LGBT school lessons protests in the uk

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,420
Sure I am.

I don’t think a homophobe has an inalienable right to impart their homophobia on their child and prevent them receiving any countervailing non-homophonic narrative. But they definitely do not have a right to impose their homophobia on other people’s kids and the whole education system.
So, they have a right - expressed by some of them - to pull their kids from these classes. I imagine that will take the energy out of this protest, if properly implemented as policy. Time will tell.
 


livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,546
Have just seen this one, Livingstone. Posting without tagging me while mentioning me several times? Tut-tut.

Trying the stats now? I got as far as

and then I wondered what the percentage is for random straight men. And random women. And women who haven't had anal sex with a gay man. I'm sure you know.

You need to accept that anal sex is dirty and dangerous.
To further illustrate this, have a look at this


and bear in mind that the cohort who report the majority of all Syphilis cases are in fact a small minority of the entire population.
OK well if you want to play the stats with the whole population and not just gay and bisexual men - though given your issue seems to be with teaching tolerance of same sex couples so your logic is unclear - but here goes.

If you have sex receptive anal sex with a random man - regardless of sexuality - the chances of him being HIV+ with a detectable viral load is 0.03%.

The chances of the condom failing is 2% and if it fails the chances of transmission after exposure is 1.4%.

2% x 1.4% x 0.03% = 0.000084%

That’s less than one in a million chance of contracting HIV by having protected, receptive anal sex with any random man in the UK.

So whether you use the 0.05% chance of transmission, or the 0.000084% chance of transmission - both demonstrate very clearly that protected anal sex is not dangerous, even before you get to other means of reducing risk by knowing a partners HIV status.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,420
OK well if you want to play the stats with the whole population and not just gay and bisexual men - though given your issue seems to be with teaching tolerance of same sex couples so your logic is unclear - but here goes.

If you have sex receptive anal sex with a random man - regardless of sexuality - the chances of him being HIV+ with a detectable viral load is 0.03%.

The chances of the condom failing is 2% and if it fails the chances of transmission after exposure is 1.4%.

2% x 1.4% x 0.03% = 0.000084%

That’s less than one in a million chance of contracting HIV by having protected, receptive anal sex with any random man in the UK.

So whether you use the 0.05% chance of transmission, or the 0.000084% chance of transmission - both demonstrate very clearly that protected anal sex is not dangerous, even before you get to other means of reducing risk by knowing a partners HIV status.
Simply showing you that the concentration of these diseases is overwhelmingly among gay men. Nobody is suggesting you or any other gay man fvck his way through the entire population, so calm down and spare us the stats spin.
A 1.4% chance that he has HIV+ is alarmingly high. We know that complacency about protection since the advent of prep and treatment has seen a spike in infection rates. There is a pathological concentration of danger in one slim segment of the population, and that is down to the nature of the sexual practice, which many find abhorrent whether the infection rate is one in five hundred or not.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,546
Simply showing you that the concentration of these diseases is overwhelmingly among gay men. Nobody is suggesting you or any other gay man fvck his way through the entire population, so calm down and spare us the stats spin.
A 1.4% chance that he has HIV+ is alarmingly high. We know that complacency about protection since the advent of prep and treatment has seen a spike in infection rates. There is a pathological concentration of danger in one slim segment of the population, and that is down to the nature of the sexual practice, which many find abhorrent whether the infection rate is one in five hundred or not.
At least at last you accept that the abhorrence of some has nothing whatsoever to the level of danger.

So I've now proven to you that your chance in contracting HIV from random but protected anal sex with a random man in the UK ranges from 0.0084% ot 0.05% (neither of which is one in five hundred by the way - it ranges from one in two thousand to one in a milllion roughly). And still you insist on your claim that anal sex, in itself, is dangerous.

Let's be clear -an activity that results in a 0.008% to 0.05% chance of a acquiring chronic but manageable health condition - and a 99.95% to a 99.99% chance of not acquiring that chronic condition - is not a dangerous activity.

You have just admitted that folk like you who find it abhorrent and call it dangerous have no interest in the ACTUAL facts about ACTUAL risks, and certainly no interest in reducing those risks.
 
Last edited:

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,420
At least at last you accept that the abhorrence of some has nothing whatsoever to the level of danger.
Obviously some will dislike the practice regardless of the perceived risks.
After all, AIDS is a fairly recent phenomenon.

So I've now proven to you that your chance in contracting HIV from random but protected anal sex with a random man in the UK ranges from 0.0084% ot 0.05% (neither of which is one in five hundred by the way - it ranges from one in two thousand to one in a milllion roughly). And still you insist on your claim that anal sex, in itself, is dangerous.
This mythical random man of yours should really be gay, you know, to assess the risks that homosexual men take when they have anal sex. Repetitive anal sex, MSM, you know. . . The terms that you find in the medical literature where the vastly higher rates of infection for homosexuals are documented.

You are trying to whitewash the risks by piggybacking on the larger population who either don't engage at all in, or to a far lesser extent in dangerous and dirty sex.

The fact that one in 3, one in 500, or any random number I pluck out of the air are not in hospital right now with full-blown AIDS does not disguise the fact that anal sex is injurious and dangerous.

You have just admitted that folk like you who find it abhorrent and call it dangerous have no interest in the ACTUAL facts about ACTUAL risks, and certainly no interest in reducing those risks.
I've admitted nothing of the kind.

Anal sex is obviously dangerous, and any discussion of STDs (anal sex is a higher risk factor for a bundle of them, not just HIV).


Where information on how the infection was transmitted was available, approximately 4 in 5 syphilis cases and almost two thirds of gonorrhoea cases were in MSM.
And again, to restate an obvious point to you, but one which seems to evade you every time you attempt a summary conclusion: these large clinical majorities come from a small minority of the population.

It causes physical trauma absent from vaginal sex, the body's natural means of sexual congress.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,546
Obviously some will dislike the practice regardless of the perceived risks.
After all, AIDS is a fairly recent phenomenon.
First, I'm not talking about perceived risks. They are irrelevant. I am talking about actual risks. And yes, some will dislike gay men having sex irrespective of the risks involved because they are homophobes.

This mythical random man of yours should really be gay, you know, to assess the risks that homosexual men take when they have anal sex. Repetitive anal sex, MSM, you know. . . The terms that you find in the medical literature where the vastly higher rates of infection for homosexuals are documented.

You are trying to whitewash the risks by piggybacking on the larger population who either don't engage at all in, or to a far lesser extent in dangerous and dirty sex.
Oh you simple fool.

I started off by giving you the risk of HIV transmission through protected receptive anal sex with a random gay or bisexual man in the UK. It was 0.05%. It was you - not me - who wanted the stats broadened out (in post 260). So I humoured you and provided them. It was 0.0084%. Now you try and claim that I am 'whitewashing the stats' by providing them only for the population at large.

So we're back to the core face - the risk of contracting HIV through anal sex with a condom, whether with a random man (0.0084%), or just a random gay or bisexual man, is incredibly low (0.05%).

The fact that one in 3, one in 500, or any random number I pluck out of the air are not in hospital right now with full-blown AIDS does not disguise the fact that anal sex is injurious and dangerous.
Except that it's not. An activity that gives rise to a 0.05% chance of contracting a life long chronic but manageable health condition cannot be described as 'dangerous' by anyone with a grasp of what words mean in the English language.

I've admitted nothing of the kind.
Sure you did. You referred to those, evidently like yourself, who 'find [anal sex] abhorrent whether the infection rate is one in five hundred or not' (incidentally, it's not one in five hundred, it is - at its highest -one in two thousand). You guys find it abhorrent regardless of the risk involved.

Anal sex is obviously dangerous, and any discussion of STDs (anal sex is a higher risk factor for a bundle of them, not just HIV).


And again, to restate an obvious point to you, but one which seems to evade you every time you attempt a summary conclusion: these large clinical majorities come from a small minority of the population.

It causes physical trauma absent from vaginal sex, the body's natural means of sexual congress.
Can you stop referring to things being 'obviously' anything. Provide actual stats as to the risk. I've told you what the risk is of contracting HIV (because it was you that initially raised HIV) through anal sex with a condom. 1 in 2000. That obviously does not render anal sex with a condom dangerous.

You want to bring up other STDs? Fine. Bring the stats, tell us what the risk is specifically from protected anal sex.

Since stats aren't your strong suit, I've done it for you for syphilis - c7,000 cases in the UK amongst gay or bisexual men in 2018. Or about 0.2%. Now, of course, that isn't the same as the number of gay or bisexual men who actually have syphilis at any one time - since it is fairly easy to both diagnose and cure, the probability of any random gay or bisexual man you meet actually having syphilis is quite a bit lower than 0.2%. Then add that exposure through anal sex carries a 1.4% chance of transmission, and there is a 2% chance of exposure while using a condom, and you end up with a risk of getting syphilis through protected anal sex with a gay or bisexual man of 0.000056%.

Now look, we can play this game with any STD you care to mention. The risk of any of them through protected anal sex is staggeringly low.

So we're back to one simple fact: for an activity to be dangerous, that means it has to have some reasonable likelihood of adverse consequences. So far, the biggest risk you've given is that 1/2000 risk that protected anal sex with a gay or bi man results in HIV transmission. That does not make protected anal sex dangerous. And then trying to bolster your case by referring to other STDs with even lower risk, like the 1/17,800 (roughly) risk of contracting syphilis.

So simple question: can you provide any evidence of actual risk levels from anal sex that would back up your claim that it is dangerous?
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,420
First, I'm not talking about perceived risks. They are irrelevant. I am talking about actual risks. And yes, some will dislike gay men having sex irrespective of the risks involved because they are homophobes.



Oh you simple fool.
:) Testy!

I started off by giving you the risk of HIV transmission through protected receptive anal sex with a random gay or bisexual man in the UK. It was 0.05%. It was you - not me - who wanted the stats broadened out (in post 260). So I humoured you and provided them. It was 0.0084%. Now you try and claim that I am 'whitewashing the stats' by providing them only for the population at large.
No, I didn't. I pointed out that the risks are far smaller when you factor in non-homosexuals. You showed that yourself, but persist in mentioning the lower number for the population as a whole (for rhetorical effect, as a whitewashing exercise) when we know that homosexuals have repetitive receptive anal sex with other homosexuals by definition. The comparative rates show a stark difference between the two cohorts, as you well know.

So we're back to the core face - the risk of contracting HIV through anal sex with a condom, whether with a random man (0.0084%), or just a random gay or bisexual man, is incredibly low (0.05%).



Except that it's not. An activity that gives rise to a 0.05% chance of contracting a life long chronic but manageable health condition cannot be described as 'dangerous' by anyone with a grasp of what words mean in the English language.



Sure you did. You referred to those, evidently like yourself, who 'find [anal sex] abhorrent whether the infection rate is one in five hundred or not' (incidentally, it's not one in five hundred, it is - at its highest -one in two thousand). You guys find it abhorrent regardless of the risk involved.



Can you stop referring to things being 'obviously' anything. Provide actual stats as to the risk. I've told you what the risk is of contracting HIV (because it was you that initially raised HIV) through anal sex with a condom. 1 in 2000. That obviously does not render anal sex with a condom dangerous.

You want to bring up other STDs? Fine. Bring the stats, tell us what the risk is specifically from protected anal sex.

Since stats aren't your strong suit, I've done it for you for syphilis - c7,000 cases in the UK amongst gay or bisexual men in 2018. Or about 0.2%. Now, of course, that isn't the same as the number of gay or bisexual men who actually have syphilis at any one time - since it is fairly easy to both diagnose and cure, the probability of any random gay or bisexual man you meet actually having syphilis is quite a bit lower than 0.2%. Then add that exposure through anal sex carries a 1.4% chance of transmission, and there is a 2% chance of exposure while using a condom, and you end up with a risk of getting syphilis through protected anal sex with a gay or bisexual man of 0.000056%.

Now look, we can play this game with any STD you care to mention. The risk of any of them through protected anal sex is staggeringly low.

So we're back to one simple fact: for an activity to be dangerous, that means it has to have some reasonable likelihood of adverse consequences. So far, the biggest risk you've given is that 1/2000 risk that protected anal sex with a gay or bi man results in HIV transmission. That does not make protected anal sex dangerous. And then trying to bolster your case by referring to other STDs with even lower risk, like the 1/17,800 (roughly) risk of contracting syphilis.

So simple question: can you provide any evidence of actual risk levels from anal sex that would back up your claim that it is dangerous?
Homosexuals are at greater risk for a whole range of STDs. To read your spin, one would almost believe that there was nothing to worry about, the chances being so remote. Of course, medical professionals have developed the required special protections to cope with diseases like HIV arising out of homosexual anal sex - the drug cocktails, the preventive tablets. The advice centres keep urging special vigilance for MSM sex because of higher risks. They warn of complacency. Thankfully, they don't listen to people like you.

You keep referring to sex with condoms but I've already told you that complacency has set in among homosexuals because of medical advances made to counter the effects of their sexual practices, that condom use has thus declined and that - guess what - infection rates are rising.

In the case of many diseases rightly regarded with horror, the actual numbers who die from them are mercifully small. That does not mean that these diseases are trivialised, or minimised in general discourse or by epidemiologists. People speak in the USA of typhoid as a growing problem because of rats feeding in garbage accumulating in Democrat-run cities. The number of infections is currently low, but no-one would want to promote behaviour and lifestyles that allows it to flourish.

We live in a more liberal era now, but part of that liberalism - if it is genuine - should entail the liberty to resist the promotion of manifestly more dangerous sexual practices. Call it "Homophobia" and feel great about yourself if you must, but you're missing the point. As usual.
 
Last edited:

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,546
:) Testy!

No, I didn't. I pointed out that the risks are far smaller when you factor in non-homosexuals. You showed that yourself, but persist in mentioning the lower number for the population as a whole (for rhetorical effect, as a whitewashing exercise) when we know that homosexuals have repetitive receptive anal sex with other homosexuals by definition. The comparative rates show a stark difference between the two cohorts, as you well know.
I started off by pointing out the 1/2000 risk in protected anal sex with a random gay or bisexual man resulting in HIV transmission.

You insist on continuing to refer to protected anal sex as dangerous.

An activity that has a 1/2000 chance of contracting a manageable but not curable chronic health condition is not dangerous.

Homosexuals are at greater risk for a whole range of STDs.
Your claim was anal sex is dangerous. Stick to that claim, don't move the goalposts.

A 1 in 2000 chance of HIV transmission is not 'dangerous'.

To read your spin, one would almost believe that there was nothing to worry about, the chances being so remote.
There is nothing to worry about with protected sex. The chances are very remote.

Of course, medical professionals have developed the required special protections to cope with diseases like HIV arising out of homosexual anal sex - the drug cocktails, the preventive tablets. The advice centres keep urging special vigilance for MSM sex because of higher risks. They warn of complacency. Thankfully, they don't listen to people like you.
They all focus on protection, preventative drugs and knowing the health status of your partner - because medical professionals know what you claim not to: that anal sex isn't what is risky. Unprotected anal sex with someone whose sexual health status you don't know and without preventative medication is what is risky. Which is what I've said all along.

You keep referring to sex with condoms but I've already told you that complacency has set in among homosexuals because of medical advances made to counter the effects of their sexual practices, that condom use has thus declined and that - guess what - infection rates are rising.
OK - so what is dangerous is unprotected sex with strangers. I agree entirely.

That does not amount to your claim that 'anal sex is dangerous'.

In the case of many diseases rightly regarded with horror, the actual numbers who die from them are mercifully small. That does not mean that these diseases are trivialised, or minimised in general discourse or by epidemiologists. People speak in the USA of typhoid as a growing problem because of rats feeding in garbage accumulating in Democrat-run cities. The number of infections is currently low, but no-one would want to promote behaviour and lifestyles that allows it to flourish.

We live in a more liberal era now, but part of that liberalism - if it is genuine - should entail the liberty to resist the promotion of manifestly more dangerous sexual practices. Call it "Homophobia" and feel great about yourself if you must, but you're missing the point. As usual.
Except that you don't want the liberty to resist the promotion of manifestly more dangerous sexual practices. Because as I've made clear, anal sex is not a dangerous practice. Unprotected anal sex with someone whose sexual health status you don't know and without preventative medication is what is dangerous.

You're welcome to resist that all you like.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,420
I started off by pointing out the 1/2000 risk in protected anal sex with a random gay or bisexual man resulting in HIV transmission.

You insist on continuing to refer to protected anal sex as dangerous.
I refer to anal sex as dangerous. I also say it is more dangerous than vaginal sex. Both of these statements are true.

You refuse to accept the former, despite the avalanche of medical advice out there, e.g. Anal Sex | HIV Risk and Prevention | HIV/AIDS | CDC

Anal Sex and HIV Risk
The risk of getting HIV varies widely depending on the type of sexual activity. Anal sex (intercourse), which involves inserting the penis into the anus, carries the highest risk of transmitting HIV if either partner is HIV-positive. You can lower your risk for getting and transmitting HIV by using condoms the right way every time you have sex; choosing lower risk sexual activities; taking daily medicine to prevent HIV, called pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); and taking medicines to treat HIV if you have HIV, called antiretroviral therapy (ART).
Risk of HIV
Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior for HIV transmission. Vaginal sex has a lower risk, and activities like oral sex, touching, and kissing carry little to no risk for getting or transmitting HIV. The vast majority of men who get HIV get it through anal sex. However, anal sex is also one of the ways women can get HIV.
Receptive Versus Insertive Sex
During anal sex, the partner inserting the penis is called the insertive partner (or top), and the partner receiving the penis is called the receptive partner (or bottom).
Receptive anal sex is much riskier for getting HIV.

You choose to focus on "protected" anal sex but this begs the question: why the protection? We all know why. Because anal sex is inherently dangerous. It needs a physical and chemical apparatus around it to minimise the greater risk it presents.

To evade reality, you choose to discuss "protected anal sex" as if unprotected anal sex is not a thing. (However, anal sex that is not protected is going on in the actual real world and health professionals tell us that it is on the rise.)

So now we can see examples of your sleight of hand:

An activity that has a 1/2000 chance of contracting a manageable but not curable chronic health condition is not dangerous.
"Protected" activity.


Your claim was anal sex is dangerous. Stick to that claim, don't move the goalposts.

A 1 in 2000 chance of HIV transmission is not 'dangerous'.

There is nothing to worry about with protected sex. The chances are very remote
.

Anal sex is dangerous, as per medical advice. I never deviated from that assertion.
And another use of your "protected" sex stat and implication that that is all anybody is talking about out - or doing - out there.

They all focus on protection, preventative drugs and knowing the health status of your partner - because medical professionals know what you claim not to: that anal sex isn't what is risky. Unprotected anal sex with someone whose sexual health status you don't know and without preventative medication is what is risky. Which is what I've said all along.
You accused me of being a poor simple fool. I ask you to look at the bolded statement and reread the quoted literature, and ask yourself why, if it wasn't dangerous, you wouldn't need the regime of "using condoms the right way every time you have sex; choosing lower risk sexual activities; taking daily medicine to prevent HIV, called pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); and taking medicines to treat HIV if you have HIV, called antiretroviral therapy (ART)."

These are exactly the measures you take to mitigate the effects of a dangerous activity.


OK - so what is dangerous is unprotected sex with strangers. I agree entirely.

That does not amount to your claim that 'anal sex is dangerous'.
Ringing increasingly hollow, livingstone . . . .

Except that you don't want the liberty to resist the promotion of manifestly more dangerous sexual practices. Because as I've made clear, anal sex is not a dangerous practice. Unprotected anal sex with someone whose sexual health status you don't know and without preventative medication is what is dangerous.

You're welcome to resist that all you like.
And again. Laughable stuff. Game's up, livingstone. You're like some clown saying nuclear waste isn't dangerous as long as you're popping the iodine, wearing the clobber and showering down thoroughly after every trip to the reactor. Nuttin' dangerous at all, I tells ya!
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,546
I refer to anal sex as dangerous. I also say it is more dangerous than vaginal sex. Both of these statements are true.

You refuse to accept the former, despite the avalanche of medical advice out there, e.g. Anal Sex | HIV Risk and Prevention | HIV/AIDS | CDC




You choose to focus on "protected" anal sex but this begs the question: why the protection? We all know why. Because anal sex is inherently dangerous. It needs a physical and chemical apparatus around it to minimise the greater risk it presents.

To evade reality, you choose to discuss "protected anal sex" as if unprotected anal sex is not a thing. (However, anal sex that is not protected is going on in the actual real world and health professionals tell us that it is on the rise.)

So now we can see examples of your sleight of hand:



"Protected" activity.


.

Anal sex is dangerous, as per medical advice. I never deviated from that assertion.
And another use of your "protected" sex stat and implication that that is all anybody is talking about out - or doing - out there.



You accused me of being a poor simple fool. I ask you to look at the bolded statement and reread the quoted literature, and ask yourself why, if it wasn't dangerous, you wouldn't need the regime of "using condoms the right way every time you have sex; choosing lower risk sexual activities; taking daily medicine to prevent HIV, called pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); and taking medicines to treat HIV if you have HIV, called antiretroviral therapy (ART)."

These are exactly the measures you take to mitigate the effects of a dangerous activity.

Ringing increasingly hollow, livingstone . . . .

And again. Laughable stuff. Game's up, livingstone. You're like some clown saying nuclear waste isn't dangerous as long as you're popping the iodine, wearing the clobber and showering down thoroughly after every trip to the reactor. Nuttin' dangerous at all, I tells ya!
So, where we've ended up is that you've been unable to dispute the figures I've given you. You seem unable to argue that protected anal sex is dangerous, and continue to insist on arguing that unprotected anal sex - like unprotected vaginal sex - is risky. But of course that's a straw man since no one here ever claimed that unprotected anal sex is not risky.

So it comes back to what relevance you think that has for teaching kids that gay people and their families deserve respect. Your argument seems to be gay people = anal sex, anal sex = danger, danger = bad therefore we should not teach kids to respect gay people.

Of course that's a batsh1t crazy argument that boils down to nothing but homophobia.

1. There is nothing inherent about being LGBT that means you have anal sex. In fact, the vast majority of the Ls, plenty of the Ts and Bs, and even a fair old smattering of the Gs do not.

2. There is nothing inherent about being non-LGBT that means you don't have anal sex.

3. We've now established, with stats, that protected anal sex is safe. So even those LGBT people who choose to have anal sex, can choose to do so perfectly safely.

4. We also know that sexuality is not changeable. Even if you were right that there's something inherently dangerous about being LGBT (there isn't), that would still not be a reason to treat people with disrespect, or to fail to teach kids to treat people with respect. It's a bit like saying we shouldn't teach kids not to be racist because black people are more likely to have sickle cell disease - which is a higher risk that, unlike for LGBT people, is actually inherent in one's race. But of course that doesn't matter to whether we treat people with respect, because race, like sexuality, isn't a choice.

So where are we back to? I've demonstrated time and again that you can have perfectly safe anal sex, no one has ever denied that unprotected anal sex, without PrEP or knowledge of your partner's sexual health, is risky, and whatever the risk levels anal sex and being LGBT are not inherently linked - and even if they were, teaching kids to treat people with respect does not change anyone's sexuality.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,420
So, where we've ended up is that you've been unable to dispute the figures I've given you. You seem unable to argue that protected anal sex is dangerous, and continue to insist on arguing that unprotected anal sex - like unprotected vaginal sex - is risky. But of course that's a straw man since no one here ever claimed that unprotected anal sex is not risky.

So it comes back to what relevance you think that has for teaching kids that gay people and their families deserve respect. Your argument seems to be gay people = anal sex, anal sex = danger, danger = bad therefore we should not teach kids to respect gay people.

Of course that's a batsh1t crazy argument that boils down to nothing but homophobia.

1. There is nothing inherent about being LGBT that means you have anal sex. In fact, the vast majority of the Ls, plenty of the Ts and Bs, and even a fair old smattering of the Gs do not.

2. There is nothing inherent about being non-LGBT that means you don't have anal sex.

3. We've now established, with stats, that protected anal sex is safe. So even those LGBT people who choose to have anal sex, can choose to do so perfectly safely.

4. We also know that sexuality is not changeable. Even if you were right that there's something inherently dangerous about being LGBT (there isn't), that would still not be a reason to treat people with disrespect, or to fail to teach kids to treat people with respect. It's a bit like saying we shouldn't teach kids not to be racist because black people are more likely to have sickle cell disease - which is a higher risk that, unlike for LGBT people, is actually inherent in one's race. But of course that doesn't matter to whether we treat people with respect, because race, like sexuality, isn't a choice.

So where are we back to? I've demonstrated time and again that you can have perfectly safe anal sex, no one has ever denied that unprotected anal sex, without PrEP or knowledge of your partner's sexual health, is risky, and whatever the risk levels anal sex and being LGBT are not inherently linked - and even if they were, teaching kids to treat people with respect does not change anyone's sexuality.
1 and 2 have been stated and agreed with before. 3 is premised on a fantasy land you inhabit where anal sex=protected anal sex and we know from the health professional and the stats that MSM top the charts for STDs.

To repeat, if you need pre- and post-chemicals and latex during, but not for pregnancy, then your activity is not safe.

Call it homophobia if you like. It's science and facts.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,546
1 and 2 have been stated and agreed with before. 3 is premised on a fantasy land you inhabit where anal sex=protected anal sex and we know from the health professional and the stats that MSM top the charts for STDs.

To repeat, if you need pre- and post-chemicals and latex during, but not for pregnancy, then your activity is not safe.

Call it homophobia if you like. It's science and facts.
3 is a simple fact. Protected anal sex is entirely safe. And you agree with 1 and 2.

You failed to engage with 4.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,584
3 is a simple fact. Protected anal sex is entirely safe. And you agree with 1 and 2.

You failed to engage with 4.
You are forgetting one important thing- rates of alcohol and drug abuse is much higher within the so-called LGBTQ "community" (I think it would be better to call it a market than a community) than it is among the sexually normal. Also we should not forget that a lot of "gay men" find getting infected with HIV a kinky turn on- this is why I believe that the state should exactly zero for HIV treatment of "gay men".

Why Does the LGBT Community Experience More Drug Abuse?

Why the Risk of Substance Use Disorders Is Higher for LGBTQ People

ShareSpot: Bug Chasers: Gay Men and the Intentional Pursuit of HIV - A Narrative Analysis | AIDS Education and Training Centers National Coordinating Resource Center (AETC NCRC)
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,332
OK well if you want to play the stats with the whole population and not just gay and bisexual men - though given your issue seems to be with teaching tolerance of same sex couples so your logic is unclear - but here goes.

If you have sex receptive anal sex with a random man - regardless of sexuality - the chances of him being HIV+ with a detectable viral load is 0.03%.

The chances of the condom failing is 2% and if it fails the chances of transmission after exposure is 1.4%.

2% x 1.4% x 0.03% = 0.000084%

That’s less than one in a million chance of contracting HIV by having protected, receptive anal sex with any random man in the UK.

So whether you use the 0.05% chance of transmission, or the 0.000084% chance of transmission - both demonstrate very clearly that protected anal sex is not dangerous, even before you get to other means of reducing risk by knowing a partners HIV status.
What is "sex receptive anal sex"?
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,546
You are forgetting one important thing- rates of alcohol and drug abuse is much higher within the so-called LGBTQ "community" (I think it would be better to call it a market than a community) than it is among the sexually normal. Also we should not forget that a lot of "gay men" find getting infected with HIV a kinky turn on- this is why I believe that the state should exactly zero for HIV treatment of "gay men".

Why Does the LGBT Community Experience More Drug Abuse?

Why the Risk of Substance Use Disorders Is Higher for LGBTQ People

ShareSpot: Bug Chasers: Gay Men and the Intentional Pursuit of HIV - A Narrative Analysis | AIDS Education and Training Centers National Coordinating Resource Center (AETC NCRC)
Things you've done before that mean there is zero point in engaging with this post:

1. Claimed that 'lots' of gay men deliberately set out to contract HIV but provided evidence only that a tiny fringe of people do so.

2. Claimed that drug and alcohol abuse is higher without ever engaging in the argument that the way to address addiction is not to continue the homophobia folk like you espouse.

3. Ignore that is precisely HIV treatment that prevents HIV transmission, since effective treatment makes it impossible to transmit HIV.

4. Insulted Rory O'Neill for pointing out the scientific fact that you cannot contract HIV from someone with an undetectable viral load.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,584
1. Claimed that 'lots' of gay men deliberately set out to contract HIV but provided evidence only that a tiny fringe of people do so.

2. Claimed that drug and alcohol abuse is higher without ever engaging in the argument that the way to address addiction is not to continue the homophobia folk like you espouse.
1. If it were only a tiny fringe of "gay men" there would not be so much about on the interweb. In fact if it was only a tiny fringe none of us would probably have heard about it.

2. Blaming homophobia is a cop out when the societies we have in both Ireland and Britain outside of Ulster Scot Protestant Ulster (the Anglo-Irish can be very dodgy indeed on this question- that was one of the reasons I was very angered by Arlene Foster getting the DUP leadership), the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, Bible believing North Wales and of working class and lumpen Muslim neightbourhoods positively celebrates the homosexual lifestyle- and lets face it the communities I mentioned have very little if any power outside of their own borders. If after all this public homosexual supremacism than I think we will have to find something else to blame.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,546
1. If it were only a tiny fringe of "gay men" there would not be so much about on the interweb. In fact if it was only a tiny fringe none of us would probably have heard about it.
That's not how hearing about things or seeing things on the internet works. Especially for weird obsessives who can't stop thinking about and reading about anything they can find - exclusively from alt right nonsense-peddlers - about gays.

2. Blaming homophobia is a cop out when the societies we have in both Ireland and Britain outside of Ulster Scot Protestant Ulster (the Anglo-Irish can be very dodgy indeed on this question- that was one of the reasons I was very angered by Arlene Foster getting the DUP leadership), the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, Bible believing North Wales and of working class and lumpen Muslim neightbourhoods positively celebrates the homosexual lifestyle- and lets face it the communities I mentioned have very little if any power outside of their own borders. If after all this public homosexual supremacism than I think we will have to find something else to blame.
We are literally having a debate about whether its a problem to teach kids to respect gay people.

When we're no longer having that debate, get back to me about how easy they gays have it.
 

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,584
That's not how hearing about things or seeing things on the internet works. Especially for weird obsessives who can't stop thinking about and reading about anything they can find - exclusively from alt right nonsense-peddlers - about gays.

We are literally having a debate about whether its a problem to teach kids to respect gay people.

When we're no longer having that debate, get back to me about how easy they gays have it.
I look at variety of media- the vast majority of it Christian, Muslim or Hard Left-the only "Alt-Rightists" I pay any attention to are Dr Andrew Joyce and Michael Walker (who writes on the homosexual supremacist Alt-Right web site), and even than I only do so occasionally. Both the named individuals are incredibly bright but I don't get the whole "Whites are the best" thing at all- I think most contemporary Whites in the West are pretty crap and I have found that very often Brown people are their superiors in terms of virtues I value greatly such as courage, duty and loyalty.

However it is good that you mentioned the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is full of people who share your sexual tastes- it is a magnet for the more "tough gay" homosexual supremacist along with also a few very effete ones who get all paranoid around Black lads. Dr Andrew Joyce wrote the essay I linked because of this trend within the Alt-Right. See the below important Alt-Right book:

The Homo & the Negro: Masculinist Meditations on Politics & Popular Culture

Yeah indeed, but we are talking about a working class Muslim community in Britain, such communities have extremely little influence on mainstream British and Irish societies. Yeah Wiberals will use them to signal their virtue and Tommytards will bash them in order to be ethno-nationalist while not being openly ethno-nationalist but neither of those aforementioned groups pays much attention at all to what they thinking, etc.

I have been doing some work trying to get Muslims and Christians to understand each other better and something that I have noticed is that by and large those who seek to demonize Islam and Muslims across the board (some Muslims it must be said can be pretty demonic) is that when they are not very likely highly neurotic Zionist Jews than they militant homosexualists such as Douglas Murrary or Milo.

Kids of course should be taught to treat everyone with consideration and justice. No one has a problem with that, what people have a problem with is pushing adult things unto kids.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top