Homosexuality will destroy this and any country and needs to be recriminalized

[Lon]

Good.... so you saved me from having to scan thru the link...
So 50% of all HIV/Aids..... possibly Hepatitus ? in youir country has been traced back to Averse Homosexual Activity.
Now.... would I be right in saying that the higher the % of strong, loyal, lasting marriages.... so the lower the spread of such infections would be in the future?

No, It needs more than just marriage, but an exclusive one. Since my wife and I were virgins? About guaranteed no transmitted disease.

Homosexuals? 1% of that entire population were married. Exclusively? :nono: Instead of looking for 'excusing' behavior as the rest of society has done, simply advocate what is right, whether they, we, all do it or not. Abstinence is a good value for us to promote. It doesn't have to be 'only' in health classes, but it carries the virtue of their parent's, communities, and churches.

 

[eider]

ok, that makes sense

hep B and C are very infectious

Yep........ back in the 80's the UK was not ready to protect from the spread of HIV/AIDS. Small ops, various nursing duties, tattoo parlours(?), dentistry, all manner of services were just not operating in a sterile and prorected manner. Blood transfusions were very dodgy, even up until recently.

The HIV test took up to 3 months for results back then. I had a very high arrest rate back in those days and I got bitten and the bite was covered with the arrestee's saliva and blood circa 93'........ It changed mine and my wife's life together drastically for a long time, until I got the 'all clear' results.

 

[ok doser]

I was working in laboratory medicine in the 80's when Kaposi's Sarcoma started being recognized - it totally changed the lab environment - after HIV we treated every sample as potentially infectious

 

[eider]

No, It needs more than just marriage, but an exclusive one. Since my wife and I were virgins? About guaranteed no transmitted disease.

That's fine. Virgins who marry and find that they are both sexually ideally suited are very lucky couples.

Homosexuals?

Yeah. I'm simply looking at the basic logical reasoning that if there were more strong, lasting, loyal marriages and legal-partnerships amongst the homosexual communinty that the 50% of HIV incidence must reduce...... it's basic math, surely?

 

[eider]

I was working in laboratory medicine in the 80's when Kaposi's Sarcoma started being recognized - it totally changed the lab environment - after HIV we treated every sample as potentially infectious

I never heard of KS before, but it sounds very very scary...... and 'yes', thousands of folks working in medical and related services were exposed to various infections.

The bigotry in the UK was horrendous. A lab tech could get infected AND be ostracised by the neighbours etc....... all so utterly ignorant and ..... un-neighbourly!

 

[Lon]

That's fine. Virgins who marry and find that they are both sexually ideally suited are very lucky couples.


Yeah. I'm simply looking at the basic logical reasoning that if there were more strong, lasting, loyal marriages and legal-partnerships amongst the homosexual communinty that the 50% of HIV incidence must reduce...... it's basic math, surely?

It was a good thought, but they are no where near that by exclusivity or by marriage. Only one 1% of them are married. The University of Washington reports that 20% of all male homosexuals in WA, have AIDS. Only 1 in 720 people who contract the disease any other way in the U.S have AIDS by contrast. When you think about this: 70% of all AIDS is due to homosexuality or Intravenous drug use. When you There are roughtly 700k intravenous drug users in the U.S. If you remove them, you are talking about 1 in ten thousand Americans who will contract the disease and those from promiscuous lifestyles as well (usually more than 20 partners).

Think of it this way: There are 360m Americans. 1 Million of them have HIV. Half of them are from Homosexuals. Almost another half are from interjected drug use. That means that only about 300k of heterosexuals share 30% of the disease, and these too, from promiscuous lifestyle. There are several diseases in the U.S. that are almost exclusively passed on through homosexual activity as well, and nearly as devastating as HIV.

For me: I don't care how much I want to be married 'as a heterosexual:' I would not express sexual activity with a 20% certainly that I might get HIV alone (and most do not know they are infected while they continue sexual activity).

People aren't very good at abstinence, but I think it should still be encouraged as the first place to begin combatting these problems.

 

[MrDante]

1) 2005 from the report I posted. Wherever else it came from, it was linked directly from CDC.ca
2) CDC linked it in their 2015 post.
3) Look above. That bibliography is all from .gov .edu sites.

Sorry, you are (again) wrong. The study you linked us all to was written in 1997 and uses data collected form 1988 to 1990.

From where? Link please.

once again: This is the response Dr. Hogg and his associates wrote because some people were misrepresenting their research to attack a minority.

Dear Dr. George Davey Smith: Over the past several months I have received correspondence from a number of people regarding a paper I wrote with Mr. Craib and Drs. Montaner, O'Shaughnessy, Schechter, and Strathdee in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From this correspondence it appears that our research is being used by select groups in United States and other countries to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and wellbeing. It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive measure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces every day. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. If estimates of an individual gay and bisexual man's risk of death is truly needed for legal or other purposes than persons making these estimates should use the same actuarial tables that are used for all other males in that population. Gay and bisexual men are included in the construction of official population-based tables and therefore these tables for all males are the appropriate ones to be used. We recognize that the International Journal of Epidemiology does not publish letters to the editor. However, we would like to convey at least to you and the other journal staff that we do not condone the use of our research in this manner. We would hope that this message could be also conveyed to the subscribers of the journal. Copies of this letter will also be forwarded to individuals that have expressed concern about the way our work is being used to restrict the rights of gay and bisexuals. Sincerely ROBERT S. HOGG, PhD STEFFANIE A. STRATHDEE, PhD KEVIN J.P. CRAIB, MMath, PhD (cand.) MICHAEL V. O'SHAUGHNESSY, PhD JULIO MONTANER, MD, FRCPC, FCCP MARTIN T. SCHECHTER, MD, PhD, FRCPC BRITISH COLUMBIA CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN HIV/AIDS, ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL, UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, VANCOUVER, CANADA. AND DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND PUBLIC HEALTH, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY International Journal of Epidemiology 2001 Vol 30. num.6, pg 1499

I first put it up here


Yes, the researchers who wrote the study you are trying to use to attack gays condemned the misuse of their research to attack gays. :chuckle:

 

[MrDante]

Homosexuals? 1% of that entire population were married. Exclusively? :nono:

More made up numbers?

 

[Lon]

More made up numbers?

Trolling. Either look it up or go away or I'll report you. Snarky isn't welcome. Incredulous dismissal is worthless and posturing. Give your own stats. Stop making lazy armchair snark.

 

[MrDante]

It was a good thought, but they are no where near that by exclusivity or by marriage. Only one 1% of them are married. The University of Washington reports that 20% of all male homosexuals in WA, have AIDS. Only 1 in 720 people who contract the disease any other way in the U.S have AIDS by contrast. When you think about this: 70% of all AIDS is due to homosexuality or Intravenous drug use. When you There are roughtly 700k intravenous drug users in the U.S. If you remove them, you are talking about 1 in ten thousand Americans who will contract the disease and those from promiscuous lifestyles as well (usually more than 20 partners).

Think of it this way: There are 360m Americans. 1 Million of them have HIV. Half of them are from Homosexuals. Almost another half are from interjected drug use. That means that only about 300k of heterosexuals share 30% of the disease, and these too, from promiscuous lifestyle. There are several diseases in the U.S. that are almost exclusively passed on through homosexual activity as well, and nearly as devastating as HIV.

For me: I don't care how much I want to be married 'as a heterosexual:' I would not express sexual activity with a 20% certainly that I might get HIV alone (and most do not know they are infected while they continue sexual activity).

People aren't very good at abstinence, but I think it should still be encouraged as the first place to begin combatting these problems.

Gay promiscuity is a myth. Gay men do not have any more sexual partners than heterosexual men

Goodreau, S.M. Golden, M.R. 2007 Biological and demographic causes of high HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevalence in men who have sex with men. j. of sexually Transmitted infection.

Brahmam GN, et al. 2008 Sexual practices, HIV and sexually transmitted infections among self-identified men who have sex with men. AIDS

Klevens R M, Fleming P L, Neal J J. et al 2011 Knowledge of partner risk and secondary transmission of HIV. Am J Prev Med

 

[eider]

It was a good thought, but they are no where near that by exclusivity or by marriage. Only one 1% of them are married.

........which is why strong support for gay legal-partnerships and gay-marriage could work to make a difference. Affective partnership counselling is important as well in order to reduce break-ups.

Oh...... and all marriages and partnerships need counselling support, because the diovorce rate amongst heteros is pretty high, I'm guessing.

And other disciplines are needed, such as a reduction in blood transfusions..... a significamt % aren't needed anyway.

The University of Washington reports that 20% of all male homosexuals in WA, have AIDS. Only 1 in 720 people who contract the disease any other way in the U.S have AIDS by contrast. When you think about this: 70% of all AIDS is due to homosexuality or Intravenous drug use. When you There are roughtly 700k intravenous drug users in the U.S. If you remove them, you are talking about 1 in ten thousand Americans who will contract the disease and those from promiscuous lifestyles as well (usually more than 20 partners).

Over here in the UK needles are freely available on request, I think. Anyway, no drug user needs to take risks with used needles. I don't know what you're doing over where you atre.

Think of it this way: There are 360m Americans. 1 Million of them have HIV. Half of them are from Homosexuals.

Think of it this way, support for gay marriage can reduce the bad figures. Deterering gay marriage is very unhealthy.

For me: I don't care how much I want to be married 'as a heterosexual:' I would not express sexual activity with a 20% certainly that I might get HIV alone (and most do not know they are infected while they continue sexual activity).

People aren't very good at abstinence, but I think it should still be encouraged as the first place to begin combatting these problems.

There you are....... the sooner that opinion against homosexuality is crushed, so the sooner that gays can 'come out', seek medical protection, seek permananent partners, and the ilness be reduced in time.

Now......... what about homosexuality don't you like?

 

[eider]

Gay promiscuity is a myth. Gay men do not have any more sexual partners than heterosexual men.

Fair enough. But if they did, then support for gay marriage and gay civil partnerships would help to reduce illness amongst gays. The worse the figures, so the higher the need for community support for gay marriages etc.


Now we just need to get to why some folks are against homosexuality.

The only other area of upset seems to be religious.
Christians who sneak over to the Old Covenant for laws to quote need to stay in the old covenant, where we can show them all manner of laws which they have ignored.
Christians who seek to discover laws in the New Covenant need to face the scores and scores of laws there which they ignore day-by-day. Jesus certainly did not feel the need to make any issue about gays.

I notice that Christian opposers to homosexuality write a lot, produce a lot of stats etc, but actually they don't quote Jesus that much.

 

[Saxon Hammer]

Yep........ back in the 80's the UK was not ready to protect from the spread of HIV/AIDS. Small ops, various nursing duties, tattoo parlours(?), dentistry, all manner of services were just not operating in a sterile and prorected manner. Blood transfusions were very dodgy, even up until recently.

The HIV test took up to 3 months for results back then. I had a very high arrest rate back in those days and I got bitten and the bite was covered with the arrestee's saliva and blood circa 93'........ It changed mine and my wife's life together drastically for a long time, until I got the 'all clear' results.

I can attest as truth of this in the UK 1980 HIV/AIDS preparations. Note at this time the 'Gay' community was also much weaker and in the 'closet'. Blood transmission vectors where very open even in hospital at that time - now all clinicians use disposable gloves when they 'touch' another person.

Sorry for your troubles of the time - The wall that would be required between you and your wife (family) and other persons that 'knew' would have been very isolating at a time where some physical reassurance would have helped so much.

 

[eider]

I can attest as truth of this in the UK 1980 HIV/AIDS preparations. Note at this time the 'Gay' community was also much weaker and in the 'closet'. Blood transmission vectors where very open even in hospital at that time - now all clinicians use disposable gloves when they 'touch' another person.

Sorry for your troubles of the time - The wall that would be required between you and your wife (family) and other persons that 'knew' would have been very isolating at a time where some physical reassurance would have helped so much.

Thanks for your thoughts on all that.
Yes...... my wife and I didn't know what we could do if the results might had been positive for any severe illness. It was permanent living purgatory.... always in the forefront of our minds. Prejudice was so enormous at that time that we never felt that we could tell anybody. This was the first time in my life that I realised what it could be like to live in a closet.

I guess that's why I became more empathic and understanding towards people of varying sexual feelings.

 

[Saxon Hammer]

Fair enough. But if they did, then support for gay marriage and gay civil partnerships would help to reduce illness amongst gays. The worse the figures, so the higher the need for community support for gay marriages etc.


Now we just need to get to why some folks are against homosexuality.

The only other area of upset seems to be religious.
Christians who sneak over to the Old Covenant for laws to quote need to stay in the old covenant, where we can show them all manner of laws which they have ignored.
Christians who seek to discover laws in the New Covenant need to face the scores and scores of laws there which they ignore day-by-day. Jesus certainly did not feel the need to make any issue about gays.

I notice that Christian opposers to homosexuality write a lot, produce a lot of stats etc, but actually they don't quote Jesus that much.

Homosexuality.

1. Is not moral - as in it does not continue the species.
2. It is the living state for that individual - not normal.
3. It does not reduce the love bonding possible - All people can love fully.
4. It does involve 'unnatural sex acts' - So can hetrosexaul sex.
5. There are EXTRA risks to physical health - the same care as should be taken by hetrosexuals limits this.

My personal opinion

Homosexuals should be allowed to be as they are with in society at large.
They should seek personal contact in exclusive 'meeting' places.
They should not HAVE to feel that they HAVE to have a strong MOVEMENT to obtain 'civil marriage' rights. Their rights should already be defined and should be as little different as possible to hetrosexuals.
Forcing the 'Gay' community into the activist role has significantly altered the 'normal' attitude of the persons involved. The successes have made the 'gay' movement too powerful considering the numbers involved and this ground must not be lost by its supporters.

I would not like to see 'Gay' people married in church as this should be the 'moral' marriage confirmation.

I believe that you marry your partner BEFORE you arrive at church or the registry office. This 'coupling' of two 'soul' is the love we should be looking for NOT the physical display from 'Hollywood' movies.

The only solution to immoral sexual relationships is to abstain. This is your 'soul' taking charge and dominating the physical desire. This does NOT reduce the love shared and is moral.

 

[Saxon Hammer]

No, i did not go read your link, this is a discussion board, when i link to something, i quote the relevant information here with my link, you should do the same, its not up to me to search your information for relevant discussion, its YOUR responsibility in a debate to cite your information here.

Really - copying entire pages on another website is a copyright offence so I HAVE to LINK.

I have been responsible.

You just do not want to work your brain. Your reactions are the result of this difficulty of yours.

It is a discussion board and people regularly link to other sources like youtube. Just because you can see youtube in your browser does not increase its worth. Just shows how little knowledge you have of the technical environment that IS this discussion board.

 

[eider]

Homosexuality.

1. Is not moral - as in it does not continue the species.

Is my marriage to my wife moral? She cannot have children.... ?

2. It is the living state for that individual - not normal.

Humans are so diverse that 'normal' is very hard to define.

3. It does not reduce the love bonding possible - All people can love fully.

I do not understand this. I don't know many couples that love (what I would call) 'fully', but we are very happy. Most of my mates moan about their wives, and 'look around'. Sad, really.

4. It does involve 'unnatural sex acts' - So can heterosexaul sex.

I won't... can't discuss sex acts on this forum, but 'love is as love does'.

5. There are EXTRA risks to physical health - the same care as should be taken by heterosexuals limits this.

Yes, I think that there might be, but then, extreme mountain biking, rock climbing and hang gilding are pretty risky., but I wouldn't hold that against such sporting folks.

My personal opinion

Homosexuals should be allowed to be as they are with in society at large.

Yep.

They should seek personal contact in exclusive 'meeting' places.

I don't like exclusive clubs, groups or anything else, really. For instance, hetero friends of gays shouldn't be banned from gay-nightclubs, etc.

They should not HAVE to feel that they HAVE to have a strong MOVEMENT to obtain 'civil marriage' rights. Their rights should already be defined and should be as little different as possible to heterosexuals.

True. That's how most gays would like it, I reckon.

Forcing the 'Gay' community into the activist role has significantly altered the 'normal' attitude of the persons involved. The successes have made the 'gay' movement too powerful considering the numbers involved and this ground must not be lost by its supporters.

That can be a problem for any minority groups.... they shout so loud to be noticed, and then, next thing you know, they've become big mouths!

I would not like to see 'Gay' people married in church as this should be the 'moral' marriage confirmation.

Depends which Church, I guess.
We got married in a registry office because my wife is agnostic.
I presume that there are Gay Churches? I don't know much about Gays and religion. In the UK Gays can marry ion registry offices but so far the CofE Synod has not voted for Gay Marriages in CofE Churches.

I believe that you marry your partner BEFORE you arrive at church or the registry office. This 'coupling' of two 'soul' is the love we should be looking for NOT the physical display from 'Hollywood' movies.

Cool. I fell in love with my wife in the first five minutes, I reckon.
(She didn't like me though. If I was around her tummy felt funny, she remembers....!)

The only solution to immoral sexual relationships is to abstain. This is your 'soul' taking charge and dominating the physical desire. This does NOT reduce the love shared and is moral.

I can imagine that depth of spiritual existence, but have never attained to it.

You could well be one of the most moderate members on this forum, I reckon.
Excellent! Good For You!

 

[MrDante]

Homosexuality.

1. Is not moral - as in it does not continue the species.

when did this become the benchmark for morality?

Women who are raped have a good chance of becoming pregnant. Does that make rape moral?

2. It is the living state for that individual - not normal.

???

3. It does not reduce the love bonding possible - All people can love fully.

so many, especially homophobes don't

4. It does involve 'unnatural sex acts' - So can heterosexual sex.

An unnatural sex act is one that you can't do.

5. There are EXTRA risks to physical health - the same care as should be taken by heterosexuals limits this.

Being black also has associated health risks.

 

[ok doser]

an unnatural sex act is one that you can't do.

you're gonna be very popular with the pedophiles when they come out of the closet

Being black also has associated health risks.

then one would be a fool to choose to be black, eh?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Gay promiscuity is a myth. Gay men do not have any more sexual partners than heterosexual men

However, compared to other men, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men are additionally affected by:

Higher rates of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs);
Tobacco and drug use;
Depression.

There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:

Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.

https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm