Healthy gay men urged by the WHO to take HIV drugs

[GommeInc]

Well for starters sex is natural and between two consenting adults it's perfectly fine. Smoking isn't natural and has no benefits whatsoever. So there are huge differences between the two. Also, there won't be a law. It's no different to doctors urging we eat 5 a day. Gay men who are sexually active may be for this as it's another level of protection. Celibate gay men with a bone to pick with non-issues on the other hand can be free to simply not take the drugs. It's urged, not forced or regulated.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well for starters sex is natural and between two consenting adults it's perfectly fine. Smoking isn't natural and has no benefits whatsoever. So there are huge differences between the two. Also, there won't be a law. It's no different to doctors urging we eat 5 a day. Gay men who are sexually active may be for this as it's another level of protection. Celibate gay men with a bone to pick with non-issues on the other hand can be free to simply not take the drugs. It's urged, not forced or regulated.

Oh I'd certainly question whether it is natural sex given the rate of STDs, HIV and Aids + other medical problems. But that's another debate.

[GommeInc]

Oh I'd certainly question whether it is natural sex given the rate of STDs, HIV and Aids + other medical problems. But that's another debate.

HIV doesn't have a prejudice between heterosexuals or homosexuals.

[-:Undertaker:-]

HIV doesn't have a prejudice between heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Yes it does, look at the rates. Over 50% of all new cases come from MSM.

It's often been said that if we had the same rates among straight people, there would be an epidemic and population crisis.

[The Don]

So HIV carriers don't harm others? Absolutely rubbish.

In any case, you're the one who looked like you would like to endorse a total ban on cigarettes to those born after the year 2000 in the name of public health and safety, so why does this concern for public health not cross over into a demographic group who are at extreme high risk of contracting a deadly disease which they will then pass on to others? Surely, like smokers, they should be forced to do what is better for them and for society?

You're all the same: all for state meddling in smoking, but internet/food/alcohol/the bedroom? WAHHH that's 2far and facizt.

- Smoking Ban is to protect those that don't smoke.
- Smoking effects more people than just the smoker

- Gay sex ban would be attempting to protect those that WANT to have sex.
- Gay sex only effects those consenting to it

Not hard to see the difference.

[-:Undertaker:-]

- Smoking Ban is to protect those that don't smoke.
- Smoking effects more people than just the smoker

- Gay sex ban would be attempting to protect those that WANT to have sex.
- Gay sex only effects those consenting to it

Not hard to see the difference.

You also consent when you walk into a pro-smoking pub, just as somebody consents to sex.

But that still didn't stop you lot.

- Gay sex only effects those consenting to it

Along with the taxpayer which has to foot the bill for very expensive lifetime drug courses.

[The Don]

Oh I'd certainly question whether it is natural sex given the rate of STDs, HIV and Aids + other medical problems. But that's another debate.

You do realise that STDs, HIV and Aids are all naturally occurring diseases, therefore natural by definition.

- - - Updated - - -

You also consent when you walk into a pro-smoking pub, just as somebody consents to sex.

But that still didn't stop you lot.

So you admit that they are completely incomparable, cool.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You do realise that STDs, HIV and Aids are all naturally occurring diseases, therefore natural by definition.

I'm not talking about whether the diseases are natural, I am talking about the method in which they are being transferred among high-risk group/s.

Over 50% of all new HIV transmissions are amongst MSM when they only account for 1% to 5% of the population.

So you admit that they are completely incomparable, cool.

Nope, the opposite. If you want to argue on consent, why does consent not matte when it comes to smoking then?

[The Don]

I'm not talking about whether the diseases are natural, I am talking about the method in which they are being transferred among high-risk group/s.



Nope, the opposite. If you want to argue on consent, why does consent not matte when it comes to smoking then?

How can you consent to second hand smoke? It's more sensible to have designated smoking zones. Anyone would think that you're not allowed to smoke, when all you have to do is walk outside to the nice gazebo in the pub garden to spark up.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How can you consent to second hand smoke? It's more sensible to have designated smoking zones. Anyone would think that you're not allowed to smoke, when all you have to do is walk outside to the nice gazebo in the pub garden to spark up.

You consent when you walk into private property which allows smoking.

It's a pretty simple concept called property rights that has been around for hundreds of years.