"Would you agree that male homosexuals are massively over represented in the official HIV figures and if so, why?"

Yes, Ake, I would agree with the statement.

As to the "why," homosexuals are not allowed to form legally and socially recognized stable relationships. If they were, there would be a measure of social pressure to form such relationships, the same as heterosexual couples with the concomitant social pressure against promiscuous behavior.

That is the fundamental contradiction in your position. Decrying the amount of HIV infections among homosexual men, you would deny them a legal and social means of mitigating the situation.

I don't think it is because you can't see this, it is because you refuse to see this. And this raises questions about why you refuse to see the obvious.

I have mentioned the church that I sometimes go to. It not only accepts same-sex oriented people, but it has performed a number of same-sex marriages, and whether state law recognizes them or not, this church—and its congregation—does.

There was a lot of discussion of this issue a couple of decades ago, and we were warned that the congregation would deminish to a very few people. It didn't happen. I think we lost a total of three members. Out of a congregation of--what?-about two hundred and fifty or so.

By the way, this has NOT become a "gay church." It is a main line denomination. Lutheran. The number of same-sex oriented people in this church reflects the demographics of the community at large.

The first same-sex marriage ceremony was performed nearly twenty years ago, and ALL of the couples are still together, and NONE of them have contracted HIV/AIDs.

As to the "marriage is for procreation" argument, two of these same-sex married couples have children.

One of the couples adopted two boys from a Chinese orphanage. Believe me, these kids are having—and will continue to have—a far better life than they would have had if they had been left were they were. And they are healthy, happy kids. One of them is an acolyte in the church and the other is a bit young for duties like that yet.

There are a fair number of kids out there who are wards of the state or who languish in orphanages who would be far batter off in circumstances like these two lads have.

Another couple decided they wanted to have children that were biologically their own. They contracted the services of a "surrogate mother." Fertilization by artificial insemination. The first man had a baby boy. Then the same surrogate mother (they wanted the children to be, at least, half-siblings) was artificially inseminated by the second man.

BAM! TRIPLETS!!

It's a real snort to see these kids in church on Sundays.

As to the matter of feminine influence on the boys, all of the men involved have sisters and various female friends who dote on the lads, so the boys are not in any way deprived in that department.

And as to the knee-jerk charge about the dangers of pedophilia, no way in hell! These men regard these youngsters as their children and themselves as fathers. And the youngsters themselves see nothing particularly unusual in their families and are obviously healthy and happy.

By the way, there are at least five main line churches (denominations that have been around for centuries) that I know of in this area that recognize same-sex marriages and conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples, whether, as I said, state law recognizes them as valid or not.

[Let them choke on that at the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference!]

It is in the state's recognition: community property laws, inheritance laws, and things like hospital visitation rights where legal recognition becomes important. THIS is the nucleus of the civil rights issue.

No, Ake. Your objections don't wash. And although I tend to think you are a pretty intelligent guy, that you don't seem to be able to grasp THIS really makes me wonder why.

I have some theories, which I'm quite sure you don't want to hear.

Don Firth