Just to clarify, the post that Ebbie cited from 2004.

Cruiser says the answer is to turn away and let the homosexuals get on with their lives,but unfortunatly this is getting harder and harder to achieve, as "gay culture " ouzes from every media orifice,
with all its nasty innuendo,like little boys behind the bike shed
and god help anyone who tries to stop them....Ake
PS At least folk music seems to be pretty clear of this scourge.
Just shows what well adjusted ,sensible hetros we are!

It should be obvious that I was referring to the promotion of homosexuality in the media as a scourge in this particular instance.

I did then and still do view homosexual practice based on the latest health figures as unsafe and dangerous...if you wish to catagorise this as a "scourge", feel free....I wounld not.

I do not see Homosexuality as a "disease", more as a state of mind, like bi polar disorder or a form of depression. I base this opinion on psychiatric statistics and personal observation.

In common with the vast majority of heteros, I find homosexual practice repugnant....perhaps homos feel the same way about hetero sex?

I do not agree that in general terms homosexuals can be changed, or even that it would be a good thing, but that does not mean that we should endorse a lifestyle which is so very obviously hazardous.

Right from the start my stance has been on the health figures for homosexuals, why are they so bad? and while they continue to be so bad why are we allowing homosexuality to be looked upon as "just another lifestyle" and absorbed into mainstream society?.The entertainment media contains large numbers of homosexuals, they are certainly over represented and as such are in a prime position to effect the public perception.....the health figures are never presented to the public.
I had no idea they were so bad, untill I started doing some research for these threads.

Royston I think you see my point very well Universal testing and contact tracing would be incredibly expensive and a waste of time and money as such a small percentage of heteros are infected.

To be effecatious, the treatment would have to be targeted on "high risk groups" and would have to be "aggresive" (code for compulsory) as the scientist said. The word "aggressive" or similar was also used in the UNAIDS conclusions further up the thread.

My other point was that the press had no hesitation in naming intravenous drug users in their article, yet the highest by far demographic,Male homosexuals, was classified as "other marginalised groups" Bringing homosexuals into the mainstream, as has been happening over the last few years, has certainly not improved their promiscuity or health statistics!!

So much for the benefits of de-marginalisation!