Originally posted by beforetime


SO ..to defend yourself from a gay person with physical aggression.
You have a 56% chance of making him bleed and you bleed...thus now your infected with there HIV.
So yes they can riot all they want i won't fight them...Heck they can beat me like a puppy.
i aint getting aid's fighting them back lol
Thats over 50/50 chance dang...


[edit on 12-11-2008 by beforetime]

a 56% chance of making him bleed? Where are you finding these stats?

Read the articles you post as source before coming up with ridiculous claims.

And as for gay men robbing stores threatening to spit on clerks? Yeah, you cant get HIV that way.

Originally posted by DroolsAlot



Gross!!

Another brain surgeon weighs in on the hot topics of the day.

But this is what it comes down to for many thinkers of 'morality', their own sexual preference. Aptly named "Droolsalot" opposes because his/her sexual preference is heterosexual (maybe).

Take the sexual preference out, and its 2 people getting married. Period.

[edit on 12/11/08 by xander68]

---

---

Originally posted by undo
precisely! let's not forget the diehards on the other side, who think it's okay to take the woman's property, destroy it on the spot, and then the folks who defend that action! do you think that's amercian? what the flip?!

Show me these "diehards" from "the other side" who think it's okay to do this.

What the flip are you talking about???

(HealthDay News) -- Two new U.S. studies of gay and bisexual men who know they are infected with HIV show that more than one-third have recently had unprotected intercourse.
In many cases, these men are engaging in unprotected sex with other HIV-infected men -- a practice called "serosorting," where partners with a similar, HIV-positive blood test status decide to forego condoms.

However, "we also found that almost a third of the men -- 31.4 percent -- said that they had had unprotected anal intercourse with at least one partner of unknown serostatus, and almost a quarter had unprotected intercourse with a partner who they knew was HIV uninfected," said the lead author of one of the studies, Dr. Kenneth Mayer, medical research director at Fenway Community Health, in Boston.

He and other researchers in HIV/AIDS presented their findings during a teleconference Monday, part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National HIV Prevention Conference, in Atlanta.

"There are now more than one million people estimated to be living with HIV in the United States, more than ever before," said Dr. Kevin Fenton, director of the CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention.

He also noted that half of all U.S. cases of HIV infection still occur among "men who have sex with men" (MSM), the CDC's umbrella term for gay and bisexual men, as well as men who may not identify as such but engage in male-male sexual activity.

And, Mayer added, unsafe sex was strongly linked to the use of recreational drugs, particularly methamphetamine, and was 60 percent more likely among younger men than older men.

The HIV epidemic in the United States may, in fact, be on the rise. According to recent media reports, sources close to CDC statisticians say that the annual rate of new HIV infections in the United States may soon be bumped up by 50 percent -- jumping from 40,000 new cases annually to up to 60,000.



SEE THAT CRAP, the Gay sex needs to stop

Originally posted by beforetime


which ment even more than 56% are not even looking for treatment or knowing they have hiv.

and spreading it like wildfire threw the gay community.
i call them killer's..but to each there own.

Call them whatever you want- but your ignorance is showing

Remember, it takes two people to transmit the disease sexually.

---

---

Originally posted by xander68

Originally posted by beforetime


which ment even more than 56% are not even looking for treatment or knowing they have hiv.

and spreading it like wildfire threw the gay community.
i call them killer's..but to each there own.

Call them whatever you want- but your ignorance is showing

Remember, it takes two people to transmit the disease sexually.

ignorance it might be but i won't die from hiv...
i walk the other way...
hidden weapon's are dangerous lol
concealed weapon's are illegal...and they don;t have a permit for hiv...

and they fight knowing they have hiv...its like pulling a gun on you ..becouse you can catch hiv sorry but its a fact.

actually it's the equivalent of getting Pistol whooped ...
If you fight back..you might die..cause they have a gun to your head.

Hiv is no different .
and gays are the biggest risk....so technically i am right argue it all ya want but i know i am on this lol

[edit on 12-11-2008 by beforetime]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by undo
i think people just need to get a grip on what the first amendment is

I agree. Why don't you and sos tell us how the First Amendment applies in this situation.

Please.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And, by the way, I am by no means defending what the gay people did to her. I'm not saying what they did was right or defensible. But I'd really like to know how you guys think the First Amendment applies to this situation.

You are correct in saying that the first amendment protects everyone's right to freedom of speech from the government, including the local city government. I see the actions of the crowd as squelching that right to free speech. To technically, okay, I'll give you that the first amendment doesn't cover that situation.

But I'm interested in how you can argue that this group of people are entitled to openly express their homosexuality (which the constitution also does not protect from individuals) when they so openly deny this little old lady her right to free speech? How is the larger group entitled to the rights they want while they openly stamp out the rights of others?

You can claim the old lady was driven by hate. What about tearing a cross out of her hands and stomping on it? What is that driven by? Love?

Originally posted by sos37
How is the larger group entitled to the rights they want while they openly stamp out the rights of others?

It amazes me that people can't see this when it comes to gay people's rights.

You can claim the old lady was driven by hate. What about tearing a cross out of her hands and stomping on it? What is that driven by? Love?

Anger. Let me ridicule you, threaten you, call you names, beat you up, threaten to beat you up, etc. all your life and then we'll talk about LOVE.

Originally posted by Griff


Anger. Let me ridicule you, threaten you, call you names, beat you up, threaten to beat you up, etc. all your life and then we'll talk about LOVE.

THIS.

Even as an adults we still run into this, sometimes right here on ATS.

Sad.

Originally posted by sos37
But I'm interested in how you can argue that this group of people are entitled to openly express their homosexuality (which the constitution also does not protect from individuals)

People have rights that are not expressly stated in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment covers that. Just as I have the "right" to express my heterosexuality, by holding hands with my husband or kissing him, so does everyone else.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

when they so openly deny this little old lady her right to free speech?

They didn't deny her right to speech. They yelled over her and gave her a really hard time, but they didn't stop her from speaking.

You can claim the old lady was driven by hate. What about tearing a cross out of her hands and stomping on it?

I made no claims about her intentions or drive. I have no idea why she was there. And I haven't supported what the people did to this lady. I DON'T support what they did to her.

She is at fault for going there on her "mission".
They are at fault for taking her cross.

What is that driven by?

I can only guess. I would guess anger. Anger at being denied the simple right to get married by people who wield their religion like a weapon to control other people's behavior.