mudcat.org: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]


BS: 'Gay marriage' question

Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 06:23 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 06:27 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 06:28 AM
Musket 21 Dec 12 - 06:57 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 07:03 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 12 - 07:09 AM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 07:23 AM
Steve Shaw 21 Dec 12 - 07:28 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 11:02 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 11:08 AM
saulgoldie 21 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 01:00 PM
GUEST,TIA 21 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 02:42 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 21 Dec 12 - 03:16 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 03:57 PM
Keith A of Hertford 21 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM
gnu 21 Dec 12 - 04:06 PM
GUEST 21 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 21 Dec 12 - 04:51 PM
Don Firth 21 Dec 12 - 05:55 PM
akenaton 21 Dec 12 - 06:34 PM
gnu 21 Dec 12 - 07:07 PM
John P 21 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 02:54 AM
GUEST,Musket sans cookie 22 Dec 12 - 03:23 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 04:04 AM
akenaton 22 Dec 12 - 04:46 AM
akenaton 22 Dec 12 - 04:55 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Dec 12 - 06:30 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Dec 12 - 06:45 AM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 12 - 09:25 AM
akenaton 22 Dec 12 - 10:47 AM
Musket 22 Dec 12 - 11:04 AM
Musket 22 Dec 12 - 11:41 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 22 Dec 12 - 12:33 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 12:45 PM
MGM·Lion 22 Dec 12 - 12:47 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 12:50 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 12 - 02:27 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 12 - 02:36 PM
Keith A of Hertford 22 Dec 12 - 02:59 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 12 - 07:21 PM
akenaton 22 Dec 12 - 08:33 PM
Steve Shaw 22 Dec 12 - 09:25 PM
gnu 22 Dec 12 - 09:34 PM
GUEST,Guest from 22 Dec 12 - 10:41 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 22 Dec 12 - 11:07 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:23 AM

""Think I'll start voting for UKIP!!""

That says it all. So far to the right that Hubble can't see them.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:26 AM

Has UKIP become a far right party Don?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:27 AM

Why is it that our Keith always espouses the most ignorant, nasty, inhuman causes?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:28 AM

The UK Independence Party has many in its ranks who are gay men or women who have, without fuss or ostentation, taken advantage of the new arrangements. As a libertarian party, we are entirely at ease with their choice and wish all of them well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:57 AM

Ah.. As such shall ye judge them. Thanks Keith, the fog is lifting.

Epidemic. mmm. Instead of using the term in the strict sense I see it used, (after all NHS public health definitions do not always translate to other countries and their definitions, and WHO have a definition of their own...)

I like the one found at www.dictionary.com which says (of a disease) affecting many persons at the same time, and spreading from person to person in a locality where the disease is not permanently prevalent.

It would be silly if I took that as meaning that those who bandy the word epidemic around accept that the disease is not permanently prevalent. Wouldn't it? Sadly, HIV+ is a state and whilst controllable, is not curable. AIDS can only be treated palliatively.

So.. before both sides use words like epidemic, bear in mind that words have meanings. Anything permanently within a locality cannot be an epidemic. By accepting epidemic, you accept that we are not all going to hell in a hand cart.

Oh, Akenaton. You don't have to join UKIP you know. Most people here seem to recognise you as a clown without you having to wear a red nose to prove it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:03 AM

Yes.
Normally an epidemic runs its course as the proportion of resistant people increases.
There is no resistance to HIV and it has become endemic within high risk groups, but not in the general population.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:09 AM

You made the point that HIV is rare.
I made the point that it is in epidemic proportions in high risk groups, specifically MSMs.


Fewer than one person in 600 is HIV-positive. Fewer than half of those will go on to develop Aids. That makes HIV infection pretty rare. Not that it isn't serious and should be downplayed. Now every year in the UK around 450,000 people are infected with other STIs. In round figures that's four people in every 600, and that's every year, not the overall one-in-600 represented by HIV-positive people. About a third of those are chlamydia infections, a serious disease that has the potential to cause long-term chronic pain and sterility in women, much more frequently occurring, by a factor of five or six, than HIV infection. Then there's gonorrhoea, increasing at an alarming rate, and HPV, passed to women by men, which kills almost three times as many women each year by developing into cervical cancer (which is nearly always caused by HPV infection) as the number of people who die from Aids.

Anyone can hype up particular statistics by narrowing severely the groups you apply them to. You could make gonorrhoea look like a terrible epidemic if you apply it just to 18-25s. You can make chickenpox look like a terrible epidemic if you apply it just to kids between five and ten. The thing is, you have a rather awkward question to answer. Why, among all the STIs you could be discussing, and instead of talking about education for safe sex, do you choose to focus obsessively on the one infection which, in spite of its relatively low incidence, is the one you perceive to be mostly associated with homosexuals? Frankly, that says more about you and your illiberal prejudices than it says about any "concern" you might want us to think you have about the sufferers.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:23 AM

According to HPA
In 2007,    The prevalence of HIV (both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections) among MSM aged 15-44 was estimated to be 8.5% (range 7.0-10.5%)

By 2007, 32% of all MSM seen for HIV care were aged over 45, and 17% were over 50.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1203928687610

So well over 10% of MSMs are infected.
Probably 12% to 15% or even 20%
For comparison, the great flu pandemic of 1918 killed 3% of population, and the Great Plague of 1665 killed 15%


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:28 AM

Right, "high risk groups." This is a rather crafty way, and quite an artificial one (as a very large number of people are rather flexible in their sex lives), of producing a category of people who you can then declare open season on. What you should be talking about instead is high-risk activities. Because of lousy sex education in this country, millions of people don't know the difference between relatively safe sexual activity and high-risk sexual activity. Everyone who gets involved in sexual relationships of any kind should know about the possibility of infections and how they are passed on and how you can minimise risk. That should be one of the main aims of good sex education. Avoiding unwanted pregnancy is another. An important part of it, not the whole thing. Sex is a joyful thing and there's a fine line between giving sensible, practical information and being seen to be moralising, and there's no point in scaring people to death either. If that is done effectively, rates of infection (and unwanted pregnancies) would plummet. It would be far more effective in reducing infection (which is what we all want...isn't it?) than the kind of thinly-veiled gay-bashing that we see in this discussion from certain persons who seem to be frightened of something or other, I'm not sure what. Something as bad as bubonic plague or incest, perhaps. Or even cannibalism, though I haven't had any takers for that one as yet.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 11:02 AM

The HPA has some rather more up to date information which Keith and Ake have quietly passed over. Instead of Keith's out of date 2007 figures, consider the comment which follows. It relates specifically to the situation in the UK.

The emphasis on the most important sentences was added by me to ensure that certain parties would find it difficult to ignore.

""HEALTH PROTECTION AGENCY

In the initial years of the epidemic, diagnoses were predominately among persons who acquired their infection through blood or tissue products, injecting drug use (IDU) and by sex between men.

In more recent years, men who have sex with men (MSM) remain the major risk group, while heterosexually acquired infections, particularly among African-born individuals, have also become of increasing public health importance.

The number of infections among people who inject drugs has remained low as a result of early and effectual harm-reduction programmes.

Thirty years on, where antiretroviral therapy is widely available, it has transformed HIV infection from a fatal illness to a chronic manageable condition. Today, people treated for HIV infection can expect a near-normal lifespan with far fewer side effects compared to the earlier drug regimes.

However, the benefits of treatment rely on the early diagnosis of infection [3]. The surveillance of HIV in the UK has adapted to major changes in the clinical management and epidemiological features of the infection.

The data have been the driving force behind policies to prevent and control HIV infections and ensure those living with the virus are tested promptly and receive high quality health care.


Number of people living with HIV

Diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV infection

By the end of 2010, an estimated 91,500 (95% credible interval [C.I.] 85,400-99,000) people were living with HIV in the UK; approximately one quarter (22,200, 24% [19%-30%]) of whom were unaware of their infection (i.e. undiagnosed).

This compares to the 86,500 people estimated to have been living with HIV in 2009. By the end of 2012, it is expected that more than 100,000 people will be living with HIV in the UK.

An estimated 40,100 (35,300-46,700) MSM were living with HIV in the UK in 2010, of whom 26% (1636%) were undiagnosed (additional information on MSM is available [1]).

An estimated 47,000 (43,900-50,400) heterosexuals were living with HIV, of whom 19,300 (17,70021,100) were African-born women and 9,900 (8,800-11,300) were African-born men.

One in three heterosexuals living with HIV were born in the UK or countries other than Africa (8,800 [8,100-9,700] women and 8,900 [8,000-10,300] men).

Among heterosexuals, men were less likely to be aware of their HIV infection with 28% (22%-35%) undiagnosed, compared to women with 21% (16%-26%) undiagnosed. Low rates of undiagnosed HIV infection in women demonstrate the effectiveness of antenatal screening programmes.

An estimated 2,300 (1,900-2,700) people who inject drugs were living with HIV in the UK, of whom 21% (12-32%) were undiagnosed.
""

So Ake and Keith's epidemic is actually a chronic manageable condition, which, with treatment gives a near-normal lifespan with far fewer side effects compared to the earlier drug regimes.

Ake has been bleating for years about research into HIV/AIDS being stifled by the Gay Marriage debate, and demanding that he be taken seriously, by which one might suppose that he wanted gay men locked up for the good of society (hasn't that been tried already?).

It now transpires that the research and the gay marriage debate continued side by side without negatively affecting each other, to the end that gay marriage is almost assured, and his worries should have been assuaged by the progress in controlling the disease.

Unfortunately, neither Ake nor Keith will be at all pleased at this, because their underlying agenda isn't about health.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 11:08 AM

So enlighten us Ake and Keith.

Are you going to demand that marriage be denied to every sufferer of a chronic manageable condition, or just this one?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: saulgoldie
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 11:15 AM

When anyone suggests that other humans should have less/fewer rights than any others, that indicates some sort of animosity. This animosity is xenophobia, mysogeny, homophobia, or some such, even if it is not as blatantly, openly hostile as some other examples. It is still ...phobia; ...ogeny.

Akenton indicates this frame of mind. But when he is confronted, he refuses to own it. Moving on. Nothing to see here, folks...

Saul


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 01:00 PM

Don Firth: "Aw, cripe, get off Steve's case!
Not EVERYONE has heard that the acronym "MSM," as it is being used here, stands for "Men having Sex with Men." Considering that "MSM" also stands for
    Marine Safety Manual
    Manhattan School of Music
    Missouri School of Mines
    MaAfee System Management
    Minnesota Science Museumon."

Talk about SPIN!!! No wonder you stay so stubbornly stupid, and promote the same stupidity to others!
..Now what?..you're going to attack me for saying the flagrantly obvious??

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:08 PM

I got an answer...sort of;

"There seems to be no heath problem amongst lesbians, but there are other grounds for opposing the legislation which I have detailed above."

So, you have insisted that your opposition to gay marriage is because of your deep concern for public health, but when we remove the health issue, you say that there are "other grounds".

Shifty.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 02:42 PM

Don, I am a scientist.
I have only commented on the science.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:16 PM

""Don, I am a scientist.
I have only commented on the science.
""

I have just posted the facts as at 2010, not the out of date, no longer true 2007 figures.

If I found them, you could have done the same, but no. You carry on in your usual fashion, hook on to an untenable position and cling to it to the point of insanity.

How can you expect anybody to believe anything you say?

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 03:57 PM

Don, we had this identical discussion 2 years ago and I just regurjitated some research I did then.
It is still valid.
MSM infection rates have not improved and the influx of another high risk group was well under way then.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:00 PM

regurgitated


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:06 PM

Okay... *I* will...

Ake... "... the facts are being deliberately concealed from the UK public."

You got ANY idea what you said? If they are concealed, you can't see them. Your vision, wisdom and compassion are just as blind.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:16 PM

What "SPIN?"

You're a moron, Goofus.

Don Firth

P. S. My apologies to the morons of the world for lumping you in with someone as non compos mentis as the Goofball!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 04:51 PM

Thank you Don, for validating my point.
You actually can't see the 'spin'?????????????????
Give me a break....and quit falling on your own sword!...then claiming its somebody else's altering of the facts!

Try not being 'Suicidal...and proud of it!'

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 05:55 PM

Validating your point?

But you're POINTLESS, GoofBall.

Don Firth

P. S. Did someone say something about "spin?" Heck, I can keep this sucker spinning all day long! He keeps coming back and can't see how he's being played.

But I shouldn't do this! My mother always told me to be kind to dumb animals.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 06:34 PM

Of course it is an epidemic.   you can have an epidemic of any infectious disease.

Hiv/aids is not an epidemic amongst the general population.....but certainly is an epidemic amongst MSM.

An epidemic is gauged on infection rates, these rates are very low in heterosexuals including heterosexuals who inject drugs, but are extremely high in male homosexuals(MSM)
In this issue, real numbers are meaningless as the numbers of homo's and heteros who live in the UK differ so widely.
Infection rates (percentages) are the only valid gauge.

Hiv/aids is not as Don would have us believe, equivalent to the common cold, but tho death rates falling, the disease is still a life sentence to mainly young men. As well as the human tragedy, the cost of lifetime medication and care for these young men is likely to be horrendous.
While human rights legislation is used to conceal the facts about this disease, the chances of irradicating it in the UK are minimal.
We need a public enquiry on why the link between MSM and hiv continues to worsen, followed by compulsory testing and contact tracing for "at risk" groups


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:07 PM

Ake... no response to my post? Didn't really expect one.

I'll check out this thread in another hundred posts unless aleterted by one of the "good guys" to check it out sooner. Thanks, bud... >;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: John P
Date: 21 Dec 12 - 07:52 PM

Folks . . . arguing health figures with Akenaton allows him to conduct the discussion on his terms. As most of us know, health concerns are not the issue when it comes to civil rights. There are other questions that Akenaton needs to answer before his health statistics become pertinent:

How do you logically get from risky behavior to denying civil rights?

If you are going to deny civil rights because of risky behavior, why not deny them to skydivers, police officers, and drivers?

Even if risky behavior were a reason to deny civil rights, can you prove that all homosexuals engage in risky behavior?

I agree that we shouldn't let hate speech stand, especially on a forum we care about. But confronting it with Akenaton can be accomplished by simply asking him to answer the above questions every time he types one of his hate screeds. His inability to answer these questions is all the proof we or any casual reader needs to show that he's just a garden-variety hate-monger rather than a person who cares about health. Arguing with him about health statistics allows him to put a veneer of respectability on it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:54 AM

Don Firth: "P. S. Did someone say something about "spin?" Heck, I can keep this sucker spinning all day long! He keeps coming back and can't see how he's being played.."

Well, it is refreshing to see that you at least admit to 'keep this sucker spinning all day long...."

...so, if I compliment you on 'spinning the truth'...because you are all about you..then it should make you feel good..and it does.....
..well, at least we know it's 'spin'....(Been telling you that for a long time!)

GfS

Oh, P.S......a good psychologist can draw out, what is inside, so the person who is disturbed by it, can realize what it is.
Snap now..and avoid the 'rush'.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 03:23 AM

Tell you what Goofus.

As you are an expert in the field and come with glowing self references, analyse Akenaton for us and save people the trouble of trying to work out his problem.

He'll submit to your consultation without legal consent so no problem there. After all, his enthusiasm for compulsory medical testing of Gay people fits nicely with quack assessments of bigots.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 04:04 AM

I have my impression and my impression is that I don't post my impressions...especially publicly. If he gives me a buzz, I'd be happy to talk to him.....jeez, you can give me a buzz, to...you might even be interesting...

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 04:46 AM

Musket..... questions for you.

What do we do when infection rates in MSM become so large that they can no longer be concealed from the public......I would reckon about four years, at the current annual increase?

What would you do about the increasing infection rates?

You say improve information and education, but if no one listened while the disease was a definite death sentence, why should they listen now when lifelong medication can lower morbidity?

Is it not obvious that the very issue of "risk taking" is endemic to those who take part in male to male sex?
The high number of sexual partners reported amongst most sexually active MSM appears to bear this out

One thing is certain, the last thing we need at this juncture, is legislation to promote homosexuality, while these infection rates apply.
The vast majority of MSM do not want monogamy, are sexually active, and have no obvious brake on risky sexual activity.(family structure)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 04:55 AM

BTW Musket.....Someone in your position should know that the relevent health agencies are already looking at testing and contact tracing in "problem areas"....... this means areas of the country or city, which contain large numbers of "at risk" groups.

I dont like the weasel words any more than you do, but I'm afraid thats where "liberalism" leads.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 06:30 AM

""Hiv/aids is not as Don would have us believe, equivalent to the common cold, but tho death rates falling, the disease is still a life sentence to mainly young men. As well as the human tragedy, the cost of lifetime medication and care for these young men is likely to be horrendous.
While human rights legislation is used to conceal the facts about this disease, the chances of irradicating it in the UK are minimal.
We need a public enquiry on why the link between MSM and hiv continues to worsen, followed by compulsory testing and contact tracing for "at risk" groups
""

Is it that you can't read, or just that you don't bother. The situation as at 2010 was not an invention of mine, but the FACTS regarding HIV/AIDS laid out for the education of fools and bigots by The Health Protection Agency, whose pronouncements are, according to you and your toadies, gospel when they seem to support your prejudice, and rubbish when they do not.

HIV is reduced to a "chronic manageable condition" with the prospect of "a near normal lifespan".

Those are not my words, they are not spin. They are the assertions of highly qualified medical practitioners, whose word is infinitely more credible than the maunderings of a bunch of homophobes who spend their time trying to interfere in others' sexual practices.

You lot are the ones who need treatment.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 06:40 AM

""The vast majority of MSM do not want monogamy, are sexually active, and have no obvious brake on risky sexual activity.(family structure)""

Bottom line (excuse the unintentional pun), produce credible evidence for this statement, or withdraw it.

Incidentally, you sly change of direction toward cost of treatment has been noted. Another layer of the onion revealed.

We're getting there, slowly but surely, and the day is coming when you'll have nowhere to hide and will have to admit what most of us already know:

You CAN'T STAND HOMOSEXUALS!

Don T.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 06:45 AM

BTW Ake. You mentioned the subject of "family structure".

The irony of that is superb.

It's the likes of you that actively try to prevent them achieving any family structure.

You should be ashamed to even mention it.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 09:25 AM

One thing is certain, the last thing we need at this juncture, is legislation to promote homosexuality, while these infection rates apply.
The vast majority of MSM do not want monogamy, are sexually active, and have no obvious brake on risky sexual activity.(family structure)


Ignore me all you like but I'm not going away and I'm not going to stop picking you up on your disgusting prejudices. If you have figures to support these assertions, let's be having them. And if you think they have no brake on risky sexual activity, let's compare the infection numbers for HIV with gonorrhoea, chlamydia and HPV, to name a few only, all passed on by risky sexual activity. Those numbers make HIV/Aids look like a walk in the park, but I don't hear you harping on about them. Finally, tell me why you don't think that a good, non-moralising, practical programme of education for safe sex, and not just in schools, wouldn't do a lot more to reduce infection rates than any of your spouting and moaning about legalising gay marriage and the rest.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 10:47 AM

I dont ignore you Steve and will continue to respond while you stay civil.

The figures are available, I have printed them on other threads, they include take-up rates for civil union and homosexual"marriage" where available.
The figures for numbers of lifetime sexual partners are also available...hetro and homo....these figures are of course estimates based on a random section but are very much higher in homos than heteros
I have urgent business to attend to to-night, one of my greyhounds is contesting a big race at Shawfield stadium in Glasgow, so I have no time to search.

Infection rates for almost all STDs are much higher amongst homos than heteros......these figures can be easily located in the CDC website, but of course the main issue is HIV/AIDS.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:04 AM

Akenaton. It is difficult to remain civil, it really is.

Nothing is being hidden. HIV awareness is targeted in certain areas, just as other high risk groups in other clinical specialties are targeted. You ask what will happen when figures can no longer be concealed? Open your eyes and look out of the window, we are there. Figures are not concealed and whilst statistics can be read in many ways, the figures are open to interpretation. For me, I'll stick to the analysis of those charged with protecting public health who study the epidemiology around this. The director of public health from my old authority I chaired went on to lead on STDs at The Dept of Health for a while. When it comes to listening to him or you?

Well for starters, he isn't blinded by his bigotry, doesn't find tenuous figures to support his preposition and speaks of all risks in all groups concerning all STDs.

Your concerns have the advantage of addressing a real concern, albeit one of many. One thing you do say is sadly true; STDs in male Gay people is slightly higher than heterosexual figures for the same socio economic and geographical groups. Luckily, one of the main reasons has been identified. Sadly, the reason is you.

People need to engage with health agencies period. Some people have issues due to society's lack of acceptance of their lifestyle. If you wonder why I hold you in sheer contempt, it is because some people want society to reflect their values only and don't see the rest of society's stakeholders as equal members of said society. Hence they get pushed out, cut adrift and stigmatised by those who think solutions mean me running the risk of breaching Godwin's Law...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Musket
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:41 AM

Hey Goofus. You're a bit late if you want to analyse me. I asked my pet greyhound to do it yesterday, and if it's all the same to you, I'll stick with his diagnosis.

He said "Woof Woof Woof Woof!"

You'll have to admit, after an analysis like that, you'd have to raise your game a bit if you were to second opinion him.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 12:33 PM

""these figures are of course estimates based on a random section but are very much higher in homos than heteros""

Or to use the correct nomenclature,.....GUESSES!

We asked for evidence.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 12:45 PM

Musket, What brought this on??..If you like rapping with the dog, hey, go right ahead....and if you like the dog's analysis, he might like your scientific conclusions!....and if you like being wooden, maybe your dog likes barking up a tree...maybe you'll be so lucky as to have it lift its leg on your knee!

Pretty soon, you might even get jealous of the dog....at least he gets to stuff his nose in people's crotches!....multiples, too!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 12:47 PM

Musket ~~ Didn't your analyst find just a little bit of WARP among all that WOOF?

;-}


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 12:50 PM

(Well, I guess that didn't go the way he thought it would.....he really stepped in it, this time....)

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:27 PM

STDs in male Gay people is slightly higher than heterosexual figures for the same socio economic and geographical groups.

Slightly higher?
The rates are many times higher.

Or to use the correct nomenclature,.....GUESSES!
No Don.
You can not ask millions of people.
Resspectable, reliable, reputable surveys are carried out on samples.
That is not guessing.
That is how it is done.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:36 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 11:18 AM

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1216022461534
Young men who have sex with men
There have been worrying increases in the number of younger men
diagnosed with STIs in the past decade, with more than a doubling of
diagnoses of HIV (from 128 in 1998 to 281 in 2007) and a threefold
increase of gonorrhoea (339 to 1001) – increases similar to that observed
in older men who have sex with men.
http://www.swish.org.uk/?q=sex_info/stis
Numbers of all STIs have increased in the last few years and some of them, such as Chlamydia, have doubled in the past 6 years, especially amongst young people and gay men.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/LGBhealth/Pages/Sexualhealthgaymen.aspx
Gary Williams from Birmingham's Healthy Gay Life project

"Gay men should have a check-up at least every six months at a sexual health clinic, because for some infections you will not see any symptoms," says Williams.
http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticuk.htm
Cases of gonorrhea rose steadily from 1999 and peaked in 2002. Since then, the number of new cases has declined. Diagnoses are high among specific groups, such as black ethnic populations and men who have sex with men (MSM).
The UK's syphilis epidemic is largely concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM),


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 02:59 PM

HPA
Men who have ex with men (MSM) are a group at increased risk of specific sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as gonorrhoea, syphilis and lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV). MSM experience 73% of syphilis cases, 30% of male gonococcal infections seen in GUM and 43% of HIV cases attending specialist care in the UK in 2010. MSM have other specific sexual health needs including Hepatitis A and B vaccination and rectal and pharyngeal gonorrhoea testing.
Added/updated: 10 December 2012


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 07:21 PM

Actually, Keith, so what? Would you condemn paragliding or white-water rafting or Formula One racing or rock climbing on the grounds that they are risky? You know, people who indulge in those pastimes all know the risks. They all follow the respective protocols of their activities with regard to safety procedures. Some people say it's elfansafety gorn mad, even. But they know the risk and they know what insurance will cover them and what won't and they proceed accordingly. People who indulge in such things are highly educated in their specific activities. I don't hear you condemning them on moral grounds, yet you are more than prepared to condemn gay sex on moral grounds (and please don't pretend you're saying what you do out of the goodness of your heart because your primary concern is their well-being). So how come your posts, and akenaton's posts, are not full of calls for much better education for safe sex? So that everyone knows what is high-risk and what is low-risk? And please don't tell me again, tediously, that queers are already awash with information. Everybody should know everything, and it needs to be presented to everyone in an open, clergy-free, moralising-free, embarrassment-free, from-the-hip manner. It's far too important not to do so, and we do live in the 21st century. Not just homosexuals, everyone with a working dick or fanny. Before they have a working dick or fanny. That simply is not done. Why is it not done? Because people like you get in the bloody way all the time, that's why. Your agenda is to bash gay people, that much is clear. Naturally, anything that gets in the way of your gay-bashing is rather unwelcome. Both of you have studiously ignored my repeated calls for better sex education. If you disagree, prove it: fill all your subsequent posts with demands that the government ploughs resources into effective sex education. Not just in schools, but in the papers, on the telly, everywhere. I don't want people to die of Aids. I'm beginning to suspect that people dying of Aids actually suit your purpose rather nicely. After all, it's far easier to gay-bash when you can do the Daily Express thing of smearing gay people with visiting horrid plagues on the rest of us. Without Aids, your argument would be so much weaker, wouldn't it? You'd have nothing but queers' pink shirts and white socks to go on, would you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 08:33 PM

When will you people stop contradicting these figures from reputable agencies.

Whether you like it or not, promiscuity is part and parcel of homosexual practice, resulting in the figures presented to you.
My stance has always been that the legislation to promote homosexuality as safe and healthy is at best misguided and should not be supported. That stance is vindicated by these figures...IMO
I believe, that if most people were aware of the true homosexual health figures, the govt would find it impossible to bring forward such legislation.

People like Steve and Musket who started out denying these figures, h now make silly comparisons to sporting pursuits or work which involves a limited amount of danger.

They just make themselves look foolish, perhaps they should take orders from our resident "heterosexual,homosexual, activist" Mr Peekstock, and pretend we, or the figures we present, do not exist.

Just curl up in your opaque soundproof bubble, in the feotal position and wish for the nasty truth to go away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 09:25 PM

The truth is that any "risky activity" can be made far less risky given education. No-one is denying any of your statistics, though you do have a habit of doing that time-honoured thing of presenting the ones you imagine support your case. Let me shock you and tell you that I don't give a damn whether gay people are more promiscuous than anyone else. So what? Are you saying that promiscuity is immoral or something? If so, where's you line in the sand? How many people per annum can you shag, and how often, before, in your eyes, you qualify as "promiscuous"? It's just another of those tendentious terms innit, ake, like bubonic plague or incest, thrown into the mix. A means of tarring gay people. They are promiscuous. They act like incestuous people. They bring us gay epidemics.

So, whaddya think? Do you think that a well-funded programme of education, in schools and in the wider community, no vicars, no moralising, full of no-holds-barred practical advice on safe sex, would reduce the infection rates of those diseases you're so scared of? What are you frightened of? I've been blissfully wed for 36 years and I watch my kids grow up into brilliant adults, never thought I was ever even vaguely gay, but I'm not scared! Why are you? Don't you get out much?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: gnu
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 09:34 PM

SOB! FIVE long paragraphs of eloquent response and POOF! GONE! I was SO upset, I didn't copy it before I hit the "submit". PMO!!!!

I'll sum it up...

ake... how dare you treat fellow humans in such an inane, callous and ignorant manner. How dare you hide behind statistics you pathetic bully. Fuck you, asshole.

I said it much more eloquently and in much more depth but it got lost in the ethernut.

I shall copy this post before I "submit" on accounta it equates to what I said in the "lost" post and having a copy and paste calling ake a bully and an asshole, troll at best, will probably save me time in future.

I'll bet your mother ain't proud of you, ake. At least, I am pretty sure she wouldn't be if she read your posts herein. Grow up, get a pair and TRY to understand thet even YOU are just a human. No better than any other human. Judge ye not... on accounta that shit simply lets all others judge you for what you are when spew your vile and ignorant shit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 10:41 PM

Steve Shaw: "The truth is that any "risky activity" can be made far less risky given education...."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Dec 12 - 11:07 PM

700..and gee whiz!...

Steve Shaw: "The truth is that any "risky activity" can be made far less risky given education..."

and this one is hilarious!:
"So what? Are you saying that promiscuity is immoral or something? If so, where's you line in the sand?"

So, it's the educating, you say....ya' think that is going to stop a hard dick, and emotional immaturity, from implementing discipline?
You blame everyone EXCEPT the participants..how stupid is that??

Now one place that you are SORTA correct..but off by a mile..you seem to indicate that government(funded) education of homosexuals, who are promiscuous is the blame....BUT, the HIV virus was conceived of, and implemented BY the government. It was developed at Fort Kendrick, as part of a chemical/biological warfare project, and unleashed in Africa, and the homosexual communities. Maybe you didn't know that...but then is it a waste of time to educate you?..What makes you think anyone else will care, or take corrective measures..because in this matter, you ain't going to 'educate' some people away from the emotional and physical addiction to sex. this bullshit about it 'not being about sex' is a crock of bull-crap.
I felt that your posts, especially your earlier one, was just YOUR rationalizations to write it all off.

Akenaton is quite correct, in citing the homosexual community and promiscuity in that group, for being the lead in all this...but remember, they were targeted!!...and now the cat has gotten out of the bag.
The development of this was late '70's, and taken into Africa about 1980...and as an aside, the scientists who worked on it, (and you can get the list), seemed to all have met untimely deaths...'accidents', suicides, 'illnesses'....and if you don't believe me, Google it up for yourselves...if they haven't closed the sites down yet!

The first time I had ever heard of this HIV/AIDS was at UCLA Hospital, and some guy came in for a check-up, because he felt like shit, no energy, sick etc.,etc......and the TEAM who examined him had just received health bulletins..there was NOT much info on it..and they came out in environmental suits to examine him. Nobody had ever seen or heard of anything like this before..and that was in 1982..I was there..I SAW it!

just for what it's worth.....
...and BTW, Akenaton is indeed correct with his posts of the amount, disproportionate to the rest of society...but remember...THEY WERE TARGETED..as the Africans. In Africa, they put the virus in with the vaccinations, and distributed by WHO..World Health(?) Organization.
This is verifiable..go look.

Now the government wants to 'come to the rescue'...or so it appears...but it won't be the first time they've bullshitted a willing to be entertained audience!

GfS


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


This Thread Is Closed.


Mudcat time: 25 May 2:52 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.