Homosexual Leader Calls AIDS 'a Gay Disease'

[Oleg Bach]

AIDS is really a "male sexual disease" only transmitted by having sexual relationship with another Man. Women can't get it unless they have sexual relations with a MAN that is BIsexual and there lies the problem of how anyone who is sexually active, may get this disease, young and old.

Bi_sexual? No such creature. Any man who would insert his penis in the bowel of another man is not his friend and just some sort of power mongering freak. Any man that does this and then mounts a woman...is not bi-sexual..he has no idea what sexuality is or he would understand the purpose of his genitals and why by design the has them...it's tiresome when they call gay sex - SEX..it's not sex..it's something else..as for the term bi-sexual..perhaps it would be better to used the term confused or chaotic. Those that behave in a chaotic sexual manner are usually psyhcotic also and only lunitics that we call bi-sexuals are capable of spreading the virus from one group to the next. They have to be crazy or they would not be doing what they are doing. Crazy people endanger us all.

[WIP]

Oleg, it's wisened age. As we get older we get smarter and the idea of the "conquest" isn't as appealing as it was for the younger self.

I hope you find a sweet, smart woman to share the rest of your life with.

You don't really believe this do you? "During my days as an entertainer, part of the job description was to have sex with all the females in the crowd " This one crosses the fantasy line right into the land of delusion!

[WIP]

AIDS is really a "male sexual disease" only transmitted by having sexual relationship with another Man. Women can't get it unless they have sexual relations with a MAN that is BIsexual and there lies the problem of how anyone who is sexually active, may get this disease, young and old.

You're sure about that? Sure enough to bet your life on it?

According to the health experts who study and monitor these diseases, you can get AIDS through any form of sexual activity where there is an exchange of bodily fluids. Just because anal sex is the riskiest manner to spread the disease, doesn't mean you can't get it by screwing around with prostitutes or one-night stands.

http://www.stdservices.on.net/std/hiv-aids...ails.htm#spread

Edited May 11, 2008 by WIP

[WIP]

Oleg, it's wisened age. As we get older we get smarter and the idea of the "conquest" isn't as appealing as it was for the younger self.

I hope you find a sweet, smart woman to share the rest of your life with.

I don't think most people really change that much as they get older. I think most of the people I know who were screwing around in their younger days are trainwrecks in middle age. They get married, but they just can't pass up the opportunity to step out and look for a new adventure.

When I was young, the guys who scored the most when we went out drinking, were liars without conscience. Whenever I had a girlfriend, if I struck up a conversation with a girl in a bar, I just could not look her in the eyes and make up some bullshit line to try to get some action! I got plenty of coaching on how to spin these lies, but I just could not do this hardluck routine to try to win sympathy and lead the girl to drop her defences...........I just hated this crap, that alot of guys consider as just a game. When they try to settle down later on, many times they start missing the good old days and are anxious to get out there and resume practising the 4 F's all over again. Eventually, the wife finds out and they're on their way to divorce court. A few years down the road, they're remarried and repeating the same cycle all over again......that is until they are just to old to get out there and get anything!

I guess I didn't like this scene as much as a lot of other guys do, and that's probably a big reason why married life has worked out well for me. I'm not bored and looking backwards, longing for the good old days.

[bush_cheney2004]

AIDS is really a "male sexual disease" only transmitted by having sexual relationship with another Man. Women can't get it unless they have sexual relations with a MAN that is BIsexual and there lies the problem of how anyone who is sexually active, may get this disease, young and old.

Nope...women can and do get HIV/AIDS without sexual relationships. See intravenous drug use and/or blood transfusions.

[Wilber]

Aids is largely but not always a lifestyle disease just like heart disease or diabetes. While there are several risky activities that can contribute to it, some risks are greater than others.

[g_bambino]

(gay humans and animals have been around since the dawn of man...but you knew that , you just keep burying your head in the sand and ignore history)

I wonder, then, why there were no gay animals before the appearance of man. Perhaps because there's no such thing as a gay animal, including humans, unless we make the categories and slot the corresponding individuals into them. No gay people existed prior to the late 19th century because the human category of "homosexual" had never previously been created. Certainly, since the early first millennium Christianity has held up the ideal of a man and a woman in procreation, but people still participated in varying types of dalliance, with varying genders and with varying frequency, throughout all those centuries without being categorised as anything other than "sinner" and "not-sinner" (and plenty of hetero sex acts could land you in that group destined to meet Beelzebub). The great Victorians, with their scientific penchant for dividing and labeling everything in the natural world, imposed the walls around those deemed to be "a homosexual," and everything went nuts after that.

[WIP]

I wonder, then, why there were no gay animals before the appearance of man. Perhaps because there's no such thing as a gay animal, including humans, unless we make the categories and slot the corresponding individuals into them. No gay people existed prior to the late 19th century because the human category of "homosexual" had never previously been created. Certainly, since the early first millennium Christianity has held up the ideal of a man and a woman in procreation, but people still participated in varying types of dalliance, with varying genders and with varying frequency, throughout all those centuries without being categorised as anything other than "sinner" and "not-sinner" (and plenty of hetero sex acts could land you in that group destined to meet Beelzebub). The great Victorians, with their scientific penchant for dividing and labeling everything in the natural world, imposed the walls around those deemed to be "a homosexual," and everything went nuts after that.

You know, ignorance can be dispelled with a quick google wordsearch! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/ Homosexual behaviour has been studied by zoologists for ages, and observed among many animal species even outside of the mammal group. If you think there were no homosexuals before the 19th century, you can do your own search of Ancient Greece and a few other civilizations that were among the few to tolerate homosexuals in public life. Just because religious ignorance led the masses to hate and kill homosexuals for centuries doesn't mean they had any logical basis for their fears. I am lefthanded, and being lefthanded was as dangerous as being a witch in the dark ages since the majority of people were righthanded! Face the fact that some people are different, and there is no reason for you to try to persecute them just because they don't have the same sexual turnons that the majority have. Until you can come up with something beyond superstition to justify the time-honoured policy of harassement, then let them live their lives in the way that brings them happiness!

[Oleg Bach]

You know, ignorance can be dispelled with a quick google wordsearch! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/ Homosexual behaviour has been studied by zoologists for ages, and observed among many animal species even outside of the mammal group. If you think there were no homosexuals before the 19th century, you can do your own search of Ancient Greece and a few other civilizations that were among the few to tolerate homosexuals in public life. Just because religious ignorance led the masses to hate and kill homosexuals for centuries doesn't mean they had any logical basis for their fears. I am lefthanded, and being lefthanded was as dangerous as being a witch in the dark ages since the majority of people were righthanded! Face the fact that some people are different, and there is no reason for you to try to persecute them just because they don't have the same sexual turnons that the majority have. Until you can come up with something beyond superstition to justify the time-honoured policy of harassement, then let them live their lives in the way that brings them happiness!

Here we go with that "ancient Greece" Justification. Greeks did not sodomize each other. To do so was a grievious insult to the pillow biter. To have a man insert his penis in your rectum was "being to much like a woman" - seeing that woman were held in contempt at that time and considered just above the family mule...men did not take it in the butt...funny - the silly lobby insists that all dead great men were gay - Jesus - Napoleon - Michealangelo - and so on and so on....easy to claim fame from the great and gone dead seeing they can not speak for themselves.

Anyway - It for the most part is leaned behaviour. There are very very few people born genetically gay..they used to be called natural Eunuchs or asexuals in the olden days and sodomist were not gay..just lazy buggers who were to stupid to score chicks. For instance all the gay people that I knew in my childhood were effected by the dirty uncle Earnie types that molsested them while baby sitting...put it this way - no kid is going to come up with the idea of sucking a penis all on his own..he would never naturally think of such a thing..it is suggested or taught..after all you pee out of the god damned thing This gay thing is being spread about by internationalist social engineers..it's a conditioning that they hope will curb the size of the population...in the long run..to hell with them..you don't see the social engineers NOT breeding.

[AngusThermopyle]

no kid is going to come up with the idea of sucking a penis all on his own..he would never naturally think of such a thing..it is suggested or taught..after all you pee out of the god damned thing blink.gif

That being true then I guess no woman would naturally come up with the idea either?

Well, gotta say, some of the women I've known were taught really really well.

[Oleg Bach]

That being true then I guess no woman would naturally come up with the idea either?

Well, gotta say, some of the women I've known were taught really really well.

Nope it has to be suggested..some take to it and others find it a chore..it's easy loving for the man because you don't have to work and can lean back an be king...actually that is a good point.....Have you when you were dating as a young man have a girl say to you.."Please let me suck it" - no! of course not..but they learned the action some where and or heard about it some where..if humans were left on their own they would have staight vaginal penis sex...homosexuality is a human creation...not natures - clever humans...imagine having your pleasure and not getting stuck with supporting children or a wife...smart..but it leads to infections.

[g_bambino]

You know, ignorance can be dispelled with a quick google wordsearch! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/ Homosexual behaviour has been studied by zoologists for ages, and observed among many animal species even outside of the mammal group. If you think there were no homosexuals before the 19th century, you can do your own search of Ancient Greece and a few other civilizations that were among the few to tolerate homosexuals in public life. Just because religious ignorance led the masses to hate and kill homosexuals for centuries doesn't mean they had any logical basis for their fears. I am lefthanded, and being lefthanded was as dangerous as being a witch in the dark ages since the majority of people were righthanded! Face the fact that some people are different, and there is no reason for you to try to persecute them just because they don't have the same sexual turnons that the majority have. Until you can come up with something beyond superstition to justify the time-honoured policy of harassement, then let them live their lives in the way that brings them happiness!

I didn't say there was no homosexual behaviour, I said there was no distinct classification of "homosexual" prior to the late 19th century. Your example of Ancient Greece is a perfect case in point: homosexual activity was a prevalent part of any man's life in that society, yet so was marriage and heterosexual activity; they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about if you asked them to point out a gay person. Same for the Romans. Only with the rise of Christianity were homosexual acts made out of fashion in the Western world (Asia was a completely different matter), but that still didn't create the notion of a homosexual; behaviour did not define identity. Only the Victorians tried to do that, as they did with everything else in their world; and it was a failure then and is a failure now. After all, heterosexual and homosexual acts are relatively easy to define (barring instances involving transsexuals or transvestitism), but how done one define a homosexual, or conversely, a heterosexual beyond presenting someone who defines themselves that way? There are no absolutes when it comes to human sexual behaviour - there never have been, and never will be. So, just because I don't adhere to categories imagined by man to fit other men into doesn't mean I'm persecuting anyone (really, isn't accusing me of persecution just a tad melodramatic?). It only means that I see humans in a more complicated way than the strict and simplistic polarized fashion our society has come to predominantly accept.

Edited May 15, 2008 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

if humans were left on their own they would have staight vaginal penis sex...homosexuality is a human creation...not natures - clever humans...imagine having your pleasure and not getting stuck with supporting children or a wife...smart..but it leads to infections.

Except that there are instances of homosexual behaviour in animals beyond the human race: Bonobo monkeys are a good example. Note: I didn't say homosexuals, I said homosexual behaviour; the Bonobos also have heterosexual sex as well (and maybe with a nice smooth tree as well).

[guyser]

Anyway - It for the most part is leaned behaviour. There are very very few people born genetically gay..they used to be called natural Eunuchs or asexuals in the olden days and sodomist were not gay..just lazy buggers who were to stupid to score chicks. For instance all the gay people that I knew in my childhood were effected by the dirty uncle Earnie types that molsested them while baby sitting...put it this way - no kid is going to come up with the idea of sucking a penis all on his own..he would never naturally think of such a thing..it is suggested or taught..after all you pee out of the god damned thing This gay thing is being spread about by internationalist social engineers..it's a conditioning that they hope will curb the size of the population...in the long run..to hell with them..you don't see the social engineers NOT breeding.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

But no knowledge is downright frightening.

You are downright frightening.

[Regulus de Leo]

I didn't say there was no homosexual behaviour, I said there was no distinct classification of "homosexual" prior to the late 19th century. Your example of Ancient Greece is a perfect case in point: homosexual activity was a prevalent part of any man's life in that society, yet so was marriage and heterosexual activity; they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about if you asked them to point out a gay person.

Then why did Aristophanes single out homosexuals in his play for riducule?

This is a huge revisionist view of history by the homosexual movement. Homosexuality was a prevalent vice of th aristocracy in Ancient Greece for which they were despised.

[WIP]

I didn't say there was no homosexual behaviour, I said there was no distinct classification of "homosexual" prior to the late 19th century. Your example of Ancient Greece is a perfect case in point: homosexual activity was a prevalent part of any man's life in that society, yet so was marriage and heterosexual activity; they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about if you asked them to point out a gay person. Same for the Romans.

Hold on a second! You're mixing apples and oranges here! I was talking about sexual orientation (or preferences). That's different than sexual behaviour as evident in the rampant homosexuality that goes on in prisons. Most of the men who are incarcerated would not be interested in screwing guys if they were on the outside; but there are plenty of jailbirds who will take whatever's available. The same situation occurs in the sexually segregated cultures in the MiddleEast. Even though it's a crime punishable by death, large numbers of young, unmarried men engage in sodomy, and inspite of the religious taboos, homosexual themes have been a popular subject in the literature of the Islamic World for centuries! http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/center...s/Shalakany.pdf

Only with the rise of Christianity were homosexual acts made out of fashion in the Western world (Asia was a completely different matter), but that still didn't create the notion of a homosexual; behaviour did not define identity.

Wouldn't homosexual desires define identity? Regardless of whether or not the person has even had sex, their sexual desires for members of their own sex are going to be a crucial factor in how they view themselves in society. There wouldn't be gay sub-cultures otherwise.

Only the Victorians tried to do that, as they did with everything else in their world; and it was a failure then and is a failure now. After all, heterosexual and homosexual acts are relatively easy to define (barring instances involving transsexuals or transvestitism), but how done one define a homosexual, or conversely, a heterosexual beyond presenting someone who defines themselves that way? There are no absolutes when it comes to human sexual behaviour - there never have been, and never will be. So, just because I don't adhere to categories imagined by man to fit other men into doesn't mean I'm persecuting anyone (really, isn't accusing me of persecution just a tad melodramatic?).

No, because you seem to be implying that people don't have a right to define their sexual orientation by their feelings and desires, and instead seem to be insisting that its all about sexual behaviour.

It only means that I see humans in a more complicated way than the strict and simplistic polarized fashion our society has come to predominantly accept.

It's pretty clear that rejection and hostility to gays was the major reason why so many have felt that they had to move to gay ghettos, like the Church and Wellesley neighbourhood in Toronto. Since there seems to be a greater level of acceptance these days by mainstream society, alot of that polarization should ease a bit.

[MontyBurns]

... why so many have felt that they had to move to gay ghettos, like the Church and Wellesley neighbourhood in Toronto.

Ok, now we know where they are. Let's finish them.

[WIP]

Ok, now we know where they are. Let's finish them.

No, it's you and your nazi stormtroopers who need to be finished off!

[g_bambino]

Hold on a second! You're mixing apples and oranges here! I was talking about sexual orientation (or preferences). That's different than sexual behaviour as evident in the rampant homosexuality that goes on in prisons. Most of the men who are incarcerated would not be interested in screwing guys if they were on the outside; but there are plenty of jailbirds who will take whatever's available. The same situation occurs in the sexually segregated cultures in the MiddleEast. Even though it's a crime punishable by death, large numbers of young, unmarried men engage in sodomy, and inspite of the religious taboos, homosexual themes have been a popular subject in the literature of the Islamic World for centuries! http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/center...s/Shalakany.pdf

Wouldn't homosexual desires define identity? Regardless of whether or not the person has even had sex, their sexual desires for members of their own sex are going to be a crucial factor in how they view themselves in society. There wouldn't be gay sub-cultures otherwise.

No, because you seem to be implying that people don't have a right to define their sexual orientation by their feelings and desires, and instead seem to be insisting that its all about sexual behaviour.

It's pretty clear that rejection and hostility to gays was the major reason why so many have felt that they had to move to gay ghettos, like the Church and Wellesley neighbourhood in Toronto. Since there seems to be a greater level of acceptance these days by mainstream society, alot of that polarization should ease a bit.

Yes indeed, there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour, I thought I'd made myself clear on that. But my point is that sexual orientation is a more modern invention whereas sexual behaviour is, well, eternal. Sexual identity is a choice one makes, and in our present Western society one certainly does have, for the most part, the freedom to decide what that is. But just because one has some or many homosexual desires doesn't mean they have to define themselves as a homosexual, and that goes the same for the converse. That two polar opposite labels have been created and people are told to pick one and stick with it is, I think, one of the main stimulators of the hostility you allude to. It's set up an us vs. them scenario that didn't really exist prior to the early 20th century. As I said, before that it was just a matter of sinners vs. non-sinners, but people still had all sorts of sex - as long as it was covert - and didn't feel pressured to put themselves under any one sexual label. Eventually homosexual was made as a definition, conversely creating the heterosexual, then, mostly stemming from America, homosexuality got equated with effeminacy for men and butchiness for women, and suddenly any homosexual desires or thoughts took on a whole new meaning - and threat - for men and women. In parallel, the homosexual community has become guilty of the same thing, discouraging any expression of deviance from the gay code, going so far as to deny the existence of bisexuality, retroactively labeling historical figures as gay, and complaining when some people don't "act gay enough." Obviously some people will desire one thing more than another, but, like any desire, these can naturally shift; the labels restrict that flexibility, though, and I think lead to a whole lot more problems than any solutions. Bert Archer's The End of Gay (and the death of heterosexuality) is actually a really good book on the topic.

Edited May 18, 2008 by g_bambino

[stevoh]

no kid is going to come up with the idea of sucking a penis all on his own..he would never naturally think of such a thing..it is suggested or taught..after all you pee out of the god damned thing

If that is true, then I am certainly happy that someone "suggested" to my various ex girlfriends that it was a good idea!

[M.Dancer]

If that is true, then I am certainly happy that someone "suggested" to my various ex girlfriends that it was a good idea!

...no need to thank me....

[Army Guy]

Morris you big stud.

Heres a toast to the women who invented the blowjob, and lets not forget all those that have passed this anicient tech from generation to generation.....here here....

[stevoh]

Wouldn't homosexual desires define identity? Regardless of whether or not the person has even had sex, their sexual desires for members of their own sex are going to be a crucial factor in how they view themselves in society. There wouldn't be gay sub-cultures otherwise.

Not necessarily, any more than heterosexuality defines identity. One of my good friends is a small business owner, who is gay. However, he always votes conservative, which might seem counter to a "gay identity". However, he feels he is a business man first, so he votes conservative.

Certainly, some choose their sexuality as a primary identity. But that is a choice.

It's pretty clear that rejection and hostility to gays was the major reason why so many have felt that they had to move to gay ghettos, like the Church and Wellesley neighbourhood in Toronto. Since there seems to be a greater level of acceptance these days by mainstream society, alot of that polarization should ease a bit.

Most didn't, and, until recently, kept thier sexuality to themselves instead of moving to a ghetto. It is estimated that about 5% of the population is gay. That ghetto would have to be pretty massive.

Defining yourself by your sexuality is a choice.

[g_bambino]

Not necessarily, any more than heterosexuality defines identity.

Precisely.

Certainly, some choose their sexuality as a primary identity. But that is a choice.

Most didn't, and, until recently, kept thier sexuality to themselves instead of moving to a ghetto. It is estimated that about 5% of the population is gay. That ghetto would have to be pretty massive.

Defining yourself by your sexuality is a choice.

The 5% number is suspect; how is "gay" being defined, and by whom? Despite what popular culture now tries to do, nobody can identify someone with a label like "gay" other than the person him or herself. Even then, the person may not have originally fully fit the definition, and only felt they had to do so because they were told they must: sexuality is a polarised thing, genetics takes everything out of your control, and thus it is unnatural not to go to, and stay at, whatever your pre-destined side is. So, while I understand that there are no absolutes and each case is unique, I believe that one does first make a choice in defining their sexuality, and then chooses whether or not to define themselves by that.

Heres a toast to the women who invented the blowjob, and lets not forget all those that have passed this anicient tech from generation to generation.....here here....

Sadly, someone needs to give a lot of today's ladies a refresher course in this ancient art.