What is REALLY at issue with the Same-Sex Marriage debate?

[Phat8594]

I never said half of black people had HIV, but that 46% of people with HIV are black.

My point was that the incidence was higher among blacks than others, much like how the incidence for gay men is higher

You said the data talked about the rate of incidence for a particular ethnicity (black people), in response to me saying that the numbers you provided did not talk about [U]% of a particular ethnicity that has HIV.[/U] % of an ethnicity that has HIV is different than the % of HIV Carriers that are a particular ethnicity.

1. No, while the first sentence does say the have the highest rate of new cases, it then talks about an estimate of the overall population living with that diagnosis.

That being said, the reasoning is therefore the same, black people shouldn't be giving blood.

Please take care to not use your misunderstanding of what I said as a reason to bash me, you come off looking bad.

I quoted what you said above. Perhaps you mispoke....since the rate at which black people get HIV is different than the numbers you quoted.

Anyways, as I have said before, you seem to fail to grasp the difference between behavior and identity. They are two entirely different things. Even the CDC says as much:

The term men who have sex with men is used in CDC surveillance systems. It indicates the behaviors that transmit HIV infection,
rather than how individuals self-identify in terms of their sexuality

Furthermore, you are again basing your reasoning on 1 statistic. What is the rate of HIV among African American people?, What is the rate of HIV among MSM? How many of the African Americans who have HIV would be considered MSM? These are all important numbers that you haven't thought about.....

It was your point.

The safety concerns can be distilled down to numbers.

Ergo,

Your job.

So far, you've done your best to avoid anything quantitative and have settled for generalized admonitions that we must trust the system.

Nyet.

Well lets look at some stuff from the CDC:

-MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an
estimated 580,000 total persons).

- MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300
infections).

- While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per
100,000 other men).

and

According to the latest estimates, white MSM represent the largest number of new HIV infections
(11,400) in the United States, followed closely by black MSM (10,800) and Hispanic MSM (6,000).

And then the real kicker from what you were saying before:

In a study of 21 major U.S. cities in 2008, MSM
had high levels of HIV infection, and many of
those infected with HIV did not know it.

• Overall, one in five MSM participating in the
study was infected (19 percent). While MSM of
all races and ethnicities were severely affected,
black MSM were particularly impacted.

• Among those who were infected, nearly half
(44 percent) were unaware of their HIV status.
Young MSM and MSM of color were least likely
to know they were infected.

This isn't something I came up with, I got it from a Christian.

OK.... its still eisigesis.

[Jaecp]

You said the data talked about the rate of incidence for a particular ethnicity (black people), in response to me saying that the numbers you provided did not talk about % of a particular ethnicity that has HIV. % of an ethnicity that has HIV is different than the % of HIV Carriers that are a particular ethnicity.

How have you failed to read my quoted statistics so many times?

They have both

I quoted what you said above. Perhaps you mispoke....since the rate at which black people get HIV is different than the numbers you quoted.

Anyways, as I have said before, you seem to fail to grasp the difference between behavior and identity. They are two entirely different things. Even the CDC says as much:

I am asserting that trying to make a distinction between barring gay men from giving blood and making it about the gay sex is a meaningless distinction.

Furthermore, you are again basing your reasoning on 1 statistic. What is the rate of HIV among African American people?, What is the rate of HIV among MSM? How many of the African Americans who have HIV would be considered MSM? These are all important numbers that you haven't thought about.....

Lovely,

Great, they have HIV, they aren't going to be giving blood.

Promiscuity is the issue here. Nothing in what you've given me about why gay peoples in a monogamous relationship should be barred alongside the stereotypical promiscuous type.

The solution is vigilance of those likely to be infected, promiscuous types, not to whitewash an entire sector of the population

The issue is people who do not fall under that umbrella, gay men in monogamous relationships, that are the subject of anti-gay bigotry.

OK.... its still eisigesis.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

[Cerebrum123]

How have you failed to read my quoted statistics so many times?

They have both



I am asserting that trying to make a distinction between barring gay men from giving blood and making it about the gay sex is a meaningless distinction.




Lovely,

Great, they have HIV, they aren't going to be giving blood.

Promiscuity is the issue here. Nothing in what you've given me about why gay peoples in a monogamous relationship should be barred alongside the stereotypical promiscuous type.

The solution is vigilance of those likely to be infected, promiscuous types, not to whitewash an entire sector of the population

The issue is people who do not fall under that umbrella, gay men in monogamous relationships, that are the subject of anti-gay bigotry.


You can keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

J (can I call you J?), it would still be eisegesis, just not YOUR eisegesis. How about we take a look at what other parts of the Bible say about this instance of Adam and Eve.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord, the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (Eph 5:28-33)

Here is one reasoning (can't seem to find who wrote it, but I think he(or she) did a good job of reasoning) that is a bit poetic.

Not from his head to rule over him; not from his foot to be trodden by him; but from his rib to be protected by his arm, to be close to his heart, and to be part of his very breathing.

J, (again if you don't like this just say so) it helps to take the Bible as a whole, and to look at how people have understood it to mean in the past(not all of them are right of course, but if they show good exegesis in their other works, it's likely that they will continue to do so).

[Phat8594]

Originally posted by Phat8594
You said the data talked about the rate of incidence for a particular ethnicity (black people), in response to me saying that the numbers you provided did not talk about % of a particular ethnicity that has HIV. % of an ethnicity that has HIV is different than the % of HIV Carriers that are a particular ethnicity. How have you failed to read my quoted statistics so many times?

They have both

WOW....you once again prove my point!!! When are you just going to admit you didnt cite the right statistic?

above
Blacks/African Americans accounted for half of all new HIV diagnoses and just under half of new AIDS diagnoses in 2009. Of the total number of people living with an HIV diagnosis in 2008 in the 40 U.S. states and 5 dependent areas, 46% were black/African American; 31.6% white; 20% Hispanic/Latino; 1.3% multiple races; 0.6% Asian; 0.4% American Indian/Alaska Native; and 0.04% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.

So what % of African Americans have HIV? (Hint: Its not in what you quoted above.)

I don't know how many times I have to explain this....but:

% of HIV Diagnoses that are African American DOES NOT EQUAL % of African Americans with HIV

I honestly do not know why this is so hard to understand. Do you not understand that MSM have a way higher incidence % wise than any other group? It is estimated that MSM account for over half of new infections:

Gay and bisexual men continue to bear the greatest burden of HIV infection, accounting for an estimated 53% of new HIV infections.

Yet they make up what? like 2-3% of the population??

While African Americans account for less than half according to your statistic....yet they make up like what 14-15% of the population. And I am pretty sure I saw a statistic that showed that African American MSM account for over half the African American HIV cases.....so what does that tell you


Clearly probability, statistics, as well a risk assessment and mitigation are not your forte.