Just for the benefit of anyone who is interested in the sexually transmitted disease angle:

Unprotected anal sex has a high likelihood of breaking tissue, resulting in blood contamination. Skin is pretty impervious but stretched foreskin can fe appoint of entry, ditto the internal tissue of the anus (hence the fast acting nature of suppository medicine.

Therefore, historically, gay men were amongst the first to suffer widespread HIV infection. However, (and the data behind this is UK based but according to The World Health Organisation is very typical in Western society,) since the mid 1990s, more women than ever have seen anal sex as fashionable, possibly through expectations of men with more access to pornography than ever, and this becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. Data from NHS hospitals through analysis of accident and emergency presentation and elective colo rectal treatment shows surgical intervention resulting from causes related to anal sex are predominantly women. In addition, meta analysis of lifestyle surveys concur...

Of all recipients of anal sex, women make up the majority.

Now to deal with occurrence of one of the more nasty sexually transmitted diseases, HIV. The last reporting year of The Health Protection Agency showed just over 6,000 new cases that were marked as male to male sex caused. Awful. (It was slightly less than that, poor coding by NHS trusts skew the figures, but bad anyway.) Not many in number nationwide, but still, far too many. In fact, they make up approximately half of all new cases. Public Health England, in guidance to commissioning of GU services pointed out the success rate in asking gay men to come forward to be tested and have challenged NHS providers to encourage the other risk groups, ie women and heterosexual men with promiscuous lifestyles and substance misuse drug takers to present for screening in the admirable way gay men do.

Incidentally, over forty million blood tests that can identify HIV, and six thousand (too many) positive from gay men. Statistically, that means over a million gay screens were negative, but if you are in hospital for an operation on your leg, your sexual life is not recorded, thankfully. The interesting statistic being the vast majority were from voluntary screening for that purpose rather than routine blood tests during other clinical interventions. By far the most responsible minded group in the high risk categories.



That is why these lies and false statistics are so damning. What is worse, a false politically minded interpretation is used by those who seek to demonise gay people, including many in the medical profession. A consultant in public health is shortly due in front of a fitness panel at The General Medical Council for using selective data and lecturing it in his mosque to make a false point. He has already been cautioned by his local police for inciting hate over the matter.

(Source - British Medical Journal.) if you don't cite, Keith A Hole of Hertford calls you a liar if his google doesn't work. He likes to support our resident bigot, on account of his religious and political stance.