BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:21 AM

don, Lightning is a lower risk that hetero infection, but Huntingdon's is reckoned a rare disease and is comparable.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:29 AM

""Don, in terme of the group size I would guess that lightening strike is a higher risk.""


With respect, that is arrant nonsense. There is in this country a large number of HIV positives of both sexes, and an even larger number who have died since the first instances of the virus.

The fact that the incidence of new cases has been reduced since the eighties is an indication, nay a proof, that it is unsafe sex that is the problem, not, as Ake and GfS would have it, homosexuality, or for that matter heterosexuality.

Your comparison with the lightning strike probability is fatally flawed by the fact that the HIV positive hetero group in the UK is growing rapidly, and heading toward overtaking the gay component.

If 80% of the increase is imported, then 20% is native, and also growing. The probability of lightning strike is a constant (which may admittedly change with climate change, but that is not now predictable).

What does seem very predictable, is that HIV will tend more and more toward an equal opportunities position.

It has been pointed out several times that over 95% of homosexuals are HIV free.

To misquote the words of the old song..... "It ain't who you do, it's the way that you do 'em, that's what gets results.

Don T.

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

Some took unacceptable risks.

The figures with Straight condom failure are comparable.

Those who use condoms safely and responsibly tend to be fine.

That is a matter of education.

That is something that must happen in schools or our kids will be left unarmed in a dangerous world.


There is nothing to link any of it with a view to limit homosexual civil rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:17 AM

Condoms have not changed much since the study.
One in 5 experienced a condom failure in the 6 month period.
I would regard that as an unacceptable risk, but assessing acceptable risk is subjective .

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:12 AM

Key phrases in your link.

"of 2447 condoms ... 51 tore and 40 slipped off."

But how many of those were improperly used.

Who took unnecessary risks, thus increasing chances of condom failure? and who was improperly educated about the risks?

Risk #1

"Vaginal condoms failed more often than anal condoms (4.6% vs 3.1%)"

Risk #2

"the failure rate was lower than with oil-based lubricants (1.7% vs 10.3%). When no lubricant was used the failure rate was 6.1%."

"Data suggest that adequate use of lubricants might even be a more important factor in preventing condom failure than type of condoms used."

And you skillfully neglected the conclusion of the link you provided.

"Although the results indicate that improving the use of condoms among gay men is important, it was also noted that condom failure in this cohort decreased from 8% in 1986 to 4% in 1991."

Which of course also brings to light that this research is 18 years old, the report having been published in 1992.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 10:01 AM

Don, in terme of the group size I would guess that lightening strike is a higher risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:59 AM

Now all Ake has to do is find evidence that promiscuity is being promoted in our schools.

Of course no evidence exists, as this is only true in Akes imagination.

So until such evidence is produced, i think this case is closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:57 AM

Respondents were 671 gay men participating in the Amsterdam Cohort Study. In datawave 10 (October 1990-May 1991), questions were asked about condom use in the previous six months. Attitudes and social norms with respect to condom use were also assessed. RESULTS: Anogenital sex was practiced by 277 participants of whom 242 men had used condoms. Valid data on condom use were obtained from 239 men. In sum, the use of 2447 condoms was reported, of which 51 tore and 40 slipped off. The observed failure rate was 3.7%. Vaginal condoms failed more often than anal condoms (4.6% vs 3.1%). With water-based lubricants, the failure rate was lower than with oil-based lubricants (1.7% vs 10.3%). When no lubricant was used the failure rate was 6.1%. Vaginal condoms were at least once used by 41 participants (17.1%). Oil-based lubricants were used at least once by 26 participants (10.8%) and 59 men (24.7%) did not use lubricants or used saliva. Condom failure was experienced by 47 users (19.7%). http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102200396.html

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:56 AM

""If we are discussing the countries we live in, then you have to be clear that heterosexual transmission is a very rare occurrence indeed.""

You were the one, I believe, who produced "evidence" that 80% of new UK infections were imported.

So it is your contention that the 20% of new UK infections which are transmitted here can be classified as a very rare occurence?

Summat not quite credible in that argument.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:52 AM

"I thought it self evident."


Thank you.


I just wished to clarify for Ake that there remain no grounds for him to argue that the civil liberties of homosexuals need to be curtailed.


Getting a straight answer fom you is like getting blood from a stone!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:48 AM

By the way, the article is talking about unprotected sex.

If you use a condom and don't rip it, you are 100% protected against HIV.


one of many many links.


"For the STDs transmitted primarily though genital secretions -- semen and cervical, vaginal or anal fluids -- condoms are 100% effective, if the condom is properly used (in place for the entire exposure) and does not rupture. These STDs include gonorrhea, chlamydia, HIV, and hepatitis B. in other words, the "biological" effectiveness of condoms is 100% against these STDs."


Also,
From here


"Italian researchers followed more than 300 healthy women in stable, monogamous relationships with HIV-positive men, questioning the women closely about condom use and testing them periodically for HIV. In the Italian study, among women whose partners never or inconsistently used condoms, 12% eventually were infected with HIV. But fewer than 2% of the women whose partners always used condoms became infected. The second report, from the European Study Group, showed even better results for some 250 uninfected men and women with HIV-positive partners. Among the half who used condoms inconsistently, 10% of the previously uninfected partners acquired HIV. When condoms were used all the time, HIV was never passed on to the healthy partner, even though the average couple had sex about 120 times over the course of the study."

Which refutes your view that "Obviously a condom reduces the risk, but it is still high risk behaviour."

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:47 AM

I thought it self evident.
Any penetrative sex with a carrier is high risk. Anal sex is a far higher risk than other forms, but only partially explains the difference in transmission rates.
Number of partners is going to be an important factor too.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:31 AM

You are still avoiding the question.

Is it high risk or not?

Your link says it is.

Here's the conclusion.

"The investigators encouraged researchers to consider such cofactors in future infectivity estimates, and they advised public health officials and clinicians to emphasize that heterosexual sex can be a remarkably efficient way to transmit HIV."

So anal sex is higher risk.

But vaginal sex is still very high risk, being "remarkably efficient".

Don't you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:21 AM

- Transmission 33.8 times more likely with penile-anal sex than penile-vaginal sex.http://www.natap.org/2008/Trans/Trans_03.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:19 AM

Keith,

You said:

"All I can infer from the evidence is that anal sex with a carrier of HIV is high risk behaviour."

Two straight questions looking for two straight answers.

1, are you suggesting that the overwheming majority of women who contract aids only do so anally?

and if not,

2, Are you suggesting that women who have vaginal sex with HIV positive men are engaging in low risk behaviour?


Come on - stop avoiding it.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:04 AM

Oh - and does that mean that vaginal sex between a woman and a man who is a carrier of HIV is not high risk behaviour?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to infer that being on the receiving end of unprotected penetrative sex of any sort is high risk behaviour.


I thik it would be grossly irresponsible to imply that women who have sex with HIV carrying men are not engaging in high risk behaviour.

Don't you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 09:03 AM

Obviously a condom reduces the risk, but it is still high risk behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:51 AM

Would that be with or without a condom?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:47 AM

All I can infer from the evidence is that anal sex with a carrier of HIV is high risk behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:34 AM

Tell you what,

You give me a straight answer as to whether we can deduce from the AIDS figures that homosexuality, unqualified, is by its nature an unhealthy practice, and I'll make the effort to find the post to which I have referred.

Your apparent avoidance of the question is puzzling.

I'm not asking you if you think it is unhealthy, I'm asking you whether you think the stats support a view that it is unhealthy.

If so how.

The intent of my question by now is pretty clear so I wouldd appreciate a straight answer.

By the way, heres another parallel tobe going along with.

Reading a book on a cliff face is dangerous. But this does not mean that literacy is unhealthy.

Reading a book on a cliff face whilst using the appropriate safety precautions is much safer.

Likewise, unprotected sex between homosexuals in the UK is risky, but this does not mean that homosexuality is unhealthy.

Sex between homosexuals who use appropriate safety precautions is much safer.

Interestingly,

unprotected sex between heterosexuals in the UK is risky, but this does not mean that heterosexuality is unhealthy.

Sex between heterosexuals who use appropriate safety precautions is much safer.

The common factor in all three unsafe examples is a lack of concern for safety.

The common factor in AIDS sufferers is also a lack of concern for safety.

Not homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:23 AM

Boy, does this thread ever move fast! just been out for a couple of hours & ···

So, Hi, Royston - yes, here I am. & I will admit I am much concerned with GfS's constant sex-changes, which seem to be a sort of 'pepper·in·the·eyes' evasion; ·+· ITS continued evasion of my above, several-times repeated question about my respectably & lovingly CivilPartnered friends — to which Ake has at least had the courtesy to offer a rational reply: not one I agree with, as I replied to him; but at least he courteously took my question on board - which is more than GfS has done.

So, indeed, Royston, I am much beginning to question whether GfS's motivations [or manners] are such as IT would wish to make it appear. GfS - do you hear me talkin' 2U; give me a reasonable reply soon, or you will have blown it as far as I am concerned, just as u seem 2 have done with practically everybody else on this thread — & nobody to blame but your own obstinate, evasive self, ya hear?...

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 08:15 AM

Which Western countries?
I missed that bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:53 AM

"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.



"I was not making an analogy, just showing that local conditions can mean that the global situation is irrelevant."

two key words:

"can mean"

So sometimes it is relevant and sometimes it isn't. Mostly, it is to varying degrees, as that enourmous philosophical red herring contains many shades of grey.


It may not be an analogy, but unless it draws some kind of parallel it is a meaningless comment to make.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:44 AM

"Most HIV cases are in countries where the virus is indiscriminate."

And if the virus doesn't discriminate, should we?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:40 AM

I was not making an analogy, just showing that local conditions can mean that the global situation is irrelevant.
Most HIV cases are in countries where the virus is indiscriminate.
In the Western world, unfairly, and for various reasons, it is unable to infect many heterosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:33 AM

Sorry about flurry of posts,

but the main flaw in the analogy is this.

Overconsumption of resources and food in the west can lead to malnourishment being a Global problem.

Being Gay in the west does not lead to AIDS being a global problem.

Unsafe sex is the reason that AIDS is a global problem.

So once again Keith you have shown that Akes assertions about homosexuals are groundless.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:27 AM

The other alternative is:

"Globally, AIDS is a serious issue, but not a reason for Westerners to become homosexual."

But that is clearly nonsense, as people do not become homosexual because AIDS is a global issue.

Some just are gay.

And they are gay all over the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:19 AM

"Globally, malnourishment is a serious issue, but not a reason for Westerners to consume more."

I'm trying to understand this analogy.

You are clearly drawing a parallel between malnourishment with AIDS.

What isn't so clear is what westerners consuming more is a parallel for.


Here is how I have broken it down.

1. "Globally, Aids is a serious issue, but not a reason for Westerners to practice safe sex."

but that would be more similar to

"Globally, malnourishment is a serious issue, and is a reason for Westerners to eat a healthy balanced diet."

so consuming more must be a parallel for irresponsible overindulgence.

If I, along with my fellow westreners, overindulge in food and available resources, then I could contribute to malnourishment in the third world.

But if any homosexual overindulges sexually, this will not deprive anyone in the third world of anything.

So the emphasis must be on irresponsibility.

Unsafe sex.

That is how your analogy can work.

"Globally, AIDS is a serious issue, but not a reason for Westerners to practice unsafe sex."



Your analogy says nothing about homosexuals that it doesn't also say about everyone else.

It certainly doesn't support any view that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:58 AM

"The epidemiology of AIDS is very different across the world."

So by the same token, relying on the available AIDS statistics would be insufficient grounds to support the view that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle.

Or, if that were a fair concluson to draw, then the same rationale applied in other countries would lead to a conclusion that heterosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle.

Do you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:47 AM

Globally, malnourishment is a serious issue, but not a reason for Westerners to consume more.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:44 AM

The epidemiology of AIDS is very different across the world.
It is not useful to take some global average.
If we are discussing the countries we live in, then you have to be clear that heterosexual transmission is a very rare occurrence indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:32 AM

Keith.

Reasonable response, but it is important to be clear about what the topic of conversation is, and what stats are going to be useful.

The questions currently under discussion are:

"Is homosexuality an unhealthy lifestyle?"

And

"Should we therefore curtail the civil rights of homosexuals"

So the stats needed are those which paint a clear and accurate picture of the risks of homosexuality as compared with heterosexuality.


I cold post the results of a survey done in a mosque, and the results of a survey done in a HIV clinic and they would say different things.

To get an accurate overall picture, I need to provide a wider range of stats.

Do you agree that focussing on stats from one country and ignoring stats from another, whilst also ignoring the global picture, creates a misleading picture?

Do you think that the stats provided show homosexuality to be different from other "lifestyles" in that it is unhealthy and risky where they are not?

Or do you just see, as I do, that concentrations vary depending on where you go and that it is impossible to derive any hard and fast rules connecting homosexuality to HIV that cannot also be applied to heterosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 06:11 AM

Reasonable question Lox, but I prefer not to be drawn in to that debate. I just felt I had something to contribute on the epidemiology.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:21 AM

"The Constitution protects rights based on Race, Creed or Color.....umm what does homosexuality fall under??"

Time to read the constitution, and also to go and look up "civiil rights"


"We have sufficiently found that it is not genetic"

No evidence has been provided to cast doubt on the idea of a homosexual gene.

The evidence which exists shows that it is very likely that there is one.

As is usually the case with research, it is only a matter of time before they find what they are looking for.



Keith,

Ake states that the evidence provided shows homosexuality to be an unsafe "lifestyle", but that it has no bearing on whether or not heterosexuality is and unsafe "lifestyle"?

On this basis he has argued that homosexuals civil liberties should be curtailed - for their own good.

Do you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:11 AM

I am not twisting truth Royston, I am sharing the evidence that I have found.
It seemed quite logical that HIV will spread in the straight community here as in Africa.
That was the prevailing view in the 80s, and I used to teach that to my students in health classes and Science.
But it did not happen, and is not happening.
AIDS is arriving in our straight communiy by train, plane and auto, not by infection.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:20 AM

I hope that MtheGM is here to see this tirade of vicious hate and bile from GfS.

Care to review your opinion of it and your opinion of those who always saw it for what it truly is?

Keith: "Globally HIV / AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of heterosexual people both in absolute number and in terms of the percentage of sufferers"
Yes, I do agree.
We are perhaps at cross purposes.
I assumed Ake had been considering the Western/developed countries in which almost all Mudcat members live.
In these Western/developed countries HIV / AIDS is overwhelmingly a disease of homosexual men both in absolute number and in terms of the percentage of sufferers, if you discount infection acquired abroad.

Thanks for getting the "Global" picture into the "agreed" bin.

But as to the latter part of your message, this is the nub of most of my arguments with a lot of people.

If you take *the truth* and then twist it this way, turn it another way, remove a part of it, trim another bit off at that edge...then you can probably prove that up is down and black is white. It doesn't make it true.

Ake was trying to prove that *controlling* or *dealing with* homosexuality would *solve* HIV/AIDS.

Which is just ridiculous given that it is overwhelmingly in absolute numbers and as a percentage of populations, a heterosexual affliction.

I posted earlier the 2009 UK diagnosis numbers that showed Heterosexual diagnoses outnumbering homosexual diagnosis in absolute number in the UK. Doesn't matter where it was acquired: those folks are here, they have it and they are/were shagging here and spreading it here. Heterosexually.

I have explained why/how a disease (any disease) rips through a closed and segregated community to produce high percentage infections. Basically society (possibly aided and abetted by gay men and businesses themselves) built gay ghettos in our major cities. It ain't rocket science - look at what happens with disease in other ghettos / refugee camps / cruise ships / hospital infections etc. Demogoraphic / sociological bad luck.

GfS is a disgusting hate-filled creature, 'nuff said. If anyone still takes it seriously then I will reply properly but otherwise, I just can't bear to dignify it.

GfS is also a liar. Most of its recent spleen and hate has been dressed up in a whole crock of mother-earth, child-bearing, nurturing bosom bullshit, in which it claimed to be an uber-fertile woman. Check its other posts on Mudcat where it talks about being a man and refers to its wife. Can't take seriously a word that it types.

Ake can't or won't accept the truth. You know, Ake, instead of ignoring the truth, why can't you just grow the balls to say that you simply don't like homosexuals and you would like to see them 'dealt with' or whatever it is you actually want to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:37 AM

Amos!...Just posted to you on another thread. Nope, no sherry. Just that there are some certain morons who can't seem to understand that people from other cultures and traditions, and mindsets, don't give a rat's ass about America's liberal idiot's, interpretation of 'civil rights'. They have their own cultures......and are not too interested in our lame shit!....and do not welcome it in their country.

Then the morons blame me??..as if I think that way!?!?!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:30 AM

GfS:

You been sippin' the cooking sherry again? 'Fess up. You have, right?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:10 AM

Well said TIA....but it had nothing to do with anything!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:34 AM

Well put, Tia.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:40 PM

BEING AS I don't give a shit about race or creed or country or color,
and BEING AS, I don't give a flying fuck about grammar,
and BEING AS, the discussion is about basic HUMAN RIGHTS regardless of creed or culture or skin color or fucking un-selfaware illiteracy, you are full to the eyeballs of shit.
BEING AS I am sorry, did I say that out loud?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:36 PM

Cancel my appointment, Counselor, please. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:27 PM

Can't post much, yet..haven't read a lot of the 'newer' posts'...some of the ones I did read weren't worth replying to, being as it is much ado about nothing...but I did see this......"My point was that when an issue of civil rights is concerned.......(blah blah blah)"
The Constitution protects rights based on Race, Creed or Color.....umm what does homosexuality fall under??
We have sufficiently found that it is not genetic, it's not a religion, and can't decided what color is involved....
Unlike the Ugandans who are a struggling nation, trying to bring themselves UP, even though they have a tribal heritage and culture, which you have to take into account, before slapping a controversial edict upon them, based on a misinterpretation of 'civil rights', from a foreign country(ourselves), we are a nation in decline, decay...when they can easily see our 'acceptable mores' as decadent. It is understandable (though I don't condone it),why they would consider having a death penalty, to defend themselves from a 'threat', based on something they view as weakening the societal structure, based on tribes, made up from the familial nucleus. When 'political activists' for homosexuality(read: subversive agitators to exploit), come in to impose their 'views' into THEIR nation, and society, what did you expect? When the Christian 'moralists' come in, and reinforce their views, which is consistent with their tribal roots, its no wonder the 'activists' blame the Christians for instigating this!

That being said, I still don't believe that the death penalty, is justified here, but for some there, they do. Before you start your stupid arguing, consider for just a teeny moment, that we are NOT talking about OUR culture, OUR country, OUR nature, nor OUR society, and try to at least consider another point of view, THEIR point of view....in your 'all knowing', all dogmatic, all liberal understanding!!! THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANYONE'S ELSE'S POINT OF VIEW!!!! Wrap your emotional 'do-gooder's' pea brains around that one!..then whip out your tissues, and pretend that you even give a shit, at all. YOU DON"T!
So Sincerely,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 04:02 PM

The fact that Ake still insists that homosexual activity per se is "risky behavior" convinces me that he persists in clinging to his medieval belief that HIV is created by spontaneous generation.

Homosexual activity is no more risky than heterosexual activity. What is risky is unprotected, promiscuous sex. And that is risky for anyone, regardless of the gender of their sexual partner(s).

It all zeroes in on Ake's baseless antipathy toward homosexuals. Pure and simple. And that particular quirk is something he doesn't care to deal with, he just wants to justify it, not only to others, but to himself.

--------

And Paco:    Most heterosexual men may find homosexual activity not to their taste, but when it comes right down to it, the vast majority are simply indifferent to it. I don't go rock-climbing and I don't play golf. I could if I wanted to, but I just don't want to. I don't spend a great deal of time brooding over the matter.

If the thought of homosexual activity turns your stomach, stop thinking about it.

As to the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural," this is bogus on two counts. First, as MP points out, it is not "unnatural," it is indeed rife among the animal kingdom. Once this is pointed out to those of the "homosexuality is unnatural" types, they tend to respond with something like, "Well, aren't we supposed to be better than animals!??" It becomes an argument that eats its own tail. [How's that for kinky!??]

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:52 PM

Nice post Amos, thoughtful and kind. Its a shame that most of the insults and recriminations haven't been avoided.

Ach yer a guid man...so ye are!    :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:47 PM

""You people have to learn to accept that for the majority of heterosexual males like me, the thought of homosexuality turns our stomachs! The current onslaught by the left wing media has left ME in a minority! But believe me, us hetero's still mutter under our breath!!!!""

You may feel as you wish "Paco with the multiple surnames", but don't presume to know what "most" Straights, or "most" Gays, or "most Butchers", or "most Undertakers" think.

You only know what you think, so express your thoughts by all means, but don't claim support unless you can produce those supporters, and thus far you seem to have three.

Hardly "most" is it?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:29 PM

""Because homos are at least 50 times more likely to get aids than heteros...why? Because homosexual promiscuity figures...no of sexual partners etc, are much higher than among heterosexuals(if you deny that, please give your reason for the high hiv figure). Why are homosexuals in general so much more promiscuous?...I believe it has to do with the exclusively male hedonistic lifestyle.""

You really need some lessons in logical analysis Ake.

This is your old, and oft repeated circular argument, and it's really getting irritating.

Homos (to use your preferred pejorative terminology....a la Josef Goebbels) are fifty times more likely to get HIV..Why?. Because they're promiscuous. How do we know they're promiscuous?...Because more of them get HIV. Why are they more promiscuous?....It's the exclusively male hedonistic lifestyle.

What exclusively male hedonistic lifestyle, for Christ's sake?

Go to your nearest town centre at 10pm, and see the queues for the local nightclubs. Come back again about 2.00am, when said clubs are disgorging their clientele.

Tell me Ake, do you think that those dozens of drunken straight men and straight women have been setting up meetings at the local vicarage, or is it conceivable that they are in the main looking for sexual encounters?

The crap you spout about promiscuity being the domain of the gay population, merely serves to highlight your total ignorance, and bigotry.

Gay relationships are no different than straight insofar as they are no more and no less sex oriented.

With your lack of empathy, lack of insight, and lack of tolerance, you cannot possibly have an unbiased attitude toward the actions of others.

Where they do not conform to your cosmic perception, your only possible response is disgust and disdain, because your inability to understand another's point of view is total.

This is abundantly evidenced by the fact that those who oppose your view are named as prats, blinkered fools, liberal fascists, and unworthy to hold a point of view.

You are The Compleat Ass, and thank God Almighty that you have no authority.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:19 PM

Ake:

I know, I know. My point was that when an issue of civil rights is concerned, upright folks will put aside their dislike of personalities or individual idiosyncracies instead of acting them out in a hateful voice. Some issues transcend these petty little nauseas. And no-one has told Paco he has to think about homosexual practices OR heterosexual practices either. But if he is like most hetero men, he spends LOTS of time doing the latter anyway. THe kind of hetero practices he probably daydreams about as the great desiderata are in fact those which, in another age, were condemned as disgusting and forced into the closet. Yet they are perfectly normal heterosexual couplings of various sorts. Mrs. Grundy has aimed her oppressive righteous indignation at plenty of innocent folks over the centuries, hasn't she? EIghty years ago miscegenation between different hues was thought of as just unthinkably disgusting by some folks.

But you will notice as we matured, some of us outgrew those petty hatreds when it came to granting human beings equal rights.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:17 PM

Oh alright!.....tra---la la------la la la laaaa   See! I can do it!

But it doesn't last....   :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:16 PM

95% of gay men have no HIV.

For this overhelming majority, sex is as healthy as it is for anyone else.

In fact, for the overwhelming majority of people, sex is healthy.
This is probably because most people use condoms.

Straight Women and Gay men who are on the receiving end of penetrative sex are most at risk for obvious reasons.

For this reason, women make up 50% of HIV/AIDS cases worldwide.

It follows, as clear as the homophobia that enbitters Ake, that unprotected sex for women and for Gay men puts them at risk.

It does not follow that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle.

Unless you already hold that view and will see proof in any evidence, even articles which say that discrimination against homosexuals hinders attempts to address the global issue of HIV/AIDS.

Ake, you would make an excellent mouthpiece for the BNP.