JFKvsNixon Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 As the source of your "statistics" is the Terence Higgins Trust, a gay rights pressure group, I think it's fair to say that those figures are at best misleading and at worst lies. Can you provide an impartial link to support your arguments? What makes you think that the Terrence Higgins trust is a gay pressure group, it's a charity that deals with AIDS and HIV and as such it's statistics are reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 After adjusting for missing information, an estimated 50% (3,350) of persons newly diagnosed in 2010 acquired their infection heterosexually and 45% (3,000) through sex between men. Whereas numbers of new diagnoses among persons infected heterosexually are declining from a peak of 4,890 in 2004, diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to be reported at a high level. Source: Health Protection Agency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Why do they need a differently named union, when they want to make the same commitment? Explained over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Really ... he'll never listen. "Because men and women are different ... they're different. Being different means being different, but it isn't discrimination, it's just different. Not superior or inferior, just different. They're different." That's my guess anyway. Glad we are in agreement. If only others would listen without prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 As the source of your "statistics" is the Terence Higgins Trust, a gay rights pressure group, I think it's fair to say that those figures are at best misleading and at worst lies. Can you provide an impartial link to support your arguments? Trolltastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Trolltastic Yup, definitely Folks, there are only two possibilities: A. Rickiethecat is a troll, and you will not convince him, and he will keep saying stupid things. Or B. Rickiethecat is a closed minded bigoted moron, and you will not convince him, and he will keep saying stupid things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Explained over and over again. How will you explain it when the law is changed, when same sex couples can marry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savannah_kay Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Some very good points there. As I said earlier in the thread, gay people generally don't have long term relationships anyway so they would not bond for life in the same way a mana and a woman would. Being gay is not about spending a lifetime with a partner, it's about illicit and sordid liasons in nightclubs and public toilets. It's not very PC to say it but even if a gay couple do enter into a long term relationship, there's a high chance that one or both of them may contract HIV or AIDS and die unnecessarily young. We think of them as 1980s diseases but they are still around. Same can be said of many heterosexual people. Drunken sordid sexual activities are not exclusive to gay people. I was barely 17 when I met my partner and we have been together 6 years now. I entered into a civil partnership at 19, so proof that gay people can and do bond together. The majority of females that contact HIV / AIDS do so via other means (drug use been one of those transmissions) rather than through sexual transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncocker Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 o rly. gfsfdg yarly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Gay relationships are qualitatively different from straight relationships. they understand sex differently; they have a different model for what partners means to them and their places in our lives. The fundamental model of marriage that most heterosexuals embrace--and famously proclaim as "family values"--just doesn't apply to them. Heterosexual marriage is based around the emotional attractions of the opposite poles of the male-female polarity. This is about the complementarity of the organs of reproduction. The emotional bonding of man and woman fills the missing half of each in order to create the one whole being which then gives birth to new life. Heterosexual marriage is about bonding at the level of reproduction and subsequent creation of a nest and household in which to raise children. The model of the family is traditionally hierarchical and structured. The male and female partners have roles specified for them by their sexual function in the relationship. Gay relationships are not based on this kind of attraction at all. Sexual attraction is not about the complementarity of the physical organs. Gay people don't have sex in order to complete a bio-hormonal process. Gay people don't see their partners as "other halves,"with body parts and traits and gender-defined roles that complete them. And this massive generalisation you've made is supposed to somehow justify not allowing gay couples to marry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.