 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Gay marriage' question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM Save food..be a homosexual!..Is that your new rap? Eat me! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:27 PM "You're right Jack, Lesbians don't appear to have any health problems associated with their sexual behaviour, but they also appear to separate from unions much faster than heteros." A. Do you have statistics to back this up? B. You seem to be comparing Lesbians pairs in your country who can not marry to hetero couples who can. Are you? C. Are you saying that women should not be allowed to marry because they may get divorced? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 13 - 07:25 PM For those of you who seem to be hell-bent on reproducing like rabbits, let me present you with a few sobering facts: David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, estimates that the sustainable agricultural carrying capacity for the United States is about 200 million people; its population as of 2011 is over 310 million.A few years back, the government of Malaysia, becoming very aware of the overpopulation problem, tried the tactic of (believe it or not!) encouraging homosexual relationships in hopes that it would cut down on the dangerously increasing overpopulation figures—and the increasing number of food riots in that country. The program was an abject failure because heterosexuals did not want to change their sexual orientation! Nor could the "patriotic" few who tried to comply keep it up. The homosexual population kept doing what they were doing. The heterosexual population decided they didn't like their new "life style" and returned to their old ways. People don't "DECIDE" to change their sexual orientation. Along about 2030, I'll see you at the food riots! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:58 PM G'night Sanity....thanks for the smiles...A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:45 PM Akenaton: "????" He's just coming unglued...you just can't keep postulating his nonsense and keep your shit together, at the same time....eventually the cracks begin to show. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:38 PM Akenaton: "I still believe although i am not religious that the conventional template of mother, father, children and extended family is the best we can do as a society in bringing up our children..." YES!..the nucleus of ALL societal fabric of ALL civilizations! Did anyone here come from any other form of civilization? NOPE! It's just a 'trendy' self indulgence for the self absorbed, to be hung up in promoting random family structures!! As far as second and third marriages..it's still in the pattern of trying to compensate for what went wrong in the first one...often formed while they were too young and naive. A classic saying, "Youth is wasted on the young". Got another little story for ya'............... This guy, who was quite a womanizer in his younger days..(and married four times), told me this, not that long ago..."Women are the second most thing I hate......you know what the first is??...That I didn't hate them sooner!!" BTW,(side note)..womanizers are usually those who actually hate women...though they keep fucking them....and with a little skillful probing, will admit it! Nice yakkin' at ya'! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:30 PM ???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:24 PM Just WRONG. No relationship with the real world. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM You're right Jack, Lesbians don't appear to have any health problems associated with their sexual behaviour, but they also appear to separate from unions much faster than heteros. Additionally, although i dont believe in organised religion, millions of people do and I think it odd that these people should be asked to re-define their beliefs to accomodate a tiny sexual minority. I still believe although i am not religious that the conventional template of mother, father, children and extended family is the best we can do as a society in bringing up our children, so I would be against re-definition to include lesbians. As I said to Ian, what is to stop homosexuals of both sexes starting their own "gay" church, with "gay" clergy and "gay" congregation? Problem sorted....nae bothir! I suppose in a fraction of the time that the conventional church has existed, the "gay" pews would be bare and empty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:22 PM Thanks....I'm still chuckling! ..but what I posted is more often than not, the case. I once knew a guy, Richard a wonderful bass player, and better friend than either of us would admit, that told me a great story... He was working as a night auditor at a rather exclusive hotel in Hollywood, California...and there was a woman who also worked there, who had been 'eying' him for quite a while. When the hotel hired another woman for the same shift, the two women began talking about Richard, who was in the back room. He could hear bits and pieces of their conversation... Newer woman to the other, "Do you think he's the marrying type?" Richard, upon hearing that, emerged from the back room.and in his LOUD, New Jersey voice boomed, "Marrying type???!!! NO!! None of us are the marrying type..THAT'S YOUR JOB!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 06:03 PM Definitely NOT "hate" sanity and you obviously do have an understanding of the issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:12 PM Akenaton, just for an addendum to you post....you said, "..probably most young heteros dont either, but around their mid twenties they wish to start a family....." I would venture to say that females usually have more of a drive to have children then males...the woman comes home from the doctors, and says, "Guess what, Dear...." and the guy's silent fear is 'Aw shit, don't say your pregnant'...he waits..she says, "WE'RE going to have a baby!" His first verbal response is, (with the fear that it might not be true), "Are you sure?"...."Really??..You're positive???" ..(gulp)..."Well, that's really cool"..... Akenaton: "In my view...and it is only a view, the drivers of the gay "marriage" issue are not homosexuals, who have other problems to address, but centre "liberals" with a chip non their shoulders." THAT is correct!..However, homosexuals do not have the pair-bonding mechanisms and cycles that hetero couples raising their own children do, and they DO sense it, therefore, the 'push' to 'marry'!!! (..and that is a rather 'inside' insecurity that they have, whether they can articulate it to themselves or not). ..and that is a FACT! GfS Now, does that seem like 'hate'.....or understanding? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:10 PM As to matters of choice and children: One of the two people I mentioned, the one who is in our writers' group, was married—to a woman—for several years. And after that time, he knew that he had made a mistake. Essentially, he "came out of the closet" to himself. The two divorce amicably—mutual agreement. He soon met the fellow he is with now and they have been happy ever since. Granted, this was a decision. But what is at issue here is what prompted him to make the decision; his own inner yearnings, which no decision could change. He loved the woman—as a friend (and they have remained friends)—but his love for the man he joined up with was of a whole different magnitude and quality. This, he knew, was right. As far as I know, these two do not have any desire for children. But Barbara and I know another couple. We all go to the same church, and they were, in fact married in that church several years ago—even though, at the time, the State of Washington did not recognize same-sex marriage (which it does now, after our recent election). They wanted the public announcement, before their friends and family, that THEY consider themselves to be a married couple. They had the support of the church and its congregation, incidentally. Since that time, they have adopted two infant boys from a Chinese orphanage. The boys have grown quite a bit since then, and the older of the two is now an acolyte in the church. They are just a couple of normal kids. They refer to their parents as "Daddy" and "Papa." And see nothing unusual in this. Now of course there are those who will have a hissy-fit over two gay men raising two boys, with the predigested sick assumption that they only did so because they want to raise them as homosexuals, and are sexually abusing them. But there are no indications of this. The two men are NOT pedophiles, and are giving the kids a good upbringing. And they will have a far better life than if they were left to languish in a Chinese orphanage! And, incidentally, the older of the two boys is entering adolescence and is showing a considerable interest in girls. We also know a same-sex couple who went through a marriage ceremony at the same church who have children. Of their own! Boy, do they have children!! They hired a surrogate mother. She was artificially inseminated by one of the men, and produced a fine baby boy. Then, she was artificially inseminated by the other man and—Holy Cow!!—TRIPLETS!! It's a real snort to see this family in church on Sundays. Two slightly harried (but happy) guys and four little crumb-crunching curtain climbers. Like herding cats! By the way, this is NOT a "gay church." It is a main line Lutheran church. Other than the fact that it is quite liberal in its views, both politically and religiously, there is nothing unusual about it—except for the scarcity of religious and political hypocrites. You're right, GfS, it's NOT a political problem. But it is NOT a medical/psychological issue EITHER. Sexual orientation is inate, inborn. Like eye color or skin color. Perhaps it is akin to left-handedness. It's not a matter of choice. Most people are right-handed. But some are left-handed. And this is genetic. One also has a dominant eye and a dominant ear as well. Which ear do you automatically put the phone to? That's your dominant ear. It seems to be related to which side of the brain is dominant. It is interesting to note in this context that early on, parents and school teachers tried to force left-handed children to use their right hands. This attempt to force a change produced psychological problems in the affected children, so later on cooler heads prevailed and no longer tried to force a change. And the incidence of psychological problems in this context disappeared. After all, other than occasionally bumping elbows with someone at the dinner table, left-handedness isn't much of a problem. Attempts to "cure" homosexuality have ALSO produced psychological problems. Such as a very high level of recidivism (it didn't work!), many choosing to be celibate, thereby no longer having to confront the issue of sex, a large incidence of depression—and, in a group of 202 people, six suicides. Not a howling success!! Most politicians have avoided this issue like the plague, because no matter which side they come down on, it's going to lose them a pile of votes they wouldn't have lost if they'd just kept their cookie-traps shut about the issue. It is gays and lesbians themselves who have brought this issue to the forefront, and it is very much like the civil rights issue of the '60s. The matter was in the forefront of the recent campaign and election in the state in which I live, and I watched it up close. And I KNOW what is going on. And if people don't believe what I'm saying, then THEY are the losers, because it IS the way it IS. Don Firth P. S. By the way, Jack is right. In the aforementioned church there have also been a number of marriage ceremonies between two women. These same-sex marriages, which have taken place over the past thirty years or so, represent a small percentage of the total number of marriages in this church. It is, characteristically, a fairly young congregation, so there have been a number of people of marriageable age, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:02 PM I am pretty sure that the "drivers of gay marriage" are gays who want to marry. Liberal is not a dirty word. In this case it means people who want others to have the same rights as themselves. Lets turn the question around. Since you say that is the danger of gay male sex, do you have any objection to female gay marriage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 04:43 PM Yes Jack, I realise that, but unfortunately the stats say that homosexual unions are a rarity amongst young MSM and on average last only about 1.5 yrs. I honestly dont believe sexually active young homosexuals want committment.....probably most young heteros dont either, but around their mid twenties they wish to start a family......the braking system which does not apply to homos....and which is so hard for our "invisible friend" Ian to comprehend. In my view...and it is only a view, the drivers of the gay "marriage" issue are not homosexuals, who have other problems to address, but centre "liberals" with a chip non their shoulders. Whether they like to admit it or not, "family" is an important constituent in most marriages |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 03:58 PM ..and do you also realize that 'marriage' may not solve that problem..whether it be homosexual or hetero?? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Jack the Sailor Date: 07 Jan 13 - 03:45 PM "This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex." Are you sure about that? I feel you may be missing half the picture. "Baldwin maintains that it is generally an incessant search for cold anonymous sex combined with the thrill of risk taking, more of an addiction than a sexual orientation." Do you not realize that committed marriage is the antithesis to all of that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 03:02 PM Don, (and I'll remain 'civil' for this one)...Ask your friends if in the course of their lives, if they had ever wanted, or thought that they(either one or the other) ever considered having their own children..but thought they couldn't because of their sexual 'orientation'. I have asked that to a fried of mine, who was homosexual(now deceased, due to AIDS), and it DID hit a nerve. We were close enough that he could confide in me, knowing I wasn't going to ostracize him. Tears swelled in his eyes, but he thought he couldn't. So maybe YOU don't see it as a problem..but he certainly did! It's NOT a political problem..it's a medical/psychological issue, that politicians have accentuated, trying to model it after the civil rights issues of the '60's. You may not believe that...but then not many people believe you, either. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:56 PM Musket. Keith. I do not have to respect opinions. Full stop. Neither does anyone else. Agreed. I have no respect for pogroms, for fascism, for Sheffield United, for religious hatred, for celery or for intolerance masquerading as a view. Me neither, nor for anyone who defends such things.(except celery) You can not disagree with Ake about statistics. They are true. We can both disagree with him about same-sex marriage, but it is quite wrong to infer from his opinion that he is a bigot or a homophobe. There are many good people who think it wrong who are neither. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:24 PM Goofus, it is by listening to other outlooks that I decide whether to hear them or not, according, as you say, to my views. So yes, your first statement is correct, I decide who should be heard or not. I can't stop them speaking, but I can decide whether to listen or not, or whether having listened to treat them with sheer contempt or buy them a pint. if you still think that encouraging Akenaton is a good idea, take, as a random sample, his last post, above. He cites a book, "Another country" as showing male to male sex as harrowing. Presumably similar to any book on rape that shows male on female sex to be harrowing too. He thinks that mentioning one person's experience of using gay sex as a thrilling risk taking experience, it has something to do with inflicting his warped view on those wishing for monogamous marriage. I still fail to see the link but as you and Keith say, he has the right to his soap box. Pity that any gay person reading it may feel crushed and dismayed that in the 21st century, people can still hate on the basis of stereotyping them, but there you go. He has the right to upset people it would seem. (He managed it with knobs on a bit earlier thinking about it. He even had to resort to a grovelling second insult.) And if you want to keep it intelligible, you are the one who appears barking, not the good Prof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:18 PM ". . . symptomatic 'relief' as opposed to SOLVING the problem. . . ." GfS, same-sex orientation is not a "symptom." And it is not a "problem," except when other people—who can't mind their own business—make it so. And all indications are that the only way same-sex orientation can be "solved," i.e., eliminated, is through genetic engineering, and that would entail a major scientific project to "solve" a problem that not everyone agrees IS a problem. And even if successful, it would not help those already living who are homosexual. And as to homosexuality not being "normal," it exists in the animal kingdom, so although it is not a primary sort of behavior, one cannot say that it isn't natural. I am not a practitioner thereof. I am heterosexual. I always have been, and do not recall a time when I was ever given a choice in the matter. And I have been married—to a woman of infinite resource and sagacity—for thirty-five years as of this recent December. But we have a number of gay acquaintances, including one couple—two men—who have been living together, happily and monogamously, for several years. They are often guests in our home on holidays and one of them is a member of our writers' group. If I react strongly to prejudice and negative propaganda about people such as these, it is the same as if Barbara and I had a couple of black friends—and certain people went around denigrating them for their "blackness" and claiming that they can "cure" their "condition." THEY don't find it a problem. Except when other people MAKE it so! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 01:34 PM Sanity is perfectly correct, this issue is about sexual behaviour not "love".....we all love people of both sexes whom we would never imagine having sexual relations with. This issue Homosexual "marriage" is chiefly concerned with male to male sex......and in my opinion, the straight and accurate figures that I quote on male homosexual health, have a great bearing on the issue. Keith disagrees but remains civil....you "liberals" should read and learn. Whilst on the subject, you would be better informed if you took the time to read James Baldwins great novel, "Another Country", which gives a harrowing depiction of male to male sex. Baldwin maintains that it is generally an incessant search for cold anonymous sex combined with the thrill of risk taking, more of an addiction than a sexual orientation. At the time I read the book, I thought Baldwin(a practicing homosexual)....to be a brave and insightful human being. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 12:44 PM ..and it is up to you, to decide who should or shouldn't be heard...according to YOUR views????..I'm afraid not.....because someone with OTHER views might want to broaden your outlook....and they may, or may not be right...but then you may never know...unless you hear them! GfS P.S. your 'woofing' is so immature, who would want to care what you have to say. let's keep it intelligible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 07 Jan 13 - 12:21 PM Hi Goofus! Woof Woof Woof Woof! And I would like to echo those sentiments. Thanks for joining in the debate. You see, I love a good laugh and I don't think Akenaton has anything to laugh at and Keith seems too confused to make a stance of his own. At least with you, the good Prof. and I can have a chuckle, can't we boy? Woof! Keith. I do not have to respect opinions. Full stop. Neither does anyone else. I have no respect for pogroms, for fascism, for Sheffield United, for religious hatred, for celery or for intolerance masquerading as a view. it is lack of respect and not accommodating bigotry that allows civilisation to work towards a fairer society for all. If I had a view that everybody who supports Sheffield United should be banned from public places till they seek help, would that view be respected? Sadly not. And quite rightly too. If someone with a pub found an old "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish" sign, would we have to respect their right to display it? Respect the respectable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 11:42 AM Musket: "Make your mind up. At present, you have gone from supporting homophobia to saying homophobes have the right to be heard." EVERYONE SHOULD have the 'right' to be heard...it is in the 'shutting up' of either side, that stifles accurate information getting out, that leads to the truth. Perhaps some of you should LISTEN, and CONSIDER what the 'opposite side' says....instead of accusing them of ANY form of hate..just because it SOUNDS repulsive. ...and THAT goes for a lot more than just the homosexual, reproductively impaired issue. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jan 13 - 11:41 AM How can the figures support his view if, like the human race, you don't support his conclusions? The figures are true. MSMs are at great risk from HIV, and many times greater risk than the general population. Ake was right about that. I know those facts to be true but I am in favour of gay marriage. I do not believe the danger is a reason not to allow gay marriage, he does. A difference of opinion. I would challenge and deate the issue with him, but I see no reason to call him names just because he has a different opinion to me. Why do you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 07 Jan 13 - 11:29 AM "They do not substantiate any aversion" Do you want me or anyone else for that matter to comment on that? If MSM lifestyle is dangerous, just like man on woman for that matter, as more STDs are through heterosexual sex, then.... See? Playing with figures is best left to the grown ups. Ok, just for you. Either you are in agreement with me or not. You just said that you do not agree with his conclusions. Yet you say he produced figures to support his view? Are you sure Nigel hasn't offered you a safe "might not lose your deposit? You are doing a credible attempt at speaking like a politician. Once more; How can the figures support his view if, like the human race, you don't support his conclusions? If you don't agree with his conclusions, how can his view be supported? Make your mind up. At present, you have gone from supporting homophobia to saying homophobes have the right to be heard. I doubt you will ever say Gay people should be equal in law, that would be too much. Any opportunity to have a pop at the government and to hell with who is demonised by it. Well I've got news for you. We are part of Europe and we have courts to strike down human rights violations, and the Prime Minister knows this, hence he can propose the most stupid laws, in the knowledge the first challenge will strike them down and he won't be to blame. We need human rights laws whilst ever dangerous idiots want to make second class citizens. Tell you what. I have figures that prove putting copper treatments in fish tanks with crustaceans can cause them harm. Strong irrefutable facts. As a result, I would like to use that fact to prevent ginger people getting served at the bar before me. That is the level of the fool you are supporting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 11:25 AM Musket: "Akenaton. What is "unconventional" about love?" It's about sex, Einstein. People can love each other all they want...you don't get STDs or HIV/AIDS from it, The risk is higher when in includes sex. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jan 13 - 10:36 AM I have read all his posts. No twisting. if you are saying Akenaton has not used HPA figures to substantiate his aversion to gay people being married, you are blind, a fool or both. I am saying that. He produced the figures to support his view that MSM lifestyle is too dangerous to allow gay marriage. I do not agree with his conclusion but the facts are facts. They do not substantiate any aversion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 07 Jan 13 - 10:26 AM Do something complicated if you think you are capable. Scroll up and wherever you see a post with the blue word Akenaton at the side of it, you will find all the twisting you like. if you are saying Akenaton has not used HPA figures to substantiate his aversion to gay people being married, you are blind, a fool or both. There is a third option but for now, I would rather give you the benefit of the doubt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jan 13 - 09:52 AM I did say that the data has been twisted to substantiate prejudice and bigotry I say not. Please give an example to prove me wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Musket Date: 07 Jan 13 - 08:33 AM Why cite all that data Keith? I accept every last bit of it. Never said I hadn't. I did say that the data has been twisted to substantiate prejudice and bigotry. Before trying to reason with people who, dare I say, understand data analysis, may I suggest that a) You learn the difference between raw data and conclusions gleaned from raw data. b) You look up the word "context" in a dictionary. It may surprise you. c) Try to understand that accurate data can be false data when used subjectively. Akenaton. What is "unconventional" about love? When it comes to digging your grave with your gob, you set the mark for others to follow. Well done. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:12 AM ""You really are pathetic."" In your opinion, which is worth zilch in the light of your many prejudices. You are a sad and miserable being and seem to be determined to drag everybody else down to your level. Enjoy your distaste for your fellow man, but I for one am not inclined to join you. You may now return to your cave and mumble into your beard about the iniquity of a world which stubbornly refuses to reflect your bigotry. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 07 Jan 13 - 05:05 AM Keith ~ You have already agreed with me that all this is irrelevant to the topic of the thread; so why go on boring us all into comas proving someone else has got the figures wrong if you agree they don't relate to the subject anyhow? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 07 Jan 13 - 04:43 AM Tia.....On reflection,I think an apology to you is in order. Dysfunctional was a bad choice of words and comes across as rather crass, perhaps slightly unconventional would be a better description. I seem to make a habit of putting my foot in it when in discussion with you. Sincere apologies....A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jan 13 - 03:16 AM HPA - Men who have Sex with Men (MSM)www.hpa.org.uk › ... › HIV and STIs › HIV/STIs Prevention groupsCached - Similar 23 Oct 2012 – MSM remain at greatest risk of acquiring HIV infection within the UK with no evidence of declining infections in this group. STIs in MSM 2011 ... HPA - MSM HIV Datawww.hpa.org.uk/.../HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb.../120392...Cached - Similar 23 Oct 2012 – HIV Data for Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) ... MSM HIV Data. Tables and Graphs. Accessing HIV care: Men who have sex with men 2011 ... HPA - Largest ever annual number of new HIV diagnoses in MSMwww.hpa.org.uk › ... › Infections A-Z › HIV › New HIV DiagnosesCached 25 Mar 2011 – Largest ever annual number of new HIV diagnoses in MSM ... sex between men ( MSM) (data adjusted for undetermined risk) [see Figure]. HPA - HIV and sexually transmitted infectionswww.hpa.org.uk › Home › Publications › Infectious diseasesCached - Similar Reports about diagnosis, surveillance and treatment of HIV and STIs (syphilis, LGV, ... Men who have ex with men (MSM) are a group at increased risk of specific ... [PDF] Sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men in the ...www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317131685989 2 Nov 2011 – This report from the Health Protection Agency summarises and .... HIV negative MSM it carries the risk of HIV transmission (as a quarter of HIV ... [PDF] MSM slide set: 2011 - Health Protection Agencywww.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1317131687416 Late diagnoses of HIV among MSM: United Kingdom,. 2001 - 2010. 0%. 10% ... A late diagnosis increased the risk of dying within a year. 10-fold compared to ... HPA welcomes national HIV testing week as new data show quarter ...www.hpa.org.uk › ... › National Press Releases › 2012 Press ReleasesCached 29 Nov 2012 – New diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) reached ... The black African community also remained at higher HIV risk in 2011 ... HPA - HIV/STIs Prevention groupswww.hpa.org.uk › ... › Infections A-Z › HIV and STIsCached - Similar There are population groups at particular risk of acquiring HIV and STIs. Here we ... MSM image, courtesy shutterstock. Men who have sex with men (MSM) ... BBC News - Highest-ever HIV diagnoses in gay menwww.bbc.co.uk/news/health-20526380Cached 29 Nov 2012 – Overall, one in 20 MSM are infected with HIV. Of those diagnosed in 2011, nearly two-thirds ... BBC Health: HIV and Aids. The HPA said the figures showed there was "room for improvement" in testing people in at-risk groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:57 AM He quoted HPS stats. They are there for all to see and you clearly accept HPA as a reliable source. So what is you objection? Show us some false data or doctored stats. I say that you can not, and wonder why why pretend you can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 07 Jan 13 - 02:40 AM Unfortunately for liars such as Akenaton I use HPA data as part of the work I am involved in, , working for a health regulator. Hence I stand by my stance. If anybody wishes to debate public health statistics and the epidemiology of what that entails I would happily contribute to the relevant thread. But sadly I won't engage with distortion or misrepresentation. Reality is bad enough without abusing real life issues in order to convince people of a view that reflects the mental state of the poster rather than the situation we face. There is still an issue and a huge one at that with STDs and complacency is not the answer. Neither is dissuading marriage. .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jan 13 - 01:06 AM Musket. Keith in the meantime seems to disagree with Akenaton and quoting STD subjective data but bizarrely supports the data as being true. The data is good and is used by NHS. It was from HPA. Which are you disputing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 12:11 AM MtheGM, I too agree..TIA's post was indeed interesting...and I applaud her for her question. I'm sorta waiting for her response to the video link. I hope the pests don't divert the thread away, for this could be far more constructive than someone interjecting the political angles and agendas. When someone calls for help, I don't think they really need or could use another campaign speech. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Jan 13 - 12:07 AM ..As a point of reference as to someone providing symptomatic 'relief' as opposed to SOLVING the problem from the root! Jeez, you'd think it was obvious...except to the devious. Don't be offended..it was a thoughtful question....you know, thoughtful? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jan 13 - 06:11 PM Would you rather a program for the government to issue entitlement wheel chairs to polio victims...or caring people in the medical field to provide a retro active cure?? Not in any way comparable. GoofuS, if you think you can get to me by dragging in a reference to the fact that I had polio when I was two-years-old and currently need to use a wheelchair to get around, then you are a lower form of protozoan than I thought even YOU were capable of. I have worked my whole life, mostly as a singer of traditional folk songs and ballads and as a music teacher, but also as an engineering illustrator for the Boeing company, a radio announcer and newscaster, I clerked in a music store for a short period of time, and I worked for the Bonneville Power Administration as a technical writer. I have also written—and had published—about thirty magazine articles. I spent six years at the University of Washington taking a whole variety of subjects, but mostly Music and English Literature. Included were courses in Philosophy, Psychology, Political Science, and Astronomy. I also spent two years at the Cornish College of the Arts, studying Music intensively. And I PAID for it all myself. I hauled myself all over two campuses and to and from various jobs walking on a pair of aluminum forearm crutches. I also walked out on stage on a pair of crutches, having put my guitar on stage ahead of time, sitting on a stand beside a chair. I've been told that a few people who had heard of me were surprised to see me using crutches, because no one had considered it important enough to mention, but they thought no more about it once I started singing. After all, internationally known concert violinist Itshak Perlman also walks on stage on crutches, much as I did. When my shoulders simply wore out some twenty-three years ago, I had to take to a wheelchair. I bought the wheelchair—and a couple of wheelchairs since then (they don't last forever)—with my own money, even though I qualify for Medicare. And Medicare does pay something for what they refer to as "durable medical equipment." So if you're trying to imply that, because I have had polio and currently use a wheelchair to get around, I'm living off the system, then first, let it be known that I am NOT. I have always earned my own living and paid my own way. And second—that makes you a slimier piece of offal than I even believed was possible. And it has nothing whatever to do with this discussion, so why did you even bring it up!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Date: 06 Jan 13 - 06:08 PM Akenaton says all I am interested in is equality. This being a thread about equality. .. He says gay people should get their own church. Why? Religious gay people already have churches? ? same as any other church goer. In case anyone is confused. I call myself Musket on this site but he refers to me as Ian for some reason. By a coincidence it happens to be my name. Keith in the meantime seems to disagree with Akenaton and quoting STD subjective data but bizarrely supports the data as being true. Are they fuck. If The NHS used such figures to plan care millions would be wasted that luckily is used appropriately with encouraging redukts. Especially in the sad growth area of teenage girls. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:54 PM I would agree M that Tia's family certainly sound "interesting" in an educational sense. Tia's family are far removed from the template of family structure that is the norm in my part of the world. Most people here live conventional lives. .,,. What most people may or may not do do is beside the point, which is that you denounced the family in question as 'dysfunctional'. You had no grounds to use this word. I made it entirely clear that it was your use of this word to which I was taking exception; a point which your supposed response to me has evaded entirely. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:29 PM Don Firth : "Over and OUT!" Just your lies and misstatements ......THANK GOD! ..and your last post did NOT include anything of substance(again)..just your usual spewing and frothing of attempting to discredit.....and you HAVE been called on it REPEATEDLY...perhaps some therapy for that??..THAT IS treatable!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:20 PM Don T. "commensurate" referred to your complete lack of interest in any other risk than that of the group you choose as a target for your bias, and not to the degree of risk in the grouoings. It is the degree of risk that is significant Don. The general population has a negligible risk compared to MSMs. pretence of concern about health risks was just that, a pretence of interest in an irrelevance to cover the real bias beneath. No pretence Don. I believe Ake really does care. It is also his objection to gay marriage, but not one anyone else happens to share. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: akenaton Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:13 PM We in the UK used to have a TV comedy called "The Two Ronnies." "The Two Dons" would make a fine series.....similar to the "Teletubbies" I think. You really are pathetic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Jan 13 - 05:06 PM ""MtheGM, I have made the same point as you about the irrelevance of STIs and stats. to this debate. However, when someone makes an error of fact and I can help to clarify, I do."" One down and one to go. At last a measure of success, with Keith at long last admitting that the pretence of concern about health risks was just that, a pretence of interest in an irrelevance to cover the real bias beneath. TIA, Ake is only happy when he's miserable! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Jan 13 - 04:59 PM ""That is not bigoted. It is a fact that they are not "commensurate""" You know damn well, you slippery liar, that "commensurate" referred to your complete lack of interest in any other risk than that of the group you choose as a target for your bias, and not to the degree of risk in the grouoings. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Gay marriage' question From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jan 13 - 04:58 PM Goofus, you are complete divorced from reality and apparently you can't read. A hysterical, spittle-spraying lunatic. You can't even keep your own lies straight! Over and OUT! Don Firth |