Equal Rights for Gay Marriage

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:23 PM

""What do we call the perverts who obsessively think about what other people are doing in bed? ""

"PRURIENT" is a good word for such.


prurient [ˈprʊərɪənt]
adj
1. (Psychology) unusually or morbidly interested in sexual thoughts or practices

Don T.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:45 PM

Ake says... "How bad will you allow these figures    to get, before you call for a medical inquiry into the link between HIV/AIDS and male homosexuality?? " and "Would someone have the guts to answer my question......or is the only answer verbal abuse?"

It's not about having guts, as you call it, akenaton. It's about word wastage and knowing that no matter how many times that question of yours gets answered, refuted, put down, disproved, you will keep bringing that set of stats up. That is your perogative as a member of the forum.

Why is a medical enquiry needed? We all know the stats and the results of surveys about HIV/AIDS. Some can be used in various ways and disproven, others are ambiguous, but the general point shows that *some* gay men more at risk than others. Just like some heterosexuals are more at risk at some things than others. For instance, straight and bisexual women are at greater risk of contacting cervical cancer. Should we have a medical enquiry about that? It's basically passed on from men's willies in the form of a neat little hpv package. Should we ban straight sex because of all the women who are at risk from men? Or shall we leave it for the women to decide what risks they take and allow them to take necessary precautions to cut down their chances?

Esophageal cancer is on the rise and hpv is again implicated (in some types) in that. Oral sex is the most likely route to infection. Shall we ban that or have an enquiry? Should we design an oral condom for men and women? Should people have to wear one? Shall we off tax incentives for condom use?

FACT: unprotected sex is risky for everyone. I say everyone because many is the faithful partner who ends up with some STI from a partner who has not been faithful. The only truly safe way not to get an STI is not to have sex. No-one is safe. STI's do not say to themselves "this is a gay man who deserves to get caught out... this is a gay woman who should be straight... this is a straight man cheating on his partner". STI's are indiscriminate and the education about them is getting less and less for so many who think they are in a 'safe group'. There are no safe groups in sexually active people.

Allow me to ask you a question in return as I have tried to answer yours. No guts were needed. Just a straightforward reply based on the truth surrounding all STI's

What is YOUR answer to all this?

thank you

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:57 PM

100....and just cracking up, at these 'expert OPINIONS'!! accepted, as FACT!

Fact: Gay people are denied the same civil rights that everyone else enjoys.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's an opinion.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:08 PM

Firstly Mauvepink, I would thank you for your courtesy and avoidance of verbal abuse.
I would also start by answering your question...I simply do not know what needs to be done, but it should be obvious to even the most callous supporters of the status quo on this forum, that the present state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.

I accept your list of risky behaviours, but in percentage terms, none come close to the male homosexual/Aids demographic

CDC states that MSM are 44 times more likely to contract hiv/aids than heterosexuals
MSM account for more than half of new infections in the US, despite comprising only 2-3% of the population.

MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have
declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM
has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.

Latest life expectancy figures for MSM, state that their life expectacy is 8-20 yrs less than heterosexuals and less than smokers

This makes homosexual practice very dangerous indeed, more dangerous than smoking, which is quite rightly discriminated against in most countries

MSM are also often refused life insurance cover and are banned from giving blood
Senior market reporter Phil Young of Insure.com has, over the course of 10 years, examined hundreds of different life insurance applications and company acceptance guidelines. Young states, "While it's true that the life insurers do not ever ask about sexual preference, it's also true that every one of them will decline any applicant that proves to be HIV-positive. So, with their actions but not their words, life insurance companies are making a bold statement that anybody who is HIV-positive need not apply."
Given the percentage of homosexuals who carry the virus, is this not "discrimination"?

You say that the stats can be disproven.....I have not seen any body even attempt to disprove the CDC figures.
You also say that the general point shown by these stats is that "some* gay men are more at risk than others.... that is not the case, the stats show that a very large percentage of homosexuals are contracting the HIV virus and that percentage is getting larger every year, while the rates in every other demographic including injecting drug abusers is falling

My stance, no matter what idiots like John P say, has always been against the "promotion of homosexuality" on health grounds. In my opinion, inviting people who practice such dangerous behaviour into mainstream society is foolhardy.....telling them it is quite normal to live with a debilitating disease and die twenty years before they could reasonably expect to, is the worst form of cruelty.

In its conclusions, CDC state that "There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV
prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population

I leave you to work out what is meant by "develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population"

If the rates continue to rise for another couple of years, you won't have to work anything out for yourself.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:12 PM

Sorry not logged in!

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:22 PM

Not logged in either! lol

Thank you for your reply akenaton.

What I meant about stats being disproven and doubted is that some are manipulted - on all sides of the argument - to make points which, basically, are already known.

The point I was attempting to make on this thread and on others I have voiced opinion is that one simply cannot single out gay males in STI figures. IF they were the only ones playing at risky sex then maybe an argument could be made to try and get them to comply more but the fact does remain that that STI's affect all parts of the sexuality spectrum. To single gay males out is pointless. Even if we accept that they may be the highest risk group at present it is quite futile to just simgle them out. Get rid of them in the stats and who do we start on next? What needs doing is a full drive against all risky unprotected sex across all groups or else we will simply replace whoever heads the figures with another group.

There is/was no need for any verbal abuse from me. Not a single post I have ever made has abuse in it. I always attempt to be courteous no matter the subject. What would be the sense in me name calling and making this personal? Unless a personal attack is made on me I have no need to change my approach. That gives me no moral high ground either. It is simply my way as others have theirs.

One thing I would stress though and that is we need to move away from this subtle terminology that leads people to draw perhaps wrong conclusions. The idea of "Homosexual practices" is a misnomer. Many gay people do the same thing that hetrosexual people do and vice versa. We seldom ever see it mention about "straight sex practices" because that is, wrongly in my opinion, seen as the default in human sexuality. There are crossovers between all sexualities of various things they do and don't do. It's not homosexual practice, it is a behaviour as expressed by that group of people. Many gay men would not do half the things that straight people do. WE need to stop the labelling and move toward overall fair and honest education.

We have been here before so I will not divert the thread further.

Back on topic... let everyone marry who they wish. It's not a biggy really to allow all discriminated people the same free choices as all other people in the populous.

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:50 PM

Akenaton;
You purposefully, or ignorantly keep avoiding the main issue -- as addressed in the very CDC report you keep citing!!!!!!
One of the ways to prevent the spread of HIV is to have a monogamous relationship.
Yet it is precisely this that you are arguing against.
This reveals to all with any rationality your true bias.
Thus you are not worth discussing this issue with.
You may continue this discussion with CecilGuestfromlansingsanity.
Not me.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 03:00 AM

Not another farewell from Tia! :0)

She's hid mair thin Frank Sinatra....goan yersell hen!

Oh I'm frightfully sorry that should be in Little Hawk's "Mither" thread.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:33 AM

Sorry..punched in and forgot to sign in....:

John P:Fact: Gay people are denied the same civil rights that everyone else enjoys.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's an opinion."

John you said it all, and more than you thought!

Let's start with this one, and go to the following one, in a moment:

" Gay people are denied the same civil rights that everyone."

OKAY, First of all, Homosexuals are NOT denied the same civil rights, and the reason is this. The Constitution, from where we get our rights from, and that you cite, guarantees the same rights to everyone, regardless of race, creed, or color. They all can marry, or jobs, and cannot be discriminated against because of those guarantees.

A. Race???...well, no.
B. Is it a color?...no.
C. Is it a Creed, or religious belief?...no.
Now, in all fairness, (and before your head explodes), the courts are having the same problem, in the interpretation, for that same reason.
The so called, wannabee, self appointed 'civil rights activists', who will emotionalize, that that is not correct, has NO FACTS to base that OPINION....So let me help you understand why that is.(which goes into your second sentence:
"I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's an opinion."
Okay, OPINIONS ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS FACTS!...Watch:(from Wikipedia)

The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[3] The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[4]

Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found in such phrases Matter of fact,[5] and "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."

OKAY??..Now, 'Opinion'..

"An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments.[1]

An opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

OKAY?? So, the problem you have stated, is: "I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's an opinion."

Because you came to a CONCLUSION, based on an OPINION, instead of a FACT, and now that CONCLUSION....:

–noun
1.
the end or close; final part.
2.
the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3.
a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4.
final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5.
a reasoned deduction or inference.
6.
Logic . a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.
7.
Law .
a.
the effect of an act by which the person performing the act is bound not to do anything inconsistent therewith; an estoppel.
b.
the end of a pleading or conveyance.

So, your final CONCLUSION is based on an OPINION, NOT supported by FACTS, as stated of what the Constitutes a 'Civil Right', under the CONSTITUTION..
If You BELIEVE a CONCLUSION, not supported by FACTS, you are living in a DELUSION.....which explains: "I'm HAVING A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT.. how that's an opinion."

Capiche??

Glad to Have Been of Service, to Assist You,

GfS

P.S. It is ONLY an OPINION, that it MIGHT be genetic, as well. There is some 'evidence' that they may be looking in thee right direction, but have not found it, yet. That is a FACT...not an OPINION.

Where you need to look, is in the 'receptors' and that will show, that it is behavioral, not genetic.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:28 AM

Tia....if you ever return, I would point out that studies like the Scandinavian one have proved that the "male homosexual community" are uninterested in monogamy or same sex marriage.
Hedonism and promiscuity seem to be part and parcel of homosexual behaviour.....personally I see this as a problem associated with exclusively male sexual relations, males being natusally more sexually predatory than females.

It has also been found, that among the few same sex marriages(percentage wise) that have taken place, couples are "marrying" for financial and immigration reasons, rather than the traditional definition, i.e. to produce children and bring them up in a secure family structure.

"Gay marriage" is already becoming a scam.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:32 AM

>>>studies like the Scandinavian one have proved that the "male homosexual community" are uninterested in monogamy or same sex marriage.
Hedonism and promiscuity seem to be part and parcel of homosexual behaviour<<<


Ake ~~ you will no doubt claim this as purely anecdotal and based solely on my own experience. But I have to state that five longstanding homosexual relationships known to me as close friends [4 male, one female] have all embraced the opportunity now available of 'civil partnership', and continue their longstanding relationships in that form. I frankly doubt the truth or accuracy of your last assertion.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:07 AM

Here is a question, How exactly is two gay people who have a civil service like everyone else is entitled to affect your life to the point where you get so heated. Even the fundamental Christian folks I ask them. Then they say read your bible, then I say if you believe God doesn't allow it by your interpretation, then why would a civil act bother you .. since judgment is up to God not you. No one has been able to give me an answer. If you are not gay (I am not) then why do we care about other good people who are and simply have a different set of genes? i don't get it, but that is me. Is someone trying to force you into a gay lifestyle? I think not, so why so bothered?

Anyway that is my take for what it is worth

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:26 AM

besides, gay people are American Citizens, they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married people LOL

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 11:24 AM

Hi olddude,   if you read through the threads you will find that it is not I who is becoming "heated", but people like John P the activist, DonT and Don firth.....they are the ones using intemporate language.

Believe it or not, I consider myself a libertarian in sexual matters, the exception is sexual behaviour which caused such a high percentage of death and disease amongst those who practice it.

Micheal...I have never implied that all homosexuals are promiscuous.

I am sure there are same sex couples of our age group,(when passion begins to wane) :0), who are completely momogamous. Unfortunately the figures take in all age groups and it appears that young homosexuals are by far the worst affected catagory.

Mp will probably say that this proves monogamy will solve the problem, but the aging process as we very well know, takes a very long time.

I was sorry to read of the disgusting PM you received, please dont be put off by lunatics, do as I do and try to ignore it.
I for one enjoy your input here(though we dont seem to agree on much :0)

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:23 PM

Akenaton: "Hi olddude,   if you read through the threads you will find that it is not I who is becoming "heated", but people like John P the activist, DonT and Don firth.....they are the ones using intemporate language."

Could it be that they remember 'the good ol' days' of being in heat??

Personally, I'm getting tired of some, intolerant jerks, who scream 'bigots' at people who they disagree with. The silly dummies, should realize, based on my previous post, defining FACTS with plain definitions, that charging someone with 'bigotry', with no FACTS to base that charge on, is tantamount to slander, defamation of character, and libel(being as it is 'in print').....of which legal action should remedy that!...based, of course, on FACT!..which usually holds up in court!

Advice: Shut your face, with the false accusations, and stick to the topics, and discuss FACTS!

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:30 PM

Well, Akenaton does make one point that seems very reasonable: Generally speaking, same sex couple are not marrying for the purpose of producing children.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:42 PM

"Hedonism and promiscuity seem to be part and parcel of homosexual behaviour"... and bisexuality and hetrosexuality.

I would not say monogamy would solve the problem per se. Many partners are monogamous when the other is not. Faithfulness of both parties would certainly reduce a great deal the risks and more or less eradicate the chance of fresh STI's.

Not all people play around. That's great. But we should not judge those that do based on sexuality. If any judgement is to be made then it is about unsafe sex... and that is the domain of many people in all sexualities.

Just my opinion with no judgement being made

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 12:50 PM

Ake ~ It wasn't your statistics I was querying, but the "hedonism & promiscuity" bit; which, as I said. doesn't fit in with my acquaintances' experiences ~~ and they are mainly younger than me. Hedonism/promiscuity as a tendency seems a bit of a blunt-edged generalisation to me.

Thank you for your support & sympathy in the matter of that PM ~ I was not thrown, but regarded it, as I said, as 'pathetic'. One does not have to agree, indeed, to respect one another's right to express opinions.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 01:27 PM

"Hedonism and promiscuity seem to be part and parcel of homosexual behaviour"... and bisexuality and hetrosexuality."
The production of children and the extended family structure has a great bearing on the sexual behaviour of most(not all)heterosexual men, IMO.

"Not all people play around. That's great. But we should not judge those that do based on sexuality. If any judgement is to be made then it is about unsafe sex... and that is the domain of many people in all sexualities."

I agree that people of all sexual "orientations" play around MP, but can you explain why the health figures are so massively different in percentage terms for homosexuals and heterosexuals. Surely common sense tells us that all is not well in the homosexual community?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM

All is not well in the whole community when you take into account hpv acquired cervical cancers, infertility, death from pelvic imflammatory disease, etc, etc. Singling out a single group and disease is quite futile. Risky sex is risky sex to all and sundry.

Getting stuck on one group and one disease actually avoids the bigger issues and concerns. If you are going to campaign for sexual safety then you have to do it for all, with discrimination or specific target.

STI's are a risk to everyone out there. They are indiscriminate and they are passed around the pool of human beings without targeting just one.

This is all I can offer and so will decide maybe not to carry on with this libe as it is not what the thread is about.

Once again we must agree to differ in the way we look at this.

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 02:31 PM

STI's have been with us for thousands of years.
Percentages like we see in the homosexual community have not.

Actually we are discussing what the thread is about.
Several behavioural minorities are "discriminated" against on health grounds, both mental and physical.

The epidemic now affecting the homosexual community has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of a tiny minority in our society....if we invite that minority into *mainstream* society, tell them their behaviour is safe and normal enough to be granted "rights" refused to others, we do them a great diservice.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 03:23 PM

I think it rather pretentious that anyone should think they have a right to invite anyone into mainstraem society (and I am NOT singling your comment out as I know many agree with you). Who is to say who can be inside the mainstream?

For it to be a mainstream it should be fair to all. The very idea that some think it is their place to say who can be 'in the club or out of it' seems discriminatory in itself.

Who gave the mainstream permission to be in the mainstream. Who or what is the mainstream? Who gave them rights to decide?

I would wager many the gay man has died to give the mainstream their safety and their rights. Not of HIV/AIDS, but for fighting other's causes. I never ever heard a gay person in the forces say they were not going to fight for the straight people. They fight for everyone and they die on batlefields too.

Just some ideas and thoughts

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:45 PM

I remember quite clearly the time when practicing homosexuality was a criminal offense...then, homosexuality was not even in the backwaters, but underground.
Sexual intercourse between men has since been quite rightly de-criminalised and there is more tolerance of this behaviour,but I would certainly not describe practicing homosexuals as being in mainstream society.

For the last 25 years there has been a concerted attempt to by powerful pressure groups in the media, the entertainment industry and politics to have homosexuality accepted as just another lifestyle/behaviour, normal and safe, just part of life's rich tapestry......they might even have succeeded had it not been for the advent of hiv/aids and until this link is explained, homosexuals will always be outside of the mainstream.

There are other factors which make homosexuality a taboo in the minds of most heterosexual men.....perhaps women feel differently about these things.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:17 PM

Generally I just accept homosexuality the same as I do hetrosexuality and bisexuality. It matters not to me what others do with each other as long as it is consensual. I've never stressed it. People, in main. are who they are. Some need help. Some don't.

The only thing I ever saw as needing help, regarding homosexuality, is to help stamp out the discrimination against gay people. But then I also stand up for other discriminations too.

The moment we stop standing up for people in our midst we bring ever closer the time when it will be out own turn to be discriminated against. In an equal society such things become less possible

It's just how I am

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

It is one of those things I just do not care about, other than to want everyone to have equal rights. I want everyone to be safe and moral, and I want everyone to be so discrete that I do not know if they have an orientation either way or any way at all. I don't want any public displays of affection other than perhaps holding hands, and that includes Hollywood, teenagers, etc. I want everyone to behave themselves in public and not do anything that hurts anyone else in private, and to have no contact with minors or people who can not make informed decisions, but to all have equal rights and benefits, including marriage. Why would we want to deny anyone this? A lifelong commitment, true love etc. mg

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:33 PM

In what way can keeping homosexual people marginalized possibly help in combating HIV? Do you imagine that, being aware of marginalization, they will feel that as an effective pressure to refrain from homosexual activity? Can you possibly imagine that society as a whole will be inclined to direct more concern and research to the problems of a marginalized, stigmatized, group as opposed to a more accepted group?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM

mg: (It is one of those things I just do not care about, other than to want everyone to have equal rights.(and MP)"

As I covered before(Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 04:33 AM)

They DO have rights, just as any one else, perhaps not all the accepted recognitions, but rights" yes.
What next?..The 'right' to conceive and bear children from their homosexual partner???

GfS

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: John P
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 05:45 PM

Uh, how about the right to get married to the person you love?

Somewhere there is a list of about 1000 federal benefits that married people get, most of them financial.

How about the right to keep your house and belongings when your partner dies?

How about the right to be at the bedside and make medical decisions for your sick partner?

If you are stuck on Constitutionally guaranteed rights, how about the right to equal treatment under the law, which would cover everything above?

How about the right to privacy? GfS, since you think it's all right to discuss other peoples' sex lives on an internet forum, perhaps you'd like to share the details of your sex life with us? Or are you unwilling to swallow the medicine you're handing out?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:08 PM

Ake
you are good person, don't you think it was wrong to lock people away in the past because they have a different gene. I don't know about anyone here but my gay neighbors down the street are the nicest people in the world. And when you meet them you don't know they are gay. They don't walk around with a sign anymore that I do that I am straight with 3 kids and a wife. People are people. How many people in this life do you know or care about the details of their bedroom activity. I don't care I don't want to know .. MP said it best huh. Someone could please correct me but the bulk of HIV today is our young people in HS and College having unprotected sex. I don't think it is our gay citizens that are rampantly spreading the disease willingly. Gee people are people we have good and bad in all walks of life. The attempt to single out any segment of people as a target of any aggression or less rights then other citizens is wrong. Please re-think ok

Thank you
Dan

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:24 PM

I do think akenaton intimated he thought it was wrong that gay men were criminalised in his last posting? He said "Sexual intercourse between men has since been quite rightly de-criminalised"

In fairness, though I am sure he will answer for himself

:-)

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:37 PM

Conclusions from CDC figures
"There is an urgent need to expand access to proven HIV
prevention interventions for gay and bisexual men, as well as to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population

"As well as develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population"

Do you think this means telling homosexuals that their behaviour is safe? just keep doing what they are doing,everything will be fine when they get their "rights"?
Well I've got news for you goons, it means targeting "at risk" catagories....and which is the most "at risk" catagory by a long yankee mile?......Yea! you finally got it!
If HIV rates among homosexuals keep rising there will be compulsory testing, perhaps even quarantining and it will not be called discrimination.....some of the more swiched on homosexuals are already calling for these measures as a means of cutting infection rates.

Targeting of at risk catagories means the right to life
Civil rights in the case of homosexuals can be a death sentence.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: mauvepink
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:43 PM

I never heard anyone telling anyone else that unsafe sex is safe.... except fools and desperate people

mp

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:45 PM

Thanks for that MP.
I wasn't going to respond to olddude as he seems a little confused over the facts and the issues.
For example, I dont think anyone contends that homosexuals infect others willingly....more than half of the young people who tested positive in the CDC figures were quite unaware of their condition.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 06:52 PM

The signals from social acceptance of the behaviour (homosexuality) indicate that it is safe and normal.
The granting of marriage, fostering rights etc, is regarded as social acceptance.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:02 PM

By the way since we are agreed that in percentage terms homosexuals are many times more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals and given that homosexuals are bombarded with information on safe sex and free condoms, one would think the statistics would be the other way round.

Why do you think the MSM figure are so much worse?
Do you think that homos are really so much more promiscuous than heteros?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 07:29 PM

Ake seems to be right in the statics by the CDC. I just went out to their website. What it tell me is more aggressive education needs to be make for our minorities and poor. The message doesn't seem to be getting out as it should. I don't know the factors but it seems we dropped the ball on education society wise with these groups.

CDC

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:03 PM

No olddude, millions have already been spent on education yet homosexual /hiv rates continue to worsen.
What the figures actually say, although CDC cannot, is that homosexuals are unwilling or unable to ammend their own behaviour.

At some point, minorities must start taking responsibility for the effects of their behaviour, or they will be compelled to do so

The fact is that almost 50% of US hiv budget is already being targeted on homosexuals, who only make up 2% of the population.

Is this equality?

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: olddude
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 08:39 PM

It seem like the CDC is saying that education is the key along with behavior changes. Whatever it takes I hope the message gets out.


Racism, poverty, and lack of access to health care are barriers to HIV prevention services, particularly for MSM from racial or ethnic minority communities. A recent CDC study found a strong link between socioeconomic status and HIV among MSM: prevalence increased as education and income decreased, and awareness of HIV status was higher among MSM with greater education and income.

Complacency about HIV may play a key role in HIV risk, particularly among young MSM. Since young MSM did not experience the severity of the early HIV epidemic, some may falsely believe that HIV is no longer a serious health threat because of treatment advances and decreased mortality. Additional challenges for many MSM include maintaining safe behaviors over time and underestimating personal risk.

Subject: RE: Equal Rights for Gay Marriage
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Oct 10 - 09:21 PM

Well, I'm glad that Akenaton has been vindicated, by 'olddudes' response, of actually checking the CDC's website, and posting the quotes of the text!

When this was an issue before, in the 'Prop' thread, I was the one that brought up the promiscuity aspect, which Ake ran with, yet HE received a lot of flak,...for telling the truth!

John, Everything on your list homosexuals CAN do, with contracts and trusts. except 'marriage' Everywhere, which Ake pretty much answered, stating the bit on 'social acceptance'.

John P: "If you are stuck on Constitutionally guaranteed rights, how about the right to equal treatment under the law,...."

Well, what 'rights' were you contrasting to? If, in deed, you are referring to BEHAVIORAL patterns or preferences, then there are a lot of those, that are not covered, by 'inalienable rights' clause.

If you are referring to another Constitution from somewhere else, then I'd suggest taking it up with from where you are talking about!

John P: "How about the right to privacy? GfS, since you think it's all right to discuss other peoples' sex lives on an internet forum.."

I joined this thread late on. I think it was a lot of others discussing it before I came on, I'd suggest you ask them. I only brought up FACTS versus OPINIONS, in answer to YOUR post....and...

John P: "...perhaps you'd like to share the details of your sex life with us?"

I haven't even indicated whether I'm male or female...though, OTHERS have made assumptions as to which. Some right, some wrong. What's it to you?

John P: "...Or are you unwilling to swallow the medicine you're handing out?"

I'm always up for rational, truthful FACTS, and discussion thereof. Sometimes a little wit, as well. As soon as you have either to offer, I'm game!!!!

See you on the other thread, which I was planning to answer your post there as well....Oh, and I promise it will be honest, and hopefully thought provoking.
(Us writers and composers, and hopefully serious musicians, usually welcome 'thought provocation'!...See, I'm doing you a FREE favor!)

Smiling,

GfS