Marriage or Civil Union

[IndieVisible]

Where exactly did I say anything about highest risk? I said the fastest growing poulation. And actual IDUs are at higher risk than homosexuals. The highest rate of HIV/AIDS currently diagnosed is in the combination group of IDU/male to male sexual contact.

I did not say you said highest risk, please try to follow along.

I asked where you get women lead?

I am seeing much different stats. Women are the least of every thing.

The largest increase was among younger people!

I was just wondering where you read women were the fastest growing group since every thing I am looking at places them the least.

You from the USA?

 

[IndieVisible]

And, quite obviously, you missed my point. If you are going to make unrelated, off topic, irrelevent remarks, you have no business criticizing others for doing so.

Really?

I call it a example of folly. Using Canada was just as silly as using Iran. I made my point, sorry u had trouble understanding it

 

[jillio]

I did not say you said highest risk, please try to follow along.

I asked where you get women lead?

I am seeing much different stats. Women are the least of every thing.

The largest increase was among younger people!

I was just wondering where you read women were the fastest growing group since every thing I am looking at places them the least.

You from the USA?

I did not say women lead. I said that the fastest growing population being diagnosed is white heterosexual women. Try to follow along.

What, younger people can't be white, heterosexual women? Age is but one demographic category.

You need to read the words as written. Fastest growing is not the same as highest prevalence. You are evidently confusing the two.

 

[jillio]

Really?

I call it a example of folly. Using Canada was just as silly as using Iran. I made my point, sorry u had trouble understanding it

I didn't have trouble understanding it. It was simply irrelevent and hypocritical.

 

[IndieVisible]

I did not say women lead. I said that the fastest growing population being diagnosed is white heterosexual women. Try to follow along.

What, younger people can't be white, heterosexual women? Age is but one demographic category.

You need to read the words as written. Fastest growing is not the same as highest prevalence. You are evidently confusing the two.

Just show me where u get women are the fastest growing group.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

In Canada, same sex marriages are recognised.

Did you know that if you entered in to a civil union, your partner is dying in a hospital room, you would not be granted the same rights as a husband/wife. The rights goes back to the partner's parents.

This is where I disagree with. Gender/sexuality should not play a role in marriage and the government has no right to interfere in this as well.

Yes, same here in Germany as well.



I voted to support same sex marriage because they deserve their equal rights as opposite sex married couple.

 

[jillio]

Just show me where u get women are the fastest growing group.

I've already done that. Perhaps you should go back and look.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Thank you for pointing out about Canada.

Many conservatives would say that if they allow gay marriage in the US--our government would collapse.

Folks.....look at Canada. They got same-sex marriage and their country didn't collapse. :roll:

Huh? Why? Is it because of "unnatural" to Government´s eyes?

 

[IndieVisible]

I've already done that. Perhaps you should go back and look.

I WENT THERE!

It says younger men and women are the fastest growing group! Women in general were not the fastest growing group.

Certainly you did read that some where and can provide a link, No?

 

[Byrdie714]

Sorry your links and facts are hard to follow. I sugesst you link directly to what you are trying to say. I went to the first link and could not find your $60M you spoke of.

Any way reading more of your posts I question your intent here.

Sounds like you are more against Marriage as defined by a man and a woman, in other words you are beginning to sound anti-heterosexual to me.

I am not anti anti gay. I seek a fair and balanced solution. You want to try to trash heterosexual marriage in your attempt to justify gay marriages. IMHO that greatly reduces your credibilty.

If you want to argue for gay marriage, I suggest you do it with out trashing heterosexual marriages. Otherwise you will only be talking to yourself.

Sorry you couldn't read the entire article as the paragraph states:

In June, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, which studies sexual orientation and the law, estimated that legalizing same-sex ceremonies in the state would result in about $63.8 million in government tax and fee revenue over three years.

I suggest that you read the entire article in length before dismissing it which is typical for an individual that is against same-sex marriages.

Furthurmore it seems that you already have an agenda in dismissing same-sex marriage and is not open to discussion of the reasoning for allowing same-sex marriage.

I have never been against heterosexual marriage, I am just seeking equality under the draconian laws that we currently have.

Who is trashing heterosexuals? I certainly haven't seen it happening. If you are talking about the divorce rate among heterosexuals, that is hardly trashing....it is just cold, hard truth.

Exactly.

You from the USA?

She's definately from the USA--from a conservative state.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

The fastest growing population with HIV/AIDS is white heterosexual women.

Really? I thought HIV/AIDS was started in Africa, that´s how spread out to many countries in the world? Please correct if I´m wrong.

 

[Byrdie714]

Huh? Why? Is it because of "unnatural" to Government´s eyes?

Hysteria propaganda is the reasoning.

 

[jillio]

I WENT THERE!

It says younger men and women are the fastest growing group! Women in general were not the fastest growing group.

Certainly you did read that some where and can provide a link, No?

Nor did I say women in general. You really need to take the time to read the posts properly. You cannot use one demographic to disqualify another. Respondants fit into more than one demographic. And I doubt seriously that you were able to wade through the statistics from the CDC regarding HIV/AIDS transmission in a matter of minutes.

 

[Byrdie714]

Really? I thought HIV/AIDS was started in Africa, that´s how spread out to many countries in the world? Please correct if I´m wrong.

In the beginning of the epidemic it was.

However, new studies are coming out that it has been around since the late 1800's to early 1900's.

 

[IndieVisible]

Nor did I say women in general. You really need to take the time to read the posts properly. You cannot use one demographic to disqualify another. Respondants fit into more than one demographic. And I doubt seriously that you were able to wade through the statistics from the CDC regarding HIV/AIDS transmission in a matter of minutes.

Ok here is the bottom line. You said things with out proof. I asked for link u could not provide. Whatever. I see now there are a few posters here who simply want to argue or stuff their post counts. I am not interested. There are plenty of political forums we can argue on. I found this forum not to argue but to find some thing we all have in common with.

I stated I support gay unions and would like to see them hold all the legal rights as marriage. I indicated I would like to see a distintion in language between unions and marriage because I want to perserve marriage for a man and a woman. I feel we need this distinction in language.

if that is not good enough then that is your problem. Perhaps we can find another thread we have some thing in common with. I am not here to stuff my post counts or argue.

I made my points I wanted to make and made them very clear,

One final point concerning some of your "stats" regarding marriage verses gay unions. Do you folks even understand how those stats about marriage came to be? From divorces! SInce gay unions and gay marriages are still so very new there are NO stats for gays yet. So hold off on your conclusions and predictions, they are based on NOTHING!

You may now resume your post stacking and arguing

 

[Byrdie714]

Ok here is the bottom line. You said things with out proof. I asked for link u could not provide. Whatever. I see now there are a few posters here who simply want to argue or stuff their post counts. I am not interested. There are plenty of political forums we can argue on. I found this forum not to argue but to find some thing we all have in common with.

I stated I support gay unions and would like to see them hold all the legal rights as marriage. I indicated I would like to see a distintion in language between unions and marriage because I want to perserve marriage for a man and a woman. I feel we need this distinction in language.

if that is not good enough then that is your problem. Perhaps we can find another thread we have some thing in common with. I am not here to stuff my post counts or argue.

I made my points I wanted to make and made them very clear,

One final point concerning some of your "stats" regarding marriage verses gay unions. Do you folks even understand how those stats about marriage came to be? From divorces! SInce gay unions and gay marriages are still so very new there are NO stats for gays yet. So hold off on your conclusions and predictions, they are based on NOTHING!

You may now resume your post stacking and arguing

You are "cherry-picking" your facts.

Preserving "marriage" for a man and woman? Why? Man and woman have ruined the institution of marriage by getting a divorce.

In another words--it's okay for Joe the Plumber to get married 4 times but not for Bert & Ernie? What a hypocrite!

As for the stats--it was provided and again, "cherry picking" aren't ya?

Guess you don't like stats that go against your argument. :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

In the beginning of the epidemic it was.

However, new studies are coming out that it has been around since the late 1800's to early 1900's.

Interesting, I didn´t know about that. Have you any source to post here about new studies because I´m interesting to read...

I thought that HIV/AIDS was started in Africa around 1960s. It was uncommon... until one passager brought unknown illness from Africa to other country around 1980s to spread out... that´s how they named "unknown illness" as AIDS...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Hysteria propaganda is the reasoning.

*shake my head sadly*

 

[Byrdie714]

Interesting, I didn´t know about that. Have you any source to post here about new studies because I´m interesting to read...

I thought that HIV/AIDS was started in Africa around 1960s. It was uncommon... until one passager brought unknown illness from Africa to other country around 1980s to spread out... that´s how they named "unknown illness" as AIDS...

Sure!

HIV-Aids - HIV dates back to late 1800s - study

The bolded highlight was a reference to the flight attendant from Air Canada that brought the disease into the US accroding to the CDC.

Also you can read about it in the book called, "And the Band Played On." by Randy Shilts.

 

[Foxrac]

There's no option for either of them, it's unpredict for me.