Panetta: So far, DADT A "Non-Event"

[JollyRoger]

I'm saying that no such data on it exists. Are you going to challenge that?

Who needs data when common sense will suffice? Perhaps you have anecdotal experience about lack of oral sex, but I wouldn't count on that being the general rule.

But I see your lack of data point. It is possible that most of the military engages in homosexual sodomy. We just don't have the data to conclude otherwise.

 

[LucyDuke]

Lucy, I never alledged they didnt. But Form said 'many, if not most'. While I know some probably do engage in that behavior, I have no idea if 'many, if not most' do.

I'm simply wondering how one reaches that conclusion. Is there any fact or data involved?

Every survey I can find indicates that a significant majority of American adults engage in one or more of those behaviors. I can't prove that many or most military employees are sexual deviants but it's a pretty safe bet that they're not. Either way, this is just a stupid hail mary tangent from another stupid tangent.

BTW

And Form, its simply not what you allege. Your simple hatred of all things military dictates your speech, and thats it.

this is pretty much what's going on whenever you start with the QUEERS SPREAD DISEASE bullpoo.

 

[MobBoss]

Since it came up I looked it up as well. I cant find anything that suggests a 'significant' majority does it, but find several where either a simple (say just over 50%) or just under that do.

There is nothing specific to the military that I can find at all.

As to your other allegation, i've never said that, and have been quite clear that 'risky sex spreads disease' and that heterosexuals do indeed engage at that as well. But the infection rates are what they are, and they are that way for a reason. What you think of that is immaterial, as they are indeed facts regardless of your emotion on the issue.

 

[JollyRoger]

Let's see - married people have a lower infection rate than non-marrieds. Yes, there does seem to be a reason.

 

[MobBoss]

Let's see - married people have a lower infection rate than non-marrieds. Yes, there does seem to be a reason.

Actually, I didnt see any evidence of that on the CDC studies as its normally not one of the demographs they track.

But your error is in assuming that gay marriages would be the same as heterosexual ones. Earlier in this thread I already pointed out that open relationships are far more common in gay couples; is there any reason to doubt that would be the case in gay marriages as well?

 

[JollyRoger]

Many straight relationships are heaed towards marriage. Married relationships have the financial consequences of divorce to keep things less open. Once gays have marriage to look forward too, then the stats may even out as more gay relationships will have the goal of marriage, thus cutting down on open relationships.

Just think of your yourself - did you take relationships more seriously when marriage was the goal? How about your actions since being married compared to your actions before your started dating your sppouse-to-be?

And also, why not let each couple decide for themselves rather than paint an entire group? Certainly, you are better at marriage than the Newts, Rudies, and Donalds of the world. Should I base my opinion your marriage on their actions?

 

[MobBoss]

Many straight relationships are heaed towards marriage.

Actually, not so much. The number of people getting married has reached an all time low in our nation. Most people are content just to live together.

Married relationships have the financial consequences of divorce to keep things less open.

Not much of a concern in an amicable divorce with no real assets. I've seen more than a few people do it pro se and just go their separate ways.

 

[JollyRoger]

That is true, but have you ever seen a court order a favorable property division of a girlfriend that was cheated on?

 

[MobBoss]

That is true, but have you ever seen a court order a favorable property division of a girlfriend that was cheated on?

Depends on if the state recognizes common law marriages or not.

 

[JollyRoger]

If it considered married, then that is one's wife, not girlfirend, unless you are suggesting that you are flexible and fluid with terminology and definitions.

But you still make my point - one has to be considered married before a court will enforce an unequal division of property rights for cheating in a personal relationship.

 

[LucyDuke]

As to your other allegation, i've never said that, and have been quite clear that 'risky sex spreads disease' and that heterosexuals do indeed engage at that as well. But the infection rates are what they are, and they are that way for a reason. What you think of that is immaterial, as they are indeed facts regardless of your emotion on the issue.

Not with those words, no, you used these ones.

'Normalizing' homosexual behavior (which is really what the gay marriage thing is all about) will invaribly lead to increases in those being exposed to HIV/AIDs via high risk sex. This is why changing the definition of marriage would have a much further reaching effect than most are willing to admit.

It's simply not as you allege. Your simple hatred of all things gay dictates your speech, and that's it.

Sorry, it's a little bit off topic in this thread. I only mentioned it because your words were so apt.

Also, lots of numbers:

Spoiler :

This one doesn't reflect a majority in all age ranges, but I'd guess that most of the military employees are relatively young.

 

[MobBoss]

Nah, Lucy, i'm actually quite tolerant of people that believe differently than I do, including homosexuals. I certainly dont hate them, hell, you use language about them that I wont even use because I find it disrespectful to homosexuals.

As to my words....has the infection rate decreased or gotten higher in the gay demograph? Easy question to answer actually, if you care to that is.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How much more tolerant can you possibly be than to vilify the tiny percentage of male homosexuals who have HIV, and use that as an excuse to continue to discriminate against and persecute all homosexuals, even lesbians?

Your tolerance of those who have divergent views in this forum is quite well known.

 

[LucyDuke]

Haha, "I didn't say that" becomes "no but it's true!" I love it. The slander is so much more respectful than my modern English usage.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not to mention the number of MSM AIDs diagnoses has been relatively flat since the late 90s:

Why all this fearmongering and hate over such a tiny percentage of Americans?

 

[MobBoss]

How much more tolerant can you possibly be than to vilify the tiny percentage of male homosexuals who have HIV, and use that as an excuse to continue to discriminate against and persecute all homosexuals, even lesbians?

Your tolerance of those who have divergent views in this forum is quite well known.

Vilify? Is simply stating a fact doing so? Have you become so intolerant that you cant even face facts when they exist?

I dont discriminate homosexuals and I certainly dont persecute them.

 

[Arakhor]

Yet you are opposed to the 'normalisation' of same-sex relationships and to extending marriage to all couples who wish to tie the knot.

 

[Flying Pig]

Not to mention the number of MSM AIDs diagnoses has been relatively flat since the late 90s:

Why all this fearmongering and hate over such a tiny percentage of Americans?

More importantly, I don't see why it's the Government's job to stop them taking that risk. The fact is that most gay men are acutely aware of the risk of HIV - more so than straight men, because they know they're a higher-risk group - and I don't think the Government has the right to say 'nanny knows best' on that one. In general, your right to swing your arm ends only where the nearest nose begins, and I'm not persuaded that even the most tragic outcome in these circumstances directly affects anybody who did not know and take on that risk.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I couldn't agree more. I think it is clearly just an excuse to continue to deprive homosexuals of their civil rights. You don't even see any Republican congressmen taking this approach to rationalize the ongoing discrimination.

The maternal death rate in the US is higher than 40 other nations and is three times as high as the HIV infection rate. But you don't see people trying to ban births. You don't even see Congress trying to address the problem by providing far better maternal care for the poor.

 

[MobBoss]

Yet you are opposed to the 'normalisation' of same-sex relationships and to extending marriage to all couples who wish to tie the knot.

Thats 'cause of two things. One I get to have an opinion, and two, I dont see it as a problem that changing the definition of marriage will fix.