Gay Marriages

[Declan]

That's what threads are for!

 

Someone will drag it back on topic tomorrow.

[theintelligentthug]

do you take this man to be your lawful wedded husband?

 

 

i do.

 

 

and do you, take this man to be your lawful wedded husband?

 

 

i do.

 

 

 

you may now kiss the husband.

 

 

 

not quite the same ring is it?

[joeyconcrete]

You're forgetting something.

 

I know pronounce you man and husband.

[ButterflyMaiden]

Lets not confuse homosexuality with the practice of certain sexual acts....all of which anyhow are part and parcel of most heterosexual relationships... i.e. they are not exclusively homosexual acts.

 

I think someone else on this thread has already pointed out the implausibilty of homosexuality running in families i.e. being gene based. Other lines of inquiry such as unresolved Oedipal complexes etc have also failed to gain acceptance because they havent produced causal laws.

 

A more rigorous approach would posit homosexuality as a social construct and all the available evidence suggests this might be the case.

 

Michel Foucault's book, "The history of sexuality" is the standard reference but you might also refer to Halperin ("100 years of homosexuality").

 

Both Foucault and Halperin, independently, make the case that homosexuality is a social construct which has been in existence for 100 or so years. The term homosexuality first appeared in the English language around 1890 / 1893.

 

Prior to that time sexual acts such as sodomy were regarded as merely temporary aberrations.

 

According to Foucault, "where the sodomite had been a temporary aberration, the homosexual was now a species"

 

What does this mean ? ... It means a discourse emerged which grouped a number of practices and preferences together, gave them a single name (homosexuality) and then posited this new construct outside of normal society.

 

There is no good reason, on that basis, why homosexuals should not be able to contract legally binding partnerships without prejudice to anyone else in the community.

 

The practice of certain sexual activities is another question altogether.

[Steven]

Firstley keristal + glad to be back.

I do not "blame" anyone or any reason for the rise of HIV

Nor give specifics as to transmission.

Of course its not "only" a homosexual disease but also hetrosexual.

The first reported + identified cases were found within gay men, it was assumed therefore to be a gay disease, some years later women were also found to be HIV positive.

From this information we can "assume" the virus originally originated from gay men? But thats not to say that it was, no one knows for sure.

But im quite sure one day we will be able to find the EXACT origin of the virus.

 

I sugested that the MALE y chromosome contained the original mutation, giving rise to the virus, so if a nursing mother was a carrier for HIV it obviously passes thru the placeta to infect the feotus? (as viruses are so small they not flitered out of the placeta membrane + pass thru)

 

An awful lot of maybes to back up a conclusion. The truth is there is no evidence to back up anything you have said. So you have used a whole heap of conjecture to make a sweeping proposal.

 

Then you write "as its only a matter of time before the HIV virus mutates to become transmitable via other easier methods of transmission between humans." Again this is conjecture, although this time at least it is backed by a bit of science in that viruses do mutate and the way they are transmitted does change. Yet there is no guarantee or even liklihood that AIDS will mutate into a more transmittable form.

 

In any event given the amount of AIDS amongst the hetrosexual population (particularly in Africa) whether homosexual sex continues or not is immaterial. If it is going to mutate it will anyway.

 

Yes declan i HAVE made "assumptions" to arrive at my "personal" conclution. i see nothing wrong with that?

It may trigger another chain of thought which may lead to a cure?

 

But there IS a real chance that it MAY mutate to, + god only help us if it does, to becoming an air borne transmittable virus ie via carrier insects ect?

Its actually only by pure chance that it hasenet already.

As already stated this virus is VERY UNSTABLE + ofteren mutates to render any anti viral medications which are effective against it useless, + just as easiley as it mutates to medications, so does it mutate in its potential of transmision + its potential to infect other white blood cells not only the T-helper cells.

This is NOT scare mongering these are Facts.

 

An example which we should note + take head about mutations of organisims, is the MRSA bacterium? There is now a new mutated strain called VRSA which does NOT RESPOND TO ANY KNOWN antibiotic

 

But Its interesting + encouraging to note, from the point of view of immunitey that not ALL HIV positives go onto develope AIDS?

[ans]

so if a nursing mother was a carrier for HIV it obviously passes thru the placeta to infect the feotus? (as viruses are so small they not flitered out of the placeta membrane + pass thru)

 

No. A pregnant woman with AIDS has a very good chance of not passing it to their unborn child.

 

The rest of your medical assumptions are equally based in trash.

[cheesemonster2005]

MODERATORS PLEASE REMOVE THIS POST. MY MISTAKE!

[cheesemonster2005]

I'm sure you were all crying and very sad but don't fear because the CHEESEMONSTER2005 is back!

 

The first reported + identified cases were found within gay men, it was assumed  therefore to be a gay disease,  some years later women were also found to be HIV positive.

But im quite sure one day we will be able to find the EXACT origin of the virus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe the first case of AIDS was discoved at the Manchester Royal Infirmiry in the 1950's. A sailor died of a mysterious disease and only recently did they establish that he dies from AIDs.

[Lonan3]

+ take head about mutations of organisims....

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Typo? Freudian slip?

[P.K.]

I still think you are totally wrong about this.  Lets use a racist Chinaman its easier than using you as an example as it personalizes it too much.  Lets assume this Chinese citizen hates what he calls "the cheesey smell of westerners".  He's on a plane and sees walking down the aisle toward the seat next to him is a western businessmen.  "Oh no 8 hours of stink" thinks our racist; he gets in a bad mood is crappy and unpolite.  But this particular businessman is allergic to milk, has lived in Sichuan (?? I'm intrigued if the characters are visible ... are they to you lot with non asian fonts?) for years eating spicey noodles and smells exactly the same as our bigoted gent.

 

The westerner has been treated prejudicially.  A unwarranted bias has been created in the mind of our bigot which has been unfairly put onto this particular westerner.  The racist assumes certain characteristics due to a person's physical morphology that has NOTHING to do with that physical morphology.  If a non-caucasian lives in Douglas, buys the same food as you do from Shoprite, uses your particular brand of deoderant and hair gel ... well guess what he'll smell the same as you no matter what colour they are or what shape their eyes or nose is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look back you will see that I actually stated that I find some other races smell unpleasant to me. What, you think I'm lying or something? They do and that's that. I did not actually state which races they were either.

 

You say you hate homosexuals because they aren't involved in the evolutionary process ... seems an odd reason to me, but there you go!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It seems a very odd reason to me as well! Fortunately I said nothing of the kind. I can only hope that it wasn't my poor use of English that led you to that rather bizarre conclusion. Incidentally I don't hate them, I despise them. It's different, at least to me.

 

I have found some of the posts in this thread very interesting and informative. But not my own!

[joeyconcrete]

I believe the first case of AIDS was discoved at the Manchester Royal Infirmiry in the 1950's.  A sailor died of a mysterious disease and only recently did they establish that he dies from AIDs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

9.2: What About the Sailor with AIDS in 1959?

 

(The following information is from The Independent, 24 March 1995)

 

There is now good reason to think that the evidence for this case was fraudulent. The patient was David Carr, a 25 year old man. Most reports describe him as a sailor, but in fact his only known trip abroad was during his national service, when he visted Gibralter aboard HMS Whitby for two weeks. It is possible he visited Tangier at this time, but there is no evidence either way. There is also no evidence that he was gay (although firm evidence would have led to his arrest).

 

Carr died on 31 August 1959 in Manchester Royal Infirmary, almost certainly of an immune deficiency. His case was written up in The Lancet of 29 October 1960 by Trevor Stretton, John Leonard (his doctors) and George Williams (the pathologist). It was just a minor medical mystery. Then in the late eighties, Williams sent samples of tissue from Carr's body to his hospital's virology unit to be tested for AIDS. They tested positive. The test was repeated with a blind control. Still positive. The doctors went public with a short letter in the Lancet on 7 July 1990.

 

In 1992 Professor David Ho of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Centre in New York asked for tissue samples from Carr in order to sequence the viral DNA. He succeeded, but found that the sequence was identical to strains circulating in 1990. Further checks revealed that the tissue sample was from a recently deceased person, and that other samples, alledgedly also from Carr but with no sign of the virus, were actually from a different person.

 

At the very least these facts cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the diagnosis of AIDS in David Carr. They also give strong reason to suspect a case of scientific fraud.

[P.K.]

I thought that HIV was accidentally introduced into the human population by a mass polio vaccination program in the late fifties. It seems it was cultured on simian organs so that is how the infection jumped from monkey to human. Because of the numbers of infected involved one eventually mutated into what we see today.

[cheesemonster2005]

I thought that HIV was accidentally introduced into the human population by a mass polio vaccination program in the late fifties. It seems it was cultured on simian organs so that is how the infection jumped from monkey to human. Because of the numbers of infected involved one eventually mutated into what we see today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know if it matters where the disease originated. How it is passed from one person to another is of course important and this is generally known today. Afterall, we don't know where other conditions like cancer originated but we still try to develop a cure as with AIDs.

[Declan]

I sugested that the MALE y chromosome contained the original mutation, giving rise to the virus,

 

I'm sorry I may not have read you correctly, but this seems to make no sense. It appears that you are suggesting that a mutation of the y chromosome in the human male, came into contact with another human male's DNA and a virus was "born".

 

Is there any evidence of virus being created from the DNA of more complex species? Or have I misinterpreted your comments?

[Chinahand]

I'm finding the way this thread is going really very strange.

 

We are getting really distracted by AIDS and so called gay diseases. Are people really saying this is a punishment or some deliberate attempt (by Gaia, aliens, the CIA or GOD) to reduce the population?

 

That feels really medieval if you ask me.

 

I think expanding on this sort of argument shows just how nonsensical it is.

 

If you say AIDS is punishment etc why not Malaria, or TB. Both huge killers.

 

With Malaria you could have great fun with this sort of b*llsh*t. The areas of the world where its prevelent are clearly being punished, or warned that it is ecologically wrong to live there. People with sicklecell anemia must in some way be choosen as they are immune and can live in peace.

 

Bubonic plauge; clearly punishment for ... what ... well lets just say its the move to the cities and the abandonment of agriculture. Down comes the judgement for this evil and one third of the population of Europe die.

 

Syphilis: clearly punishment for the European invasion of the new world. Spreading rapidly it brings mass death and madness all across Europe just as Columbus opens up the Americas.

 

Smallpox: exactly the same as syphilis, but reverse the logic; clearly punishment for the Incas practicing human sacrifice and not converting to Christianity as soon as the Conquistadors arrive.

 

Spanish flu; clearly revenge for the immorality of world war I. Down it comes to punish us and kills more people than the war took.

 

Its so easy ... you can go on and on: cancer. Now we are rich and lazy we need a disease that punishes us for our afluent lifestyles ... cancer or diabetes is cast down to punish us.

 

What scares me is that I'm sure some people will say: yes this is right. Oh boy.

 

Odd that all this has occurred again and again throughout time. When the world population was one thousandth or even one millionth what it is today and our ecological foot print tiny still the diseases were sent down to "punish" us.

 

Human genetics has a really tight choke point. A long long time ago an epidemic nearly wiped out the entire human species and we are now all basically genetically identical no matter what race we are; hence me continually going on that PK is taking cr*p when he claims people smell different because of their race rather than a cultural behaviour.

 

I can just imagine the cavemen sacrificing to the gods to stop this punishment; what have we done to produce this. It must be clothes or fire; abandon this immoral behaviour to save our selves.

 

I hope most people reading this will see this is just rubbish as is going on and on about gays and AIDS.

 

Our brains are wonderful at making associations; its probably what makes us unique as a species, but it often makes incorrect assosciations and the result is prejudice, racism and intolerance. Which is what this thread is meant to be debating not superstition and mythology.