WHO warns HIV 'exploding' among gay men.>>MOD WARNING<<

Marriage does not require sex, so not sure of your point, other than avoiding answering the question YOU chose to quote and respond to.

 

Only a man and a woman can consumate marriage. So not sure of your point.

 

As has been pointed out to you, a marriage can be annulled on the basis of failure to consummate it. I have no idea what question your accusing me of avoiding and I don't think that you do either. You keep using that ploy to deflect attention away from the fact that you keep refusing to answer certain questions. You were asked several times: Do you condone adults marrying children and having sex with them? You have refused to provide a clear and unambiguous answer.

 

Not in 47 states. And only a man and a woman can consumate marriage.

 

??? Uh, no. I ignore it because its irrelevant to any of my posts.Just the strawman you scamper after for refuge.

 

Really?. It happens to be one the four most common reasons for an annulment

 

You ignored it because you don't want to answer it. You can't answer it honestly. It was not a strawman or any other kind of argument. It was just a question. OK, so you are on record as REFUSING to say that you are opposed to sex with minors or marrying them off to an adult. Fine I'll wait here while you scamper off and try to find a shred of integrity. Gig deep. Very deep

 

I just did, you are delusional. What part of "no" do you not understand?

 

Really

 

What is this horse(*)(*)(*)(*)? It has nothing to do with consummating a marriage. Have you gone completely off the rails? BTW this thread is about HIV

 

Oh that no. It was hard to tell what it meant since you failed to put it into a sentence. I'm still not convinced.

 

Soooooo there was no point in you asking the question. Now you know why I first ignored it. Its just your way of avoiding addressing the actual topic of discussion.

 

That's that delusion kicking in again.

 

Dahhhh the topic is HIV but you're talking about everything but that. Lets try to get back to it. What would you do about the spread of HIV ?

 

OK Dixon. You got me on that. I didn't read far enough. Don't you feel special now? So tell us, what does that have to do with the topic of HIV, or same sex marriage or anything else ? I think that this started with you inane insistence that marriage requires procreation. Yes, I said that it only requires sex. I misspoke. The fact is that it does not require sex it damned sure does not require procreation. Therefor, your argument once again in the toilet. I think I hear a flushing sound

 

"Far enough"???? The first words were "Consummation of the marriage...." and you proclaim as fact it has nothing to do with "Consummation of the marriage...." . You just disagree when you dont even know what it is that you disagree with.

 

No, thats your strawman. I never said any such thing.

 

Bovine excrement! You have carried on incessantly about procreation and how gays allegedly do not procreate, and therefor should not be given the "special" privilege of marriage-unless of course you fictitious "mother and grandmother down the street" can also marry. I'm not making that up so don't lie. You have used that strawman inappropriately so many times it's rediculous

 

Actually I take it back. There seems to be conflicting information about that point ( see below). I will also say that it is a useless point with regards to the debate on same sex marriage, and, on the topic here which is HIV. You just latch on to these inane pieces of trivia in order to try to avoid the issues because you have nothing rational to say.

Case in point, you have repeatedly refused to discuss the issue raised in the OP, the problem of HIV infection in gay men and it's cause, and, most importantly what should or could be done about it. Any ideas Dixon?

 

You are the one full of (*)(*)(*)(*) here. Noticed how youve now dropped the assertion that I said "marriage requires procreation". The assertion I was disputing.

 

Only within the delusion of your own mind. YOU are the one who brought up Consummation

 

Sound like you're getting a little rattled there fella.......Still won't get back on topic and talk about HIV? Can't explain what you would do about the problem?

 

Not at all. You are the one forced to abandon your previous pile of BS to scamper off to the next.

Still won't get back on topic and talk about HIV? Can't explain what you would do about the problem?[/QUOTE]

Long ago

And here you are still pretending as if there is no increased risk and demonizing anyone who points out this increased risk. Keep up the good work. Im sure HIV rates of infection will continue to rise for gay men.

 

Says who?

 

Long ago



And here you are still pretending as if there is no increased risk and demonizing anyone who points out this increased risk. Keep up the good work. Im sure HIV rates of infection will continue to rise for gay men.[/QUOTE]

Well there you have. What you said back then is not an answer at all. No one is denying that there is a risk or demonizing those who point it out. But I for one will in fact demonize those-like the one who started this thread, and you-who just want to talk about the problem as a way of making gays look dangerous and disgusting. You haven't even tried to address the problem from a public policy perspective. Now have you?