BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 12:14 AM

Dave the Gnome: "As that means that no-one could ever say there was not a god because you may wait until you die before the sign it would be very clever. If you were dealing with those who could not spot the flaw in the logic that is."

I guess you could do that, while waiting for someone to show up with the 'missing link'!..Except when you get the answer, you prayed for, you'll KNOW!!!

Now, what about that faulty logic, with accompanying insult???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket vindicated
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 01:14 AM

My turn to be smug.

Rather than read my comment, just reread SJL's post above again.



Especially the bit about agreeing that gay people existing means we need a solution.

Oh and the posts around it on the Godwin stuff.

Especially those using Godwin to close down uncomfortable comparisons.

I love a good flush out now and then. Don't you?





Oh, forgot Goofus.   On reflection that seems a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 02:21 AM

Don't really understand that post Ian, could you explain it for those of us who are "off message"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 02:38 AM

Vindicated? "shurely shome mishtake"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 03:12 AM

GfS Now, what about that faulty logic, with accompanying insult???


The faulty logic is that it suggests you wait for an answer indefinitely. The insult is expect other people to accept this. But I suspect you will never get that will you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 04:29 AM

Surely as a wannabe architect of the solution, you'd be on song?

Mind you, if it were genuine ignorance, it says something of the mindset that presses the keys on your computer.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:01 AM

"Especially the bit about agreeing that gay people existing means we need a solution."

Curiouser and curiouser. That statement barely makes sense but I'm pretty sure you're trying to tell us all where I'm coming from. But you don't have to do that because I am fully capable of doing that myself.

Ian is it? Love that name. I always feel better after a good cry, don't you Ian?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Ian Mather
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:29 AM

"There is no campaign too extreme to rid us of this thing. "

Seems like a solution to me.   Good cry? Yeah, that people can say such things would make any bugger want to have a good sob about the cruel heartless hatred masquerading as concern.

You know, my parent's generation fought to try and rid Western society of fascism. At least real fascists don't hide under stones eith compassion written on them.   If you say you agree with Akenaton, either read what he puts or come off the fence yourself and polish your jackboots ready to educate sub humans.

Fuck me, you'd think Mudcat would be mainly burnt out hippies, weird beards in fair Isle sweaters and sandals and Guardian readers in ethnic skirts. We certainly are a broad church eh? The odd heavily starched shirt in black and close cropped hair to boot. Who'd have thought it.?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:31 AM

Oi! I don't wear skirts!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 09:40 AM

What do you mean? I was talking about the disease that took my friend. If I felt the way you say I feel, I wouldn't care. I'd say something like, "Let them contract it, let them die." Believe, I've heard that kind of thing from less than human individuals along the way. Those are the people you need to worry about. Do you really think that mandatory testing is persecution? I don't. Everyone at risk should be tested. Haven't you said you work in a health profession?

I grew up in the first generation where it was halfway acceptable to be openly gay. If I was gay myself, I wouldn't have any problem being myself. I'd probably be like my aunt if I were. Ah, forget it Ian, this is an impasse. My bad for bringing it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM

Good idea.

Just be careful when agreeing with Akenaton. He advocates enforced screening, history tracing and steps to prevent gay people being sexually active. By agreeing with him, I doubt your true thoughts were what we read. ..

The first generation were whenever homo sapiens first walked. The last generation would be yours if some people had their way. Your report of your Aunt makes it clear. Views over others don't make themselves any stronger just because of an affinity.

Screening exists wherever people people present for elective or acute care in The UK. Voluntary screening with no other reason is encouraged and easily accessible if someone feels at risk through sex, substance misuse or other risk factors. The rubicon some would cross is forced screening based on choice of partner. You could apply it to heterosexual sex too. Where would it end? Where would it even start? Making gay lifestyle illegal? Hanging them a la Iran? Turning a blind eye to beatings murder and rape if they are gay as per the deputy in St Petersburg who said that to a UK reporter on camera the other week?

Less than 5% of the country are gay. The Akenatons of this world should find a larger target for their blame for all societies ills campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 03:56 PM

In an earlier post I mentioned the method of discussing in which people undertake the discipline of stating the position of their adversary in a way that is recognised by both as accurate.

It strikes me that that would be an excellent exercise here.
...............................

It needs to be appreciated that the only people who can be pretty certain of being safe from getting HIV are celibates, people in exclusively monogamous relationships (straght or gay) with partners who were HIV free at the time this commenced , and lesbians.

Testing, screening, and, in the case of anyone with HIV, history tracing, makes sense for anyone not falling into one of those categories. Does anyone actually disagree with that?
........................
And please everyone, the basis for this thread is respectful boundaries, and that seems to have been generally accepted as ground rules for the drifted discussions. It's very easy to start up another thread where involving a lot less self control.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 04:12 PM

McGrath, I would quite like to know whether, as has been suggested by others, that you consider me to be a "feckin' eejit" for agreeing with something you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 05:06 PM

I'd be inclineed to think it'd mean you are a man of rare insight and wisdom. Of course you might be a feckin eejit on the side as well. There are a lot of us about...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 05:15 PM

Masterful!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 05:30 PM

You are most kind, McGrath but it takes little wisdom om my part to recognise your perspicacity in this matter. The point is (in the context of this thread) that certain persons who are usually highly vociferous in their demands for respect and who rile against misrepresentation have attributed an opinion to you which you had not expressed for the purpose of taking a cheap crack at me.

This shows little respect for either of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 05:48 PM

Whether or not I am actually a feckin' eejit is not the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:14 PM

Testing, screening, and, in the case of anyone with HIV, history tracing, makes sense for anyone not falling into one of those categories. Does anyone actually disagree with that?

Fine. But not if compulsory. That would make you a fascist. And you're wrong about lesbians unqualified.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM

Whether or not I am actually a feckin' eejit is not the issue.

Gosh, you do go on. Has it occurred to you that you might be turning into (and I'm being careful here only to suggest it to you, not call you it) a feckin' whingeing eejit?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:18 PM

Prime examples of what is and is not respect on this thread. No matter how you dress it up talking bollocks is still talking bollocks and shows no respect to anyone. Give me someone who uses simple, if rather colourful, language to say what they mean over someone who uses pretty words to mask the contempt they have for other people any day.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

I don't think that's a definition of "fascist" that actually stands up. I think "authoritarian" might be the word you're looking for. It doesn't apply to my views anyway.

I'd see the situation as different for screening, testing and history tracing. I can't see how compulsory general screening would be possible, or compulsory testing. However where someone is identified as having contracted HIV I think it would be reasonable to have an obligation to cooperate in history tracing for the purpose of alerting partners to the necessity of getting tested.

Where people infect others knowingly or negligently, I cannot see how this can be seen as acceptable behaviour. Civil or criminal sanctions would seem reasonable, as in the case of damage inflicted say in driving a motor vehicle.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM

I didn't define fascist.

Yes, infecting people knowingly (by which I assume you mean maliciously) or negligently (the distinction is yours) is bad. But there have been very few authenticated cases of deliberately infecting people with HIV, so there's a bit of that good ol' demonisation going on there. As for negligently, I have a much better idea than laws and court cases. Let's have some really good education for relationships in schools and let's make contraceptive advice and barrier contraception free. If you sneer at that, as moralisers such as Ake, popes, Mother Teresa-types and bishops do, you are actually saying that you would rather like to see HIV continue to be a bit of a scourge, as it gives you yet another instrument of moral control over the flock. Ignorance is the friend of that virus and of moralisers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM

Fascist.

If people don't like it, don't propose rounding up less than 5% of the population to endure forced physical assault on their bodies on the basis of their choice of lover.

Respectful boundaries? No such thing. Where people are suggesting disgraceful actions I will call them disgusting bastards. Not sure how that fits in with their theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:47 PM

what the comparison is between questioning evolutionism is , and hitler who drastically followed Darwinist ideas to the extent of exterminating millions, I fail to see.
I don't have any murderous intention to anyone.

it is true that I have not read through origins, though I did read enough to see that he admitted that what he promoted could be otherwise interpreted.i don't know that I could find it now ,though I have quoted it and page number in the past.
so I did,nt read it through. so what!.i am sure that the scientists that used to be evolutionists have but now see that it is far from sufficient to support the bugs to biologist pathway.
what I did read was only natural selection, and as I often say, no quarrel with creation there.
if steve would like me to read the bit where the pathway goes beyond the boundaries and possibilities of natural selection, I am quite happy to go back to Darwin on line and read up on it.
just give me which edition and page number please.
somehow I doubt it!
probably just more badmouthing and unsupported assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM

I'm not at all clear that anyone has actually proposed that,Musket.

Respectful boundaries are always relevant. In the Nuremberg Trials the judges and prosectors always addressed the defendants politely. That didn't prevent them from condemning them to die.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 08:41 PM

Condemning people to die isn't all that "respectful"...

We either believe in the sanctity of life or we don't... Killing folks, regardless of their sins, doesn't promote the idea of sanctity of life...

Now...

...carry on...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 08:48 PM

You prattle on about badmouthing then you come out with this:

hitler who drastically followed Darwinist ideas to the extent of exterminating millions

Hitler did no such thing. Ideas concerning deliberate mass extermination of human beings were not propagated by Darwin and have nothing to do with natural selection.

so I did,nt read it through. so what!

I'll tell you "so what". It means that you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about even though it appears to be your favourite subject. But your ignorance doesn't stop you from gaily piling insult after insult on honest-to-goodness people who actually do research and a lot of thinking, unlike you (folks, just look at all the didn't-get-round-to-this, forgot-that, tell-me-where-to-find-it etc. bollocks in his post). You're bone idle, that's what, and your brain would fetch a bloody fortune on the second-hand brain market as it's never been used. That's so what. I bet you haven't a bloody clue about the Bible, either. Maybe I'll test you on it some time, and I reckon I wouldn't have to do too much revision in order to knock you into a bloody cocked hat on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 08:52 PM

Point well made, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 12:08 AM

The friend I wrote about in an earlier post who died from HIV, Pat, had a circle of friends who were involved in theatre in high school. Most of them are dead now. I can remember attending parties where they were all present.

Pat himself became disfigured by the end of his life. He was all twisted up, walking with a cane. At one point, he developed an infection in one of his eyes and it messed the eye up permanently to where he looked like he had been maimed in a war or something.

Despite all that, Pat stayed very positive and independent until the end. He never changed on the inside. The last time I saw him, I brought him home from the store with his groceries and he showed me the little veggie garden he was tending in his backyard.

Mandatory testing is "forced physical assault" Ian? Aren't you being just a bit over-dramatic? And how can anyone be prevented from being sexually active? I certainly wouldn't back that plan. It sounds impossible for one thing. Akenaton says that? In what context? Maybe he will speak for himself.

I mentioned TB in an earlier post. For most jobs, at least over here, you must be screened periodically. If you contract it, there's tracing to find out who you've been in contact with. You are quarantined for your entire treatment which can take a long while depending how well you respond to the antibiotics. Very difficult to get rid of and spreads like wildfire. So the protocol in dealing with it is very strict. Now obviously you're not going to quarantine people who test positive for HIV because it's sexually transmitted. Still, testing and tracing is extremely important for anyone associated with a high risk group.

When I was in college, I dated a guy who had had a male lover in his past. Whenever I have mentioned this, there have been people who responded with disgust (homophobe litmus test), however, Paul was not someone you could just toss into a bin labeled "bisexual." He was brilliant, funny and sang and played the guitar. I mean, Paul was really cool. So now you know. I'm really just a groupie :-)

I didn't think much about Paul's former lover at the time but I worried about it later on when I saw people I knew who were gay from high school getting sick and dying at an alarming rate. So, I went for testing eventually and it was negative thank God. I didn't have any problem with getting tested and I don't think it would have been any different if it had been mandatory. Once I was exposed to hepatitis and had to be tested for that. What's the difference? What's the big deal? If it saves a life or lives, I'm all for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:30 AM

If it saves a life or lives, I'm all for it.

Banning smoking will save more. So will banning alcohol. So will banning all private transport. Are you all for those too? If so, fine, you are all for government intervention to save lives. If not, why not? Who draws the line at where intervention stops?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:37 AM

Ok. So you round up the gay people and presumably only the male ones and you test them, ask them for a list of former sexual partners, round them up too and the circus continues till you run out of people to test. Two laws are needed, that's all. One curtailing human rights and one forcing doctors and nurses to commit what is at present criminal assault. It goes without saying that their human rights will be witheld too.

With you so far, on the basis that there are some people who will enjoy a full life span where they wouldn't before being tested.

So you put all the HIV + ones on antiretrovirals.

Those who didn't test positive are still at risk from those who did. Nothing has changed except some people who came forward involuntarily might not have done so otherwise. A bit farfetched but I'm trying to stay with you.

In the meantime, the issue of HIV propagation carries on through heterosexual intercourse, substance misuse and, as you have made non judgemental healthcare all of a sudden judgemental, people not engaging with healthcare facility in general.

Well done. The genuine concerns you express become huge concerns for society.   My time involved in health care has taught me a huge amount over cause and effect, using frustration as a driver not a motive and trusting public health advice regarding scale, effect and prognosis of intervention.

The sad part being that rounding up people and forcing testing on them wouldn't make any difference. The range of interventions ongoing have however had huge successes. Don't fall into the trap of equating the size of the problem with the results so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 07:42 AM

""Steve Shaw: "Steve Shaw, as Steve Shaw has asserted God knows how many times, hasn't a clue whether there's a God or not."

OK..then if there is a God, and He's supposed to be about 'Love', ask Him to reveal Himself to you...don't make up what you think the answer should be, nor put a time limitation to it... and just pay attention. If there is a God, who is about love, then He would show you something, wouldn't He?..if your request was sincere. If you get nothing at all, then blow it off.
The is NO way that could insult you, harm you, restrict you, or any other bummer, you might imagine.
Try it...be patient, do not make up answers, nor disregard input that follows.""

Based upon the available scientific evidence, the likelihood of the existence of a god is about the same as the chance of GfS managing three consecutive coherent sentences.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 07:52 AM

Steve Shaw

Has it occurred to you that you might be turning into (and I'm being careful here only to suggest it to you, not call you it) a feckin' whingeing eejit?

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:15 AM

Dave, in the interest of public health, smoking is banned from public places. In the interest of public safety, crimes involving alcohol are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (prohibition didn't work). While not banned completely, there are significant restrictions on their use and these relate to public health and safety.

So, is HIV more a public or a private health issue?

I'm not sure that vices can be compared with disease, keep in mind, some people think gay sex is a vice. In their minds, since the disease stems from vice, it is not viewed as something like TB.

Ian, I have to read yours again. There's a lot there.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:31 AM

SJL - Yes there are significant restrictions on nicotine and alcohol. None of which hold a candle to what is being suggested here. Yes, vices cannot be compared to a disease but addiction to those vices IS a disease. Are you suggesting compulsory testing to see anyone that is likely to suffer that condition?


You have not addressed the issue of private transport either. Which is neither a vice nor a disease but claims thousand of lives a year. Go back to the original question. If you only believe in testing gay people to save lives, where do you draw the line?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:58 AM

Well, SJL, there are not-dissimilar restrictions on shagging in the public gaze too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 09:02 AM

Steve Shaw

Has it occurred to you that you might be turning into (and I'm being careful here only to suggest it to you, not call you it) a feckin' whingeing eejit?

"No."

Quel dommage. Hence the impending tragedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM

A person who tests positive for TB has been exposed, but it doesn't mean they have the disease. If they don't, there's no quarantine. If sputum tests are positive for TB, they have pulmonary TB and are usually put in some modified form of quarantine (staying home, not working) until the tests are negative. Maybe a few weeks.
TB is difficult to catch, compared to many diseases. Ultraviolet light, as in out-door sunlight kills the bacteria.

If you ever once test positive for TB, you're likely to always test positive. If you've ever been immunized (questionable effectiveness), you will likely always test positive. If you've EVER tested positive for TB, you should never, ever, EVER receive the test for screening purposes again.

Controlling Tuberculosis in the United States
Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society, CDC, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America

And yeah, HIV is a public health issue because it's communicable. However, are we comparing smoking in the work place to having unprotected anal sex in the workplace, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 10:18 AM

Not comparing smoking to sex at all, Jeri. It's just an example. HIV is a public health issue. So is smoking. So is vehicular pollution. HIV costs lives. So does smoking. So does vehicular pollution. Why single out gay men for compulsory testing?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM

I don't believe universal compulsory testing would be beneficial.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 10:41 AM

There are ways to protect individual rights of privacy while also protecting the society on the whole from infectious diseases...

I mean, wouldn't you want to know if a kid your kids are playing with is infected with something like TB??? I would...

I remember getting the Salk vaccine in the 50s with every other kid in my school... I'm sure that the Michele Bachmann's of the world would think that was wrong... But it stopped polio in its tracks... Was that right thing to do??? Yeah, it was...

Here's where the libertarians change their minds about mandatory testing: When half the people they know have died from an infectious disease... Then they are saying, "Someone should have done something about this"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 11:26 AM

Steve Shaw

Hence the impending tragedy.

Ooer. You're not going to get this thread closed down like you did the other one Larry mentioned are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 11:55 AM

*Yawn*

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM

Based upon the available scientific evidence, the likelihood of the existence of a god is about the same as the chance of GfS managing three consecutive coherent sentences.

Impossible (and you know me, full of uncertainties). Barking. Mad as a box o' frogs. Crazy as Joe C*nt's cat...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 01:22 PM

So at the same time, Steve, you appear to be saying you haven't a clue whether there's a God, and holding that the likelihood of there being a God should be summed up as "impossible".

Never mind. As Walt Whitman put it "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Or in Emersn's words "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 01:57 PM

I don't know if there is even the remotest likelihood of there being fairies at the bottom of steves garden[other than being a ridiculous analogy] ,but if there were then they would need to have a creator too!.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:29 PM

So at the same time, Steve, you appear to be saying you haven't a clue whether there's a God, and holding that the likelihood of there being a God should be summed up as "impossible".

Why don't you look for something to say instead of joining the Snailist nit-picker corps? I was having a bloody laugh with Don there, you bloody po-faced so-and-so!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

Ian, what is this criminal assault you keep talking about? Are you talking about a needle to draw blood for HIV testing?

Exactly how do you "round up" gay males? How could you accurately identify who is who? One obvious way would be to track same sex marriages. Btw, wherever did you get the idea that marriage promotes stabile relationships and monogamy? Not in 2013.

Contrary to what some think, keeping your private life to yourself is not always about hiding in shame. It is often about wisely protecting yourself, especially if you belong to a minority. Something to think about.

One of the reasons my gay aunt would never marry is to protect her privacy, to keep her private life out of the public domain. That is, incidentally, one of the reasons why I wouldn't do it either even though I'm heterosexual.

The 5% want to redefine marriage so they can feel "equal" to everyone else? Have at it! Fool's gold as far as I'm concerned.

In this day and age, it's iffy IMO to tie yourself to another person, legally and publicly through marriage. When you strip away the romance, marriage is a three party contract between you, your partner and THE STATE. The state can change the terms of the contract whenever they please, you and your partner cannot.

If you want to get out of it, lawyers and judges must get involved in your private life. Then there is a public record of your divorce. Meanwhile, it is perfectly acceptable to cohabitate with someone. If it doesn't work out, your names are not linked together for all eternity.

Just sayin'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

It might have escaped the attention of your tiny mind, pete, but your creator needs a bloody sight better creator than my fairies do.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:30 PM

The health agencies group male homosexuals and bi-sexual men, as MSM(men who have sex with men) this is now a recognised demographic.
This demographic contains an epidemic of hiv/aids and most other sexually transmitted diseases and the rates are available from all National Health Agencies.

It is in the interests of all of us, especially male homosexuals, to have this epidemic stopped or the rates of new infection decreased.

The agencies themselves, have up until now, relied on Education, Inclusion, and Outreach(self regulation), to try to make some impession on infection and transmission rates in this demographic, with absolutely no success, in fact, the new infection rates are rising more quickly than ever.

Over the past year the health agencies have been hinting that if infection rates continue to rise "other methods" of control may need to be investigated. They suggest that all members of "at risk" groups should have an hiv test annually and sexually active MSM should present themselves for testing every three months.
Of course, they have no way of compelling people to take the test and as most young MSM have no apparent symptoms, it is unlikely that their advice will be acted upon.


I think is a certainty that compulsion will be brought over the next couple of years, but by then, many thousands of new infections will have taken place.

"Rounding up" will not be required Ian(very quaint), but there should be some sort of registration with penalties for failure to test or infecting others knowingly or through negligence.
This is a serious epidemic and demands serious measures to address it.

At the moment there are no safeguards and male to male sex is simply agame of Russian Roulette.