BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:59 PM

Well MtheGM,

I understand that your memory may be as unreliable as your ability to comprehend numbers, but as long as you are entitled to use the word wanker unprovoked, you can expect to get a short sharp response.

The suddenness of your amusing little tantrum is only explained by your chivalrous loyalty to another mudcatter who also recently made a tit of themselves.

And as you have nothing either clever or interesting to say, you have decided transparently and ineffectually to bombard me with your own boring toothless tirade.


Keith.

"There was no "interpretation" selctive or otherwise. "

Not true.

You stated that the only thing to be inferred was that anal sex was high risk.

This was selective as you later admitted when you agreed that it went without saying that we could also infer from the available stats that vaginal sex is also high risk.

This was an admission you were only prepared to make under pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:11 PM

Keith,

Two paragraphs from your article:

"Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain [all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more efficient at spreading infection."

But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said. "The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?"

So, de Cock says that nobody fully understands HIV transmission factors but that sexual behaviour *certainly* doesn't explain it alone. So no point wagging fingers at people.

Sexual networks are more important - which is exactly what I have been repeatedly saying about ghetto-ised minority communities.

Doesn't matter which way you go with this, my statements are very well supported.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:13 PM

Keith, you take issue with Royston's suggestion: "But don't you think that all that education and training, effort, outreach, free condoms etc etc etc is the very reason that we haven't had the explosion here that occurred in Africa? but the link you provided says the same blessed thing: "Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries.(because) vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners."

Doesn't anybody read for comprehension anymore?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:22 PM

If my name was De Cock, I think I would choose another area in which to specialise.........

Lox - I said I appreciated the intentions behing some of the posts, but I am concerned that it was all getting a bit stalemate-y.

Paco, you are the kind of stunted goon who makes me luxuriate in my utter lack of normality. Homosex is even more fun than it would be already if it still winds up peabrains like you.

Happily, there are straight folks like MtheGM to remind me than idiocy and heterosexuality are not inevitably interconnected.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:41 PM

Lox, I was not being selective when I said I inferred anal sex was high risk.
I did not think it worth saying that vaginal sex was risky too, but not as risky.
I also gave a comparison of the two risks.

Royston, de Cock refutes your assertion that a heterosexual pandemic is imminent here or anywhere else outside Africa.

Lox, you were going to tell me about a Western country where heterosexuals are equally at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:53 PM

"Lox - I said I appreciated the intentions behing some of the posts, but I am concerned that it was all getting a bit stalemate-y."

"Happily, there are straight folks like MtheGM to remind me than idiocy and heterosexuality are not inevitably interconnected."


Well thanks for the appreciation - I think - but if you reread the post from MtheGM that you so heartily endorsed, you will note that a large proportion of it, and his subsequent posts are specifically aimed at unprovoked abuse.

So you can probably understand my reaction.

PS, while I have noted your appreciation, I would like to point out that I do not see myself as representing you or any other homosexual.

I represent myself and my principles.

Amongst the most important principles I represent is that which says that scapegoating of any sort by anyone is a dangerous game that should be stopped wherever it rears its ugly distorted hateful head.

Ake was spouting his crap about "liberals" long before I ever locked horns with him.

Since then, I have seen him blame "immigrants", "moslems", "tinkers" and "Gays" for the ills of the world, and pigeon hole those who disagree, or have a more thoughtful view, as "liberal fascists"

After giving him the benefit of the doubt time after time after time, and seeing him grow precisely nowhere, I began to realize that despite his mealy mouthed attempts to intellectualize his distrust of people different to himself, he was actually, in practice, saying the same thing as organizations like the BNP. He was just doing a better job of dressing it up as 'reasonable'.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:05 PM

Keith,

de Cock asserts that sexual behaviour (in the sense of sexual acts or particular sexualities) is not the driving force behind HIV transmission. So it is absurd to "blame" or "judge" any of the unfortunate people that acquire the disease.

So that supports my assertions.

He says that sexual networks [ghetto situations which concentrate the the carriers and transmission vectors together] are more important.

Which supports my assertions.

If the rich, educated, empowered West had not educated its rich, educated, empowered citizens to *choose* barrier contraceptives or other methods of mitigating transmission, then HIV would be more prevalent than it is. To deny that is just too stupid for words.

That the heterosexual UK acquired infection numbers are rising steadily, suggests that our advantage - as described by me and de Cock - may be a tenuous one.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1237970242135

Table A, top of page 6

Which supports my assertions.

Don't forget - this discussion is about the FACT that there is no justification (as Ake and GoofuS claimed) for denying the civil liberties of sections of populations in order to rid the world of HIV.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: mousethief
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:07 PM

GfS, if you could answer the questions I posed about 3 or 4 pages ago, I'd greatly appreciate it.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:46 PM

Once again, GoofuS is trying to claim that I said something that I did not say at all.

Regarding its statement about the non-existence of a gender-orientation determining gene, it says, "Even Firth's post, concluded that!" I did not conclude that at all!

I said that there was a general belief among geneticists and others that gender-orientation is genetic, even though the specific gene (or genes) has not YET been found.

Research continues, and one line of research is looking at the female side of the family with the idea that the crucial gene is carried by the woman. The gene would determine if the appropriated hormones are released at the appropriate time and in the appropriate amounts during the development of the fetus.

Another line of research has to do with "triggers." We all carry many more genes than are actually activated. Researchers have found what were hitherto unexplained segments of DNA, recently determined to be "triggers" that either activate certain genes or allow them to lie dormant. Not every gene has been identified as to what it does. Far from it!! Nor has it yet been determined which genes may have triggers to activate them, and which may not.

So trying to claim that gender-orientation is not determined genetically is equivalent to trying to claim that there is absolutely no life on Mars. Scientists are looking for it. There is every reason to believe that it is there. But because it has not YET been found does not mean that it will NOT be!

That's a whole lot different from saying that "even Firth's post concluded that!"

Since GfS's father "decided" he was gay, left GfS's mother and a brood of siblings behind, and went off with a male lover, GfS has been absolutely terrified of what his/her genes might do someday. S/he has a vested interest in refusing to believe that gender-orientation is determined by genetics.

Rest assured, GfS. If it hasn't kicked in by now, it probably won't.

Unless, of course, you are being bothered by strange urges that you find quite disturbing. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:51 PM

""In the Western world, unfairly, and for various reasons, it is unable to infect many heterosexuals."

This has been shown above not to be true in all western countries."
____

Let me rephrase.

It hasn't been shown anywhere to be "unable" to infect any homosexuals.

It has been shown to have a 1 in 10 chance of infecting heterosexuals.

Bear in mind that this includes men and women, and the chance of a woman being infected is higher than that of a man during heterosexual sex.

Which makes the chances of a woman contrating HIV during heterosexual sex much higher.


As for what you agreed, it was specifically that "vaginal sex is still very high risk, being "remarkably efficient"."

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:57 PM

Typo

"It hasn't been shown anywhere to be "unable" to infect any homosexuals."

should have read:

"It hasn't been shown anywhere to be "unable" to infect any heterosexuals."

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:12 PM

:0(   'As it gorn?? )0:

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:30 AM

Royston, from your link, page 6 table A
Heterosexual infection in UK annually up to 2009 (2009 figure expected to increase)

Adjusted*** 240 330 490 600 740 830 870 1000 1130 490
       Observed 228 314 380 467 569 646 648 655 635 217
It shows a very low number of heterosexual infections and an increase of only a hundred or so per year.
A very rare disease among British heterosexuals and no sign of it approaching problem in the gay community.

I am not blaming or judging.

Thank you for reminding me what this discussion is about, but i am not part of it.
I came in when you said things that I believed to be false or misleading, and a couple of googles confirmed it.

A quarter of a century ago everyone assumed that AIDS would be indiscriminate here as in Africa.
You still think that but the WHO now thinks that is not likely.

There is uncertainty about why.
You and the WHO both suggest what the factors are, but theirs list is quite different to yours.
I give WHO more credence than you.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:44 AM

No Keith,

25 years ago it was feared that HIV would be a problem that affected the world. It wasn't, at that time, a problem for us or for Africans on a huge scale.

Western governments decided to head it off at the pass by an enormous education drive and promotion of condom-use as a protection against infection.

African (poor) governments couldn't do this.

Result: Pretty good for us, Pretty bad for Africa.

The factors that have crippled Africa are:$

*Poverty / Lack of education, intimately associated with...
*Prostitution, leading to...
*High levels of ulcerative (tissue-damaging) STI's, which facilitate infection.
*Western Christian missionaries and local Catholic Church preaching against use of condoms.
*Closed, infection and risk-concentrating sexual social groups.

All of those (except the religion bit) are quoted by de Cock.

I have been making these points for the last couple of weeks before you unhelpfully interjected.

http://mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2816996
http://mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2815342
http://mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2809209
http://mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2809193

So while I appreciate that you went out to prove my poinst with expert commentary from the WHO, it was a bit of a diversion from the business of this discussion.

It is de Cock's opinion - not that of the WHO - that there was little point educating rich westerners about HIV. He is in a minority of health workers.

With UK-acquired heterosexual infection rates now 5 times each year what they were in 2000 and a tidal wave of teeanage pregnancies and STI's which indicate poor condom-use as well as being the known risk multiplier for HIV transmission, You and I are easily intelligent enough to form an opinion that might be different to de Cock's, aren't we?

Or maybe you are not. You do seem to just find stuff on the internet and then believe it and know it rather indiscriminately.

Anyway, seriously, if we are going to debate whether or not there is a straight HIV time-bomb in The West, we should start a new thread.

This discussion was about refuting the claim that gay men are uniquely prone to, and responsible for, HIV. We all agree (except Ake and GoofuS) that this is untrue. Whatever the European experience is, it is (as in Africa) a product of local sociological and epidemiological chance or misfortune. That's what I say, that's what Keith and the WHO say.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 06:22 AM

Sorry Royston, but you have got it all wrong again.
You say,"25 years ago it was feared that HIV would be a problem that affected the world. It wasn't, at that time, a problem for us or for Africans on a huge scale.
Western governments decided to head it off at the pass by an enormous education drive and promotion of condom-use as a protection against infection."

Well, Asia, China and Russia did not do that, and it did not happen there either.
Then again, you seem to be claiming that the programmes worked for straights only. As de Cock says, in the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is not declining and in some places has increased.
"It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously."

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:35 AM

For god''s sake, Keith, it''s like banging the head against a brick wall with you. OK, so nowhere has had an HIV pandemic like Afrca has, but a lot of the countries who have been in denial about the risks are starting to reap the whirlwind.

http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm

The situation in China is not as simple as you believe. There are reasons why, epidemiologically, China USED TO BE thought fairly free of HIV and there are reasons why that is changing.

Migrant workers, changing sexual networks, coupled with lack of education and poverty. China is belatedly embarking on large scale education and prevention measures.

http://www.avert.org/aids-asia.htm

Well bugger me - Keith''s wrong about Asia as well, where the disease is being fought off with some incredibly succesful and sophisticated education programs.

http://www.avert.org/aids-russia.htm

Well blow me sideways if Keith isn''t also totally wrong about Russia, which is now home to "The world''s fastest growing HIV epidemic"

And where the homosexual infection rate is 1% of the total - most of the cases being injecting drug users and heterosexual sex workers and their partners.

As I have been saying consistently, HIV affects people. Like all epidemics it hits and thrives in groups. In Africa it spreads through the straight population - for scientific reasons. In Russia it mainly afflicts straight sex workers and their punters and drug users - for scientific reasons. In the UK it is more prevalent among gay men - for scientific reasons. Globally, it is most prevalent among varieties of straight people - for scientific reasons.

It is largely about the accident of membership of the sexual or other - transmission network in which the disease breaks out. not some sort of qualitative or moralistic judgement about people themselves.

Education and prevention is the key to beating it. Oviously straight people in this country need more education because the rate at which they are contracting HIV - here or elsewhere - is outstripping all other groups. And Keith wants to stop educating about the dangers, and thinks that all the education that has been done was of no use? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:10 AM

To add to my last post, the common view on various websites that I have visited since I last added to this thread is that women are more than twice as susceptible to HIV transmission as men during unprotected heterosexual sex.

So for an average of 1 chance in 10 to be achieved, it follows that women have somewhere between a 1 in 7 and a 1 in 6 chance, ccompared to around a 1 in 14 to 1 in 16 chance in men.

This means that gay men, who have a 1 in 3 chance of being infected during unprotected sex, are not anything like 50 times more likely to catch Aids from unprotected sex than women, but in fact just over twice as likely.

So not only are the arguments against the "homosexual lifestyle" flawed, but on analyisis, the statistical assertions about the risks faced by homosexuals are incorrect too.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:16 AM

so whats up in Uganda? Are the gay prisons filling up?
Are they going with lethal injection or hanging?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 10:21 AM

They're letting GfS decide when s/he lands in Kampala.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:04 AM

LOL @ Smedley. Yes, like some avenging angel in a gingham pinafore and bonnet with a brace of heavily-armed babies hanging off each breast, waving a rolling pin in one hand and a cattle-prod in the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:04 PM

And if GfS is indeed male, that's an even more compelling image.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:44 PM

Royston, you are pretending to believe that I meant AIDS did not reach Asia, China and Russia.
You know that I meant it did not spread into the straight community as it did in Africa, even without the government programmes that you claim is all that spared straights in the West.
You selected the statistic of only 1% of infections being gay in Russia. Read a little further and you find,

Official figures show that men who have sex with men (MSM) are a relatively small proportion of total HIV cases in the region in comparison to Western European and North American nations. Unprotected male-to-male sex accounted for less than 1% of newly registered cases in Russia in 2006,

However, it is believed that the epidemic is thriving among this group but is being kept hidden and underreported due to a reluctance by MSM to reveal the cause of their infection for fear of stigmatisation|

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:46 PM

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:52 PM

Dr De Cock said: "I think it is unlikely there will be extensive heterosexual spread in Russia

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:56 PM

The problem of HIV in China is difficult to ascertain because of government censorship there. A documentary film-maker was jailed after making a film which highlighted a particularly awful case in one city where HIV-infected blood was given to transfusion patients in hospital.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 02:10 PM

yes Keith, and while you fantasises about fellating de Cock and all the other so called experts you worship because the say what you like to hear, remember that in spite of what he and you say, Russia for instance is having the fastest growing heterosexual HIV epidemic of anywhere earth and the only reason gay cases are under-reported is because of stigma and bigotry.

So do you still think the great Cock is right not to advocate education and intervention in ,say, Russia. What, should they wait until it reaches african proportions?

And I take it then that you do regard yourself as having insufficient intellect as to to be able to apply independent thought and discrimination to these debates.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 02:35 PM

the only reason gay cases are under-reported is because of stigma and bigotry

We know this how?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 02:56 PM

Mousethief,

I only mentioned it because Avert believe it to be true and so does Keith. It is one point of contention fewer.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:06 PM

Wouldn't it become obvious when they turn up in hospital with Kaposi's Sarcoma or PCP? Or I guess they could brave it out there and say they got it from heterosexual exposure. I can see the theoretical danger that men wouldn't admit, even on the steps of the hospital with an AIDS diagnosis in hand (no pun intended) (okay pun intended), what their orientation was. But at that point, in a third-world country (well, 2.7th world country), you're down for the count anyway, so what would concealing it get you?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:17 PM

You are an arrogant, egotistical, fool Royston
I do not believe that I have innate wisdom and knowledge.
I do not have fixed, dogmatic ideologies locked in my head.
I go seeking for knowledge and truth.
De Cock was not speaking for himself.
He was speaking, on the record, for and on behalf of The World Health Organisation, in his position as its Head of the Department for HIV/AIDS.
And he contradicts some of your mantras.
Most people would modify their position and take a fresh view.
You just bad mouth the leading expert in the whole world on the subject we are discussing, and shout even louder.
Look.
Even the pieces you link to do not support you.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:26 PM

Mousethief, you asked how we know about the under reporting of gay infection in Russia.
I first learned of it on the site if the international AIDS charity that Royston linked us to.
The source they give is
UNAIDS (2009, January), 'Hidden HIV epidemic amongst MSM in Eastern Europe and Central Asia'

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:30 PM

Royston,
So do you still think the great Cock is right not to advocate education and intervention in ,say, Russia. What, should they wait until it reaches african proportions?

He advocates intervention with the groups at risk rather than wasting limited resources on people not at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:39 PM

Yes Keith, that is exactly what happened in Cuba, and they have one of the very lowest infection rates in the world.

Everyone here should be in agreement that money and resources should be concentrated on "high risk" groups (introvenous drug abusers, male homosexuals, sex workers, immigrants from Africa and Eastern Europe.

THAT IS, IF WE REALLY CARE FOR THEIR WELLBEING!!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:45 PM

ake, you have taken so many sides on the issue of homosexuality that you make my head spin.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:50 PM

Of course the "liberals" want neither Male Homosexuals or Immigrants designated as "At risk" or "Special cases" due to the political problems it would cause them, vis a vis "gay marriage" and immigration control.....fucking hypocrits!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:53 PM

I just knew I could make your head (((spin))) Ebbs!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 06:02 PM

My head and stomach would feel better, ake, if you went back and stuck to your original reasoning. Not that I expect it.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 06:12 PM

Ebbie,

Ake has had every argument he has advanced demolished, with the result that the only thing left for him to do is pretend that all he ever wanted really was to ensure that greater resources were allocated to high risk groups.

I suppose it does indicate a change of sorts, but I wouldn't get over confident.

He has yet to retract any of his previous homophobic bile.

Besides, his comment concerning "fucking hypocrits!" indicates a deeply ironic sense of denial.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 06:14 PM

Ake, you have a totally bass-ackwards and upside-down idea of what liberals are all about regarding this issue.

And once again, you advocate against one of the major things that would mitigate against promiscuity among gays and reduce the spread of HIV.

"Fucking hypocrite" yourself!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 06:45 PM

Smeddum Ebbie!   Smeddum!

What you see as different stances are all linked by reason.
"Know your adversary and always keep one move ahead"


Don.....How many times? The figures say Male homosexuals are un interested in marriage other than for legal or insurance reasons.
(very poor take up rate).

They also see sexual faithfulness as unimportant, talking of "emotional committment" in one of the links above.
Whether you like to admit it of not sexual promiscuity is a very large part of homosexual behaviour....with of course a few suburban exceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:00 PM

Perhaps that holds true in your little hamlet out on the moors, Ake, but it's not the way it is here in the United States. Most of the gay men I know—and know of—are in monogamous, stable relationships, whether the law recognizes them or not. And those who are working hardest for legal recognition of gay marriage are gays themselves, not just a bunch of "liberals" trying to tell them how they should live.

You are the one who wants to deny them that option. And who in the hell are you to tell them how they can and can't live?

How do you account for the fact that some 18,000 gay couples got married in California during the very short period between the enactment of the law that made gay marriage legal and the passage of the out-of-state religious fundamentalist funded Proposition 8, rescinding the law?

Your information is totally bogus, Ake.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:47 PM

The story so far.

We know that 95% of homosexual men do not suffer HIV.

We know that the risk of contracting HIV via unprotected anal sex is around twice as high as that of a woman contracting HIV through unprotected vaginal sex.

We know that 50% of AIDS sufferers worldwide are women.


To conclude from this information that homosexuality is unhealthy whilst other sexual behaviours are somehow safe by comparison is nonsense.


Ake has pointed out that proportionately, there are more gay sufferers of HIV in europe than there are straight sufferers of HIV.

This is an interesting phenomenon, but it does not lead to any conclusion that homosexuality is unhealthy.

If we must have that view, then to be consistent we must also conclude that heterosexual sex for women is unhealthy as the risk of contracting HIV is only half that of Gay men, and half of HIV sufferers globally are women.

In fact, it remains true that sex without responsibly taken precautions is a health risk, regardless of ones sexual orientation.


The notion that homosexuals are 50 times more likely to be infected is a fallacy based on misunderstanding of what the stats show.


The likelihood of catching HIV via unprotected anal sex with someone who is HIV positive is 1 in 3.

The likelihood of women catching HIV via unprotected vaginal sex with someone who is HIV positive is between 1 in 6 and 1 in 7.

i.e. approximately 2 times more likely - a long way from 50!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Wesley S
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:59 PM

Jeez - Are you guys still going at this??? Anyone changed their mind about the issues yet?

I thought not. So y'all just like flappin' your gums?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:31 PM

Ake - sorry, but I must reiterate that, exceptional from the norm as you may think them, many of my dearest friends are NOT 'a few suburban exceptions'. They strike me as more & more typical of an important segment of the homosexual community. Looking back, so many of the gays I have known thruout my life have been in stable quasi-marriage relationships, even before the post-1960s post-Wolfenden decriminalisation, let alone the present 'Civil Partnership' arrangements which so many have embraced enthusiastically — more, perhaps, than the present lot of young straights seem to embrace marriage rather than 'partnership' these days: which has led, note, to all sorts of complications in legal situations re rights of property and inheritance, leading in turn to the present agonisings of Cameron et al, & the revival of the non-concept of 'commom-law' marriage in a different form so that many have no idea where they are legally at all:··· an unfortunate complication which, paradoxically & adventitiously, more & more gays seem to be avoiding here in UK.

& this is not entirely drift from the main point, because this increasing number of monogamous gay relationships (I have, as you will have gathered, many gay acquaintance in long-term relationships & can think of not one such couple who have not chosen to get Civil Partnered since they could — & not only, I am sure, for preperty/inheritance convenience, but for emotional & confirmatory motives) is going to militate against the tradition of promiscuity which seems to worry you so much in the context of this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 11:13 PM

Jeez - Are you guys still going at this??? Anyone changed their mind about the issues yet?

I thought not. So y'all just like flappin' your gums?

I've learned quite a bit. What is your complaint here, if not flappin' yer gums?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 12:32 AM

Here's the short version: Pregnant mother's resentment towards dad, or men, sets up male child's receptors. Child born, has predisposition to 'make dad happy', and or get his approval, which mom couldn't, or can't. Dad doesn't see it..child is frustrated in his efforts. Resents dad..carries it on for years, while emotionally stuck. Time goes on, child approaches puberty, also finds other male 'heroes' to look up to, other than dad. Child experiments with others of same sex..likes it, does not feel need to reach across the genders to the other sex...thinks he was this way since birth...and unfortunately, because of his resentments the gene pool is 'robbed' of the sensitive traits, artistic, creative, and other valued attributes, within him. He does not develop his 'pair-bonding' abilities with women, does not pro-create, yet is promiscuous, because it is, after all, about sex. Anyone can develop close relationships with others of the opposite or same sex, without having to have sex, with that person.

Also, they can't understand why developing pair-bonding skills, for the purpose of procreation even matters, and even resents those who do!

Don't believe me??? Go hug your fathers, tell him you love him, and thank him, for not having you aborted!

Also, go back and read the thread over, and look at the remarks made by the homosexuals, in regards to this, and it is self proving!!!

Go ahead, love dad...
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:16 AM

Lox, your logic is flawed.
Globally, 50% victims are women, but most of those are in Africa where special conditions apply. The figure is completely irrelevant in the developed world.
Even if your figures for female risk from vaginal sex were correct, unless she is having sex with a bisexual or an african she is at extremely low risk of infection.
There is no need to calculate risk from transmissability statistics.
There is ample empirical evidence to calculate risk from actual successful infections.
That is what Aids campaigner Ford Hickson has done in this BBC article.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3856963.stm

This means gay men are about 90 times more likely to be living with HIV than other people.

Similarly, although African people account for about 1% of the population in Britain, 33% of the people living with HIV are African.

This means African people in Britain are about 50 times more likely to be living with HIV than other ethnic groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:42 AM

GfS, thanks for the crisp and purposeful summary.

If anyone has to do a college essay on the topic of 'Prevailing Psychiatric Assumptions Towards Homosexuality in the Early 1960s', you now have an excellent source.

I loved my Dad, by the way, he loved me and he couldn't have been kinder & more supportive to myself and my partner.

Sorry that real life, in all its infuriating messy comlexity, still keeps getting the way of your attempts to build rigis theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:50 AM

Well done, Keith. You've just brought the whole thing back to where it was a few days ago, but that was probably what you intended.

The point about the 50 times, 90 time, 100 times is...what is your bloody point? It was being advanced by others as a reason to remove the civil or human rights of groups of people because of what was argued to be their *natural* susceptibility to - if not blame for - HIV. In the context of this discussion, what is your point? State it.

Don't keep coming here and throwing in more or less true or untrue *facts* without having a point relevant to the topic.

The UK does not have yet, thank goodness - and let's hope it stays that way - an epidemic on th scale of Africa. It does not even have an epidemic amongst at risk groups (MSM, IV drugs-users, prostitutes). From 1985 onwards, all UK citizens were educated about the risks of HIV.

Keith, do you seriously imagine that the universal HIV education program had NO EFFECT AT ALL? You really, really can't be that stupid. The point about universal education is that you reach most everyone - the at risk and the not at risk - at some level. It really helps.

In Russia there was no universal education about HIV and they have the fastest growing HIV epidemic of anywhere in the world, Africa included. And you really, really see no link whatever?

Even if an expert suspected that there were other reasons, it would still be the work of a complete fool to stop universal education of the risks...

...Particularly in Britain where the fastest growing group of HIV carriers (doesn't matter where they got it or what colour they are) are heterosexual people. They're here, they're having sex, maybe with one of your kids one day soon.

Keith, I know that you are not that stupid.

Now on the subject of targeting resources at the at risk groups, I explained days ago that there are literally hundreds of specialist outreach groups working with sex workers, in gay venues and communities, in ethnic and religious minorities. They are funded by government and charitably. Most are initiatives led by the very ethnic or other communities affected.

To mention but a few:

www.gmfa.org.uk (gay men fighting AIDS)

www.tht.org.uk (Terence Higgins Trust)

www.naz.org.uk (NAZ Project - outreach to black and minority ethnic groups)

Needle exchange for drug-users - so simple it never needed a website

So you see in countries that do (like us) throw resources at the at risk groups as well as some universal education, we do very well at controlling the disease.

de Cock is right to argue for more focused targeting of at risk groups. More power to his elbow.

But to say - as you appear to Keith - that the universal education pograms were/are pointless and unhelpful is just absurd, Utterly absurd. When I read again de Cock's comments it doesn't even seem that he really advocates that.

So Ake, no *liberal* ever wanted to deny proper support and care-services to minorities - that was your position, one which you have thankfully reversed.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 07:20 AM

"The point about the 50 times, 90 time, 100 times is?"

Ask Lox. I was replying to his post on that issue.


"Keith, do you seriously imagine that the universal HIV education program had NO EFFECT AT ALL?"

I am sure it did ,but is quite reasonable to suppose that a more focussed programme might have done more good.
(At one point you claimed it responsible for the epidemic not hitting the straight community but did not explain why it did not save gay men.)