LGBT school lessons protests in the uk

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
But I do know these things, as per previous posts.
That said, I can always improve my technique so any hot tips you might have will be given due consideration :).
If you know those things, you should avoid posts that indicate that you don't know those things.

And I'd stick to improving your understanding of risk factors and statistics, and the implications they have for people's equality, before anything else.
 


livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
Livingstone & Merc enjoy discussing semantics. Their arguments tend to run out of steam so they tend to have nowhere else to go with the debate.
Pedantic things like pointing out the LGBT equality isn't contingent on health status, and that falsely claiming that gay sex is inherently dangerous is a pretty piss poor effort to justify homophobes protesting kids being taught that gay people and their families are worthy of respect.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,527
If you know those things, you should avoid posts that indicate that you don't know those things.

And I'd stick to improving your understanding of risk factors and statistics, and the implications they have for people's equality, before anything else.
But I do avoid such posts. In fact, I write ones that clearly show that I do know those things.

Here is Rainyman telling me that anal sex is practised by male female couples and is not practised by all gay people:


and here I am saying that I'm aware of that:


So you should probably work on your reading skills, and spend less time spinning the stats.
 
Last edited:

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,527
Livingstone & Merc enjoy discussing semantics. Their arguments tend to run out of steam so they tend to have nowhere else to go with the debate.
Yes, Livingstone tried to propose that anal sex was no more dangerous than vaginal sex, but when I cited infection rates, he mentioned the chemical and physical apparatus that protects MSM. I pointed out that garb and tabs can protect us from nuclear waste; it doesn't make nuclear waste not dangerous. Eventually he ended up splitting hairs and misrepresenting what I had said about people being equal.

As you say, it all became dreary semantics, much as it does with Merc. It's the pettifogging refuge of the loser.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
Yes, Livingstone tried to propose that anal sex was no more dangerous than vaginal sex, but when I cited infection rates, he mentioned the chemical and physical apparatus that protects MSM. I pointed out that garb and tabs can protect us from nuclear waste; it doesn't make nuclear waste not dangerous. Eventually he ended up splitting hairs and misrepresenting what I had said about people being equal.

As you say, it all became dreary semantics, much as it does with Merc. It's the pettifogging refuge of the loser.
No misrepresentation whatsoever. Having denied it, I quoted the post where you explicitly said (in respect of LGBT people) 'they are not equal'.

Also, your first sentence is a lie about my claims.

You've also conveniently ignored any link to your original position, which is that it's legitimate to argue against telling kids that LGBT people and their families should be accepted and respected because of the risks of 'gay sex' (which you use interchangably with anal sex for some reason, despite claiming to know that that are not the same thing).

But as I said, and you agreed, gay people can have perfectly safe and healthy sex lives.

So what justification do you have to defend those saying kids being taught respect and acceptance is a problem?
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,527
No misrepresentation whatsoever. Having denied it, I quoted the post where you explicitly said (in respect of LGBT people) 'they are not equal'.

Also, your first sentence is a lie about my claims.
No, it isn't. There is a long trail of quotes from you stating that anal and vaginal sex represent the same HIV risk.

The logic of your approach seems to be that we should tell kids that they need to use a condom uniquely for anal sex. That's totally absurd.
you should take the right precautions. From a HIV perspective, one way is to use a condom, whether for anal or vaginal sex.
the bottom line is that both anal and vaginal sex in those circumstances are extremely high risk.
But as the facts make clear - the inherent risks are virtually zero, and arise from specific circumstances or lack of precautions, not the act themselves, and certainly not the sexuality.
if you take the right precautions there is virtually no material difference in your rush of HIV transmission via anal or vaginal sex.
It's lies. You fool nobody, and expect us to overlook the cited claims of gay lobbyists and the fact that the AIDS epidemic, where people died in droves, occurred within MSM networks.

If you need additional infrastructure to make your activity as safe as someone else's, your activity is more dangerous.

Once you fail to accept the basic facts, it becomes a waste of time to explain why therefore some people are reluctant to endorse relationships and lifestyles premised in many cases on such behaviour.

You will instead just bang on about what you claim I said regarding people being equal. A rabbit hole that I filled in some time back.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
No, it isn't. There is a long trail of quotes from you stating that anal and vaginal sex represent the same HIV risk.











It's lies. You fool nobody, and expect us to overlook the cited claims of gay lobbyists and the fact that the AIDS epidemic, where people died in droves, occurred within MSM networks.

If you need additional infrastructure to make your activity as safe as someone else's, your activity is more dangerous.

Once you fail to accept the basic facts, it becomes a waste of time to explain why therefore some people are reluctant to endorse relationships and lifestyles premised in many cases on such behaviour.

You will instead just bang on about what you claim I said regarding people being equal. A rabbit hole that I filled in some time back.
Afraid you are wrong. It has been pointed out to you before that there is a difference between absolute and relative metrics.

Saying X is safer than Y, does not make X safe or Y dangerous in absolute terms. You are statistically less likely to die in a plane crash than in a car crash. That does not make driving an inherently dangerous activity. What's more, we wouldn't say that driving is dangerous because you have to take precautions to reduce your chances of dying in a car crash - like learning to drive, not drinking, or using a seat belt. Rather we describe drunk driving, or driving without a seat belt, or driving without knowing how as dangerous - not driving itself.

So you desperately need to learn that relative risk is not the same as absolute risk.

And once you do that, we're back to one key flaw that you refuse to address.

You claim that the dangers of gay sex means it's legitimate to argue that kids should not be taught to respect gay people and their families doesn't stack up, because:

1. Gay sex =/= anal sex.
2. Gay sex isn't inherently dangerous.
3. Even if it were, failing to teach kids respect would not affect those dangers in any way.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,527
Afraid you are wrong. It has been pointed out to you before that there is a difference between absolute and relative metrics.

Saying X is safer than Y, does not make X safe or Y dangerous in absolute terms. You are statistically less likely to die in a plane crash than in a car crash. That does not make driving an inherently dangerous activity. What's more, we wouldn't say that driving is dangerous because you have to take precautions to reduce your chances of dying in a car crash - like learning to drive, not drinking, or using a seat belt. Rather we describe drunk driviandng, or driving without a seat belt, or driving without knowing how as dangerous - not driving itself.

So you desperately need to learn that relative risk is not the same as absolute risk.
And because you are unlikely to die at the hands of a murderer we should promote murder? Or be agnostic about it?

Relative risk is the issue here, since activists like you want to place gay and straight relationships on the same footing.

Anal sex is substantially more dangerous than vaginal. It's been pointed out to you here numerous times. Try this:

In the UK 83 out of every 1,000 men who have sex with men (aged 15 to 74) are living with HIV. That's 8.3%.

Even though men who have sex with men make up only 3.4 % of the adult male population, they account for 48% of all HIV infections.

You try to spin the stats all you like. You're fooling nobody.

You claim that the dangers of gay sex means it's legitimate to argue that kids should not be taught to respect gay people and their families doesn't stack up, because:

1. Gay sex =/= anal sex.
2. Gay sex isn't inherently dangerous.
3. Even if it were, failing to teach kids respect would not affect those dangers in any way.
Wrong.
1. False. Gay sex is not exclusively anal sex (nobody ever said it was) but anal sex is a much more central component of gay sex between men than hetero sex.
2. Obviously false.
3. Debatable. The AIDS epidemic followed the liberalisation of the sodomy laws in states such as California and New York. Allowing and promoting dangerous behaviour has consequences.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
And because you are unlikely to die at the hands of a murderer we should promote murder? Or be agnostic about it?

Relative risk is the issue here, since activists like you want to place gay and straight relationships on the same footing.
So why do you insist on calling anal sex dangerous (not just 'more dangerous').

And of course relative risk is irrelevant. If you have sex with someone who is HIV- or undetectable, your risk of contracting HIV is the same whether it it is vaginal or anal sex. And of course the nature of relationships is that people tend to know the sexual health status of those they are in a relationship with.

And if someone is in a relationship with someone who is HIV+ with a detectable viral load they can have perfectly safe sex but only with precautions. Again, that is the case for both vaginal and anal sex. The fact that the risk of transmission is higher with the latter doesn't change the fact that in those circumstances, protection is necessary for safe vaginal OR anal sex.

Wrong.
1. False. Gay sex is not exclusively anal sex (nobody ever said it was) but anal sex is a much more central component of gay sex between men than hetero sex.
So actually true, then, since you accept that anal sex is not exclusive to gay people. It is also not an essential part of sex between gay people. So anal sex =/= gay sex, like I said.

2. Obviously false.
I've explained to you the facts. Your choice to ignore them is your business. As I've explained, gay sex with someone who does not have an STI is 100% safe, just like vaginal sex. gay sex with someone who does have an STI is almost entirely safe with the right protection. The same is true of vaginal sex.

3. Debatable. The AIDS epidemic followed the liberalisation of the sodomy laws in states such as California and New York. Allowing and promoting dangerous behaviour has consequences.
So why do you think HIV transmissions rates have fallen by a third in the past three years in London? Do you think London has become less liberal in the last three years?

Or could it be that when we listen to experts rather than homophobes, we can actually reduce HIV transmission without telling people not to have sex?
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,527
So why do you insist on calling anal sex dangerous (not just 'more dangerous').
Because it is dangerous. It can be 1) dangerous and 2) more dangerous. Sensational, I know.

And of course relative risk is irrelevant.
No, it isn't. Activists like you want to place gay and straight relationships on the same footing in children's books. So,the relative dangers in both is precisely the point.

If you have sex with someone who is HIV- or undetectable, your risk of contracting HIV is the same whether it it is vaginal or anal sex.
Which is irrelevant. The fact is that you are massively less likely to be HIV- if you are a man who has sex with men. The stats are clear.

And if someone is in a relationship with someone who is HIV+ with a detectable viral load they can have perfectly safe sex but only with precautions. Again, that is the case for both vaginal and anal sex. The fact that the risk of transmission is higher with the latter doesn't change the fact that in those circumstances, protection is necessary for safe vaginal OR anal sex.
There you go again like a broken record, slipping in the mention of the special apparatus required to protect homosexuals from themselves. And again, you slip in a reference to vaginal sex. It is entirely disingenuous to mention vaginal sex in the same breath as anal sex because, as we know, transmission of STDs is *massively* more likely during anal sex. The stats are clear. You are entirely dishonest in clasping to your breast the much safer cohort of heterosexuals, to try and bracket all of us together, to try and smear all of us with the same brush, when we know that heterosexual sex poses nothing like the danger that homosexual sex does.

You fool nobody. Anybody listening to your propaganda knows why it is that the AIDS epidemic spread through homosexual networks, and that it is gay lobbies and not straight people who are baying for anti-HIV drugs. The reason is the nature of the sex that they have. The stats are clear.

So actually true, then, since you accept that anal sex is not exclusive to gay people. It is also not an essential part of sex between gay people. So anal sex =/= gay sex, like I said.
This is just childish rubbish. Nobody ever said that homosexual sex is purely anal sex. However, it is practised much more by homosexuals. Heteros have the vaginal route, by which they procreate, incidentally.

I've explained to you the facts. Your choice to ignore them is your business.
No, you haven't. You tried to spin some stats into lies, extrapolating risk from the entire population instead of the target cohort. See below for another, relevant, stat.

So why do you think HIV transmissions rates have fallen by a third in the past three years in London? Do you think London has become less liberal in the last three years?

Or could it be that when we listen to experts rather than homophobes, we can actually reduce HIV transmission without telling people not to have sex?
In London, the HIV rate among men who have sex with other men is 13.4%. That's substantially higher than the already horrifying rate of 8.3% for the male homosexual community as a whole in the UK. So I wouldn't brag too much about London, if I were you.

Some people balk at the presentation of a dysfunctional and diseased subculture as an equal of male-female relationships in children's pedagogical literature. You can call such people "homophobic" if you like. Bully for you.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
Because it is dangerous. It can be 1) dangerous and 2) more dangerous. Sensational, I know.
No it's not.

That's like saying being in a car is dangerous. If you take basic precautions (like being driven by someone who is sober and knows how to drive) being in a car is not dangerous in any absolute sense (albeit that it is more dangerous than, say, being in a plane).

No, it isn't. Activists like you want to place gay and straight relationships on the same footing in children's books. So,the relative dangers in both is precisely the point.
No it's not. Because as we've both acknowledged, gay couples can have perfectly safe sex lives.

For example, who do you think has the more risky sex life - the straight couple having unprotected vaginal sex where the man is HIV+ with a detectable viral load; or the gay couple having anal sex where both are HIV-, or the lesbian couple.

Your position is absurd, and the logical gymnastics you are willing to do to avoid simply defending your dislike of gay people is pathetic.

Which is irrelevant. The fact is that you are massively less likely to be HIV- if you are a man who has sex with men. The stats are clear.
Still logically wrong. Because (1) equality and respect does not end when someone is HIV+; (2) the sexual partner of someone who is HIV+ can have a perfectly safe sex life with them. So yes, their relationship is entirely equal to yours or mine.

There you go again like a broken record, slipping in the mention of the special apparatus required to protect homosexuals from themselves. And again, you slip in a reference to vaginal sex. It is entirely disingenuous to mention vaginal sex in the same breath as anal sex because, as we know, transmission of STDs is *massively* more likely during anal sex. The stats are clear. You are entirely dishonest in clasping to your breast the much safer cohort of heterosexuals, to try and bracket all of us together, to try and smear all of us with the same brush, when we know that heterosexual sex poses nothing like the danger that homosexual sex does.
I dread to think what message you would send to any kids you might have if your position is that aside from pregnancy risks, unprotected vaginal sex is perfectly safe. The logical consequence of your position is that a woman on the pill who has sex with a stranger should feel no need to use a condom.

Of course no one sane would argue that.

Because the risk factors are principally (a) knowing your partner's sexual health; (b) taking precautions during sex.

You fool nobody. Anybody listening to your propaganda knows why it is that the AIDS epidemic spread through homosexual networks, and that it is gay lobbies and not straight people who are baying for anti-HIV drugs. The reason is the nature of the sex that they have. The stats are clear.
The stats tell us gay couples can have entirely safe sex.

The equality of their relationships doesn't depend on that fact, but it does undermine your claim that they are not equal.

This is just childish rubbish. Nobody ever said that homosexual sex is purely anal sex. However, it is practised much more by homosexuals. Heteros have the vaginal route, by which they procreate, incidentally.
If you know that 'homosexual sex is not purely anal sex', you should stop erroneously conflating the two.

No, you haven't. You tried to spin some stats into lies, extrapolating risk from the entire population instead of the target cohort. See below for another, relevant, stat.
I've given relative risk both for the population as a whole, and specifically for gay men. And the fact is that if you have anal sex with a random man, or a random gay man, then you can virtually eliminate the risk of contracting HIV. Just like if a woman has vaginal sex with a random man, she can also virtually eliminate her risk of contracting HIV. To do so, however, both would need to use protection/

And of course we're discussing relationships, not hook-ups. And the best protection is knowing your partner's sexual health, which people in relationships tend to do.

In London, the HIV rate among men who have sex with other men is 13.4%. That's substantially higher than the already horrifying rate of 8.3% for the male homosexual community as a whole in the UK. So I wouldn't brag too much about London, if I were you.
Dodging the issue.

Adopting my approach - fact based, reducing stigma, encouraging testing and recognising that what matters is not the sex but the knowledge, education and protections has resulted in a significant reduction in HIV transmission.

Adopting your approach - ignorance and prejudice based, increase stigma, driven by homophobia led to reduced testing and higher rates of transmission.

Some people balk at the presentation of a dysfunctional and diseased subculture as an equal of male-female relationships in children's pedagogical literature. You can call such people "homophobic" if you like. Bully for you.
Thank you, I will continue to call them - and you - homophobes because that is plainly what they are.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,527
No it's not.

That's like saying being in a car is dangerous. If you take basic precautions (like being driven by someone who is sober and knows how to drive) being in a car is not dangerous in any absolute sense (albeit that it is more dangerous than, say, being in a plane).



No it's not. Because as we've both acknowledged, gay couples can have perfectly safe sex lives.

For example, who do you think has the more risky sex life - the straight couple having unprotected vaginal sex where the man is HIV+ with a detectable viral load; or the gay couple having anal sex where both are HIV-, or the lesbian couple.

Your position is absurd, and the logical gymnastics you are willing to do to avoid simply defending your dislike of gay people is pathetic.



Still logically wrong. Because (1) equality and respect does not end when someone is HIV+; (2) the sexual partner of someone who is HIV+ can have a perfectly safe sex life with them. So yes, their relationship is entirely equal to yours or mine.



I dread to think what message you would send to any kids you might have if your position is that aside from pregnancy risks, unprotected vaginal sex is perfectly safe. The logical consequence of your position is that a woman on the pill who has sex with a stranger should feel no need to use a condom.

Of course no one sane would argue that.

Because the risk factors are principally (a) knowing your partner's sexual health; (b) taking precautions during sex.



The stats tell us gay couples can have entirely safe sex.

The equality of their relationships doesn't depend on that fact, but it does undermine your claim that they are not equal.



If you know that 'homosexual sex is not purely anal sex', you should stop erroneously conflating the two.



I've given relative risk both for the population as a whole, and specifically for gay men. And the fact is that if you have anal sex with a random man, or a random gay man, then you can virtually eliminate the risk of contracting HIV. Just like if a woman has vaginal sex with a random man, she can also virtually eliminate her risk of contracting HIV. To do so, however, both would need to use protection/

And of course we're discussing relationships, not hook-ups. And the best protection is knowing your partner's sexual health, which people in relationships tend to do.



Dodging the issue.

Adopting my approach - fact based, reducing stigma, encouraging testing and recognising that what matters is not the sex but the knowledge, education and protections has resulted in a significant reduction in HIV transmission.

Adopting your approach - ignorance and prejudice based, increase stigma, driven by homophobia led to reduced testing and higher rates of transmission.



Thank you, I will continue to call them - and you - homophobes because that is plainly what they are.
Just the same falsehoods and misrepresentations as your previous dozen posts.

Your assertion that gay couples can have perfectly safe sex lives is contradicted by the facts: massively higher HIV and other STD rates. HIV infection nationally where you are is 8.3% among men who have sex with men. HIV infection locally where you are is 13.4% among men who have sex with men.

Massively higher than heteros - see, not just dangerous but more dangerous.
Clearly, having perfectly safe sex lives is beyond them pace Livingstone.

Now, we could say that they are feckless and irresponsible and selfish to end up with these infection rates. But, in mitigation, we could add the fact that HIV transmission is much more likely anally (a medical fact), so their task is harder. This is an uncomfortable fact, but it provides an excuse of sorts. However, your denial of this fact means you can't avail of this excuse on their behalf.

I can offer you another excuse:

Achieving a sufficiently low viral load to prevent further HIV infection of partners requires the person to take a cocktail of drugs permanently and wear a condom in the initial stages at least. It requires up to 6 months' HIV treatment before a person’s viral load becomes undetectable. Until then they may still be infectious. But MSM have vastly higher rates of infection for other sexually transmitted infections as well, and here's the thing: having another STI makes HIV transmission more likely. If a HIV-negative partner has an STI (especially syphilis), it increases their risk of acquiring HIV from someone who is HIV-positive. Also, STIs can make HIV-positive people more infectious.

Avoiding being a danger to yourself and others while having HIV requires the person to have regular and constant interaction with health system - an onerous task. There's a word for such a person: a patient. A patient is someone with an illness. This illness is the result of the type of sexual practices he engages in.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
Just the same falsehoods and misrepresentations as your previous dozen posts.

Your assertion that gay couples can have perfectly safe sex lives is contradicted by the facts: massively higher HIV and other STD rates. HIV infection nationally where you are is 8.3% among men who have sex with men. HIV infection locally where you are is 13.4% among men who have sex with men.

Massively higher than heteros - see, not just dangerous but more dangerous.
Clearly, having perfectly safe sex lives is beyond them pace Livingstone.

Now, we could say that they are feckless and irresponsible and selfish to end up with these infection rates. But, in mitigation, we could add the fact that HIV transmission is much more likely anally (a medical fact), so their task is harder. This is an uncomfortable fact, but it provides an excuse of sorts. However, your denial of this fact means you can't avail of this excuse on their behalf.

I can offer you another excuse:

Achieving a sufficiently low viral load to prevent further HIV infection of partners requires the person to take a cocktail of drugs permanently and wear a condom in the initial stages at least. It requires up to 6 months' HIV treatment before a person’s viral load becomes undetectable. Until then they may still be infectious. But MSM have vastly higher rates of infection for other sexually transmitted infections as well, and here's the thing: having another STI makes HIV transmission more likely. If a HIV-negative partner has an STI (especially syphilis), it increases their risk of acquiring HIV from someone who is HIV-positive. Also, STIs can make HIV-positive people more infectious.

Avoiding being a danger to yourself and others while having HIV requires the person to have regular and constant interaction with health system - an onerous task. There's a word for such a person: a patient. A patient is someone with an illness. This illness is the result of the type of sexual practices he engages in.
Firstly, your stats from PHE are predicated on something like 2.3% of men being MSM. That's not a very likely statistic given that virtually all estimates of the gay and bisexual male population are higher than that - let alone the additional numbers who don't admit to being gay or bi but nonethleless have sex with men.

Second, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, we are discussing relationships and their equality. So I know with 100% certainty what my risks are of contracting HIV within my relationship because I know my partner's sexual health status. Most people in relationships know theirs.

So yes, gay couples can have perfectly safe sex.

Either because they know that their partner is either HIV- or is + with an undetectable viral load. Or because they are on PrEP. Or because they use a condom. The exact same ways that straight couples have perfectly safe sex.

So despite all your efforts, your attempts to justify homophobic protests have fallen flat on their face.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,527
Firstly, your stats from PHE are predicated on something like 2.3% of men being MSM. That's not a very likely statistic given that virtually all estimates of the gay and bisexual male population are higher than that - let alone the additional numbers who don't admit to being gay or bi but nonethleless have sex with men.
So you don't like the PHE's stats now? You've been on the run in this debate for a good while, but you're sprinting now. :cool:

Let's indulge you for a minute: Where do you get your "something like 2.3%"? I can't find it in the PHE publication:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/821273/Progress_towards_ending_the_HIV_epidemic_in_the_UK.pdf

Please link.

It seems to be incorrect to assert that the PHE are operating on the basis of 2.3%.
I have an estimate of the MSM % in UK at 3.4% in PubMed Central, Table 1: BMC Public Health. 2013; 13: 919. Published online 2013 Oct 3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-919

Note that this percentage is based on 613,658, while the PHE's total would be 8.3/100 = 48,900(total MSM) = 588,756 (= 96% of the ncbi published stat). So no significant difference there.

Second, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, we are discussing relationships and their equality. So I know with 100% certainty what my risks are of contracting HIV within my relationship because I know my partner's sexual health status. Most people in relationships know theirs.
Because obviously there's no such thing as a hook-up culture, especially not in the gay scene :ROFLMAO:

So yes, gay couples can have perfectly safe sex.
So then why don't they? :unsure: Their infection rates are way higher. What are you saying, Livingstone?

Either because they know that their partner is either HIV- or is + with an undetectable viral load. Or because they are on PrEP. Or because they use a condom. The exact same ways that straight couples have perfectly safe sex.
Do you read the bullsh!t you write? I honestly doubt that you believe even 25% of your own posts. You just spam desperate propaganda.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
So you don't like the PHE's stats now? You've been on the run in this debate for a good while, but you're sprinting now. :cool:

Let's indulge you for a minute: Where do you get your "something like 2.3%"? I can't find it in the PHE publication:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/821273/Progress_towards_ending_the_HIV_epidemic_in_the_UK.pdf

Please link.

It seems to be incorrect to assert that the PHE are operating on the basis of 2.3%.
I have an estimate of the MSM % in UK at 3.4% in PubMed Central, Table 1: BMC Public Health. 2013; 13: 919. Published online 2013 Oct 3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-919

Note that this percentage is based on 613,658, while the PHE's total would be 8.3/100 = 48,900(total MSM) = 588,756 (= 96% of the ncbi published stat). So no significant difference there.

Because obviously there's no such thing as a hook-up culture, especially not in the gay scene :ROFLMAO:

So then why don't they? :unsure: Their infection rates are way higher. What are you saying, Livingstone?

Do you read the bullsh!t you write? I honestly doubt that you believe even 25% of your own posts. You just spam desperate propaganda.
I said PHE stats were based on something like 2.3% - it was actually 2.6%. I've done more digging and it turns out that's the ONS stat on men identifying as gay or bisexual. Of course that's plainly not the full picture of men who have sex with men, given that it excludes anyone in the closet, unwilling to set out their sexuality to ONS or those who don't identify as gay or bi.

But of course we're back to the key point. You are using this to claim that gay relationships are not equal, and yet you seem obsessed with gay hook ups. Of course you're not the first homophobe to get in a tizz about gay hook ups and you won't be the last.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,878
So you don't like the PHE's stats now? You've been on the run in this debate for a good while, but you're sprinting now. :cool:

Let's indulge you for a minute: Where do you get your "something like 2.3%"? I can't find it in the PHE publication:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/821273/Progress_towards_ending_the_HIV_epidemic_in_the_UK.pdf

Please link.

It seems to be incorrect to assert that the PHE are operating on the basis of 2.3%.
I have an estimate of the MSM % in UK at 3.4% in PubMed Central, Table 1: BMC Public Health. 2013; 13: 919. Published online 2013 Oct 3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-919

Note that this percentage is based on 613,658, while the PHE's total would be 8.3/100 = 48,900(total MSM) = 588,756 (= 96% of the ncbi published stat). So no significant difference there.



Because obviously there's no such thing as a hook-up culture, especially not in the gay scene :ROFLMAO:



So then why don't they? :unsure: Their infection rates are way higher. What are you saying, Livingstone?



Do you read the bullsh!t you write? I honestly doubt that you believe even 25% of your own posts. You just spam desperate propaganda.
What a strange way to spend your free time.
 

A Voice

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
7,527
I said PHE stats were based on something like 2.3% - it was actually 2.6%. I've done more digging and it turns out that's the ONS stat on men identifying as gay or bisexual. Of course that's plainly not the full picture of men who have sex with men, given that it excludes anyone in the closet, unwilling to set out their sexuality to ONS or those who don't identify as gay or bi.

But of course we're back to the key point. You are using this to claim that gay relationships are not equal, and yet you seem obsessed with gay hook ups. Of course you're not the first homophobe to get in a tizz about gay hook ups and you won't be the last.
Can you link us to the results of your digging? The PHE stats in the report I linked to seem to be using an MSM total very similar to the ncbi published total.

That was the first time I mentioned hook-ups. I mentioned them because we all know they exist, yet you premise your sanguine outlook on stable relationships and knowing the sexual health of your partner, and you make frequent references to these. Hookups clearly militate against all that.
 

livingstone

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
24,772
Can you link us to the results of your digging? The PHE stats in the report I linked to seem to be using an MSM total very similar to the ncbi published total.

That was the first time I mentioned hook-ups. I mentioned them because we all know they exist, yet you premise your sanguine outlook on stable relationships and knowing the sexual health of your partner, and you make frequent references to these. Hookups clearly militate against all that.
To the extent that you had any argument to begin with, it keeps collapsing under your own lack of logical consistency.

Let's take it back - your claim is that we should not educate children that gay people and their relationships are worthy of equal respect and acceptance. So gay hook ups has zero relevance to that.

So let's get down to specifics - my relationship with my husband is absolutely worthy of equal respect and acceptance as a relationship between a husband and a wife. You have consistently failed to explain why that would not be the case.
 

Enoch Root

Active member
Joined
Jul 11, 2019
Messages
101
Can you link us to the results of your digging? The PHE stats in the report I linked to seem to be using an MSM total very similar to the ncbi published total.

That was the first time I mentioned hook-ups. I mentioned them because we all know they exist, yet you premise your sanguine outlook on stable relationships and knowing the sexual health of your partner, and you make frequent references to these. Hookups clearly militate against all that.
Do straight people not engage in hook-ups anymore?

If not, why the hell is Tinder so popular?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top