🚀 go-pugleaf

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com...
> Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
>
> Don't allow discrimination against
> anyone!

Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
"registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.

"D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:

> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> news:c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com...
>> Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
>>
>> Don't allow discrimination against
>> anyone!
>
> Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
> "registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.

If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)

Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
Read the decision for details.

"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:871vy0mekt.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:
> > "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> > news:c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com...
> >> Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
> >>
> >> Don't allow discrimination against
> >> anyone!
> >
> > Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
> > "registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.
>
> If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
> vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)

Actually, it doesn't. All it does is clarify a definition.

> Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
> addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
> the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
> Read the decision for details.

Courts can be wrong.

"D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:871vy0mekt.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
>> "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:
>> > "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
>> > news:c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com...
>> >> Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
>> >>
>> >> Don't allow discrimination against
>> >> anyone!
>> >
>> > Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
>> > "registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.
>>
>> If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
>> vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)
>
> Actually, it doesn't. All it does is clarify a definition.

Wrong - it eliminates a right that people now have (whether you agree
with that right or not), and the wording of the proposition is not
a definition.

You can't wiggle out of it - if you say "we don't need more laws",
then you should vote against Proposition 8 because it in fact creates
a new law.  If you don't like the conclusion, maybe you should do the
sensible thing and change your premise. :-)

>> Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
>> addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
>> the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
>> Read the decision for details.
>
> Courts can be wrong.

The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
random usenet posters.

Bill Z. wrote:
> "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:
>
> > "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:871vy0mekt.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> >> "D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:
> >> > "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com...
> >> >> Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't allow discrimination against
> >> >> anyone!
> >> >
> >> > Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
> >> > "registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.
> >>
> >> If your opinion really is "We don't need more laws," then you should
> >> vote *against* Proposition 8, which creates a new law. :-)
> >
> > Actually, it doesn't. All it does is clarify a definition.
>
> Wrong - it eliminates a right that people now have (whether you agree
> with that right or not), and the wording of the proposition is not
> a definition.
>
> You can't wiggle out of it - if you say "we don't need more laws",
> then you should vote against Proposition 8 because it in fact creates
> a new law.  If you don't like the conclusion, maybe you should do the
> sensible thing and change your premise. :-)
>
> >> Humor about poor reasoning aside, the California Supreme Court
> >> addressed the issue of whether a domestic partnership conveys
> >> the same rights as marriage and concluded that it does not.
> >> Read the decision for details.
> >
> > Courts can be wrong.
>
> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
> random usenet posters.

But it's less likely to be right than a majority of voters, as
in this particular case. Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected
the will of the people in the first place.

> Let's not forget forget this measure
> would not have been necessary if the court had respected
> the will of the people in the first place.

The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.

Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.

If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would 
not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.


> 

"A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> wrote in message 
news:cp8Ok.6914$YU2.347@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Let's not forget forget this measure
>> would not have been necessary if the court had respected
>> the will of the people in the first place.
>
> The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
>
> Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
>
> If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would 
> not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.

I am mostly apolitical, and don't enter into politicized argument, and I am 
not a constitutional scholar (although there were a few lawyers teaching the 
subject at the US National War College, when I was a student, and I wondered 
why this was so important, so now I am beginning to find out.)

Anyway, if the majority of the people decide anything, and get the 
constitution amended, then, whatever it is, is.

Probably the majority of the people will not be re-enacting slavery, nor 
will they be taking California Proposition Eight nationwide, but there is no 
bar against that happening.  Anything is subject to the popular vote.

Good luck to all people of good will, and God protect the next President of 
the United States.  He is going to need all the good luck and good will that 
he can get. 

On Oct 29, 6:47 pm, "A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> wrote:
> > Let's not forget forget this measure
> > would not have been necessary if the court had respected
> > the will of the people in the first place.
>
> The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
>
> Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.

It has nowhere been established "homosexual marriage"
is a civil right. It has merely been opined to be possibly
so by the courts by reference to inappropriate precedents.
Precedents held inappropriate by a majority of Californians.
The purpose of Proposition 8 is to clarify the legal ambi-
guity of homosexual marriage as a civil right. That's all
there is to it.

>
> If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
> not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.

Inappropriate precedent. Besides, there are numerous other
illegal family arrangements, which no one would ever consider
a civil right guaranteed by the constitution.
Though perhaps they should ;-)

>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

BE-VA <blackwater-evangalist@testland.net> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:20:13 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>"D. Stussy" <spam@bde-arc.ampr.org> writes:
>>
>>
>>You can't wiggle out of it - if you say "we don't need more laws",
>>then you should vote against Proposition 8 because it in fact creates
>>a new law. 
>
> You're wrong again. There will be no new law. The proposition simply
> reinstates an existing condition that was wrongly set aside by the
> liberal judiciary.

That's a lie - multiple lies, actually.  

The text of the initiative states "Only marriage between a man and a
woman will be valid or recognized in California."  That's not a
definition (which is what was said originally) or even a condition,
but a law.

Also, the California Supreme Court is not a "liberal judiciary": it
is actually fairly conservative, with all but one of its members
appointed by conservative Republican governors.

If you are going to argue about it, at least argue on the basis of
the facts.

Bibon <bibon@semper-gumby.org> writes:

(someone posted)
>>Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
>>
>>Don't allow discrimination against
>>anyone!
>
> But to vote "no" is to condone the sexual promiscuity that is rampant
> among male homosexuals and which results in them being the No.1 vector
> of HIV/AIDS and other STDs in the US. Male homosexuality and its
> consequences are a clear and present danger to the well being of the
> US Society.
>
> VOTE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL CALIFORNIANS - VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION  8

So marriage between two individuals, which assumes a committed,
monogomous, long-term relationship, somehow will "condone" "sexual
promiscuity"?  ROTFLMAO!

Guys, if you want to argue in favor of Proposition Eight, at least
say something sensible!

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>> > Courts can be wrong.
>>
>> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
>> random usenet posters.
>
> But it's less likely to be right than a majority of voters, as
> in this particular case. Let's not forget forget this measure
> would not have been necessary if the court had respected
> the will of the people in the first place.

Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
conveys the same rights as marriage".  Our system of goverment does
not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
and certainly not optimal decisions.

Also, Proposition 8 was introduced well before the California Supreme
Court decision, so your claim, "Let's not forget forget this measure
would not have been necessary if the court had respected the will of
the people in the first place," is completely bogus because it violates
causality - a physical law.  They had enough signatures to qualify
for the ballot before the California Supreme Court ruled - those
signatures were validated afterwards, but that is a mere formality.

> But to vote "no" is to condone the sexual promiscuity that is rampant
> among male homosexuals

Gee, when we instituted HETERO marriage...THAT really condoned the sexual 
promiscuity of *straight* people, didn't it?

> and which results in them being the No.1 vector
> of HIV/AIDS and other STDs in the US.

Well, lucky we didn't make laws against heterosexuality when all the 
straight men were spreading ghonnorhhea during the 40's/50's/60's, huh? 
Promiscuity is not soley a homosexual issue...as you seem to be trying to 
point out.)

> Male homosexuality and its
> consequences are a clear and present danger to the well being of the
> US Society.

Global warming?  Espionage?  Quality of life?  Terrorism?  Inflation? 
Pollution?

I didn't realize male homosexuals were responsible for all of that!

> You're wrong again. There will be no new law. The proposition simply
> reinstates an existing condition that was wrongly set aside by the
> liberal judiciary.

The proposition can still be struck down by the judiciary.

Look at how it worked in other states and you'll save yourelf sometime with 
sanctamonious statements.


> 

>>If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
>>not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
>
> Fallacy; the last refuge of the defeated.

Are you a judge?  No?

Then you will have to back up your opinion with more than one line of 
statement.  We are here to have discussion.  If you were a judge a simple 
statement of finding would be sufficient.

Not on usenet though....




> 

"kujebak" <kujebak@eudoramail.com> wrote in message 
news:696b82d9-1008-485c-9565-3323ea2b5f92@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 29, 6:47 pm, "A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> wrote:
> > Let's not forget forget this measure
> > would not have been necessary if the court had respected
> > the will of the people in the first place.
>
> The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
>
> Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.

> It has nowhere been established "homosexual marriage"
is a civil right. <

In some states it has.  It will be up to your state supreme court.

When you grant some people the right to marry, and deny other the same right 
it is discriminatory....and discriminatory based on sexual 
preference...which is typically considered unsonstitional.    At least 
that's whats been found by supreme judicial courts in some of the states.

> The purpose of Proposition 8 is to clarify the legal ambi-
guity of homosexual marriage as a civil right. That's all
there is to it.<

But the judges can still overrule it.  You cannot pass a proposition that 
the courts deem against the state consitution/charter.

> If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
> not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.

>> Inappropriate precedent.

OK, if 51% of the populous decides that inter-racial marriage should not be 
allowed (as they have)....it cannot be made into law (and was struck down by 
the supreme court).

This is a right granted by the founders......and not up for popular 
vote..unless you change the documents or the people interpreting them.

Even then, changing the documents usually take more than a simple majority.

> Anyway, if the majority of the people decide anything, and get the
> constitution amended, then, whatever it is, is.

First, it's take more than "the majority" to change the constitution..

And Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.

If 51% agree that slavery should be re-instated....it doesn't get 
re-instated.

>   Anything is subject to the popular vote.

Human rights, civil rights...are not.  That's the consitituion we live 
under.

If 51% believe they should take your houe, the cannot. 

On Oct 28, 4:55 pm, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote...
> "Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com...
>
> > Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.
>
> > Don't allow discrimination against
> > anyone!
>
> Vote Yes on Prop 8.  They already have "equal rights" - it's called the
> "registered domestic partnership."  We don't need more laws.

I'm gay but I'm voting Yes on 8 because Obama opposes it and I hate
Obama.  I don't really believe in anything, and I use people I hate as
negative examples to decide what to vote against.  For example, I hate
Oprah Winfrey, and anything she supports I automatically reject as a
stupid idea.  Oprah supports Obama, so he must be a douchebag and a
bigger idiot than Dr. Phil or Tom Cruise.

Oh, wow, it seems the Oprah has expressed her opposition to
Proposition 8 on her blog, proof that Prop8 must be a good idea.  She
also supports Prop2, so I am voting against it.

http://www.oprah.com/community/blogs/lifechngs/2008/09/09/lgbt-community-call-to-action

"A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> writes:

>> Anyway, if the majority of the people decide anything, and get the
>> constitution amended, then, whatever it is, is.
>
> First, it's take more than "the majority" to change the constitution..

Via an initiative, it only takes a majority to change the California
State Constitution.  Some people think making it that easy to change
was a mistake.  Proposition 8 takes the wording of the unconstitutional
Proposition 22 and puts it into the state constitution instead of the
family code.  I'm not sure how a judge declares part of the state
constitution to be unconstitutional, unless there is an argument based
on the federal constitution.

As I recall, it takes more signatures to get a constitutional amendment
on the ballot than an ordinary initiative, but that is merely a matter
of cost - the proverbial bar is rather low in either case.

LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:

> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:19:07 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
>>it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
>>conveys the same rights as marriage".  Our system of goverment does
>>not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
>>and certainly not optimal decisions.
>
>>Also, Proposition 8 was introduced well before the California Supreme
>>Court decision, so your claim, "Let's not forget forget this measure
>>would not have been necessary if the court had respected the will of
>>the people in the first place," is completely bogus because it violates
>>causality - a physical law.  They had enough signatures to qualify
>>for the ballot before the California Supreme Court ruled - those
>>signatures were validated afterwards, but that is a mere formality.
>
>
> The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
> Live with it.

Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.

The majority has no right to rule on what is factually right or wrong:
if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
geometry will not change.  Nor will the laws of physics.

On Oct 30, 8:23 pm, "A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> wrote:
> "kujebak" <kuje...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:696b82d9-1008-485c-9565-3323ea2b5f92@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 29, 6:47 pm, "A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> wrote:
>
> > > Let's not forget forget this measure
> > > would not have been necessary if the court had respected
> > > the will of the people in the first place.
>
> > The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.
>
> > Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
> > It has nowhere been established "homosexual marriage"
>
> is a civil right. <
>
> In some states it has.  It will be up to your state supreme court.
>
> When you grant some people the right to marry, and deny other the same right
> it is discriminatory....and discriminatory based on sexual
> preference...which is typically considered unsonstitional.    At least
> that's whats been found by supreme judicial courts in some of the states.
>
> > The purpose of Proposition 8 is to clarify the legal ambi-
>
> guity of homosexual marriage as a civil right. That's all
> there is to it.<
>
> But the judges can still overrule it.  You cannot pass a proposition that
> the courts deem against the state consitution/charter.
>
> > If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it would
> > not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.
> >> Inappropriate precedent.
>
> OK, if 51% of the populous decides that inter-racial marriage should not be
> allowed (as they have)....it cannot be made into law (and was struck down by
> the supreme court).
>
> This is a right granted by the founders......and not up for popular
> vote..unless you change the documents or the people interpreting them.
>
> Even then, changing the documents usually take more than a simple majority.

I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)

> The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
> Live with it.

Your little one-line answers don't do much to advance your argument.

Civil & human rights are not up for popular vote via the state constitution.


> 

"A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> wrote in message 
news:PSOOk.5390$c45.1221@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>> The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
>> Live with it.
>
> Your little one-line answers don't do much to advance your argument.
>
> Civil & human rights are not up for popular vote via the state 
> constitution.

We have a great country when people can talk about this subject.  I was in 
Korea, and Vietnam, and the Middle East, and Africa.  They do not get any 
chance to talk about human rights.  If you are a Christian in Vietnam, they 
just whack you.  Look up alt.war.vietnam.  If you are a Jew, in an Islamic 
country, they just whack you.  If you are a Palestinian in Israel, they 
almost whack you.   If you are a Christian in the Sudan, or whatever, to the 
south, they just whack you.  We have a great country when we can talk about 
this.  There is no discussion of this subject in most of the world, because 
they would just whack you.  Mention this subject in Saudi Arabia and see 
what happens to you.  We must have a great country.  People are talking 
about this subject and not getting whacked.

"Civil and human rights are not up for popular vote."  Well, only in 
America, maybe.  Most of the world, that I have seen, is a lot more 
short-sighted, and there is no such thing as human rights.  But good luck to 
everyone. 

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
> backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
> sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
> get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
> ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)

Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
by conservative Republican governors?

Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
Proposition Eight was written.

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in 
news:c0c5fef993b772586ad491e239a5debe@dizum.com:

> Please Vote No on Proposition Eight.

    	I'll be voting YES as many times as I can.

    	IBM

nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
news:87iqrbt7xu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 

    	[snip]

> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
> random usenet posters.

    	The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
    	If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
    	the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
    	in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
    	set up an interesting situation.

    	IBM

"A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> wrote in
news:cp8Ok.6914$YU2.347@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com: 

>> Let's not forget forget this measure
>> would not have been necessary if the court had respected
>> the will of the people in the first place.
> 
> The "will of the people" is not the final sole arbiter.

    	Sure is. In fact if the people decide not to allow
    	Courts jurisdiction the Courts get not opinion.

> Civil Rights are not up for popular vote.
> 
> If the majority of "the people" decided to re-institute slavery, it
> would not be valid, because the consitution doesn't allow it.

    	In this case the CA Constitution is being changed.
    	Are you planning on appealing on the basis of the US
    	Constitution?

    	IBM
    	

On Nov 1, 5:42 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> > I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
> > backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
> > sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
> > get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
> > ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
>
> Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
> on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
> was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
> by conservative Republican governors?
>
> Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
> Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
> Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
> allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
> Proposition Eight was written.

And I hope you realize that none of this really invalidates
my point. If it hadn't been for the court overruling Proposi-
tion 22, I probably wouldn't care about the gay marriage
issue any more than I care about social services and public
education for illegal immigrants. To me the only issue that
matters in either case are the activist courts, and their con-
tepmt for the law.

Ian B MacLure <ibm@svpal.org> writes:

> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> news:87iqrbt7xu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net: 
>
>     	[snip]
>
>> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
>> random usenet posters.
>
>     	The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
>     	If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
>     	the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
>     	in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
>     	set up an interesting situation.
>

Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
it through.

Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
laws of physics.

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Nov 1, 5:42 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>> > I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
>> > backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
>> > sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
>> > get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
>> > ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
>>
>> Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
>> on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
>> was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
>> by conservative Republican governors?
>>
>> Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
>> Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
>> Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
>> allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
>> Proposition Eight was written.
>
> And I hope you realize that none of this really invalidates
> my point. If it hadn't been for the court overruling Proposi-
> tion 22, I probably wouldn't care about the gay marriage
> issue any more than I care about social services and public
> education for illegal immigrants. To me the only issue that
> matters in either case are the activist courts, and their con-
> tepmt for the law.

ROTFLMAO! The California Supreme Court is simply not an "activist
court".  In fact, it is rather conservative.  Its ruling regarding
Proposition 22 was solidly based on what is in the California State
Constitution, which the court's members did not write.

Proposition 22 was overruled for a number of reasons. Only a fool
would vote for Proposition 8, which takes the wording of Proposition
22 tries to transfer it to the state constitution in a way that will
tie up the courts for years in litigation (for example, what happens
to existing marriages and how do you compensate people if you take
their marriages away, the value of which may be considerably higher
than the processing fees for getting a license).

On Nov 2, 12:31 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> writes:
>
> > nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> >news:87iqrbt7xu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
> >            [snip]
>
> >> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
> >> random usenet posters.
>
> >            The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
> >            If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
> >            the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
> >            in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
> >            set up an interesting situation.
>
> Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
> to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
> as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
> that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
> opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
> some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
> it through.
>
> Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
> ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
> those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
> laws of physics.

But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Nov 2, 12:31 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> writes:
>>
>> > nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>> >news:87iqrbt7xu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>
>> >            [snip]
>>
>> >> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
>> >> random usenet posters.
>>
>> >            The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
>> >            If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
>> >            the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
>> >            in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
>> >            set up an interesting situation.
>>
>> Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
>> to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
>> as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
>> that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
>> opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
>> some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
>> it through.
>>
>> Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
>> ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
>> those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
>> laws of physics.
>
> But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
> the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
> to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)

Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision.  This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.

Are you too daft to understand the distinction?

LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:20 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
> Z.) wrote:
>
>>LeRoy Blue <leroyblue@billon.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:19:07 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
>>> Z.) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nope - the California Supreme Court is more likely to be right about
>>>>it, where "it" was the question of "whether a domestic partnership
>>>>conveys the same rights as marriage".  Our system of goverment does
>>>>not ensure that the voters make good decisions or wise decisions,
>>>>and certainly not optimal decisions.
>>>
>>>
>>> The majority rules by way of the content of the states Constitution.
>>> Live with it.
>>
>>Try to answer what was said, not something you just made up.
>>
>>The majority has no right to rule on what is factually right or wrong:
>>if the majority decides that the value of pi is 3.2 (which apparently
>>the Indiana state legislature once tried to do and almost got it
>>passed - http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aux/pi.html), Euclidean
>>geometry will not change.  Nor will the laws of physics.
>
> Fallacy; the refuge of the defeated.

Wrong - not a fallacy at all.  We were discussing facts, not voter
decisions, nor whether some marital arrangement is acceptable to
people.

BTW, I'd say exactly the same thing regardless of whether I was in
favor of Proposition Eight or opposed to it: domestic partnerships
simply are not legally equivalent to marriage for the reasons the
California Supreme Court stated, and that is what was being
discussed.

I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
marriages.  One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
7.5) that is simply out of place.

On Nov 2, 12:40 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> > On Nov 1, 5:42 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> >> > I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
> >> > backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
> >> > sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
> >> > get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
> >> > ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
>
> >> Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
> >> on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
> >> was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
> >> by conservative Republican governors?
>
> >> Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
> >> Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
> >> Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
> >> allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
> >> Proposition Eight was written.
>
> > And I hope you realize that none of this really invalidates
> > my point. If it hadn't been for the court overruling Proposi-
> > tion 22, I probably wouldn't care about the gay marriage
> > issue any more than I care about social services and public
> > education for illegal immigrants. To me the only issue that
> > matters in either case are the activist courts, and their con-
> > tepmt for the law.
>
> ROTFLMAO! The California Supreme Court is simply not an "activist
> court".  In fact, it is rather conservative.  Its ruling regarding
> Proposition 22 was solidly based on what is in the California State
> Constitution, which the court's members did not write.

Laugh all you want, but the In re Marriage Cases decision was far
from clear and unanimous. One's opinion of  the judges upholding
the Prop. 22  litigation would certainly depend on which side of the
gay marriage issue one finds himself on.

>
> Proposition 22 was overruled for a number of reasons. Only a fool
> would vote for Proposition 8, which takes the wording of Proposition
> 22 tries to transfer it to the state constitution in a way that will
> tie up the courts for years in litigation (for example, what happens
> to existing marriages and how do you compensate people if you take
> their marriages away, the value of which may be considerably higher
> than the processing fees for getting a license).

How much are Warren Jeffs' marriages worth? Marriage certificates
issued in violation of the state law (Section 300, California Family
Code) aren't even worth the paper they're written on. Definition of
marriage is the prerogative of individual states. Do you seriously
believe the U.S. Supreme Court would even consider this issue?
If the Prop. 8 does pass there is no doubt the gay lobby will take
its cause to the federal courts. Regarding refunds for the marriage
license fees? Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City of San Francisco
should have more than enougn resources to cover those ;-)

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

On Nov 2, 7:12 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> > On Nov 2, 12:31 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> writes:
>
> >> > nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
> >> >news:87iqrbt7xu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>
> >> >            [snip]
>
> >> >> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
> >> >> random usenet posters.
>
> >> >            The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
> >> >            If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
> >> >            the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
> >> >            in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
> >> >            set up an interesting situation.
>
> >> Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
> >> to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
> >> as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
> >> that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
> >> opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
> >> some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
> >> it through.
>
> >> Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
> >> ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
> >> those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
> >> laws of physics.
>
> > But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
> > the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
> > to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)
>
> Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
> domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
> Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
> the effort the court went to in making its decision.  This is a
> matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.
>
> Are you too daft to understand the distinction?

As I said before, I don't give a rats ass about the distinction
between marriage and domestic partnerships. The only thing
I care about is the judiciary respecting the will of the voters.


- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Nov 2, 12:40 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>> > On Nov 1, 5:42 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:

>> ROTFLMAO! The California Supreme Court is simply not an "activist
>> court".  In fact, it is rather conservative.  Its ruling regarding
>> Proposition 22 was solidly based on what is in the California State
>> Constitution, which the court's members did not write.
>
> Laugh all you want, but the In re Marriage Cases decision was far
> from clear and unanimous. One's opinion of  the judges upholding
> the Prop. 22  litigation would certainly depend on which side of the
> gay marriage issue one finds himself on.

No, it is singularly stupid to call a rather conservative court an
"activist court" just because you don't like one decision. Did you
even bother to read the decision?

>> Proposition 22 was overruled for a number of reasons. Only a fool
>> would vote for Proposition 8, which takes the wording of Proposition
>> 22 tries to transfer it to the state constitution in a way that will
>> tie up the courts for years in litigation (for example, what happens
>> to existing marriages and how do you compensate people if you take
>> their marriages away, the value of which may be considerably higher
>> than the processing fees for getting a license).
>
> How much are Warren Jeffs' marriages worth? Marriage certificates
> issued in violation of the state law (Section 300, California Family
> Code) aren't even worth the paper they're written on. Definition of
> marriage is the prerogative of individual states. 

You mean the Warren Jeff from Utah who was prosecuted for polygamy?
We were talking about legal marriages.  Now, what do you think such a
marriage is worth?

> Do you seriously believe the U.S. Supreme Court would even consider
> this issue?  If the Prop. 8 does pass there is no doubt the gay
> lobby will take its cause to the federal courts. Regarding refunds
> for the marriage license fees? Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City of
> San Francisco should have more than enougn resources to cover those

Are you that dense?  The value of a marriage may be much higher than
the value of the license fee, just as the value of a patent can be
very much higher than the fee you pay to get one.  And the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. constitution is relevant: court decision, pushed
by conservative business interests, are such that one must be
compensated not only for a government "taking" of tangible property,
but also of contracts, licenses, franchises, etc.  If existing,
legally performed marriages are invalidated, there could well be law
suits demanding just compensation.

Now, why don't we answer the question of what a marriage is worth
empirically: find out how much you'd have to pay to get a typical
newly married guy's marriage anulled - i.e., what you'd have to pay
him to get him to do it, with (of course) no chance of remarrying his
wife.  It's certainly worth more than the license fee given the effort
people go to in order to find someone to marry.

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Nov 2, 7:12 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>> > On Nov 2, 12:31 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> >> Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
>> >> to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
>> >> as a matter of fact.

>> Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
>> domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
>> Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
>> the effort the court went to in making its decision.  This is a
>> matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.
>>
>> Are you too daft to understand the distinction?
>
> As I said before, I don't give a rats ass about the distinction
> between marriage and domestic partnerships. The only thing
> I care about is the judiciary respecting the will of the voters.
>

I don't care what you give a "rats [sic] ass" about, but if you had no
interest, why did you jump into a discussion about whether domestic
partnerships were equivalent to marriage, which was the *only* point
under discussion?

If you have something unrelated to say, it is far better to start
a new thread.

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Nov 3, 8:03 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> LeRoy Blue <leroyb...@billon.net> writes:
>> > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 19:31:50 -0800, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill
>> > Z.) wrote:
>>
>>
>> > The people contend that two people of the same sex cannot marry. A
>> > marriage can only be the joining of one man and one woman. Equivalency
>> > is not a factor.
>>
>> The "equivalency," in case you didn't notice, was the topic of
>> discussion.  If you are not interested in that topic, then post
>> a follow up to something else.
>
> It was not, you jackass.

It was the topic, you fool: go back to the first message I replied
to and that was what was being discussed.

>> >>I might also add that there are any number of reasons to vote no on
>> >>Proposition Eight regardless of one's opinion about same-sex
>> >>marriages.  One reason is that Proposition Eight would insert text
>> >>into Article I, Section 7 (the new text being in Article I, section
>> >>7.5) that is simply out of place.
>>
>> > No, the people think it's entirely appropriate.
>>
>> No, there is no evidence of that regardless of how the vote turns out.
>> A large number of voters don't think about such issues at all and are
>> merely influenced by the TV ads they see.
>
> Is it not fortunate for you people that informed consent is not
> one of the requirements to vote? :-))

Whom exactly do you mean by "you people"?  And where do you think
"informed consent" comes in?  Do you even know what the phrase
means and where it is typically used?

On Oct 30, 7:19 pm, "A Browne" <Rpalino@mailandnews..com> wrote:
> > But to vote "no" is to condone the sexual promiscuity that is rampant
> > among male homosexuals
>
> Gee, when we instituted HETERO marriage...THAT really condoned the sexual
> promiscuity of *straight* people, didn't it?
>
> > and which results in them being the No.1 vector
> > of HIV/AIDS and other STDs in the US.
>
> Well, lucky we didn't make laws against heterosexuality when all the
> straight men were spreading ghonnorhhea during the 40's/50's/60's, huh?
> Promiscuity is not soley a homosexual issue...as you seem to be trying to
> point out.)

As an ex-health care worker I feel compelled to assure you
there is a world of difference between gonorrhea and AIDS.
Unlike HIV infection, clap becomes symptomatic within a
few days after exposure, and can be cured within two weeks
with penicillin. Normal transmission of the HIV virus between
individuals is entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual
contact which is predominant among homosexual men. As
far as I know, to this day, there is no cure for the gay plague.
If Mayor Feinstein did not close the gay bath houses in 1988,
the City would almost certainly have a different cultural and
political complexion today. In my opinion, that is her most
significant legacy, although I don't think she ever got any
credit for that from the fags ;-)

>
> > Male homosexuality and its
> > consequences are a clear and present danger to the well being of the
> > US Society.
>
> Global warming?  Espionage?  Quality of life?  Terrorism?  Inflation?
> Pollution?
>
> I didn't realize male homosexuals were responsible for all of that!

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

>  Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
> entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
> predominant among homosexual men.

Would you care to revise that statement?  It is the "entirely" part
that is wrong.  The probability of infection per sex act is highest
for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.

It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
completely safe when it isn't.

Bill Z. wrote:
> kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:
>
> >  Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
> > entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
> > predominant among homosexual men.
>
> Would you care to revise that statement?  It is the "entirely" part
> that is wrong.  The probability of infection per sex act is highest
> for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
> ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
>
> It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
> completely safe when it isn't.

That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
How could it not be?

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>> kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:
>>
>> >  Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
>> > entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
>> > predominant among homosexual men.
>>
>> Would you care to revise that statement?  It is the "entirely" part
>> that is wrong.  The probability of infection per sex act is highest
>> for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
>> ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
>>
>> It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
>> completely safe when it isn't.
>
> That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
> among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
> to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
> among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
> for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
> the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
> blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
> in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
> How could it not be?

My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
meant, was wrong.  If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
"entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
was zero and that simply isn't the case.

You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
when you state such experience up front.

If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
imagined.

Bill Z. wrote:
> kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:
>
> > Bill Z. wrote:
> >> kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >  Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
> >> > entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
> >> > predominant among homosexual men.
> >>
> >> Would you care to revise that statement?  It is the "entirely" part
> >> that is wrong.  The probability of infection per sex act is highest
> >> for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
> >> ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
> >>
> >> It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
> >> completely safe when it isn't.
> >
> > That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
> > among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
> > to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
> > among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
> > for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
> > the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
> > blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
> > in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
> > How could it not be?
>
> My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
> meant, was wrong.  If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
> you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
> "entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
> was zero and that simply isn't the case.
>
> You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
> have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
> members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
> when you state such experience up front.
>
> If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
> what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
> imagined.

There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
other topics - even today, it is not easy to look up actual
HIV/AIDS statistics, which are obscured in public health
papers and scientific publications under tons of other irrele-
vant data, and almost never presented in the mainstream
media, but they are there for anyone to see, who actually
cares to look - and your quick retreat behind ideological
labels clearly indicates where *you* are coming from ;-)

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>> kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:
>> > How could it not be?
>>
>> My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
>> meant, was wrong.  If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
>> you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
>> "entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
>> was zero and that simply isn't the case.
>>
>> You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
>> have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
>> members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
>> when you state such experience up front.
>>
>> If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
>> what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
>> imagined.
>
> There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
> through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
> subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
> other topics ...

What a moron!  The facts are that the transmission rate for HIV per
sex act is nonzero for oral sex and for heterosexual intercourse (for
either partner).  What was misleading about what you said was your
statement that "Normal transmission of the HIV virus between
individuals is entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual
contact," and in English that use of "entirely" and "specific type"
implies a risk of zero for anything else.

Those are the facts - the rates have been measured - and it is *you*
who are refusing to deal with that.

It's real simple.  Look up the data in some tables provided by
health-care professionals and note that certain numbers are not
zero.  That's all there is to it.  If you want some sort of
discussion about various individuals' sex lives, try somewhere else,
like a dating web site or something.  I have no interest in that
sort of a discussion.

I'm not sure what your hangup is, but your inability to understand
a very simple comment really makes me doubt your intelligence.

On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> > Bill Z. wrote:
> >> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> >> > How could it not be?
>
> >> My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
> >> meant, was wrong.  If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
> >> you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
> >> "entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
> >> was zero and that simply isn't the case.
>
> >> You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
> >> have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
> >> members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
> >> when you state such experience up front.
>
> >> If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
> >> what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
> >> imagined.
>
> > There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
> > through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
> > subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
> > other topics ...
>
> What a moron!  The facts are that the transmission rate for HIV per
> sex act is nonzero for oral sex and for heterosexual intercourse (for
> either partner).  What was misleading about what you said was your
> statement that "Normal transmission of the HIV virus between
> individuals is entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual
> contact," and in English that use of "entirely" and "specific type"
> implies a risk of zero for anything else.
>
> Those are the facts - the rates have been measured - and it is *you*
> who are refusing to deal with that.
>
> It's real simple.  Look up the data in some tables provided by
> health-care professionals and note that certain numbers are not
> zero.  That's all there is to it.  If you want some sort of
> discussion about various individuals' sex lives, try somewhere else,
> like a dating web site or something.  I have no interest in that
> sort of a discussion.
>
> I'm not sure what your hangup is, but your inability to understand
> a very simple comment really makes me doubt your intelligence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The chance of our civilization being snuffed by a giant
meteor is nonzero as well. Does anybody give a fuck
about that? If you really have no other point, why didn't
you say so at the top to spare me this excruciating
exchange?

On Dec 3, 4:45 pm, Hnic Hastogo <n.has.to...@kinky-kooks.Kom> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:45:58 -0800 (PST), kujebak
>
> <kuje...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bill Z. wrote:
> >> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>
> >> > Bill Z. wrote:
> >> >> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>
> >> >> >  Normal transmission of the HIV virus between individuals is
> >> >> > entirely dependent on a specific type of sexual contact which is
> >> >> > predominant among homosexual men.
>
> >> >> Would you care to revise that statement?  It is the "entirely" part
> >> >> that is wrong.  The probability of infection per sex act is highest
> >> >> for one particular sexual practice, but it is not zero for other
> >> >> ones, including ones common among heterosexuals.
>
> >> >> It's bad form to send out messages that suggest something is
> >> >> completely safe when it isn't.
>
> >> > That was not my point. My point was that normal sex
> >> > among homosexual men is far more risky, with respect
> >> > to HIV transmission, than normal sex (including oral sex)
> >> > among heterosexuals, to the tune of something like 20%
> >> > for the former compared to one tenth of one percent for
> >> > the latter. What is *your* point? That HIV is not just a pro-
> >> > blem of homosexual lifestyle? A disease that spreads
> >> > in the human population predominantly by anal intercourse?
> >> > How could it not be?
>
> >> My point was that what you wrote, regardless of what you probably
> >> meant, was wrong.  If you weren't a jerk (as you turned out to be)
> >> you would have merely posted a correction: your use of the word
> >> "entirely" meant that the risk for any other type of sexual activity
> >> was zero and that simply isn't the case.
>
> >> You claimed to have some health care experience. If so, you should
> >> have realized that posting misleading information that unknowledgable
> >> members of the public might see is not a good idea, particularly
> >> when you state such experience up front.
>
> >> If you weren't so bigoted (you obviously are) you would have realized
> >> what I was saying - it had nothing to do with "lifestyles" real or
> >> imagined.
>
> >There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
> >through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
> >subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
> >other topics - even today, it is not easy to look up actual
> >HIV/AIDS statistics, which are obscured in public health
> >papers and scientific publications under tons of other irrele-
> >vant data, and almost never presented in the mainstream
> >media, but they are there for anyone to see, who actually
> >cares to look - and your quick retreat behind ideological
> >labels clearly indicates where *you* are coming from ;-)
>
> June 27, 2008 / 57(25);681-686
>
> Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- 33
> States, 2001--2006
>
> In 2008, CDC conducted an analysis of trends in diagnoses of human
> immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS)
> among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the 33 states* that have had
> confidential, name-based HIV case reporting since at least 2001. This
> report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicated that
> the number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses among MSM overall during 2001--2006
> increased 8.6% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC] = 1.5).
> During 2001--2006, an estimated 214,379 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed
> in the 33 states. Of these diagnoses, 46% were in MSM, and 4% were in
> MSM who engaged in illicit injection-drug use (IDU) (i.e., MSM and
> IDU). To reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS in the United States, HIV
> prevention services that aim to reduce the risk for acquiring and
> transmitting infection among MSM and link infected MSM to treatment
> must be expanded.
>
> In this report, HIV/AIDS refers to three categories of diagnoses
> collectively: 1) a diagnosis of HIV infection (not AIDS), 2) a
> diagnosis of HIV infection with subsequent AIDS diagnosis, and 3)
> concurrent diagnoses of HIV infection and AIDS. Reporting cases of HIV
> infection (not AIDS) and AIDS is now legally mandated in all U.S.
> states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories. The CDC
> case definition for HIV infection (not AIDS) requires a positive test
> result from an assay approved by the Food and Drug Administration that
> demonstrates evidence of HIV infection; the case definition for AIDS
> requires meeting the HIV infection (not AIDS) case definition, plus
> diagnosis of at least one AIDS-defining illness or a CD4+ T-lymphocyte
> count of <200 cells/µL.  Using the HIV/AIDS Reporting System (HARS),
> case report data were collected by local and state health department
> staff members and then transmitted to CDC devoid of patient names. The
> findings in this report are based on HIV/AIDS diagnoses made during
> 2001--2006 and reported to CDC as of June 30, 2007 (1).
>
> Numbers of diagnoses were adjusted for reporting delays and for
> redistribution of cases with missing risk factor information, using a
> standard method that has been described previously (2). This method
> does not include statistical adjustments for diagnosed but unreported
> cases or for cases yet to be diagnosed. To facilitate comparisons
> between the estimated number of diagnoses occurring in 2001 and the
> number occurring in 2006, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were
> calculated. To examine trends, EAPCs with corresponding CIs were
> calculated. EAPC measures the differences between adjacent years under
> examination and then averages these inter-year differences. In this
> report, transmission categories¤ are discrete (e.g., "MSM" is distinct
> from "MSM and IDU" and "IDU" is distinct from "MSM and IDU").
> Accordingly, MSM who were also injection-drug users (MSM and IDU) were
> excluded from analysis of MSM.
>
> Of 214,379 HIV/AIDS diagnoses in 33 states during 2001--2006, a total
> of 97,577 (46%) were among MSM. Decreases in diagnoses were observed
> in all transmission categories except MSM (excluding MSM and IDU)
> (Figure 1). Among males, MSM accounted for 97,577 (63%) of cases. Men
> aged 25--44 years accounted for 64% of cases among MSM (Table). Among
> MSM, the number of diagnoses increased from 16,081 (CI =
> 15,784--16,377) in 2001 to 17,465 (CI = 16,938--17,992) in 2006; (EAPC
> = 1.5) (Figure 1).
>
> From 2001 to 2006, a 12.4% (EAPC = 1.9) increase in the number of
> HIV/AIDS diagnoses among all black MSM was observed; however, an
> increase of 93.1% (EAPC = 14.9) was observed among black MSM aged
> 13--24 years (Figure 2). During 2001--2006, approximately twice as
> many (7,658) diagnoses occurred in black MSM aged 13--24 years as in
> their white counterparts (3,221). The largest proportionate increase
> (255.6% [EAPC = 30.8]) was among Asian/Pacific Islander MSM aged
> 13--24 years. Among MSM aged 13--24 years, statistically significant
> increases in diagnoses as measured by EAPC were observed in all
> racial/ethnic populations except American Indian/Alaska Natives. Among
> MSM of all ages, statistically significant increases as measured by
> EAPC were observed in blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders.¦
>
> Reported by: A Mitsch, MPH, X Hu, MS, K McDavid Harrison, PhD, T
> Durant, PhD, Div of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS,
> Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, CDC.
> Editorial Note:
>
> During 2001--2006, male-to-male sex remained the largest HIV
> transmission category in the United States and the only one associated
> with an increasing number of HIV/AIDS diagnoses. In this analysis,
> statistically significant decreases in HIV/AIDS diagnoses were
> observed for all other transmission categories (i.e., among persons
> likely to have been infected through high-risk heterosexual contact,
> IDU, MSM and IDU, and other routes). Among MSM aged 13--24 years,
> statistically significant increases in diagnoses were observed in
> nearly all racial/ethnic populations. These findings underscore the
> need for continued effective testing and risk reduction interventions
> for MSM, particularly those aged <25 years.
>
> The data in this report indicate when persons were diagnosed with HIV
> infection, rather than when they became infected. This is an important
> distinction because a person might have been infected with HIV for
> years before receiving a diagnosis of HIV infection. Determining when
> persons who have been diagnosed were actually infected is difficult.
> Although HIV diagnosis data can provide some indication of underlying
> trends in HIV infection, this approach has limitations. A greater
> number of tests for HIV infection among MSM might partially explain
> the observed increase in HIV/AIDS diagnoses. However, available data
> suggest that these increases cannot be explained by increases in
> testing alone; the increase could be attributed to more targeted
> testing, increasing incidence, or some combination of these.**
>
> To improve the nation's ability to track new HIV infections, CDC has
> established a new system for measuring incident HIV infections at the
> population level. A novel laboratory method will be combined with
> standard case surveillance procedures and statistical estimations to
> provide a better means of estimating national HIV incidence from the
> number of persons who are newly diagnosed with HIV (3). This system
> will be able to distinguish between recent and long-standing HIV-1
> infection on a population level. Estimates from the new system are
> expected to be available in 2008. The new system will provide a better
> tool for measuring progress in the prevention of HIV infection than
> data based on HIV/AIDS diagnoses alone, such as those described in
> this report. Nevertheless, diagnosis data will continue to play an
> important role in monitoring the HIV epidemic, particularly among
> adolescents and young adults who, because of their age, are unlikely
> to have been infected many years before diagnosis. Additionally,
> HIV/AIDS diagnosis data will continue to provide useful information
> for evaluating efforts to increase HIV testing and will allow programs
> that do not conduct HIV incidence surveillance to monitor the HIV
> epidemic in their local area.
>
> The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations.
> First, the 33-state case surveillance data are not representative of
> all HIV-positive persons in the United States. However, the
> racial/ethnic disparities described in this report are similar to
> those observed in AIDS cases from all 50 states (4). Second, since
> 1993, the proportion of HIV/AIDS cases reported to CDC without an
> identified risk factor for HIV infection has been increasing. In 2006,
> no risk factor was reported for 25% of HIV (not AIDS) adult and
> adolescent cases reported to CDC (4). This results in an increasing
> proportion of cases that are assigned to transmission categories
> (including male-to-male sexual contact) not based on interview with
> patients, but rather via statistical adjustment. Risk factor
> information often is missing because patients decline to disclose
> behaviors that might place them at risk for HIV transmission or are
> unaware of their sex partners' high-risk behavior. Third, methods for
> reporting delay adjustments have greatest uncertainty for the most
> recent years' estimates of HIV/AIDS diagnoses; therefore, recent
> trends should be interpreted with caution. Finally, a backlog of cases
> diagnosed earlier than recorded in the data might have exaggerated the
> number of diagnoses in the first 2--3 years after name-based HIV (not
> AIDS) case reporting was implemented (5). For example, retrospective
> ascertainment of name-based HIV case reports might have resulted in a
> substantial number of cases that were recorded as diagnosed during
> 2001--2002 but were actually diagnosed earlier. New York's
> implementation of name-based HIV reporting in June 2000 might have
> magnified the effect of this backlog on the 33-state trend analysis
> because New York data represented 21% of all HIV/AIDS diagnoses during
> 2001--2006. After exclusion of New York from this analysis, however,
> an even larger statistically significant increase in HIV/AIDS
> diagnoses among MSM was observed during 2001--2006 (EAPC = 3.1 [CI =
> 2.4--3.9]).
>
> To reduce transmission of HIV among MSM of all races/ethnicities,
> prevention strategies should be strengthened, improved, and
> implemented more broadly. Testing is important in preventing HIV
> transmission because it provides knowledge of one's infection status;
> after persons become aware that they are HIV positive, most reduce
> their high-risk sexual behavior (6). In addition, an estimated 25% of
> HIV-infected persons have not received a diagnosis of HIV infection
> (7). These persons represent a challenge in terms of HIV prevention
> and case ascertainment. Moreover, testing is the first step to linking
> persons infected with HIV to medical care. CDC recommends at least
> annual testing for sexually active MSM and an "opt-out" approach for
> screening of all patients aged 13--64 years in clinical settings (8).
>
> Ulcerative and nonulcerative sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such
> as syphilis and gonorrhea facilitate HIV transmission from infected
> MSM and acquisition of HIV by noninfected MSM; therefore, screening
> for STDs in private and public clinical settings is an important
> component of HIV prevention in MSM (9). STD and HIV prevention efforts
> should be as fully integrated as possible. Furthermore, associations
> have been observed between abuse of illicit and legal drugs such as
> methamphetamine and alcohol, respectively, and high-risk behavior
> among MSM. Screening for substance abuse in private and public
> clinical settings is an important tool for reducing HIV
> transmission.   Strengthened collaborations between STD, HIV, viral
> hepatitis, and substance abuse programs should result in more
> effective HIV prevention efforts.
>
> CDC assists in the creation, development, and dissemination of
> behavioral interventions for the MSM population. Recently, in
> collaboration with the state health department and local organizations
> in North Carolina, CDC implemented a successful intervention for young
> black MSM (10). This intervention has resulted in decreases in
> high-risk sexual behavior and the number of sex partners with whom
> such behavior occurred. CDC recommends that state and local health
> departments allocate HIV prevention resources to ensure that program
> operations reflect the current state of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the
> geographic areas for which each health department is responsible. In
> support of CDC's strategic goal of reducing the number of new HIV
> infections in the United States,¤¤ the proportion of MSM who adopt
> behaviors that reduce risk for HIV transmission must increase.
> References
>
>    1. CDC. HIV/AIDS Reporting System (HARS) user manual. Atlanta, GA:
> US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2000.
>    2. Green TA. Using surveillance data to monitor trends in the AIDS
> epidemic. Stat Med 1998;17:143--54.
>    3. Lee LM, McKenna MT. Monitoring the incidence of HIV infection in
> the United States. Public Health Rep 2007;122(Suppl 1):72--9.
>    4. CDC. HIV/AIDS surveillance report, 2006. Vol. 18. Atlanta, GA:
> US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2008:12. Available athttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports.
>    5. Torian L, Bennani1 Y, Wethers J, Schwendemann J, Nash D. Use of
> the serologic testing algorithm for recent HIV seroconversion to
> assess specificity of routine surveillance to detection of incident vs
> prevalent HIV: evaluation of the first 2 years of named HIV reporting,
> New York City, June 1, 2000 to June 30, 2002. 11th Conference on
> Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, 2004. Session 135 poster
> abstract. Available athttp://www.retroconference.org/2004/cd/abstract/964.htm.
>    6. Marks G, Crepaz N, Senterfitt JW, Janssen RS. Meta-analysis of
> high-risk sexual behavior in persons aware and unaware they are
> infected with HIV in the United States: implications for HIV
> prevention programs. J Aquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005;39:446--53.
>    7. Glynn M, Rhodes P. Estimated HIV prevalence in the United States
> at the end of 2003 [Abstract T1-B1101]. Programs and abstracts of the
> 2005 National HIV Prevention Conference; June 12--15, 2005; Atlanta,
> GA. Available athttp://www.aegis.com/conferences/nhivpc/2005/t1-b1101.html.
>    8. CDC. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults,
> adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. MMWR
> 2006;55(No. RR-14).
>    9. Fleming DT, Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to
> public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually
> transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex
> Transm Infect 1999;75:3--17.
>   10. Jones KT, Gray P, Whiteside YO, et al. Evaluation of an HIV
> prevention intervention adapted for black men who have sex with men.
> Am J Public Health 2008;98:1043--50.

Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
man through unprotected homosex?

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Dec 3, 3:30 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>>
>> It's real simple.  Look up the data in some tables provided by
>> health-care professionals and note that certain numbers are not
>> zero.  That's all there is to it.  If you want some sort of
>> discussion about various individuals' sex lives, try somewhere else,
>> like a dating web site or something.  I have no interest in that
>> sort of a discussion.
>>
>> I'm not sure what your hangup is, but your inability to understand
>> a very simple comment really makes me doubt your intelligence.-
>
> The chance of our civilization being snuffed by a giant
> meteor is nonzero as well. Does anybody give a fuck
> about that? If you really have no other point, why didn't
> you say so at the top to spare me this excruciating
> exchange?

Why didn't you just admit you were wrong?  I might add that, if you
look at the CDC data, you'd know that the risk of heterosexual
transmission is a hell of a lot higher than the risk of being hit by a
meteor (which won't snuff our civilization out BTW - you need an
asteroid or something of comparable mass to do that).  Suggesting that
the risk is zero and repeating it over and over is simply
irresponsible.

You seem to get everything wrong.  Why is that?

Hnic Hastogo <n.has.to.go@kinky-kooks.Kom> writes:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:45:58 -0800 (PST), kujebak
> <kujebak@eudoramail.com> wrote:

>>There is nothing "misleading" in what I said. I merely cut
>>through decades of willful misinformation piled upon this
>>subject. Your refusal to deal with facts underlying this and
>>other topics - even today, it is not easy to look up actual
>>HIV/AIDS statistics, which are obscured in public health
>>papers and scientific publications under tons of other irrele-
>>vant data, and almost never presented in the mainstream
>>media, but they are there for anyone to see, who actually
>>cares to look - and your quick retreat behind ideological
>>labels clearly indicates where *you* are coming from ;-)
>
> June 27, 2008 / 57(25);681-686
>
> Trends in HIV/AIDS Diagnoses Among Men Who Have Sex with Men --- 33
> States, 2001--2006
>
<snip>
> increased 8.6% (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC] = 1.5).
> During 2001--2006, an estimated 214,379 persons had HIV/AIDS diagnosed
> in the 33 states. Of these diagnoses, 46% were in MSM, and 4% were in
> MSM who engaged in illicit injection-drug use (IDU) (i.e., MSM and
> IDU).

The data you provided is incomplete (cutting and pasting everything is
tedious), but it you take both categories and the IDU category (by
itself), you end up with a significant number of cases transmitted via
heterosexual sex - which is nearly all of what is left due to things
like blood transfusions now being very safe.

And that's the point - you don't want to give people the idea that
the risk is zero when it isn't.

That kujebak guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
> racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
> probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
> man through unprotected homosex?

You might look at 
<http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-eng.php>
which claims:

      One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
      transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
      determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
      probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
      intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
      intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
      available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
      further study is required to corroborate these estimates.

Also:

      Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
      long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
      probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
      intercourse to be approximately 0.001.

Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%.  So, the risk depends less on
whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
and what sort of protection you use.


This information is not hard to find - a trivial google search was all
that was needed.  Previously you wrote "As an ex-health care worker I
feel compelled to assure you ..." (this quote was in the post
<news:6369ac2f-7573-4867-beeb-813b1d2e0c9f@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>).
Exactly what sort of health-care experience did you have?  Changing
bed pans?  You seem to know next to nothing about the topics you are
ranting about.

On Dec 3, 7:58 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> > Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
> > racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
> > probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
> > man through unprotected homosex?
>
> You might look at
> <http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-en...>
> which claims:
>
>       One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
>       transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
>       determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
>       probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
>       intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
>       intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
>       available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
>       further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
>
> Also:
>
>       Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
>       long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
>       probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
>       intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
>
> Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%.  So, the risk depends less on
> whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
> and what sort of protection you use.
>
> This information is not hard to find - a trivial google search was all
> that was needed.  Previously you wrote "As an ex-health care worker I
> feel compelled to assure you ..." (this quote was in the post
> <news:6369ac2f-7573-4867-beeb-813b1d2e0c9f@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>).

Isn't it interesting that you picked figures that sort of made
your point instead of those that would corroborate mine.
It is clear the 0.0082 is a statistical extrapolation from
the general male homosexual population involving sexual
contact between individuals of *undetermined* HIV status.
There is no indication in your paragraph that one of the
sex partners was known to be HIV positive. However, the
same article also states:

"The risk of HIV transmission through unprotected anal and
vaginal intercourse is well known. Estimates of the probability
of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with ejaculation)
HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range
from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1
to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection."

Thank you for helping me close this debate ;-)

> Exactly what sort of health-care experience did you have?  Changing
> bed pans?  You seem to know next to nothing about the topics you are
> ranting about.

I used to be a medical technologist. One of the principal
reasons I got out of the profession was the irresponsibility
of the HIPAA (patient privacy) rules to health and safety
of health care workers. The HIPAA regulations surrounding
HIV/AIDS are driven to large extent by he same sort of dis-
information you are trying to disseminate here.

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Dec 3, 7:58 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
>> > Who cares about HIV incidence among IV drug users, or different
>> > racial groups? Is there anywhere in this report a mention of the
>> > probability of HIV transmission from an HIV positive male to another
>> > man through unprotected homosex?
>>
>> You might look at
>> <http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/epi_update_may_04/13-en...>
>> which claims:
>>
>>       One study calculated the per-sex-act probability of HIV
>>       transmission in a cohort of men who have sex with men (MSM) and
>>       determined that for unprotected receptive anal intercourse, the
>>       probability was 0.82% per act, for unprotected insertive anal
>>       intercourse 0.06%, and for unprotected receptive oral
>>       intercourse with ejaculation 0.04%. This remains the only study
>>       available that provides a probability for oral transmission, and
>>       further study is required to corroborate these estimates.
>>
>> Also:
>>
>>       Analyses of data from North American and European studies of
>>       long-term heterosexual couples estimate the per-sex-act
>>       probability of HIV transmission through penile-vaginal
>>       intercourse to be approximately 0.001.
>>
>> Note that 0.001 is equivalent to 0.1%.  So, the risk depends less on
>> whether you are gay or straight than on what sort of sex acts you do
>> and what sort of protection you use.
>>
>> This information is not hard to find - a trivial google search was all
>> that was needed.  Previously you wrote "As an ex-health care worker I
>> feel compelled to assure you ..." (this quote was in the post
>> <news:6369ac2f-7573-4867-beeb-813b1d2e0c9f@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>).
>
> Isn't it interesting that you picked figures that sort of made
> your point instead of those that would corroborate mine.

What a friggin liar you are!  You asked, "Who cares about HIV
incidence among IV drug users, or different racial groups? Is there
anywhere in this report a mention of the probability of HIV
transmission from an HIV positive male to another man through
unprotected homosex?"  I provided that data for you and showed you
that the risk for heterosexual transmission was not trivial and
that the risk for some (but not all) gay sexual acts is lower than
the risk for heterosexual intercourse.

> It is clear the 0.0082 is a statistical extrapolation from
> the general male homosexual population involving sexual
> contact between individuals of *undetermined* HIV status.

Wrong - it is a measurement of the transmission probability per
sex act given that one partner is already infected.

> There is no indication in your paragraph that one of the
> sex partners was known to be HIV positive. 

Yes there is, you friggin moron: read the article I cited.

When it said (and you quoted this) "Estimates of the probability
of per-sex-act (receptive penile-anal intercourse with ejaculation)
HIV transmission among homosexual men in the USA range
from 0.005 to 0.03 during the asymptomatic phase of infection1
to as high as 0.1-0.3 during primary HIV infection," it should
be very obvious that the article was discussing the transmission
rate per sex act betwen an infected individual and a previously
uninfected individual.

You can't even understand the stuff you try to quote!

BTW, (unprotected) receptive penile-anal intercourse is practiced only
by a fraction of the gay and straight populations. So, as I said, the
risk factors per sex act depend on what you do, not whether you are
gay or straight or somewhere in between.

>> Exactly what sort of health-care experience did you have?  Changing
>> bed pans?  You seem to know next to nothing about the topics you are
>> ranting about.
>
> I used to be a medical technologist. 

I.e., you are not a doctor, nor a researcher of any sort.

> One of the principal reasons I got out of the profession was the
> irresponsibility of the HIPAA (patient privacy) rules to health and
> safety of health care workers. The HIPAA regulations surrounding
> HIV/AIDS are driven to large extent by he same sort of dis-
> information you are trying to disseminate here.

Medical research and CDC reports are not "disinformation".
But I can tell you what you are - a complete idiot.