Leafless Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 There are no major heterosexual sexual diseases that result with death on the same level as homosexuals with HIV partners.You are evading the question again. Your stats do not apply to lesbians therefore you should have no problems with female homosexuals. So which is it:1) Will you admit that there is no public health issue with lesbians or 2) Will you admit that you are not really concerned about public health - you just don't like homosexuals and are trying to justify gov't sponsered persecution of homsexuals. 1) There are no public health issue's across the whole sexual spectrum between healthy monogamous individuals. 2) My concerns are public health including my own health and I harbour concerns regarding the decay of morals and quality of life in Canada arising from the application of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' and the federal governments authority to interpret meanings without the input of the citizen's of Canada. Quote
Melanie_ Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 1) There are no public health issue's across the whole sexual spectrum between healthy monogamous individuals.2) My concerns are public health including my own health and I harbour concerns regarding the decay of morals and quality of life in Canada arising from the application of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' and the federal governments authority to interpret meanings without the input of the citizen's of Canada. How is your health threatened if you are monogamous? Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
jdobbin Posted August 20, 2006 Author Report Posted August 20, 2006 1) There are no public health issue's across the whole sexual spectrum between healthy monogamous individuals. Then you should be in support of same sex marriage between healthy males. Is marriage the moral issue that you are talking about? Quote
betsy Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 Well, they brought out Chretien's skipping time today on Question Period. You know how the Liberal rep spinned it? It's not about the non-attendance of Harper that's deplorable. It's Harper's alleged lack of plan in battling this AIDS. Well, two years ago the Liberals promised a generic drug to Africa. Apparently, NOT A SINGLE pill reached its destination. Talk about deplorable, disgusting and "puke-able". Imagine dishing out FALSE HOPE just for the sake of political gain! The least you can do is send those bloody pills! Shame...shame! Quote
jdobbin Posted August 20, 2006 Author Report Posted August 20, 2006 Well, they brought out Chretien's skipping time today on Question Period.You know how the Liberal rep spinned it? It's not about the non-attendance of Harper that's deplorable. It's Harper's alleged lack of plan in battling this AIDS. Well, two years ago the Liberals promised a generic drug to Africa. Apparently, NOT A SINGLE pill reached its destination. Talk about deplorable, disgusting and "puke-able". Imagine dishing out FALSE HOPE just for the sake of political gain! The least you can do is send those bloody pills! Shame...shame! The Liberal policy was shameful as I noted above. Quote
newbie Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 Well, they brought out Chretien's skipping time today on Question Period.You know how the Liberal rep spinned it? It's not about the non-attendance of Harper that's deplorable. It's Harper's alleged lack of plan in battling this AIDS. Well, two years ago the Liberals promised a generic drug to Africa. Apparently, NOT A SINGLE pill reached its destination. Talk about deplorable, disgusting and "puke-able". Imagine dishing out FALSE HOPE just for the sake of political gain! The least you can do is send those bloody pills! Shame...shame! Well, let's wait and see how many pills reach Africa under Harper and Clement. I'm not holding my breath, given Harper's complete avoidance of the issue and conference. There is the shame Betsy. He's the leader now. Quote
Leafless Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 1) There are no public health issue's across the whole sexual spectrum between healthy monogamous individuals. 2) My concerns are public health including my own health and I harbour concerns regarding the decay of morals and quality of life in Canada arising from the application of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' and the federal governments authority to interpret meanings without the input of the citizen's of Canada. How is your health threatened if you are monogamous? There are many ways HIV can be transmitted other than sexual relations with promiscuous partners even through your dentist. http://www.avert.org/prevent-hiv.htm Quote
Leafless Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 1) There are no public health issue's across the whole sexual spectrum between healthy monogamous individuals. Then you should be in support of same sex marriage between healthy males. Is marriage the moral issue that you are talking about? I don't support same sex marriage for the basic reason that homosexuality in itself is immoral considering my personal standards and beliefs. In fact everything a homosexual does outside of the basic recognition of being homosexual could be considered immoral by someone who does not share the same set of standards. Quote
Melanie_ Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 There are many ways HIV can be transmitted other than sexual relations with promiscuous partners even through your dentist. http://www.avert.org/prevent-hiv.htm From your link... Protecting and promoting human rights should be an essential part of any comprehensive HIV prevention strategy. This includes legislating against the many forms of stigma and discrimination that increase vulnerability. But I didn't see any indication that dentists spread HIV. Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
Leafless Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 There are many ways HIV can be transmitted other than sexual relations with promiscuous partners even through your dentist. http://www.avert.org/prevent-hiv.htm From your link... Protecting and promoting human rights should be an essential part of any comprehensive HIV prevention strategy. This includes legislating against the many forms of stigma and discrimination that increase vulnerability. But I didn't see any indication that dentists spread HIV. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...agewanted=print Contaminated blood getting from the host to the victim that's the concern. How about department store door handles or escalator railings or public toilet seats or handles with tiny droplets of HIV contaminated blood you put your hand on and then unintentionally stick your finger on a bleeding cold sore or a small abrasion in your nose or mouth or hand or arm or leg. There are many different scenario's. Quote
geoffrey Posted August 20, 2006 Report Posted August 20, 2006 Are you one of those people that wears rubber gloves in public? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
jdobbin Posted August 20, 2006 Author Report Posted August 20, 2006 I don't support same sex marriage for the basic reason that homosexuality in itself is immoral considering my personal standards and beliefs. In fact everything a homosexual does outside of the basic recognition of being homosexual could be considered immoral by someone who does not share the same set of standards. 80% of women have the virus that can result in cervical cancer. Does that mean they are immoral? And should the men that infected them be subjected to the law? Should the women be subjected to the law? Quote
jdobbin Posted August 20, 2006 Author Report Posted August 20, 2006 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...agewanted=print Contaminated blood getting from the host to the victim that's the concern. There are many different scenario's. Have you got anything more current than fear from 1991? Quote
geoffrey Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 I don't support same sex marriage for the basic reason that homosexuality in itself is immoral considering my personal standards and beliefs. In fact everything a homosexual does outside of the basic recognition of being homosexual could be considered immoral by someone who does not share the same set of standards. 80% of women have the virus that can result in cervical cancer. Does that mean they are immoral? And should the men that infected them be subjected to the law? Should the women be subjected to the law? Is HPV really that prevalent? Are that many people really that promiscious? That's a frightening stat if true. AIDS could make quick progress through a society like that, maybe we are more lucky than civilized? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
jdobbin Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Posted August 21, 2006 Is HPV really that prevalent? Are that many people really that promiscious? That's a frightening stat if true. AIDS could make quick progress through a society like that, maybe we are more lucky than civilized? Wish I was making that figure up but I'm not. It is 80% is most industrialized nations including Canada. And HPV in women leads to the second most deadly cancer in females, namely cervical cancer. That is why they want to give young girls the vaccine before they most likely get infected. Quote
geoffrey Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Is HPV really that prevalent? Are that many people really that promiscious? That's a frightening stat if true. AIDS could make quick progress through a society like that, maybe we are more lucky than civilized? Wish I was making that figure up but I'm not. It is 80% is most industrialized nations including Canada. And HPV in women leads to the second most deadly cancer in females, namely cervical cancer. That is why they want to give young girls the vaccine before they most likely get infected. This is serious issue then. This goes beyond protection and back to values. How do we stop everyone from being so outwardly promiscuous? Is this the result of too much liberalisation of sex? What is up? How do we stop it? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
jdobbin Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Posted August 21, 2006 This is serious issue then. This goes beyond protection and back to values. How do we stop everyone from being so outwardly promiscuous? Is this the result of too much liberalisation of sex? What is up? How do we stop it? Johns Hopkins Hospital said that people routinely lie about their sexuality. They said abstincence doesn't work as well as "harm reduction." That is, you slowly change people's behaviours. In Africa, men are lined up to get cicumcisions to reduce the chance of HIV. That is harm reduction. Abstinence would be better, but that as they say is a good start and you can get from people to battling the infection. All of the research on circumcision and HIV reduction came from Canada. Unless a man and a woman are virgins until they get married, they should be considered infected. It's that simple. And say you get married three or more times in your life. That is relationship that is based on monogamy and fidelity, right? But it also means you can spread disease. So...is that immoral? Or is that life and something we need to deal with? Quote
Riverwind Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Wish I was making that figure up but I'm not. It is 80% is most industrialized nations including Canada.This is serious issue then. This goes beyond protection and back to values. How do we stop everyone from being so outwardly promiscuous?As they say there are lies, damned lies and statistics.HPV is the virus that causes warts. Anyone who has had a wart has the virus in their body so I am not that surprised at the 80% number. The form that causes cancer is less common. Here is some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Argus Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Well, they brought out Chretien's skipping time today on Question Period. You know how the Liberal rep spinned it? It's not about the non-attendance of Harper that's deplorable. It's Harper's alleged lack of plan in battling this AIDS. Well, two years ago the Liberals promised a generic drug to Africa. Apparently, NOT A SINGLE pill reached its destination. Talk about deplorable, disgusting and "puke-able". Imagine dishing out FALSE HOPE just for the sake of political gain! The least you can do is send those bloody pills! Shame...shame! Well, let's wait and see how many pills reach Africa under Harper and Clement. I'm not holding my breath, given Harper's complete avoidance of the issue and conference. There is the shame Betsy. He's the leader now. Why is it our business to cure Africans of a disease largely acquired due to unrestricted, irresponsible sexual promiscuity? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
geoffrey Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Wish I was making that figure up but I'm not. It is 80% is most industrialized nations including Canada.This is serious issue then. This goes beyond protection and back to values. How do we stop everyone from being so outwardly promiscuous?As they say there are lies, damned lies and statistics.HPV is the virus that causes warts. Anyone who has had a wart has the virus in their body so I am not that surprised at the 80% number. The form that causes cancer is less common. Here is some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV From your link River A separate group of about 30 HPVs are typically transmitted through sexual contact. Genital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more of the sexually-transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood (Baseman 2005). So still 75% will get STD HPV? Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Riverwind Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 A separate group of about 30 HPVs are typically transmitted through sexual contact. Genital HPV infection is very common, with estimates suggesting that up to 75% of women will become infected with one or more of the sexually-transmitted HPV types at some point during adulthood (Baseman 2005).So still 75% will get STD HPV?Also from the link:It is important to note that HPV types that tend to cause genital warts are not the same ones that cause cervical cancer.However, I could see why you would be concerned about a 75% prevalence rate for of a relatively benign form of STD. Unfortunately, abstinence is the only prevention when it comes to HPV since even condoms do not offer much protection. That might explain the 75% rate. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
jdobbin Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Posted August 21, 2006 Wish I was making that figure up but I'm not. It is 80% is most industrialized nations including Canada.This is serious issue then. This goes beyond protection and back to values. How do we stop everyone from being so outwardly promiscuous?As they say there are lies, damned lies and statistics.HPV is the virus that causes warts. Anyone who has had a wart has the virus in their body so I am not that surprised at the 80% number. The form that causes cancer is less common. Here is some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV It is still one of the leading causes of cancer in women. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Posted August 21, 2006 Why is it our business to cure Africans of a disease largely acquired due to unrestricted, irresponsible sexual promiscuity? How about one that causes infection in 75 to 80% of the North American population like HPV? Ever get a wart, Argus? Quote
Argus Posted August 21, 2006 Report Posted August 21, 2006 Why is it our business to cure Africans of a disease largely acquired due to unrestricted, irresponsible sexual promiscuity? How about one that causes infection in 75 to 80% of the North American population like HPV? Ever get a wart, Argus? What's that got to do with Africans and AIDS? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jdobbin Posted August 21, 2006 Author Report Posted August 21, 2006 What's that got to do with Africans and AIDS? It would mean you have a sexually transmitted disease. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.