Not to imply I agree about AJ's post, but what Leoj is distorting and inventing facts only something you are allowed to do in this conversation?

Dear AJ,

I admire your patience.

Dear Zeil,

Not everybody on this forum sticks to the facts, avoids
insults, and inflammatory language. It would be great
if they would bring to the table those facts which
have been thoroughly vetted as true because they would
at least then be debating accurate information as
opposed to rumours, slander, and nasty discourse (labelling
of people).

A.J. Philips has always presented rational
arguments. Unfortunately leoj? - the less said, the better.
You summed him up perfectly in one of your posts. Nothing
more needs to be said. I try to avoid any contact with him
as much as possible for obvious reasons. The day that
he does present a rational argument without labelling people
is the day that perhaps I shall be tempted to take him
seriously. In the meantime, talking to him is as effective
as a fart in a blizzard.

How do you mean “poisoning the well”, leoj?

Are you referring to my suggestions that this discussion is not really about the spread of STDs? If so, then I think myself and others have well and truly demonstrated that by now.

Heck, just look at the comments from your fellow conservatives that followed your OP. It appears they had the same impression I did, and dived in head first to tell us all about just how disgusting those fags are.

<<You did get caught out inventing findings and stretching the envelope way past Dan Savage's wild lead …>>

No, I didn’t get “caught out” doing anything. I explained to you the events surrounding my posting of that link, and the speed with which I was able to access more reliable sources and respond to you with them suggests that my explanation was indeed truthful.

There was no attempt to invent any findings or push any envelopes, and my follow up links demonstrate that. Not every link that everyone posts is their first and only source of information for the claim they're making at the time.

Even if I were lying, and had indeed been inventing findings, only to 'get lucky' and find reliable research supporting my "invented" claim, the fact that I had found reliable research in support of my "invented" claim would still mean that I was right in the end, which in turn suggests that this is nothing more than a dihonest attempt at character assassination to distract from the fact.

But given where my qualifications lay, I'm more offended by the fact that you would suggest that I would get my sociological information from some blogger than I am by your suggestion that I'm being dishonest.

<<Is there anything you would like to disclose? You can trust all here. After all, it IS the internet.>>

Like what? I don’t understand.

But I do agree with much of what AJ Philips says about the religious education he went through. Many of my friends and especially the women have had to go through years of counselling because of it.

I reckon AJ was unfair and casual in his reading of my posts though. As if I could ever be regarded as any sort of fundy or member of a political party.

My very honest, well-meant and straightforward concerns in this thread have been stated. I have no interest whatsoever in gay politics. I see no practical worth in research and discussion that doesn't grasp the nettle and address MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) as a category in itself and the main one of relevance to HIV/AIDS.

Women are being poorly served by a political correctness that puts the hurt feelings and expectations of MSM ahead of women's health and wellbeing.

I will leave it at that.

Won't someone please think of the children!

Leoj if a woman contracts HIV through unsafe sex then that is ultimately on her. Social context and such cab paint a broader picture of actions but they don't control them.

I control my actions especially in regards to sex. To sugest otherwise is really to suggest some sort of coercive rape.

So confusing it all is...gender identities as below.

https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/07/explained-the-33-gender-identities-recognised-by-the-2016-australian-sex-survey/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/15/the-complete-glossary-of-facebook-s-51-gender-options.html

https://apath.org/63-genders/

2, 33, 51 or 63 - take your pick, but please I'm not here to explain to you why I don't subscribe to your Land Rights for Left Handed Harp Seals agenda. Thanks for allowing me to post my 'opinion'.