<p><em>And I am very against these religious people trying to teach ONLY abstinance!</em></p>
<p>Fair enough, so am I, because it seems that most of the time whenever people try this it results in abstinence being thrown out completely (since of course the idea that people can choose not to have sex is a Judeo-Christian thing only, no people of any other religions can make such a choice*) and the kids never hear of it at all. I'm sure you can understand that I'm also against groups that try to teach ONLY contraception.</p>
<p>Most of the AIDS alarmists don't understand that it is a disease that's largely confined to its risk groups, because they've never looked at any real statistics. That's why it never materialized here as an epidemic.</p>
<p>Edit: Risk groups meaning homosexual males and IV drug users (or both)</p>
<p>Although it should be obvious to any thinking person, this in no way implies that I'm making some kind of value statement about the risk groups. </p>
<p>I will, however, delve into morality when it comes to those who would use the disease as a political tool to manipulate others, and further their agenda. Such as one who would make a post entitled "Stop the Spread of AIDS: Don't Fornicate."</p>
<p>
[quote]
The secular view of marriage seems to me to be rather cheap and fragile in comparison... it is, I think, the reason why most of them don't last. Two things are missing: God and theology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you want to check that again? Conservative Christian sects tend to have HIGHER rates of divorce, while atheists and agnostics tend to the bottom (Catholics and Lutherans were the only groups with similar rates to them). So, the idea of "a family that prays together stays together" isn't necessarily true...</p>
<p>"Conservative Christian sects tend to have HIGHER rates of divorce, while atheists and agnostics tend to the bottom (Catholics and Lutherans were the only groups with similar rates to them). So, the idea of "a family that prays together stays together" isn't necessarily true..."</p>
<p>True, and I agree with the point of what you're saying, but remember that these statistics are probably skewed, a lot of atheist and agnostic long-term couples don't get married at all, and they just live together. And when they leave each other it is of course unofficial/unrecorded so those separations don't get counted under divorce, and it misleads you into thinking that agnostic/atheist couples stay together longer. I mean, that may be true, but this statistic certainly can't prove it.</p>
<p>Actually, since the late 90s, the biggest risk group has been African-American women who have heterosexual sex. MSM is still a risk group, but not like it was in the 1980s.</p>
<p>
[quote]
True, and I agree with the point of what you're saying, but remember that these statistics are probably skewed, a lot of atheist and agnostic long-term couples don't get married at all, and they just live together and leave each other unofficially so those separations don't get counted under divorce.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And...?</p>
<p>They weren't married. Period. They were in a cohab relationship.</p>
<p>Yes, exactly.
The statistics attempt to prove that Christian long-term couples have higher separation rates.
But, the statistic is flawed. Lots of agnostic and atheist long-term couples choose not to marry--this is something conservative Christians wouldn't consider since it's considered wrong to "live together." When these long-term atheist couples separate, it doesn't go on the record as a divorce because they weren't married and there was no contract. So in reality atheist couples could separate even more often than Christian couples but we can't tell because these couples aren't always married officially.
I mean, a cohab relationship could last for several years. That sounds long-term to me. And a marriage ending in divorce often lasts just that same amount. So cohab relationships that eventually end and marriages ending in divorce aren't necessarily all that different--they are comparable.</p>
<p>Remember that I am just quibbling. I agree with the point of the statistic which is that christian traditional marriage isn't the necessary kind to have a good marriage. In fact I disagree but that's my inner pagan talking.</p>
<p>No, it proves that MARRIED Christian couples have a higher DIVORCE rate. It's not flawed. </p>
<p>FeR said
[quote]
The secular view of marriage seems to me to be rather cheap and fragile in comparison... it is, I think, the reason why most of them don't last. Two things are missing: God and theology.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He was referring to MARRIAGE. I'm referring to MARRIAGE, not to all long term relationships.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The majority of HIV infections occur in heterosexual people... though these groups are at a proportionally higher risk.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, since the late 90s, the biggest risk group has been African-American women who have heterosexual sex. MSM is still a risk group, but not like it was in the 1980s.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't you guys have at least some sense of ethics in research? I might be wrong though. This could actually be a good lesson to everyone on what I'm talking about, so let's see: What are the sources of these claims? Cite them.</p>
<p>"it proves that MARRIED Christian couples have a higher DIVORCE rate. It's not flawed. "</p>
<p>I don't think the living together arrangements need to be considered. My interpretation was that they were comparing MARRIED Christian couples with MARRIED non-Christian couples. In which case, it is not flawed on the basis of not counting cohab arrangements. (There could be other flaws, possibly, but not that one.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're right, there are others (like prostitutes and hemophiliacs), however I simply mentioned the majority. It doesn't really change my point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your "point" has as its basis a mode of thought which was very common in 1987 or so, give or take a few years. </p>
<p>I work a couple of jobs. One of my jobs is working as a volunteer chaplain. You have no idea of the type of backgrounds those on hospice care for AIDS come from. </p>
<p>You might desire to look up the stats for some of these things yourself, freakonomist. Look up the stats on AIDS and HIV from a nice place like your University library. Be sure to look up these things on a proper site like JSTOR (wikipedia will not cut it) and then cut and paste your findings here, if you would like. But, just plainly cut and paste them, do not editorialise them.</p>
<p>This is a dare ^</p>
<p>Or, build a time machine. Build a time machine and try to go back to 1987 or so, where views like yours were more common and valid.</p>
<p>Did anyone notice what he did in his post? How he actually failed to substantively counter anything I said? How it was all rhetoric, with no backing? This is a common tactic, and a lesson to those here--he's trying to appeal to moral sensibilities over reason. His points:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>These opinions were common in the late 1980s. (Actually, a "mode of thought." My mode of thought was statistical analysis, I'm not sure what exactly he is referring to. However, he makes no actual argument here as to why this "mode of thought," and my own, are wrong.)</p></li>
<li><p>He volunteered and met some AIDS victims face-to-face. (Apparently, he relies on ANECDOTAL evidence as backing for his claims.)</p></li>
<li><p>Telling me to look up statistics. (But I've already done that, and he presents none of his own, because he knows they would only confirm my posts.)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Of course, none of that in any way refutes what I've said. He's merely trying to distract rather than prove.</p>
<p>Do you know WHY the transmission is higher among certain groups? Let's start with the basics, since you've obviously spent so little time researching. Here is the likelihood of transmission during specific behaviors:</p>
<p>From male to female (vaginal sex): 17-20%
Female to male (vaginal sex): 2-3%
Male to male (anal sex): 40-50%
IV Needle sharing: 50-65%</p>
<p>This is, of course, WITHOUT a condom. Couple this with the fact that homosexual males have more sexual encounters than heterosexual males, and what do you think happens?</p>
<p>By the way, I get my statistics from the CDC. As can anyone here with ease. I suggest you quit blindlessly moralizing, and instead look at the actual facts.</p>
<p>I am just trying to show whoever is bored enough to read this thread that we should all be careful, really. Making things up is swell and all, but we should all be careful as well as realistic.</p>