BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 12:51 AM

What an interesting turn that would be.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 12:50 AM

Good lord. You mean that you've finally figured that OUt?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 12:11 AM

Take him on yourself, if you can..and if you can do it without the childish snipes. We could all learn something from a mature dialogue, void of defensive insults, but rather one of finding FACTS..not trying to win or prove a point. Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 12:08 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 08:15 PM

Keith, I know that nobody takes Ake seriously, but are you going to let his co-opting of you stand unchallenged? I kind of hope you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 08:03 PM

Don't you guys know when the game is up?

The UNAIDS statistics and conclusions regarding infection rates in homosexuals posted by Keith, effectively concluded the debate.

All your arguments demolished by one document, and the stance which I have been defending for over a year vindicated.
All you have left is the "why dont your mind you own business" syndrome

Well, defending freedom of thought and speech and exposing hypocricy is my business, business which on this occasion has come to a very satisfactory conclusion.....Ake

Thanks for support Sanity and Paco.....For information and fair play...thank you Keith.

FIN.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:06 PM

""The course of the swine flu epidemic was predicted rather well.
It was thought to be more dangerous than it was because many mild cases in Mexico went unreported giving rise to concern that mortality was higher than it proved to be.
There was, and is, the concern that it could become more dangerous by mutation or exchange of genetic material with, for instance, the more lethal but less infectious bird flu.
But, that was a new disease. We know all about AIDS now.
Now Don, since you are not leaving, what do you have to contribute? ""

And yet you see no possibility of any similar occurence with HIV.

What a very strange "scientist" you are.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:58 PM

Regarding the thread in issue
The worlds going bad"again" The human race is only happy when its killing each other? If we aint got enough troubles in creation ,Uganda jumps on the band wagon harping on about stuff that been around and penalized in the past since time began and Im a fanny and tit man. For all sakes are the African states going back in time .

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:45 PM

"I have it on good authority that the retro virus does not know or even care if its victims are straight or gay.
Why should anyone else?
Wash DC has some SE neighborhoods with a current infection rate near 20%. Some are only 10%. AIDS favors the poor and uneducated?
No it only lives with all the biological inertia inherent in life itself."

Dr. O.B. Vious.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:30 PM

typo:

durge -> surge

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:27 PM

Keith,

You describe the rates of UK acquired infection as increasing linearly.

This is not true.

It may not be explainable as exponential for now either, but it is far from linear.

A better description of the graph would be, it was trundling along on the runway for ages and suddenly, a few years back, it lifted sharply off the ground.

It then continued to rise, demonstrating that a dramatic turn of events was also a sustained change of circumstances.

If there was anything linear about heterosexual infection rates, we would still be seeing the graph trundling along consistently on the x axis.

This hasn't happened.

And as we know, the pool is finite.

It is more likely that it will change again that it will remain linear.

The fact that the change was sustained shows that it is not a matter of "if" there is another durge, but "when".

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:11 PM

The course of the swine flu epidemic was predicted rather well.
It was thought to be more dangerous than it was because many mild cases in Mexico went unreported giving rise to concern that mortality was higher than it proved to be.
There was, and is, the concern that it could become more dangerous by mutation or exchange of genetic material with, for instance, the more lethal but less infectious bird flu.
But, that was a new disease. We know all about AIDS now.
Now Don, since you are not leaving, what do you have to contribute?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:51 PM

You've put up quite a lot of opinion in support of your argument, some of which is definitely, and some which on the face of it should be reliable.

It might be wise when expressing such confidence in the veracity and wisdom of your sources, to remember that, in the main, they are the same experts who so completely failed to correctly predict the course and outcome of the recent swine flu outbreak.

Finally, I will leave this discussion when I'm damn good and ready, not when you order me too, so wind your neck in pal. You're not laying down the law to a student who has to listen to you now.

You have no more right to an opinion than anyone else here, and if you can't handle that, perhaps it's you that needs to leave.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:30 PM

Don, an exponential spread of infection results in an epidemic.
Most do not. They may become endemic.
Think streptococcus, rabies, salmonella, etc.
AIDS has resulted in epidemics in some communities where transmission is high, but outside Africa that has not happened among heterosexuals. And it has had ample opportunity. It is no longer a new disease.
Don, there is no heterosexual epidemic here.
Never mind what Royston or I say. Look it up.
I have put up enough evidence now.
If you do not have anything new, please shut up and go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 03:24 PM

""Don, re your "whereas, in all previous cases, infection has increased exponentially within a population."

In no previous cases outside Africa has AIDS increased exponentially within a straight population.
Or do you know of one?""

All right, since you aren't smart enough.......

Did I say previous cases of AIDS?......NO! I didn't.

In all previous cases of Diseases spreading through a population, prior to the arrival on the scene of HIV/AIDS, the infections have shown an exponential increase, not a linear one.

Why would HIV/AIDS not do the same, as Royston stated, until it kills enough victims to inhibit transmission.

The fact that it appears linear may well be due to the small number of cases, but, as the pool of victims increases in size, the differences will become significant, and the exponential nature will be much more apparent.

The anomalies of having the number of new infections actually decrease in some years could easily (and if you are a scientist, you should know this) be a result of the small numbers involved, and should not be assumed to be a statistically significant feature, at least until the total number of victims reaches a point where those changes become a trend.

Bad math doesn't strengthen your case, and a head in the sand attitude to what you call a miniscule problem doesn't either.

Would you rather deal with hundreds now, or millions later?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:15 AM

We should not argue about this when so close to agreement on the rest.
The statement is true, but misleading because the two cases are so far apart.
Suppose 2 people set off London to Brighton, one in a Ferrari at a steady 70mph, and the other strolling at a leisurely 1 mph.
The walker gets bored and breaks into a jog.
He is now doing 5mph. A 500% increase in his rate of progress.
The driver has managed a 0% increase.
What does that tell you about the two journeys?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 08:10 AM

Thanks Keith, I can see that we agree on pretty much all of the issues, with a margin for disagreement that is normal and healthy.

For what it's worth - the statistics are not nearly so important as the ethical isses - my other point was about controlling the growth of HIV prevalence.

If HIV prevalence has grown 74% amongst gay men in 8 years but has grown 500% for straight people then straight people are doing very badly - almost 3 times as badly - as gay men at controlling the growth of HIV in their communities.

My assumption here is the use of the word "prevalence". If there are more than 5 times as many of something as there once was, is it not correct to say it is 5 times more prevalent? That's a genuine question, Keith, if I've used the wrong word - but you know what I mean - then let's just get the right word out please?

About prevalence, I just can't seem to find figures for people living with HIV by infection route. However, surely you accept the logic that if gay communities have a prevalence of 4%, the chances of a gay man contracting HIV - and therefore the growth in cases - is a lot higher than should be the chance of a straight person (did you say 0.0004% prevalence?) and therefore the growth in straight cases should be a lot lower - 10,000 times lower?.

But somehow straight HIV+ people have grown their UK-acquired rate of increase 3 times faster than have gay men in the last 8 years. With all the epidemiological and statistical cards stacked so strongly in their favour, that outome is shocking, isn't it? This is a critical observation in the discussion about needing to understand that HIV is a deadly issue for everyone who is not educated about the risks and prevention methods and/or chooses not to apply that knowledge - gay or straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:59 AM

Royston, your point 5 again.
5) A key part of effective prevention is the active removal of stigma and prejudice surrounding HIV and the people affected by it. Ignorance of and about the disease, together with societal stigma and prejudice, hinder outreach and direct intervention efforts directed by at risk groups and minorities. Ignorance, prejudice and stigma deters members of at risk groups and minorities from coming forward and seeking testing and treatment.

I gave my honest answer, I do not know.
The first sentence could well be true.
The next sentence. I do not approve of ignorance, stigmatisation or prejudice. I do not know if they significantly hinder ....
They might.
I doubt they deter people coming forward. They need not admit to whatever they are ashamed of. But I do not know.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:53 AM

Royston, re. your "The correct assertion would be "The fact is that gay men are doing better at limiting the the growth of HIV prevalence in their communities than are straight people, at the moment""

Please justify this by referring to the HIV prevalence in those communities.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:50 AM

Don, re your "whereas, in all previous cases, infection has increased exponentially within a population."

In no previous cases outside Africa has AIDS increased exponentially within a straight population.
Or do you know of one?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:48 AM

Don, 3% of the total population died of that flu.
So 3% of gay people will have died of it.
So a bigger proportion of the gay population are dying of AIDS than died of the great flu.
And that is not counting the 18 000 who are already lost.

Now, I have some nice sprout's in today.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:36 AM

""Lox, re. what is a signicant number.
1200 infections a year is only 0.002%

That is three thousand, five hundred percent less than the 0.07% limit for classifying as a rare disease.

Increasing by 300 a year it will be a rare disease for another 140 years.
Then we should start to get worried.""

Are you really that dim Keith, or are you deliberately glossing over the fact that the rise you are predicting is linear, whereas, in all previous cases, infection has increased exponentially within a population.

We really will see gay/hetero percentages approach parity, and you won't be dismissing that as miniscule, given the ratio of gays to straights.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:23 AM

""Even the great flu pandemic of 1918 only killed 3% of the population.""

Now I know you've lost the plot Keith.

You take a figure of 4% of the small percentage of the population who are gay, and male, and compare it with the 3% of the TOTAL population who died in the pandemic.

As a mathematician, you would undoubtedly make a very good greengrocer.

It si a total waste of time talking to one who would suspend the laws mathematics in a vain attempt to justify discrimination.

Don T

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:57 AM

Keith: "The fact is that gay men are doing better at limiting the transmission of the disease in their communities than are straight people at the moment."

Please explain/justify.
The rate of transmission in proportion to group size shows the opposite is true

OK, the words "rate of transmission" make the statement wrong.

The correct assertion would be "The fact is that gay men are doing better at limiting the the growth of HIV prevalence in their communities than are straight people, at the moment

Please look again at point 5, this is the important issue that kicked all this off.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:47 AM

1501.

Good grief.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:39 AM

Thanks, Keith.

It did start off exponential. Deny that?

No, never denied it, never denied that gay men are disproportionately affected. When the disease emerged, medical science didn't recognise it and a lot of people died before anyone worked out a) that it was caused by HIV and b) how it was being spread.

As you keep telling us, not all gay men put themselves at high risk

It's important to point out that "not all gay men" is different from the more accurate statement "the vast majority of gay men, 96%" appear not to practice dangerous behaviour.

What I am trying to do is underscore the areas of agreement.

Keith, please go back to point 5 and give it some thought. Go back to UNAIDS, WHO, AVERT, THT, HPA and read what all the experts say about social attitudes and the devastating effect of stigma and prejudice. Think about it logically, please, and see if your view changes. Because, you see, it is point 5 that started all this off. The bigots started by advocating more prejudice and more stigma against minority groups and nothing to help or to bother the "normal" majority because they don't think HIV should matter at all to "normal" people. Is that the view you support? Or on balance do you think point 5 probably stands a better chance of curtailing this disease than driving people underground?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:29 AM

"The fact is that gay men are doing better at limiting the transmission of the disease in their communities than are straight people at the moment."

Please explain/justify.
The rate of transmission in proportion to group size shows the opposite is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:05 AM

The prefect has called us in from play.

re your, "A disease, unchecked, will spread until it either infects such a proportion of the population that its transmission vectors are disrupted (that so many die as to prevent further transmission) or until a resistance to the disease develops, or until the behaviour of the pool-members is modified to limit the spread of the disease."

It did start off exponential. Deny that?
As you keep telling us, not all gay men put themselves at high risk.
It did indeed infect such a proportion of the (at risk) population that....      and a large number did modify their behaviour.

your number 1. Yes to all (AGAIN! how often must I tell you?!) except "the most important factor" may not be that one.

Your number 2 (No sniggering at the back!) Yes except replace "in some heterosexual populations" with "in Africa"

3. Yes. I have explained why 500% increase does not make it a very worrying amount. EXTREMELY rare and low risk for the next hundred years.

4 Yes.

5 Honestly, I don't know. Maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:47 AM

Keith, this the last attempt to get you to make a relevant point. Any more prevarication and I really, really, think I am entitled to consider these points as taken for granted.

By the way, your comment "This population experienced exponential infection in the early years.
In any population you reach a limit on that kind of growth. Now it just picks off new members

Show such a breathtaking level of stupidiy that it must not be allowed to pass. Keith, I don't believe you have a qualification in a scientific discipline if you can say such a thing.

A disease, unchecked, will spread until it either infects such a proportion of the population that its transmission vectors are disrupted (that so many die as to prevent further transmission) or until a resistance to the disease develops, or until the behaviour of the pool-members is modified to limit the spread of the disease.

96% of gay men do not have HIV - so the disease has a lot of people to get to, left to its own devices. So the disease has not reached a self-limiting point. There certainly isn't any resistance and there is no cure to infection - only drugs to alleviate symptoms. The fact is that gay men are doing better at limiting the transmission of the disease in their communities than are straight people at the moment.

Now to try to get you to make some points. Can you agree to the following statements. Say "yes" or say "no". If "no", then tell us why.

If you run away from this, people will be entitled to draw the obvious and reasonable conclusions.

1) HIV is a disease that can affect anyone who practices unprotected penetrative sex. In Africa it is an epidemic of terrifying proportions amongst the heterosexual majority of the population (up to 40% of the total adult population of some countries.) There are scientific reasons for that and the most important factor driving the spread is sexual networks and a lack of education about effective prevention measures where a lot of effort has been wasted promoting abstinence when condom-use is the only widely effective intervention.

2) In the UK, there is a very low prevalenece of HIV compared to most other countries. Historically the largest single group of people diagnosed each year was gay men, but the disease only affects a tiny minority of gay men (about 4%) and is nowhere near the prevalence level in some heterosexual populations.

3) Now, most diagnoses are of straight people but most of those contracted the disease outside the country. Nonetheless, there has been a disturbing rise amongst straight UK-acquired cases in recent years - a 500% increase.

4) As the number of carriers in any group increases, so the risk of other group-members contracting the infection increases: all other factors and behaviours remaining unchanged. Any increase in any affected group is a cause for serious worry.

4) Ideally, people would abstain from sex until married and then enjoy a lifelong, monagamous relationship. Reality, being different, dictates that the best way to prevent the disease is to educate everyone; because everyone is at some risk, but the greatest effort should be directed at the groups exposed to the greatest statistical risk of infection.

5) A key part of effective prevention is the active removal of stigma and prejudice surrounding HIV and the people affected by it. Ignorance of and about the disease, together with societal stigma and prejudice, hinder outreach and direct intervention efforts directed by at risk groups and minorities. Ignorance, prejudice and stigma deters members of at risk groups and minorities from coming forward and seeking testing and treatment.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:44 AM

You're a fraud Keith....we all know that's chongo!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:41 AM

Before I am accused of running away from this one, you will find what you need to know here, page 19 table W.
boring and complicated statistcs on keith's lips.org

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:41 AM

Hmm Keith.....I suspect it may be the wellies, cords, pipe and trilby, that puts them off in your case   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:16 AM

Sorry Keith. Maybe you could give me the statistical variant ratio quotient of how kissable you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:03 AM

Ake,

You quote UNAIDS - "If we want to prevent
HIV infections, it is essential that more effective prevention efforts (which are inextricably linked
with treatment and care) among groups with higher prevalences be undertaken."

I said "I have been advocating greater universal education programs so that all people are reminded of the nature and risk of unsafe behaviour. I have advocated even greater targeted outreach and education amongst "at risk" groups and I have suggested that anyone who cares about alleviating this sphere of suffering ought to donate to an AIDS charity and/or lobby their MP for adequate public funding and effort.

I also said "More outreach, more education, more condoms, more care"

So I think I am on the same page as UNAIDS. Have you made your donation yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:01 AM

Don't I even get a look in?
Blatant prejudice!
Anyway, Ake always posts with a cockney accent.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 03:04 AM

Mauvepink, I am trying very hard to picture the scene if, as I suggested, I puckered up and offered Ake a big old smackeroo. I do find Scottish accents very sexy......

A hug & a kiss for GfS is even less likely. I suspect he's the type that keeps guns in the basement, so I'd probably be shot as I waded across the front lawn through the heaving multitudes of his progeny.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 02:27 AM

I dont care what folk care to take up their orrifices,
I dont care what they enjoy or how they define their own sense of self and identity existence being.


I really stopped caring back in the 1980's


I've probably in all optimism got no more than 30 years left breathing
on this planet,
and fuck knows where I go after this if at all anywhere when I'm dead.

So ok I dont understand why gays prefere cock to cunt.
its a complete mystery to me.

BUT thinking hard and difficult about all this immense brain burning philosiphising stuff'
the biggest and best mystery is what happens after we all individuals
depart this sad and brutal life we call

well .. errm. life.


fuck it and all the evil shiteheads on this planet,
lets pull up our trousers and see what happens next...

who in all intellignt reason cares..

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 02:08 AM

Yes, Royston, I would say that's a good start. And I have said all through this thread (and the other) that those who try to claim that HIV/AIDs is exclusively a "gay disease" or a "gay problem" should certainly know better, but blind themselves with a personal agenda based on homophobia and bigotry.

What they can't accept is the idea that homosexual relations per se is not dangerous. It's promiscuity. And contrary to what some here claim, there is no inherent connection between the two.

####

"I think society might have struggled on without several of that lot!

Rather over many media celebrities ancient and modern....dont you think   :0)"

Not hardly, Ake. Some of the most important ideas in our culture came from the early Greeks. And with the exception of a monarch or an emperor or two and a Nazi big-wig, the world would be a much poorer place if any one of the folks that Ebbie listed had not existed. Only a philistine would think that they were "over many." Would that there were more, no matter what their sexual orientation might be or have been. That is totally irrelevant to the magnitude of the contributions the majority of them have made to the sciences, the arts, and the humanities.

####

GfS still seems to be hung up on the idea that the best life has to offer is breeding. Hell's bells, rabbits must have the best lives of all!

But they don't produce a helluva lot of art, music, philosophy, literature. . . .   In fact, most of the chronic, full-time skirt-chasers I have known were dumber than a sack of doorknobs. The only skill they had was for rumpy-pumpy, and some of the women they scored with said that they really weren't very good at that, either!

And the sort of talent and ability that produces the life work of the kind of people Ebbie listed comes less from genes than it does from early interest in a particular subject or activity. Genes can give one a good pair of hands, but only a passionate interest in music will turn them into the hands of a brilliant pianist; a pianist who goes on to become a composer of great music.

And no, GfS, this doesn't mean that I'm saying that sexual-orientation is a matter of early interest (which you would undoubtedly try to translate into "choice"). There is a great deal of evidence to show that sexual orientation IS a matter of genes (no matter how much the thought disturbs you personally).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 02:03 AM

boiling a very over complex social phenomina scare crisis
down to basics..

I've never knowingly taken a cock up my arse
or sucked one off.

Don't like the idea of it

I did an MA in social scinces/humanities about nearly 30 years ago.
So I'm not unaware of diverse human sexual expression.

so, efven if I dont like what gays do,
as long as they dont try it on me they can do what they like
to each other as far as i'm concerned.

god created us all in his own image
so seems like God in all his infintisimal glory
might have been a bit that way inclined.

dont bother me, each to their own
if they dont scare the morris dancers.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:46 AM

Richard, re your "Keith - think about confidence limits in statistical analysis. You say the statistics show that the increase is not exponential but linear. I'm not sure so what, but why not check your assumption?"

Not going to pose as an expert any more then. Good.
It is so simple for you Richard. Plot them.
Does it curl up?
No.
Is it a fairly steady rise. Yes
It is linear, not exponential.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:41 AM

Royston, re. your"What I said, about "the Africans", is that adding their number into the number of white UK HIV carriers in the "straight" pool, multiplies further the risk of any one straight person, who practices unsafe sex, contracting HIV if all other factors are constant"

You might well expect that, but the figures show that it is not happening.

re. "Yet 2000-2008 the number of white straight people contracting HIV each year in an enormous pool with only a small starting number of carriers, grew 5 times."

Yes, a steady rise. Choose an earlier year and you would get 10 times, a thousand times and so on. After all these years it remains an incredlby rare disease in this population

re "Whereas gay men, allegedly unhygienic and certainly more exposed to HIV in purely logical, accidental, epidemiological terms, less than doubled."

This population experienced exponential infection in the early years.
In any population you reach a limit on that kind of growth. Now it just picks off new members.

re. "for straight HIV+ numbers to have increased so dramatically. It's bleeding obvious that if their behaviour stays the same, and the numbers of HIV+ straight carriers keep growing, there is very big problem coming."

In about 140 years it will cease to be classified as a rare disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:23 AM

ok.. as I said in a previous thread.
I dont know at my age how long i got left so no more time left to pussyfoot with stupid peoples oversensive feelings and irrational reactions.

iI'm not gay or ever least bit bicuriuos, i dont like the idea of the mechanics of gay sex.
I think its unhygenic and not to my taste.

but i'll be buggered if I put up with nasty evil homophobic
stupidity.

if you dont like or you are afraid of queers
then you are shit stupid no brain cretins.

simple as that.

I dont like a lot of the preening ego overcompensating crap
of camp culture and I have no interest in what those gay blokes do in bed. [ and no respect for them taking over public toilets and parks after dark]

But i will stand beside them to fight evil stupid no brain homophobes.


if all us straight blokes are so afraid of being bummed..

how come anal is the most popular porn download ???

why do you fanticize sticking your cock
up a womens arse but so afraid of geting one up your own


what the fuck is wrong with modern culture. ??

as I sid I'm not particularly gay friendly,
but I am in no way homophobe.
I dont understand my gay friends desires or sex pracices.
But no f@ckin way will I stand aside to see them bullied by
half wit fuckin boot boy cretins.


I'm not making my best coherrent point herre
but I dont care , one of my old gay mates is like a brother
and even at my age if some dimwit thug picks on him
he gets a ferocious fight from me and all of our mates.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:56 PM

Sorry... that last one was from me :)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:53 PM

mauvepink; "To be honest I think that intravenous drug users, bisexuals and homosexuals, are probably more aware than most of the risks they take with dangerous practices."
THANK YOU, mp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's beyond belief that the ones in here don't agree with you!
Don't believe me??......just scroll back!
As far as I'm concerned, ALL promiscuity is also a 'dangerous practice', and a foolish, destructive one, at that!..Just ask the children of a home broken because of it. Just ask yourselves, of the time wasted in your lives, over coming it, or the 'No-Where Land' you ended up, pursuing it!!! ... THANK YOU< ONCE AGAIN, MP!!!

GfS post closed up togtehr by me and not how it was initially below...

BUT GfS... I have not seen anyone on here not going along with that. I think all have agreed that unsafe sex is dangerous and unwise. It is not being promiscuous per se. It is having unprotected sex. And no matter what sexuality you are it makes no difference.

Yes, of course, being in a stable monogamous relationship is safer (including gay monogamous relationships) but no-one can ever take the moral high ground as so many people get cheated on. So what I wrote cannot be taken in it's sole cpnext without the rest of what I posted... namely

Where the great damger lies is in the percentage of straight folks who still see HIV/AIDS as a gay disease or a disease of intravenous drugs users. So many think it cannot happen to them because they are straight. So many discount any chance of acquiring HIV/AIDS because they are not in a high risk group. In fact, they are! Anyone having unprotected sex is risking all sorts of things and until ALL people recognises that no-one is immune to this threat then the figures will continue to rise.

The sooner the myth of it being a gay disease is got rid of, and people who are not gay start thinking they are just as easily a target for the disease, then we may have a start in seeing a reduction in new infections.


We need to get away from the moral, holier than thou, blame culture. We need a concentrated effort from people of all sexualities and religious persuasions to try and end this threat. Blaming each other and arguments will get nowhere. Look at this thread? Name calling and people getting hurt. some almost having to win at all costs. Why? With HIV/AIDS there are no winners. We all lose. The sooner we stop getting at gay people because of HIV/AIDS the better.

Personally, my wish would be for all on this thread to kiss and make up. Get respect back for each other and put the bad bits behind us all. I know it's a dream because some would not and will not do that.]

There have been some hateful and hurtful things said. Shake hands, kiss, hug... do as you will. But can we end the arguments on what is a serious issue that potentially affects us all?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:13 PM

Ebbie, Do you think that society would have benefited, or not, if those people's genes were passed down?

Would you care?
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:51 PM

Trouble is Royston UNAIDS seems to be saying the policies you are advocating, tho well meant, dont appear to be working for homosexuals.
In fact they are saying these policies have failed and we need to try something different

"If we want to prevent
HIV infections, it is essential that more effective prevention efforts (which are inextricably linked
with treatment and care) among groups with higher prevalences be undertaken."

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:32 PM

I think society might have struggled on without several of that lot!

Rather over many media celebrities ancient and modern....dont you think   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:31 PM

Don F

I have been advocating greater universal education programs so that all people are reminded of the nature and risk of unsafe behaviour. I have advocated even greater targeted outreach and education amongst "at risk" groups and I have suggested that anyone who cares about alleviating this sphere of suffering ought to donate to an AIDS charity and/or lobby their MP for adequate public funding and effort.

Isn't that a start?

Trouble is that some folks are still trying to prove that one group has nothing whatever to worry about and another group are to blame for it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:21 PM

GfS, here is a partial list of notables who lived "as if homosexuality is an essential part of building a society. It's a dead end!"

You are right, of course. Every single one of these men is dead...

Zeno, Greek philosopher (500 B.C.)

Sophocles, Greek playwright (496?-406 B.C.)

Socrates, Greek philosopher (470?-399 B.C.)

Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384-322 B.C.)

Alexander the Great, Macedonian ruler (356-323 B.C.)

Emperor Hadrian, Roman ruler (76-138 A.D.)

Richard the Lion-Hearted, British ruler (1157-1199)

Richard II, British ruler (1367-1400)

Leonardo da Vinci, painter-scientist (1452-1519)

Benvenuto Cellini, Italian goldsmith (1500-1571)

Christopher Marlowe, British playwright (1564-1593)

King James I, British ruler (1566-1625)

John Milton, British poet (1608-1674)

Jean Baptiste Lully, French composer (1632-1687)

Frederick the Great, Prussian ruler (1712-1786)

King Gustav III, Swedish ruler (1746-1792)

Baron Alexander von Humboldt, German naturalist (1769-1859)

Lord Byron, British poet (1788-1824)

Hans Christian Andersen, Danish author (1805-1875)

Walt Whitman, American poet (1819-1892)

Samuel Butler, British author (1835-1902)

Algernon Swinburne, British poet (1837-1909)

Petr Ilich Tchaikovsky, Russian composer (1840-1893)

Paul Verlaine, French poet (1844-1896)

Oscar Wilde, Irish playwright (1854-1900)

Frederick Rolfe (Baron Corvo), British author (1860-1913)

Andre Gide, French author (1869-1951)

Marcel Proust, French author (1871-1922)

E. M. Forster, British author (1879-1970)

John Maynard Keynes, British economist (1883-1946)

Sir Harold Nicholson, British author-diplomat (1886-1968)

Capt. Ernst Roehm, German Nazi leader (1887-1934)

T. E. Lawrence, British soldier-author (1888-1935)

Jean Cocteau, French author (1889-1963)

Christopher Isherwood, British author (1904- )

Dag Hammarskjold, Swedish secretary-general U.N. (1905-1961)

W. H. Auden, British-American poet (1907- )

Jean Genet, French playwright (1909- )

Tennessee Williams, American playwright (1911- )

Brendan Behan, Irish author (1923-1964)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:46 PM

Keith - think about confidence limits in statistical analysis. You say the statistics show that the increase is not exponential but linear. I'm not sure so what, but why not check your assumption?

You are the man who professes such devotion to statistics that he comes to this thread and one other simply to ensure that statistics are not abused.

Well, tithe your God.

Or is there another purpose you serve?