AIDS & Abortion: 2M deaths yearly

[ilikeverin]

the law should also strictly prohibit homosexual behavior

If two gay people, neither of whom have AIDS, have sex, nothing will happen whatsoever.  If two straight people, one of whom have AIDS, have sex, the one who doesn't have it has a very real chance of getting it.  The moral of this story is that banning "homosexual behavior" is not going to eliminate AIDS, no matter what you may want to think.

I personally think that the best solution to it is as much education about this subject as possible.  You can't realistically expect people to suddenly stop partaking in "homosexual behavior" and in drug use involving hypodermic needles by simply making it illegal (and isn't the latter already illegal?).

Well, according to the World Almanac:
In men, 85.4% of AIDS deaths are from men who have sex with men, injecting drug use, and gay sex & drug use.

In women, 40.3% of AIDS deaths are from injecting drug use.  39.8% are from heterosexual contact with someone infected with AIDS.  So I guess I am more sympathetic towards women with AIDS.

Bottom line is AIDS spreads faster among homosexuals and drug users.  The solution entails excluding homosexuals from the rest of society and getting tougher on the war on drugs.

This would be an A->B thus B->A argument.

*gameshow buzzer*

Sorry, next argument against homosexuals, please

[ilikeverin]

HELLLLLOOOOOOOOO!

You are saying "The majority of people with AIDS are gay, therefore the majority of gay people have AIDS"

That's like saying "A square is a rectangle, therefore a rectangle is a square"

STOP USING FAULTY LOGIC!

[ilikeverin]

Another thing.

The underlying causes of AIDS, i.e. promiscuous sex among homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, and drug use are the real problems deserving of attention and cure, not the disease itself. Otherwise you will just encourage immoral behaviors like promiscuous sex and drug use. For example......Oh, I'm gonna have group sex and get high on heroin tonight...it's not like I'm gonna get AIDS or anything.

Imagine you had a teen.  That teen wanted to go to a party.  Because you want to promote his individuality, you let him go.  However, you suspect alcohol may be there, so you say, "First off, please do not drink.  However... if you drink, then either make someone who hasn't drunk drive you home, or call me and I'll call a cab to pick you up."

I consider that to be common sense

[ilikeverin]

Imagine you had a teen. That teen wanted to go to a party. Because you want to promote his individuality, you let him go. However, you suspect alcohol may be there, so you say, "First off, please do not drink. However... if you drink, then either make someone who hasn't drunk drive you home, or call me and I'll call a cab to pick you up."

I consider that to be common sense

Hummm, let me get this straight, and rephase it for you. By the way, I have teenagers.

Son I understand you wish to attend a party in which criminal activity is probably going to be taking place (underage drinking). As a parent who will be responsible if you run into any legal problems, I realize that your engaging in this criminal activity is important for your individuality. Furthermore, association with other criminals can only assist you in your quest for a healthful individuality.

ROFLMAO, way to ignore my entire point

So, pretend that line never existed.  Now what do you say?

[ilikeverin]

Gays tend to be better educated and more financially successful than heterosexuals. We don't get our girlfriends knocked up during high school or college, so we finish. We don't have kids to worry about, so we can focus on our careers. We don't have kids to pay for, so we have more disposible income and pay more in taxes. So, whatever cost is incurred by society because of above average promiscuity, it is paid for at an above average rate by us.

That's what we wrote about in our gay marriage letter to Minnesotan politicans

However, our teacher-leader person rejected my idea of putting in something about family-inclined homosexuals adopting children and reducing strain on the adoption system... but he dismissed it as too 'liberal-logical'