BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 05:23 AM

MSM infections and other goups have been moving in opposite directions for years.
MSMs rising, others falling.

The last annual set of figures showed the trend not just continuing but increasing.

Do you mean that the balance changed just in those three months, or that the balance was changed for the whole year by those 3 months figures?

Are those figures from over a year ago still so secret?
Is there secrecy about these things?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:52 PM

Dave, I refer you to an article posted by Ed T, on:

Subject: RE: BS: Shh.. Don't let them hear you..
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM

Anigher perspective. I cant seem tk link this, so will cut and paste it:

(DAVE, read Ed's post!!)
.................................................
To which I responded with THIS:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:46 PM

"Very interesting article, Ed....what I have posted before, and your article alludes to, is that mother and fetus are joined during pregnancy...AND, that affects the nervous system, hormones through the 'receptors'...and in turn sets up the 'receptors' to be 'conditioned' to receive input that it can 'recognize'...even be programmed to receive....much like some babies are born with addictions to various substances, IF the mother was taking them during her pregnancy.
See if this may shed some light on the subject.....Say the mother, during her pregnancy is very resentful toward the man who impregnated her, and can't get over it, is moody, resentful, and feels like the guy is a 'cruel unloving bastard'...and she carries those emotions and thoughts, instead of 'moving on', and 'getting over it'....she labors it,.....being as the fetus and mother are using the same body, while the child is being formed, don't you think that the receptors, from which the fetus, and later child, gets 'set up' and conditioned to process 'like-input' that its nervous system was formed with???
The answer is YES!...AND in years of counseling there are DEFINITE similarities consistent with homosexuals, emotional and psychological, to how they process information. That is not saying that those who were born with those similarities are 'at fault' by any choice of their own. That being said, there are the MAJORITY of homosexuals who are NOT born with that 'conditioning of incubation'.
The ones that ARE felt that it was 'genetic'....but that was only .2% of them(as of a few years ago)....Other homosexuals heard that, or read that, talked amongst themselves and formed a 'consensus' that homosexuality was therefore 'genetic'...and it applied to ALL of them, which is simply, not true. Political Airheads tried to make it a 'Civil Rights' issue, based on genetics, akin to being born black, which it clearly is not!
The other group, (which was NOT born that way) have bantered that it was, to divert attention the way from the 'stigma' they live with, which is coupled with 'guilt'....because they KNOW, that for them, in particular, it was a 'choice'....and therefore the confusion that leads to such a heated controversy, being held by those who DO NOT KNOW, and have NOT done their homework....and fanned by the political idiot-logues, who know NOTHING about what they spout off about...(quite a few on here).....
...Taking it further, when a child, who WAS born with that condition, has interaction with a 'Father Figure' whether it be his natural father or not, and in that interaction the child gets his feelings hurt, either by abuse, or PERCEIVED abuse, due to correction or anything else, he may develop resentment that extends to 'unforgiveness' toward the 'Father Figure', and BANG, you have the same emotional/hormonal conditions that he is familiar with, from inside the womb.
When the mother is stressed during pregnancy, her hormones are also at play....and have a direct effect on the gene (Xq28) that has the 'Markers' consistent with other homosexuals....and in that, he 'identifies' with the mother EMOTIONALLY....and often feels that he is 'the victim', much like his mother.
Generally speaking, men, DO NOT get their sense of masculinity from their mothers!!!..The get it from their fathers, or a father figure!!! ...AND, if that same child has a 'built in resentment' toward father figures, or even a concept of 'God', then they tend to rely on the instincts that nurtured them in the womb, and has been 'verified', by whatever caused them, being a young child, to 'resent' their father or 'Father Figure'....they will then gravitate toward like minded others, usually during the 'experimentation period' during puberty....and the rest takes its course.
To those who do NOT understand this, and label those who do, (such as myself, who studied 'Psych', and counseled as a marriage and family counselor), as being 'hateful' or 'bigoted toward homosexuals' or 'homophobic'...these are unlearned, politically conditioned idiots!
One more thing, before I finish...I have lost two friends, one a close one, a musical genius and sound engineering mentor, to AIDS.....so I'm not interested in some nitwit barking accusations of which he or she don't know shit about!

Now, does that sound like 'homophobia'???...or understanding??"

I thought that this post was more apropos to this thread...so I put it on this one, too!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:23 PM

I would also refer you to another article posted by Ed on the other thread that suggests even attempting to 'cure' homosexuality is wrong. Do you only read and quote articles that match your agenda or something? Not that the article you refer to does anything like back you up. I suggest you read it again.

BTW - I never accused you of being homophobic. I just think you are wrong in saying homosexuality is conditioning and that it can be 'cured'.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:33 PM

'Cured', I think, is the wrong word...that was something Firth 'interjected' when he re-phrased one of my posts, to get some traction.
That being said, SOME homosexuals do not want to stay homosexual. Some don't care if they have sex with either sex, or 'bisexual'....some just want to 'put it' where ever they can 'put it'...this goes for BOTH sexes, however, once one engages in sex with someone of the same sex, then it becomes overtly homosexual, by definition.
Here is one problem, that gets overlooked, though....should a homosexual seek counseling or have issues regarding his/her homosexuality, being as the political idiots claim it is 'just normal and natural', counseling or 'medical considerations' can be denied, or not funded....get this....for a 'problem' that doesn't exist!
In any event, those who are sexually active, outside the traditional family structure, with more than one partner, SHOULD BY ALL MEANS be tested....AND..they should do so, not because someone is forcing them, but for their own health, and the health of others......because IF it is solely about 'love', than wouldn't you be 'concerned' about the one(s) you SAY you 'love'...because if there is a reluctance, to do what is 'right', it usually is because it is for selfish motives, and NOT 'love'....maybe 'lust' and 'horniness'...but don't call it 'Love'....Knowing that, don't you think that explains the uncomfortableness with 'a stigma'???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 12:51 PM

Akenaton, Keith and any other person with a head on their shoulders, GO TO the, 'Shh.. Don't let them hear you..' thread!!
Ed T just posted a link validating most everything I've been saying for YEARS now......you mean WE 'might not' be 'homophobes!?!?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:46 PM

"Here is the quote Musket.
" I said that adding the final three months put the gay prevalence from just over 50% to just under.""

Since the figures YOU are using are 2012 data, I read that comment as stating that the last three months completed a two year turnaround, not that the whole thing happened in three months.

But then you specialise in slanting the meaning of every statement you wish were untrue.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:04 PM

"But then you specialise in slanting the meaning of every statement you wish were untrue."

There seems to be a lot of that going around here with the politicos and 'so-called liberals'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:09 PM

".AND..they should do so, not because someone is forcing them, but for their own health, and the health of others......because IF it is solely about 'love', than wouldn't you be 'concerned' about the one(s) you SAY you 'love'."

A sensible comment from GfS! Wonders will never cease!

Indeed they should, and from the figures, of all those who should care about testing for STDs in general and HIV in particular, the group with the highest percntage uptake (and therefore the most caring) is the Homosexual demographic.

Pick the bones out of that.

I don't expect to hear complaints from our two gay bashers about young single heterosexual females, who have the lowest percentage uptake of testing for all types of STD. Obviously they have "GREAT" concern for their partners.........NOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:12 PM

Let me explain Troubadour.
The figures I use are indeed for 2012, the latest figures available.
They show not just a continuation of the trend, but an increase in it.

Musket claims to have secret, unpublished figures for the first quarter of 2013 which only he can see.
That is unfortunate because they apparently show the trend going into reverse so that MSM infections are fewer than the rest.

I have asked if the balance changed just in those 3 months, or if those 3 months figures change the balance for a whole year.
No clarification from him yet.

How do you read it now Troubadour?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:18 PM

I suspect that there will be a LOT of back-peddling going on!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:12 PM

"There seems to be a lot of that going around here with the politicos and 'so-called liberals'!"

This seems like an odd way to refer to people who see things differently. Espevially, with tgd orotest that name calling be reduced. Would this not be more of a value judgement, based on limited information, versus a "FACT, that you strongly suggest we all rely on gfs?

;)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:15 PM

Ed, I've posted many times before, on various subjects, that often get politicized beyond recognition,..."Seek out the FACTS, and then let the chips fall where they may!"
This is a far cry, from having a political agenda, then twisting and spinning the facts, to make them fit the agenda...
...besides, and I'll 'remind' some people AGAIN, this thread is about the TRANSMISSION of HIV...and those who have a political agenda, trying to fit the homosexuality issue into a 'Civil Rights' issue, akin to the racial Civil Rights struggle during the '50's, '60's and '70's, because it is based on 'genetics', which it is clearly NOT!...and IF you would have read my earlier posts, the transmission of HIV/AIDS, and other STD's has more to do with PROMISCUITY, hetero OR homo.
...It's just that the political airhead crowd seems to want to exclude homosexuals from the equation, because to include them is considered 'homophobic'....which, of course, is a joke!
Now, as it is, YOU have provided links to the latest studies, which backs up earlier assertions of mine, that homosexuality is NOT 'genetic', but BEHAVIORAL, for which I've been repeatedly accused, (along with others, as you can plainly see) of being 'bigots' and 'homo-phobics', INSTEAD of addressing the issues realistically.
Here, in Mudcat, the answers have been AHEAD of the curve, for quite sometime, only to be sniped at, by the wannabe 'Civil Rights' do-gooders, who have been promoting false information, coupled with bad science for far too long!...That being said, The Mudcat Forum should have been recognized for providing GOOD information, AHEAD OF ITS TIME...but instead, has been reduced to 'just another off-base, so-called liberal' yak site!...Thanks to our resident promoters of false propaganda.....which for the first time in God only knows, how long, is being broken through, and being replaced with factual data.
...but first, truth must be held up, and the and the old bullshit, thrown away!
This has been a four year struggle...
....but let the chips fall where they may.........(works for me...how 'bout you?)

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 07:31 PM

Gts
I have only marginally followed this topic for a few weeks. Also, I am unaware as what transpired over "four years". Imo, there clearly seems to be "a failure to communcate" and understand each other.

In a resulting emotionally-charged climate, one can not expect much progress, let alone agreement on much. At times I am unsure if the main participants are having the same discussion?

You seemed to bunch up farctoo many issues together in your last post, I suspect you, as with others are, frustrated from the difficult "communications climate" . I have not seen the "civil rights issues" you raise in this thread? So, that 's why it seemed puzzling that you were making referance to terms like "liberals and political airheads"?

While we all try oud best to make sense of it all, I suspect if is more complex than any of us know, as we are not directly involved. While we may try and parch if together from our information sources, I suspect what we have access to is limited and incomplete.

I would not wish to be included into any group that does not reflect me. I understand that any unjustifiable suggestion that any member suffers from homophobia would bd a ckncern. And, I also suspect otgers are sensitive to see this unjustifiably being done with others, such as classifying all homosexuals as the same.That is why one has to be careful with what terms are used in this topic.

My observation is the topic is heated, progress is "spinning it's wheels". Maybe the topic is overdud for a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:25 AM

Yeah..OK with me....
I understand that you probably are not aware of the 'history' of the threads that I've referenced....I'd be glad to give you a list to look up, if you want to get familiar with why this gets so heated...however, the main 'wannabe activist' has not been posting much, as of recent, which is fine with me. He had a habit of restating positions of 'perceived motives'...and has created quite a bias, based on resentment, while dishing out hostilities, and purposefully 'spinning' things out context.
He has done Mudcat a great disservice with his wild assumptions and dishonest tactics.
I think the tone has changed, AND facts are now allowed to surface, where before they we kept at bay, and 'spun' to mean completely ridiculous, and even thread drifting diversions...However, at one time I acknowledged him for carrying on, in his antics, because the more he did, the more info was able to be covered.
That being said, his approach was political, whereas mine was not, but instead factual....as even some of your post have shed more light, on my position to him...which were void of 'religious' or 'political' agendas.
If you really are interested, I'll put up the threads....you might find them 'illuminating', not only for the info, but the crap some of us have had to deal with.....
.....and as I've said before, the whole homosexual issue, is not the MAIN issue here, other than a commentary(by others) as to the numbers they have shown, in categories, and comparisons to the spread of HIV.
My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo. Others have figures that show the percentages lean toward the homosexual community.....and my position favors a 'loving, traditional, nuclear family'....and there is no way to fake that!

Regards,

GfS

P.S....unless someone brings up something and directs it toward me.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:46 AM

"Musket claims to have secret figures"

Aye and Keith claims to have a stash of Nazi memorabilia and dresses up in a storm trooper uniform before getting in bed.

zzzzzzzz

There are no secret figures. The HPA /PHE raw numbers for +ve tests in The UK for the calendar year of 2012 have slightly more gay entries than the April to March 12/13 year that is used for healthcare commissioning. The reason I mentioned it was that it dips it from just over to just under 50%.

Hence not consistent with the "Most" of Keith and the "rising demographic" mentioned in BNP literature and Akenaton's cut and paste jobs.

This thread cannot discuss such matters whilst dominated by lies and distortions borne of homophobia and Goofus's made up science.

Tatty bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:04 AM

I only quote PHE and NAT.
No lies.
If your figures are in use for health care commissioning and are not secret, show us.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:06 AM

"My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo"

If all folks did not participate in sex, I guess that would be a sure-fire move to treatment. But, that's not going to happen, for any group or location. That leaves us with safer sex, increased testing, treatment with availabke drugs and research to halt the impacts.

Safer sex: People do what they do. We have little control over that. Note that it is a global issue, with local differences. While they are not fine tools, and success and approaches vary, increasing awareness and educating the young seem to hold good hope in many global situations. Increased condom use would, and UN facts show has made a difference in some locals. Preaching down to folks, or demononizing them, IMO, would be counter productive.Increased testing:This one is a puzzle. Common sense would lead you tk believe most folks woukd want to be tested.It would reduce tge possibility of you playing a role in transmission. It also gives those found positive access to treatment. It is likely that skme impacted do not know that advances in treatment reduces the diseases impact and risk of transmission. I suspect some have a fear of testing for a number of reasons. Some in high risk groups do not travel in the same social circles as we do, making their reasoning hard to understand and factor into progressive actions . More focus is needed here, to reach out those with better inside knowledge to design better outreach initiatices that work with the various demographics and groups in different areas.

Treatment: Let's not under value the progress that has been made in this area to date, in medecines to extend lives and reduce impacts and the virus spread. According tobthose working in the field, there is good indications that more progress will be made. But, the success is not a cure, has a cost, and people must participate for a benefit to result.

Note that I focus not on treatment and reducing transfer. I prefer to look at what works, and to build on that in a broader way, versus looking at what occurs in one local, like the USA and the UK. My observation is the discussion erodes when the discussion
changes to" finger pointing."

The likely reason that occurs is mudcat is a global community, who share some values and beliefs, but also represents a diversity of values, beliefs, and experiences. This should not be a surprise, nor anything to stress any mudcater. We can learn from it, and retain what we feel is of value, and calmly, ignore, or "shake off" the rest which we do not value.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:18 AM

SOME homosexuals do not want to stay homosexual

I do not believe that to be true. If someone is a homosexual they are a homosexual and want to be accepted for what they are. However, some may be made to feel so uncomfortable with it that they wish to be treated in the same was as heterosexuals are. And that is no surprise considering the attitude of some people.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 12:23 PM

Ed T: ""My position has been 'promiscuity', whether it be hetero or homo""
If all folks did not participate in sex, I guess that would be a sure-fire move to treatment."

Ed, 'promiscuity' and 'If all folks did not participate in sex' are two distinct different things...just think about it, I think you're bright enough to not play the 'overreaction' game..OK?

Musket: "Aye and Keith claims to have a stash of Nazi memorabilia and dresses up in a storm trooper uniform before getting in bed."

WOW!! What a 'convincing' rebuttal!!
I guess it's easier to post that, than cough up the numbers you claim you have that are not known by anyone!

DtG: "I do not believe that to be true. If someone is a homosexual they are a homosexual and want to be accepted for what they are."

How about bisexuals???...Oh yeah, I forgot, 'It's all about 'love'.
Whether you believe it or not, has no bearing on the fact, that some homosexuals DECIDED to change their mind....Hey, do you think that bisexuality is 'genetic' too?....or just schizophrenia??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 12:52 PM

I suspect .we are all "bright" gfs. I will trust that was not intended as an insult?

Regardless, my point, which did not seem apparent to you, was we (nod health agencies) have no direct control over anyones sexual behaviour permiscious of not. So, what does it matter, when it it comes to developing workable avenues to reduce transmission, on a global basis? Statistics indicate that a high percentage of the young, and even those we dont suspect of non

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 01:04 PM

Oops, sent before completing:


I suspect .we are all "bright" gfs. I will trust that was not intended as an insult?

Regardless, my point, which did not seem apparent to you, was we (and, health agencies) have no direct control over anyones sexual behaviour permiscious of not

So, what does it matter, when it it comes to developing workable avenues to reduce transmission, on a global basis?

Statistics indicate that a high percentage of the young, and even those we dont suspect of non, on a global basis? Statistics indicate that a high percentage of the young, and even those we dont suspect of non-monogomous activities stray, often on a frequent basis. Additionally, in todays global commhnity, what occurs in one nation, could easily impact another. Focousing only on local conditions in isolation (and, infection and transmission route statistics), IMO is not a wise course for health agencies to follow. As a guest noted, HIV is a global pandemic, not a local epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:36 PM

Ed, No, it was not an insult...and I thought you'd see through that, and THINK it through.
That being said, and as YOUR link of the latest Stanford study noted, homosexuality is NOT 'genetic'...so perhaps people should stop relating to it as if it were, and be more rational and realistic.
To add to that, I'm one who believes, and is supported by history, that suppression does not work..never has...so, in light of that, I believe that people should take personal responsibility for their sexual acts..and that means NOT recklessly exposing other people to STD's and fatal diseases, hetero or homo, and calling it 'love', just to get their rocks off. Keep in mind, that the over emphasis and exploitation of the 'fun' of having sex does NOT take away from the fact, that reproduction is the main and primary function of the REPRODUCTION SYSTEM. 'Romance', variations, fantasies, 'perversions' or not, are all bi-products of the 'mating dance'. Promiscuity has split many family units, brought diseases, both physical, mental and emotional, and in fact, SHOULD be discouraged. Lifestyles that promote promiscuity, or for that fact, even tolerate it should NOT be embraced, glorified, exploited or pursued....as any child from a broken home due to it. But we, as adults(physically), find it so easy to disregard all of that for 7 seconds(average time of an orgasm) and put ourselves, our spouses, our children, and the health of others, at risk for that climax of 7 seconds! Does that sound responsible to you? Seems to me, that if that is the 'high point' of the human experience, then maybe those people are worshiping at the wrong altar!
It is a personal decision that comes from within....and is of higher values....and promiscuity IS the leading cause of the transmission of HIV/AIDS, and STD's! WHY in the world, do people who claim to have society's best interests and heart continue to look the other way??
HINT: Because they're full of shit!
Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:42 PM

Correction(typo):
"...as any child from a broken home due to it."

Should read: "asK any child from a broken home due to it."

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:55 PM

Good, I had a feeling you had no bad intents, but had to ask, to be sure.

A good wish list, gfs. However, In reality, significant change in society like you indicate is unlikely to occur in our lifetime (locally or globaly), even if there were broad support for such (which I suspect there is not).

(On your other point, regardless if homosexuality is based on genetic make up, or not, it is a reality, and is refected in many species and is not the sole factor in global infection/transmission.I seem to recall, you indicated HIV is not a "homosexual" disease, as it impacts homo and hertro communities -though in different proportional rates in your locale, and that promiscuity in both communities is a major factor in transmission. Would that be accurate?).

So, based on all that, what would be an effective back up plan you might have in mind, to reduce infection/transmission, locally and globally in the shorter term?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:48 PM

Ed: ".I seem to recall, you indicated HIV is not a "homosexual" disease, as it impacts homo and hertro communities -though in different proportional rates in your locale, and that promiscuity in both communities is a major factor in transmission. Would that be accurate?)."

Close...however it should be noted, that 'bisexuality' is the MAJOR cause of HIV entering into the hetero world...and bisexuality is in fact, promiscuity as well...I believe that you'd concur..
As to your question, in our permissive society, through the media, whether it be written or movies, permissiveness and promiscuity have been glamorized(as well as murder and other 'misdeeds'), and through political promotion, our permissiveness has reached chaotic proportions. In 1960, 5% of births were to single parents out of wedlock...today, it is 40%. Gangs have replaced family units, where there are no fathers present..(sorta like an urban 'Lord of the Flies'). Politicians LOVE to talk about 'order'...but are permissive, and even subsidize, and pander to single mothers, making the broken home commonplace.
Hey, before we go on much further, would you agree to that?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 05:26 PM

Gfs, possibly so, but, there is little liklihood of changes in some of the areas you mention, that would halt or reduce infection rates.. Even if there were changes, I suspect the pandoras box has been opened and the resulting social/moral/sexual attitude changes are embedded in much of society. Rarely have attempts to "turn back the moral clock" been effective, except in very repressive states.

Yes, bisexual activities was and is a cross sexual transmission route. But, since HIV is present in both homo and hertero groups, this would not be the only route of transmission/infection (there would be various other routes). I have not seen factual information, only speculation, on where it would factor in transmission. There are different infection routes in various locations. Additionally, I have not seen any facual information on historic infection rates in the global community.

While moral attitudes toward sexual activity have changed since the 50s, I have not seen factual informatin on how the individual changes directly impacted HIV infections (by nation), if it exists.I suspect it would be problematic to arrive at any firm conclusion. For examle, though it may be the case in some situations, rising younger teen-aged pregnacy rates does not necessarily (directly) equate to risky sexual behaviour with potentially impacted individuals that increases tranmission rates. If it did, I would like to see the reports that say it is so.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 06:35 PM

How about bisexuals???...Oh yeah, I forgot, 'It's all about 'love'.
Whether you believe it or not, has no bearing on the fact, that some homosexuals DECIDED to change their mind....Hey, do you think that bisexuality is 'genetic' too?....or just schizophrenia??


GfS - I have never said it is all about love and I have never said homosexuality is genetic. Why suggest I did unless you are really struggling to come up with any compelling argument? I did say that homosexuals are just as capable of love as heterosexuals are. Do you not believe that to be so? I also said that homosexuality is not a choice. That has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics. I do not believe for one minute that some homosexuals decided (in upper case or not) to change their minds. I do believe that some have got that sick of the prejudice shown against them that they have wished they were heterosexual. But they never will be. No, I do not believe bisexuality is schizophrenia or any other sort of illness. Do you?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 10:43 PM

DtG: "I do not believe for one minute that some homosexuals decided to change their minds."

I'm not the one to offer that kind of 're-orientation'....that is NOT my expertise....So, click the link, read the article, and contact this guy, to learn more....IF you really are interested in finding out.
That's fair, huh?

Ed T: "For example, though it may be the case in some situations, rising younger teen-aged pregnancy rates does not necessarily (directly) equate to risky sexual behavior with potentially impacted individuals that increases transmission rates. If it did, I would like to see the reports that say it is so."

How can you NOT equate younger teenage pregnancy rates with risky sexual behavior???
Somebody got pregnant didn't they??...and chances of that couple raising the child together are pretty slim, don't you think? In these cases, perhaps instead of coddling the 'feelings' of the 'horny' how about considering the lasting consequences of their actions?
Just a thought....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:58 AM

Ed and GfS, the best section of the thread by a mile.

Civil discussion and some real ideas, with no political overtones....well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:06 AM

That was a nasty trick, GfS - Pointing us innocent folk to "Conservapeadia - The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia". I was nearly sick. Fortunately the complete cobblers in there is so transparent it is laughable but I will warn other readers that pressing that link will lead you to the sort of right wing tripe that really can affect your mental wellbeing. No wonder some of the posters on here are completely bonkers. However, I have put my safety on the line for you all and read it. I will summarise it with one quote from the article

The radical change and transformation in his life, Glatze recalls, began after he started to question his homosexual lifestyle following a health scare and with inner "promptings" that he now attributes to God.

Need I say more?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:35 AM

Gts,
As to teen age pregnancy, I suspect there may be a variety of scenarios in play, for example where there may be only two young people involved in the sex acts (not permiscuous).

This may be "risky" for the liklihood of pregnancy, (and, surely a social and moral matter) but, not necessarily risky for HIV infection. That would be another matter outside the discussion. However, if a high number involves "sleeping around" with many partners, well yes, it would be a factor. I just have not seen the factual figures to say it is so.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:01 AM

To be clearer gfs, young people engaging in unprotected sex is a clearly a major concern for HIV transmission and increased infections.

I would expect increased access to birth control at an early age is another factor, as it removes the fear of pregnancy - which may have provided some degree of caution. I have read that the lack of information on HIV among the young (such as ignorance about the various routes of transmission, and a mistaken belief there is a quick cure) is a significant concern.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:17 AM

fact sheet from Singapore 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:26 AM

My reason to provide the last link is to add visiters to countries having sex to the transmission route "soup" (bringg it there, or bringing it home).

Additionally, there is a false belief that oral sex is not a transmission route, especially among the young.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 11:55 AM

Dave, It sounds to me that someone whose whole life's outlook, radically changed, from a liberal, homosexual owner/editor of a pro homosexual advocacy publication. to being a conservative, EX-homosexual, and even alludes that 'God' had something to do with it, just rankles your 'so-called liberal' nerves....and the thought of a 'conservative' site carrying the story, just makes it boil your 'erroneous zones'....so, try this!....or even the New York Times

Imagine that!...you get to learn something new every day, on good Ol' Mudcat!

I imagine that the thought of 'one of ours' turning around short-circuits some programmed propaganda 'liberal' nonsense!

BTW, I can't vouch for his politics, or religion, however you said, ""I do not believe for one minute that some homosexuals decided to change their minds."".....well believe it, Buddy!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:07 PM

Is there such a thing as 'EX-homo homophobia'???..or just 'hetrophobia'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:08 PM

.....or just culture shock, from emerging from bullshit propaganda??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:13 PM

"Is there such a thing as 'EX-homo homophobia'???..or just 'hetrophobia'??"

Possibly when one is cured if either, they just begin to seem normal, like most other folks.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:23 PM

I can go with that!

Ed T: "To be clearer GfS, young people engaging in unprotected sex is a clearly a major concern for HIV transmission and increased infections."

Here, Ed, for your enjoyment.....listen ALL the way....

and then....Remember this one?

Regards, Ed!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:27 PM

Akenaton: "Civil discussion and some real ideas, with no political overtones....well done."

Oh, what's in a name??????

Warmest Regards,

Guest from SANITY

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM

Good old songs, gfs. It s hard to not like good music, regardless of the period it came from.(I recall a song I liked quite a few years ago, then I learned it was from a movie and the song was about a rat).:)

Here is one if hope:
some peolle change 

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:18 PM

Sorry, GfS. He didn't change his mind. He is just mentally unhinged. Rather like a lot of posters on here. As to your assumptions about my politics and outlook on life. Well, you cannot be further from the truth but that only goes to show how wrong you can be. Good luck in your career as a fantasy fiction writer but George Martin still has the edge.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:27 PM

Here's two for ya'...

Snap now, and avoid the rush........."Ain't No Great Day"

....and this one....

'Enjoy!'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:55 PM

Good luck in your career as a fantasy fiction writer....."

Hey, I'm not the one who 'is' a Gnome.

....seemed apropos for what you seem to defend......but then....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 05:54 PM

Very poor effort, GfS, I am not and never have been 'spaced out'. Is that your problem? It does seem that Steve and Musket have the right idea in that there are some who are just so far gone there is no point in even attempting to reason with them. You are getting there.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:19 PM

...perhaps...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:26 PM

Not very good singing, on thevlast one, gts

I wouldnt quit my day job, or expect retirement song royalities from that one
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:31 PM

Nice piano, though....Biff wasn't so much a singer as writer....he also was the guy writing George Carlin's skits...true story.
Met him in Venice, Calif, years ago....my brother went with his ex girlfriend...Jeez, talk about 'promiscuity'!!....but shhhh....that was before HIV/AIDS was developed!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:39 PM

Here he is introducing himself, looking back on the Smothers Brothers
You 'might' remember him....


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:09 PM

Interesting that you knew him, gfs. I never watched much TV during that period, so I don't recognize him from the ssows. It seems like he was a prolific writer. But, not really my "cup of music tea" in music, though.