BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 01:57 PM

Keith, sorry the second part of your earlier message. The first was about epidemiology in sexual minorities, which I answered.

The second part, about the rising number just of british-acquired heterosexual diagnoses;

We have 1,130 cases in 2008. A 500% increase from 2000.

In 2016, if that continues and all other factors are equal, we have about 6,000 cases every year.

In 2024, if that continues and all other factors are equal, we have over 30,000 cases each year.

But, Keith, you damn well know that in epidemioloy, the rate of new infection is not linear. As the pool of carriers grows, so the rate of transmission increases and the line bends towards exponentiality.

Add in the African-acquired cases now part of the UK pool of carriers and it is reasonable to assert the possibility of a much bigger future hazard than the figure above suggest.

I think that it is a credible assertion of a real potential future outcome based on simple science. Do you dispute that? If you do then say so and say why.

Note, also, that the WHO does not say there cannot or will not be a serious problem for straight people in the developed world, they just say it is unlikely to be on the same scale as in Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:04 PM

Royston, Did you leave out her..."....are probably more aware than most of the risks they take with dangerous practices."

Dangerous practices, Sherlock! Now re-read my earlier reply. It may all come to you(I doubt it, though).
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:08 PM

Shit for brains Ake - happy with my language now.

I have been reading the Unaids African homosexual infection rates and they range from 15%---40% of the entire homosexual population.

Jesus you are one thick son of a bitch

Arican HIV prevalence is at 15-40% of TOTAL ADULT POPULATIONS.

So if only 15-40% of gay populations are affected then you have successfully proven that there is no difference in risk or exposure between gay men and straight people.

Well done, all your arguments demolished, now piss off.

Keith:

I, and others, have set out our clear and lucid grounds for assertions.

It is not good enough for you to sit there saying "la la la la, not listening..."

If you think my assertions or my gounds are wrong then say so, and say why. Otherwise you have no credibility whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:14 PM

No GfS, you really are every bit as stupid as you sound.

They are more aware than most of the risk they take with dangerous practices.

Penetrative sex with a condom is safe.

Penetrative sex without a condom is dangerous.

It is dangerous whether or not you are gay or straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:18 PM

Ake

96% refers to the number of homosexual men in the UK who do not have HIV.

I provided the link earlier in this thread.


You may have miissed it as you had your fingers in your ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:22 PM

In fact, Keith, when Lox made the same assertion about potential growth in the straight population at 08:41, you said "fair point"

Do you agree or not?

If not then say so and say why.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:36 PM

Lox was making thoughtful, intelligent points.
I acknowledged that by saying "Fair point" and spent some time considering them and looking at the evidence.
I made considered replies.
I really enjoy debating with someone like Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:36 PM

Royston...I thought you were trying to say that 96% of homosexuals worldwide were hiv negative and therefore heterosexuals in Africa were more affected by hiv/ aids than homosexuals.

I dont suppose I need to re-state that this is most definately not the case.

In percentage terms, the homosexual/hetero ratios in Africa are worse for homosexuals than the UK ratios.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM

Royston, re. your "If you think my assertions or my gounds are wrong then say so, and say why."

I think they are wrong only because they are diametrically opposed to the opinions of the world's leading authorities on HIV/AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:43 PM

Royston: "Penetrative sex with a condom is safe."

Unless they have a jealous boyfriend!

BTW, condoms don't feel as good either. Better to have sex with a lifelong spouse, wouldn't you say??.....never mind, you can't speak from experience!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:44 PM

Royston, re. your "But, Keith, you damn well know that in epidemioloy, the rate of new infection is not linear. As the pool of carriers grows, so the rate of transmission increases and the line bends towards exponentiality."

That is exactly the point Royston. If this were going to be an epidemic it would be exponential.
It is not exponential because it is not the start of an epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:48 PM

No, Keith, my assretions are not at odds with the WHO. I am not saying there will be a straight epidemic in the west to rival Africa. I am saying something quite different. You are running away.

On the causes of the incidence rate amongst gay men in the west, my assertions match de Cock - it's all about sexual networks. I am adding further detail to the discussion. You are running away

You never had any credibility with me, any that you have with others appears to be diminishing, I think.

At some point you have to put up, or shut up.

I have stated my grounds, they are cogent and logical. If you disagree then say so and say why.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:55 PM

Don't be ridiculous, Keith

It is not exponential because it is not the start of an epidemic.

There is every chance it is the beginning of an accelerating trend.

Add in the Africans in the UK carrier pool and new straight infections outnumber gay ones by a factor of up to 5:1

Do you deny these fundamental risks and these facts of basic epidemiology? Say so and say why.

Am I to take it that you do now accept the ways in which HIV might be hot-housed in minority sexual networks? If not, say so and say why.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:57 PM

GfS, what leads you to think I am not enojoying a life-long relationship?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 02:59 PM

Oh aye......and ye think yer Napoleon as well.....:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:04 PM

Lox - a rare compliment from me. How nice to see a correct use of "may" in place of the almost ubiquitous misuse of it for "might".

I have been puzzling over the insistence of the unholy alliance here that the prevalence of AIDS is statistically significantly linked, both as to incidence and as to growth rates to male homosexual behaviour and/or to being African.

In the case of Keith, he has indicated that his concern is solely correct statistical analysis. I find that hard to swallow (sorry if the imagery disturbs) in that the only places I have seen his pedagogic statistical bent exhibited are on this thread and on the thread about UK immigration.

It seems more plausible that the stated insistence is linked to hostility as such to male homosexuals and to Africans. In some cases (this is not a specific reference to Keith, but that in turn is not to waive the possibility of the reference including him) that that hostility is pretty baldly expressed as "Keep 'em out or lock 'em up" but it may be that it runs even deeper (and in less acceptable channels) than that.

Reverting now to statistics, Keith, you hypothesise, I think, that the rate of growth of AIDS (probably more correctly detected and reported AIDS) is linear.   I cannot be bothered to do the analysis, but if you take your figures over your number of years and then do a typical 2-tail Tukey test (or a Tukey-Neave test) on them, what is your degree of confidence found? If you took instead, the null hypothesis that the rate of growth was exponential, what degree of confidence would you find for that? I can't be bothered to dig my old copy of Ya-Lun Chou (or Sokolnikoff & Redheffer) out and do the sums (and anyway I haven't got the raw data) but given the shortness of the period of available data I would expect the two to be much the same. Tell me, O! statistical devotee, what does the statistical analysis show?   Depending on your answer, I may want to check your calculations and sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:31 PM

"Better to have sex with a lifelong spouse, wouldn't you say??"

Well actually, according to the reading I have been doing today, this does not apply for young wives from numerous countries worldwide.

Young women become infected by older husbands with a long andcomplicated sexual history, and then they don't bother getting tested because the social stigma and actual physical consequences of bein found out simply going for a test are not worth the risk.

Being married in many countries world wide can, in terms of HIV, be a death sentence.

I'll provide links tomorrow evening or sunday as I have to go now.

have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 03:54 PM

Richard, you tried this trick on me once before, remember?
The clever lawyer trying to bamboozle a gullible magistrate or jury and appear to know more than they do.
I am a physicist Richard, and there is nothing you can tell me about an exponential increase.
For a start, there should be a constant doubling time.
These figures doubled in the first 2 years, and took another 5 years to double again!
There is not even an increase on differences!
They go 90,160,110,140,90,40,130,130.
Not impressed Richard.
A shoddy attempt to deceive.
Some of us are trying to have an honest debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 04:01 PM

Royston, re. your
"There is every chance it is the beginning of an accelerating trend.
Add in the Africans in the UK carrier pool and new straight infections outnumber gay ones by a factor of up to 5:12

Add them in and it is even further from an exponential progression.
Those figures doubled in the first 2 years, and eight years later have still not doubled again!
Some years they even go down!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 05:00 PM

Oh come on Keith, I think you should let Royston have his hetero epidemic.....he was so looking forward to it! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 05:19 PM

Don't be silly, Keith and don't tell lies or try to deflect the discussion.

What I said, about "the Africans", is that adding their number into the number of white UK HIV carriers in the "straight" pool, multiplies further the risk of any one straight person, who practices unsafe sex, contracting HIV if all other factors are constant

Your friends Ake and GfS, whom you are labouring to support, say that gay men are "unhygienic" in a way that straight people are not and that to stop the spread of HIV you have to "control" or "punish" gay people. Yet 2000-2008 the number of white straight people contracting HIV each year in an enormous pool with only a small starting number of carriers, grew 5 times. Whereas gay men, allegedly unhygienic and certainly more exposed to HIV in purely logical, accidental, epidemiological terms, less than doubled.

Now any increase in disease and illness is a terrible thing but, remembering the context of this discussion, straight people must be behaving in dangerous ways that make gay men look like nuns; for straight HIV+ numbers to have increased so dramatically. It's bleeding obvious that if their behaviour stays the same, and the numbers of HIV+ straight carriers keep growing, there is very big problem coming.

In fact the fastest growing group of HIV+ people (straight people) could quite possinly learn something useful from gay men about protecting themselves and arresting their growing numbers.

Now have you anything of substance to add or are you going to keep running away from this?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 05:40 PM

Royston...you are not making sense...you say "In fact the fastest growing group of HIV+ people (straight people)"....while UNAIDS says "HIV infections are falling world wide, but homosexual infections are rising".

Are you up to your old trick of mixing real numbers with percentages?

Of course heterosexual infections are the fastest growing,(for the moment) but that point is meaningless on its own, because the hetero population is so massively larger than the homosexual population.

The only figures which bear any relevance to this discussion, are the respective percentage of infection statistics.

As the total hiv infection figures are falling worldwide and the homosexual figures rising, even in real numbers the gap will be narrowing, not widening

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: mousethief
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 05:46 PM

The only numbers that matter are the ones I think are important.

O..O
=o=

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:13 PM

Bean counters!!

Okay, all you statistics wonks, just what do all of these numbers you keep slapping each other with amount to?

Based on each of your interpretations of the numbers you are flogging, can any of you suggest a course of action!??

What should anybody do about all this?

(Be careful, now! Be damned careful!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:40 PM

Whats it name: "Your friends Ake and GfS, whom you are labouring to support, say that gay men are "unhygienic" in a way that straight people are not and that to stop the spread of HIV you have to "control" or "punish" gay people. Yet 2000-2008 the number of white straight people contracting HIV each year in an enormous pool with only a small starting number of carriers, grew 5 times."

Like I've been saying, promiscuity is like playing Russian Roullete, you're fighting over using one bullet, or two......and those same individuals seem to have a 'bug up their ass', about monogamous, heterosexual pair bonding, that produces families....and then think I don't get it. I think you're pandering to the lowest common denominator of human LIFE, you know, Life...instincts of preservation and reproduction...lower, being of course, something that shorts out either one of those circuits! I'll give you this...in the child bearing years!
Now I'm sure you'll want to 're-define' the known and accepted scientific definition of living things...to suit your enthusiasm for satisfying your personal horniness. Its okay, I don't care what you do, or who you do it with.....its just that homosexuals spend an inordinate amount of time and energy, trying to palm it off as a normal and a civil rights issue....as if homosexuality is an essential part of building a society. It's a dead end!
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 06:46 PM

Keith - think about confidence limits in statistical analysis. You say the statistics show that the increase is not exponential but linear. I'm not sure so what, but why not check your assumption?

You are the man who professes such devotion to statistics that he comes to this thread and one other simply to ensure that statistics are not abused.

Well, tithe your God.

Or is there another purpose you serve?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:21 PM

GfS, here is a partial list of notables who lived "as if homosexuality is an essential part of building a society. It's a dead end!"

You are right, of course. Every single one of these men is dead...

Zeno, Greek philosopher (500 B.C.)

Sophocles, Greek playwright (496?-406 B.C.)

Socrates, Greek philosopher (470?-399 B.C.)

Aristotle, Greek philosopher (384-322 B.C.)

Alexander the Great, Macedonian ruler (356-323 B.C.)

Emperor Hadrian, Roman ruler (76-138 A.D.)

Richard the Lion-Hearted, British ruler (1157-1199)

Richard II, British ruler (1367-1400)

Leonardo da Vinci, painter-scientist (1452-1519)

Benvenuto Cellini, Italian goldsmith (1500-1571)

Christopher Marlowe, British playwright (1564-1593)

King James I, British ruler (1566-1625)

John Milton, British poet (1608-1674)

Jean Baptiste Lully, French composer (1632-1687)

Frederick the Great, Prussian ruler (1712-1786)

King Gustav III, Swedish ruler (1746-1792)

Baron Alexander von Humboldt, German naturalist (1769-1859)

Lord Byron, British poet (1788-1824)

Hans Christian Andersen, Danish author (1805-1875)

Walt Whitman, American poet (1819-1892)

Samuel Butler, British author (1835-1902)

Algernon Swinburne, British poet (1837-1909)

Petr Ilich Tchaikovsky, Russian composer (1840-1893)

Paul Verlaine, French poet (1844-1896)

Oscar Wilde, Irish playwright (1854-1900)

Frederick Rolfe (Baron Corvo), British author (1860-1913)

Andre Gide, French author (1869-1951)

Marcel Proust, French author (1871-1922)

E. M. Forster, British author (1879-1970)

John Maynard Keynes, British economist (1883-1946)

Sir Harold Nicholson, British author-diplomat (1886-1968)

Capt. Ernst Roehm, German Nazi leader (1887-1934)

T. E. Lawrence, British soldier-author (1888-1935)

Jean Cocteau, French author (1889-1963)

Christopher Isherwood, British author (1904- )

Dag Hammarskjold, Swedish secretary-general U.N. (1905-1961)

W. H. Auden, British-American poet (1907- )

Jean Genet, French playwright (1909- )

Tennessee Williams, American playwright (1911- )

Brendan Behan, Irish author (1923-1964)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:31 PM

Don F

I have been advocating greater universal education programs so that all people are reminded of the nature and risk of unsafe behaviour. I have advocated even greater targeted outreach and education amongst "at risk" groups and I have suggested that anyone who cares about alleviating this sphere of suffering ought to donate to an AIDS charity and/or lobby their MP for adequate public funding and effort.

Isn't that a start?

Trouble is that some folks are still trying to prove that one group has nothing whatever to worry about and another group are to blame for it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:32 PM

I think society might have struggled on without several of that lot!

Rather over many media celebrities ancient and modern....dont you think   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 07:51 PM

Trouble is Royston UNAIDS seems to be saying the policies you are advocating, tho well meant, dont appear to be working for homosexuals.
In fact they are saying these policies have failed and we need to try something different

"If we want to prevent
HIV infections, it is essential that more effective prevention efforts (which are inextricably linked
with treatment and care) among groups with higher prevalences be undertaken."

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:13 PM

Ebbie, Do you think that society would have benefited, or not, if those people's genes were passed down?

Would you care?
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:53 PM

mauvepink; "To be honest I think that intravenous drug users, bisexuals and homosexuals, are probably more aware than most of the risks they take with dangerous practices."
THANK YOU, mp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's beyond belief that the ones in here don't agree with you!
Don't believe me??......just scroll back!
As far as I'm concerned, ALL promiscuity is also a 'dangerous practice', and a foolish, destructive one, at that!..Just ask the children of a home broken because of it. Just ask yourselves, of the time wasted in your lives, over coming it, or the 'No-Where Land' you ended up, pursuing it!!! ... THANK YOU< ONCE AGAIN, MP!!!

GfS post closed up togtehr by me and not how it was initially below...

BUT GfS... I have not seen anyone on here not going along with that. I think all have agreed that unsafe sex is dangerous and unwise. It is not being promiscuous per se. It is having unprotected sex. And no matter what sexuality you are it makes no difference.

Yes, of course, being in a stable monogamous relationship is safer (including gay monogamous relationships) but no-one can ever take the moral high ground as so many people get cheated on. So what I wrote cannot be taken in it's sole cpnext without the rest of what I posted... namely

Where the great damger lies is in the percentage of straight folks who still see HIV/AIDS as a gay disease or a disease of intravenous drugs users. So many think it cannot happen to them because they are straight. So many discount any chance of acquiring HIV/AIDS because they are not in a high risk group. In fact, they are! Anyone having unprotected sex is risking all sorts of things and until ALL people recognises that no-one is immune to this threat then the figures will continue to rise.

The sooner the myth of it being a gay disease is got rid of, and people who are not gay start thinking they are just as easily a target for the disease, then we may have a start in seeing a reduction in new infections.


We need to get away from the moral, holier than thou, blame culture. We need a concentrated effort from people of all sexualities and religious persuasions to try and end this threat. Blaming each other and arguments will get nowhere. Look at this thread? Name calling and people getting hurt. some almost having to win at all costs. Why? With HIV/AIDS there are no winners. We all lose. The sooner we stop getting at gay people because of HIV/AIDS the better.

Personally, my wish would be for all on this thread to kiss and make up. Get respect back for each other and put the bad bits behind us all. I know it's a dream because some would not and will not do that.]

There have been some hateful and hurtful things said. Shake hands, kiss, hug... do as you will. But can we end the arguments on what is a serious issue that potentially affects us all?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 29 Jan 10 - 11:56 PM

Sorry... that last one was from me :)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:23 AM

ok.. as I said in a previous thread.
I dont know at my age how long i got left so no more time left to pussyfoot with stupid peoples oversensive feelings and irrational reactions.

iI'm not gay or ever least bit bicuriuos, i dont like the idea of the mechanics of gay sex.
I think its unhygenic and not to my taste.

but i'll be buggered if I put up with nasty evil homophobic
stupidity.

if you dont like or you are afraid of queers
then you are shit stupid no brain cretins.

simple as that.

I dont like a lot of the preening ego overcompensating crap
of camp culture and I have no interest in what those gay blokes do in bed. [ and no respect for them taking over public toilets and parks after dark]

But i will stand beside them to fight evil stupid no brain homophobes.


if all us straight blokes are so afraid of being bummed..

how come anal is the most popular porn download ???

why do you fanticize sticking your cock
up a womens arse but so afraid of geting one up your own


what the fuck is wrong with modern culture. ??

as I sid I'm not particularly gay friendly,
but I am in no way homophobe.
I dont understand my gay friends desires or sex pracices.
But no f@ckin way will I stand aside to see them bullied by
half wit fuckin boot boy cretins.


I'm not making my best coherrent point herre
but I dont care , one of my old gay mates is like a brother
and even at my age if some dimwit thug picks on him
he gets a ferocious fight from me and all of our mates.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:41 AM

Royston, re. your"What I said, about "the Africans", is that adding their number into the number of white UK HIV carriers in the "straight" pool, multiplies further the risk of any one straight person, who practices unsafe sex, contracting HIV if all other factors are constant"

You might well expect that, but the figures show that it is not happening.

re. "Yet 2000-2008 the number of white straight people contracting HIV each year in an enormous pool with only a small starting number of carriers, grew 5 times."

Yes, a steady rise. Choose an earlier year and you would get 10 times, a thousand times and so on. After all these years it remains an incredlby rare disease in this population

re "Whereas gay men, allegedly unhygienic and certainly more exposed to HIV in purely logical, accidental, epidemiological terms, less than doubled."

This population experienced exponential infection in the early years.
In any population you reach a limit on that kind of growth. Now it just picks off new members.

re. "for straight HIV+ numbers to have increased so dramatically. It's bleeding obvious that if their behaviour stays the same, and the numbers of HIV+ straight carriers keep growing, there is very big problem coming."

In about 140 years it will cease to be classified as a rare disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 01:46 AM

Richard, re your "Keith - think about confidence limits in statistical analysis. You say the statistics show that the increase is not exponential but linear. I'm not sure so what, but why not check your assumption?"

Not going to pose as an expert any more then. Good.
It is so simple for you Richard. Plot them.
Does it curl up?
No.
Is it a fairly steady rise. Yes
It is linear, not exponential.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 02:03 AM

boiling a very over complex social phenomina scare crisis
down to basics..

I've never knowingly taken a cock up my arse
or sucked one off.

Don't like the idea of it

I did an MA in social scinces/humanities about nearly 30 years ago.
So I'm not unaware of diverse human sexual expression.

so, efven if I dont like what gays do,
as long as they dont try it on me they can do what they like
to each other as far as i'm concerned.

god created us all in his own image
so seems like God in all his infintisimal glory
might have been a bit that way inclined.

dont bother me, each to their own
if they dont scare the morris dancers.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 02:08 AM

Yes, Royston, I would say that's a good start. And I have said all through this thread (and the other) that those who try to claim that HIV/AIDs is exclusively a "gay disease" or a "gay problem" should certainly know better, but blind themselves with a personal agenda based on homophobia and bigotry.

What they can't accept is the idea that homosexual relations per se is not dangerous. It's promiscuity. And contrary to what some here claim, there is no inherent connection between the two.

####

"I think society might have struggled on without several of that lot!

Rather over many media celebrities ancient and modern....dont you think   :0)"

Not hardly, Ake. Some of the most important ideas in our culture came from the early Greeks. And with the exception of a monarch or an emperor or two and a Nazi big-wig, the world would be a much poorer place if any one of the folks that Ebbie listed had not existed. Only a philistine would think that they were "over many." Would that there were more, no matter what their sexual orientation might be or have been. That is totally irrelevant to the magnitude of the contributions the majority of them have made to the sciences, the arts, and the humanities.

####

GfS still seems to be hung up on the idea that the best life has to offer is breeding. Hell's bells, rabbits must have the best lives of all!

But they don't produce a helluva lot of art, music, philosophy, literature. . . .   In fact, most of the chronic, full-time skirt-chasers I have known were dumber than a sack of doorknobs. The only skill they had was for rumpy-pumpy, and some of the women they scored with said that they really weren't very good at that, either!

And the sort of talent and ability that produces the life work of the kind of people Ebbie listed comes less from genes than it does from early interest in a particular subject or activity. Genes can give one a good pair of hands, but only a passionate interest in music will turn them into the hands of a brilliant pianist; a pianist who goes on to become a composer of great music.

And no, GfS, this doesn't mean that I'm saying that sexual-orientation is a matter of early interest (which you would undoubtedly try to translate into "choice"). There is a great deal of evidence to show that sexual orientation IS a matter of genes (no matter how much the thought disturbs you personally).

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: GUEST,Uncle Rumpo
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 02:27 AM

I dont care what folk care to take up their orrifices,
I dont care what they enjoy or how they define their own sense of self and identity existence being.


I really stopped caring back in the 1980's


I've probably in all optimism got no more than 30 years left breathing
on this planet,
and fuck knows where I go after this if at all anywhere when I'm dead.

So ok I dont understand why gays prefere cock to cunt.
its a complete mystery to me.

BUT thinking hard and difficult about all this immense brain burning philosiphising stuff'
the biggest and best mystery is what happens after we all individuals
depart this sad and brutal life we call

well .. errm. life.


fuck it and all the evil shiteheads on this planet,
lets pull up our trousers and see what happens next...

who in all intellignt reason cares..

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 03:04 AM

Mauvepink, I am trying very hard to picture the scene if, as I suggested, I puckered up and offered Ake a big old smackeroo. I do find Scottish accents very sexy......

A hug & a kiss for GfS is even less likely. I suspect he's the type that keeps guns in the basement, so I'd probably be shot as I waded across the front lawn through the heaving multitudes of his progeny.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:01 AM

Don't I even get a look in?
Blatant prejudice!
Anyway, Ake always posts with a cockney accent.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:03 AM

Ake,

You quote UNAIDS - "If we want to prevent
HIV infections, it is essential that more effective prevention efforts (which are inextricably linked
with treatment and care) among groups with higher prevalences be undertaken."

I said "I have been advocating greater universal education programs so that all people are reminded of the nature and risk of unsafe behaviour. I have advocated even greater targeted outreach and education amongst "at risk" groups and I have suggested that anyone who cares about alleviating this sphere of suffering ought to donate to an AIDS charity and/or lobby their MP for adequate public funding and effort.

I also said "More outreach, more education, more condoms, more care"

So I think I am on the same page as UNAIDS. Have you made your donation yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Smedley
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:16 AM

Sorry Keith. Maybe you could give me the statistical variant ratio quotient of how kissable you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:41 AM

Hmm Keith.....I suspect it may be the wellies, cords, pipe and trilby, that puts them off in your case   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:41 AM

Before I am accused of running away from this one, you will find what you need to know here, page 19 table W.
boring and complicated statistcs on keith's lips.org

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:44 AM

You're a fraud Keith....we all know that's chongo!

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 04:47 AM

Keith, this the last attempt to get you to make a relevant point. Any more prevarication and I really, really, think I am entitled to consider these points as taken for granted.

By the way, your comment "This population experienced exponential infection in the early years.
In any population you reach a limit on that kind of growth. Now it just picks off new members

Show such a breathtaking level of stupidiy that it must not be allowed to pass. Keith, I don't believe you have a qualification in a scientific discipline if you can say such a thing.

A disease, unchecked, will spread until it either infects such a proportion of the population that its transmission vectors are disrupted (that so many die as to prevent further transmission) or until a resistance to the disease develops, or until the behaviour of the pool-members is modified to limit the spread of the disease.

96% of gay men do not have HIV - so the disease has a lot of people to get to, left to its own devices. So the disease has not reached a self-limiting point. There certainly isn't any resistance and there is no cure to infection - only drugs to alleviate symptoms. 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.

Now to try to get you to make some points. Can you agree to the following statements. Say "yes" or say "no". If "no", then tell us why.

If you run away from this, people will be entitled to draw the obvious and reasonable conclusions.

1) HIV is a disease that can affect anyone who practices unprotected penetrative sex. In Africa it is an epidemic of terrifying proportions amongst the heterosexual majority of the population (up to 40% of the total adult population of some countries.) There are scientific reasons for that and the most important factor driving the spread is sexual networks and a lack of education about effective prevention measures where a lot of effort has been wasted promoting abstinence when condom-use is the only widely effective intervention.

2) In the UK, there is a very low prevalenece of HIV compared to most other countries. Historically the largest single group of people diagnosed each year was gay men, but the disease only affects a tiny minority of gay men (about 4%) and is nowhere near the prevalence level in some heterosexual populations.

3) Now, most diagnoses are of straight people but most of those contracted the disease outside the country. Nonetheless, there has been a disturbing rise amongst straight UK-acquired cases in recent years - a 500% increase.

4) As the number of carriers in any group increases, so the risk of other group-members contracting the infection increases: all other factors and behaviours remaining unchanged. Any increase in any affected group is a cause for serious worry.

4) Ideally, people would abstain from sex until married and then enjoy a lifelong, monagamous relationship. Reality, being different, dictates that the best way to prevent the disease is to educate everyone; because everyone is at some risk, but the greatest effort should be directed at the groups exposed to the greatest statistical risk of infection.

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.

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

The prefect has called us in from play.

re your, "A disease, unchecked, will spread until it either infects such a proportion of the population that its transmission vectors are disrupted (that so many die as to prevent further transmission) or until a resistance to the disease develops, or until the behaviour of the pool-members is modified to limit the spread of the disease."

It did start off exponential. Deny that?
As you keep telling us, not all gay men put themselves at high risk.
It did indeed infect such a proportion of the (at risk) population that....      and a large number did modify their behaviour.

your number 1. Yes to all (AGAIN! how often must I tell you?!) except "the most important factor" may not be that one.

Your number 2 (No sniggering at the back!) Yes except replace "in some heterosexual populations" with "in Africa"

3. Yes. I have explained why 500% increase does not make it a very worrying amount. EXTREMELY rare and low risk for the next hundred years.

4 Yes.

5 Honestly, I don't know. Maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:29 AM

"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.

Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?
From: Royston
Date: 30 Jan 10 - 05:39 AM

Thanks, Keith.

It did start off exponential. Deny that?

No, never denied it, never denied that gay men are disproportionately affected. When the disease emerged, medical science didn't recognise it and a lot of people died before anyone worked out a) that it was caused by HIV and b) how it was being spread.

As you keep telling us, not all gay men put themselves at high risk

It's important to point out that "not all gay men" is different from the more accurate statement "the vast majority of gay men, 96%" appear not to practice dangerous behaviour.

What I am trying to do is underscore the areas of agreement.

Keith, please go back to point 5 and give it some thought. Go back to UNAIDS, WHO, AVERT, THT, HPA and read what all the experts say about social attitudes and the devastating effect of stigma and prejudice. Think about it logically, please, and see if your view changes. Because, you see, it is point 5 that started all this off. The bigots started by advocating more prejudice and more stigma against minority groups and nothing to help or to bother the "normal" majority because they don't think HIV should matter at all to "normal" people. Is that the view you support? Or on balance do you think point 5 probably stands a better chance of curtailing this disease than driving people underground?