BS: Real Non-belief/not militant

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 11:53 AM

I note that, unlike Measles and Mumps and a host of other diseases, neither HIV nor AIDS are included in the list of notifiable diseases in the UK.

Here is a list for a range of countries.

On the face of it this seems a bit anomalous.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:35 PM

Notifiable communicable diseases are, so I was told, based on local possibility of containment if immediate measures are taken. Multi drug resistant tuberculosis being the one reported most often.

HIV isn't to be taken lightly and the cost to the public purse of antiretrovirals and chronic clinics have to be factored, but within those confines, once presented, they are manageable and once diagnosed, there are criminal legal measures to dissuade risk of propagation. Not perfect, but overall, the UK approach has factored in a universal healthcare structure with joined up surveillance through the public health observatory. Other countries, many of whom rely on statistical returns by commercial companies have different approaches on knowing of and dealing with conditions.

The centrally driven management of diseases is something we take for granted, but most professionals in public health epidemiology agree that different healthcare systems require appropriate approaches. A better answer should be available in Dept of Health information on the setting up of Public Health England, which replaces many health protection agency and strategic health authority functions in public health. I am typing from memory, which usually allows a certain evangelical member to point out I forgot to capitalise a name of an organisation which makes me a liar, whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:43 PM

If you mean me Musket, I have only called you a liar in response to specific falsehoods that you have knowingly posted.

We all make genuine honest mistakes, but deliberate lying is quite separate.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM

"Though misinterpreted by self-appointed "moralists" as promiscuous or perverted, the recent studies on physiology by reputable scientists maintain that the gay life style is not a choice but predetermined genetically, a view that contradicts religious dogma"

I have yet to see a proven genetic link Frank, but even if it were true, what difference would it make to the epidemic now afflicting male homosexuals?
The figures speak for themselves 70% of new cases of HIV from amongst 2% of the population.....female homosexuals are not affected.

Now, what causes these infection rates?
I say promiscuity and risk taking, which seem to be intrinsic to male homosexuality.
In parts of Africa there are heterosexuals who are heavily affected, this can be explained by the promiscuous nature of the sexual culture in these areas, but even there, male homosexual infection rates are much higher.

If it is not promiscuity and risk taking that is producing these infection rates here, what do any of you think is the real reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 01:35 PM

It may be that gay orientation is predetermined genetically or developmentally, and no choice is involved, but that is "lifestyle" is hardly the same things. What "lifestyle" any of us leads clearly involves making choices, over and above our sexual orientation.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 02:00 PM

Musket, there is no other risk group that comes close so the statistics are not skewed in the slightest by that.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 02:07 PM

from latest available report.
"The proportion of people diagnosed late has declined over the past decade from 58% (3,150) in 2003 to 47% (2,990) in 2012. Among MSM, the proportion of late diagnoses reduced from 42% to 34%, but the number of late diagnoses rose from 900 to 1,100. Among heterosexuals, the proportion diagnosed late reduced from 65% to 58% with the absolute number halving from 3,180 to 1,620.
Almost half of MSM newly diagnosed with HIV between 2010 and 2012 had their diagnosis made at their first HIV test at that sexual health clinic, an indicator that many MSM who require an HIV test have yet to seek one."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 03:14 PM

It doesn't say what proportion of the non MSM indicated who were found to be HIV positive were similarly diagnosed on their first check.

The point is, the fact that in this country HIV is related to sexual orientation is contingent, and relates to other factors than merely sexual orientation, as shown by the fact that in many countries where HIV is more common, it is heterosexuals who gave it and spread it.

HIV is primarily related to lifestyle choices, rather than to sexual orientation, which is only one element in a lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 04:51 PM

OK....where's any attempt to put up a solution to the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst MSM?
I take it we're all agreed it's transmitted by promiscuity and risk taking then?

So we move on to ways of combatting the transmission.
The agencies reckon that "at risk" groups should be tested more often, and contacts traced when a positive diagnosis is made.
There is really only one "at risk" group. MSM by miles.
The agencies reckon that there is a huge number of MSM who are unaware of their positive status.
How do we get these people to volunteer for testing?
Who wants to find out they have HIV?
How do we make them understand they are risking their lives every time they have sex with a stranger?
How about a little serious input to this issue, forget agendas, abuse, name calling, point scoring.....grow up!

Mr Mcgrath... promiscuity and risk taking takes place in every demographic, to a lesser or greater extent.
The figures prove conclusively that MSM as a demographic are affected to a hugely greater extent.....why is this the case?

Is it something intrinsic to male to male sex?   Is it in the nature of an addiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 05:34 PM

But do you believe homosexuals are promiscuous perverts?

How would you suggest that all this demographic are registered and tested?

Simple questions that you have not yet answered. I am beginning to feel that the phrase 'worm' is quite apt by the amount of wriggling involved in avoiding those questions.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 14 - 05:41 PM

In many countries where there is a terrifyingly rate rate of HIV and Aids virtually all of it was carried by and transmitted by heterosexual activity.

It'ls the lifestyle that is significant, what people actually do.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 04:22 AM

Yes Mr McGrath, but in parts of Africa the sexual culture /lifestyle of males, would be seen by us as extremely promiscuous.
The same promiscuous lifestyle seems intrinsic to male homosexuality(large numbers of lifetime sexual partners, anonymous relationships, etc), resulting in the huge infection rates that have been pointed out by the health agencies.

As far as I can see, the only way to cut transmission rates is to ensure regular testing and contact tracing of the groups most affected.
HIV is primarily transmitted by promiscuous behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 04:53 AM

Dave, I feel you are being disingenuous here, I have answered your questions many times.....and what have my opinions got to do with proven homosexual health rates.

I told YOU not so long ago, that I was waiting for someone to put up a reasonable argument that homosexuality was NOT a perversion, all the evidence points to the fact that nature intended sex to take place between a male and a female.....she (nature/god), put all the bits in the right places......but I am always open to persuasion? :0)

Promiscuity, is a fact borne out by various studies, male homosexuals in general, have much higher numbers of lifetime sexual partners and much higher rates of STD infection than heterosexuals......I do not know why this is the case, but would be prepared to bet heavily that it has much to do with the lack of a formal family structure in homosexual relationships and an element of addiction to risk taking.

These are my views expressed as truthfully as I can, I am underwhelmed by the your observation that I wriggle like a "worm", but I think your friend adds another more sinister connotation to the word. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 05:46 AM

We do not want "twisted figures" in a debate like this.
Please give us the straight ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 08:55 AM

Sexual orientation is not in itself "a lifestyle". In the context of heterosexuals nobody would think of suggesting it is, and it is just as absurd to say that it is for people who are sexually attracted to members of their own sex.

It is unfortunate that the claim that the suggestion that there is an intrinsic relation between sexual orientation and a particular lifestyle is commonly shared both between those who are hostile to gay people and the reverse.

It's the lifestyle that kills, not the orientation, whatever that might be in any particular country.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:12 AM

...be prepared to bet heavily that it has much to do with the lack of a formal family structure in homosexual relationships...

So, that's why it's a bad idea to allow same-sex marriage ???????????

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM

"I told YOU not so long ago, that I was waiting for someone to put up a reasonable argument that homosexuality was NOT a perversion,"

>>Perversion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses of pervert or perversion, see Perversion (disambiguation).
Perversion is a type of human behavior that deviates from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal. Although the term perversion can refer to a variety of forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are considered particularly abnormal, repulsive or obsessive. Perversion differs from deviant behavior, in that the latter covers areas of behavior (such as petty crime) for which perversion would be too strong a term. It is often considered derogatory, and, in psychological literature, the term paraphilia has been used as a replacement,[1] though this term is controversial, and deviation[2] is now used instead by others.<<<

I am not repulsed by any sexual behavior done by one or more consenting adults, conducted privately. Therefor for me homosexuality is not a perversion, nor is it my business.

If you are looking for "perversion" look to those taking vows of celibacy who are much less common and therefor much more perverted than homosexuals.

That was easy to clear up. Can we move on to the next topic?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:32 AM

nature intended sex to take place between a male and a female.....she (nature/god), put all the bits in the right places...

Absolutely right; did you ever notice how perfectly a woman's lips are adapted to fitting snuggly around a tubular structure ?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 11:54 AM

Watch out Frogprince. You'll never look at Mick Jagger in the same light again....

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 01:06 PM

I don't think oral sex ever produced offspring froggie, and I think that's what the design team at (God/nature.com) primarily had in mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 01:53 PM

The other context in which the word perversion has often been used, and the one where it still is current, is in the context of the law, where we will talk of a perversion of justice, without any particular implication of it being repulsive, though clearly indicating disapprobation.

In the context of sexual activity I suppose paedophilia is the main area where it is still freely used.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:17 PM

Perversion......"turning from the true purpose, use, or meaning."

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

>>From: akenaton - PM
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 02:17 PM

Perversion......"turning from the true purpose, use, or meaning." <<

Like using your hands for typing instead of peeling bananas and flinging your own dung?

That horse left the barn at least 6,000,000 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 06:00 PM

Come on Jack, hands have myriad uses, reproductive organs only one.

I think you may be getting a little "snooty" :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:10 PM

With sarcasm on my part set aside to at least a degree: Ake, you're going in two directions at once. I think that your phrasing about "god" makes it obvious that you're not seriously promoting theistic intelligent design; at the same time you are making a serious argument based on...what?...a notion that the evolutionary process has an innate characteristic of...intelligent design?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:49 PM

Sorry froggie....you've lost me there :0(

I'm just a simple guy, Nature and God mean more or less the same thing to me, I'm quite happy to see people think about spiritual matters, I think they are very important.....most of my neighbours think so as well, but they like to go to church now and then to celebrate their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:55 PM

"If you are looking for "perversion" look to those taking vows of celibacy who are much less common and therefor much more perverted than homosexuals"

Problem with that statement Jack, is that a large percentage of those taking vows of celibacy ARE homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Feb 14 - 07:59 PM

Most studies put the number of Catholic priests who are "gay" at 25% or higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:40 AM

My post 21 Feb 14 - 05:46 AM referred to a deleted Musket post.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:48 AM

And that's the problem. You get censored for tackling homophobia.

Not surprised really. When you allow propagation of hate, it only naturally follows that you don't allow it to be challenged.

I can think of at least three uses for my willy. Not sure about this idea of there only being one?

By the way, some primates have sex with other male primates. I reckon the only shit flinging is on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 04:59 AM

In that deleted post you claimed that the HPA figures were "twisted."

OK, give us straight, untwisted ones.
You claim special inside knowledge, and special access to better figures.
So share them with us.

Or is it all bluster, deceit and delusion?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:47 AM

Censored or censured?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:51 AM

I believe you should present your opinions without name-calling. It's that name-calling that can get a post deleted.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 09:36 AM

Well put Jeri.

Musket, I don't think anyone mind your taking on homophobia, It attacking people that is the problem.


Akenaton, you are not taking our badgering of you seriously. That is very "unkind" as it takes the fun from the badgering :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 09:39 AM

Ake, Musket has a point. There are multiple uses for the naughty bits. Including and not limited to playing Nessie is a shadow puppet show.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 01:33 PM

I suppose you even could play a kind of conkers, but I think that would count as not in keeping with orthodox use. Highly inadvisable, perhaps, a term that it seems reasonable to use in relation to other analogous leaisure pursuits.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:54 PM

Musket: "By the way, some primates have sex with other male primates. I reckon the only shit flinging is on here."

Don't you think 'the only shit flinging' is those who are having sex with 'with other male primates'...and the species isn't procreated?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

Ok Jack. How do you respond to Keith without pointing out his more odious lying comments made purely in order to demonise me and rubbish what I say ?

The pathetic post above being an example. I use something called HPA as a source of data and those I work with analyse it. He just said that HPA figures were twisted according to me.   I said that the data is twisted by those who wish to misrepresent them. Small changes. If he were clever he'd be dangerous.

This is the sort of homophobic disgraceful rubbish that stains this website. At least Akenaton can claim ignorance and a simplistic intelligence. The Keiths of this world are the ones to watch. Dissecting everything said that supports reality whilst saying they don't go along with the bigotry they try to make respectable.

I don't joke when it comes to bigotry. It curtails my normal attempts to see the funny side. It just cannot be given the veil of respectability.

Kevin. My auto correct. My bloody problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM

I said that the data is twisted by those who wish to misrepresent them.

No data was twisted by me.
It was straight, in context, extracts from the report.

Why don't you provide untwisted data Musket?
Because the HPA is the official, definitive facts.
All your protests are bluster, deceit and delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:07 PM

"The same promiscuous lifestyle seems intrinsic to male homosexuality(large numbers of lifetime sexual partners, anonymous relationships, etc), resulting in the huge infection rates that have been pointed out by the health agencies."

So you would seek to reduce this promiscuity, if in fact it exists outside your fevered imagination, by refusing to allow formal monogamous relationships (marriage) to those people.

Oh Well!   That makes sense,.............TO YOU!

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:15 PM

"Come on Jack, hands have myriad uses, reproductive organs only one."

Oh come on! Humans, unlike animals, can have sex 365 days a year and several times a day, while the female ovulates and can conceive about thirteen times a year, for just a few days each time.

Do you see where this is going?

Nature doesn't place limits beyond what is possible, and sex is possible for humans whether conception is possible or not.

Maybe sex for pleasure is about bonding with occasional opportunities for procreation.

Kind of alters the argument, doesn't it, for all but dried up, past it puritans?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 07:21 PM

"Well put Jeri."

I'm sure that Jeri is VERY pleased that the forum's self appointed arbiter of rectitude agrees with her.

Or maybe she's laughing herself sick at the antics of the most pompous and opinionated poster hereabouts.

I know where my money is bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 08:03 PM

I don't know who the mod was that deleted the post for "name calling", but I would like to congratulate them, keep this forum a platform for intelligent free speech.

Thanks also to Jack, who's campaign to civilise these pages has brought him a load of abuse.....but he kept on regardless and his good work has borne fruit...well done sir!

Now, perhaps we can settle down and discuss all issues amicably?...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Jts
Date: 22 Feb 14 - 10:06 PM

"Or maybe she's laughing herself sick at the antics of the most pompous and opinionated poster hereabouts.

I know where my money is bet. "

Are you taking any bets on whether she enjoys your speaking for her in your attack and attempt to pick a fight with me?

I respectfully decline your invitation to bicker.

:-)

I'm not a self appointed arbiter of rectitude, I simply remind self appointed vilifiers of the unpopular opinion holders, who attack me of the rules. The group is only a couple of people and seemed to be heading for zero before you stuck your head up. If you are giving me crap for agreeing with the moderators, you may be a little too antisocial for the new forum rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 03:08 AM

Yawn.

Tell you what. I'll stop trying to educate pork.

Facts appear to be pompous and self important for some. Not surprised, given the awful views they insist on supporting.

By the way, I've been thinking about the op. I think it goes much further thn eschewing religion. I doubt most in The UK see the need to even consider it. It's a hobby of others, and taken at face value is not only ridiculous but increasingly irrelevant anyway.

A pity in some ways and a welcome advance in civilisation in others.

Right. It's Sunday. The garden awaits followed by a pint.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 04:39 AM

Why can't you give us the straight, untwisted figures Musket?
Is it because I have already provided them, and it was yours that were made up and wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:28 AM

The figures provided by HPA in UK on sexual health rates(HIV syphilis etc), are almost identical to those provided in the USA by CDC.

There is no way of falsifying those figures, in both cases MSM infection rates for all male sexually transmitted disease are massively higher than for any other demographic.
To call these figures unreliable is stupid and dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:35 AM

The health agencies continue to dance round these figures(political correctness).

Meanwhile, the beat goes on, the infection rates continue to rise and nobody really cares, not even homosexual "marriage" activists.

I wonder what they see as the most important issue?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 06:47 AM

"Ake, Musket has a point. There are multiple uses for the naughty bits. Including and not limited to playing Nessie is a shadow puppet show."

Jack, what the person referred to above does with his "naughty bits" is no concern of mine, as there is no legislation to make such action compulsory, in the pipeline.   :0)


I was of course referring to reproductive organs, both male and female, I don't think many women can do "party tricks" with their ovaries.

Funnily enough, women seem to treat the process of reproduction a little more seriously than men......I wonder why that is the case?

Subject: RE: BS: Real Non-belief/not militant
From: Musket
Date: 23 Feb 14 - 11:02 AM

My last post has been deleted for no reason.

I give in.

Keith is right.

Akenaton has a point.

Healthcare is the divine right of religious bigots. Raw data supports rounding up sections of society in order to oppress them. Probably deserve it for expecting equal rights.

Queer bashing is the norm.

I may as well go and have a wank.