Nope. According to the stats, it's men in general, whether they have sex with women or with other men.
In fact, when men have sex with women, the consequences are actually far more devastating; there are many common STDs- such as Chlamydia (which causes only mild discomfort in men, but can and frequently does lead to pelvic inflammatory disease and subsequent sterility in women; it is in fact the leading cause of infertility in females) and HPV (which is so incredibly common that over 75% of sexually-active adults have had it at one time or another, and which causes either no symptoms or only harmless genital warts in men, but can lead to cervical cancer in women)- which are much more damaging (even potentially fatal) to women, while not being particularly serious in men.

Men are the problem. Heterosexual men- those who have sex with women- present a particular problem, as I've shown above. Chlamydia and HPV are the two most common STDs in the United States. They can leave women sterile or dead of cancer, but they don't have any serious effect on men. That is a problem.

Do you suppose we should we address it by banning heterosexual marriage, or hetero-sex in general?

Gay females have an extremely low rate of STDs. Heterosexual females have a much higher rate, because of their contact with men. And of course, men who have sexual contact with men also have a high rate (although one could argue that at least they are equally affected by whatever diseases they're passing among themselves, unlike women and men, so they have equal motivation to practice safe sex).

It's a logical end of your approach! When the 14th has no limits (your approach) there is no need for anything else.

Ya know, the only person here who keeps talking about causality is you. I have NOT claimed homosexuality CAUSES STDs, and I challenge you show where I have. You're basically being disingenuous.

Yes. (You see, you really can admit when you've viewed/read something, Foundit. It's ok, really.) And again, that is NOT what he's saying.

So just that few people think it's limited, eh? (Oh how you like to toy with words, Foundit, at the sacrifice of substance!!)

"HIV and Syphilis Rates More than 140 Times Higher among MSM in New York"

__________________

"A rising tide has lifted all yachts." Warren Buffett

Obama is not a dark skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free health care; you're thinking of Jesus.

I propose that only lesbian marriages be sanctioned by the government. Based on our rates of HIV infection, we are obviously The Chosen Ones.

__________________

"A rising tide has lifted all yachts." Warren Buffett

Obama is not a dark skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free health care; you're thinking of Jesus.

Who cares?
New York is one place. I'm talking about the entire country.
And the rates of HIV and Syphilis (who gives a good goddamn about f'ing Syphilis anyhow? Syphilis is a joke. A single intramuscular injection of penicillin- or ten days of oral penicillin- will cure Syphilis. It's only dangerous to women- pregnant women, specifically. It causes their babies to be born blind and mentally retarded, as my great-uncle was, in the days before penicillin was discovered. Since the WWII era, however, Syphilis has been no threat to anyone in the US) are NOTHING compared to the rates of other diseases, STDs that kill thousands of women nationwide each year (but don't really have any appreciable effect on the men who infected them).

The REALLY COMMON STDs- the most common ones, by far- are HPV and Chlamydia.
They are leaving women sterile and causing them to die of cancer.
Women catch them from men. MSW. men-who-have-sex-with-women.
And that's NOT just in New York City, it's all over the entire country and in fact the entire world.
Does that not alarm you in the least?
Don't you feel the need to do something about it, to take some kind of action to prevent it?
Men are diseased. Women, clearly, are not, since lesbians don't get these diseases.
Should men be allowed to have sexual contact with women?
Should they be allowed to have sexual contact at all?
Maybe they should all be quarantined or something.

And yet again, Joe Shoe is challenged to back up his position and he can't...

I'll repeat myself...
Quote what other parts of the constitution I have thrown out.

If your statements are true, you should be able to do it...
But we both know that strawman is your only friend here, and you can't back up your claims.


You fail to recognize that UNLESS YOU PROVE CAUSALITY, you can't win the "STD" argument.
If gay sex does not inherently cause the high transmission of STDs (and is instead just a correlative factor), then you can't punish the whole group for something they aren't guilty of...

But congratulations on (for once) not arguing something you can't prove.
Sad part is, you don't recognize you NEED to prove it...


Dude.
You are obviously comfortable with lying or you fail at reading comprehension.
That IS what he is saying...

What Are the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts?

1. “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1 enumerates the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];

b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of parties” jurisdiction];

c) Between several States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;2 or between a State (or its Citizens) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects 3 [“diversity” jurisdiction].

These are the ONLY cases federal courts have permission to hear!

My GAWD you fail at comprehending words...
It is actually mind-boggling. It would be embarrassing for you if you could ever recognize the depths of your repeated failures...

Can you ACTUALLY QUOTE ME in where you think I have contradicted myself in the above statement?
Then, I'll refer to the actual context of my statement (which you are intent on ignoring)...
And then you'll try to change the subject.

If you don't cowardly avoid YET ANOTHER challenge...

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Well, hopefully a lot of people, as this is a serious issue. But I was simply showing you the stat was not men in general, which your previous post seemed to suggest.

Hope in one hand, sh!t in the other. See which one fills up first.

People who care about the STDs care about the root causes of the STDs and how they are spread.

People (such as yourself) who care about bashing gays are the ones that is REALLY the root context of that question "Who cares?"

See, the funny thing in your approach is that NOT ONCE have you shown any concern over reducing the STDs....
Just in how you can use it against gays....

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln