BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:47 AM

1501.

Good grief.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:57 AM

Keith: "The fact is that gay men are doing better at limiting the transmission of the disease in their communities than are straight people at the moment."

Please explain/justify.
The rate of transmission in proportion to group size shows the opposite is true

OK, the words "rate of transmission" make the statement wrong.

The correct assertion would be "The fact is that gay men are doing better at limiting the the growth of HIV prevalence in their communities than are straight people, at the moment

Please look again at point 5, this is the important issue that kicked all this off.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:23 AM

""Even the great flu pandemic of 1918 only killed 3% of the population.""

Now I know you've lost the plot Keith.

You take a figure of 4% of the small percentage of the population who are gay, and male, and compare it with the 3% of the TOTAL population who died in the pandemic.

As a mathematician, you would undoubtedly make a very good greengrocer.

It si a total waste of time talking to one who would suspend the laws mathematics in a vain attempt to justify discrimination.

Don T

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:36 AM

""Lox, re. what is a signicant number.
1200 infections a year is only 0.002%

That is three thousand, five hundred percent less than the 0.07% limit for classifying as a rare disease.

Increasing by 300 a year it will be a rare disease for another 140 years.
Then we should start to get worried.""

Are you really that dim Keith, or are you deliberately glossing over the fact that the rise you are predicting is linear, whereas, in all previous cases, infection has increased exponentially within a population.

We really will see gay/hetero percentages approach parity, and you won't be dismissing that as miniscule, given the ratio of gays to straights.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:48 AM

Don, 3% of the total population died of that flu.
So 3% of gay people will have died of it.
So a bigger proportion of the gay population are dying of AIDS than died of the great flu.
And that is not counting the 18 000 who are already lost.

Now, I have some nice sprout's in today.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:50 AM

Don, re your "whereas, in all previous cases, infection has increased exponentially within a population."

In no previous cases outside Africa has AIDS increased exponentially within a straight population.
Or do you know of one?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:53 AM

Royston, re. your "The correct assertion would be "The fact is that gay men are doing better at limiting the the growth of HIV prevalence in their communities than are straight people, at the moment""

Please justify this by referring to the HIV prevalence in those communities.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 06:59 AM

Royston, your point 5 again.
5) A key part of effective prevention is the active removal of stigma and prejudice surrounding HIV and the people affected by it. Ignorance of and about the disease, together with societal stigma and prejudice, hinder outreach and direct intervention efforts directed by at risk groups and minorities. Ignorance, prejudice and stigma deters members of at risk groups and minorities from coming forward and seeking testing and treatment.

I gave my honest answer, I do not know.
The first sentence could well be true.
The next sentence. I do not approve of ignorance, stigmatisation or prejudice. I do not know if they significantly hinder ....
They might.
I doubt they deter people coming forward. They need not admit to whatever they are ashamed of. But I do not know.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 08:10 AM

Thanks Keith, I can see that we agree on pretty much all of the issues, with a margin for disagreement that is normal and healthy.

For what it's worth - the statistics are not nearly so important as the ethical isses - my other point was about controlling the growth of HIV prevalence.

If HIV prevalence has grown 74% amongst gay men in 8 years but has grown 500% for straight people then straight people are doing very badly - almost 3 times as badly - as gay men at controlling the growth of HIV in their communities.

My assumption here is the use of the word "prevalence". If there are more than 5 times as many of something as there once was, is it not correct to say it is 5 times more prevalent? That's a genuine question, Keith, if I've used the wrong word - but you know what I mean - then let's just get the right word out please?

About prevalence, I just can't seem to find figures for people living with HIV by infection route. However, surely you accept the logic that if gay communities have a prevalence of 4%, the chances of a gay man contracting HIV - and therefore the growth in cases - is a lot higher than should be the chance of a straight person (did you say 0.0004% prevalence?) and therefore the growth in straight cases should be a lot lower - 10,000 times lower?.

But somehow straight HIV+ people have grown their UK-acquired rate of increase 3 times faster than have gay men in the last 8 years. With all the epidemiological and statistical cards stacked so strongly in their favour, that outome is shocking, isn't it? This is a critical observation in the discussion about needing to understand that HIV is a deadly issue for everyone who is not educated about the risks and prevention methods and/or chooses not to apply that knowledge - gay or straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 09:15 AM

We should not argue about this when so close to agreement on the rest.
The statement is true, but misleading because the two cases are so far apart.
Suppose 2 people set off London to Brighton, one in a Ferrari at a steady 70mph, and the other strolling at a leisurely 1 mph.
The walker gets bored and breaks into a jog.
He is now doing 5mph. A 500% increase in his rate of progress.
The driver has managed a 0% increase.
What does that tell you about the two journeys?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 03:24 PM

""Don, re your "whereas, in all previous cases, infection has increased exponentially within a population."

In no previous cases outside Africa has AIDS increased exponentially within a straight population.
Or do you know of one?""

All right, since you aren't smart enough.......

Did I say previous cases of AIDS?......NO! I didn't.

In all previous cases of Diseases spreading through a population, prior to the arrival on the scene of HIV/AIDS, the infections have shown an exponential increase, not a linear one.

Why would HIV/AIDS not do the same, as Royston stated, until it kills enough victims to inhibit transmission.

The fact that it appears linear may well be due to the small number of cases, but, as the pool of victims increases in size, the differences will become significant, and the exponential nature will be much more apparent.

The anomalies of having the number of new infections actually decrease in some years could easily (and if you are a scientist, you should know this) be a result of the small numbers involved, and should not be assumed to be a statistically significant feature, at least until the total number of victims reaches a point where those changes become a trend.

Bad math doesn't strengthen your case, and a head in the sand attitude to what you call a miniscule problem doesn't either.

Would you rather deal with hundreds now, or millions later?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:30 PM

Don, an exponential spread of infection results in an epidemic.
Most do not. They may become endemic.
Think streptococcus, rabies, salmonella, etc.
AIDS has resulted in epidemics in some communities where transmission is high, but outside Africa that has not happened among heterosexuals. And it has had ample opportunity. It is no longer a new disease.
Don, there is no heterosexual epidemic here.
Never mind what Royston or I say. Look it up.
I have put up enough evidence now.
If you do not have anything new, please shut up and go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:51 PM

You've put up quite a lot of opinion in support of your argument, some of which is definitely, and some which on the face of it should be reliable.

It might be wise when expressing such confidence in the veracity and wisdom of your sources, to remember that, in the main, they are the same experts who so completely failed to correctly predict the course and outcome of the recent swine flu outbreak.

Finally, I will leave this discussion when I'm damn good and ready, not when you order me too, so wind your neck in pal. You're not laying down the law to a student who has to listen to you now.

You have no more right to an opinion than anyone else here, and if you can't handle that, perhaps it's you that needs to leave.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:11 PM

The course of the swine flu epidemic was predicted rather well.
It was thought to be more dangerous than it was because many mild cases in Mexico went unreported giving rise to concern that mortality was higher than it proved to be.
There was, and is, the concern that it could become more dangerous by mutation or exchange of genetic material with, for instance, the more lethal but less infectious bird flu.
But, that was a new disease. We know all about AIDS now.
Now Don, since you are not leaving, what do you have to contribute?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:27 PM

Keith,

You describe the rates of UK acquired infection as increasing linearly.

This is not true.

It may not be explainable as exponential for now either, but it is far from linear.

A better description of the graph would be, it was trundling along on the runway for ages and suddenly, a few years back, it lifted sharply off the ground.

It then continued to rise, demonstrating that a dramatic turn of events was also a sustained change of circumstances.

If there was anything linear about heterosexual infection rates, we would still be seeing the graph trundling along consistently on the x axis.

This hasn't happened.

And as we know, the pool is finite.

It is more likely that it will change again that it will remain linear.

The fact that the change was sustained shows that it is not a matter of "if" there is another durge, but "when".

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:30 PM

typo:

durge -> surge

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:45 PM

"I have it on good authority that the retro virus does not know or even care if its victims are straight or gay.
Why should anyone else?
Wash DC has some SE neighborhoods with a current infection rate near 20%. Some are only 10%. AIDS favors the poor and uneducated?
No it only lives with all the biological inertia inherent in life itself."

Dr. O.B. Vious.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Pierre Le Chapeau
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:58 PM

Regarding the thread in issue
The worlds going bad"again" The human race is only happy when its killing each other? If we aint got enough troubles in creation ,Uganda jumps on the band wagon harping on about stuff that been around and penalized in the past since time began and Im a fanny and tit man. For all sakes are the African states going back in time .

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 07:06 PM

""The course of the swine flu epidemic was predicted rather well.
It was thought to be more dangerous than it was because many mild cases in Mexico went unreported giving rise to concern that mortality was higher than it proved to be.
There was, and is, the concern that it could become more dangerous by mutation or exchange of genetic material with, for instance, the more lethal but less infectious bird flu.
But, that was a new disease. We know all about AIDS now.
Now Don, since you are not leaving, what do you have to contribute? ""

And yet you see no possibility of any similar occurence with HIV.

What a very strange "scientist" you are.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 08:03 PM

Don't you guys know when the game is up?

The UNAIDS statistics and conclusions regarding infection rates in homosexuals posted by Keith, effectively concluded the debate.

All your arguments demolished by one document, and the stance which I have been defending for over a year vindicated.
All you have left is the "why dont your mind you own business" syndrome

Well, defending freedom of thought and speech and exposing hypocricy is my business, business which on this occasion has come to a very satisfactory conclusion.....Ake

Thanks for support Sanity and Paco.....For information and fair play...thank you Keith.

FIN.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 08:15 PM

Keith, I know that nobody takes Ake seriously, but are you going to let his co-opting of you stand unchallenged? I kind of hope you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 12:08 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 12:11 AM

Take him on yourself, if you can..and if you can do it without the childish snipes. We could all learn something from a mature dialogue, void of defensive insults, but rather one of finding FACTS..not trying to win or prove a point. Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 12:50 AM

Good lord. You mean that you've finally figured that OUt?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 12:51 AM

What an interesting turn that would be.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 02:09 AM

You will note that Ake does not thank GfS for either information or fair play. Way to go, Akie baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 02:24 AM

Lox, a linear progression does not mean no rise.
A mathematically perfect one (y=mx+c) would give an identical increase for each time period.
Real life situations are never exactly perfect, but it is remarkable how good this one is.
The points are closely packed around a line of best fit with an annual increase of about 120.

I am open to challenge on everything I say, but I would be surprised if anyone can shoot me down on this one.
That is a linear rise.
Of course it could change, become exponential or reverse.
We can only look at the evidence and speculate.
WHO and UNAIDS have done that and we have seen their conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 02:32 AM

DON T "And yet you see no possibility of any similar occurence with HIV.
What a very strange "scientist" you are."

WE do see a lot of genetic variability in HIV. There are many groups within HIV 1 and there is HIV 2.
If the virus changes dratically, things might change and we could have another discussion.
It is pointless speculating about a possible, completely unknown future. That would be Science Fiction. Scientists are working in the real world. That is what I have been posting about.

Remember, they have been wrong about this already. For a long time it seemed obvious (O.B.Vious !)that a heterosexual epidemic would happen in the West. That lesson has now been learned.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 02:36 AM

Donuel, those DC stats are frightening.
Is there a lot of injecting going on their?
The US stats are very interesting. If you separate out high risk heterosexuals, (partners who inject or are bisexual) heterosexuals disappear from the AIDS stats altogether!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 02:41 AM

Royston, if you thanked me for information and playing fair too, that would cancel out AKE's endorsement.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 04:57 AM

GfS, every argument you answer shit for brains have put up for your nasty and harmful desires to be vile toward people have been demolished.

It's not about 'the figures', it's about people and how you treat them. I can see now that Keith's argument is just about the academic value of 'the figures' and I can respect that for its own worth.

The only people who agree with your opinions towards gay people and towards HIV are, well, you and Ake.

Keith, I can see that you and I might be agree on a lot of things. I would hold you in higher regard if, when you joined a debate like this one, you would say something like 'my opinion on the subject is......but I disagree with......and am insure about.......but I don't think figures x, y and z are being used properly.

I would thank you for that honesty and fairness on any day of the week.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 05:42 AM

""It is pointless speculating about a possible, completely unknown future. That would be Science Fiction. Scientists are working in the real world. That is what I have been posting about.

Remember, they have been wrong about this already. For a long time it seemed obvious (O.B.Vious !)that a heterosexual epidemic would happen in the West. That lesson has now been learned.""

You are making my point for me Keith, and I am duly grateful.

WHO, and UNAID are speculating about the future, and it is science fiction.

If they are no more inaccurate than were their predictions on swine flu, it could be disastrous. These organisations do have a past record of under, and over, estimating the effect of diseases.

You support, on the basis of their predictions, the view that nothing will change. That is the triumph of hope over experience.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 07:55 AM

Don, you have chosen a bad example with swine flu.
It spread from Mexico to every country on Earth in a couple of weeks!
There was not time to properly establish its mortality. It was not incompetence.
It was known to be a particular threat to young, healthy people and a wrong decision could have been a catastrophe for humanity.

You are obviously right that the future can not yet be predicted.
In any one field, however, some people have a better idea what is going on than others. People with access to all the knowledge that exists and with a lifetime of professional experience working at the highest level in that field.

If you need to know if it will rain tomorow, do you look at the weather forecast or PM Royston?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 08:18 AM

If you PMd me, I would look up the met. office 24 hour forecast for your area, and tell you it was the most likely outcome based on the evidence available and expert opinion.
Royston would tell you that rain was not coming, and anyone who said it was, was a rainphobe bigot and a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 03:04 PM

Keith

If you divide the graph in two you see that up until a few years ago, the graph was pretty much horizontal for at least a decade.

Then in about 2003 or thereabouts it changed direction and started climbing.

Since it changed direction, it can be said that the new direction has been pretty linear so far.

However, if you look at the graph as a whole you see that it is a dog leg, with a significant change of direction happening that has caused the 500% increase.

The whole graph in its entirety going back over the last couple of decades is NOT linear.

You are a physicist and you will therefore be aware that the more variables there are in a given situation, the more unlikely it is that smooth graphs will be derived from observations of reality.

There are so many factors to consider in this issue that we can only comment on general trends.

In this case, the general trend was flat, and then it changed recently to one of sustained growth.

What does that change signify, why did it happen and can it happen again?

If we had made predictions in 2003 about what was going to happen next based on what had happened before, we would have said that hetero infection would carry on on a horizontal trajectory.

We would have been wrong.

It follows that we can't predict a consitent linearity to the growth in hetero infections based on a limited sample from 2003 onwards.

We have to acknowledge that if the graph has radically changed in nature before, then iit could do it again.

The whole graph has not been linear, and we cannot say with any confidence whether there wiill be an epidemic in 140 years or 14.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 03:38 PM

I think that is an artefact Lox.
If you extrapolate the line of best fit back you would reach a zero point aound 1998.
AIDS did exist before that but in that period the numbers were so tiny that trends can not be identified.
If you throw a dice 600 times, you would get very close to 100 sixes.
Throw it 6 times and you could get anything between 0 and 6 hits.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 04:16 PM

Keith

nonetheless my observation still stands.

The current line of growth, for whatever reason you may like to give, is a deviation from the previous reality which is represented by a flat line running along the x axis.

That represents a fundamental change.

From no growth to growth is a matter irrespective of the exact nature of the previous trend.

It was not the same as the trend which exists now.

And the trend which exists now could also change, and given the circumstances previously considered in this thread, for example in relation to sexual health risks among young women, and in relation to the steadily rising overall number of infections, this seems pretty likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 04:23 PM

Keith: "Royston would tell you that rain was not coming, and anyone who said it was, was a rainphobe bigot and a liar."

Hehe, actually I would argue for greater understanding of the rain and for a general education program on the effective use of umbrellas to prevent a dangerous epidemic of dampness. ;-p

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 04:57 PM

Smeds: "You will note that Ake does not thank GfS for either information or fair play. Way to go, Akie baby."

I don't require any thank-yous for telling the truth. When I posted to Royston: "Keith, I know that nobody takes Ake seriously, but are you going to let his co-opting of you stand unchallenged? I kind of hope you don't."

Here's a quote from one of our Presidents..it is so apropos:

'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.'

Hat's off to the truth!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 05:20 PM

GfS,

Neither Keith nor I are "the last word" in anything.

The things on which we agree are in black and white a day or so ago. As are the things on which we disagree or that we agree to disagree on.

You and Ake are still in a minority of two on the social and ethical questions that this discussion is actually about.

Moreover, you are both self-confessed homophobes, Ake is as thick as two short planks (just the other day he "proved" that HIV affects gay and straight Africans in equal measure - demolishing all your argumemts, both of you) and you have been busted as a liar. Not just accused, or suspected of lying, but exposed as an out and out liar. Exposed as a liar on matters as fundamental as your gender and the life experiences you claim to have and that you put forward as support for and validation of your opinions.

You are nothing more than a hate-filled liar. You have no credibility here. Do you still profess yourself a Christian? How does your behaviour here sit with your conscience?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 06:14 PM

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
                                                                                                                                    —Ronald Reagan

He also said: "No, no! On the PAPER, Bonzo!"

(I'm so impressed!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 06:44 PM

Didn't Reagan also think that trees cause acid rain?

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 07:02 PM

Yup. He said,

"Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources."

In high school biology classes, I always heard that vegetation takes up carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. (I always thought that was a good thing. . . .)

He also said,

"The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity." This in response to student protests on college campuses during his tenure as California governor.

Could there be a connection?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 09:34 PM

Royston: "You are nothing more than a hate-filled liar. You have no credibility here. Do you still profess yourself a Christian? How does your behaviour here sit with your conscience?"

Liar?? ..That's a convenient, but false accusation. That's what you do, when you can't carry on a mature discussion, to possibly discover something about yourself, ..that should at least be of interest to you!

Christian?? I don't believe I 'professed' to be one, on here. Besides, what do you have against Christians?? There law hinges on "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."..I'm not getting a hint of 'bigotry' in there, am I?

I have no problem with my conscience, at all. Funny, you should project that!

The weak accuse others of their own motives!
                                          Me...(Its quotable, too)

Don: "The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity." This in response to student protests on college campuses during his tenure as California governor."

You know, Back when he was Governor of California, we were having a three day folk and rock festival, in a park, in L.A., he was staying at a hotel across the street from the park, and was on the roof, of the hotel, listening and watching the concert below. When we(two of us) were on. I had a moment on the mic, where I went into a 'little talk'. During that talk, I addressed him, because I knew he was there(reliable source in the hotel), and spoke to him about his policies, and priorities, and their effect on us 'peons'. To tell you the absolute truth, I was stellar, even you would have been proud!! No shit! I was not a defiant jerk off, like most 'protesters', but addressed him wonderfully. I thought he was wrong, about a few things, and a few things he stood for.......but nonetheless, even a broken clock is right...twice a day!!!.............therefore:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Royston:(again), "You and Ake are still in a minority of two on the social and ethical questions that this discussion is actually about."

Minority, on here?...Yes, but only on here. You are a huge minority, in the real world!.. It's only because the homosexuals, on here, have a need to justify their position.......and it takes all of you to do that, and still fail!!........(Now watch some Bozo start posting stats, which are slanted, as per there source)! ...Save you the trouble, people who think homosexuality is wonderful are in the minority!.....Gosh, ever wonder why?...Hint: It's not just to pick on you!

Oh, and by the way, don't hate you....grow up!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Jan 10 - 10:28 PM

Nice you got a chance to bend Reagan's ear, GfS, but let's face it, he's not exactly an authority on political science, and he has a very warped idea of what liberalism amounts to, as is the case with most conservatives--which apparently includes you, or at least in a lot of your beliefs. But president or not, Ronald Reagan was never the sharpest knife in the drawer. Smarter than Bush, but still not quite up to the level of the average Yorkshire terrier.

I wouldn't quote him if I were you. Bad for your image!

By the way, GfS, in your last post, you seem to be trying to imply that those who disagree with you must, of necessity, be homosexual. That would come as a helluva surprise to my wife!! Very disingenuous of you, GfS!

Just for the novelty of it, you might try that "grow up" prescription yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 01:30 AM

Don: "......and he has a very warped idea of what liberalism amounts to, as is the case with most conservatives--which apparently includes you,....."

No Don, I'm not a flaming conservative, but a little more to the center, or where ever I can find truth in common sense and common sense in the truth! To you, and understandably so, it must seem to the right...umm...maybe super far right, but its not really...actually, when I think about it, I think some of your dogmatic political mindset, is way out in left field,..so far out, that it's not even in the ballpark....but somewhere out there where you still catch flies.   <<<<(hey, that was a good line..just made it up..just for you.) Shit! You're an inspiration!!!

As long as we're at it,..". By the way, GfS, in your last post, you seem to be trying to imply that those who disagree with you must, of necessity, be homosexual. That would come as a helluva surprise to my wife!! Very disingenuous of you, GfS!"


GfS: "Got any other nasty little secrets???", he grins a mischievous grin, looks slightly upwards, rolling then locking his eyes at about a 10 o'clock position, scuffs the floor, with the sole of the shoe, crossing legs, at the shins, and stabbing the floor with his foot as he comes to rest, and plunges his hands deep into his pocket, purses his lips, then grins.

Oh my Gosh, I'm getting carried away!..Jeez, I told you that you were an inspiration!

Oh, and true to tell, I was told, by someone on the roof, that he WAS listening. I doubt if it made much difference..maybe till he died, and met God, who must have said, "Ronnie Babie, at least you can't say, you weren't told!"

Kiss the Wife,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 03:16 AM

Lox, I can not tell you why the rate of new hetero cases went up.
Looking at the table for partner exposure, the increase was in heterosexual exposur for them.
Maybe the new dangerous partners were the newly arrived cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 04:52 AM

If there were such things as Heaven and Hell, I should imagine Reagan headed in the *other* direction to the one where he might 'meet God'.

As for 'the homosexuals', as I've noted before I think I'm the only one who has identified as such in here. I might be overweight, but I'm not plural. GfS needs the scary (to him) image of a multitudinous phalanx of homos to stoke the flames of his paranoia. (I keep thinking The Homosexuals would be a great name for a band, although in the back of my mind I think that idea was already taken.)

And is it a 'minority' who think "homosexuality" is wonderful ? Globally, yes. But then you should never use 'sales figures' as an indicator of anything truly meaningful, as that would mean 'Avatar' was the best film ever made and Taylor Swift is the major musical talent of our era.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 04:53 AM

Oh, and I would also like to welcome this thread to its fourth month on earth.

(Well, *mostly* on earth.)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 01 Feb 10 - 01:55 PM

Keith,

I wasn't looking for an explanation, I was simply pointing out that the graph, taken over a 20-30 year peiod, is not linear.

The anomaly in the original line turned out not to be a flash in the pan, but a sustained change of circumstances.

On that basis, we cannot make a claim, based on past experience, that the growth rates among hetero's will continue to grow in a consistently linear fashion.

It may happen that way, but it could also be the case, based on past form, that as overall numbers increase, that growth rates also increase.