If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
That made me think that there are millions out there who don't have a clue on what AIds about. THere will NEVER be a cure for AIDS (or cancer etc) (ref to Revelations in the Bible) and the only way Africa has left to combat this disease is by people investing money to educate the younger generations on sex and AIDs. 'nuff said.
Nor does it prove that this aberration of sexual behavior is "right", nor should be tolerated anymore than necrophilia, etc. Just because the act of murder is widespread does not mean that it should be tolerated. Should public desecration of corpses be tolerated, or celebrated... afterall, it IS a "victimless crime", and the restriction thereof would deprive its adherents of their "civil rights". Can't prevent some wanker from getting his jollies through his perversions now, can you?
Ain't it a bitch? The only way to likely avoid contracting HIV is MORAL BEHAVIOR (blood transfusion still being a possibility). No pre-marital sex, no IV drugs, no... Takes the fun out of your licentious little lives, don't it?
LOL! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
So post-marital sex is 100% HIV-free, is it now? Sorry, but that's what your statement, taken literally, means. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
Look, Berzerker, I happen to have a pretty strong moral code of my own. I'm no supporter of "licentious little lives," as you put it. I do think that some things are right and some are wrong. I don't condone blanket judgements, though.
Yes, perhaps homosexuals are more vulnerable to this particular disease than others. Is that really such an indication of immorality, though? I can well imagine people around the time of the Black Death saying that moral (i.e. Christian God-fearing) behaviour was the path to survival in the face of that epidemic.
BTW this info is also on the CDC and applies to all viral STD's
If EXTRA-marital sex were eliminated, no sex before marriage, and no adulterous behavior after, then the probability of HIV contact becomes rather remote.
Don't get much simpler... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif">
Now, iff'n y'all wants ta DO THE DIRTY with everything that walks, crawls, or slithers, well, YOUR DOLLAR... you paid for the ride, so ENJOY IT! ALL of it...
Just a curiosity... It would SEEM that the incidence of HIV infection is MUCH more centralized within the homosexuals in the US, and statistically more widespread amongst heteros in Britain. Hmmm <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/confused.gif"> Would THAT statistical evidence suggest that the "acceptance" (vs. the US) of "queer" behavior in Britain is responsible for the disease being MORE widespread? Social acceptance of homosexuals increases the likelihood of the WHOLE of society being infected?
YOUR stats, NOT mine... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
Ill have a look for some concrete numbers for the UK. The numbers posted here havent been backed up with a govt source.
I dont for a minute believe that there is a higher percentage of straights with AIDS than gays with AIDS in this country.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
Hoping fervently, are you?
Naw. They're getting rid of themselves, at an ever quickening pace... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
PUL-LEZE, Balddog, do NOT do THAT! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/eek.gif"> You seem to forget that this is an EMOTIONAL issue, and cannot be confronted with logic and statistical evidence! Monkeys do it, so it MUST be alright for intelligent humans! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif"> It might cause some of the sheep to open their eyes, or more likely, go into COMPLETE denial! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/eek.gif">
Mother Nature dislikes the weak, mentally OR physically, dislikes perversion of her plan. Oops, there comes a disease which more likely affects them with their head (or other body parts) up their ass. Could NOT be Mother Nature saying "I don't like what yer doin'!"
PUL-LEZE do NOT dispell the sheep's delusions... they are SO much fun to play with, much better than buggerin' the stupid little critters... LMFAO! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
Posted by Berzerker (aka Thanatos)
"There IS hope for you, actually, and you are on the way already, demonstrated by using a CAPITOL for Marine, rather than the lower case for soldier. You CAN be saved from your wayward ways..."
Oh what the hell? "OOO-RAH!" <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif">
Posted by the above mentioned:
"Do I understand correctly that you define necrophilia, pedophilia, murder, rape, slavery, etc. as NATURAL behavior, and therefore acceptable? laudable?
Just because some human creatures debase themselves within a perversion does NOT justify it..."
You took the words out of my mouth. Can I get another OOH-RAH? LOL!
Posted by MacKenzie:
"I do not define such acts as natural; I have shown them to be natural, basing my proof on the assumption that humans are products of nature. I never said that they were, therefore, 'acceptable' (whatever that means) or 'laudable'."
Aww, here we go with that word again...assume. Let me restate then. I show the gay and lesbian life to be unnatural, with everything I have posted. Wow, that sounds shallow. No matter what word you stick in front of it, the homosexual life is unnatural. Women are not built to have sex with women, and the same for men. I don't really want to SHOW you because I'm not that kind of girl, but I have defined it and I have showed you with my posts. I have answered the question, yet you have failed to answer how the homosexual life is natural.
And I will dare to say it. A homosexual society will not survive on its own. And DO NOT get this mixed up with the bisexual lifestyle. That is a different scenario altogether. A man and a man cannot reproduce on their own. Same with women and her female partner. You talk genetic diversity, yet cancer (as Berzerker mentioned) can be genetic. Look at breast cancer and prostate cancer. Yeah, that's real survival advantages.
Posted by Orangeade:
"Aids will get rid of a lot of stupid people.
---If only..................."
I still have yet to see something useful and intelligent posted by you.
"Avauncez! To Defend and Serve!"
We're still working on it... OO-RAH!!!
Better watch the movie you've taken your moniker from, and listen to Demi say it... and realize that while she is a fictional characture, you are the real thing.
Once you get the hang of it, it will feel SOOOOOO good! So much nicer texture than the gutteral HOO-AHH. lmao!
Posted by bezerker;-
"Nor does it prove that this aberration of sexual behavior is "right", nor should be tolerated anymore than necrophilia, etc. Just because the act of murder is widespread does not mean that it should be tolerated."
As I said, I'm not trying to justify anything here, and I'm not claiming necrophilia to be in any way natural or even comparable. How does murder tie-in to the sexual imperative?? Again we're talking zoology here, not moral or ethical codes.
"quote:
Originally posted by Lord of Little:
And I'm sure there will be a cure for AIDS/HIV soon too.
Hoping fervently, are you?"
Well, yes. As I hope there will be a cure for cancer, MS, Down's, MRSA, and all the other diseases and genetic disorders that my future children could suffer from. Here's a COMPLETELY hypothetical example. Say you have a daughter, who's 14, and she's raped by a paedophile who is HIV positive. After testing she is confirmed positive too. Would you, at that point, want there to be a cure available to her??
Also;-
"PUL-LEZE, Balddog, do NOT do THAT! You seem to forget that this is an EMOTIONAL issue, and cannot be confronted with logic and statistical evidence! Monkeys do it, so it MUST be alright for intelligent humans! It might cause some of the sheep to open their eyes, or more likely, go into COMPLETE denial! "
You seem to forget this is a scientific issue, it may be an emotional issue for you however. Again you are confusing facts and science with your own moral code and what you "feel" is right. I don't deny the sexual imperative may be multi-functional.
"Mother Nature dislikes the weak, mentally OR physically, dislikes perversion of her plan. Oops, there comes a disease which more likely affects them with their head (or other body parts) up their ass. Could NOT be Mother Nature saying "I don't like what yer doin'!""
Another well placed scientific argument. Mother Nature is not in fact a grey-haired old granny sitting on a rocking chair doing her knitting with a blueprint for everything. Life is a dynamic, reactive AND pro-active process, synergistic within an ecosystem yet competitive on the induvidual basis. "Mother Nature" does not "say" anything, life does not work to a fundamental goal or plan though the induvidual might. Life works by trial-and-error, through speciation and variety, try anything and everything because there are no set rules to what does and does not work.
We're talking at cross purposes here.
The universe is natural.
Humans are natural.
Human behaviour is natural, because it is has a natural object (a human) behaves in its natural environment (the rest of the universe.)
Homosexualism is a form of human behaviour.
Homosexualism is natural.
Now, whether or not that tells us anything whatsoever about the morality of homosexualism is completely up in the air. Actually, no it isn't, 'cause I don't think it tells us anything.
What irks me is that people use "unnatural" wrongly, meaning "immoral." :: shrugs ::
I bet if you tried you could make almost any illness, disease, accident etc seem like "survival of the fittest". Shame it'd be about as scientific as the virgin birth.
:: Agrees wholeheartedly ::
You have a source for this?
The choice is yours.
Sorry but tough shit.
peacechild
Posted by MacKenzie:
"What irks me is that people use "unnatural" wrongly, meaning "immoral." :: shrugs ::"
Well, I'm not using the "unnatural" to mean "immoral" My religious beliefs say that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral, and I say unnatural because humans were not born to be that way. The male body and the female body was not built to be that way. That is what I am pointing out.
"Avauncez! To Defend and Serve!"
I hadnt heard this until you mentioned it here. I cant see anything about this on the BBC website.
#
yes i've heard this too, its widely publicised. why would the bbc website have anything about it balddog? its not breaking news <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif">
from this link:
http://www.studentbmj.com/extra/archive/0600/editorials/1006edit03.html
(one of) the reason(s) that gay men contract HIV more easily is because of the mechanics of anal sex (practised by many many heterosexual couples and therefore not limited to gay men - look here).
the rectum wall tears easily and so this makes it more likely for semen to come into contact with blood and for the HIV virus to be transmitted this way. thesite has another question on this and it explains some of it... anal sex.
and that's all im going to contribute to this discussion because there are far too many bigoted and homophobic and blatantly stupid people on this forum lately and i have better things to waste my time and energy on.
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
[This message has been edited by Girl-From-Mars (edited 12-09-2001).]
The BBC website has stories going back to 1999. JustKate said that it had been all over the news over the last year. Surely if it were all over the news then the BBC would have a story on it?
I think you have missed the point Girl-From-Mars. JustKate said that heterosexuals were more likely to contract HIV than homosexuals.
You post simply points out that the rate of infection in heterosexual males has increased since 1999. That article says nothing about the overall rates of infection for gays and straights. It doesnt support JustKates statement that straights are more likely to contract HIV than gays.
I know full well the increased danger of anal sex. Was taught about it at GCSE level.
Gay men are more likely to have anal sex with a stranger. In my experience straight women dont tend to go for anal sex on a one night stand, most wont do it unless with someone they trust ie-long term bf. Gay men dont have a choice but to trust their botty to another guy during a one night stand.
You obviously dont have better things to waste your time on because you took the time to post this irrelevent message.
I AM GAZOB, RED WIZARD OF FURY!!
Perhaps not in Britain, or Africa, but CERTAINLY that is where it spread most perniciously within the United States. Perhaps it has something to do with "breeding". But then, we are a more "bigoted" crowd, with less tolerance and mixing it up with sexual perversions. Or perhaps a bit more discretionary about who we "do the dirty" with?
In this country, it remains... Play with queers, get HIV.
And that's the best argument you can come up with??
It's a bit lame considering the topic title.
Sorry but im still waiting to see some kind of evidence to support you saying that straights are more at risk from AIDS than gays. Sorry but I really dont believe thats the case.
Im 22 years old. I was in secondry school from 1991-97. Now Ive learnt about AIDS and HIV and know the dangers of them. I wasnt hearing the stuff in the 80's..If young people arent aware of AIDS today then they are ignorant morons. There is so much more talk of HIV/AIDS today than there was when I was at school..Sorry but that argument doesnt wash Kate.
don't use IV drugs...
don't be promiscuis
don't have unprotected sex.
when you do decide to be monogamous why not have each other tested?
if you come up positive, cease all sexual activity, better yet, shoot yourself...
youre dying anyways
Or in the alternative, quarentine infected citizens/subjects, etc., after the Cuban pattern...provide medical treatment and don't let them spread their deadly pantageon, and don't mistreat them because of their illness...isolation and containment...or death...for everyone!
Diesel
88888888
As long as people thing 'I can't get it cos I'm gay' the more likely they are to get infected
HIV does not discriminate.
If yoou have sex with a person who is infected you are at a high risk of developing AIDS, and guess what - you can't tell who's got it just by looking!