BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 05:41 AM

You chose to defend the church propagating that anti Gay propaganda
"It was an issue of culture, not religion, and that is the case in Africa today too."
Religion was already and continues to be a part of this discussion despite your efforts to stop it.
It has been mentioned 18 times so far on this thread - the church 27 times, Christianity 9 times, by me a few time, by others far more.
You were happy to take part in this aspect until you fell foul of your own stupidity - now you are attempting to divert away from it
Do not presume to tell us what we can and cannot discuss in relation to "HIV transmission" because it doesn't suit your Christian agenda
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:43 AM

Honestly Jim, the subject is "HIV transmission."
Look at the top. See?

the anti-gay religious propaganda in Africa - you chose to respond by defending that propaganda.

It is completely untrue that I defended any anti-gay propaganda.
I deplore it, and you for making that false claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 04:35 AM

"This thread is not about religion Jim"
Then why take part in a discussion about it - you chose to defend the church's role (your church - that is, you've always been happy to attack other religions' attitude to sex in the past, particularly those nasty Muslims).
Eliza rightly introduced the subject by pointing out the anti-gay religious propaganda in Africa - you chose to respond by defending that propaganda.
Now you have lost the fight to defend the church's behaviour regarding homosexuality you are attempting to retreat by making the subject 'thread drift' as you always do.
Religion and church teaching has been the major influence in forming our attitude to sex recently and hsitorically.
Some denominations of the church have been forced to loosen their grip on our behaviour and minds.
Where the church, particularly the Christian Church, remains an influence, it continues to attempt to control sexual (and general) behaviour by using that influence ruthlessly.
The Church in Ireland has pledged to fight the move towards same-sex marriage despite the the Churches own behaviour regarding the on-going revelations of widespread homosexual and heterosexual rape of children by members of its own clergy .
It will no doubt use the threat of excommunication against those politicians who go against its wishes in the same was it did against those who opposed the changes in pregnancy-termination laws.
We haven't even begun to discuss the implications of the Christian church's anti-contraception stance on the spread of Aids.
You don't want to discuss religion in relation to this subject, then don't, I doubt that your 'infallible' contribution will be missed.
Do not presume to tell the rest of us what we should and should not be discussing - it's none of your business.      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:53 AM

I feel this thread should be a little more about science. After all, the important thing now is research, using virology, epidemiology, protective strategies, education and the final goal, vaccination or a permanent cure. Moral, religious or ethical issues are beside the point. I also think testing is vital, to identify, help and advise those who are infected. We should approach this danger with a practical, scientific and factual attack, not condemnatory rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:52 AM

Whether I have anal sex, if so in what role, and why is an irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:09 AM

This thread is not about religion Jim.
Many others are.
Please pursue your obsession elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 03:06 AM

Bill, that is not an answer to my question, it is at best obfuscation, at worst a mild personal attack.

Would it not be more productive to address the issue, rather than express opinions on my personal motivations.

The fault lies not with those who suffer from this condition, but with a sector of society who view unrestricted "liberty" as beneficial, even when unrestricted "liberty" results it ever increasing rates of infection.
Increased testing and contact tracing has been pointed out by all the health agencies, as the way forward in the battle to combat the epidemic.....only one demographic is affected at anything near epidemic rates.
Political agendas come second to public health.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 02:57 AM

"Having anal sex to please a boy" - "get even with his father"????
It seems to me that the moralists among us have written some sort of manual on why young people have sex the way they do, attributing their own personal motives rather than consulting the young people concerned on why they do what they do.
This is the type of moralising agenda that the church has peddled in order to make sex "dirty" - "an evil necessity" which has brought about the twisted morality that has fouled up the Christian church today - correct me if I'm wrong Jack, but you do claim to be a Christian, don't you?   
Tripe indeed!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Feb 14 - 01:22 AM

Richard Bridge: "I'd hazard a guess that a major driver towards anal sex between men and women is fear of pregnancy."

Try it....and you won't have to 'hazard a guess'.
There ARE different reasons besides that one...


Steve Shaw: "A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants....Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to .....Well where the hell did this tripe come from!"

'Tripe'????

Gosh, and I was thinking you were just into anal sex with humans!!..but you never know...this is Mudcat, after all!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:30 PM

Bill,
There IS a difference in transmission rates. It is smaller than it used to be here

Are you sure?
How can the difference be smaller if gay rates are rising and straight rates falling?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:56 PM

Someone is forcing you to read the "tripe" are they Mr. Shaw? Something is keeping you from staring more interesting threads are they?

Please try to be more polite.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:47 PM

Came late to this thread (mainly because I am suffering from WHITE (WHacko-Initiated Thread Exhaustion), and I may not stay, but this:
There is no justification for singling out Religion
is the most egregiously naive and in-denial comment about anything I've read for weeks!

As for this:

A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants. Girls want to be courted, girls want to be bought dinner and do it in a nice bed. Girls say "no" sometimes. Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to insist on a condom than a boy doing it to get even with his father.

Well where the hell did this tripe come from! Is this supposed to be serious?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:46 PM

There is nothing "modern" about anal sex. Historically its vilification is not rooted in health concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

I'd hazard a guess that a major driver towards anal sex between men and women is fear of pregnancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:59 PM

Why? Because totally hetero people have a smaller chance of HIV... I acknowledge that. There IS a difference in transmission rates. It is smaller than it used to be here... partly because HIV has been spread widely enough in straight populations, and partly because gay populations have some better treatments and education.

That's not a difficult thing to understand... but all you wish to focus on is ONE part of the population..... and you have been pressed enough to admit that you think they 'ought to be controlled' by some outside agency.

That is why some folk suspect that there is a deeper motive to your 'concern'.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:52 PM

Cappy Jack: "Would you please not say "homos" on this side of the Atlantic that is a slur"

Is 'heteros'?

Some people think the term 'gay' is a slur against happy people.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:26 PM

Sorry Jack, no slur intended, simply an abbreviation.

Bill ..."your obsession with certain statistics".....this IS a thread on HIV transmission, I think my question is perfectly valid and is not being answered.

We know that young sexually active people want to have sex, but why the difference in transmission rates?

This is extremely important if we really want the epidemic amongst one specific demographic to be halted.

Why is education on infection, "less of an issue for hetero youth"?
That just does not seem to make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:15 PM

"...why is there a difference between the "education" of young homosexuals and young heterosexuals?"

I didn't say there is such a difference. The point is that YOUR concern is covered by the general situation! BOTH are resistant to being told what to not do, but there is a bit less issue for totally heterosexual youth. (They still have some STDs and pregnancy to be concerned about)

I dunno, Ake... you can't seem to separate your obsession with certain statistics from alternate interpretations of statistics.

I wish everyone could be educated to practice sensible sexual behavior... but it is folly to expect they will refrain FROM sexual behavior... and those whose orientation is toward the same sex WILL find a way.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 04:28 PM

"From: akenaton - PM
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

Yes Jack I understand that, but why the massive difference in transmission rates between young heteros and young homos? "

Would you please not say "homos" on this side of the Atlantic that is a slur.

A guy just can't run rampant and have sex with and girl he wants. Girls want to be courted, girls want to be bought dinner and do it in a nice bed. Girls say "no" sometimes. Musket's point about male anal sex is valid. But a girl is is having anal sex to please a boy is IMHO much more likely to insist on a condom than a boy doing it to get even with his father.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 03:05 PM

Yes Jack I understand that, but why the massive difference in transmission rates between young heteros and young homos?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:55 PM

To whom it may concern, I do not visit "right wing websites" or trawl for figures, all my stats come from either CDC or HPA.
All my figures are genuine and not made up to suit my agenda from different sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:39 PM

Musket, you said the figures were " now available on a myriad websites" but you could not give us a single one!

You then said, "Allow me to quote them" but you did not.

Why did you laboriously transcribe from print when they are so available on line?

Is it because it is all made up?
If not, give us something we can look at.

If figures for up to March 2013 are really available already, we would all like to see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jeri
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:32 PM

"...to see anal sex as part and parcel by impressionable young men who have effectively been reared on porn."

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 02:04 PM

I believe the information I have used is available on public websites. At least, the minutes I lifted them from say so. What makes you think I use internet when I have access professionally, you stupid gormless twat?

Try nat.org.uk or NHS choices to help you. I have quoted the best figures available for The UK.

My authority is that of Health Protection England, although the figures refer to The UK as a whole.

They are supported by the archived HPA website, with minor adjustment for the fourth quarter.

In fact, as I type, I have just looked on nat. They seem to have used the same figures as us, as we all use PHE for the raw data.

If anyone wants to see Akenhateon apologise and Keith say he is sorry, try looking at the following first. They will never apologise to me as I sussed and exposed their disgraceful lies, but they might apologise to those they try to fawn over?

http://www.nat.org.uk/HIV-Facts/Statistics/Latest-UK-Statistics.aspx

When Akenhateon says the epidemic (there isn't one by any definition) is confined to gay people, he is lying through his teeth because the far right websites he gets his figures from (PHE monitors them in case looney councillors start quoting them to health professionals in overview and scrutiny committees) don't tell him how to deal with the figures, freely available, which I have quoted.

Now... Having quoted them, which I was reluctant to do, I also say they have to be treated with caution as trajectories for public investment in services also take into account the harder to reach young female demographic who, mainly through the availability of hardcore porn in the internet age, are expected to see anal sex as part and parcel by impressionable young men who have effectively been reared on porn.

Is it enough gay men to demand action? Is it enough gay men to round them up and put them on a register? What about the majority of sufferers? Not just the approx 7,000, some of whom are gay, that we feel are walking around waiting for symptoms to exist?

Try looking at the figures. You might just end up joining me in my condemnation of criminal elements on this website.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:25 PM

Education is not the only factor.

Young males, regardless of sexual orientation engage in way more risky behavior than any other group. Males, in general, have a looser attitude toward sex than females. Homosexual males sometimes respond to a childhood of oppression and shame and abuse from their fathers with promiscuity and prostitution. Some females do that too. But stripping and oral sex are much less likely to spread AIDS.

You can't blame the parents for the sexual orientation. But no doubt many are responsible for reckless behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:19 PM

I have no need to address the figures which have been presented by the poster above, they have no recognisable source, and make no sense.
They completely contradict the HPA figures which have been recognised as definitive for several years.
The epidemic is not within the general public, so stop muddying the water.
The epidemic is confined to the MSM demographic, to present it as anything else is obfuscation. The infections are very small in number when related to the general population, but massive when applied to the MSM demographic which contains 78% of new infections amongst males.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 01:07 PM

Bill, I understand that young people are overconfident and take risks, but why is there a difference between the "education" of young homosexuals and young heterosexuals?

You imply that the massive difference in transmission rates of HIV, between young male homos and young male heteros, is down to the fact that young male homosexuals are "difficult to educate"....why?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 12:21 PM

"Bill....why is it "difficult to educate" young male homosexuals, as opposed to young male heterosexuals?"


Because they ARE young and overconfident and don't follow 'news'. They use social media for.... being 'social'... but don't commonly read sites with clear advice, possibly because they'd be told to alter their behavior! It is pretty well documented that young people 'feel invulnerable' and take chances in many activities... even those not involving sex.

It is also the case that in a number of US states, all education involving sex is still considered embarrassing and is often not taught... or not well taught... in schools. Kids, straight and gay, trade bad information among themselves in ways they have for hundreds of years. Parents can make a difference, but often don't know how to counter the 'youth culture'.
Progress is being made, but it still leaves the young ones at greater risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:32 AM

Musket, none of the sentences in your stats. post is a quote from any site.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:27 AM

"I gave the figures above. If Akenahateon wishes to defy them, it makes no odds whatsoever to the relevance of his input. Small men with small agendas can be swatted like flies."

Speaking of "civilized" the above has no place in civil conversation.

"Just because our ancestors culturally, encouraged through a religious culture for that matter, used to vilify people for being themselves doesn't make it respectable."

Which cultural meme are you using to "Akenahateon" on the post I am quoting? If vilification is wrong for churchgoers is it not just as wrong for non-believers?

The point being made, one which is better made by Howard Jones on another thread is that in most cases society sets the norms and religion and religious communities tend to reinforce those norms. It is not religion that causes vilification. Vilification is a human trait. It happened in sandboxes, it happens in Parliament. It happens in church.

Have you noticed how far your last post was from the topic of preventing AIDS transmission? Can we please return to that track and try to minimize the vilification?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 11:09 AM

Musket, Please give the one of the myriad sites you quote here.
I am particularly interested in one that has the new data.
I am a little surprised you did not think to give us a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 10:59 AM

I gave the figures above. If Akenahateon wishes to defy them, it makes no odds whatsoever to the relevance of his input. Small men with small agendas can be swatted like flies.

Just because our ancestors culturally, encouraged through a religious culture for that matter, used to vilify people for being themselves doesn't make it respectable. Up till yesterday and possibly tomorrow, vicars and priests raped and will rape children but that it has gone on without challenge for Clapton knows how long doesn't all of a sudden make it respectable.

You can't judge today by yesterday. Although judging yesterday by today seems a preoccupation of UK courts according to many '70s celebrities....

After all, 50 years ago, here in The UK, we used to execute criminals. Can you believe that? Yes, that's right. We'd kill them and a judge gave us permission! You see, civilisation gets to keep the word "civilised" so long as the path is towards a just fair society. So saying hate is cultural is like condoning strapping explosives to your body and shouting Allah Akbar! In a crowded market.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 10:04 AM

Musket, Don't you think that Keith has a point about the culture? It seems to me that for cultural reasons, age being one of them in the recent past, that xenophobes and people resistant to change, repressed and angry gays, in this country at least, tend to be concentrated in the church going population. I know that conservative politics and religion go hand in hand, pretty much everywhere. But the radical left, antipoverty movement is based in churches.

I don't see the attack that Keith made. He did disagree and presented what, I thought were reasonable opinions.

Of course, HIV is politicized. Right wing politicians play on fear and ignorance. What is scarier and less well known than AIDS?

Akenaton, a few people including a Canadian epidemiologist in bobad's article have mentioned drug use and needle sharing as a major transmission vector. Also, I have questions about your focus on MSM. You say the infection rate is growing fastest in MSM but you do not say what percentage of the population that represents. Lets talk about the overall impact.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:48 AM

Ok. The figures for end of 2012 are now available on myriad websites for The UK, a couple of which have been updated to include the final quarter of the reporting year, (to end March 2013.)

Allow me to quote them.

HIV from sexual rather than other contact accounts for 95% of all cases.

In 2012, there were 6,360 new cases. 72% of these were men, and 28% were women. Of the men, just under half were from MSM (gay sex.). 47% of the 72% to be exact. Or 2,152 by my own calculation of those percentages.

1% of the population with HIV died during that year. 1% of the population without HIV died too for that matter.

It is estimated that approximately 7,300 undiagnosed cases of HIV exist in The UK. This estimate is extrapolated from meta analysis of the following known data;

98,400 people in The UK living with HIV. 95% of these are from sexual contact. Of which, 53,000 Are heterosexual and 41,000 are gay.

One in 650 chance of contracting HIV. From this, despite the lower figures overall, being male gay is still statistically strongest at one in 20, followed by being African origin heterosexual, male or female at one in 25.

Not an advert for a gay epidemic, and these are historical. Bear in mind the figures for estimated "now" figures are based purely on trajectory from history, so do not take into account the perceived rise in young female sexual contraction that is already showing in symptom rather than screening figure. (Going to see your GP feeling unwell rather than turning up for screening because you feel you may be at risk.)





If anybody wants to use that to speak of a gay epidemic, be my guest, but don't expect me to resist spitting in your face if I have the misfortune of seeing you.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 09:05 AM

1) The means of HIV transmission are pretty much agreed upon by all informed people.

2) Why a preventable disease is not more fully understood by people it affects is another question, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:18 AM

"Jim, did you read the guardian extract that showed that the churches led the fight to decriminalise in the 60s?"
And I am also fully aware that the world's largest, most wealthy and powrerful Christian church not only still considers homosexuality a mortal sin, but it has pledged itself to fight the move to make it acceptible.
Your attempts to use these threads to peddle your personal agendas and dominate thread after thread with them into the ground one after another has to end somewhere - here is as good a place as any - once again, "as Muskie wisely points out "let's not turn this into another Keith v reality soapbox""
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 08:08 AM

Bill....why is it "difficult to educate" young male homosexuals, as opposed to young male heterosexuals?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:49 AM

Jim, did you read the guardian extract that showed that the churches led the fight to decriminalise in the 60s?

And, why is this thread being turned into just another anti-faith, religion bashing thread?
You people are obsessed!

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:41 AM

"Others might wish to speak of HIV transmission and turning the spotlight onto gays suits your agenda, not mine.

If we are talking of HIV transmission in the UK or US, it is associated almost exclusively with one demographic, MSM.
This demographic makes up 1% of the population, yet accounts for .... on the latest figures, 70% of all new infections.

Would some one please explain why this is the case, and why no one seems at all concerned?

gnu was startled by the MSM infection rates in Africa, but in some areas of the US 20% of male homosexuals carry the virus.....and rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 07:21 AM

Persona humana[edit]
In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued the document Persona humana dealing with sexual ethics. It stated that those who "have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people" do so "in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people". It noted that "a distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable".
It criticised those who held that for the latter class of homosexuals the tendency "justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage". It stated that in Scripture homosexual acts "are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God", a condemnation that "attest[s] to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of".[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:54 AM

"There is no justification for singling out Religion."
Religions - all religions, Christianity included, has reserved a particular place in their various hells for homosexuals -
Christian churches around the world specifically target homosexuals as at best ill and in need of treatment, but where possible criminals in danger of "polluting our society" (whatever that particular society might be. But, as Muskie wisely points out "let's not turn this into another Keith v reality soapbox"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:51 AM

I do.

All the time.

With amicable people








Funnily enough

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:47 AM

My points were valid and I attacked no-one.
Why can you never just engage in amicable discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:39 AM

It's ok, I'll correct your typos.

You make INvalid ATTACKS. Points tend to have an air of objectivity not objectionable.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:33 AM

I made valid points.
Why the attack?

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:29 AM

Amongst others....

Piss off and let's not turn this into another Keith v reality soapbox eh? Others might wish to speak of HIV transmission and turning the spotlight onto gays suits your agenda, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:24 AM

There was a culture in every society in the world that led to the criminalisation of gay people.
There is no justification for singling out Religion.

Hitler was no churchman, and he tried to exterminate all gays.

Not this from the Guardian,
"It's true that an awful lot of lobbying remained to be done (to change the law in the 60s). The HLRS got off the ground in 1958, following a letter to the Times signed by 30 of the great and the good, including former Prime Minister Clement Attlee, philosophers AJ Ayer and Isaiah Berlin, poets C Day Lewis and Stephen Spender, playwright JB Priestley and various bishops. (From our perspective of the early 21st century, when the churches seem so afraid of homosexuality, it's interesting that in this period they consistently and visibly backed reform.)"

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/jun/24/communities.gayrights

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 06:05 AM

No they weren't.

The so called pink revolution of the '70s and '80s was concerned with "outing" hypocrisy.

Granted, prior to 1967, there were very good reasons to keep your love life quiet but it wasn't just tea bagging in public schools and buggering altar boys you know. Noël Coward, Quentin Crisp, etc. They weren't notorious by their rarity but their demonstration of a reality churches asked us to look away from.

Still do as a matter of fact.

Just think how many died of AIDS because of the influence of the churches in shaming people for existing, making them a hard to reach group in healthcare.

Makes you think. Certainly doesn't make you pray though.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:52 AM

Jim, I think the excesses of the "rabid-right," or left, are of little interest to ordinary decent folk.
I am surprised you think there is such a contributor on this thread, or this whole site.

Musket, in the days of Empire, everyone was anti-gay.
It is invidious to suggest the church was behind it.
It was an issue of culture, not religion, and that is the case in Africa today too.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: Musket
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:26 AM

Eliza, they are very religion based. Homophobia is almost exclusively religion based. We get our hard wired hatred of others from scriptural justification over the ages. The success of this is in how many people who aren't religious still harbour bigotry encouraged from the pulpit to their ancestors. Even now, the established churches cannot bring themselves to see everybody as "God's children."

The European missionaries did their bit to stamp it out in Africa and elsewhere in the name of god.

And that is, according to Archbishop Desmond Tutu where the fun began.

Screening for HIV would pick a few more up on entry, as far as immigration is concerned. But only for those unaware at the time who are symptom free.   The overwhelming majority declare their status rather quickly. Sadly, the lure of free care and drugs is one of the categories in what we call economic migrancy. Communicable disease doesn't fall into this government's denial of access to care. We have to treat such conditions regardless as a public health measure from arrival.

Subject: RE: BS: Discussion of HIV transmission.
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Feb 14 - 05:00 AM

Anti-gay propaganda and oppression in Africa don't IMO stem from issues to do with AIDS. They are religion-based. Both Muslims and Christians there are condemnatory of gay activity because they say God tells us it is sinful. Gays there hide their sexuality, or they'd be attacked, even killed. Regarding testing of immigrants to UK for HIV, I think it would be a good idea from all points of view. Testing for TB is mandatory now, but only for immigrants of certain countries, which is silly. If someone is discovered to have a life-threatening disease, it's in our interest and theirs to get it identified and treated. One of the major problems in Africa is the male-dominant attitude whereby a man is not disposed to protect his wife/woman from his infection by using condoms. If women were rather more empowered, they might feel they have the right to insist on this. My husband tells me that in Cote d'Ivoire, the younger women in the cities are now far more assertive about safe sex, which can only be a jolly good thing.