1
   

Outrage as gay pair get 14 years' hard labour

 
 
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 12:46 pm
@Irishk,
Gee, another country heard from. "able2know", what a crock.
littlek
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 12:51 pm
@electronicmail,
My guess is that the CDC is only listing data about the US and it's territories. Intravenous drug use causes 30% of the cases worldwide. In Sub-Saharan Africa that percentage is likely much higher.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:01 pm
@electronicmail,
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:05 pm
@littlek,
Quote:
Every major campaign against AIDS in Africa has been based on the premise that heterosexual sex accounts for 90 percent of transmission in adults. Yet safe-sex efforts have not stopped the spread of the epidemic, which now affects 30 million people. Economic anthropologist David Gisselquist therefore suspected that HIV might be spreading primarily by another route. After analyzing 20 years of epidemiological studies, he and his colleagues concluded that unsafe injections, blood transfusions, and other medical procedures may account for most AIDS transmission in African adults. Their analysis indicates that no more than 35 percent of HIV in that population is spread through sex.
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jun/breakaids
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 01:27 pm
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
We want Malawi and you as well to grow up and enter the 21st century and stop being bigoted and wrongheaded about homosexuality. Both ostracism and violence against gays and lesbians and transexuals is dead on wrong. So is supporting and openly condoning and defending the backwards third world practices of scientific and social practices of countries like Malawi.


Absolutely ******* unbelievable. Hypocrisy much? Take out Malawi, stick in the USA and you don't have much difference.

Quote:
History of US law
In June 2003, the US Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. (See Lawrence v. Texas.) This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting adults, and overruled an earlier ruling from 1986 in which Georgia's sodomy law had been upheld. (Bowers v. Hardwick.)
Before that 2003 ruling, 27 states, the District of Columbia and 4 territories had repealed their sodomy laws by legislative action, 9 states had had them overturned or invalidated by state court action, 4 states still had same-sex laws, and 10 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. military had laws applying to all regardless of gender.

Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punishable by a lengthy term of imprisonment. Over the years, many of the states that did not repeal their sodomy laws had enacted legislation reducing the penalty. Immediately prior to the Lawrence decision in 2003, the penalty for violating a sodomy law varied very widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction among those states retaining their sodomy laws. The most harsh penalties were in the state of Idaho, where sodomy could theoretically earn a life sentence. Michigan followed, with a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment.

In most US states the laws were no longer enforced, or were very selectively enforced. The continued presence of these rarely enforced laws on the statute books, however, was often cited as justification for discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

http://www.fact-index.com/s/so/sodomy_laws_in_the_united_states.html


Quote:

You might as well not reply to my posts as from now on I'm placing you on my ignore list.


And even more hypocrisy. Have you read your own signature line, Tsars?
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 02:39 pm
@JTT,
Jackass (JTT) .... Since does anywhere in my entire posting history EVER (not only at a2k or online) have you read my condoning the homophobic attitudes and policies here in the United States.

But at least here in the US, we don't imprison people for being gay.

Some people might consider your accusation as libel. I have constantly argued for gay rights and gay marriage and have written against many antigay policies here in the US. I have written to my congressional representatives and to the editors of several media outlets regarding the need for legalized gay marriage.

Learn to read what's written and stop trying to allegedly read between the damned lines.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 02:56 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Absolutely ******* unbelievable. Hypocrisy much? Take out Malawi, stick in the USA and you don't have much difference.

To hell with the Africans, what do they know anyway, that's his attitude. Anal sex isn't just homosexual, they use it over there as contraception. But WE will be politically correct, so let THEM croak. Absolutely ******* unbelievable doesn't even begin to express it.
http://aras.ab.ca/transmission-Africa.html

Quote:
.....We recommend enlarging the list of risk factors to include evaluation ... of other sexual variables, especially anal intercourse.
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 03:00 pm
@tsarstepan,
What? Once again, slowly:
Quote:
You don't care about risk to others. If you did you'd bother to educate yourself, like look up the CDC website.
Quote:

HIV transmission patterns among Black men vary from those of
white men. Although both groups are most likely to have been
infected through sex with other men
, white men are much more
likely to have been infected this way.


I'll bet my bottom dollar you're not black.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 03:11 pm
@electronicmail,
I bet your bottom dollar you're a bigot. Where in the quoted article and where in my postings am I talking about AIDS?! I'm talking about the illicit practice of imprisoning people solely because they're gay.

You seriously need to check your medication levels then consult your doctor as clearly your hallucinating things regarding your obsession over AIDS.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 03:11 pm
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
But at least here in the US, we don't imprison people for being gay. But at least here in the US, we don't imprison people for being gay.


Blow your own horn if you like, [and I commend you for your actions] the point is that you definitely should not be pointing fingers as a country. You might want to note that Lawrence v Texas was 2003 and there were still 3 justices who sought to uphold the Texas law.

And in 1988, that isn't all that long ago, is it?, the SC upheld a similar Georgia law. Yes, it's clearly hypocrisy to point fingers at other countries.

Quote:
Some people might consider your accusation as libel.


Now that's funny, Tsars.

0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 03:17 pm
@tsarstepan,
You just lost, buster, did you write that to "jackass" or not?
Quote:
Some people might consider your accusation as libel. I have constantly argued for gay rights and gay marriage....

Learn to read what's written and stop trying to allegedly read between the damned lines.

So it's screw the Africans, just worry about your own? Terrific.
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 03:19 pm
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:
So it's screw the Africans, just worry about your own? Terrific.


i say screw everyone, can't wait for the comet that wipes us all out
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 03:36 pm
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:

You just lost, buster, did you write that to "jackass" or not?
Quote:
Some people might consider your accusation as libel. I have constantly argued for gay rights and gay marriage....

Learn to read what's written and stop trying to allegedly read between the damned lines.

So it's screw the Africans, just worry about your own? Terrific.


Where in my argument do I explicitly exclaim screw the Africans, just worry about your own? You really are a stubborn near-illiterate. Let me reiterate one more time before I thumbs down my own thread:
Learn to read what's written and stop trying to allegedly read between the damned lines.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 07:52 am
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
Where in my argument do I explicitly exclaim screw the Africans, just worry about your own?

Explicitly, nowhere. It's implicit to your "outrage".

The AIDS virus has been dated to the Congo basin in the late 1920s. That's when it crossed from other apes to humans. Nobody in the "civilized" world worried about it until 50 years later when the virus hit San Francisco via a homosexual man, a Haitian illegal alien who had previously visited the Congo. He had stopped in Haiti prior to SF and spread it there as well but nobody cared until the virus hit the (male) homesexual community in the US. Or are you unaware of the great dying off in that community as well?

We're now 30 years down the line, nothing we've been telling the Africans to do works over there, so finally these people decide enough is enough and take matters into their own hands.

And you get "outraged" based on some prejudice of your own. Let them die off in order to support your agenda is your whole point. Might as well make it explicit, don't you think?
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 08:08 am
@djjd62,
In Malawi they don't have to wait for any comet. Re-posting:
Quote:
Vermont 2007 AIDS cases per 100,000 population: 1 (one)
Malawi 2007 AIDS cases per 100,000 population: 12,000 (twelve thousand)

We're hypocrites at best and mass murderers at worst for dumping on Malawi for trying to get a grip on this hecatombe. That's as explicit as it gets.
0 Replies
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 08:46 am
@electronicmail,
electronicmail wrote:
...so finally these people decide enough is enough and take matters into their own hands.


That's purely your interpretation of the article posted. Nowhere does it say the two men were sentenced to prevent the spread of AIDS. AIDS isn't even mentioned in the report.

Rather, it was a vindictive, bigot of a judge who took it upon himself to set an example (he himself admitted it was a 'scare' tactic) for a lifestyle with which he doesn't agree. Outrageous.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 09:01 am
@Irishk,
Quote:
That's purely your interpretation of the article posted. .....Rather, it was a vindictive, bigot of a judge ....Outrageous.


You don't have access to any sources except for articles posted here and YouTube videos? African media talk of nothing else. Human Rights Watch (worldwide not only African) talks of HIV-AIDS prevention in opposing the decision. That's from HRW:
Quote:
"....promoting intolerance and creating a climate of fear will only sabotage efforts to ensure access to HIV prevention and treatment by driving men underground,”
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 09:30 am
@electronicmail,
I still don't understand why you want to make this particular article and this particular judge's actions about AIDS.

If I post an article/newspaper report about Iran sentencing gay men to death by hanging, are you going to reply that they are just trying to prevent the spread of AIDS?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/16/2020 at 11:48:04