General Chat

My apologies again in the first instant I linked the two as I felt not so much religion but the church was one of the issues from whence prejudices were formed. My second comment was in direct response to JLC.

to be honest I think it would be good if this inflammatory thread was deleted - it serves no purpose other than to cause hostile disagreement

Dermot. Edit - not Dermot, Errol. Sorry. Have changed "boys" to "men" but was just trying to say that the church is no more against homosexuals that the general population. Probably less so.

May have been different in the past - but general opinion was very much more anti-homosexuality 50 years ago.

It is an important piece of research, I believe. Worth discussing, and emotion is not a bad thing. We all worry about our children, anyway. I was certainly not picking out anything to prove a point, because I am not quite sure yet what my opinion should be. And I did notice your first point about condoms, which I think has already been mentioned earlier in this thread. But not your second point about the success of drugs in this area. Many thanks. :-)

As usual John you deliberately pick a topic which will bring controversary and you always say the same thing - ' I was not aware of this' - and a pig's foot say I.

Nine times out of ten or so it would appear to me your postings will either have religion or references to sexual habits.

Give it a rest.

I still dislike the word homosexual and homo is IMO derogatory.

Statistics can be presented in a way YOU and your organisation will benefit, please bear that in mind.

Blood transfusions carry no risk of cross infection.

Religion should not play any part in this debate, sorry Mel, that is for another thread.

My gay friends are responsible and attend what is affectionately known as the 'clap clinic' regularly. Sadly other gay men don't.

HIV education has decreased and needs to be brought back to the fore again it is absolutely essential to not only safeguard the individual but his partner/s too.

I have concentrated on male gays in my post because in my view the revolution starts with them.

JLC my son is a Christian lad and has been for a long time, the church he was born into condemn him and say that men who have feelings for other men shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. SO, I know exactly how the church views my son and so does he. God on the other hand is a different god to the one THEY preach and its this god who helps us not the one attached to the church!

I didn't mean for my comments to upset anyone I felt I needed to say what is in my heart.

John - selective statistics can be used to argue virtually any point.
If you actually read the report it reveals many things including the fact that declining use of condoms is behind the rise.
It also says that the rise is less significant because of the use of anti-retroviral drugs. Without those drugs it is thought that the figure would be 68 percent higher amongst gay and bisexual men.
It states that nearly half of all diagnoses in 2011 were amongst men who have sex with men.
In other words MORE THAN HALF of those diagnosed with the disease for that year were NOT men who have sex with men.
Kind of puts a different spin on it, don't you think?

Incidentally, I find your "Two young boys" reference a little distasteful.

most moving and from the heart FootieAngel

I am deleting my posts !!

FA Have change the thread title.

I am not against homosexuals, neither is God, neither is the Christian church. Our responsiblity as Christians is to love everybody, irrespective of race, sex, gender orientation, class, intelligence, wealth etc etc. Sometimes difficult when someone comes into church and starts shouting and swearing in a service (which has happened a couple of times). But we do our level best.

And I would hope that all churches would welcome two young men in a relationship who wanted to learn more about Christianity. We would be thrilled if they attended my church, as the youngest is now in her 40's.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/

Has some interesting articles on this subject and same sex marriage as well as more general news.

FootieAngel, that was a very moving post, thank you for sharing this <3

I think firstly your title needs to be worded differently and either say homosexual men or if you must use the word gay then gay men. A lot of homosexual men and women find the use of the word gay taken out of context derogatory - they are still humans and should not be put into a box. We never say non-gays or even prefix men or women with the term heterosexual so why some people feel the need to prefix any man or woman with the prefix homosexual or gay is beyond me. This is segregating them and making others aware that they are different and why should they been seen as different from any other humans. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I have seen what can happen when people who others have an issue with are single out.

Secondly, as far as I am aware its not just "gays" of the male persuasion (as you point out) that are affected by this horrid disease. Maybe back in the 1980's when little was known about it - the majority of cases where made known to be men who had a preference to other men, but these days we all hear and know that its likely almost anyone from any walk of life can be affected. A lot we know is transferred via blood transfusions etc and also we know babies can be born with the disease.

As a mother of a teenage son who prefers men to women I know and fully understand the risks and believe me it is a worry, but I am fully behind my child (and yes he is always going to be my child) and have to trust him to make the right choices for himself. It is just as much of a worry of having 2 teenage daughters whom I also need to trust to make the right choices for themselves. I used to believe in this god who condemned men like my son to hell and damnation, as a mother you see the world a lot differently. You stop judging others, you stop condemning. You begin to see that we cannot be perfect in this life - that no one should be condemned for being who they were born to be.

I find this thread distasteful in the light of all the RRing being done at the moment I would urge you to re consider whether we need this thread or not. I will not be RRing your OP - I will leave it to your conscience to decide. One thought though my 16 year old male cousin died of AIDS in 1986, yes he was "gay" as you put it but that doesn't prove he died because he was sexually active with another man!

Last year ( may still be there don't know) posters were plastered all over the ladies toilets in the shopping centre re the rise in STI's amongst young women.

There is also a rise in the number of STI's in older people, inclusidng women past the menopause, ( lots of older divorcees or those who have lost a partner) because they don't need to use condoms as prevention against conceiving, they don't realise that they are risking getting and passing on an STI.

There may also, chooses words carefully, be a corresponding rise in HIV and STI's due to the recession... so much gloom and doom, sex is a cheaper entertainment.

Also one must remember that as with any sexual orientation, younger people who have not 'felt the fear' of those early days of Aids may be less inclined to worry.

Edit, a point made in a comment on other site, the availability of internet porn 'may' be a contributory factor in the move away from safe sexual practices ( ie using condoms) for all groups.

When I read 'statistics' like this, I wonder at the accuracy.

Maybe 11 out of 12 that have been tested are HIV/AIDs free, but how do they know the total number of men in relationships with other men (not necessarily homosexual) in a given area?

*some know and still have unsafe relationships,,,,,again a risk they take.*

Whether hetro or homo, its a very selfish attitude, especially if their 'partner' in the act trusts them to be uneffected.

I have a feeling some people like to play devils' advocate - people who advocate an opposing or unpopular cause for the sake of argument or to expose it to a thorough examination

It is a method used universally in debating societies but doesn't seem to sit well on general chat forums

Sex/religion/politics can be some of the most interesting debates and don't have to cause trouble so long as people remember to restrict their opinions to the posts and not the poster.

It is shocking,,,but HIV is spread in many ways,,,,,,,people who contact HIV through unsafe relationships know the risks....but very many do not know they are a carrier or have been infected.

some know and still have unsafe relationships,,,,,again a risk they take.

perhaps a medical report in the media will see a surge in a drop in numbers,,,in time........but innocent people are cast into the mould when reports are made.

I know they say they are guaranteed to cause heated discussion Piglets Pal...but I do (mostly) find them interesting to read. Robust debate on a chat board is great...resorting to personal insults etc is where it all falls down...