to your state supreme court.
When you grant some people the right to marry, and deny other the same right
it is discriminatory....and discriminatory based on sexual
preference...which is typically considered unsonstitional.    At least
that's whats been found by supreme judicial courts in some of the states.
Post by A Browne
The purpose of Proposition 8 is to clarify the legal ambi-
guity of homosexual marriage as a civil right. That's all
there is to it.<
But the judges can still overrule it.  You cannot pass a proposition that
the courts deem against the state consitution/charter.
Post by A Browne
If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
Post by kujebak
Inappropriate precedent.
OK, if 51% of the populous decides that inter-racial marriage should not be
allowed (as they have)....it cannot be made into law (and was struck down by
the supreme court).
This is a right granted by the founders......and not up for popular
vote..unless you change the documents or the people interpreting them.
Even then, changing the documents usually take more than a simple majority.
I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
Bill Z.
2008-11-02 01:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
by conservative Republican governors?

Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
Proposition Eight was written.
kujebak
2008-11-02 18:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
by conservative Republican governors?
Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
Proposition Eight was written.
And I hope you realize that none of this really invalidates
my point. If it hadn't been for the court overruling Proposi-
tion 22, I probably wouldn't care about the gay marriage
issue any more than I care about social services and public
education for illegal immigrants. To me the only issue that
matters in either case are the activist courts, and their con-
tepmt for the law.
Bill Z.
2008-11-02 20:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
by conservative Republican governors?
Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
Proposition Eight was written.
And I hope you realize that none of this really invalidates
my point. If it hadn't been for the court overruling Proposi-
tion 22, I probably wouldn't care about the gay marriage
issue any more than I care about social services and public
education for illegal immigrants. To me the only issue that
matters in either case are the activist courts, and their con-
tepmt for the law.
ROTFLMAO! The California Supreme Court is simply not an "activist
court". In fact, it is rather conservative. Its ruling regarding
Proposition 22 was solidly based on what is in the California State
Constitution, which the court's members did not write.

Proposition 22 was overruled for a number of reasons. Only a fool
would vote for Proposition 8, which takes the wording of Proposition
22 tries to transfer it to the state constitution in a way that will
tie up the courts for years in litigation (for example, what happens
to existing marriages and how do you compensate people if you take
their marriages away, the value of which may be considerably higher
than the processing fees for getting a license).
kujebak
2008-11-03 05:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
by conservative Republican governors?
Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
Proposition Eight was written.
And I hope you realize that none of this really invalidates
my point. If it hadn't been for the court overruling Proposi-
tion 22, I probably wouldn't care about the gay marriage
issue any more than I care about social services and public
education for illegal immigrants. To me the only issue that
matters in either case are the activist courts, and their con-
tepmt for the law.
ROTFLMAO! The California Supreme Court is simply not an "activist
court".  In fact, it is rather conservative.  Its ruling regarding
Proposition 22 was solidly based on what is in the California State
Constitution, which the court's members did not write.
Laugh all you want, but the In re Marriage Cases decision was far
from clear and unanimous. One's opinion of the judges upholding
the Prop. 22 litigation would certainly depend on which side of the
gay marriage issue one finds himself on.
Post by Bill Z.
Proposition 22 was overruled for a number of reasons. Only a fool
would vote for Proposition 8, which takes the wording of Proposition
22 tries to transfer it to the state constitution in a way that will
tie up the courts for years in litigation (for example, what happens
to existing marriages and how do you compensate people if you take
their marriages away, the value of which may be considerably higher
than the processing fees for getting a license).
How much are Warren Jeffs' marriages worth? Marriage certificates
issued in violation of the state law (Section 300, California Family
Code) aren't even worth the paper they're written on. Definition of
marriage is the prerogative of individual states. Do you seriously
believe the U.S. Supreme Court would even consider this issue?
If the Prop. 8 does pass there is no doubt the gay lobby will take
its cause to the federal courts. Regarding refunds for the marriage
license fees? Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City of San Francisco
should have more than enougn resources to cover those ;-)

- Hide quoted text -
Post by Bill Z.
- Show quoted text -
Bill Z.
2008-11-03 06:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
ROTFLMAO! The California Supreme Court is simply not an "activist
court".  In fact, it is rather conservative.  Its ruling regarding
Proposition 22 was solidly based on what is in the California State
Constitution, which the court's members did not write.
Laugh all you want, but the In re Marriage Cases decision was far
from clear and unanimous. One's opinion of the judges upholding
the Prop. 22 litigation would certainly depend on which side of the
gay marriage issue one finds himself on.
No, it is singularly stupid to call a rather conservative court an
"activist court" just because you don't like one decision. Did you
even bother to read the decision?
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Proposition 22 was overruled for a number of reasons. Only a fool
would vote for Proposition 8, which takes the wording of Proposition
22 tries to transfer it to the state constitution in a way that will
tie up the courts for years in litigation (for example, what happens
to existing marriages and how do you compensate people if you take
their marriages away, the value of which may be considerably higher
than the processing fees for getting a license).
How much are Warren Jeffs' marriages worth? Marriage certificates
issued in violation of the state law (Section 300, California Family
Code) aren't even worth the paper they're written on. Definition of
marriage is the prerogative of individual states.
You mean the Warren Jeff from Utah who was prosecuted for polygamy?
We were talking about legal marriages. Now, what do you think such a
marriage is worth?
Post by kujebak
Do you seriously believe the U.S. Supreme Court would even consider
this issue? If the Prop. 8 does pass there is no doubt the gay
lobby will take its cause to the federal courts. Regarding refunds
for the marriage license fees? Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City of
San Francisco should have more than enougn resources to cover those
Are you that dense? The value of a marriage may be much higher than
the value of the license fee, just as the value of a patent can be
very much higher than the fee you pay to get one. And the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. constitution is relevant: court decision, pushed
by conservative business interests, are such that one must be
compensated not only for a government "taking" of tangible property,
but also of contracts, licenses, franchises, etc. If existing,
legally performed marriages are invalidated, there could well be law
suits demanding just compensation.

Now, why don't we answer the question of what a marriage is worth
empirically: find out how much you'd have to pay to get a typical
newly married guy's marriage anulled - i.e., what you'd have to pay
him to get him to do it, with (of course) no chance of remarrying his
wife. It's certainly worth more than the license fee given the effort
people go to in order to find someone to marry.
LeRoy Blue
2008-10-30 18:36:17 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:47:27 -0400, "A Browne"
Post by A Browne
Post by kujebak
Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
Fallacy; the last refuge of the defeated.
A Browne
2008-10-31 03:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by A Browne
If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
Fallacy; the last refuge of the defeated.
Are you a judge? No?

Then you will have to back up your opinion with more than one line of
statement. We are here to have discussion. If you were a judge a simple
statement of finding would be sufficient.

Not on usenet though....
Ian B MacLure
2008-11-02 18:30:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Browne
Post by kujebak
Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
Sure is. In fact if the people decide not to allow
Courts jurisdiction the Courts get not opinion.
Post by A Browne
Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it
would not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
In this case the CA Constitution is being changed.
Are you planning on appealing on the basis of the US
Constitution?

IBM
Bill Z.
2008-10-30 19:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by D. Stussy
Courts can be wrong.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
But it's less likely to be right than a majority of voters, as
in this particular case. Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
conveys the same rights as marriage". Our system of goverment does
not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
and certainly not optimal decisions.

Also, Proposition 8 was introduced well before the California Supreme
Court decision, so your claim, "Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected the will of
the people in the first place," is completely bogus because it violates
causality - a physical law. They had enough signatures to qualify
for the ballot before the California Supreme Court ruled - those
signatures were validated afterwards, but that is a mere formality.
LeRoy Blue
2008-10-31 05:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by D. Stussy
Courts can be wrong.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
But it's less likely to be right than a majority of voters, as
in this particular case. Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.
Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
conveys the same rights as marriage". Our system of goverment does
not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
and certainly not optimal decisions.
Also, Proposition 8 was introduced well before the California Supreme
Court decision, so your claim, "Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected the will of
the people in the first place," is completely bogus because it violates
causality - a physical law. They had enough signatures to qualify
for the ballot before the California Supreme Court ruled - those
signatures were validated afterwards, but that is a mere formality.
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Bill Z.
2008-10-31 21:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
conveys the same rights as marriage". Our system of goverment does
not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
and certainly not optimal decisions.
Also, Proposition 8 was introduced well before the California Supreme
Court decision, so your claim, "Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected the will of
the people in the first place," is completely bogus because it violates
causality - a physical law. They had enough signatures to qualify
for the ballot before the California Supreme Court ruled - those
signatures were validated afterwards, but that is a mere formality.
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.

The majority has no right to rule on what is factually right or wrong:
if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
geometry will not change. Nor will the laws of physics.
LeRoy Blue
2008-11-03 01:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
conveys the same rights as marriage". Our system of goverment does
not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
and certainly not optimal decisions.
Also, Proposition 8 was introduced well before the California Supreme
Court decision, so your claim, "Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected the will of
the people in the first place," is completely bogus because it violates
causality - a physical law. They had enough signatures to qualify
for the ballot before the California Supreme Court ruled - those
signatures were validated afterwards, but that is a mere formality.
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.
if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
geometry will not change. Nor will the laws of physics.
Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.
Bill Z.
2008-11-03 03:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
conveys the same rights as marriage". Our system of goverment does
not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
and certainly not optimal decisions.
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.
if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
geometry will not change. Nor will the laws of physics.
Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.
Wrong - not a fallacy at all. We were discussing facts, not voter
decisions, nor whether some marital arrangement is acceptable to
people.

BTW, I'd say exactly the same thing regardless of whether I was in
favor of Proposition Eight or opposed to it: domestic partnerships
simply are not legally equivalent to marriage for the reasons the
California Supreme Court stated, and that is what was being
discussed.

I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
marriages. One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
7.5) that is simply out of place.
LeRoy Blue
2008-11-04 00:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
conveys the same rights as marriage". Our system of goverment does
not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
and certainly not optimal decisions.
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.
if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
geometry will not change. Nor will the laws of physics.
Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.
Wrong - not a fallacy at all. We were discussing facts, not voter
decisions, nor whether some marital arrangement is acceptable to
people.
BTW, I'd say exactly the same thing regardless of whether I was in
favor of Proposition Eight or opposed to it: domestic partnerships
simply are not legally equivalent to marriage for the reasons the
California Supreme Court stated, and that is what was being
discussed.
The people contend that two people of the same sex cannot marry. A
marriage can only be the joining of one man and one woman. Equivalency
is not a factor.
Post by Bill Z.
I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
marriages. One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
7.5) that is simply out of place.
No, the people think it's entirely appropriate.
Bill Z.
2008-11-04 04:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.
Wrong - not a fallacy at all. We were discussing facts, not voter
decisions, nor whether some marital arrangement is acceptable to
people.
BTW, I'd say exactly the same thing regardless of whether I was in
favor of Proposition Eight or opposed to it: domestic partnerships
simply are not legally equivalent to marriage for the reasons the
California Supreme Court stated, and that is what was being
discussed.
The people contend that two people of the same sex cannot marry. A
marriage can only be the joining of one man and one woman. Equivalency
is not a factor.
The "equivalency," in case you didn't notice, was the topic of
discussion. If you are not interested in that topic, then post
a follow up to something else.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
marriages. One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
7.5) that is simply out of place.
No, the people think it's entirely appropriate.
No, there is no evidence of that regardless of how the vote turns out.
A large number of voters don't think about such issues at all and are
merely influenced by the TV ads they see.
LeRoy Blue
2008-11-04 07:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.
Wrong - not a fallacy at all. We were discussing facts, not voter
decisions, nor whether some marital arrangement is acceptable to
people.
BTW, I'd say exactly the same thing regardless of whether I was in
favor of Proposition Eight or opposed to it: domestic partnerships
simply are not legally equivalent to marriage for the reasons the
California Supreme Court stated, and that is what was being
discussed.
The people contend that two people of the same sex cannot marry. A
marriage can only be the joining of one man and one woman. Equivalency
is not a factor.
The "equivalency," in case you didn't notice, was the topic of
discussion. If you are not interested in that topic, then post
a follow up to something else.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
marriages. One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
7.5) that is simply out of place.
No, the people think it's entirely appropriate.
No, there is no evidence of that regardless of how the vote turns out.
A large number of voters don't think about such issues at all and are
merely influenced by the TV ads they see.
You're more of a fool than I thought. You lose I win. Discussion over.
Bill Z.
2008-11-04 23:21:57 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
marriages. One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
7.5) that is simply out of place.
No, the people think it's entirely appropriate.
No, there is no evidence of that regardless of how the vote turns out.
A large number of voters don't think about such issues at all and are
merely influenced by the TV ads they see.
You're more of a fool than I thought. You lose I win. Discussion over.
LOL - the influence of TV on the typical voter is well documented:
why else would both sides on Proposition 8 spend over 70 million
between them, with most of that going to TV? And in fact most voters
are not thinking at all about what is appropriate in a constitution.
If they were, the ads would cover that instead of the fear mongering
about schools, which have nothing to do with it.

So, you simply made a fool of yourself by declaring victory.
kujebak
2008-11-04 14:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by LeRoy Blue
Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.
Wrong - not a fallacy at all.  We were discussing facts, not voter
decisions, nor whether some marital arrangement is acceptable to
people.
BTW, I'd say exactly the same thing regardless of whether I was in
favor of Proposition Eight or opposed to it: domestic partnerships
simply are not legally equivalent to marriage for the reasons the
California Supreme Court stated, and that is what was being
discussed.
The people contend that two people of the same sex cannot marry. A
marriage can only be the joining of one man and one woman. Equivalency
is not a factor.
The "equivalency," in case you didn't notice, was the topic of
discussion.  If you are not interested in that topic, then post
a follow up to something else.
It was not, you jackass.
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
marriages.  One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
7.5) that is simply out of place.
No, the people think it's entirely appropriate.
No, there is no evidence of that regardless of how the vote turns out.
A large number of voters don't think about such issues at all and are
merely influenced by the TV ads they see.
Is it not fortunate for you people that informed consent is not
one of the requirements to vote? :-))

- Hide quoted text -
Post by Bill Z.
- Show quoted text -
Bill Z.
2008-11-04 23:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
The people contend that two people of the same sex cannot marry. A
marriage can only be the joining of one man and one woman. Equivalency
is not a factor.
The "equivalency," in case you didn't notice, was the topic of
discussion.  If you are not interested in that topic, then post
a follow up to something else.
It was not, you jackass.
It was the topic, you fool: go back to the first message I replied
to and that was what was being discussed.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
marriages.  One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
7.5) that is simply out of place.
No, the people think it's entirely appropriate.
No, there is no evidence of that regardless of how the vote turns out.
A large number of voters don't think about such issues at all and are
merely influenced by the TV ads they see.
Is it not fortunate for you people that informed consent is not
one of the requirements to vote? :-))
Whom exactly do you mean by "you people"? And where do you think
"informed consent" comes in? Do you even know what the phrase
means and where it is typically used?
A Browne
2008-11-04 03:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
conveys the same rights as marriage". Our system of goverment does
not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
and certainly not optimal decisions.
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.
if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
geometry will not change. Nor will the laws of physics.
Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.
Wrong - not a fallacy at all. We were discussing facts, not voter
decisions, nor whether some marital arrangement is acceptable to
people.
BTW, I'd say exactly the same thing regardless of whether I was in
favor of Proposition Eight or opposed to it: domestic partnerships
simply are not legally equivalent to marriage for the reasons the
California Supreme Court stated, and that is what was being
discussed.
The people contend that two people of the same sex cannot marry. A
marriage can only be the joining of one man and one woman. Equivalency
is not a factor.
The State Supreme Court can see this as denying rights based on sexual
preference.

They can therefore find this prop as invalid.

"The people" do not vote for the judges of the State Supreme Court.

Learn from other states.
A Browne
2008-11-01 02:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Your little one-line answers don't do much to advance your argument.

Civil & human rights are not up for popular vote via the state constitution.
Billzz
2008-11-01 03:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Browne
Post by LeRoy Blue
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Your little one-line answers don't do much to advance your argument.
Civil & human rights are not up for popular vote via the state
constitution.
We have a great country when people can talk about this subject. I was in
Korea, and Vietnam, and the Middle East, and Africa. They do not get any
chance to talk about human rights. If you are a Christian in Vietnam, they
just whack you. Look up alt.war.vietnam. If you are a Jew, in an Islamic
country, they just whack you. If you are a Palestinian in Israel, they
almost whack you. If you are a Christian in the Sudan, or whatever, to the
south, they just whack you. We have a great country when we can talk about
this. There is no discussion of this subject in most of the world, because
they would just whack you. Mention this subject in Saudi Arabia and see
what happens to you. We must have a great country. People are talking
about this subject and not getting whacked.

"Civil and human rights are not up for popular vote." Well, only in
America, maybe. Most of the world, that I have seen, is a lot more
short-sighted, and there is no such thing as human rights. But good luck to
everyone.
LeRoy Blue
2008-11-03 01:40:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:07:49 -0400, "A Browne"
Post by A Browne
Post by LeRoy Blue
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Your little one-line answers don't do much to advance your argument.
Civil & human rights are not up for popular vote via the state constitution.
If that's what you think then I suggest you educate yourself by
looking closely at what a number of states have done to prevent
homosexual marriage -- they voted to change or include the one man one
woman marriage definition in their STATE CONSTITUTION. See how that
works, boy...
A Browne
2008-11-04 03:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by A Browne
Post by LeRoy Blue
The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
Live with it.
Your little one-line answers don't do much to advance your argument.
Civil & human rights are not up for popular vote via the state
constitution.
If that's what you think then I suggest you educate yourself by
looking closely at what a number of states have done to prevent
homosexual marriage -- they voted to change or include the one man one
woman marriage definition in their STATE CONSTITUTION. See how that
works, boy...
However...BOY....the state constitution cannot be amended to contradict
itself.

If the State Supreme Court find that this new definition is simply a way to
deny civil rights to a segment of the population, then it can still be
struck down.

If 51% of the people voted that Blacks are not defined as citizens and are
thereby denied the right to vote....then the State Stupreme Court can strike
down the prop.

You might educate yourself to see how some states have NOT been able to
prevent gay marriage.
BE-VA
2008-10-30 02:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Bill Z.
Post by D. Stussy
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
Vote Yes on Prop 8. They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership." We don't need more laws.
If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)
Actually, it doesn't. All it does is clarify a definition.
Wrong - it eliminates a right that people now have (whether you agree
with that right or not), and the wording of the proposition is not
a definition.
You can't wiggle out of it - if you say "we don't need more laws",
then you should vote against Proposition 8 because it in fact creates
a new law.
You're wrong again. There will be no new law. The proposition simply
reinstates an existing condition that was wrongly set aside by the
liberal judiciary.
Bill Z.
2008-10-30 17:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by BE-VA
Post by Bill Z.
You can't wiggle out of it - if you say "we don't need more laws",
then you should vote against Proposition 8 because it in fact creates
a new law.
You're wrong again. There will be no new law. The proposition simply
reinstates an existing condition that was wrongly set aside by the
liberal judiciary.
That's a lie - multiple lies, actually.

The text of the initiative states "Only marriage between a man and a
woman will be valid or recognized in California." That's not a
definition (which is what was said originally) or even a condition,
but a law.

Also, the California Supreme Court is not a "liberal judiciary": it
is actually fairly conservative, with all but one of its members
appointed by conservative Republican governors.

If you are going to argue about it, at least argue on the basis of
the facts.
A Browne
2008-10-31 03:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by BE-VA
You're wrong again. There will be no new law. The proposition simply
reinstates an existing condition that was wrongly set aside by the
liberal judiciary.
The proposition can still be struck down by the judiciary.

Look at how it worked in other states and you'll save yourelf sometime with
sanctamonious statements.
Ian B MacLure
2008-11-02 18:24:08 UTC
Permalink
***@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in news:***@nospam.pacbell.net:

[snip]
Post by Bill Z.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
set up an interesting situation.

IBM
Bill Z.
2008-11-02 20:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian B MacLure
[snip]
Post by Bill Z.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
set up an interesting situation.
Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact. The California Supreme Court's decision stated
that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons. Their
opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
it through.

Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
laws of physics.
kujebak
2008-11-02 20:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
           [snip]
Post by Bill Z.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
           The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
           If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
           the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
           in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
           set up an interesting situation.
Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
it through.
Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
laws of physics.
But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)
Bill Z.
2008-11-03 03:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
           [snip]
Post by Bill Z.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
           The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
           If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
           the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
           in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
           set up an interesting situation.
Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
it through.
Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
laws of physics.
But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)
Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision. This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.

Are you too daft to understand the distinction?
kujebak
2008-11-03 05:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
           [snip]
Post by Bill Z.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
           The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
           If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
           the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
           in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
           set up an interesting situation.
Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
it through.
Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
laws of physics.
But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)
Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision.  This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.
Are you too daft to understand the distinction?
As I said before, I don't give a rats ass about the distinction
between marriage and domestic partnerships. The only thing
I care about is the judiciary respecting the will of the voters.


- Hide quoted text -
Post by Bill Z.
- Show quoted text -
Bill Z.
2008-11-03 18:07:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Bill Z.
Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact.
Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision.  This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.
Are you too daft to understand the distinction?
As I said before, I don't give a rats ass about the distinction
between marriage and domestic partnerships. The only thing
I care about is the judiciary respecting the will of the voters.
I don't care what you give a "rats [sic] ass" about, but if you had no
interest, why did you jump into a discussion about whether domestic
partnerships were equivalent to marriage, which was the *only* point
under discussion?

If you have something unrelated to say, it is far better to start
a new thread.
kujebak
2008-11-03 21:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Bill Z.
Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact.
Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision.  This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.
Are you too daft to understand the distinction?
As I said before, I don't give a rats ass about the distinction
between marriage and domestic partnerships. The only thing
I care about is the judiciary respecting the will of the voters.
I don't care what you give a "rats [sic] ass" about, but if you had no
interest, why did you jump into a discussion about whether domestic
partnerships were equivalent to marriage, which was the *only* point
under discussion?
If you have something unrelated to say, it is far better to start
a new thread.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Because that's not all what this thread is about. This
thread is about all the pros and cons of Prop. 8, not
just the ones you are personally interested in. In 24
hours we shall see who the fool is ;-)
Bill Z.
2008-11-04 03:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by Bill Z.
Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact.
Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision.  This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.
Are you too daft to understand the distinction?
As I said before, I don't give a rats ass about the distinction
between marriage and domestic partnerships. The only thing
I care about is the judiciary respecting the will of the voters.
I don't care what you give a "rats [sic] ass" about, but if you had
no interest, why did you jump into a discussion about whether
domestic partnerships were equivalent to marriage, which was the
*only* point under discussion?
If you have something unrelated to say, it is far better to start a
new thread.
Because that's not all what this thread is about. This thread is
about all the pros and cons of Prop. 8, not just the ones you are
personally interested in. In 24 hours we shall see who the fool is
;-)
No, it was all the thread you replied to was about, and BTW the fool
is *you* regardless of how the vote turns out - the vote cannot change
the facts and you tried to pretend otherwise. What a vote can do is
to make a decision that ignores the facts, which can lead to a bad
decision (depending on what specifically is ignored).

BTW, threads are not simply all posts with the same subject line, and
what you jumped into was a discussion about a specific topic: whether
marriage was equivalent to domestic partnerships. It isn't. If you
wanted to talk about something else, you should have replied to
someone talking about what you now claim you are interested in.
LeRoy Blue
2008-11-04 00:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
           [snip]
Post by Bill Z.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
           The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
           If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
           the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
           in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
           set up an interesting situation.
Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
it through.
Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
laws of physics.
But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)
Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision. This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.
Are you too daft to understand the distinction?
Prop 8 takes the question of equivalency out of the game and the
question becomes what constitute a marriage. And when that happens you
homos are SCREWED, BLUED AND TATTOOED!
Bill Z.
2008-11-04 03:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
           [snip]
Post by Bill Z.
The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.
<snip>
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)
Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision. This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.
Are you too daft to understand the distinction?
Prop 8 takes the question of equivalency out of the game and the
question becomes what constitute a marriage. And when that happens you
homos are SCREWED, BLUED AND TATTOOED!
Oh, so you are one of those idiots who calls anyone you can't refute
a "homo"? Whether you like it or not, the facts are that marriage
and domestic partnerships are not equivalent. That will be important
to some voters and not to others, but no matter what, society is not
well served when people lie about what the facts actually are.

I might also add that, even if Proposition 8 passes (and the chances of
it passing are less than 50% given the latest polls), all it will do is
to forestall the inevitable: younger voters are, according to surveys,
far less concerned about sexual orientation than older voters, and the
older ones will die off first.

We'll have a little data on that in this election - aside from moving
it to the state constitution, the wording of Proposition 8 is the same
as Proposition 22, so you'll get some idea of how much opposition
against same-sex marriage has dropped. It won't be a definitive
measurement simply because some people do not think a detailed law
belongs in a state constitution, which some of us believe should be
only include rules about how the government operates, limitations on
what the government can do, and guarantees of basic civil
liberties. On that basis, I'd vote "no" on Proposition Eight
regardless of my opinion on same-sex marriages.
d***@rocketmail.com
2008-10-31 19:08:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.
I'm gay but I'm voting Yes on 8 because Obama opposes it and I hate
Obama. I don't really believe in anything, and I use people I hate as
negative examples to decide what to vote against. For example, I hate
Oprah Winfrey, and anything she supports I automatically reject as a
stupid idea. Oprah supports Obama, so he must be a douchebag and a
bigger idiot than Dr. Phil or Tom Cruise.

Oh, wow, it seems the Oprah has expressed her opposition to
Proposition 8 on her blog, proof that Prop8 must be a good idea. She
also supports Prop2, so I am voting against it.

http://www.oprah.com/community/blogs/lifechngs/2008/09/09/lgbt-community-call-to-action
Bibon
2008-11-03 01:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@rocketmail.com
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.
I'm gay but I'm voting Yes on 8 because Obama opposes it and I hate
Obama. I don't really believe in anything, and I use people I hate as
negative examples to decide what to vote against. For example, I hate
Oprah Winfrey, and anything she supports I automatically reject as a
stupid idea. Oprah supports Obama, so he must be a douchebag and a
bigger idiot than Dr. Phil or Tom Cruise.
Oh, wow, it seems the Oprah has expressed her opposition to
Proposition 8 on her blog, proof that Prop8 must be a good idea. She
also supports Prop2, so I am voting against it.
http://www.oprah.com/community/blogs/lifechngs/2008/09/09/lgbt-community-call-to-action
More reasons not to vote for Obama and Socialism:

http://objllc.com/USSA.htm
Bibon
2008-10-30 01:59:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:40:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
But to vote "no" is to condone the sexual promiscuity that is rampant
among male homosexuals and which results in them being the No.1 vector
of HIV/AIDS and other STDs in the US. Male homosexuality and its
consequences are a clear and present danger to the well being of the
US Society.

VOTE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL CALIFORNIANS - VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8
Bill Z.
2008-10-30 17:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Bibon <***@semper-gumby.org> writes:

(someone posted)
Post by Bibon
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
Don't allow discrimination against
anyone!
But to vote "no" is to condone the sexual promiscuity that is rampant
among male homosexuals and which results in them being the No.1 vector
of HIV/AIDS and other STDs in the US. Male homosexuality and its
consequences are a clear and present danger to the well being of the
US Society.
VOTE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL CALIFORNIANS - VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 8
So marriage between two individuals, which assumes a committed,
monogomous, long-term relationship, somehow will "condone" "sexual
promiscuity"? ROTFLMAO!

Guys, if you want to argue in favor of Proposition Eight, at least
say something sensible!
A Browne
2008-10-31 03:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bibon
But to vote "no" is to condone the sexual promiscuity that is rampant
among male homosexuals
Gee, when we instituted HETERO marriage...THAT really condoned the sexual
promiscuity of *straight* people, didn't it?
Post by Bibon
and which results in them being the No.1 vector
of HIV/AIDS and other STDs in the US.
Well, lucky we didn't make laws against heterosexuality when all the
straight men were spreading ghonnorhhea during the 40's/50's/60's, huh?
Promiscuity is not soley a homosexual issue...as you seem to be trying to
point out.)
Post by Bibon
Male homosexuality and its
consequences are a clear and present danger to the well being of the
US Society.
Global warming? Espionage? Quality of life? Terrorism? Inflation?
Pollution?

I didn't realize male homosexuals were responsible for all of that!
Bibon
2008-11-03 23:56:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:19:57 -0400, "A Browne"
Post by A Browne
I didn't realize male homosexuals were responsible for all of that!
Your view of the conditions caused by male homosexuals is impaired by
the fact that your head is so far up your ass (or some body's ass.)
kujebak
2008-12-03 09:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Browne
Post by Bibon
But to vote "no" is to condone the sexual promiscuity that is rampant
among male homosexuals
Gee, when we instituted HETERO marriage...THAT really condoned the sexual
promiscuity of *straight* people, didn't it?
Post by Bibon
and which results in them being the No.1 vector
of HIV/AIDS and other STDs in the US.
Well, lucky we didn't make laws against heterosexuality when all the
straight men were spreading ghonnorhhea during the 40's/50's/60's, huh?
Promiscuity is not soley a homosexual issue...as you seem to be trying to
point out.)
As an ex-health care worker I feel compelled to assure you
there is a world of difference between gonorrhea and AIDS.
Unlike HIV infection, clap becomes symptomatic within a
few days after exposure, and can be cured within two weeks
with penicillin. Normal transmission of the HIV virus between
individuals is entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual
contact which is predominant among homosexual men. As
far as I know, to this day, there is no cure for the gay plague.
If Mayor Feinstein did not close the gay bath houses in 1988,
the City would almost certainly have a different cultural and
political complexion today. In my opinion, that is her most
significant legacy, although I don't think she ever got any
credit for that from the fags ;-)
Post by A Browne
Post by Bibon
Male homosexuality and its
consequences are a clear and present danger to the well being of the
US Society.
Global warming?  Espionage?  Quality of life?  Terrorism?  Inflation?
Pollution?
I didn't realize male homosexuals were responsible for all of that!
Bill Z.
2008-12-03 16:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
predominant among homosexual men.
Would you care to revise that statement? It is the "entirely" part
that is wrong. The probability of infection per sex act is highest
for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.

It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
completely safe when it isn't.
kujebak
2008-12-03 19:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
predominant among homosexual men.
Would you care to revise that statement? It is the "entirely" part
that is wrong. The probability of infection per sex act is highest
for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
completely safe when it isn't.
That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
How could it not be?
Bill Z.
2008-12-03 20:39:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
predominant among homosexual men.
Would you care to revise that statement? It is the "entirely" part
that is wrong. The probability of infection per sex act is highest
for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
completely safe when it isn't.
That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
How could it not be?
My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
meant, was wrong. If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
"entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
was zero and that simply isn't the case.

You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
when you state such experience up front.

If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
imagined.
kujebak
2008-12-03 21:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
predominant among homosexual men.
Would you care to revise that statement? It is the "entirely" part
that is wrong. The probability of infection per sex act is highest
for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
completely safe when it isn't.
That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
How could it not be?
My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
meant, was wrong. If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
"entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
was zero and that simply isn't the case.
You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
when you state such experience up front.
If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
imagined.
There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
other topics - even today, it is not easy to look up actual
HIV/AIDS statistics, which are obscured in public health
papers and scientific publications under tons of other irrele-
vant data, and almost never presented in the mainstream
media, but they are there for anyone to see, who actually
cares to look - and your quick retreat behind ideological
labels clearly indicates where *you* are coming from ;-)
Bill Z.
2008-12-03 23:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
How could it not be?
My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
meant, was wrong. If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
"entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
was zero and that simply isn't the case.
You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
when you state such experience up front.
If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
imagined.
There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
other topics ...
What a moron! The facts are that the transmission rate for HIV per
sex act is nonzero for oral sex and for heterosexual intercourse (for
either partner). What was misleading about what you said was your
statement that "Normal transmission of the HIV virus between
individuals is entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual
contact," and in English that use of "entirely" and "specific type"
implies a risk of zero for anything else.

Those are the facts - the rates have been measured - and it is *you*
who are refusing to deal with that.

It's real simple. Look up the data in some tables provided by
health-care professionals and note that certain numbers are not
zero. That's all there is to it. If you want some sort of
discussion about various individuals' sex lives, try somewhere else,
like a dating web site or something. I have no interest in that
sort of a discussion.

I'm not sure what your hangup is, but your inability to understand
a very simple comment really makes me doubt your intelligence.
kujebak
2008-12-04 00:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
How could it not be?
My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
meant, was wrong.  If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
"entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
was zero and that simply isn't the case.
You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
when you state such experience up front.
If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
imagined.
There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
other topics ...
What a moron!  The facts are that the transmission rate for HIV per
sex act is nonzero for oral sex and for heterosexual intercourse (for
either partner).  What was misleading about what you said was your
statement that "Normal transmission of the HIV virus between
individuals is entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual
contact," and in English that use of "entirely" and "specific type"
implies a risk of zero for anything else.
Those are the facts - the rates have been measured - and it is *you*
who are refusing to deal with that.
It's real simple.  Look up the data in some tables provided by
health-care professionals and note that certain numbers are not
zero.  That's all there is to it.  If you want some sort of
discussion about various individuals' sex lives, try somewhere else,
like a dating web site or something.  I have no interest in that
sort of a discussion.
I'm not sure what your hangup is, but your inability to understand
a very simple comment really makes me doubt your intelligence.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The chance of our civilization being snuffed by a giant
meteor is nonzero as well. Does anybody give a fuck
about that? If you really have no other point, why didn't
you say so at the top to spare me this excruciating
exchange?
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 01:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
It's real simple.  Look up the data in some tables provided by
health-care professionals and note that certain numbers are not
zero.  That's all there is to it.  If you want some sort of
discussion about various individuals' sex lives, try somewhere else,
like a dating web site or something.  I have no interest in that
sort of a discussion.
I'm not sure what your hangup is, but your inability to understand
a very simple comment really makes me doubt your intelligence.-
The chance of our civilization being snuffed by a giant
meteor is nonzero as well. Does anybody give a fuck
about that? If you really have no other point, why didn't
you say so at the top to spare me this excruciating
exchange?
Why didn't you just admit you were wrong? I might add that, if you
look at the CDC data, you'd know that the risk of heterosexual
transmission is a hell of a lot higher than the risk of being hit by a
meteor (which won't snuff our civilization out BTW - you need an
asteroid or something of comparable mass to do that). Suggesting that
the risk is zero and repeating it over and over is simply
irresponsible.

You seem to get everything wrong. Why is that?
Hnic Hastogo
2008-12-04 00:45:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:45:58 -0800 (PST), kujebak
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
predominant among homosexual men.
Would you care to revise that statement? It is the "entirely" part
that is wrong. The probability of infection per sex act is highest
for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
completely safe when it isn't.
That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
How could it not be?
My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
meant, was wrong. If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
"entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
was zero and that simply isn't the case.
You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
when you state such experience up front.
If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
imagined.
There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
other topics - even today, it is not easy to look up actual
HIV/AIDS statistics, which are obscured in public health
papers and scientific publications under tons of other irrele-
vant data, and almost never presented in the mainstream
media, but they are there for anyone to see, who actually
cares to look - and your quick retreat behind ideological
labels clearly indicates where *you* are coming from ;-)
June 27, 2008 / 57(25);681-686


Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- 33
States, 2001--2006

In 2008, CDC conducted an analysis of trends in diagnoses of human
immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS)
among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the 33 states* that have had
confidential, name-based HIV case reporting since at least 2001. This
report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that
the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM overall during 2001--2006
increased 8.6% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC] = 1.5).
During 2001--2006, an estimated 214,379 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed
in the 33 states. Of these diagnoses, 46% were in MSM, and 4% were in
MSM who engaged in illicit injection-drug use (IDU) (i.e., MSM and
IDU). To reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS in the United States, HIV
prevention services that aim to reduce the risk for acquiring and
transmitting infection among MSM and link infected MSM to treatment
must be expanded.

In this report, HIV/AIDS refers to three categories of diagnoses
collectively: 1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), 2) a
diagnosis of HIV infection with subsequent AIDS diagnosis, and 3)
concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS. Reporting cases of HIV
infection (not AIDS) and AIDS is now legally mandated in all U.S.
states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories. The CDC
case definition for HIV infection (not AIDS) requires a positive test
result from an assay approved by the Food and Drug Administration that
demonstrates evidence of HIV infection; the case definition for AIDS
requires meeting the HIV infection (not AIDS) case definition, plus
diagnosis of at least one AIDS-defining illness or a CD4+ T-lymphocyte
count of <200 cells/µL.  Using the HIV/AIDS Reporting System (HARS),
case report data were collected by local and state health department
staff members and then transmitted to CDC devoid of patient names. The
findings in this report are based on HIV/AIDS diagnoses made during
2001--2006 and reported to CDC as of June 30, 2007 (1).

Numbers of diagnoses were adjusted for reporting delays and for
redistribution of cases with missing risk factor information, using a
standard method that has been described previously (2). This method
does not include statistical adjustments for diagnosed but unreported
cases or for cases yet to be diagnosed. To facilitate comparisons
between the estimated number of diagnoses occurring in 2001 and the
number occurring in 2006, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were
calculated. To examine trends, EAPCs with corresponding CIs were
calculated. EAPC measures the differences between adjacent years under
examination and then averages these inter-year differences. In this
report, transmission categories¤ are discrete (e.g., "MSM" is distinct
from "MSM and IDU" and "IDU" is distinct from "MSM and IDU").
Accordingly, MSM who were also injection-drug users (MSM and IDU) were
excluded from analysis of MSM.

Of 214,379 HIV/AIDS diagnoses in 33 states during 2001--2006, a total
of 97,577 (46%) were among MSM. Decreases in diagnoses were observed
in all transmission categories except MSM (excluding MSM and IDU)
(Figure 1). Among males, MSM accounted for 97,577 (63%) of cases. Men
aged 25--44 years accounted for 64% of cases among MSM (Table). Among
MSM, the number of diagnoses increased from 16,081 (CI =
15,784--16,377) in 2001 to 17,465 (CI = 16,938--17,992) in 2006; (EAPC
= 1.5) (Figure 1).

From 2001 to 2006, a 12.4% (EAPC = 1.9) increase in the number of
HIV/AIDS diagnoses among all black MSM was observed; however, an
increase of 93.1% (EAPC = 14.9) was observed among black MSM aged
13--24 years (Figure 2). During 2001--2006, approximately twice as
many (7,658) diagnoses occurred in black MSM aged 13--24 years as in
their white counterparts (3,221). The largest proportionate increase
(255.6% [EAPC = 30.8]) was among Asian/Pacific Islander MSM aged
13--24 years. Among MSM aged 13--24 years, statistically significant
increases in diagnoses as measured by EAPC were observed in all
racial/ethnic populations except American Indian/Alaska Natives. Among
MSM of all ages, statistically significant increases as measured by
EAPC were observed in blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders.¦

Reported by: A Mitsch, MPH, X Hu, MS, K McDavid Harrison, PhD, T
Durant, PhD, Div of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS,
Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC.
Editorial Note:

During 2001--2006, male-to-male sex remained the largest HIV
transmission category in the United States and the only one associated
with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses. In this analysis,
statistically significant decreases in HIV/AIDS diagnoses were
observed for all other transmission categories (i.e., among persons
likely to have been infected through high-risk heterosexual contact,
IDU, MSM and IDU, and other routes). Among MSM aged 13--24 years,
statistically significant increases in diagnoses were observed in
nearly all racial/ethnic populations. These findings underscore the
need for continued effective testing and risk reduction interventions
for MSM, particularly those aged <25 years.

The data in this report indicate when persons were diagnosed with HIV
infection, rather than when they became infected. This is an important
distinction because a person might have been infected with HIV for
years before receiving a diagnosis of HIV infection. Determining when
persons who have been diagnosed were actually infected is difficult.
Although HIV diagnosis data can provide some indication of underlying
trends in HIV infection, this approach has limitations. A greater
number of tests for HIV infection among MSM might partially explain
the observed increase in HIV/AIDS diagnoses. However, available data
suggest that these increases cannot be explained by increases in
testing alone; the increase could be attributed to more targeted
testing, increasing incidence, or some combination of these.**

To improve the nation's ability to track new HIV infections, CDC has
established a new system for measuring incident HIV infections at the
population level. A novel laboratory method will be combined with
standard case surveillance procedures and statistical estimations to
provide a better means of estimating national HIV incidence from the
number of persons who are newly diagnosed with HIV (3). This system
will be able to distinguish between recent and long-standing HIV-1
infection on a population level. Estimates from the new system are
expected to be available in 2008. The new system will provide a better
tool for measuring progress in the prevention of HIV infection than
data based on HIV/AIDS diagnoses alone, such as those described in
this report. Nevertheless, diagnosis data will continue to play an
important role in monitoring the HIV epidemic, particularly among
adolescents and young adults who, because of their age, are unlikely
to have been infected many years before diagnosis. Additionally,
HIV/AIDS diagnosis data will continue to provide useful information
for evaluating efforts to increase HIV testing and will allow programs
that do not conduct HIV incidence surveillance to monitor the HIV
epidemic in their local area.

The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations.
First, the 33-state case surveillance data are not representative of
all HIV-positive persons in the United States. However, the
racial/ethnic disparities described in this report are similar to
those observed in AIDS cases from all 50 states (4). Second, since
1993, the proportion of HIV/AIDS cases reported to CDC without an
identified risk factor for HIV infection has been increasing. In 2006,
no risk factor was reported for 25% of HIV (not AIDS) adult and
adolescent cases reported to CDC (4). This results in an increasing
proportion of cases that are assigned to transmission categories
(including male-to-male sexual contact) not based on interview with
patients, but rather via statistical adjustment. Risk factor
information often is missing because patients decline to disclose
behaviors that might place them at risk for HIV transmission or are
unaware of their sex partners' high-risk behavior. Third, methods for
reporting delay adjustments have greatest uncertainty for the most
recent years' estimates of HIV/AIDS diagnoses; therefore, recent
trends should be interpreted with caution. Finally, a backlog of cases
diagnosed earlier than recorded in the data might have exaggerated the
number of diagnoses in the first 2--3 years after name-based HIV (not
AIDS) case reporting was implemented (5). For example, retrospective
ascertainment of name-based HIV case reports might have resulted in a
substantial number of cases that were recorded as diagnosed during
2001--2002 but were actually diagnosed earlier. New York's
implementation of name-based HIV reporting in June 2000 might have
magnified the effect of this backlog on the 33-state trend analysis
because New York data represented 21% of all HIV/AIDS diagnoses during
2001--2006. After exclusion of New York from this analysis, however,
an even larger statistically significant increase in HIV/AIDS
diagnoses among MSM was observed during 2001--2006 (EAPC = 3.1 [CI =
2.4--3.9]).

To reduce transmission of HIV among MSM of all races/ethnicities,
prevention strategies should be strengthened, improved, and
implemented more broadly. Testing is important in preventing HIV
transmission because it provides knowledge of one's infection status;
after persons become aware that they are HIV positive, most reduce
their high-risk sexual behavior (6). In addition, an estimated 25% of
HIV-infected persons have not received a diagnosis of HIV infection
(7). These persons represent a challenge in terms of HIV prevention
and case ascertainment. Moreover, testing is the first step to linking
persons infected with HIV to medical care. CDC recommends at least
annual testing for sexually active MSM and an "opt-out" approach for
screening of all patients aged 13--64 years in clinical settings (8).

Ulcerative and nonulcerative sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such
as syphilis and gonorrhea facilitate HIV transmission from infected
MSM and acquisition of HIV by noninfected MSM; therefore, screening
for STDs in private and public clinical settings is an important
component of HIV prevention in MSM (9). STD and HIV prevention efforts
should be as fully integrated as possible. Furthermore, associations
have been observed between abuse of illicit and legal drugs such as
methamphetamine and alcohol, respectively, and high-risk behavior
among MSM. Screening for substance abuse in private and public
clinical settings is an important tool for reducing HIV
transmission.   Strengthened collaborations between STD, HIV, viral
hepatitis, and substance abuse programs should result in more
effective HIV prevention efforts.

CDC assists in the creation, development, and dissemination of
behavioral interventions for the MSM population. Recently, in
collaboration with the state health department and local organizations
in North Carolina, CDC implemented a successful intervention for young
black MSM (10). This intervention has resulted in decreases in
high-risk sexual behavior and the number of sex partners with whom
such behavior occurred. CDC recommends that state and local health
departments allocate HIV prevention resources to ensure that program
operations reflect the current state of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the
geographic areas for which each health department is responsible. In
support of CDC's strategic goal of reducing the number of new HIV
infections in the United States,¤¤ the proportion of MSM who adopt
behaviors that reduce risk for HIV transmission must increase.
References

1. CDC. HIV/AIDS Reporting System (HARS) user manual. Atlanta, GA:
US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2000.
2. Green TA. Using surveillance data to monitor trends in the AIDS
epidemic. Stat Med 1998;17:143--54.
3. Lee LM, McKenna MT. Monitoring the incidence of HIV infection in
the United States. Public Health Rep 2007;122(Suppl 1):72--9.
4. CDC. HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 2006. Vol. 18. Atlanta, GA:
US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2008:12. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports.
5. Torian L, Bennani1 Y, Wethers J, Schwendemann J, Nash D. Use of
the serologic testing algorithm for recent HIV seroconversion to
assess specificity of routine surveillance to detection of incident vs
prevalent HIV: evaluation of the first 2 years of named HIV reporting,
New York City, June 1, 2000 to June 30, 2002. 11th Conference on
Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, 2004. Session 135 poster
abstract. Available at
http://www.retroconference.org/2004/cd/abstract/964.htm.
6. Marks G, Crepaz N, Senterfitt JW, Janssen RS. Meta-analysis of
high-risk sexual behavior in persons aware and unaware they are
infected with HIV in the United States: implications for HIV
prevention programs. J Aquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005;39:446--53.
7. Glynn M, Rhodes P. Estimated HIV prevalence in the United States
at the end of 2003 [Abstract T1-B1101]. Programs and abstracts of the
2005 National HIV Prevention Conference; June 12--15, 2005; Atlanta,
GA. Available at
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/nhivpc/2005/t1-b1101.html.
8. CDC. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults,
adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR
2006;55(No. RR-14).
9. Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to
public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually
transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex
Transm Infect 1999;75:3--17.
10. Jones KT, Gray P, Whiteside YO, et al. Evaluation of an HIV
prevention intervention adapted for black men who have sex with men.
Am J Public Health 2008;98:1043--50.
kujebak
2008-12-04 01:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hnic Hastogo
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:45:58 -0800 (PST), kujebak
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
 Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
predominant among homosexual men.
Would you care to revise that statement?  It is the "entirely" part
that is wrong.  The probability of infection per sex act is highest
for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
completely safe when it isn't.
That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
How could it not be?
My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
meant, was wrong.  If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
"entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
was zero and that simply isn't the case.
You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
when you state such experience up front.
If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
imagined.
There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
other topics - even today, it is not easy to look up actual
HIV/AIDS statistics, which are obscured in public health
papers and scientific publications under tons of other irrele-
vant data, and almost never presented in the mainstream
media, but they are there for anyone to see, who actually
cares to look - and your quick retreat behind ideological
labels clearly indicates where *you* are coming from ;-)
June 27, 2008 / 57(25);681-686
Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- 33
States, 2001--2006
In 2008, CDC conducted an analysis of trends in diagnoses of human
immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS)
among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the 33 states* that have had
confidential, name-based HIV case reporting since at least 2001. This
report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that
the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM overall during 2001--2006
increased 8.6% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC] = 1.5).
During 2001--2006, an estimated 214,379 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed
in the 33 states. Of these diagnoses, 46% were in MSM, and 4% were in
MSM who engaged in illicit injection-drug use (IDU) (i.e., MSM and
IDU). To reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS in the United States, HIV
prevention services that aim to reduce the risk for acquiring and
transmitting infection among MSM and link infected MSM to treatment
must be expanded.
In this report, HIV/AIDS refers to three categories of diagnoses
collectively: 1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), 2) a
diagnosis of HIV infection with subsequent AIDS diagnosis, and 3)
concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS. Reporting cases of HIV
infection (not AIDS) and AIDS is now legally mandated in all U.S.
states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories. The CDC
case definition for HIV infection (not AIDS) requires a positive test
result from an assay approved by the Food and Drug Administration that
demonstrates evidence of HIV infection; the case definition for AIDS
requires meeting the HIV infection (not AIDS) case definition, plus
diagnosis of at least one AIDS-defining illness or a CD4+ T-lymphocyte
count of <200 cells/µL.  Using the HIV/AIDS Reporting System (HARS),
case report data were collected by local and state health department
staff members and then transmitted to CDC devoid of patient names. The
findings in this report are based on HIV/AIDS diagnoses made during
2001--2006 and reported to CDC as of June 30, 2007 (1).
Numbers of diagnoses were adjusted for reporting delays and for
redistribution of cases with missing risk factor information, using a
standard method that has been described previously (2). This method
does not include statistical adjustments for diagnosed but unreported
cases or for cases yet to be diagnosed. To facilitate comparisons
between the estimated number of diagnoses occurring in 2001 and the
number occurring in 2006, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were
calculated. To examine trends, EAPCs with corresponding CIs were
calculated. EAPC measures the differences between adjacent years under
examination and then averages these inter-year differences. In this
report, transmission categories¤ are discrete (e.g., "MSM" is distinct
from "MSM and IDU" and "IDU" is distinct from "MSM and IDU").
Accordingly, MSM who were also injection-drug users (MSM and IDU) were
excluded from analysis of MSM.
Of 214,379 HIV/AIDS diagnoses in 33 states during 2001--2006, a total
of 97,577 (46%) were among MSM. Decreases in diagnoses were observed
in all transmission categories except MSM (excluding MSM and IDU)
(Figure 1). Among males, MSM accounted for 97,577 (63%) of cases. Men
aged 25--44 years accounted for 64% of cases among MSM (Table). Among
MSM, the number of diagnoses increased from 16,081 (CI =
15,784--16,377) in 2001 to 17,465 (CI = 16,938--17,992) in 2006; (EAPC
= 1.5) (Figure 1).
From 2001 to 2006, a 12.4% (EAPC = 1.9) increase in the number of
HIV/AIDS diagnoses among all black MSM was observed; however, an
increase of 93.1% (EAPC = 14.9) was observed among black MSM aged
13--24 years (Figure 2). During 2001--2006, approximately twice as
many (7,658) diagnoses occurred in black MSM aged 13--24 years as in
their white counterparts (3,221). The largest proportionate increase
(255.6% [EAPC = 30.8]) was among Asian/Pacific Islander MSM aged
13--24 years. Among MSM aged 13--24 years, statistically significant
increases in diagnoses as measured by EAPC were observed in all
racial/ethnic populations except American Indian/Alaska Natives. Among
MSM of all ages, statistically significant increases as measured by
EAPC were observed in blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders.¦
Reported by: A Mitsch, MPH, X Hu, MS, K McDavid Harrison, PhD, T
Durant, PhD, Div of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS,
Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC.
During 2001--2006, male-to-male sex remained the largest HIV
transmission category in the United States and the only one associated
with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses. In this analysis,
statistically significant decreases in HIV/AIDS diagnoses were
observed for all other transmission categories (i.e., among persons
likely to have been infected through high-risk heterosexual contact,
IDU, MSM and IDU, and other routes). Among MSM aged 13--24 years,
statistically significant increases in diagnoses were observed in
nearly all racial/ethnic populations. These findings underscore the
need for continued effective testing and risk reduction interventions
for MSM, particularly those aged <25 years.
The data in this report indicate when persons were diagnosed with HIV
infection, rather than when they became infected. This is an important
distinction because a person might have been infected with HIV for
years before receiving a diagnosis of HIV infection. Determining when
persons who have been diagnosed were actually infected is difficult.
Although HIV diagnosis data can provide some indication of underlying
trends in HIV infection, this approach has limitations. A greater
number of tests for HIV infection among MSM might partially explain
the observed increase in HIV/AIDS diagnoses. However, available data
suggest that these increases cannot be explained by increases in
testing alone; the increase could be attributed to more targeted
testing, increasing incidence, or some combination of these.**
To improve the nation's ability to track new HIV infections, CDC has
established a new system for measuring incident HIV infections at the
population level. A novel laboratory method will be combined with
standard case surveillance procedures and statistical estimations to
provide a better means of estimating national HIV incidence from the
number of persons who are newly diagnosed with HIV (3). This system
will be able to distinguish between recent and long-standing HIV-1
infection on a population level. Estimates from the new system are
expected to be available in 2008. The new system will provide a better
tool for measuring progress in the prevention of HIV infection than
data based on HIV/AIDS diagnoses alone, such as those described in
this report. Nevertheless, diagnosis data will continue to play an
important role in monitoring the HIV epidemic, particularly among
adolescents and young adults who, because of their age, are unlikely
to have been infected many years before diagnosis. Additionally,
HIV/AIDS diagnosis data will continue to provide useful information
for evaluating efforts to increase HIV testing and will allow programs
that do not conduct HIV incidence surveillance to monitor the HIV
epidemic in their local area.
The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations.
First, the 33-state case surveillance data are not representative of
all HIV-positive persons in the United States. However, the
racial/ethnic disparities described in this report are similar to
those observed in AIDS cases from all 50 states (4). Second, since
1993, the proportion of HIV/AIDS cases reported to CDC without an
identified risk factor for HIV infection has been increasing. In 2006,
no risk factor was reported for 25% of HIV (not AIDS) adult and
adolescent cases reported to CDC (4). This results in an increasing
proportion of cases that are assigned to transmission categories
(including male-to-male sexual contact) not based on interview with
patients, but rather via statistical adjustment. Risk factor
information often is missing because patients decline to disclose
behaviors that might place them at risk for HIV transmission or are
unaware of their sex partners' high-risk behavior. Third, methods for
reporting delay adjustments have greatest uncertainty for the most
recent years' estimates of HIV/AIDS diagnoses; therefore, recent
trends should be interpreted with caution. Finally, a backlog of cases
diagnosed earlier than recorded in the data might have exaggerated the
number of diagnoses in the first 2--3 years after name-based HIV (not
AIDS) case reporting was implemented (5). For example, retrospective
ascertainment of name-based HIV case reports might have resulted in a
substantial number of cases that were recorded as diagnosed during
2001--2002 but were actually diagnosed earlier. New York's
implementation of name-based HIV reporting in June 2000 might have
magnified the effect of this backlog on the 33-state trend analysis
because New York data represented 21% of all HIV/AIDS diagnoses during
2001--2006. After exclusion of New York from this analysis, however,
an even larger statistically significant increase in HIV/AIDS
diagnoses among MSM was observed during 2001--2006 (EAPC = 3.1 [CI =
2.4--3.9]).
To reduce transmission of HIV among MSM of all races/ethnicities,
prevention strategies should be strengthened, improved, and
implemented more broadly. Testing is important in preventing HIV
transmission because it provides knowledge of one's infection status;
after persons become aware that they are HIV positive, most reduce
their high-risk sexual behavior (6). In addition, an estimated 25% of
HIV-infected persons have not received a diagnosis of HIV infection
(7). These persons represent a challenge in terms of HIV prevention
and case ascertainment. Moreover, testing is the first step to linking
persons infected with HIV to medical care. CDC recommends at least
annual testing for sexually active MSM and an "opt-out" approach for
screening of all patients aged 13--64 years in clinical settings (8).
Ulcerative and nonulcerative sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such
as syphilis and gonorrhea facilitate HIV transmission from infected
MSM and acquisition of HIV by noninfected MSM; therefore, screening
for STDs in private and public clinical settings is an important
component of HIV prevention in MSM (9). STD and HIV prevention efforts
should be as fully integrated as possible. Furthermore, associations
have been observed between abuse of illicit and legal drugs such as
methamphetamine and alcohol, respectively, and high-risk behavior
among MSM. Screening for substance abuse in private and public
clinical settings is an important tool for reducing HIV
transmission.   Strengthened collaborations between STD, HIV, viral
hepatitis, and substance abuse programs should result in more
effective HIV prevention efforts.
CDC assists in the creation, development, and dissemination of
behavioral interventions for the MSM population. Recently, in
collaboration with the state health department and local organizations
in North Carolina, CDC implemented a successful intervention for young
black MSM (10). This intervention has resulted in decreases in
high-risk sexual behavior and the number of sex partners with whom
such behavior occurred. CDC recommends that state and local health
departments allocate HIV prevention resources to ensure that program
operations reflect the current state of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the
geographic areas for which each health department is responsible. In
support of CDC's strategic goal of reducing the number of new HIV
infections in the United States,¤¤ the proportion of MSM who adopt
behaviors that reduce risk for HIV transmission must increase.
References
US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2000.
   2. Green TA. Using surveillance data to monitor trends in the AIDS
epidemic. Stat Med 1998;17:143--54.
   3. Lee LM, McKenna MT. Monitoring the incidence of HIV infection in
the United States. Public Health Rep 2007;122(Suppl 1):72--9.
US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2008:12. Available athttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports.
   5. Torian L, Bennani1 Y, Wethers J, Schwendemann J, Nash D. Use of
the serologic testing algorithm for recent HIV seroconversion to
assess specificity of routine surveillance to detection of incident vs
prevalent HIV: evaluation of the first 2 years of named HIV reporting,
New York City, June 1, 2000 to June 30, 2002. 11th Conference on
Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, 2004. Session 135 poster
abstract. Available athttp://www.retroconference.org/2004/cd/abstract/964.htm.
   6. Marks G, Crepaz N, Senterfitt JW, Janssen RS. Meta-analysis of
high-risk sexual behavior in persons aware and unaware they are
infected with HIV in the United States: implications for HIV
prevention programs. J Aquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005;39:446--53.
   7. Glynn M, Rhodes P. Estimated HIV prevalence in the United States
at the end of 2003 [Abstract T1-B1101]. Programs and abstracts of the
2005 National HIV Prevention Conference; June 12--15, 2005; Atlanta,
GA. Available athttp://www.aegis.com/conferences/nhivpc/2005/t1-b1101.html.
   8. CDC. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults,
adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR
2006;55(No. RR-14).
   9. Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to
public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually
transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex
Transm Infect 1999;75:3--17.
  10. Jones KT, Gray P, Whiteside YO, et al. Evaluation of an HIV
prevention intervention adapted for black men who have sex with men.
Am J Public Health 2008;98:1043--50.
Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?
BE-VA
2008-12-04 02:42:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:21:52 -0800 (PST), kujebak
Post by kujebak
Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?
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.

Since HIV/AIDS in MSM was first diagnosed 1981, gay and bisexual men
have been leaders in dealing with the challenges of the epidemic. Gay
organizations and activists, through their work, have contributed
greatly to many of the guidelines for prevention, treatment, and the
care of people living with HIV/AIDS.

For complex reasons, HIV/AIDS continues to take a high toll on the MSM
population. For example, the number of new HIV/AIDS cases among MSM in
2005 was 11% more than the number of cases in 2001. It is unclear
whether this increase is due to more testing, which results in more
diagnoses, or to an increase in the number of HIV infections. 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.

www.cdc.gov HIV/AIDS?MSM
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 03:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?
You might look at
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-eng.php>
which claims:

One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
further study is required to corroborate these estimates.

Also:

Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
intercourse to be approximately 0.001.

Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%. So, the risk depends less on
whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
and what sort of protection you use.


This information is not hard to find - a trivial google search was all
that was needed. Previously you wrote "As an ex-health care worker I
feel compelled to assure you ..." (this quote was in the post
<news:6369ac2f-7573-4867-beeb-***@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>).
Exactly what sort of health-care experience did you have? Changing
bed pans? You seem to know next to nothing about the topics you are
ranting about.
LeRoy Blue
2008-12-04 05:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?
You might look at
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-eng.php>
One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%. So, the risk depends less on
whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
and what sort of protection you use.
Explain, then, why in the United States 300,000 to 400.000 homosexuals
males (MSM) died of AIDS in the first 15 years of he epidemic. AIDS is
a GAY disease.
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 06:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?
You might look at
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-eng.php>
One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%. So, the risk depends less on
whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
and what sort of protection you use.
Explain, then, why in the United States 300,000 to 400.000 homosexuals
males (MSM) died of AIDS in the first 15 years of he epidemic. AIDS is
a GAY disease.
Before answering that, I should mention that you obviously are not
able to understand what is being discussed as it was the risk per sex
act with an infected individual that was the topic under dicussion,
and that has nothing to do with your question.

To answer your off-topic question, the reason is because at the start
of the epidemic (a) a lot of people were infected before anyone even
knew the disease existed due to the time lag between infection and
showing symptoms, (b) nobody knew that unprotected receptive anal sex
was particularly risky compared to other sexual practices (it took a
while before the rates could be measured), (c) the currrent anti-viral
drugs had yet to be developed, and (d) it took a while before the
virus was identified and a test for it could be developed.

Also, if you construct a graph whose nodes are individuals and whose
edges represent sexual contact, for a purely straight group, the graph
is a bipartite graph, whereas it isn't for a gay group. Given that
the infection rates are asymmetric regarding receptive versus
penetrative contact, the bipartite graph explains how straights get an
additional level of protection against spreading the infection. If
terms like bipartite graph go over your head, I suggest you find
someone who is willing to dump the discussion down to your level.

If you want to talk about "morality" or whatever sexual hangups or
prejudices you have, try someone who doesn't think of what is going on
as a physical process.
LeRoy Blue
2008-12-04 20:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
To answer your off-topic question, the reason is because at the start
of the epidemic (a) a lot of people were infected before anyone even
knew the disease existed due to the time lag between infection and
showing symptoms, (b) nobody knew that unprotected receptive anal sex
was particularly risky compared to other sexual practices (it took a
while before the rates could be measured), (c) the currrent anti-viral
drugs had yet to be developed, and (d) it took a while before the
virus was identified and a test for it could be developed.
Is there a homosexual alive today that doesn't know how AIDS is
transmitted, probably not, yet homosexual males who make up less that
5% of the US population account for almost 50 % of all new AIDS cases
in the US every year and more than 60% when only males contracting
AIDS is considered. All of which goes to support the logical
conclusion that male homosexuals are the equivalent of minks when it
comes to promiscuity.
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 21:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
To answer your off-topic question, the reason is because at the start
of the epidemic (a) a lot of people were infected before anyone even
knew the disease existed due to the time lag between infection and
showing symptoms, (b) nobody knew that unprotected receptive anal sex
was particularly risky compared to other sexual practices (it took a
while before the rates could be measured), (c) the currrent anti-viral
drugs had yet to be developed, and (d) it took a while before the
virus was identified and a test for it could be developed.
Is there a homosexual alive today that doesn't know how AIDS is
transmitted, <snip>
Hey moron, you asked, "Explain, then, why in the United States 300,000
to 400.000 homosexuals males (MSM) died of AIDS in the first 15 years
of he epidemic." I told you why: the explanation described conditions
that existed at the early stages, before applicable anti-viral drugs
were available.

Now you start ranting about today. Find someone else to argue with.
I don't have time to deal with idiots with an axe to grind, particularly
idiots who ignore an answer after asking a question.
LeRoy Blue
2008-12-04 21:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
To answer your off-topic question, the reason is because at the start
of the epidemic (a) a lot of people were infected before anyone even
knew the disease existed due to the time lag between infection and
showing symptoms, (b) nobody knew that unprotected receptive anal sex
was particularly risky compared to other sexual practices (it took a
while before the rates could be measured), (c) the currrent anti-viral
drugs had yet to be developed, and (d) it took a while before the
virus was identified and a test for it could be developed.
Is there a homosexual alive today that doesn't know how AIDS is
transmitted, <snip>
Hey moron, you asked, "Explain, then, why in the United States 300,000
to 400.000 homosexuals males (MSM) died of AIDS in the first 15 years
of he epidemic." I told you why: the explanation described conditions
that existed at the early stages, before applicable anti-viral drugs
were available.
Now you start ranting about today. Find someone else to argue with.
I don't have time to deal with idiots with an axe to grind, particularly
idiots who ignore an answer after asking a question.
So, you don't want to face the fact that the history of homosexual
promiscuity shows that regardless of HIV/AIDS it just as prevalent
today as it was 25 years ago -- AIDS BE DAMNED, SHOVE THAT DICK UP HIS
ASS.

NATIONAL NEWS MASSACHUSETTS: Report: Gay/Bisexual Men Still Bear Brunt
of AIDS

Associated Press (11.30.08) - Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Anti-AIDS efforts in Massachusetts have made gains in fighting the
disease among heterosexuals and injection drug users, but they have
been less successful among men who have sex with men (MSM), a new
report shows.

The study by the state Department of Public Health (DPH) finds that
MSM accounted for more than half of HIV infections between 2004 and
2006, even though annual surveys show that only 4 to 9 percent of
state men report having sex with men. Among the report's findings:

*Male-to-male sex was the single biggest exposure route among the
17,295 state residents living with HIV/AIDS as of May 2008.

*HIV/AIDS was 25 times more common among MSM than among men with
female partners only.

<Poster's note: This is a fact even though homosexual males
account for less than 5% of the population>

*While 68 percent of white male (MSM) cases reported exposure to HIV
through same-sex behavior, only 25 percent of black men and Hispanic
men reported same-sex exposure.

"The message of prevention is missing too many men in Massachusetts,"
said Kevin Cranston, director of DPH's HIV/AIDS Bureau.


www.agies.com

Homosexual males are a clear and present danger in our society and
should be isolated by what ever means necessary.
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 23:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Now you start ranting about today. Find someone else to argue with.
I don't have time to deal with idiots with an axe to grind, particularly
idiots who ignore an answer after asking a question.
So, you don't want to face the fact that the history of homosexual
promiscuity <snip>
Let's just say that I don't want to waste my time on someone as stupid
as you.
LeRoy Blue
2008-12-05 02:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Now you start ranting about today. Find someone else to argue with.
I don't have time to deal with idiots with an axe to grind, particularly
idiots who ignore an answer after asking a question.
So, you don't want to face the fact that the history of homosexual
promiscuity <snip>
Let's just say that I don't want to waste my time on someone as stupid
as you.
Of course not, Frenchie. And the reason is that I'm kicking your ass
6 ways from Sunday.
Bill Z.
2008-12-05 03:07:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Let's just say that I don't want to waste my time on someone as stupid
as you.
Of course not, Frenchie. And the reason is that I'm kicking your ass
6 ways from Sunday.
Delusions of grandeur. All you've been posting is one irrelevant rant
after another - nothing to do with what was being dicussed, namely
transmission rates of for a particular virus given several ways of
transmitting it.

Are you really that stupid?
LeRoy Blue
2008-12-06 19:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Let's just say that I don't want to waste my time on someone as stupid
as you.
Of course not, Frenchie. And the reason is that I'm kicking your ass
6 ways from Sunday.
Delusions of grandeur. All you've been posting is one irrelevant rant
after another - nothing to do with what was being dicussed, namely
transmission rates of for a particular virus given several ways of
transmitting it.
Are you really that stupid?
I've posted it. You're too ignorant to understand it. I think there
was a chart in it that fucked over your mind.

BTW - I still kick your ass 6 ways from Sunday.
Bill Z.
2008-12-06 21:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Let's just say that I don't want to waste my time on someone as stupid
as you.
Of course not, Frenchie. And the reason is that I'm kicking your ass
6 ways from Sunday.
Delusions of grandeur. All you've been posting is one irrelevant rant
after another - nothing to do with what was being dicussed, namely
transmission rates of for a particular virus given several ways of
transmitting it.
Are you really that stupid?
I've posted it. You're too ignorant to understand it. I think there
was a chart in it that fucked over your mind.
What you posted, moron, had nothing to do with the discussion. If it
had something to do with your hangups, that's your problem, not mine.
End of story.
kujebak
2008-12-04 17:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?
You might look at
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-en...>
      One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
      transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
      determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
      probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
      intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
      intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
      available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
      further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
      Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
      long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
      probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
      intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%.  So, the risk depends less on
whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
and what sort of protection you use.
This information is not hard to find - a trivial google search was all
that was needed.  Previously you wrote "As an ex-health care worker I
feel compelled to assure you ..." (this quote was in the post
Isn't it interesting that you picked figures that sort of made
your point instead of those that would corroborate mine.
It is clear the 0.0082 is a statistical extrapolation from
the general male homosexual population involving sexual
contact between individuals of *undetermined* HIV status.
There is no indication in your paragraph that one of the
sex partners was known to be HIV positive. However, the
same article also states:

"The risk of HIV transmission through unprotected anal and
vaginal intercourse is well known. Estimates of the probability
of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with ejaculation)
HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range
from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1
to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection."

Thank you for helping me close this debate ;-)
Post by Bill Z.
Exactly what sort of health-care experience did you have?  Changing
bed pans?  You seem to know next to nothing about the topics you are
ranting about.
I used to be a medical technologist. One of the principal
reasons I got out of the profession was the irresponsibility
of the HIPAA (patient privacy) rules to health and safety
of health care workers. The HIPAA regulations surrounding
HIV/AIDS are driven to large extent by he same sort of dis-
information you are trying to disseminate here.
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 19:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?
You might look at
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-en...>
      One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
      transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
      determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
      probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
      intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
      intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
      available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
      further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
      Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
      long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
      probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
      intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%.  So, the risk depends less on
whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
and what sort of protection you use.
This information is not hard to find - a trivial google search was all
that was needed.  Previously you wrote "As an ex-health care worker I
feel compelled to assure you ..." (this quote was in the post
Isn't it interesting that you picked figures that sort of made
your point instead of those that would corroborate mine.
What a friggin liar you are! You asked, "Who cares about HIV
incidence among IV drug users, or different racial groups? Is there
anywhere in this report a mention of the probability of HIV
transmission from an HIV positive male to another man through
unprotected homosex?" I provided that data for you and showed you
that the risk for heterosexual transmission was not trivial and
that the risk for some (but not all) gay sexual acts is lower than
the risk for heterosexual intercourse.
Post by kujebak
It is clear the 0.0082 is a statistical extrapolation from
the general male homosexual population involving sexual
contact between individuals of *undetermined* HIV status.
Wrong - it is a measurement of the transmission probability per
sex act given that one partner is already infected.
Post by kujebak
There is no indication in your paragraph that one of the
sex partners was known to be HIV positive.
Yes there is, you friggin moron: read the article I cited.

When it said (and you quoted this) "Estimates of the probability
of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with ejaculation)
HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range
from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1
to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection," it should
be very obvious that the article was discussing the transmission
rate per sex act betwen an infected individual and a previously
uninfected individual.

You can't even understand the stuff you try to quote!

BTW, (unprotected) receptive penile-anal intercourse is practiced only
by a fraction of the gay and straight populations. So, as I said, the
risk factors per sex act depend on what you do, not whether you are
gay or straight or somewhere in between.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Exactly what sort of health-care experience did you have?  Changing
bed pans?  You seem to know next to nothing about the topics you are
ranting about.
I used to be a medical technologist.
I.e., you are not a doctor, nor a researcher of any sort.
Post by kujebak
One of the principal reasons I got out of the profession was the
irresponsibility of the HIPAA (patient privacy) rules to health and
safety of health care workers. The HIPAA regulations surrounding
HIV/AIDS are driven to large extent by he same sort of dis-
information you are trying to disseminate here.
Medical research and CDC reports are not "disinformation".
But I can tell you what you are - a complete idiot.
kujebak
2008-12-04 20:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?
You might look at
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-en...>
      One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
      transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
      determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
      probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
      intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
      intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
      available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
      further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
      Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
      long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
      probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
      intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%.  So, the risk depends less on
whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
and what sort of protection you use.
This information is not hard to find - a trivial google search was all
that was needed.  Previously you wrote "As an ex-health care worker I
feel compelled to assure you ..." (this quote was in the post
Isn't it interesting that you picked figures that sort of made
your point instead of those that would corroborate mine.
What a friggin liar you are!  You asked, "Who cares about HIV
incidence among IV drug users, or different racial groups? Is there
anywhere in this report a mention of the probability of HIV
transmission from an HIV positive male to another man through
unprotected homosex?"  I provided that data for you and showed you
that the risk for heterosexual transmission was not trivial and
that the risk for some (but not all) gay sexual acts is lower than
the risk for heterosexual intercourse.
Post by kujebak
It is clear the 0.0082 is a statistical extrapolation from
the general male homosexual population involving sexual
contact between individuals of *undetermined* HIV status.
Wrong - it is a measurement of the transmission probability per
sex act given that one partner is already infected.
Duhh, in order to spread the disease, some, *but not all*
have to carry the virus ;-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by kujebak
There is no indication in your paragraph that one of the
sex partners was known to be HIV positive.
Yes there is, you friggin moron: read the article I cited.
But if the frequency of HIV infections per sex act is calculated
from a sample of the entire gay male population, then the numbers
will be somewhat irrelevant, wouldn't you say. Did the study really
assume that every sexual contact considered involved at least one
HIV positive individual? Show me where it is stated!
When it said (and you quoted this) "Estimates of the probability
of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with ejaculation)
HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range
from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1
to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection," it should
be very obvious that the article was discussing the transmission
rate per sex act betwen an infected individual and a previously
uninfected individual.
You can't even understand the stuff you try to quote!
You mean you don't even want to comment on the
stuff I quoted. It's from the same friggin' article ;-)
BTW, (unprotected) receptive penile-anal intercourse is practiced only
by a fraction of the gay and straight populations. So, as I said, the
risk factors per sex act depend on what you do, not whether you are
gay or straight or somewhere in between.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Exactly what sort of health-care experience did you have?  Changing
bed pans?  You seem to know next to nothing about the topics you are
ranting about.
I used to be a medical technologist.
I.e., you are not a doctor, nor a researcher of any sort.
No I'm not. I merely have 14 years of apolitical, real life,
frontline infectious disease experience :-)
Post by kujebak
One of the principal reasons I got out of the profession was the
irresponsibility of the HIPAA (patient privacy) rules to health and
safety of health care workers. The HIPAA regulations surrounding
HIV/AIDS are driven to large extent by he same sort of dis-
information you are trying to disseminate here.
Medical research and CDC reports are not "disinformation".
But I can tell you what you are - a complete idiot.- Hide quoted text -
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not criticizing medical
research, merely your interpretation of it. You don't have a clue what
I'm talkind about, do you? Regarding HIV patients and federal privacy
regulations - an area that has been greatly influenced by the gay and
lesbian propaganda machine. It is a different topic though.
- Show quoted text -
I'm curious, what do you know about the subject that you
haven't revealed? What is your ax to grind here? Are you
gay?
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 21:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Wrong - it is a measurement of the transmission probability per
sex act given that one partner is already infected.
Duhh, in order to spread the disease, some, *but not all*
have to carry the virus ;-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you are really that incredibly stupid, find someone else to
talk to. I really don't have the time to deal with some moron
who can't understand the simplest concepts.

It may surpise you, but researchers are in fact interested in
numbers such as the probability of transmission from per sex
act by an infected individual: those are the numbers that are
useful for epidemiological models where the probability of
a sex partner being infected changes over time or changes based
on demographics.
Post by kujebak
But if the frequency of HIV infections per sex act is calculated
from a sample of the entire gay male population, then the numbers
will be somewhat irrelevant, wouldn't you say. Did the study really
assume that every sexual contact considered involved at least one
HIV positive individual? Show me where it is stated!
Read it. That's what they reported. Now, it takes some real work to
get such numbers - a lot of statistical analysis - but that's what
they did. They would not assume that every sexual contact involved at
least one HIV+ individual, but would rather determine the fraction of
contacts that did involve an HIV+ individual on the average and adjust
for that. It's rather tricky. That's why this sort of thing is
handled by highly skilled professionals. There are a lot of ways to
mess up and you have to check all of them to make sure you really
analyzed it correctly. Then you have complications such as the fact
that many people engage in multiple sex acts. That gets factored in
as well.
Post by kujebak
You can't even understand the stuff you try to quote!
You mean you don't even want to comment on the
stuff I quoted. It's from the same friggin' article ;-)
What you quoted was irrelevant. You implied in your original
post that the infection rate was "entirely" due to one specific
sex act and that statement is simply false.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I used to be a medical technologist.
I.e., you are not a doctor, nor a researcher of any sort.
No I'm not. I merely have 14 years of apolitical, real life,
frontline infectious disease experience :-)
You mean you either changed bed pans, ran some sort of machine, or
stuck a needle in someone's arm to collect blood samples.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Medical research and CDC reports are not "disinformation".
But I can tell you what you are - a complete idiot.- Hide quoted text -
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not criticizing medical
research, merely your interpretation of it. You don't have a clue what
I'm talkind about, do you? Regarding HIV patients and federal privacy
regulations - an area that has been greatly influenced by the gay and
lesbian propaganda machine. It is a different topic though.
You f***ing idiot! I quoted numbers from such sources that showed your
statements were technically incorrect and all you do is try to put up
a smokescreen to hide the obvious. The numbers I quoted - the results
of legitimate research - are not the result of any "propaganda machine",
real or imagined.
kujebak
2008-12-04 23:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
It may surpise you, but researchers are in fact interested in
numbers such as the probability of transmission from per sex
act by an infected individual: those are the numbers that are
useful for epidemiological models where the probability of
a sex partner being infected changes over time or changes based
on demographics.
I'm not implying it is impossible to come up with statistical
estimation of HIV+ to HIV- per sex act transmission frequency
among male homosexuals, I'm just saying the 0.0082 figure
you are inferring from your quoted study is grossly inconsistent
with other evidence I have come across in the last 15-20 years,
which was consistently in the 0.1 to 0.3 range, as in this IAVI
2004 data:

http://tinyurl.com/66w68t
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
But if the frequency of HIV infections per sex act is calculated
from a sample of the entire gay male population, then the numbers
will be somewhat irrelevant, wouldn't you say. Did the study really
assume that every sexual contact considered involved at least one
HIV positive individual? Show me where it is stated!
Read it.  That's what they reported.  Now, it takes some real work to
get such numbers - a lot of statistical analysis - but that's what
they did.  They would not assume that every sexual contact involved at
least one HIV+ individual, but would rather determine the fraction of
contacts that did involve an HIV+ individual on the average and adjust
for that.  It's rather tricky. That's why this sort of thing is
handled by highly skilled professionals.  There are a lot of ways to
mess up and you have to check all of them to make sure you really
analyzed it correctly.  Then you have complications such as the fact
that many people engage in multiple sex acts.  That gets factored in
as well.
This is the paragraph you are quoting:

"One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men
(MSM) and determined that for unprotected receptive anal
intercourse, the probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected
insertive anal intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive
oral intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only
study available that provides a probability for oral transmission,
and further study is required to corroborate these estimates."

From what part of this text can you infer what you are claiming
above? Is there more of this study somewhere else on the web?
I know what your point is, I'm just not going to let you get away
with a purposerful misinterpretation like this. You accused me
of minimizing the danger of heterosexual transmission of HIV.
Is it not worse to allege the probability of contracting HIV from
a positive sex partner through anal intercourse is only 0.8%,
when it actually is somewhere between 10 and 30%?
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
You can't even understand the stuff you try to quote!
You mean you don't even want to comment on the
stuff I quoted. It's from the same friggin' article ;-)
What you quoted was irrelevant.  You implied in your original
post that the infection rate was "entirely" due to one specific
sex act and that statement is simply false.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I used to be a medical technologist.
I.e., you are not a doctor, nor a researcher of any sort.
No I'm not. I merely have 14 years of apolitical, real life,
frontline infectious disease experience :-)
You mean you either changed bed pans, ran some sort of machine, or
stuck a needle in someone's arm to collect blood samples.
You just gotta keep reinforcing my stereotype, you arrogant
little SOB, don't you ;-)
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Medical research and CDC reports are not "disinformation".
But I can tell you what you are - a complete idiot.- Hide quoted text -
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not criticizing medical
research, merely your interpretation of it. You don't have a clue what
I'm talkind about, do you? Regarding HIV patients and federal privacy
regulations - an area that has been greatly influenced by the gay and
lesbian propaganda machine. It is a different topic though.
You f***ing idiot! I quoted numbers from such sources that showed your
statements were technically incorrect and all you do is try to put up
a smokescreen to hide the obvious.  The numbers I quoted - the results
of legitimate research - are not the result of any "propaganda machine",
real or imagined.
Again, I really wish you would sink your teeth into this:

"Estimates of the probability of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal
intercourse with ejaculation) HIV transmission among homosexual
men in the USA range from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic
phase of infection to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV
infection."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's from your own fucking article.
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 23:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
It may surpise you, but researchers are in fact interested in
numbers such as the probability of transmission from per sex
act by an infected individual: those are the numbers that are
useful for epidemiological models where the probability of
a sex partner being infected changes over time or changes based
on demographics.
I'm not implying it is impossible to come up with statistical
estimation of HIV+ to HIV- per sex act transmission frequency
among male homosexuals, I'm just saying the 0.0082 figure
you are inferring from your quoted study is grossly inconsistent
with other evidence I have come across in the last 15-20 years,
which was consistently in the 0.1 to 0.3 range, as in this IAVI
And I'm saying you are full of it.
Post by kujebak
http://tinyurl.com/66w68t
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
But if the frequency of HIV infections per sex act is calculated
from a sample of the entire gay male population, then the numbers
will be somewhat irrelevant, wouldn't you say. Did the study really
assume that every sexual contact considered involved at least one
HIV positive individual? Show me where it is stated!
Read it.  That's what they reported.
"One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men
(MSM) and determined that for unprotected receptive anal
intercourse, the probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected
insertive anal intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive
oral intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only
study available that provides a probability for oral transmission,
and further study is required to corroborate these estimates."
From what part of this text can you infer what you are claiming
above? Is there more of this study somewhere else on the web?
Hey moron, I gave you a link to the study with all the details.
It is obviously the per-sex act rate when one of the two is
infected. That's what the probability of transmission per sex
act means. The link was
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-eng.php>
(curiously, instead of reproducing it you snipped part of it so that people
wouldn't be able to follow it when you misquoted my text).

It starts with the statement, "The risk of HIV transmission through
unprotected anal and vaginal intercourse is well known. Estimates of
the probability of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with
ejaculation) HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range
from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1 to as
high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection.2"

Also "Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act probability of
HIV transmission through penile-vaginal intercourse to be
approximately 0.001.3"

Also "One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral intercourse with
ejaculation 0.04%.4 This remains the only study available that
provides a probability for oral transmission, and further study is
required to corroborate these estimates."

Note that "1" after "infection", "2" after "infection", "3" after
"0.001.", and the "4" after "0.04%." are footnotes.

The citations those footnotes provide are:

1 DeGruttola V, Seage GR III, Mayer KH, Horsburgh CR.
Infectiousness of HIV between male homosexual partners. J Clin
Epidemiol 1989;42(9):849-56.

2 Jacquez JA, Koopman JS, Simon CP, Longini IM Jr .
Role of the primary infection in epidemics of HIV infection in
gay cohorts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1994;7(11):1169-84.

3 Mastro TD, de Vincenzi I. Probabilities of sexual HIV-1 transmission.
AIDS 1996;10(Suppl A):S75-S82.

4 Vittinghoff E, Douglas J, Judson F et al.
Per-contact risk of human immuno-deficiency virus transmission
between male sexual partners. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150(3):306-11.

Now, look at the titles of those citations. When someone says
"Per-contact risk of human immuno-deficiency virus transmission" it is
obviously taking about the per sex act risk of transmitting the virus
when the virus is present.

If you can't read well enough to understand that, there is really no
point in talking to you.
Post by kujebak
I know what your point is, I'm just not going to let you get away
with a purposerful misinterpretation like this.
It isn't a misinterpreation, and your lies won't change that. See above
Post by kujebak
You accused me
of minimizing the danger of heterosexual transmission of HIV.
Is it not worse to allege the probability of contracting HIV from
a positive sex partner through anal intercourse is only 0.8%,
when it actually is somewhere between 10 and 30%?
You did minimize the risk for heterosexual transmission when you
said that transmission was "entirely" due to a "specific sex act".

<rest ignored - this guy is an idiot.>
kujebak
2008-12-05 01:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Hey moron, I gave you a link to the study with all the details.
It is obviously the per-sex act rate when one of the two is
infected.  That's what the probability of transmission per sex
act means.  The link was
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-en...>
(curiously, instead of reproducing it you snipped part of it so that people
wouldn't be able to follow it when you misquoted my text).
It starts with the statement, "The risk of HIV transmission through
unprotected anal and vaginal intercourse is well known. Estimates of
the probability of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with
ejaculation) HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range
from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1 to as
high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection.2"
Also "Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act probability of
HIV transmission through penile-vaginal intercourse to be
approximately 0.001.3"
Also "One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral intercourse with
ejaculation 0.04%.4 This remains the only study available that
provides a probability for oral transmission, and further study is
required to corroborate these estimates."
Note that "1" after "infection", "2" after "infection", "3" after
"0.001.", and  the "4" after "0.04%." are footnotes.
  1  DeGruttola V, Seage GR III, Mayer KH, Horsburgh CR.
     Infectiousness of HIV between male homosexual partners. J Clin
     Epidemiol 1989;42(9):849-56.
  2 Jacquez JA, Koopman JS, Simon CP, Longini IM Jr .
    Role of the primary infection in epidemics of HIV infection in
    gay cohorts. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1994;7(11):1169-84.
  3 Mastro TD, de Vincenzi I. Probabilities of sexual HIV-1 transmission.
    AIDS 1996;10(Suppl A):S75-S82.
  4 Vittinghoff E, Douglas J, Judson F et al.
    Per-contact risk of human immuno-deficiency virus transmission
    between male sexual partners. Am J Epidemiol 1999;150(3):306-11.
Now, look at the titles of those citations.  When someone says
"Per-contact risk of human immuno-deficiency virus transmission" it is
obviously taking about the per sex act risk of transmitting the virus
when the virus is present.
If you can't read well enough to understand that, there is really no
point in talking to you.
This was your last attempt to substantiate your claim.
You failed ;-)
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I know what your point is, I'm just not going to let you get away
with a purposerful misinterpretation like this.
It isn't a misinterpreation, and your lies won't change that. See above
Lies? Why would I lie? You're the one with an agenda :-)
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
You accused me
of minimizing the danger of heterosexual transmission of HIV.
Is it not worse to allege the probability of contracting HIV from
a positive sex partner through anal intercourse is only 0.8%,
when it actually is somewhere between 10 and 30%?
You did minimize the risk for heterosexual transmission when you
said that transmission was "entirely" due to a "specific sex act".
<rest ignored - this guy is an idiot.>
The volume of you usenet posts over the last nine years
attests to your disposition for feeding your ego by having
the last word regardless of the subject, or the level of your
knowlege. I don't really feel like wasting more effort to feed
your degenerate needs.
Bill Z.
2008-12-05 01:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
If you can't read well enough to understand that, there is really no
point in talking to you.
This was your last attempt to substantiate your claim.
You failed ;-)
Nope - you are just lying again - trying to "declare victory"
after having made a fool of yourself. You've continually ignored
the facts.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I know what your point is, I'm just not going to let you get away
with a purposerful misinterpretation like this.
It isn't a misinterpreation, and your lies won't change that. See above
Lies? Why would I lie? You're the one with an agenda :-)
Another lie.

<rest of this moron's post ignored>
kujebak
2008-12-05 03:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
If you can't read well enough to understand that, there is really no
point in talking to you.
This was your last attempt to substantiate your claim.
You failed ;-)
Nope - you are just lying again - trying to "declare victory"
after having made a fool of yourself.  You've continually ignored
the facts.
I'm not the button-pushing faggot with a social agenda.
I don't need to declare victory here. All I have to do is
to end this inane argument ;-)
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I know what your point is, I'm just not going to let you get away
with a purposerful misinterpretation like this.
It isn't a misinterpreation, and your lies won't change that. See above
Lies? Why would I lie? You're the one with an agenda :-)
Another lie.
Oh, whatever! All you need to take away from this debate is this:
You screw up once and you die ;-)
Post by Bill Z.
<rest of this moron's post ignored>
Bill Z.
2008-12-05 07:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
If you can't read well enough to understand that, there is really no
point in talking to you.
This was your last attempt to substantiate your claim.
You failed ;-)
Nope - you are just lying again - trying to "declare victory"
after having made a fool of yourself.  You've continually ignored
the facts.
I'm not the button-pushing faggot with a social agenda.
I don't need to declare victory here. All I have to do is
to end this inane argument ;-)
Actually, you've just shown that you are a mindless, worthless bigot,
obviously the one with an agenda. Do you call everyone such names for
merely stating the truth? Are you so stupid as to actually think that
statements about transmission rates reflects some sort of "social
agenda"? Let's recapitulate.

1. You made an erroneous claim that HIV transmission was
due "entirely" to one specific sex act.

2. I pointed out that was incorrect and suggested that
you might want to revise the statement (in case some
17 year old kid reads your posts and thinks there is no
risk when that simply isn't the case).

3. You then argued about what should be common knowledge rather
than simply admit that your wording was poor.

4. Then you denied that the risk of infection per sex act (with
someone who is infected) depends on what sex acts you perform,
not what your sexual orientation is, and that it is non-zero for
sexual practices common among heterosexual couples.

5. When shown the data (with some URLs that included citations
to medical publications), you simply denied it and start ranting
about some "gay agenda".

6. Then you started ranting some more and finally reverted to
the sort of behavior what we only excuse among adolescents who
are struggling with hormone problems (as your use of a slur
shows above).

Let's say what the truth is: you are a worthless, mindless bigot
incapable of a rational discussion on a topic that was supposed to be
about risk factors - no more, no less.
LeRoy Blue
2008-12-06 19:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Actually, you've just shown that you are a mindless, worthless bigot,
obviously the one with an agenda.
OMG! How ironic that is coming from a placard waving homosexuals.
Bill Z.
2008-12-06 22:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Actually, you've just shown that you are a mindless, worthless bigot,
obviously the one with an agenda.
OMG! How ironic that is coming from a placard waving homosexuals.
Another bigoted idiot who pretends that anyone who posts factual
material (in this case merely pointing out that there is more than one
way of transmitting a particular virus and that some of those ways
also impact heterosexual couples) must be gay. Even funnier, the only
"placard waving" was on the part of this bigot and his new-found
male(?) friend.

I guess he doesn't have any straight friends or children - most people
would want to make sure their friends and children were getting
factually accurate information. Instead, he subscribes to the
"Arkansas School of Sex Education", named after an Art Hoppe column
about sex education where Hoppe very humorously described the first
date that his mythical "Cousin Malphasia from Arkansas" went on. The
boy she went out with gave her a kiss, and she said, "Oh no! Now I'll
get pregnant". The boy said, "There's one way to fix it." And he did.
Hoppe's wonderful sense of humor aside, it was a serious point: if you
don't give people accurate information, they'll pick up what they know
from people who know even less than they do and really get themselves
into trouble.
LeRoy Blue
2008-12-07 04:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Actually, you've just shown that you are a mindless, worthless bigot,
obviously the one with an agenda.
OMG! How ironic that is coming from a placard waving homosexuals.
Another bigoted idiot who pretends that anyone who posts factual
material (in this case merely pointing out that there is more than one
way of transmitting a particular virus and that some of those ways
also impact heterosexual couples) must be gay. Even funnier, the only
"placard waving" was on the part of this bigot and his new-found
male(?) friend.
I guess he doesn't have any straight friends or children - most people
would want to make sure their friends and children were getting
factually accurate information. Instead, he subscribes to the
"Arkansas School of Sex Education", named after an Art Hoppe column
about sex education where Hoppe very humorously described the first
date that his mythical "Cousin Malphasia from Arkansas" went on. The
boy she went out with gave her a kiss, and she said, "Oh no! Now I'll
get pregnant". The boy said, "There's one way to fix it." And he did.
Hoppe's wonderful sense of humor aside, it was a serious point: if you
don't give people accurate information, they'll pick up what they know
from people who know even less than they do and really get themselves
into trouble.
Do you find fault with information on HIV/AIDS prevention and control
published by the U.S Center for Disease Control (CDC)? Or is it that
you are simply another homophile (ala Craig Chilton) that finds fault
with the CDC pointing out that homosexual males, men who have sex with
men, are the No.1 vector of HIV/AIDS in the US and have been since the
epidemic began in the early 1980s? While heterosexuals represent at
least 95% of the population they account fro only 19% of the new
HIV/AIDS cases every year. Many of these cases are most likely the
result of the heterosexual having sexual intercourse with a closeted
bi-sexual as they often act as a bridge between the epidemic going on
among homosexual males and the general population. You should be more
concerned about controlling the segment of the population that is
incubating the deadly disease than the few cases that are making their
way into the heterosexual population. Prevention of the spread of the
disease through control of those who spread it is the answer -- lay
down your placard and get on the right side of the issue if you're
concerned about the welfare of our society - you're simply shoveling
SH*T against the homosexual tide right now.
Bill Z.
2008-12-07 05:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Actually, you've just shown that you are a mindless, worthless bigot,
obviously the one with an agenda.
OMG! How ironic that is coming from a placard waving homosexuals.
Another bigoted idiot who pretends that anyone who posts factual
material (in this case merely pointing out that there is more than one
way of transmitting a particular virus and that some of those ways
also impact heterosexual couples) must be gay. Even funnier, the only
"placard waving" was on the part of this bigot and his new-found
male(?) friend.
I guess he doesn't have any straight friends or children - most people
would want to make sure their friends and children were getting
factually accurate information. Instead, he subscribes to the
"Arkansas School of Sex Education", named after an Art Hoppe column
about sex education where Hoppe very humorously described the first
date that his mythical "Cousin Malphasia from Arkansas" went on. The
boy she went out with gave her a kiss, and she said, "Oh no! Now I'll
get pregnant". The boy said, "There's one way to fix it." And he did.
Hoppe's wonderful sense of humor aside, it was a serious point: if you
don't give people accurate information, they'll pick up what they know
from people who know even less than they do and really get themselves
into trouble.
Do you find fault with information on HIV/AIDS prevention and control
published by the U.S Center for Disease Control (CDC)? <snip>
You mean you don't have an answer? I guess you don't have any straight
friends or any children because you show zero interest in the safety
of either.

The issue is merely one of providing factually accurate information.
You don't want someone reading something and taking risks because
of mistakenly thinking there is no risk at all. I might add that the
the data on the CDC web site agrees with what I posted: otherwise
you'd have no risk at all for heterosexual transmission and that
simply is not the case.

So, why don't you crawl back under a rock and not come back until you
are willing to have an intelligent conversation?
LeRoy Blue
2008-12-07 06:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Actually, you've just shown that you are a mindless, worthless bigot,
obviously the one with an agenda.
OMG! How ironic that is coming from a placard waving homosexuals.
Another bigoted idiot who pretends that anyone who posts factual
material (in this case merely pointing out that there is more than one
way of transmitting a particular virus and that some of those ways
also impact heterosexual couples) must be gay. Even funnier, the only
"placard waving" was on the part of this bigot and his new-found
male(?) friend.
I guess he doesn't have any straight friends or children - most people
would want to make sure their friends and children were getting
factually accurate information. Instead, he subscribes to the
"Arkansas School of Sex Education", named after an Art Hoppe column
about sex education where Hoppe very humorously described the first
date that his mythical "Cousin Malphasia from Arkansas" went on. The
boy she went out with gave her a kiss, and she said, "Oh no! Now I'll
get pregnant". The boy said, "There's one way to fix it." And he did.
Hoppe's wonderful sense of humor aside, it was a serious point: if you
don't give people accurate information, they'll pick up what they know
from people who know even less than they do and really get themselves
into trouble.
Do you find fault with information on HIV/AIDS prevention and control
published by the U.S Center for Disease Control (CDC)? <snip>
You mean you don't have an answer? I guess you don't have any straight
friends or any children because you show zero interest in the safety
of either.
The issue is merely one of providing factually accurate information.
You don't want someone reading something and taking risks because
of mistakenly thinking there is no risk at all. I might add that the
the data on the CDC web site agrees with what I posted: otherwise
you'd have no risk at all for heterosexual transmission and that
simply is not the case.
So, why don't you crawl back under a rock and not come back until you
are willing to have an intelligent conversation?
I am now more convinced than ever that you are a flaming homosexual.
Probably in your mid-twenties and infected with AIDS or at least HIV
positive. Your argument is simply a fallacy aimed at cover the fact
that homosexuals such as you are a clear and present danger to our
society. Give it up. boy.
Bill Z.
2008-12-07 06:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
I am now more convinced than ever that you are a flaming homosexual.
I'm more convinced than ever that you are a mindless idiot and
could care less about what you claim to be "convinced of", troll.
kujebak
2008-12-07 19:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Post by LeRoy Blue
Post by Bill Z.
Actually, you've just shown that you are a mindless, worthless bigot,
obviously the one with an agenda.
OMG! How ironic that is coming from a placard waving homosexuals.
Another bigoted idiot who pretends that anyone who posts factual
material (in this case merely pointing out that there is more than one
way of transmitting a particular virus and that some of those ways
also impact heterosexual couples) must be gay. Even funnier, the only
"placard waving" was on the part of this bigot and his new-found
male(?) friend.  
I guess he doesn't have any straight friends or children - most people
would want to make sure their friends and children were getting
factually accurate information. Instead, he subscribes to the
"Arkansas School of Sex Education", named after an Art Hoppe column
about sex education where Hoppe very humorously described the first
date that his mythical "Cousin Malphasia from Arkansas" went on.  The
boy she went out with gave her a kiss, and she said, "Oh no! Now I'll
get pregnant".  The boy said, "There's one way to fix it." And he did.
Hoppe's wonderful sense of humor aside, it was a serious point: if you
don't give people accurate information, they'll pick up what they know
from people who know even less than they do and really get themselves
into trouble.
Do you find fault with information on HIV/AIDS prevention and control
published by the U.S Center for Disease Control (CDC)? <snip>
You mean you don't have an answer? I guess you don't have any straight
friends or any children because you show zero interest in the safety
of either.
The issue is merely one of providing factually accurate information.
You don't want someone reading something and taking risks because
of mistakenly thinking there is no risk at all.  I might add that the
the data on the CDC web site agrees with what I posted: otherwise
you'd have no risk at all for heterosexual transmission and that
simply is not the case.
So, why don't you crawl back under a rock and not come back until you
are willing to have an intelligent conversation?
I am now more convinced than ever that you are a flaming homosexual.
Probably in your mid-twenties and infected with AIDS or at least HIV
positive. Your argument is simply a fallacy aimed at cover the fact
that homosexuals such as you are a clear and present danger to our
society. Give it up. boy.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think you're flattering him. I would guess mid tweens :-)
Bill Z.
2008-12-07 19:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
I think you're flattering him. I would guess mid tweens :-)
My guess is that you two would be a good match for each other,
and you should take that as a real insult.

kujebak
2008-12-04 23:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Z.
It may surpise you, but researchers are in fact interested in
numbers such as the probability of transmission from per sex
act by an infected individual: those are the numbers that are
useful for epidemiological models where the probability of
a sex partner being infected changes over time or changes based
on demographics.
I'm not implying it is impossible to come up with statistical
estimation of HIV+ to HIV- per sex act transmission frequency
among male homosexuals, I'm just saying the 0.0082 figure
you are inferring from your quoted study is grossly inconsistent
with other evidence I have come across in the last 15-20 years,
which was consistently in the 0.1 to 0.3 range, as in this IAVI
2004 data:

http://tinyurl.com/66w68t
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
But if the frequency of HIV infections per sex act is calculated
from a sample of the entire gay male population, then the numbers
will be somewhat irrelevant, wouldn't you say. Did the study really
assume that every sexual contact considered involved at least one
HIV positive individual? Show me where it is stated!
Read it. That's what they reported. Now, it takes some real work to
get such numbers - a lot of statistical analysis - but that's what
they did. They would not assume that every sexual contact involved at
least one HIV+ individual, but would rather determine the fraction of
contacts that did involve an HIV+ individual on the average and adjust
for that. It's rather tricky. That's why this sort of thing is
handled by highly skilled professionals. There are a lot of ways to
mess up and you have to check all of them to make sure you really
analyzed it correctly. Then you have complications such as the fact
that many people engage in multiple sex acts. That gets factored in
as well.
Again, this is the paragraph you are quoting:

"One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men
(MSM) and determined that for unprotected receptive anal
intercourse, the probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected
insertive anal intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive
oral intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only
study available that provides a probability for oral transmission,
and further study is required to corroborate these estimates."

From what part of this text can you infer what you are claiming
above? Is there more of this study somewhere else on the web?
I know what your point is, I'm just not going to let you get away
with a purposerful misinterpretation like this. You accused me
of minimizing the danger of heterosexual transmission of HIV.
Is it not worse to insist the probability of contracting HIV from
a positive sex partner through anal intercourse is only 0.8%,
when it actually is somewhere between 10 and 30%?
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
You can't even understand the stuff you try to quote!
You mean you don't even want to comment on the
stuff I quoted. It's from the same friggin' article ;-)
What you quoted was irrelevant. You implied in your original
post that the infection rate was "entirely" due to one specific
sex act and that statement is simply false.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
I used to be a medical technologist.
I.e., you are not a doctor, nor a researcher of any sort.
No I'm not. I merely have 14 years of apolitical, real life,
frontline infectious disease experience :-)
You mean you either changed bed pans, ran some sort of machine, or
stuck a needle in someone's arm to collect blood samples.
You just gotta keep reinforcing my stereotype, you arrogant
little SOB, don't you ;-)
Post by Bill Z.
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
Medical research and CDC reports are not "disinformation".
But I can tell you what you are - a complete idiot.- Hide quoted text -
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I'm not criticizing medical
research, merely your interpretation of it. You don't have a clue what
I'm talkind about, do you? Regarding HIV patients and federal privacy
regulations - an area that has been greatly influenced by the gay and
lesbian propaganda machine. It is a different topic though.
You f***ing idiot! I quoted numbers from such sources that showed your
statements were technically incorrect and all you do is try to put up
a smokescreen to hide the obvious. The numbers I quoted - the results
of legitimate research - are not the result of any "propaganda machine",
real or imagined.
Again, I really wish you would sink your teeth into this:

"Estimates of the probability of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal
intercourse with ejaculation) HIV transmission among homosexual
men in the USA range from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic
phase of infection to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV
infection."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's from your own fucking reference.
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 23:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Bill Z.
It may surpise you, but researchers are in fact interested in
numbers such as the probability of transmission from per sex
act by an infected individual: those are the numbers that are
useful for epidemiological models where the probability of
a sex partner being infected changes over time or changes based
on demographics.
I'm not implying it is impossible to come up with statistical
estimation of HIV+ to HIV- per sex act transmission frequency
among male homosexuals, <snip>
So now you are posting your crap twice? See my reply to the first
one.
Bill Z.
2008-12-04 01:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hnic Hastogo
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:45:58 -0800 (PST), kujebak
Post by kujebak
There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
other topics - even today, it is not easy to look up actual
HIV/AIDS statistics, which are obscured in public health
papers and scientific publications under tons of other irrele-
vant data, and almost never presented in the mainstream
media, but they are there for anyone to see, who actually
cares to look - and your quick retreat behind ideological
labels clearly indicates where *you* are coming from ;-)
June 27, 2008 / 57(25);681-686
Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- 33
States, 2001--2006
<snip>
Post by Hnic Hastogo
increased 8.6% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC] = 1.5).
During 2001--2006, an estimated 214,379 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed
in the 33 states. Of these diagnoses, 46% were in MSM, and 4% were in
MSM who engaged in illicit injection-drug use (IDU) (i.e., MSM and
IDU).
The data you provided is incomplete (cutting and pasting everything is
tedious), but it you take both categories and the IDU category (by
itself), you end up with a significant number of cases transmitted via
heterosexual sex - which is nearly all of what is left due to things
like blood transfusions now being very safe.

And that's the point - you don't want to give people the idea that
the risk is zero when it isn't.

That kujebak guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
Ian B MacLure
2008-11-02 18:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nomen Nescio
Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
I'll be voting YES as many times as I can.

IBM
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...