BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

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 - 07:44 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:51 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 09:31 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 - 09:47 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 - 09:48 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 10:17 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 - 10:22 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: 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: 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: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:34 AM

From Here

"An estimated 83,000 people were living with HIV in the UK at the end of 2008, of whom more than a quarter (27%) were unaware of their infection.

In 2008, there were 7,298 new diagnoses of HIV, contributing to a cumulative total of 105,625 cases reported by the end of June 2009.

There have been 25,470 diagnoses of AIDS in the UK, and 18,787 people diagnosed with HIV have died."

From Here

"Currently, about 30-60 people are struck by lightning each year in Britain of whom, on average, three may be killed."


I don't see much in common here ...

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 11:56 AM

Lox, I accepted that my "guess" was a bit out.
60 strikes compared to a few hundred UK acquired hetero infections.
I originally said, before Don challenged, that it was very rare, and it does compare to rates for rare diseases like Huntingdon's.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:23 PM

The last 22 posts have been a trialogue between Lox, Keith & Don, consisting entirely of the bandying back & forth of incomprehensible statistics.

Is anybody else getting as FUCKING BORED with all this as me?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 12:55 PM

Keith,

You said "60 strikes compared to a few hundred UK acquired hetero infections."

But you seem to have misread the data.

"In 2008, there were 7,298 new diagnoses of HIV"

That isn't a few hundred.



MtheGM,

Hers a little story you might ennjoy.


A merchant was in a restaurant having a meal, when he overheard 3 men having a conversation.

He though it seemed boring and didn't understand what they were talking about, so he went over and told them.

He then asked loudly if anyone else was as FUCKING BORED with their conversation as he was.

Thankfully they didn't ask the waiter to have him ejected.

Instead they each made one point as follows:

1. that going out of your way to point out that someone elses conversation is Boring, shows only that you have nothing more interesting to do or say than criticize things that you find boring and must therefore be pretty boring yourself.

2. that not being able to understand somebody is not something to boast about.

3. that the approach "I don't understand therefore you're boring/an idiot" is not generally a very successful argument.

They then suggested that if he didn't like their conversation, he should go and get a life of his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:06 PM

"Is anybody else getting as FUCKING BORED with all this as me?"

Great Heavens, Michael. I thought that in the UK no one would point a gun at your head.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:17 PM

MtheGM: "The last 22 posts have been a trialogue between Lox, Keith & Don, consisting entirely of the bandying back & forth of incomprehensible statistics."

They come in waves, and congratulate themselves for bullshitting themselves.

Royston: "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."

More bullshit! I've never alluded to what gender I've am! But I'm sure you can convince somebody else with a bullshit post! They love it! Most of them have their heads up their asses anyways...probably looking for their friends that got lost!

Lox(of cream cheese fame): "No evidence has been provided to cast doubt on the idea of a homosexual gene."

You must have been asleep at the wheel. NO evidence have ever been found that it is a gene!..Even Firth's post, concluded that! Perhaps you can find one!

I'm only replying to the hostile 'liberal' bias, which promotes 'causes' they adopt. The information they use to support some sort of righteousness of those causes is usually a hoax. Liberals have pretty much been discredited, and are now whining about everything they can. That being said, I'm not a Republican, either...nor am I a full blown 'conservative'. I can think for myself, based on ACCURATE information, unlike our resident ideologues!

Sorry to hurt your 'witto feewings'!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:26 PM

Thank u Lox - it's becoz I have a life of my own that I am so bored with you 3 wankers — & boy do I ever choose that word advisedly!

But you must admit that my post made you think of something other than your fucking %·ages for a minute or two, didn't it?

Someone else answer, please — tell Mr Smoked-Salmon how fucking bored YOU were by him & his two wanki-partners!!!

In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't a restaurant where you 3 are sitting at a PRIVATE table. It is called a "forum" — look it up, why don't you?, as you appear to have mistaken it for some sort of private bailiwick.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:28 PM

"More bullshit! I've never alluded to what gender I've am!"

Not true, and there are those on here (unlike me) who give enough of a shit about what you think, to go off and find posts in which you have implied exactly what Royston claims.


You have zero credibility here now.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:44 PM

MtheGM

"In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't a restaurant where you 3 are sitting at a PRIVATE table. It is called a "forum" "

Thats what makes you all the more pathetic.

You have hundreds of topics to choose from, and you choose to wade through one that you don't understand and find boring.

Then when you get there, all you have to offer is to march around shouting that you find it all too hard to understand, that you are bored and atart calling people wankers.

very odd behaviour.

Which would be equally strange in a pub, football match, or chat forum.

You've just made a tit of yourself.

I hope it was worth it.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 01:53 PM

"But you must admit that my post made you think of something other than your fucking %·ages for a minute or two, didn't it?"

Oh I see ... you aren't getting enough attention and you wanted to have a tantrum.

Perhaps you should visit this thread.

It might make you feel better.


Me me me ...

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:09 PM

Keith: 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.

But don't you think that all that education and training, effort, outreach, free condoms etc etc etc is the very reason that we haven't had the explosion here that occurred in Africa?

Although most new diagnoses in the UK heterosexual population are thought to have been acquired outside the country, the numbers of domestic heterosexual infections are also rising and as the pool of carrier grows so the rate of infecton amongst those being unsafe will increase. Exponential rise on the horizon.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:37 PM

The lying GoofuS wittering on about its wife

http://mudcat.org/detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2392740

End of discussion with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:08 PM

MtheGM, although your recent posts are strikingly untypical of you inasmuch as they depart from your usual measured tone, I have to echo the sentiments.

Being one of the few Real-Life Actual Homos on this thread (or at least one who is unconcerned about stating their sexuality), all this statistical pushmi-pullyu stuff, even though I recognise & appreciate the motivations behind some of it, is starting to make me feel a bit like a Christmas cracker being fought over by irate partygoers.

The original impetus behing this thread is long-gone, and if folks want to argue over the mathematics of HIV, it might be better placed in another thread. It is an important topic, but needs a new home.

The initial discussion over the Ugandan legislation is long gone, and its spin-offs into wider skirmishes about homosexuality and homophobia have (to my mind) also become exhausted. The leading players (which may even include me) have said their piece several times and the chances of persuading each other to rethink are slender to the point of anorexia.

Still, don't let me stop you if you've still got the energy...........

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:39 PM

Et tu smedley?

As long as the assertion is made that that any demographic deserves to have their civil rights curtailed I will counter it.

If someone posts figures in relation to that debate I will examine them and interpret them or contest them as appropriate, lest they be misunderstood and misapplied.

You may not feel any further need to participate. Noone has to if they don't want to.

But I do not wish to allow scapegoating to go unchecked.

I know I can't convince Ake or GfS of my view, but I can give them a robust response when they try to scapegoat others.

So far, their positions have been pretty comprehensively demolished.

Keiths figures seemed to have been posted in an attempt add credence to the homophobic argument, and he seemed unwilling to agree that they did not in fact serve that purpose unless deliberately and selectively interpreted.

In the end, he had to admit that they did not support a homophobic view.

I'm sick of this argument too, but I'm not going to let the scapegoaters go unchecked.

if people don't enjoy it they don't have to read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:47 PM

Lox,
"You said "60 strikes compared to a few hundred UK acquired hetero infections.""
I did say that Lox.
There are only a few hundred home acquired hetero HIV infections per year in UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:01 PM

Is it possible for any of you to accept the fact that you WILL NOT persuade everyone that homosexuality is to be regarded as 'normal'?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:05 PM

Smedley - thank you

Lox - How do you imagine yourself entitled to address me in that tone, you impertinent little jackanapes!?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:09 PM

Keiths figures seemed to have been posted in an attempt add credence to the homophobic argument, and he seemed unwilling to agree that they did not in fact serve that purpose unless deliberately and selectively interpreted.

Keith's figures were posted because he thought false assertions were being made.
They were not to add credence to any one side, but to ground the debate on facts.
There was no "interpretation" selctive or otherwise.

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

I'm with Smedley on this one.

Job done.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:24 PM

Paco barmy,

Nobody is trying to persuade anything of anyone other than that there is no *justification* for being actively, wilfully nasty and discriminatory towards other people.

You don't like Gays, Blacks, Asians, Muslims, Eastern Europeans, Immigrants etc etc etc.

I don't like you.

I've never heard you try to justify your prejudices. So, good luck to you. At least you're honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:42 PM

Royston, you are a couple of decades behind the time with your statement "But don't you think that all that education and training, effort, outreach, free condoms etc etc etc is the very reason that we haven't had the explosion here that occurred in Africa?

Although most new diagnoses in the UK heterosexual population are thought to have been acquired outside the country, the numbers of domestic heterosexual infections are also rising and as the pool of carrier grows so the rate of infecton amongst those being unsafe will increase. Exponential rise on the horizon. "

Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries.
vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.

There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that."
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/threat-of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals-is-ove

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:42 PM

"Is it possible for any of you to accept the fact that you WILL NOT persuade everyone that homosexuality is to be regarded as 'normal'? "

I would happily take that stance is anyone could actually tell me what is NORMAL in animals? I know it is impossible to persaude everyone. The sad thing is that it should not be neceassary to persuade anyone.

Anything that is consensual and between adult human beings I consider quite normal

What is not possible is to accept the arguments put forward by some as to why homosexuality is not normal. That should never be acceptable. It is normal for gay folks! That's the crux of it. No need to beat them up for it. Each to their own

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:44 PM

Royston,
       They aren't 'prejudices.' They are beliefs based on experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:45 PM

The link does not work.
Please google "independent de cock WHO"

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Paco O'Barmy
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:45 PM

Oh, post 1199 by the way....