Healthy gay men urged by the WHO to take HIV drugs

[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.

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

And it's still transferred between men and women so your point is invalid.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And it's still transferred between men and women so your point is invalid.

I love it when people respond with that to gay HIV transmission rates. Talk about heads in the sand.

That's like when people say "well non-smokers also get lung cancer" YES BUT it's much HIGHER amongst smokers, for an obvious reason.

[The Don]

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.

When you open your property to the public that completely changes.

[GommeInc]

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.

No it doesn't. Biologically anyone can get HIV/AIDs. A man can pass it to a woman, a woman can pass it to another woman and that woman could pass it to a man who could pass it on to another man. Sexuality doesn't alter your biological structure. Straight men and women have had HIV passed on from heterosexual sex. Hence, it doesn't prejudice.

Furthermore, not all gay men and women have HIV or another other STD, so no it wouldn't cause a epidemic or a population crisis. Although the rates have reported risen, predominantly in the gay community, it's really not that high but as a precaution doctors are urging gay men to take antiviral drugs as a precautionary measure (which aren't exclusively HIV drugs as your article suggests). Surely someone who is pro-choice like yourself would welcome gay men to have the extra protection of taking anti-viral drugs to lower their risks? This is completely different to banning gay sex as this is not the case, so there is no comparison to the smoking ban.

[-:Undertaker:-]

When you open your property to the public that completely changes.

No it doesn't. If you want to nationalise the pubs, then go ahead and campaign for it. Otherwise, stay out of it.

In any case, law or not law, it still doesn't detract from the fact that you consent to walk into a pub that allows smoking.

[The Don]

I love it when people respond with that to gay HIV transmission rates. Talk about heads in the sand.

That's like when people say "well non-smokers also get lung cancer" YES BUT it's much HIGHER amongst smokers, for an obvious reason.

But your entire argument is gay sex isn't natural because you're more likely to transmit HIV through it, but at the same time HIV is transferable between separate sexes so either both are unnatural, or neither are because either method can spread it, just one is less prone to it than the other.

- - - Updated - - -

No it doesn't. If you want to nationalise the pubs, then go ahead and campaign for it. Otherwise, stay out of it.

In any case, law or not law, it still doesn't detract from the fact that you consent to walk into a pub that allows smoking.

Well it does, look at the law. When you open property to the public you have to follow the laws set, whether you like it or not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it doesn't. Biologically anyone can get HIV/AIDs. A man can pass it to a woman, a woman can pass it to another woman and that woman could pass it to a man who could pass it on to another man. Sexuality doesn't alter your biological structure. Straight men and women have had HIV passed on from heterosexual sex. Hence, it doesn't prejudice.

Who argues otherwise? Not me.

My point is that gay sex itself (not the sexuality) is the problem. Clearly it is, just look at the transmission rates.

Furthermore, not all gay men and women have HIV or another other STD, so no it wouldn't cause a epidemic or a population crisis. Although the rates have reported risen, predominantly in the gay community, it's really not that high but as a precaution doctors are urging gay men to take antiviral drugs as a precautionary measure (which aren't exclusively HIV drugs as your article suggests). Surely someone who is pro-choice like yourself would welcome gay men to have the extra protection of taking anti-viral drugs to lower their risks? This is completely different to banning gay sex as this is not the case, so there is no comparison to the smoking ban.

But I am not arguing to ban gay sex, i'm simply using it as an example of how some things which are incredibly dangerous aren't being banned by the do-gooders whilst other things such as a simple cigarette are being banned as though they're the worst thing in the world.

Personally I think you should be allowed to do pretty much anything, even if I find it incredibly stupid and dangerous as I do gay sex AND smoking hence why I have never and will never take part in either. I've looked at both, and found the two to be a risk I wouldn't take.

- - - Updated - - -

But your entire argument is gay sex isn't natural because you're more likely to transmit HIV through it, but at the same time HIV is transferable between separate sexes so either both are unnatural, or neither are because either method can spread it, just one is less prone to it than the other.

When you have rates at the speed of MSM HIV rates, something has got to give.

It could be that sex wasn't intended by nature to be that way, hence why it is open to such medical problems.

Well it does, look at the law. When you open property to the public you have to follow the laws set, whether you like it or not.

The law doesn't equal right and wrong.

[GommeInc]

But I am not arguing to ban gay sex, i'm simply using it as an example of how some things which are incredibly dangerous aren't being banned by the do-gooders whilst other things such as a simple cigarette are being banned as though they're the worst thing in the world.

Personally I think you should be allowed to do pretty much anything, even if I find it incredibly stupid and dangerous as I do gay sex AND smoking hence why I have never and will never take part in either. I've looked at both, and found the two to be a risk I wouldn't take.

Gay sex isn't stupid and dangerous. Also, wasting peoples time using the smoking ban as an example in this case is ridiculous. If you don't want gay sex banned, simply don't mention the smoking ban which is completely different - especially when the source you are referencing mentions nothing about a ban but urging gay men (and any actual journal will say highly-active gay men) to take antivirals to further limit the risks, which is nothing but a good thing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gay sex isn't stupid and dangerous.

Are you saying that because you *want* it to be that way or because you've looked at the medical problems that result in high rates?

[GommeInc]

Are you saying that because you *want* it to be that way or because you've looked at the medical problems that result in high rates?

No because it's pretty obvious. The rates aren't high, they're higher in homosexuals than heterosexuals - huge difference. It's like saying obesity in the UK is high in Scottish people than English people, so therefore Scottish people should not be eating. Obesity is just higher in Scotland. I guarantee the majority of gay men do not have HIV, because not all gay men are at it left right and centre.