This is a common misapprehension. Many dictionaries order the definitions historically, rather than by most common usage.
From the Webster’s New World Dictionary:
“The senses of an entry have, whenever possible, been arranged in semantic order from the etymology to the most recent sense so that there is a logical, progressive flow showing the development of the word and the relationship of its senses to one another… In longer entries…technical senses have been entered… usually following the general senses…”
Emphasis added.
It goes on to say that slang senses typically come later.
In this case, definition 3 may be meant to indicate that it has been developed after definition 1. Which definition is currently more prominent may be unclear. I’ll let someone else look into the practices of the linked citation.
The obvious response is that homosexuality is condemned–explicitly and repeatedly–in the New Testament. The command to offer turtledoves isn’t.
Homosexual sex remains far more likely to spread it than straight sex. Other factors, such as second rate health care, and mating with people who have been infected from second rate health care, homosexual sex, or IV drug use, color those statistics in your favor.
Gay male sex is far more likely to spread HIV than straight sex. This is reality.
No, if you want to zoom in on the primary spreaders of HIV in America, you need to zoom in on three groups: People receiving tainted blood, homosexual men, and IV drug users. That first can largely be scratched now, as so many safety measures are in place. Again, this is reality.
It’s also more risky than heterosexual sex. Women do not typically transfer it to men. If no women are transferring it to men, then men can’t transfer it to other women.
Men, however, do transfer it to other men, who in turn bed other women. Again, this isn’t a condemnation of anyone, it’s just reality. Particularly in developed nations, where we don’t have third rate health care, we don’t have people self-medicating with shared needles by the thousands, and we don’t have disgusting water supplies.
We aren’t discussing gay marriage in Africa or India or Haiti. We’re discussing it in America, where you don’t have the advantage of statistics such as yours. Gay male sex spreads HIV in America. Far, far more than heterosexual sex does.
No doubt, though being easier on your wallet isn’t much of an argument for gay marriage, as it’s questionable whether or not it’s a right to be eligible for such things, at least in this instance.
I’ve always found such things as deathbed visitation rights far more compelling.
Either works perfectly well for my position, so it’s really not important how they’ve ordered them. In either case, flaming is not necessarily “a personal attack,” which was the rather exclusive definition I condemned.
And so on. The risk of transferring male to female is substantially higher than the risk of transferring female to male. Not unheard of, just not typical. Anal sex increases that risk, even among heterosexuals.
Did you bother to read the rest of the thread? You know, the parts where someone presented an argument against gay marriage utilizing HIV, and then the post I was just addressing, which also discussed HIV and homosexuality?
I don’t have any problem with gays marrying, if that is what they want to do. It should be a boon for the divorce lawyers anyway.
And what about the all the gay and Bi animals out there in the wilds of nature (or even at the zoo )? This has apparently been going on since the beginning of time when the first animals appeared. How about fish and microbes? I bet some of them are gay/bi or egad’s asexual (do you think microbes get a sexual like charge on division? hmmmm)
Here’s a story on this subject from the NY Times: Link
As to the ongoing argument here about flaming or being flamed, methinks some people are just a little bit too sensitive. It’s difficult enough debating in a pure text medium. If you think you’ve been personally attacked, then why not take it up with the TPTB?
Iscariot, this is from your own cite: “Because there were only two instances of female-to-male transmission, we could not examine risk factors for these events statistically,” Padian says.
2 out of 82 women infected their male partners. 82. Barely any more of a ‘sample’ than a single individual.
You’re going to have to find me something a lot more convincing than “The researchers estimate the odds of a an HIV-postive male infecting a female partner in an unprotected sexual encounter is about 9 in 10,000.”
They also provided suggestions as to why the results were so low. I provided two sources, both academic–one a university study, the other from a peer-reviewed journal. These are citations from experts in the field, giving results of their inquiries. You don’t get to simply declare them invalid by personal decree. If you would like to disagree with their findings, it’s your turn to find contrary evidence, from equivalent experts, from equivalently academic media.
It really shouldn’t be unexpected. It’s a question of which way fluids are primarily running. We should expect to find a higher instance of transmission in that direction. Anal sex, because of greater risk to rupture blood vessels, increases the risk still more.
I didn’t say anyone flamed me, I said a post was flaming in general. I certainly didn’t indicate that I was personally attacked–quite the contrary, I stated explicitly and repeatedly that no one was personally attacked.
To which this so-called liberal Anglican’s response is, “Actually, it isn’t.” I’ve spent far too much of the past few years arguing in favor of homosexuality from a Christian perspective. One thing I’ve come to realize is homosexuality isn’t explicitly condemned in the New Testament and, when “sexual immorality” or some similar thing is condemned, it’s one of several sins, including malice, greed, slander, theft, etc. On the other hand, adultery is explicitly condemned, as is divorce, yet adulterers and people who’ve had divorces are allowed to marry. Indeed, I’m told one of the sponsors of the Defense of Marriage Amendment (Bob Barr) is on his third wife which, to me, makes him one of the people marriage needs to be defended against!
As a straight, pragmatic, rational Christian (no cool acronym, drat it!), when deciding whether my actions are sinful, I go back to what Christ said when asked what mattered most. It had nothing to do with sexuality, unless your minds are as warped and twisted as mine is (this being the Straight Dope, they probably are). According to Him, the most important things are to love God and love your neighbor (the warped and twisted minds are doing things with the literal interpretation of that term). Telling homosexuals that for them to fall in love and want to spend the rest of their lives in a legal relationship with someone equally capable of consenting to do so with them (thus disposing of the pedophilia and bestiality arguments), does not qualify as loving my neighbor by my standards, but then again, I’m just a rogue Episcopalian.
As an aspiring Biblical scholar, when deciding what the New Testament says I don’t trouble myself with what works best with my theology, and instead concern myself with what the texts say, and what the author was trying to communicate.
The clearest condemnation is, of course, 1Cor.6.9. Most translations opt to translate “malakos” as “effeminate.” The meaning is still quite clear. Particularly given the context, and what we know of Paul’s converts. From the Frieberg Lexicon regarding the Greek word “malakos”:
“soft; (1) of clothes soft (to the touch), delicate (LU 7.25); neuter plural ta. malaka as a substantive, luxurious clothes (MT 11.8); (2) figuratively, in a bad sense of men effeminate, unmanly; substantivally m. especially of a man or boy who submits his body to homosexual lewdness catamite, homosexual pervert (1C 6.9)”
Or, of course, Romans 1.27 “and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.” Romans 1.28 goes on to be the only clear condemnation of lesbians in the Bible. There are other condemnations of homosexuality (eg. Rom.1.31-32, or 1Tim.1.10), but there’s really no need to list them all.
In that case, my lad, welcome to the Board and, sometime when the hamsters aren’t being run off their feet, do a search in GD on threads on the Bible and homosexuality. I suspect you’ll find enough discussions of the text complete with citations of the original Greek to delight your heart. I am strictly a stubborn amateur when it comes to some folks around here. I particularly recommend posts by Polycarp and Libertarian, but that won’t surprise anyone who knows any of the three of us.
I am curious as to why Christianity should come into this at all. I would be perfectly willing to concede that the Bible declares homosexuality to be immoral, that some Christians think unrepentant homosexual acts will be greeted by eternal hellfire in the afterlife. What does it matter, in terms of legalizing gay marriage?
The last time I checked, the USA was not supposed to be a Christian state. If we value the first amendment at all, Christian morality would not enter into our laws. There has to be a compelling secular reason behind our laws (and this is the case for most of them IMO). There has to be compelling secular reason to prohibit granting equal marriage rights to gay people (and the social good that comes with marriage), and I don’t see anything coming close. Banish gays from the priesthood, excommunicate all gays from your church, whatever… I think that’s awful, but within your rights as a religion. Just please don’t force this on our supposedly non-religious-based laws in this country that is supposed to have a separation of Church and State.
As for compelling secular reasons, why is the issue of higher HIV transmission rates even an issue? If it’s true, who cares? Various groups all have stuff we can mark them out for; blacks have higher rates of sickle-cell anemia, so let’s prevent them from getting married and procreating. Heck, my dad’s family history is filled with heart problems and premature deaths; he shouldn’t be allowed to have kids, and I shouldn’t even exist. The thing is, if you look at rates of Bad Stuff, every group you can think of probably leads some category as compared to other groups in that particular taxonomy. You can probably find some rates-based argument to deny marriage rights to everyone so as to not promote procreation of their group and its higher rate of Bad Stuff.
Sigh, I don’t even have any gay acquaintances (I’ve met all of 2 gay people that I knew were gay, and only in passing, in all my life), yet this current and long-standing inequity has always struck me personally. It’s just so damn unfair, and one piece of legislation short of being fixed. The social acceptance can come later; that injustice is still the law of the land is incredibly galling.
It shouldn’t. I simply observed the obvious response to the suggested argument from the OT in response to an argument from the Bible.
Your response is, as near as I can tell, the correct one–it doesn’t matter what it says in the Bible. I was condemning the approach, not endorsing the converse.
I noted that this doesn’t matter as well–my first post on the topic stated simply that it’s true that homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV–worked out per capita there’s not even a comparison, a homosexual is nearly three hundred times as likely, per capita, as a hetersexual to contract HIV.
To reiterate what I said at the outset, the question is whether or not that matters. I’d venture that it doesn’t.
You actually hit on a perfect analogy with minorities. Visible minorities are also much–much–more likely to contract HIV. That doesn’t mean we prevent them from marrying.
There seems to be some confusion. I’ve never argued against gay marriage, I’ve argued against factual inaccuracies, the ones I’ve addressed just happened to be presented by those who favour gay marriage.
I haven’t tendered my opinion on the matter one way or the other.
)? This has apparently been going on since the beginning of time when the first animals appeared. How about fish and microbes? I bet some of them are gay/bi or egad’s asexual (do you think microbes get a sexual like charge on division? hmmmm)