Why is Liberal Conspiracy the Number 1 Blog?

I don’t usually slag off other bloggers because they are entitled to their opinion as much as I am and after all, if you disagree with the post, you can always leave your own comments underneath and an interesting and intelligent debate may follow.

I rarely visit Liberal Conspiracy, whose editor is Sunny Hundal, but I received a tweet yesterday (not from LC) plugging this post: In defence of LGBT History Month: a reply to Toby Young.

Of course, this was like a red rag to a bull, so I had to charge over to Liberal Conspiracy, horns polished, to read this “defence” of brainwashing children with political correctness.

One Jules Mattsson, a self-confessed bisexual, wrote the piece.

My first comment was no. 7, which you can see has been replaced with this:

[homophobic comment deleted, user banned]

It turns out that I wasn’t banned, but I suspect that this was the “homophobic” remark:

You say you are “bisexual”. Do you understand what has happened? You engage in immoral, dangerous and dirty behaviour – yet you give it a name and think it entitles you to special ‘rights’.

Why do you think you have any rights over and above everyone else just for indulging in such a licentious lifestyle?

Hard, but fair, I think. This is one trick of the social engineers: to give something unpleasant or unwanted a name so that the public thinks of it in abstract terms to distract from the actual meaning and all it entails. So, for example, when bisexuality is mentioned, you think of it as a matter of ‘rights’ and ‘equality’ rather than about people with very loose morals who flit from man to woman like bees buzz from flower to flower to collect pollen. Only, the bisexual will likely collect a lot more than just pollen, and then spread it around.

But if you say this, i.e. tell the truth; medical facts – you are “homophobic.” This provoked the first reply from “Left Outside” who told me to “eff off you cee” but in full low-grade-moron sweary mode. As far as he was concerned, that was the end of any conversation. I am scum and he wins.

It reminded me of this sign I saw the other day:

Shout "racist"

Just swap “racist” for “homophobe,” or “islamophobe,” or just make up your own “phobia”. If you are an anti-smoker talking to a smoker, you could shout “murderer”. It’s easy to win an argument when you know you’re a right-on socialist and therefore, by definition, beyond criticism. You could just shout the all-encompassing, one size fits all, “Nazi” slur, turn your nose up, and walk away – from the person in front of you, or the computer screen.

Still, it is hardly surprising that people have lost the ability to string two coherent thoughts together, never mind write them down afterwards.

Here we see the “value” in dumbing down education. The government just has to announce that they are doing X in the name of “equality,” Y in the pursuit of “health” and Z to “keep us safe” and the capability to analyse these claims for many has been lost and they blindly accept what they are told. Not only that, they attack anyone who still has the ability to make an independent appraisal and therefore dares to express an opposing view.

In another of my comments which was deleted, I wrote,

And when the majority of youngsters have some sort of same-sex attraction at some stage, why do you think it is acceptable for the “gay lobby” to encourage them to identify with a sexuality at that stage? Recruitment, that’s why. Cynical and wicked, and yet you seem to approve.

I said as much on my previous post as well. I don’t think it can be underestimated just how much damage this “LGBT” agenda could be doing to youngsters. They could be consigning thousands of children to years of homosexual abuse based on teenage confusion. And here again we have a contentious agenda reduced to an abstract and harmless-sounding four-letter abbreviation.

After I noticed that my previous comments had been removed, as well as some of the replies, I left this comment (and started making screen captures):

HundalThe miserable cowardly control freak, Sunny Hundal, also deleted this.

What is worse, he has left in comments which contain slurs against me and which I previously dealt with. I have come across a similar lack of integrity with a few other bloggers. Usually on socialist/Labour websites.

Liberal Conspiracy is the number one blog on Wikio. The rankings are based on who links to you (based on rss feeds). Hopefully, their position is due to other bloggers linking to them because they cannot believe the nonsense they espouse.

You can see how the likes of Hundal think by reading this “Mission Statement” on his other site, Pickled Politics. It seems that if you don’t subscribe to every politically correct edict going, you are guilty of the following:

racism

anti-immigration hysteria and Islamophobia

soft racism of the middle classes.

bigots

bigots who hate, despise and look down on others based on their race, religion, caste, sexuality and nationality.

bigots (again)

bigots and the religious fanatics.

bigotry

The Statement also contains these two gems:

Other media spaces remain constrained either by vested interests or political correctness.

And,

We need to be unafraid of criticism, be open to learning and not be plagued by a victim mentality that holds back meaningful self-criticism.

Why don’t you?

You also need to develop a sense of honour and integrity.

Or maybe blogging’s not for you.

This entry was posted in Homosexuality, Social Networking, Tolerance and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

284 Responses to Why is Liberal Conspiracy the Number 1 Blog?

  1. Galen10 says:

    I’m a regular poster on LC, and whilst I don’t always agree with Sunny Hundal, he was correct in his decision to delete your comments.

    As is quite evident from a brief perusal of this deeply unpleasant blog, you are unhealthily obssessed with homosexuality, and whilst your bigoted views may go down well here they aren’t likely to play well to most people in the mainstream, still less those on an avowedly left of centre site like LC.

    Whether your views stem from some variant of christianity, some other equally made-up faith, or simply reflect your own prejudices is really neither here nor there. Luckily your agenda is very much a minority one these days; your bigotry and prejudice towards homosexuals is just as unacceptable as the causal racism of earlier eras.

    Thankfully people like you won’t be missed.

  2. Stewart, it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that you were deleted from such a blog. I have had similar experiences on various sites over the years. I have been banned/deleted from Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative and Green blogs and from Guardian owned news websites – to mention a few. I’ve even had people blogging about me or reporting news about me but refusing me right of reply! The issue is not one of political brand anymore; the issue is whether one is operating on secular-humanism or traditional morality. The other side’s idea of ‘free speech’ amounts to allowing those of the same opinion to express the same opinion – it often does not extend to providing a platform for contrary opinions. As a general rule social conservatives are the people with the best grasp of what true freedom of speech is really all about. Social liberals are largely intolerant of the socially conservative views they oppose, to the extent that these days, given the opportunity, they increasingly censor and suppress any opposition. I also think that most socially liberal political bloggers and hangers-on are simply not capable of engaging in serious debate or reasoned argument when challenged; indeed the thought that their could possibly be any rational and sensible (or even, better) alternative to their worldview is not only alien to them but also often abhorrent.

  3. lionheart says:

    Fully agree Stewart in your assessment of bloggers who don’t allow free speech on their blogs but cry like babies if its denied to them in turn!

  4. I think you’re both afraid of a real debate.

    Stewart opened his comments on Liberal Conspiracy with insults and showed that he had nothing constructive, informed or intelligent to add to the debate and now he’s pretending he was being censored because they’ve been removed.

    Every time you’ve tried to answer back to one of my blogs on Spinneyhead you’ve quickly realised you’re losing and run away.

  5. Ian,

    Doubtless you’ll dispute it but I honestly don’t think any impartial observer would conclude other than that you were absolutely massacred in the debate on this comment-thread: http://www.spinneyhead.co.uk/archives/2010/08/25/how-to-say-nothing-with-numbers/

    That’s the one and only time we had anything like a worthwhile blog debate and quite frankly, on that showing, you’re simply not up to it.

    The more you attempted to justify civil pervertships and homopervuality, the more ridiculous your line of reasoning became.

    You attempted to attack me with your original blog-post, but when you were scrutinised on the logic of your argument you and your fanciful sophistry crumbled.

    If I was feeling mischievous I might repeat my question to you: “Do you seriously think we are ever going to see a scenario of 1,215,000 CPs [civil pervertships] in the UK?”

    To your credit Ian, at least you allowed full right of reply, did not tinker with the comments I submitted to your blog and you were game for the debate. Many of your fellow secular-humanists do not share your standards of blog etiquette.

    Anyway, arguing over statistics aside, I hope you are well Ian and that your various creative projects are flourishing.

  6. Galen10 says:

    @ Richard Corvath

    Your reading comprehension must be as bad as your grasp of maths and statistics. Any reasonable person, whether impartial or not, would judge that Ian totally humiliated both you and Stewart on that thread. Just because the voices in your head tell you that 1% of the population is homosexual doesn’t make it true, any more than your quaint attachment to a religion that more and more people are rejecting makes your take on morality “right”.

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    Galen10,

    I’m a regular poster on LC, and whilst I don’t always agree with Sunny Hundal, he was correct in his decision to delete your comments.

    As is quite evident from a brief perusal of this deeply unpleasant blog, you are unhealthily obssessed with homosexuality,

    I would say that I was healthily obsessed with children being taught right from wrong and not being brainwashed by people with vested interests.

    and whilst your bigoted views may go down well here they aren’t likely to play well to most people in the mainstream, still less those on an avowedly left of centre site like LC.

    I know! (There’s that word “bigoted” again. How tedious.)

    Whether your views stem from some variant of christianity, some other equally made-up faith, or simply reflect your own prejudices is really neither here nor there.

    Is this supposed to be a joke? My views are held by the majority of people on planet earth. People like you would love this to be a fringe religious issue, but it isn’t. There are very sound reasons why homosexuality is taboo – to strengthen the tribe/culture through strong family ties and to protect against disease.

    Luckily your agenda is very much a minority one these days; your bigotry and prejudice towards homosexuals is just as unacceptable as the causal racism of earlier eras.

    “Bigotry” again. Bo-o-o-o-o-ring! Except that it’s gone too far and people are waking up. Recent behaviour by money-grubbing homosexuals will only turn the tide away from their cause and back to the desire for decent standards in society.

    Thankfully people like you won’t be missed.

    I am the first to admit that I am completely expendable! I’ll try and do my bit while I’m around, though, because I hate seeing children being manipulated by cowardly and perverted adults.

  8. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Richard,

    I imagine you have been banned as well! The Guardian seems particularly unwilling to allow balanced debate.

    The issue is not one of political brand anymore; the issue is whether one is operating on secular-humanism or traditional morality.

    I think you’re absolutely right. The media has hammered in this humanist agenda to the saps sitting in front of the telly for hours every day. If they only realised that their thoughts are not all their own, they might be able to be reached and de-programmed.

    I also think that most socially liberal political bloggers and hangers-on are simply not capable of engaging in serious debate or reasoned argument when challenged; indeed the thought that their could possibly be any rational and sensible (or even, better) alternative to their worldview is not only alien to them but also often abhorrent.

    This is also my experience after reading blogs for the past few years… see my following comment for more evidence of this!

  9. Stewart Cowan says:

    It looks like three people have left comments here via Liberal Conspiracy.

    We have Gallen10, above and two comments I didn’t approve:

    “Left Outside” left the same crude message as I mentioned in the post.

    By the way, Left Outside, when I said I allow all opinions on this blog, I meant OPINIONS, not pointless, pathetic “eff off you cee” waste of everyone’s time, including your own, comments.

    And “Giles” suggested that I’m a “closet case and secretly want a big, strong muscular man to f*** you? That’s it, right? It’s okay. You don’t need to be afraid. Join us.”

    So to answer my own question – Why is Liberal Conspiracy the Number 1 Blog? – I guess another reason is because it gives a platform to people who, as Richard says, don’t know how to engage in serious debate or reasoned argument. It’s a blog for the X-Factor generation.

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Thank you Lionheart.

  11. lionheart says:

    Stewart please try not to associate Mr Carvath’s expulsions with yours because they just aren’t the same and your willingness to debate and stand your corner in debates and any exclusions as a result of your beliefs shouldn’t be linked to things like this http://www.salfordonline.com/editorschoice_page/17747-an_open_letter_to_our_readers.html

  12. Galen10 says:

    If the cap fits Stewart, you’ll just have to get used to wearing it. Your views are bigoted, in just the same way as discriminating against somebody on the basis of their race. Of course because people of faith are in meltdown as people turn their backs, they have to construct grandiose and increasingly fanciful conspiracy theories about sinister liberals with agendas, or even more laughably they simply insult the intelligence of the general public by saying they are too stupid and will just accept anything the television tells them to.

    Scotland ought to be a great lesson to you; under the baleful influence of the church for too long, people have finally gotten wise, and it is dying on the vine, increasingly out of touch, increasingly irrelevant.

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    I think you’re both afraid of a real debate.

    No, what you want is for everyone to agree with the LGBT agenda. Anything else is “avoiding” debate, isn’t it? We say we refuse to cross the line, so in a sense there is no debate, which is why we stress the reasons for what we believe.

    Not everything is as black and white as promoting homo- and bisexual behaviour to children.

    Can’t you understand that there is no neeed for debate in this instance? It is wrong and yet you think we should change our minds or we are being “afraid of a real debate”.

    Stewart opened his comments on Liberal Conspiracy with insults and showed that he had nothing constructive, informed or intelligent to add to the debate and now he’s pretending he was being censored because they’ve been removed.

    I said plenty of constructive, valid things in my several, now deleted, comments. You would have been able to read them had Mr Hundal not been such a gatekeeper for the Establishment.

    Every time you’ve tried to answer back to one of my blogs on Spinneyhead you’ve quickly realised you’re losing and run away.

    Now this is funny – I have to hand it to you. When you write your own blog post and misrepresent me, I leave a comment to correct your errors, then leave and do something more constructive.

  14. Stewart Cowan says:

    Oh, Galen10,

    I see you are continuing to slander me on LC, knowing that my replies get deleted.

    You also play dirty. You probably know it’s the only way you can win.

  15. I don’t usually slag off other bloggers because they are entitled to their opinion as much as I am…

    Agreed.

    Freedom of speech is damn important, not just to Americans (our First Amendment), but should be free to ALL nations.

    But if you say this, i.e. tell the truth; medical facts – you are “homophobic.”

    Er, dude – where are these “medical facts” you refer to? Sources, references, if you please.

    “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY).

  16. Stewart Cowan says:

    HD,

    I was, of course, referring to the fact that bisexual behaviour increases the spread of disease. You aren’t disputing this surely?

    If Richard comes back this way, I’m sure he can furnish us with some extra information.

  17. I was, of course, referring to the fact that bisexual behaviour increases the spread of disease. You aren’t disputing this surely?

    I am, and don’t call me Shirley (old joke).

    That is your opinion, not a fact.

    If you have medical facts (as you stated above) from actual medical journals; peer-reviewed papers; data analysis from biology sources; Sexual Health clinical studies; longitudinal meta-analyses on STI research from the WHO, or the CDC, or other reputable medical sites to buttress this opinion of yours, I’d be more than interested in reading them.

    As I said above, you’re entitled to your opinion – but without any facts, that’s all it is dude, an opinion.

    (This is not Richard’s blog, so the Burden of Proof lies with you to “furnish us with” the facts.)

    Surf’s up, later dudes!!!

  18. lionheart says:

    Are you sure you want to trust Richard as a source of information Stewart?

    Here is an example of his actions and remember he sated publicly he had permission (something that was denied by Cannon Crofton’s superiors in a subsequent interview) http://www.salfordonline.com/localnews.php?func=viewdetails&vdetails=18765

  19. Stewart Cowan says:

    HD,

    It’s an old joke, but still makes me laugh – I think of Leslie Nielson saying it.

    Just pulling a couple of things off the internet…

    September 24, 2010 — One in 5 gay and bisexual men in major cities in the United States is infected with HIV, and nearly half — 44% — do not know their status.

    ———–

    This is very interesting on MSM (men who have sex with men)

    Men who have sex with men have special health-care issues and are at high risk for sexually transmitted infections. In managing their anorectal health it is important to modify the history and physical and handle patients in a nonjudgmental fashion. It is important to understand behavioral patterns including recreational drug use, unprotected sex, and HIV infection. Screening and counseling play important roles in effective management of these patients.

    It is also important to understand your patient’s sexual practices. Many STIs like gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, and human papillomavirus (HPV) are spread by skin-to-skin contact and don’t require ejaculation.5 The patient may, therefore, have protected anal sex and be relatively safe from HIV, but be exposed to STIs during foreplay or unprotected oral sex.

    In addition to HIV, HIV-positive MSM are more likely than HIV-negative MSM to carry other STIs including herpes, HPV, gonorrhea, and syphilis that may not be readily apparent.

    The high prevalence of STIs in MSM has led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to issue new guidelines in 2002 for screening MSM.

    Recreational drug use is a growing problem within the MSM community. Some researchers report that crystal methamphetamine use is reaching epidemic proportions in large cities on both coasts of the United States. Although crystal methamphetamine is extremely dangerous in and of itself, research shows that those who use recreational drugs are more likely to combine drugs. These drugs, including crystal, ecstasy, cocaine, and ketamine, are associated with unprotected anal sex, sex with multiple partners, and prolonged sexual encounters. This has translated to increased risk in contracting STIs including HIV.

    When examining MSM for STIs, keep in mind that when a patient has one infection he is more likely to have another infection as well. It is also true that multiple sites can be infected with different types of infections. If you suspect an STI of the anorectum you should also screen the patient’s oral cavity and genitourinary tract. Health-care providers may consider routine culture of these areas, as even patients who deny anal sex may have rectal infections transmitted during foreplay or by finger or toy insertion.

    Young girls. especially those in lower socioeconomic groups, may have anal sex rather than vaginal intercourse as a means of birth control and to preserve virginity. (sic) Heterosexual men may also enjoy anal penetration with fingers or toys that may spread STIs.

    PSYCHOSOCIAL ISSUES OF STIs
    Many MSM will have experienced a past history of psychological or physical abuse as a result of their sexuality. Homophobia directed at oneself, while not readily apparent externally, can often be internalized in MSM. Sitting in your office, a patient may seem at ease with his sexuality—until you tell him that he has an STI. Many MSM were taught by religious leaders, family members, physicians, and society in general that their sexual practices will ultimately cause harm. The STI you just diagnosed can be seen as a manifestation of this prophecy of doom and feelings of self-hate and homophobia may come boiling to the surface.

    SUMMARY
    MSM are at high risk for STIs…

  20. Galen10 says:

    Stewart, it isn’t slander to point out on LC how deeply unpleasant your views are to many people. You are on record as not only advocating the death sentence for the “traitors” encouraging a multicultural society, but going out of your way to assure people that you were serious. Probably best to step away from the shovel now.

  21. One in 5 gay and bisexual men in major cities in the United States is infected with HIV, and nearly half — 44% — do not know their status.

    This report is also from Medscape:

    “Worldwide, the majority of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections result from heterosexual transmission. Females accounted for 89% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections among persons aged 13-19 years (Figure 1).”

    “During 1999-2002, a total of 101,877 HIV infections were diagnosed in the 29 states and reported to CDC, including 36,084 (35%) acquired through heterosexual contact. The proportion of females was greater among persons with heterosexually acquired HIV infections (64%; 23,205 of 36,084) than the proportion of females among persons exposed through injection-drug use, blood products, transfusions, and undetermined modes of exposure (36%; 6,661 of 18,732.”

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470027

    You are presenting one in five (20%) for gay and bisexual men, while the CDC report 35% of cases of HIV infection are heterosexual.

    You’ll also notice the total sample sizes: gay/bisexual survery was only 8153; while of the 101,877 sampled, 36,084 (35%) acquired HIV through heterosexual contact. (A larger sample size gives more accurate data.)

    These figures do not support your claim that “bisexual behaviour increases the spread of disease.”

  22. This is very interesting on MSM (men who have sex with men)

    This is also from that same report dude:

    “For heterosexuals, anal sex is often unprotected as there is no concern of pregnancy and this raises the risk of HIV transmission. Young girls. especially those in lower socioeconomic groups, may have anal sex rather than vaginal intercourse as a means of birth control and to preserve virginity. Heterosexual men may also enjoy anal penetration with fingers or toys that may spread STIs.”

    And this:

    “Anal sex is certainly common in the MSM community, but the practice is not universal.”

    And you somehow forgot this from the summary:

    “When evaluating and treating MSM for STIs, clinicians must be nonjudgmental and make the patients feel that any answer will handled with respect and compassion.”

    Also from PubMed Central:

    Heterosexually transmitted HIV accounts for the vast majority of HIV infections in South Africa.

    “Heterosexually transmitted HIV infection has resulted in the catastrophic AIDS epidemic in southern Africa. For the most part, vaginal intercourse accounts for Africa’s HIV infections and penile-vaginal HIV transmission is facilitated by several known cofactors, including sexual concurrency (e.g., multiple sexual partners within brief time periods), intergenerational sexual relationships (e.g., older men with multiple younger female partners), and co-epidemics of other sexually transmitted infections (STI). The synergy of multiple co-factors further increases the efficiency of vaginal sexually transmitted HIV by promoting both infectiousness of source partners and susceptibility of uninfected partners. Penile-anal intercourse is more efficient in transmitting HIV than vaginal intercourse (1). Although heterosexual anal intercourse carries considerable risk for HIV transmission, the prevalence of anal sex among heterosexuals is not well established.Anal intercourse is typically associated with HIV transmission in male homosexual relationships with relatively little attention given to the potential risks of anal intercourse in heterosexual relationships (2). Recent research, however, has turned attention toward the prevalence and practices of anal intercourse among heterosexuals. For example, a national survey of men and women in the US found that 35% of adults had engaged in anal intercourse in their lifetime.”

    “These findings are consistent with other studies that show a significant and potentially growing number of heterosexuals engaging anal sex practices (8–9). Although all studies report substantially higher rates of vaginal intercourse than anal intercourse among heterosexuals, the significantly greater transmission efficiency of anal intercourse may translate to an important role of anal sex in heterosexually transmitted HIV.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017216/?tool=pmcentrez

  23. Stewart Cowan says:

    Galen10,

    You call me homophobic when I am not. I don’t hate any homosexual.

    Convicted traitors are traditionally punished by death. It’s what a crime of this seriousness merits. I said this for our traitors who designed a multicultural society because they did it, as the post concerned explains, to change British society – to divide and weaken it for political purposes.

  24. I haven’t studied the whole document; so, trusting that I’m interpreting the above extracts corectly…

    Of the total of 101,877 HIV infections diagnosed, 35% of these infections were acquired through heterosexual contact. Presumably the flip side is therefore that a whopping 65% of these HIV infections were transmitted via homopervual contact (despite the fact that homopervuals represent only 1% of the general population). In conclusion it is clear that homopervuals are the major carriers and transmitters of HIV (in the West); homopervuals are massively over-represented in the numbers of diseased people – out of all proportion to their status as a tiny minority group in society.

    As regards the situation in some parts of Africa…

    [First let me digress though very briefly: The following quotation is one example which exposes the underlying agenda and bias of the documents authors: "Recent research, however, has turned attention toward the prevalence and practices of anal intercourse among heterosexuals. For example, a national survey of men and women in the US found that 35% of adults had engaged in anal intercourse in their lifetime." If you believe that, you'll believe anything! Propaganda alert! Warning! Propaganda alert! Dodgy 'survey' alert! That cannot be taken as read in the way it is meant to be read (i.e. in the way it is meant to deceive the reader). If you believe that a third of heterosexuals have ever engaged in the sodomitical perversion then you're away with the fairies, my dear surfer dude.]

    Regarding Africa, we see that the heart of the matter regarding the transmission of HIV is two-fold; the two related issues are:

    (1) The practice of promiscuity, and

    (2) The practice of perversion.

    Homopervual behaviour is by definition the practice of perversion, added to which the defining characteristic of many (if not most) homopervuals’ lifestyle is their rampant promiscuity. Promiscuity transmits disease, and the anal perversion is the highest-risk perversion activity for HIV; it is therefore understandable why the homopervual population is generally riddled with HIV and other disease.

    When heterosexuals act like homopervuals – either in promiscuity or perversion or both – it is unsurprising that we see a high prevalence of disease. Now, understand this – it is the ket point regarding the heterosexually-acquired HIV transmission rate in parts of Africa – understand that promiscuity is certainly the chief driver of HIV infections amongst African heterosexuals (not the practice of the sodomitical perversion).

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    In general, anywhere in the world, the truth is that the causes of sexually transmitted disease are promiscuity and abnormal (i.e. perverted) ‘sexual’ behaviour.

    So, what’s the true safe sex message, dude?

    The true safe sex message is that moral sex is safe… and immoral sex is (in varying degrees) unsafe.

    A man and a woman who practise ‘Chastity before Marriage and Fidelity within’ – and whose sexual behaviour is normal – are not going to be plagued by disease (and, moreover, they are likely to have a higher frequency of sex and much greater sexual satisfaction by comparison to promiscuous long-term singles or cohabitees).

  25. English Viking says:

    Hammerhead Doug,

    When you consider the total amount of Homo vs Hetero persons, even if we use the ridiculously inflated figure of 10% the gay-lobby bandy about, you’ll see that YOUR stats prove a gross over-representation of sexual disease amongst homos.

    65% of HIV infection was amongst the homo community, which, even if it is 10% of the population, is surely more than enough evidence (that you provided) to show the very serious, in fact highly likely, risk of disease from homo behaviour.

    Stats from Africa are not relevant to a debate on problems in the West.

    Trying to prove that heteros that engage in anal sex are likely to catch a disease is proving Stewart’s point – anal sex is very dangerous, morally repugnant and a sin against one’s own body.

  26. Vee says:

    HammerheadDawg

    You are living in a fools paradise because you are simply in denial.

    Your own American Food and Drugs Agency cogently states whi it is they are somewhat fussy about gays donating blood. Read on

    “Why doesn’t FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

    A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA’s policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

    The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:

    · Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

    · Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.

    · Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.

    · Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called “window period”. The “window period” is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person.

    · FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the “window period” of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.

    · Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.

    · Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.

    · No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.

    · Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA’s first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.

    · Men who have sex with men also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

    See http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm

  27. robbo says:

    Riding motorcycles is more dangerous than driving cars. Should that be banned too?

  28. Subrosa says:

    LC is no 1 on Wikio because the system has now changed and only 50% stats are from RSS feeds. I believe the other half is from Twitter somehow Stewart, but don’t ask me how that works.

    You’ll notice the listings has changed quite a bit. I’ve dropped way down but I don’t have the time to spend on Wikio. When I do go for a brief time Mr Hundai seems to be there tweeting away. That will raise his Wikio ratings I think.

  29. English Viking says:

    robbo,

    Shooting yourself twice is more dangerous than shooting yourself once. Should that be encouraged too?

  30. English Viking says:

    robbo,

    PS I am not suggesting, as you suggest, (and I’m not sure, but I don’t think Stewart is either) that homosexuality should be banned. I believe that there is no point introducing a ban that cannot be enforced, so if people wish to degrade themselves in private, that is their business, for which they will answer to Almighty God for. What should be banned is the public promotion of the idea that homo behaviour is normal, healthy or equivalent to hetero behaviour. It should also cease to receive Gov backing and public money.

  31. Paul says:

    You must be so very consumed by hatred. Weighed down by the behaviour of others. A miserable life, all in the confused name of salvation. Why not liberate yourself from all the anger and just leave people to conduct their own affairs and face their own consequences?

  32. robbo says:

    E.V. – When did you decide to be heterosexual? I know I never did, it just happens to be the way I am. What makes you think that homosexuals have made a choice to be the way they are? If it is the case that homosexuality is in fact normal, why shouldn’t it be promoted as normal?

  33. Vee says:

    robbo – you promote a falsehood.

    Gay activists continued attempt to establish a biological basis for homosexuality is becoming increasingly difficult because they face an impossible challenge. A study in 1995 found that between 99.7 and 99.9 percent of the genes of any two unrelated people, gay or not, lesbian or not, bisexual or not and transsexual or not, are the same. Nevertheless, geneticists have established linkages to some 1450 biological conditions like physical diseases and think it is impossible directly to link a gene to behaviour. These finding drives a coach and horse through the claim for any homosexual gene.

    Psychologists generally agree that heterosexual development is not genetically determined. It is largely determined by environmental influences. Thus, if heterosexuality results from a learning process that involves relationships with parents and peer groups which include highly individual experiences, sexual encounters and repeated behaviours, then so does homosexuality. This explains why there is such a large variety of heterosexual and homosexual practices among cultures and even within them. Hence in some cultures homosexuality is unknown and in others it has been obligatory. Indeed, one can even trace a significant variability of homosexual behaviours over the last 50 years. Dangerous practices that were virtually unknown several decades ago such as fisting (insertion of hand/forearm into the anus) and rimming (anal/oral contact) are now common.

    Notice also, that some males are more susceptible to homosexual behaviours when confined to a strictly masculine environment, that; on leaving; are quickly abandoned. These are known as ‘optional’ homosexuals who are differentiated from ‘obligatory’ homosexuals who permanently feel a psychological compulsion for same-sex sex. Public schools, prison and the armed forces may be such examples. If heterosexual or homosexual behaviours were genetically determined they would be practically identical in all societies and on a permanent basis. Indeed, what anthropologists find is that behaviours are culturally mandated in some and culturally proscribed in others, which accounts for a hugely complex diversification.

    It is useful to note that distinguished American Professor Edward O Lauman and others, who reported on their seminal research in 1994 The Social Organization of Sexuality remarked on the fluidity of behaviours associated with homosexuality. They observe, “…homosexuality is a complex multidimensional phenomenon whose salient features are related to one another in highly contingent and diverse ways.” Similarly, the British Health Protection Agency which monitors, HIV prevalence among homosexuals, find great difficulty in identifying homosexuals as a distinct group of individuals. They are instead a fluid group that emerges as a result of a shared behaviour, changing over time with no obvious or implicit demographic or cultural characteristics such as those that define ‘young people’ or ‘black African’.

    Dr. Neil Whitehead is a reputable American research scientist who has written over 120 published scientific papers. His book “My Genes Made me do it” (1999) is based on a comprehensive 13-year review of over 10,000 scientific papers and publications on homosexuality. He writes, “Geneticists, anthropologists, developmental psychologists, sociologists, endocrinologists, neuroanatomists, medical researchers into gender, and twin study researchers are in broad agreement about the role of genetics in homosexuality. Genes don’t make you do it. There is no genetic determinism, and genetic influence at most is minor.” Genes determine the body’s structure and function and not behaviour or attitude. The gene’s function is biochemical.

    Both homosexual gene researcher Dr. Dean Hamer and gay activist brain researcher Dr. Simon LeVay now reject the idea that homosexuality is solely rooted in biology.

    Other compelling scientific studies of monozygotic or identical twins who have identical genes fail to show any overwhelming biological factors which induce homosexuality.

    Outside of rape, all sexual behaviour is voluntary involving a conscious choice but the existence of such desire does not justify the act. Otherwise, adultery, incest, polygamy, paedophilia, extreme sadomasochism and bestiality would be acceptable. So it is right that certain harmful desires be suppressed.

    .

  34. English Viking says:

    robbo,

    Gay is something you do, not something you are.

    If we follow your logic of people ‘just naturally being the way they are’, what about all those poor pædophiles we put in prison, just for behaving the way that nature intended?

  35. robbo says:

    Vee – Who said anything about biology or genetics? Am I straight because I am more moral than gay people? I don’t think so. I am who I am because of a wide variety of indeterminate factors. Other people are different and what they get up to in bed is no more my business than what I get up to in mine is yours. My question stands.
    E.V. – Your question is a total red herring otherwise why do you not think homosexuality should be banned? Or do you call for the legalisation of paedophilia too? I’m afraid I will have to ask you to justify your first statement. Once again I ask you when was it you decided you would be heterosexual rather than homosexual?

  36. Vee says:

    .

    robbo

    There’s more…….

    What about those afflicted by objectum sexuality as in the case of Swedish Eija-Ritta Elkof Berliner-Mauer, who is married to the Berlin Wall? Or Erika Eiffel who is married to the Eiffel Tower?

    Such individuals believe in animism, or the belief that objects have souls, intelligence, feelings and are able to communicate. What about TRisexuals in which a women will partner two men, or a man two women?

    Their organisation ‘Tripod’, downplays they are former transsexuals and are concerned about the bullying of trisexual children in schools.

    They believe they were born that way and resent they are excluded from the LGBT sphere of influence. They also seek the right to holy matrimony and adoption.

    Where does it all end?

    .

  37. robbo says:

    Vee – I see you have copied wholesale from http://www.gayconspiracy.info/ this is called plagiarism.

  38. Stewart Cowan says:

    This is a very interesting discussion.

    Richard,

    A man and a woman who practise ‘Chastity before Marriage and Fidelity within’ – and whose sexual behaviour is normal – are not going to be plagued by disease

    And yet, promoting this truth is sneered at by the policy-makers. Of course, the likes of Stonewall and abortion and contraception providers are the ones most influencial in the drafting of legislation.

  39. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    Motorcycles are a good (and usually cheaper) way for a person to get from A to B. It’s a bit of a “red herring” (to use your own words) to use this to try and justify unnatural sexual behaviour.

    And when you point out (rightly) that motorcycles are more dangerous, you are not harangued for being “motorphobic!!”

  40. Stewart Cowan says:

    Subrosa,

    I’m grateful for the information – and for your blog :)

    I see LC has a long list of tweets under the post in question. I wonder if listing these is what matters, or just the tweets themselves.

  41. robbo says:

    Stewart,
    Nobody could accuse me of being motorphobic. I am a definite out of the closet motorphile.

  42. Stewart Cowan says:

    English,

    To HammerheadDawg,

    Trying to prove that heteros that engage in anal sex are likely to catch a disease is proving Stewart’s point – anal sex is very dangerous, morally repugnant and a sin against one’s own body.

    I’m sure we await his reply with interest!

  43. Stewart Cowan says:

    Paul,

    You must be so very consumed by hatred. Weighed down by the behaviour of others. A miserable life, all in the confused name of salvation. Why not liberate yourself from all the anger and just leave people to conduct their own affairs and face their own consequences?

    What hatred? Since when has disagreeing or disapproving of something been the same as hatred? If I am consumed by anything, it is the desire that society allows children to be children and not tools of self-interest groups who want to feed on their under-developed emotions.

  44. Stewart Cowan says:

    Vee,

    Peter Tatchell reckons there could be a genetic angle to same-sex desire, but also admits that it is a choice and to be glad it is.

    Where does it all end?

    Scary five words. I’ll need to check out this Tripod organisation.

    I’m just confused as to how the Eiffel Tower gave its consent and wondering if the marriage has been consummated.

  45. Vee says:

    .

    Tatchell has argued against a gay gene on the basis it does not explain the great variety and flexibility of sexual behaviours,. He cites lesbianism and bisexuality as instances.

    It’s obvious he hasn’t heard about the difference between optional and obligatory homosexuals.

    Writing in the Guardian in 2006 he states, “Much as I would love to go along with the fashionable ‘born gay’ consensus (it would be very politically convenient) I can’t. The evidence does not support the idea that sexuality is a fixed biologically given.”

    He has also observed on his internet blog, “The truth is that nurture appears to be more important than nature when it comes to the formation of sexual orientation.”

    So, relationships between child and parents, formative experiences, cultural mores and peer pressure are of greater significance. What is the lesson here? It is that peer pressure can induce homosexuality in people.

    Gays readily accept a heterosexual becoming a gay, but never the other way round, which explains the unremitting intensity of their opposition to reparative therapy.

    On the other hand, Tatchell takes a contradictory stance in suggesting genes and hormones do influence sexuality which is largely based on the recent theoretical assumptions of two gay activists who have written a book.

    Speaking of Radio Five Live in January 2011, he made it clear that the evidence suggests ‘very significantly’ that genes plus hormonal factors are major determinants of homosexuality. “They’re the major determinants. So no one can choose to be gay, or choose to be straight.”

    Whichever way one looks at his views, Tatchell wins.

    .

  46. robbo says:

    I don’t need to justify anything. Not to you or anyone else. If an activity carries certain risks then people should be made aware of them and the best way to guard against them. It’s all very well saying don’t ride a motorcycle but I might choose to do so anyway. I don’t take too kindly to people trying to restrict what I get up to and I’m sure from reading your blog that neither do you. You don’t like gays. Fine. Leave them alone and mind your own business and we can all be happy. Try to push your nose into their business then you should expect a reaction.

  47. Vee says:

    .

    Yes, there’s even more…

    The social endorsement and affirmation of a homosexual orientation
    opens the pan-sexual door to several distressing paraphilias permitting transsexualism, paedophilia, pederasty, polygamy, and other disturbing behaviours. It must not be forgotten that the concept of ‘sexual orientation’ encompasses some thirty forms of aberrant and abhorrent sexual conduct.

    Some go on to practice more than anal-oral sex, but also, rimming, frotteurism, felching, fisting, necrophilia, coprophilia, fetishism, incest, bestiality, zoophilia, hypoxphilia, transvetic fetishism and anonymous sex.

    Even more extraordinary is orchiectomy (gelding), apotemnophilia and acrotomophilia. The latter two are Amputee Identity Disorders (AID), colloquially described as amputee ‘Wannabes’ and ‘Devotees’. This has serious consequences for society, not least for homosexuals themselves.

    But now along comes another distressing malady called Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID). Much like Gender Identity Disorder (GID) or transsexualism, it’s focused on mutilating the body. In the case of BIID, however, it literally means the amputation of whole body limbs. They are a growing visible group of people who call themselves ‘amputee wannabes’.

    It is a psychological condition that relates to urges first experienced during pre-adolescent years. Some will also share the sexual experiences of those who suffer from Apotemnophilia and Acrotomophilia

    First identified in 1977 as Apotemnophilia, or ‘Amputee Identity Disorder’ (AID), it pertains to self-amputation and is characterised by sexual arousal and facilitation of orgasm being dependent upon oneself being an amputee. Such people are colloquially known as ‘Wannabes’.

    Another associated disorder is Acrotomophilia a paraphilia that pertains to amputation and amputees. Sexual erotic arousal and orgasmic facilitation is contingent upon an amputee partner. These people are known as ‘Devotees’.

    Feelings of BIID can start as early as 4 or 5 years of age. Despite the fact medical science is attempting to describe the phenomenon, they have great difficulty in explaining it and research is minimal.

    There is currently no consensus on what causes the desire for amputation and is mostly confined to males. These little known syndromes offer a new challenge to diagnosis and sex therapy Two cases involving elective surgery in 1997 and 1999 subsequently led to critical publicity in the media.

    Since, then the NHS has banned the procedure. However, some sufferers have seriously damaged a limb in order to obtain a clinical amputation. Methods include freezing with dry ice, using fire, lying on railway tracks and even blasting a limb with a shotgun.

    Although small in number; many fear ‘coming out’; experts anticipate they are growing.

    And what about the current practice of ‘gelding’ (orchiectomy) – the fixation leading to castration? In the case where one has developed pervasive destructive sexual behaviors, one experiences a great deal of psychosexual difficulties and relationships may suffer. Most people acknowledge the destructiveness of their behaviors yet believe themselves helpless.

    Like the transsexual whose remedy is to change the body to match the identity, a male suffering from a destructive sexual behavior similarly seek a remedy. When other attempts to solve this problem have failed, some men decide to be castrated thereby eliminating the levels of testosterone in the body and solving the problem, accepting their resultant sterility.

    I hope robbo is not getting bored?

  48. Stewart Cowan says:

    Robbo,

    I don’t need to justify anything. Not to you or anyone else.

    Why did you try then?

    If an activity carries certain risks then people should be made aware of them and the best way to guard against them.

    But people aren’t being told the facts. They are told to behave how their desires dictate, irrespective of the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual repercussions.

    It’s all very well saying don’t ride a motorcycle but I might choose to do so anyway.

    But you aren’t going round schools telling children it is the same as driving a car.

    I don’t take too kindly to people trying to restrict what I get up to and I’m sure from reading your blog that neither do you.

    Correct, but I do appreciate when someone puts me right when I’m doing wrong. I guess you have to reach a certain stage of maturity for that – difficult when “pride” gets in the way.

    You don’t like gays. Fine. Leave them alone and mind your own business and we can all be happy. Try to push your nose into their business then you should expect a reaction.

    Who said I don’t like “gays?” I don’t agree with their lifestyle. I don’t agree with drugs for recreation, but i don’t hate those who use them for that purpose. I could go on, but I’m sure you get the picture.

    And the LGBT activists push their noses into everyone’s business.

  49. Stewart Cowan says:

    Vee,

    I can see I need to get my dictionary out.

    I have heard about the amputee wannabes. I didn’t realise there were sexual implications.

    And I wrote a post a while back about the discrimination that ex-homosexuals experience at the hands of, let’s call them, still-homosexuals.

    ….I’ve found the link – Equal rights for ex-gays!

  50. I’m sure we await his reply with interest!

    I’m waiting on your response to the journal articles I posted above regarding that fact bisexual behaviour does not increase the spread of disease, as you claimed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>