BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:52 PM

Do you still deny, all other factors being equal, that the larger the number of infected people in a sexual network - wherever and however they became infected - the greater is the risk of any one uninfected person becoming infected.?

This is why HIV affects gay men, prostitutes and junkies - small sexual networks. It only takes a small number, or one, infected person to spark an epidemic.

People who were infected in Africa and moved here and then were diagnosed have been the factor increasing dramatically the number of straight people living with HIV in this country. That has increased the risk for the straight population - more carriers in their pool.

Then you have a 500% increase in UK-acquired infections. It is reasonable to hypothesise that the former could be responsible for the latter. If true, the problem will get steadily worse. It is a real risk that must be confronted, not dismissed so that "normal white folk" are falsely reassured.

It's what I said when I came into this debate in early January, it's what your de Cock said - but not explicitly - when he quoted sexual networks as the most significant factor driving the spread of the disease.

Do you really not get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 12:44 PM

No, Keith, the 500% increase in heterosexually, UK-acquired cases stands as a cause for concern. That the infections were contracted by straight people living and shagging in this country makes the colour of their skin pointless. They are members of our general population and only a mad racist fantasist would think that this is of no significance to all members of the general population.

But this, and many other observations, have been to make ethical points. That we can't and shouldn't throw blame at any one or any group and that we need to educate all our citizens - particularly the at risk groups - about the dangers of HIV and how to prevent its transmission. The other ethical point is that stigmatisation of HIV status, and of people at risk, hampers efforts to combat the spread of the disease, so society needs to be more open, embracing of diversity and progressive.

You have been denying, or refusing to accept, those ethical points and the fact that you feel it so essential, while not engaging on the issues, to keep twisting and turning the truth so as to appear to remove support for those points, is the reason that I - and many others - suspect and accuse you of being a racist and homophobic and generally right wing sort.

I though that once Ake disproved his own arguments, and then you provided evidence that assuaged your doubts about my assertions (My point 5 of a week or so ago), that you would both stop this nonsense. But you're still at it and Ake has, I suspect, only gone quiet temporarily.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 11:39 AM

OK Royston, now I have posted about both.
I thought I had already, in linking to the sites.
I only provided a few extracts.

Your assertion all along that AIDS was spreading in the general population, was false.
It is still confined almost entirely to MSMs and African people.

You have been calling honest contributors liars and cheats for daring to disagree with you, and all the time they were right and you were wrong.

I expect you would now like to say something to the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 10:22 AM

Guest-from-pious-judgementalism: You are absolutely right about Don Firth's irresponsibility as a parent. When his former girlfriend announced that she was pregnant, but did not intend to marry him, he should have locked her in a closet to be certain she did not escape with the child. After the birth, he would have had at least two alternatives: he could have kept her in the closet, or murdered her and concealed the body, to be sure she didn't remove the child from under his caring wing.

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

Keith: Not true Royston.

Piss off, what you posted at 04:09 DID NOT talk about UK-acquired infections.

What you posted at 09:38 did.

And isn't it amazing how, when you are forced to tell the truth, or something approacing the truth, it all ends up agreeing with the important issues as I framed them and as I argued them

Namely that if you stop dismssing this demogpraphic, and that demographic, and another demographic, it all comes down to education and socially progressive campaigns and attitudes.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 10:03 AM

No Don, it does not mean that the pool is widening and deepening.
The terms "Gay Plague" and "Black Plague" are not helpful and I would never use them.
Royston is the only person who has.
But, it is true to say, without apportioning any blame, that AIDS is a disease that after 40 years has not significantly affected any group except men who have sex with men, people born in Africa, and a few needle sharers.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:57 AM

""Lox, your dogleg represents the establishment, mostly in London, of communities of people of African origin.
The rise in heterosexual infections is almost wholly confined to that single high risk group.""

Really Keith, are you naturally dim, or did you have to train.

UK acquired infections have risen by 500%.

Whether the recipients are of British or African descent is a red herring.

The operative phrase here, is "UK acquired infections".

It matters not one jot if they be black, white, or pink with purple spots. The important thing is that they became infected in the UK, and that means the pool is widening and deepening, which knocks the linear argument into a cocked hat.

Even that is not the important point here.

The bottom line is that, unless we stop thinking of HIV/AIDS as a homosexual problem, and recognise that it is not a matter of gender orientation, but rather of unsafe sexual practises, then the heterosexual aspect will eventually assume African proportions.

This would be a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude.

Just consider the close proximity of life in our towns and cities, and compare it to the much more thinly spread population of the African continent. Any serious increase in the UK transmission pool would vastly increase the potential for epidemic.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:38 AM

Not true Royston.

evidence from service providers and surveillance indicates that new adult infections are occurring
as a result of exposure in the UK.
A number of studies point to the widespread unmet need for basic information regarding HIV
transmission, testing and treatment. In particular, cultural practices that place some Africans at particular
risk of transmitting or acquiring HIV requires specific, culturally competent attention. Examples
include: perceptions of condoms, polygamy, meanings attached to sexual behaviours, reproduction,
breast-feeding and secrecy and taboos regarding sex and relationships.
The overall goal of HIV prevention for African communities is to:
• reduce the acquisition and transmission of HIV infection in African people living in England.
• The specific prevention aims are to:
– reduce the sexual transmission of HIV infection among Africans and their partners;
– reduce the vertical transmission of HIV from a mother to her baby;
– reduce the prevalence of undiagnosed HIV in Africans living in England;
– reduce the stigma associated with HIV;

Chapter 4 describes sexual risk and precaution
behaviours. Overall, three quarters of all
respondents were sexually active in the last year.
More than half had a regular sexual partner, which
was more common among men than in women.
One-in-four of those with regular partners said they
had other sexual relationships outside the regular
relationship, again more common in men than
women.
One-in-ten who said they had sex in the last year
reported definitely or probably having sexual
intercourse without a condom with someone of a
different HIV status to themselves (sdUI). The risk
of sdUI increased with larger numbers of sexual
partners.
• Interventions to reduce potentially serodiscordant
unprotected intercourse should
target those in multiple sexual relationships,
particularly men.
Individuals who reported having sex with both
men and women were more likely to have multiple
sexual partners than those who reported sex with
opposite sex or same sex partners only.
A quarter of respondents who had sex in the last
year had not used condoms at all in that time.
Those with fewer sexual partners, and those in a
regular sexual relationship were less likely to use
condoms. Condom use was more common in men
than in women, and mostly reported by those
aged between 20-39 years. Among those who used
condoms, a third had experienced condom failure
in the last year.
• High levels of condom failure may be detracting
from their use. Interventions to increase the use
of condoms should include elements to ensure
minimum condom failure.
Chapter 5 considers HIV prevention need and
demonstrates that general knowledge about the
basics of HIV was fairly high, although many people
perceived the need to know more.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 09:17 AM

Keith,

You really need to read what you post.

What you posted does not talk about UK-acquired infections. It talks only about UK diganoses it includes all the overseas (mainly Africa) acquired cases.

Now, when it suited you, we were told to remove African HIV cases and concentrate on British HIV cases. That was when you were telling us that HIV was a gay problem. Or a black problem. Not a British problem. But now we have to add the African cases back in...to prove what? What is your point?

And you still expect to be treated with respect? Or taken seriously?

Come off it!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 05:55 AM

I am still talking about UK acquired infections.
Within their communities, the high infection rates found in Africa are happening here. As the Health Department piece I linked to says,

HIV and AIDS have disproportionately affected African communities in England. After gay men they
are the largest group affected by HIV and since 1999 new diagnoses in Africans have overtaken new
diagnoses in other groups.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 05:49 AM

And to prove the futility of debating statistics alone, you still can't even get your sacred facts straight.

We were talking about UK-acquired infections.

The figures you quote are for all diagnoses.

Now just take your numbers and shove 'em somewhere.

What is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 05:18 AM

fascinating, Keith. Now what does tell you? What does it lead you to think should be done to prevent HIV spread amongst the general population, or any part thereof? Given that the virus doesn't discriminate on grounds of skin colour, What is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 04:09 AM

Not everyone is driven by their ideological agendas Royston.
I am just trying to establish the facts.
I am sorry if the facts are not to your liking.

This may help your research.
Africans in the UK are diagnosed with HIV at a far higher rate than other ethnic groups, having comparable number of diagnoses to white people, despite being a far smaller percentage of the overall population.http://www.avert.org/uk-statistics.htm

Black African men and women accounted for 70% of the total diagnosed
infections in heterosexuals and 51% of the undiagnosed infections.
3.6 HIV prevalence among African-born women giving birth in 2002 was 2.47%, up from 1.5% in 1997.
By contrast, the prevalence in UK-born women was 0.03% in 2002 and was unchanged from 1997.
3.7 Between 1997 and 2003, there was a 351% increase in patients seen for care in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland who had been infected heterosexually. Within this sub-group, the largest increase has
been in Black African patients. Of the 15,726 heterosexual men and women seen for care in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland in 2003 for whom ethnicity was reported, 70% (11068) were Black African,
19% (3009) were white and 4% (657) Black Caribbean. Africans feature in all the main transmission
routes for HIV, but most cases of HIV diagnosed in the UK were reported as heterosexually acquired.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/dr_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4099052.pdf

Overall, three quarters of all respondents were sexually active in the last year. More than half had a
regular sexual partner, which was more common in men than in women. One-in-four of the people
with regular partners said they had other sexual relationships outside the regular relationship, again
more common in men than women.
In addition, one-in-ten who said they had sex in the last year reported definitely or probably having
sexual intercourse without a condom with someone of a different HIV status to themselves (sdUI).
The risk of sdUI increased with larger numbers of sexual partners. Individuals who reported having
sex with both men and women were more likely to have multiple sexual partners than those who
reported sex with opposite sex or same sex partners only.
• Interventions to reduce potentially sero-discordant unprotected intercourse should target
those in multiple sexual relationships, particularly men.
A quarter of all respondents who said they had sex in the last year never used condoms. Those with
fewer sexual partners, and in a regular sexual relationship (especially a monogamous relationship)
were less likely to use condoms. Condom use was more common in men than in women, and mostly
reported by those aged between twenty and thirty nine years. Among those who used condoms, a
third experienced condom failure.
• Current levels of condom failure seem very high and may be detracting from their use.
Interventions to increase the use of condoms should always include elements to ensure
minimum condom failure.
http://www.nahip.org.uk/downloads/477.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 03:33 AM

You might be right, Keith, I didn't check to begin with and I don't intend to start indulging your racist ideas now. I told you from the start exactly what I thought of you and your racist and homophobic agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 02:42 AM

Don Facade: "You have said repeatedly that, instead of being allowed to marry, they should be compelled to seek counseling."

Again you're lying intentionally, to mislead others into a hostility,..to hide the FACT that you, argued for two threads, quite a few posts, that homosexuals could not opt out. That is a blatant lie..being as later you admitted to knowing of two. Sounds like you have a 'hidden agenda'...hmm...wonder what that can be....


P. S. Now, GfS, I can understand that since your father sired a batch of kids, including you, then "decided" he was gay and left your mother and you kids to go off with a male lover, ..blah blah blah, more lies!

My Father died at 60, due to a stroke. He was married once, to my mother, who is still alive, and she never re-married.
You just make shit up..as you have all through these threads. You've twisted quotes, and responded to the twists that you make up....now just what is it, that you are trying to hide???

In an Francisco, a city government employee can get a trans gender operation, at taxpayer expense, which happens to come with a considerable amount of counseling..and BTW, without that counseling, you cannot get that operation.....HOWEVER, you seem to object, for a homosexual receiving counseling, to be straight, IF they want to...sorta' funny reckoning of equality, wouldn't you say??..just what is it that you're hiding?????

Both Smedley and Royston, had the balls to make a correction, when they discovered that they made a mistake..but you can't, even when your own posts are contradicted by, none other, than you!..Now just what is it, you're trying to hide??...maybe even hide from yourself?
By the way, I respected both of them for that...even in light of the stirring up of hostilities, that you've managed to try to whoop up.

What is it that you're trying to keep people distracted from??

Let me see, you are all for homosexuals raising children, by adoption, but get greatly distressed when natural heterosexuals, point out some of the joys of having and raising their own children, and wanting to protect them from bullshit political left wing crap...Am I seeing a pattern here??

Oh..oh yes, then you wish to insult me, by taking your best shot(?), by making up that my Father was a homosexual who left my mother...PURE BULLSHIT!

I think what is closer to the truth, is the reason you think that should 'get my goat'(which it doesn't, because is so left field), is that you're the one who has issues with homosexuals! To you, your 'insult' was a wild shot, at likening my Dad, to something YOU find less or it wouldn't be an 'insult', would it????

It appears that you 'approve' of homosexuals raising kids, but don't approve of homosexuals, leaving homosexuality, to have heterosexual relationships, and children of their own.

It is now becoming pretty obvious why.
Given your past, of having a child, and NOT staying around to raise him, for whatever bullshit reason you rationalize away, you don't want a homosexual to be able to do that...because that would make him, a better man than you!...and after all, YOU'RE the one who looks down on homosexuals...or why would you have thrown such a stupid accusation at me, using homosexuality as the object of lowness?? You, yourself said, in an earlier post, that 'civil rights' were aimed at helping the 'weakest' people. I think you're tipping your view, just to launder the FACT, that, as a 'father' you were nothing more than a self absorbed, ego gratifying, womanizing ball less opportunist. I mean, to say...that's exactly how you described yourself, and how you conduct yourself on here....not to mention, that you've lied through your teeth....REPEATEDLY....and play the piper, to those who you consider 'weak'(your words).

If I were one of the homosexuals on here, I'd hop aboard the 'clue train' and see you for what you are. Not only that, I'd be pissed, that your try to DENY them counseling, for whatever reason they'd wish to seek it!

I guess it's how you get your sense of self importance..I mean to say, if a person goes to a church, as you've said, and doesn't even believe it, then the only reason you're going is to placate your wife, and being as your track record is that of a ball-less meep, who can't stand up to, or assume a responsibility to a woman that you've impregnated...God only knows what other sorts of insecurities you have!...Oh, 'Mister 'Civil Rights' agitator!

Most Sincerely,
GfS

P.S. Don't even respond!..You've got a lot of self reflecting to do, before you start a new thread of lying to your audience!...to gain a sense of power.....Ball-less meeps do that! Save what dignity you fantasize that you have.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 01:48 AM

Royston, I expected the knee jerk abuse, as vile and hysterical as ever, but I also expected you to demand that I justify my assertion that the rise in heterosexual infection here is almost wholly confined to the new African communities.
I thought that you did not trust me.
I suppose that you already knew. Am I right?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 09:54 AM

Re "Then I will point out that you and Ake introduced those figures as being "indigenous" HIV infections"

I do not think we did.
Your "straight, white, British" post was the introduction.

We have not previously discussed UK infection within the African communities settled here.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 09:12 AM

Re So the correct statement would have been to reference "Straight, British..." rather than "Straight, white, British..."

This would still be a very misleading statement.
We have seen that the "500% increase" is itself highly misleading.
It also conceals the significant fact that only one high risk group within "straigh, British" is actually effected.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 09:04 AM

I expected you to call me racist, but I am just the messenger.
I was investigating Lox's dog leg and I found the answer.
Should I have concealed it?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 08:49 AM

Forgive me Keith, I just can't keep up with all your racist obsessions. If you're now banging on about "It's black AIDS" then first off I will say "fuck you"

Then I will point out that you and Ake introduced those figures as being "indigenous" HIV infections. I know, of course, that I should never trust anything you say and must check everthing first.

That is a limited, qualified apology.

So the correct statement would have been to reference "Straight, British..." rather than "Straight, white, British..."

You are a nasty piece of work, Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 08:17 AM

Royston, re your "Straight, white, British people rather seem to be at the top of global league table for increasing rates of infection. What's your solution for their peculiarly dangerous lifestyle?"
(29th.Jan)
All wrong again Royston.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Feb 10 - 07:54 AM

Royston, my contribution, such as it is, has only been about the epidemiology.
I am not even slightly tempted to enter a broader discussion with you.
You are incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion without frequent resort to vile, hysterical abuse.

Lox, your dogleg represents the establishment, mostly in London, of communities of people of African origin.
The rise in heterosexual infections is almost wholly confined to that single high risk group.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 06:31 PM

""I believe that you know very well that a new and effective policy must be brought in, as male homosexuals appear unable or unwilling to ammend their promiscuous behaviour.""

So promiscuous that 96% of them never contract the disease that you are pretending to be worried about, and which you claim, is predominantly a homosexual problem.


""The problem for you hypocrits is that admitting homosexual practice is unsafe and requires special risk treatment torpedos your "just another lifestyle" ideology. You will cry "no pasaran" till their last breath.""

The only two people on this forum who are consistently claiming that homosexuality is "just another lifestyle" are you and GfS. Those with more than four brain cells are aware that it is what they are, not what they choose to be.


""So you basically don't give a fuck about homosexuals....let them die in their hundreds,leave them with low life expectancy, who cares if they compose the highest hiv infection demographic.....so long your cosy little "liberal" Disneyland is secure!""

Come off it, Rob Roy!

We don't give a fuck?

This from the man who wants to refuse them the right to a stable relationship, which would reduce the incidence of HIV.

A man who, further, wants to confine them, "for their own good".

Hitler truly would have approved of you, BIG TIME!

You would be continuing the job he started back in 1933.

I'll say one thing for you mate. You have one of the finest and most incisive minds of the twelfth century.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:45 PM

So, Keith, last chance.

Do you now (since you laud the sensible wisdom of the UN and its expert divisions - UNAIDS and WHO) totally reject the positions adopted by Ake and by GfS (at the start of this debate)

Do you unequivocally support the expert opinions that make clear the essential need to promote tolerance and acceptance of gay men and other minorities most at risk of HIV. Do you unequivocally support my calls for campaigns to reduce Ake-style bigotry and prejudice against gay men and to encourage them to access care and support and testing and counseling where necessary?

As you say, it is stupid to argue against the expertise of UNAIDS and WHO. I just want to be sure that we are on the same page here?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:39 PM

"I will not hold my breath."

If only, Keith, if only...

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:36 PM

Coup de Grace to Keith's poison.....
But I have never expressed an opinion about any of that Royston.
What is the connection?
All I have said, and am saying, is that there is no heterosexual AIDS epidemic here, and no evidence of one starting.
Expert opinion entirely agrees that point, unless you have found something new.
Have you?
Also, that AIDS is about 90 times more prevalent in the MSM community than the non MSM community.
Also, that there is growing evidence that MSM infection may be rising again to even higher levels.
Again, that is not my opinion but that of experts.
You have not provided any evidence to the contrary.
I came in to this part of the debate because you came on denying all these truths and dragging my name in the dirt from your first post.
A little humility Royston?
Take back those things?
I will not hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 05:18 PM

Ake,

You are soooo last month.

But we already knew that you are a dated, bitter reactionary.

What a sad pathetic shambolic ignoramus.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:55 PM

When I read GfS's stuff (except for his recent tendency to run toward the horizon with his ass on fire), I can't help but think that he's recommending that gays be locked in mental institutions.

When I read Ake's stuff, what pops to mind are concentration camps and leper colonies.

Let the personal abuse begin!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:51 PM

And now for the coup de grace to Keith's poison, and Ake's proposals.

I am glad that Keith totally and unequivocally supports the UNAIDS / Pink News position on HIV prevention. I am very glad that Ake thinks Keith is so spot on.

The position in full, from Pink News.

The United Nations agency responsible for coordinating global efforts to combat HIV and AIDS has called for "enhanced action to promote and protect the human rights of men who have sex with men, transgender people, lesbians, gays and bisexuals."

Last Thursday the UN General Assembly heard a statement on the universal human rights of LGBT people, and at the same time UNAIDS and the United Nations Development Programme issued their own joint statement:

"The unanimous commitments of Member States to achieve universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support by 2010 and Millennium Development Goal 6 – to halt and reverse the spread of HIV by 2015 – include commitments to further the realisation of human rights for all, including for all those vulnerable to HIV infection and to the impact of AIDS.

"Such commitments confirm the fact that the realisation of human rights for all is not only right but also leads to the most effective response to HIV and generates broader health and development benefits.

"However, many people at risk of HIV infection, including men who have sex with men, transgender people, lesbians, gays and bisexuals cannot protect themselves from such infection or live successfully if infected due to the discrimination, violence, marginalisation and other violations of human rights that they face.

"Many governments either deny the existence of men who have sex with men, transgender people, lesbians, gays and bisexuals in their societies, and/or have not adequately invested in their health and human rights.

"This has a pernicious impact in terms of hampering their access to HIV and health services and making them even more vulnerable to HIV.

"For example, recent evidence shows that, in some regions, as few as 12% of men who have sex with men have access to HIV services.

"Furthermore, where these groups are marginalised or criminalised, many fear to take up the HIV, health and other services that are available, because of the likelihood of facing discrimination, and in some places, violence or criminal prosecution.

"Resources allocated to appropriate HIV programming for men who have sex with men, transgender people, lesbians, gays and bisexuals falls far short of what is required to realise Member States' commitments to achieve universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support.

"Urgent and enhanced action is required to scale up effective and rights-based responses for men who have sex with men, transgender people, lesbians, gays and bisexuals in the context of the HIV epidemic.

"Like all people, men who have sex with men, transgender people, lesbians, gays and bisexuals enjoy all human rights, in particular the rights to be free from murder, torture, violence, arbitrary arrest, vilification, discrimination, and violations of privacy.

"They also enjoy the right to the highest attainable standard of health. The realization of their human rights is essential for their dignity, their protection in a world with HIV, and for an effective response to the HIV epidemic.

"There is no more time for 'business as usual.'"

On Thursday 66 nations supported the statement at a session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

It was read out by Argentina's Ambassador the UN.

It does not create new rights and is not legally binding but instead builds on similar past initiatives.

It affirms the principle of universality: that all human beings, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are entitled to equal dignity and respect.

No-one should be subject to violence, harassment, discrimination or abuse, solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The UNAIDS/UNDP statement ended with a quote from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's speech in August 2008:

"In countries without laws to protect…. men who have sex with men, only a fraction of the population has access to prevention.

"Conversely, in countries with legal protection and the protection of human rights for these people, many more have access to services.

"As a result, there are fewer infections, less demand for antiretroviral treatment and fewer deaths. Not only is it unethical not to protect these groups; it makes no sense from a health perspective.

"It hurts all of us."

According to calculations by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Association and other organisations, more than six dozen countries still have laws against consensual sex between adults of the same sex.

The UN Human Rights Committee, which interprets the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a core UN treaty, held in a historic 1994 decision that such laws are rights violations – and that human rights law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Case very, very closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM

Except to take you up on the "Cuban" cure, shit for brains.

If you read (if you CAN read) the report on the Cuban model then you will know that caring isolation and treatment of infected people was done at the start of the epidemic.

Isolation works at the start of epidemics. It was deployed at the start of H1N1 flu, amongst others.

Once a disease is generally prevalent. Once it is "out there", isolation is pointless.

The Cuban approach was praised for promoting voluntary testing amongst at-risk groups, active contact tracing and counseling and education of the newly diagnosed.

In particular, the Cuban model was praised for campaigns to de-stigmatise HIV and those most affected by it - so that people would access the prevention resources and testing and treatment and counseling. In particular it was praised for campaigns to deal with and reduce homophobia. That is to say it was praised for dealing with and preventing people like you, Ake.

That is what I have advocated at all times - that sort of caring and proven-to-work outreach and social activism. I have advocated dealing with people like you and the harm that you cause.

Your ideas are loosely based on your fear and your ignorance and your prejudice.

Your ideas are not loosely based on any system that cares for or helps people or that combats the spread of this disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:31 PM

Ah Roston....is that the bugle sounding the retreat at last?

Wise tactics General!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:27 PM

Ebbie...the old memory is letting you down again, just paddle up the thread a little and you can read my suggestions for youself.
They are loosely based on the Cuban model.
Royston agreed with them until the latest Unaids figures meant that he would have to bite the bullet!!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:21 PM

Ebbie,

Please don't waste your fingertips.

Ake is an unapologetic bigot.

GfS is racing to join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Keith is a busted flush.

Case closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 04:04 PM

Tell us again about your proposals, ake. If I remember correctly it involves segregation, indoctrination and possibly, injection?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 03:50 PM

The policies you propose Royston are neither "new" nor "effective"

Thet have not worked in the homosexual community for ten years and if left as they are, will continue not to work.

How high must the homosexual infection figures go before you see that it is in the interests of homosexuals to take the sort of action that I have been suggesting?

I believe that you know very well that a new and effective policy must be brought in, as male homosexuals appear unable or unwilling to ammend their promiscuous behaviour.
The problem for you hypocrits is that admitting homosexual practice is unsafe and requires special risk treatment torpedos your "just another lifestyle" ideology. You will cry "no pasaran" till their last breath.

So you basically don't give a fuck about homosexuals....let them die in their hundreds,leave them with low life expectancy, who cares if they compose the highest hiv infection demographic.....so long your cosy little "liberal" Disneyland is secure!

Thats your stance in a nutshell

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Keith A
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 02:34 PM

Royston, I had never heard of that survey.
I just wanted to establish an acceptable number for how many MSMs there are.
Lack of a figure caused disagreement, and you had not produced one, and still have not.
The Sigma site is endorsed by the Terence Higgins Trust.
Good enough for me.
Avert is a highly reputable site that you have used.
So what is your problem?
Liar? Cheat? Attacking gay men? Where do you get this from?
You come across as being emotionally out of control.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 01:58 PM

Keith could have stopped at the points of principle that we agreed on last week. But he didn't. He just had to keep going with the lies rolled up as "statistics" with which to beat people with.

We all agree on the numbers of gay men that have HIV, we all agree that more has to be done to reach out to all at risk people and make sure that they get whatever help, support and education they need to protect themselves and others.

That is what I argued for from day one, it is what I continue to argue for. An essential part of that process is removing prejudice and stigma from HIV and from the people affected by it.

So you, Ake, are a part of the problem. Keith is a part of the the problem for trying to support your prejudices.

People like you two are the 2nd front on which this HIV fight must - unfortunately - be fought.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 01:47 PM

No Pasaran!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 01:45 PM

General Royston....dont you know the war is over?

As Keith says, the dambing statistics and conclusions from UNAID were printed in the "Pink News" website....a lesbian and "gay" website.
You are arguing against the interests of the people you pretend to support.

UNIADS and "Pink News" want some "new and effective" action taken to combat the continuing rise the homosexual hiv new infection rates....the highest by far in UK and US demographics.

Just beat the retreat and do EVERYBODY a favour.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 01:26 PM

Keith:"Royston, the data on BOTH sites used the SAME NATSAL survey, so you should take back that criticism."

No, Keith. That IS the criticism. You could have referenced accurately the NATSAL survey. It was the easiest one to find. But you worked away and found some shitty little site (Sigma) that published a silly number that suited your prejudices. Even so, you still had to misreport it to us.

"It was 8.4% not 8.6%. the trivial kind of error that you were so scathing of me about.
At least I corrected my mistake.

Well done old chap. 8.4 / 8.6. A typing error representing 0.2%, that must make you really happy. I am calling you out for a liar and deliberate cheat. And I've justified those accusations amply.

"And those 8.4% were not all "having sex" because there was often no genital contact. They were not all MSMs.

Not content with your lies and distortions to date, you actually need to go further. We are talking about gay men and the attacks that are made on them by you and the other bigots for their "unhygienic" behaviour.

Now Keith has tried every possible screwing of the figures to support the bigots and as a final resort he wants to remove from the numbers, those gay men practicing the ultimate safe sex - sex that doesn't involved genital contact.

Look everybody - guys who kiss guys, guys who sleep together and derive intimate comfort from that, guys who just "cuddle". They're not gay in Hertford, apparently.

You are an idiot. So, to prove your "point", you ask us to remove the majority of straight HIV+ people from their risk analysis, and exclude most gay men - particularly the ones practicing the safest forms of sexual contact, from their risk analysis. Well done, this is exactly what I mean about your mendacious, devious, bullshitting mentality.

You are finished.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 01:09 PM

It's alright, Keith. Got your number. People know what you are now.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 12:11 PM

Royston, the data on BOTH sites used the SAME NATSAL survey, so you should take back that criticism.

It was 8.4% not 8.6%. the trivial kind of error that you were so scathing of me about.
At least I corrected my mistake.

And those 8.4% were not all "having sex" because there was often no genital contact. They were not all MSMs.
The relevant figure was right below.
3.7% on the first survey and 6.3% on the survey you dismiss because it was a smaller sample.
Lie, bullshit, or honest mistake?

We have been discussing MSMs as an at risk group compared to non MSMs
We need to know their percentage of the population, not just of the male population because that is what we do with heterosexuals.

The 500% increase has taken the level to that of an extremely rare disease. The current level of growth means it will still be a rare disease in a hundred years time.
That is why WHO is so sure that an epidemic is not going to happen.

The disease is endemic in the MSM population. The fact that it is increasing suggests the risk is increasing.
That was the conclusion of UNAIDS in that Pink News piece.

If you are going to dismiss expert opinion, you should find an expert who takes your view or tell us why we should take your opinion above everyone who actually know something about this.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 11:26 AM

Keith:

"I do not. I do make mistakes, but no lies or bullshit"

Bollocks, given how easy it was to google the NATSAL survey, you must have worked quite hard to find your low-grade, self-cancelling, wrongly-asserted claim of the size of the gay community - because you desperately wanted to find the lowest possible estimate, regardless of its rigour - and even then you misrepresented it to us.

You can't be trusted.

"You posted this yesterday "It found 8.6% of male respondents reported having had sex with another man."
Justify that please."

Follow the link to the avert website. 8.6% "Ever had a sexual experience, not necessarily including genital contact, with a partner of the same sex?

"Re dividing by 2, if that is wrong I am sorry, but those percentages are of men in the survey. How should you adjust that to give a percentage of the whole population who are MSMs?"

Straight people (men and women) have sex with each other, so you can measure the risk for any one straight man or woman against the entire population.

As gay men tend to have sex only with other men, there is little point calculating their percentage of the whole population.

You still fail to realise, the very fact that HIV is so statistically rare in the straight population is what makes the 500% increase in new diagnoses of UK-acquired infections so terrifying. The chances of any one straight person shagging another who is HIV+ should be pretty slim. That so many people manage it, can only be an indication of gravely risky behaviour and lethal ignorance.

It is even more shocking when you consider that new homosexually acquired cases are growing at a fraction of the heterosexual rate when the odds of any one gay man meeting another who is HIV+, are so very much greater than for straight people.

Lox has been far too patient with you, but I called you out on this point a couple of weeks ago. I am glad that you now realise that everything you have said here has been wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 09:35 AM

"In future, Keith, don't lie and bullshit people with your statistics"
I do not. I do make mistakes, but no lies or bullshit
You posted this yesterday "It found 8.6% of male respondents reported having had sex with another man."
Justify that please.

Re dividing by 2, if that is wrong I am sorry, but those percentages are of men in the survey. How should you adjust that to give a percentage of the whole population who are MSMs?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Feb 10 - 09:24 AM

re my last guest post, I was not able to compose a reply then, but I wanted to concede straight away that Lox's criticism was correct.
I added the little Scooby Doo attempted joke. sorry.
A foolish mistake, but I am comforted that no one else spotted the flaw in my argument either.
Not even arch statistical poseur Richard!
Only Lox.
The pool of heterosexuals is growing by an amount 200 times greater than the pool of infected heterosexuals, but it is false to infer that the proportion must fall.
And it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 08:15 PM

". . . already have boyfriends."
HAH!! Good one, Don T.

####

GfS, I really have a hard time believing that anyone can be as abysmally thick as you seem to be!

I don't really think you actually are that thick. I think you are just being disingenuous. And quite probably to yourself as well.

Nowhere do I say that I object to a same-sex oriented person who feels he or she wants to be "cured" from giving it a try. But I do object to blatant charlatans like Richard Cohen. And YOU, I'm beginning to suspect.

And in a percentage of marriages, whether same-sex or heterosexual, unfortunately, infidelity does occur. This, however, is not gender-specific! It is just a fact of life. And I do not believe that there are enough legally recognized same-sex marriages on the books yet to have any kind of meaningful statistics on the comparative rates of infidelity between same-sex and heterosexual marriages. Just because you want to think so doesn't make it true.

As to my "political doctrines:    you, sir, are the one who is into insisting that same-sex orientation is a psychological condition that needs to be cured and who, all along, has been foaming-at-the-mouth opposed to the idea same-sex orientation at all, let alone legalizing same-sex marriage. You have said repeatedly that, instead of being allowed to marry, they should be compelled to seek counseling.

Yes, my "political agenda" says that people should be allowed to make their own choices and determine the courses of their own lives.

THAT is what I have been arguing for in both of these threads. It is YOU who have been trying to shove your agenda down other people's throats.

YOU are the "brain police," mister. And you have been through at least two threads that I know of now.

Do you have the foggiest clue as to how downright limp and silly you are beginning to sound with your claim that "this is what I've been saying all along," and that I'm the one who wants to deny people the freedom to live their lives as they see fit?

People can read, you know (even if you can't), and they're not as stupid as you seem to think. And it's all there—your words and my words—for them to verify for themselves.

Don Firth

P. S. Now, GfS, I can understand that since your father sired a batch of kids, including you, then "decided" he was gay and left your mother and you kids to go off with a male lover, that you would be very bitter about the whole thing. But—you've let your bitterness color your whole outlook on the matter of same-sex orientation—not to mention your abhorrence (and denial) of the strong probability that sexual orientation is not a matter of simple choice, but is dictated by genetics and/or hormonal factors.

Get over it! Let people make their own choices, including the choice to follow what they consider to be their own nature. Even if the choices they make irritated some of your sore spots.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 07:57 PM

Keith: The debate is not advanced one iota.
Just empty point scoring.
Was it worth it?

Yes it was. Because you are still twisting and turning - took you three posts in two hours to even report accurately one of the figures from the avert site. And you are still trying to divide the numbers by two. Idiot.

It was worth it, Keith, because it proves that you cannot be trusted. Not at all. Not even a little bit. It proves your agenda. It proves that you don't really care about the sacred truth of your statistics.

In future, Keith, don't lie and bullshit people with your statistics. Try some points of principle; it's clear that you have some, don't be so ashamed of them.

I told you a few posts back that the NATSAL survey was not a great one - only 11,000 people, but you bloody well introduced it while lying about what its conclusions were. But the results stand and as a comparison (2000 against 1990) it shows either that homosexual activity has increased enormously - which you will agree is rubbish - or that stigmatisation has reduced and more people are willing to come forward and be open.

So that rather proves the likely benefit that reducing stigma has on health - if there's no social shame about being gay and people can be more open then they are more likely to access healthcare and advice for gay men, protect themeselves and get tested if needs be.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 07:35 PM

""Yes Lox.
And if it hadn't been for your intelligence, I would have gotten away with it."


I don't believe the Mudcat member "Keith A of Hertford" posted the above.

I don't believe he would have used the word "Gotten"

And I don't believe he would have called me "intelligent".

Any more than I believe he would have come far enough out of his shell to insult anyone either.

I await Keith A's logged in response.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 07:25 PM

""Yes Lox.
And if it hadn't been for your intelligence, I would have gotten away with it.
Why couldn't you leave it to Royston and Don T?""

ATTA BOY! That's the way to give credence to your argument.

When you're proved wanting, just insult somebody.

Royston and I may not have expressed it quite so well as Lox, but we have been making exactly the same point.

Now you have shown that you cocked up the figures, you have a nerve talking about us.

You now come over as rather stupid, as well as malicious.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Feb 10 - 07:19 PM

""You left wing hippy liberals can batter us all you like. In England, thanks to 12 years of Socialism you've actually managed to change our dictionary in your favour.... BUT you will NEVER convince me or mine that homosexuality is anything other than repugnant and deviant.""

Thank the Lord that, in these more enlightened times, for every one who shares your bigotry, there are hundreds who find YOU infinitely more disgusting and repugnant than any homosexual.

Do you know why it is difficult for women to find a kind, sensitive, man?

Well, most of the kind, sensitive, men already have boyfriends.

Don T.