Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Government says it must do more to tackle HIV

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It would be helpful if non clinical financial managers stopped dictating to clinicians as to which are the most appropriate drugs to prescribe.

    It would be helpful if there was a cohesive strategy on health promotion.

    It would be helpful if there was a recognition of the need to destigmatise.

    1. It would be helpful if pharmaceutical companies tried not to manipulate the markets in their areas …

      1. Dr. R Guthrie 28 Oct 2011, 4:06am

        And just how are you going to sort this out.

        It is how the NHS works.

        Everything is corrupt.

        It keeps the NHS going.

        Backhanded contracts. ETC. Clinical Excellence. Waffle blurb Rubharb Rubharb.

        I quit the whole corrupt eddifice in 1995 and will never go back.

        I could have stayed and become very wealthy but unfortunately
        I had scruples and couldn’t stomach it.

        I left before I could get fired for pointing it out.

        1. I didnt offer a solution, Dr Guthrie … merely an observation …

          I do think some of your comments are tinged with a smidgen of bitterness … and certainly not “everything” is corrupt … nor is it how the entire NHS works …

          I think if the NHS had both clinical ethics and business ethics, both in terms of contracts, fair remuneration and good efficient practice and management, it would be better …

          Now I am not a business manager, I am a clinician – so I could make some suggestions to improvements in pre hospital and primary care but I suspect a more holistic view is necessary

  2. The government says one thing and acts in another. HIV prevention budgets in London were cut by 20% this year. I mean it’s not like there are more gay men with HIV in London that anywhere else in the UK. Oh hang on a minute ….

    1. de Villiers 27 Oct 2011, 4:46pm

      I don’t doubt what you have said. However, I understand that it is ring-fencing per se that is being scrapped rather than total budgets.

      1. Thats certainly not the view of most HIV clinicians in terms of the problems they have encountered in the way changes are being managed, de Villiers

    2. of similiar news http://www.lgbconsortium.org.uk/news/pan_london_hiv_prevention_programme_funding_cut_43 . Even ones about the cuts, do they forget monies are still being spent (what about this resource)

  3. UK already has a budget and spend on HIV of £750million (£250 million is spent in London. Audit of HIV is to be included refer http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15416115

    Additonal information can be found at http://forum-link.net/board/ to support the above and about the Pan London HIV prevention programme

  4. The published accounts of the LSCG shows £247m spent on HIV for 2010/11 http://www.londonspecialisedcommissioning.nhs.uk/documents/585.pdf

  5. Funny how a virus started out in the 1970’s that only killed gays, the governments said a monkey did it but today most people with a brain know that it was the governments working for the world powers, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S0DaVkyjHM and since the Vatican had a part in this it was to destroy the gays who they call their enemies.

    1. Ignorant buffoon, Paul

      Only gays? Tell that to the thousands of heterosexuals who have HIV

      1. Millions

        1. Fair point

  6. Further information on the HoL committee on HIV/AIDS in the UK can be found at http://myths.tcell.org.uk/forums/house-lords-appoint-new-committee-hiv-and-aids-uk

  7. Spanner1960 28 Oct 2011, 12:48am

    Prevention is still cheaper than “cure”.
    HIV Anti-Retroviral drugs are phenomenally expensive, with some running at up to £20k per person a year.

    1. Spanner hi,

      The £20K you mention if a myth, based upon £247million / 28,000 people accessing services & treatmen in London = £8,882 + £400 ASG = £9,282 per person (average) .

      The HPA estimates £484 million for 2010 http://www.hpa.org.uk/NewsCentre/NationalPressReleases/2011PressReleases/110901HIVdiagnosesdata/ £484 million / 92,000 = £5,260 + £400 ASG = £5,660 per person (average)

      1. Nice one Kevin Spanner hates gay people

        1. Spanner1960 28 Oct 2011, 7:26pm

          No, I just hate mouthy c*nts like you.

      2. Spanner1960 28 Oct 2011, 7:28pm

        I did say “up to”. The actual costs are not divulged in this country, but in the US, most people are paying about $2000 a month on average.

        1. Strangely, Kevin has supplied UK costs … suggest you go back and consider his posts ….

    2. Prevention is definitely cheaper than cure/treatment …

      However the figures you present, SPanner1960 are inaccurate

      1. Stu, I think enclosed within the HoL report it advised that between 1 or 5% is spent on prevention in the UK and suggests this issue be addressed

        1. Absolutely …

          All I am saying is that Spanner1960 is notoriously inaccurate in his facts on HIV and if he is going to challenge then he should make sure his facts are accurate …

    3. http://www.pinkuk.com/events/news/no_increase_in_hiv_spend.aspx , http://www.nat.org.uk/Media%20Library/Files/PDF%20documents/commissioning-report-nat.pdf and the HoL report provides further information on HIV preventention, this should also include the LGBT consortium news item of 43% cuts as listed above.

  8. Problem is they say it now but they wont do it.

    Fact is a politician pledging to tackle hiv is seen as risky as many still see it as a gay disease >.> sadly education just isnt reaching large parts of society.

    The darling child of politicians to say they will work on is cancer as thats horric thing that must be beaten but alas its only ever breast cancer that gets the publicity.

    :(

    Its annoying because we are so close to major breakthroughs with hiv

    1. I am afraid it is our responsibility to hold them to account …

  9. David Skinner 28 Oct 2011, 7:57am

    I am afraid I cannot be doing with any of this. It seems to me that the gays, queers,LGBTs, pinks, homosexuals ( for goodness sake get it sorted how you want to be identified) vainly (and I mean vainly – as in futile) demand to re- engineer the laws of nature. They expect, nay demand, that the consequence to every action they might take, which according to the laws of nature inevitably result in predictable outcomes, be suspended, short circuited, nullified or blocked. I know of know of no planet where the deliberate or even accidental defiance or denial of the universal laws of physics can be changed or suspended altogether.
    Granted that certain outcomes will be inevitable from taking sex out of its protective, steel casing, ie., enduring, monogamous marriage between a man’s sperm, chromosomes, genes, temperament, personality, heart mind, soul , personhood, family ,relatives, values, morality and world view with those of woman’s egg, , chromosomes, genes, temperament, personality

    1. The troll is back – and reported for offensive commentary

      1. Spanner1960 28 Oct 2011, 7:40pm

        Offensive, maybe, but live with it. Skinner has his ways, it is up to the rest of us to demonstrate he is wrong, rather than tittle-tattling to teacher.

        1. Whats the point of a report function on a discussion forum if it cant be used to challenge content that is perceived as unacceptable and bigoted …?

          I do challenge Skinner, regularly …

    2. Well that’s us told then… better not tamper with nature full stop. Do you want to tell medical research laboratories everywhere to stop working on cures for terminal diseases or shall I?
      Let’s go back to the good old days of leaches and amputations.

  10. David Skinner 28 Oct 2011, 8:00am

    the LGBTQQIXYZs are demanding the 99% of the population who do practise marriage as I have just described, pay for the consequences of those who wilfully take sex out this protective, steel casing and use it however they wish.
    What they really demand is the right to throw themselves off buildings , cliffs under lorries and trains and have the public to fork out the expense of immediately short circuiting any consequences.
    If they don’t get what they want when they want they rage and howl like babies. They, like Peter Tatchell and Ben Summerskill can rage, shake the fist and foam at the mouth as much as they wish, but this futile. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

    1. Another Self loathing closet case – if this virus is to wipe out the gays you hate dickhead – how come the majority of the 33 million living with the virus are Hetrosexual -and don’t say The Gay agenda

    2. Spanner1960 28 Oct 2011, 7:38pm

      “protective, steel casing”!???
      When 1 in 7 marriages end in divorce? If marriage was a condom, I sure as hell wouldn’t risk having sex.

  11. Yes, indeed, more needs to be done, MUCH more. AND the government must put an end to the myth that having HIV is now not so bad due to the drugs. AND the government must fund and push for THE CURE.

    The following today from Aidsmap:

    “Advances in treatment and care have resulted in dramatic improvements in the life expectancy of patients with HIV. Nevertheless, the anticipated life span of HIV-positive patients is still shorter than that of the general population. This is partly because patients with HIV have an increased risk of so-called diseases of ageing – for example cardiovascular disease, kidney and liver problems, osteoporosis, and some cancers. The exact reasons for this are controversial, but could include immune suppression, the inflammatory effects of HIV, co-infections, life-style factors, and the side-effects of some antiretroviral drugs.”

    http://aidsmap.com/HIV-associated-with-an-increased-risk-of-cataract-surgery/page/2107501/?ic=700100

    1. David…Nature also has homosexuality in a lot of animal species other than humans. There is no “law of nature” saying that its wrong or it would have been bred out of existence by now…nature is pretty ruthless with selection and survival of the fittest.

      I agree Chris, funding needs to be increased for cure as well as prevention. There’s no point in curing people when it could have been avoided in the first place.

      I’m puzzled by the assertion that a national campaign would not work. Why bother persisting with anti smoking, heart disease and salt campaigns if they are not effective???

  12. HIV affects far more married straights than gays. Time you got your facts right David.

    1. @John

      David is never one to let facts get in the way of his prejudice and bigotry …

  13. David Skinner 28 Oct 2011, 5:08pm

    “MSM have remained the group most disproportionately affected by and at risk of HIV infection through the three decades. A cumulative total of over 51,500 HIV new diagnoses have been reported in this group. Over 2,000 diagnoses had already been reported by 1985 and despite the plateau in the late 80s and 90s, where, on average, 1,620 cases were reported annually, numbers have since risen year on year (figure 2). After an almost doubling in the last decade, 2010 saw the largest ever annual number of new HIV diagnoses among MSM (3,080) (2). HIV prevalence remained high at approximately 5% (4-6%) among MSM each year since 2002 with a prevalence rate of 9% (7-11) in London.”

    Courtesy of Health Protection Agency. I didn’t realise that another symptom of men having sex with men was an inability to read. Well there you go.

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpr/archives/2011/news2211.htm

    1. Spanner1960 28 Oct 2011, 7:29pm

      Not an inability to read, just an ability to selectively absorb only those facts that support them.

      1. Spanner1960

        Your selective absorption of facts on HIV is clear and obvious on these forums …

  14. David Skinner 28 Oct 2011, 5:38pm

    Tom, Hitler believed in the Darwin’s claptrap about survival of the fittest and as you and all of us know he didn’t survive long. Nature sure is ruthless: it got of rid of Tyrannosaurus, perhaps the most ruthless of creatures. Ernst Roehm, the savage, homosexual founder of Hitler’s Storm Troopers lasted even less time.
    But if you take nature as your guide, animals do all manner of things such as female spiders eating their males and or animals eating their offspring. So does that mean that everything in the natural world is something we should emulate? Baboons may well get involved with males have sexing with males, but unlike the Sambian tribes men of Papua New Guinea we cannot get into their minds to find out what their motivation is. Some say it is to dominate other males. The Sambians do it because of their fundamental misogyny and the belief that drinking semen makes them more aggressive and war – like. Nice. Do we follow their example?
    The natural law is that the penis is ma

    1. Spanner1960 28 Oct 2011, 7:36pm

      Nature is not ruthless. It is nothing, it merely is. What works sticks around, what doesn’t dies. The fact a fcking great meteorite hit the Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs doesnt even enter into the genetic equation.

    2. Hitler also believed that humans breathe – it doesnt mean that is inaccurate …

      He also believed that good work deserved reward (although what he construed as good is questionable!) – because he believed it, that does not mean the concept of rewarding good work is wrong …

      Yes, he believed in the theory of evolution – but him believing in it does not make it wrong …. indeed, most eminent scientists (including some who believe in creation) believe that the theory of evolution is either completely correct or substantially correct …

      However, you as ever, Mr Skinner (or keith?), are a strawman and using Godwins law at the same time – demonstrably some of the worst forms of argument simultaneously – you should be congratulated – it takes some work to get an argument as badly framed as you do …

  15. David Skinner 28 Oct 2011, 5:40pm

    The natural law is that the penis is married to the vagina; sperm marries the egg; male and female chromosomes and genes marry ; personalities, temperaments and flesh and blood marry and form to create new life – the child and the family tree, the generations.
    Of course the penis can be married to other orifices beside where it is fit for purpose, i.e , into electric sockets, liquiders, nuclear reactors and of course the anus. Sperm doesn’t do too well in these environment, especially when it marries excrement to create genitourinary diseases, that often lead to early deaths.
    God is always forgiving. Some people are forgiving. But God’s created order is totally merciless.

    1. Spanner1960 28 Oct 2011, 7:34pm

      Ah right. So you might want to include Syphilis and Gonorrhoea along with that, as those two diseases have single-handedly wiped out millions. Or maybe we should blame people for not having enough fly spray to kill mosquitoes..
      The mosquito is responsible for the deaths of half the people ever to have been born on this planet. Don’t tell me, the Lord moves in “mysterious ways.”
      You really do spout some garbage sometimes.

      1. Perhaps Malaria, Cholera and Typhoid could also be blamed on the individual who contracted them ….?

        David does talk rubbish most of the time …

  16. David Skinner 28 Oct 2011, 9:59pm

    I seem to have been censored. What happened to tolerance, non- discrimination, diversity, equality, inclusion and all the other claptrap mouthed by Stonenwall?

    1. Rights – such as that to freedom of speech need to be exercised with responsibiity

  17. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 10:36am

    HIV is a product promiscuity. if people started jumping off cliffs would it be the governments job to tackle the issue of self inflicted injuries or would it be right to say “don’t jump off cliffs morons”?
    Don’t be promiscuous if you don’t want HIV. It worked for me. Practice abstinence until mutually monogamous heterosexual marriage. Homosexual acts even monogamy are harmful and cause cancer in women and HPV in men and women, not to mention they are disgusting and immoral!

    1. It might have worked for you, but there are many heterosexuals and homosexuals that it didnt work for …

      Your bigoted attitude, Keith is wrong and IMHO evilly inspired – perhaps you should seek some “reparation therapy” to try and make your intentions clean and right – because at the moment, you are certainly unclean

      1. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 12:24pm

        Monogamy works for everyone. Mutually monogamous married heterosexual couples do not contract HIV or other STD’s from each other.

        1. Maybe not from each other, but they can still contract it

      2. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 12:44pm

        “Keith is wrong and IMHO evilly inspired”
        Please explain this concept of evil and where it originates. Are we not evolved dust whirling around the cosmos, nature does not construct ‘evil’ does it? Nature is simply indifferent. So by which standard or who’s auhorative word am I evil?

        1. One does not require a supreme being in order to understand good and evil … that is just one world view of it – and you are one of the worst examples of evil I have encountered for some time. I suspect there is an element of mental health there, and you have my sympathy – but even people who suffer from psychosis and other mental health issues have a responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner and you certainly have no idea of what acceptable boundaries are (or at least your posts on this site demonstrate no understanding of appropriateness, compassion, humanity or emotion).

      3. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 1:46pm

        On waht basis am I unclean. I adhere to strict moral godly principles that insure I stay clean and STD free. The morality you espouse is the unclean one since it perpetuates HIV rather than prohibitinhg the behaviour that causes it.
        Unclean by who’s standards? Yours?
        You have no moral authority or any authorative source (save for the gay brigade) you can point to by which to say that I am unclean.

        1. Just 2 weeks ago you told us in great detail how you enjoyed typing with your keyboard covered in crap. I’m thinking that would probably count as unclean.
          Not in line with most policies on health and safety in the workplace anyhow.

          1. That was one of the standards I was judging by, Flapjack

            @Keith

            If your God sets his standards so low, that you are currently adhering to them – then unfortunately you and I shall be both in heaven – I look forward to meeting you and educating you – if that is true … but you are sadly mistaken …

            If you are a true adherent to the Bible then, I am afraid to say you are failing. Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge or you yourself will be judged”.

            Now before you try and throw that back at me – I dont try and live my life according to the Bible, I do not believe in its accuracy or purpose. You claim you do – so look forward to your judgement

  18. Barebacking spreaders 29 Oct 2011, 5:38pm

    “Do not judge or you yourself will be judged”.

    A complete (though common) total misinterpretation af a scripture which I do live by even though you don’t as you say. Can’t be bothere to explain your misapplication of the verse but a brief check on Google should put you straight. Suffice to say wickedness is to be judged (including immorality ) but fault finding is wrong.

    1. Suffice to say it is not supposed to be YOU doing the judging which you are … you will be condemned for that if your beliefs turn out to be correct – which I very much doubt

      I know sufficient about hermaneutics and exegesis to be able to interpret a text accurately – strange that I can do that, and you can not – you would have thought you would want to interpret Biblical texts accurately and correctly …. If you want to pick and mix your texts then you will never understand them …

      That said, they are just interesting writings – nothing more …

      1. You don’t appear to know the difference between judging and identifying sin. Psalm 97:10 says to hate what is bad. Sodomy, incest , men who lie with men , bestiality and fornication have all have all been deemed as gross sins where unrepentant wilful practicitioners will be answerable both now (AIDS etce) and in Gods judgement (not mine). My perceived (wrongly) judging is the least of your problems should you persist in your wicked course.

        1. One interpretation of god in many past and present. Appeals to the authority of unproven celestial father figures will be dismissed with the same wave of the hand you dismiss Thor, Wotan, Gaia, Osiris, Set, Baal and the Flying Spaghetti monster.
          By the way, Humpty Dumpty tells me he doesn’t approve of you trolling gay websites [I can see you’re really impressed by that].

          1. Well said, Flapjack

        2. It seems the filthy and riddled mind of Keith is the one confused and unable to understand that he is the one being judgemental and (if his beliefs are correct, which I am sure he is sorely mistaken about) then he will be judged for this ….

          Bad and evil man that he is, and duplicitous and full of hypocracy – as he states he lives his life by teachings in the Bible, but then flagrantly breaches the teachings in the Bible

          “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone …”

          1. Calling me unclean does not make you clean. In which way am I unclean? I subscribe to abstinence before mutually monogamous marriage, yuou subscribe to any sex act between consenting humans. My way ensures safety from STDs, yours ensures death from STDs and sickness. I am demonstrably correc t ,and your m’maorality’ is wicked.
            Also, Jesus did not say “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”. If you check your bible it will tell you in a footnote that those words are not authentic but have been included to show an example of falsification. I did not expect you to know that though since your prefer cherry picking and not thorough contextual examination of scripture.

          2. @Keith

            I am afraid it is you who cherry pick – I am fully aware of the need to contextualise, thats why when I have read the Bible I have used hermaneutics and exegesis to try and understand (I still found it irrelevant)

            I dont call you unclean – I am telling you that you are unclean – unclean in your attitude and approach – if you’re supposed to be “reaching out” you have a very poor grasp of how to engage people

            You may regard yourself as sexually clean, sexually stunted maybe …

            What you are not is ethically or morally clean – and your first priority should be to your own sin before your perceived sin of others – it is not your role to judge …

            Anyway, enough of the nonsense from the Bible … your comments are an irrelevance and manic

  19. @Stu
    You may not consider me moral by your standards but the source of your moral values are a mystery to me anyway since they are far removed from any biblical standards. Since you disregard biblical standards and the bible, on which moral authority are you able to say I am unclean symbolically,. I know I am clean in Gods eyes and I am not seeking favour with sinners and the wicked, therefore, why should I adopt your ‘subjective’ harmful morality. In short I disregard your ethics/morals as having no divine backing, being yours only!

    1. Which god Keith. I hear Cthulhu is really riled by your blasphemous stance and will sentance you to eternal torment. What’s that?
      I have no evidence that Cthulhu is your lord and master or exists anywhere outside a fictional universe created by HP Lovecraft? Well he should fit right in with your god then.
      Man made god in his image, always has, always will… so divine authority is an irrelevance to any moral debate. I can invoke any all powerful sockpuppet I like to express my opinions, but they’re still just my opinions dressed up as gospel. Biblical standards are no different.

      1. @Flapjack
        Since Stu has not replued I will ask you on which authority am I to be called immoral or unethical if not Gods. Who is this human authority that decides what is right and wrong and why should I agree with him? Also, what does this mysterious authority (which seems to be conceptual rather than actual) say about consensual adult male incest. Is it moral or immoral?

        1. I would ask why are you so hung up on mythical authority to back up a faltering argument? Biblical authority carries no more clout than any other philosopher living or dead.
          The golden rule predates the bible by several thousand years and much moral philosophy since has been tussled over for centuries by philosophers of all stripes.
          The bible is not the last word on the subject by a long chalk… nor is it morally infallable unless you see genocide as some means to an end to bring about morality. Leviticus is so packed full of sociopathic and arbitary morals you could write a psychotic case study about it.
          Don’t assume you have moral superiority simply because you’re clutching a bible like a liferaft.

          1. I asked you whether according to the moral authority to which you subscribe, consensual male adult incest is moral, and you have no answer, so instead you divert into a desperate semi rant about the bible and Leviticus (yawn!!!).
            Please answer the question if you can!

          2. @Keith

            This is not the place to be discussing ideology … this thread is about the UK government stating it should do more to prevent and assist in treatment of HIV

            Your obsession with gay sex means you go off at tangents and sound vitriolic and insane in how you castigate people. I suggest you go and talk to a doctor.

          3. @Keith

            I tend to agree with another Christian on these threads who stated that the comparison of gay sex to incest, polygamy etc etc is offensive, wrong and Christians should not engage in such bigoted practices. I suggest you learn a lesson from your “brother in Christ”

    2. I note your impatience in my having not replied as yet – I thought patience was a virtue (another example of your lacking in virtuousness?)

      This thread is not about my ideology, philosophy etc etc. Suffice to say (as I have said on PN at various times recently), that I am perfectly (as most people on PN) to form rational assessments of what is good and what is not, without reference to any supreme being.

      Just because one does not follow the Bible or accept it as authority does not mean one is not good ….

      Just because one is a Christian does not make one good …

      Keiths behaviour on here is a clear example of a Christian being evil – and if he is right in his religious views then the judgement coming to him will occur (because if he is right, his God knows his views and thoughts, and sees the judgemental and unprincipled manner in which he behaves on these threads (and undoubtedly elsewhere)).

      1. “that I am perfectly (as most people on PN) to form rational assessments of what is good and what is not, without reference to any supreme being. ”

        That is true but when you try to impose them on aothers and call others immoral such as me, it is right for me to ask by which standarsds or who’s authority, other tan your own, are yopu basing this claim. If I immoral/ unethical on the basis of your unsupported say so, then I what weight does your claim carry? I assert that you are wrong because I say so and you cannot say why your say so carries more authority than mine can you?

        1. @Keith

          Projecting again ???

          I have not sort to impose any beliefs of standards on anyone else …

          I debate the rights and wrongs of situations, but ultimately everyone has the right to make decisions about how they behave, what they believe or what they say. We all have to account for our own behaviours (including you, Keith – and the offensiveness of your conduct leads to a great deal of scrutiny that you can and should be held to).

          I repeat, this thread is about the government funding of prevention and treatment of HIV and thus any other philosophical issues, I contend you should leave for another thread. Or, even better, consider your own wrong doing and reflect on that first.

      2. And still no answer as to whether consensual adult male incest is immoral.
        Stumped?

        1. Won’t answer…can’t answer!

          1. already answered – see above …

        2. Go on then, what’s the answer to why incest is wrong and try not to use the words “Bible” or “jesus said”. Stumped?

          1. I am asking you and Stu whether consensual imale adult incest is immoral in your view and you cannot answer, preferring to turn the question back on me. Why are youi being avasive regarding this straightforward question?

          2. @Keith

            I have answered your question above

            Can you answer Flapjacks?

            You are a strawman, incest is not relevant to a discussion on homosexuality …

    3. Keith

      I do not require divine backing or any form of supreme being to make moral decisions …

      Its simple, read it again and understand …

      1. You called me immoral and now you say “We all have to account for our own behaviours” which means that iof I am not immoral in my own eyes, that is fine. Also, to whom do we account as you say? Basically, it is only on the authority of your word that you can call me immoral as you have no higher authority with which to refer. But who says you are right, you?
        As to the answer to flapjacks quetsion. Incest is wrong /immoral as it is forbidden in the bible by Godafter a certain point in mans history where man had degenerated from perfection insofar as to pose a risk regarding sex with family.

        1. So it used to be OK then according to the bible. Thanks for the honest reply.

          1. Of course it used to be ok. how do you think the earth wqas populated by two people? When it became dangerous to health due to human degeneration, God forbade it for our protection. That which God forbids is explicitly immoral.

  20. @Stu
    You said about me…
    “Your bigoted attitude, Keith is wrong and IMHO evilly inspired – perhaps you should seek some “reparation therapy” to try and make your intentions clean and right – because at the moment, you are certainly unclean”
    I asked on which authority or by which standard you are judging me other than your own set of values(to which I do not subscribe) and I asked you not to impose your values on me.
    You then replied…”I have not sort to impose any beliefs of standards on anyone else …

    I debate the rights and wrongs of situations, but ultimately everyone has the right to make decisions about how they behave”

    This contradicts your statements about you deeming me uncleam, immoral, and you are indeed seeking to impose your values on me as the right ones, mine being wrong in your eyes. So I ask again. On what authority do you seek to assert that your values on sexual morality trump mine?

    1. There is no such contradiction in what I have said

      I have already answered your question – whether you are happy with the answer is an entirely different matter and I do not propose to neter into correspondence on that question – strawman

      1. I smell BS and evasion. Furthermore , you have not answered a simple yes or no question. is consensual male incest immoral in YOUR opinion, yes or no?

        1. Well you would know all about faeces, since you apparently spread them over your keyboard and eat them (to quote prior postings elsewhere on PN by you).

          Typing this response, I wonder why I would ever engage in debate with someone so debased as to have suggested such things in an internet forum …

          A lesson for me, ignore Keith as far as possible

  21. @Stu.
    Is consensual adult male incest in your opinion
    A) Moral
    B) immoral

    Please answer simply A or B withoutthe usual evasion, subterfuge (not appropriate thread blah blah) or diversion.

    1. You just told us it’s moral according to the bible. I disagree, but hey, that’s just my opinion.

      1. So you think it is not immoral for a father to sodomize his consenting adult son?
        That opens a whole can of worms and one wonders at which point you DO deem something immoral?

        1. No Keith that’s what YOU think. Or did you conveniently airbrush out all those bad bits of the Old Testament you no longer agree with? Lot’s daughters anyone? Funny how you can pick and choose bible verses to suit… it’s almost like you get your moral compass from somewhere else.

          1. You just said you don’t agree with me. Make up your mind. Is consensual male adult incest moral or immoral in YOUR view?

          2. already did make up my mind Keith. It’s you that seems confused.

    2. @Keith

      My personal view is that incest is wrong …

      My view is partly based on fairness – in that there is a risk in heterosexual incest for genetic disease and other developmental problems, and since I don’t believe we should prohibit things without consideration of equality – I therefore believe in the interests of natural justice we should prohibit incest completely.

      Incest is approved of historically in the Bible, so you are hardly the person to be lecturing on those moral grounds ….

      Natural justice does not require a person to form their beliefs on a particular text, a particular ideology or a supreme being – it is about fairness ….

      1. I asked you about consensual male incest as you well know, not incest in general. Is it wrong in your view?
        Also since you deem incest wron because it carries a risk, surely you deem homosexuality, and fornication wrong since they carry a risk, a much greater on in fact!
        Incest by the way was forbidden i the bible in the time of Moses but please do not diver from the issue. You are very slippery.

        1. I am not slippery in the slightest … my skin condition is very good – I only moisturise once a day (as a gay boy – you might have expected more often) …

          The fact you call me slippery, makes it sound like you are trying to trap me …

          I am just answering your questions, but refusing to repeat answers. If you can not understand then your bigotry is extreme and you definitely require psychiatric help (I have seen psychotic people able to state things more clearly than you are).

          1. @Stu
            you said…
            “since I don’t believe we should prohibit things without consideration of equality – I therefore believe in the interests of natural justice we should prohibit incest completely.”

            I did not ask you whether you believe consensual male incest should be prohibited. iIasked whether you believe it is immoral and you still have not answered. It is a simple question, yes or no?

          2. I have answered your question

            I am not prepared to engage in diversionary questions on this thread any longer

            It is clear that you are obsessed – and I (and most of PN) are not, will not and do not want to be interested in your commentary

          3. Stu, that’s just the point. You HAVE answered – and probbaly repeated your answer too – yet Keith keeps on and on about it. I used to think this was to provoke, but I now believe it’s mainly due to mental health issues.

            PLEASE ignore him. I actually think engaging with him in whatever way just makes him worse – more manic, more confused and irrational. He’s been responded to AT LENGTH on a number of threads yet he’s clearly not taken in a word anyone says.

            I feel sorry for him – very sorry – but the only way we can help indirectly is by not provoking these manic, obsessed outbursts, I think. That is, ignore him. It’s not cruel, it’s kind in the end, in my opinion.

            (and I know I’ve said this before :D I’m not having a go – I like your comments and I think you’re kind and patient and thoughtful. I just feel doubly sad – troll crap everywhere here and a probably ill man in more of a state than when he started commenting).

          4. @Iris

            I’m going to try and read any posts by Keith in future, report them as necessary, count to ten and either make no response at all, or consider a more tolerant way to comment that does not involve Keith

            Thanks for your kind words

          5. No problem, Stu – I meant it. :) Your intelligent comments (and those of Flapjack and others too) are always interesting to read and are, sadly, wasted on poor Keith.

        2. If you read my comment carefully you will see that I cover all forms of incest and comment on the reason both heterosexual and homosexual incest should be treated similarly – learn to read!

        3. BTW… You put forward Moses to frame an argument that the Bible exhorts “why incest is wrong”. It may interest you that his parents were nephew and aunt. So you could say that without a drastically shallow genepool there wouldn’t have even been a Moses.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot_(biblical_person)#Incest
          Seems like half the old Testament would’ve been right at home on “Jerry Springer”

  22. @ Flapjack
    Since ypu have made up your mind, what is your answer?
    Is consensual male incest moral or not?

    1. He answered your question – you are clearly so ignorant that you cant comprehend an answer

      1. No he did not. He did not say whether it is moral or immoral in his view. He did what you do and evaded with a response but not an answer.
        You yourself have not stated whether it is immoral or moral in your view have you?

        1. I explained it is a strawman question

          I also explained in detail my personal views and I will not revisit them.

  23. @Flapjack. You have not answered whether you believe consensual male inces immoral. Yes or no?

    1. Yes I bloody did. Pay proper attention.

      1. I fully understood your answer to the diversionary tactics of Keith

        If he wants to persist in diversionary tactics then that is his concern – but I suggest me flag his comments as negative and report the appropriate ones and ignore him from now on – morally he is bankrupt …

        Aside from an initial retort pointing out his bigotry and inaccuracy (or pointing out how he contradicts himself perhaps), I am going to try not to respond to him …

        1. Sorry, Stu – I wrote my comment above being seeing your comment here about ignoring him! Apologies! :D

      2. No you didn’t you slippery eel. is consensual male incest immoral, yes or no/

  24. Here are some of the responses Stu has given to the simple yes or no question of whether in his opinion consensual male incest (not incest in general) is immoral…
    “The fact you call me slippery, makes it sound like you are trying to trap me”
    “I explained it is a strawman question”
    “I am not prepared to engage in diversionary questions on this thread any longer”

    He clearlis completely stumped on this simple question since his subjective woolly ‘morals’ cannot provide him with guidance. he CLAIMED he has answered but there is no yes or no answer to this specific question on this thread.
    One has to conclude that his form of morality has failed and is inferior to objective morality as found in the bible.

  25. Stu said…

    I have answered your question
    I am not prepared to engage in diversionary questions on this thread any longer”

    He has not answered the simple ‘yes or n’o question I asked regarding whether IN HIS OPINION, male consensual adult incest is immoral. He cannot answer and therefore has responded with diversions and irrelevances such as “since I don’t believe we should prohibit things without consideration of equality – I therefore believe in the interests of natural justice we should prohibit incest completely.”
    This does not address the question of whether he believes it immoral, it merelt highlights the inconsistency of his thinking since by his terms , harmful things (not immoral)should be prohibited. He obviously does not realize this would include homosexual and heterosexual promniscuity which spread s diseases to innocents..
    So Stu… is consensual male adult incest immoral, yes or no?

    1. Jock S. Trap 3 Nov 2011, 10:54am

      Your constant continued hijacking of these comment pages with questions that are completely irrelevent to any story PinkNews puts up is pathetic and you deserve no answers from anyone. WE are not up for debate the stories written by PinkNews are and ONLY are. Prehaps spend time enjoying life would be key rather than questioning your own immoral life by making all others as miserable as you.

      Fact – You hate is that Gay people get on with our life at peace with ourselves not feeling we have to question every little bloomin thing.

      Advice Keith – Get a life and stop trying to hijack everyone elses, Your very boring.

      1. Mind your own business you degenerate fool. Do you understand the irony of an obscene sodomite calling a person of marital fidelity immoral?
        Get back in your box with the other toads. You are on ignore!

        1. Jock S. Trap 4 Nov 2011, 6:21am

          Your life clearly full of anger, mine completely at peace. Ignore me and the facts all you want but I wouldn’t expect anything less from such lowlife with nothing better to do than abuse other human beings. Trouble is the real irony is you just don’t see how Wrong a being you truely are.

      2. @Jock S Trap

        Great to see you back, mister … Haven’t seen you on here in ages, last time I saw you, you hadn’t been too well – hope things are a bit better now.

        I completely endorse all your comments about Keith – we have a couple of new trolls bouncing about – and Keith has become obsessed by faeces as no doubt you will have noticed

        1. Jock S. Trap 4 Nov 2011, 6:18am

          Thank you Stu. Not been good but on the mend.

          Haven’t been away much though I have been reading here and find that behaviour like Keith’s here is nothing more than abuse and while PinkNews allows such I will refuse to comment here. I wish more would follow then maybe PinkNews would listen and finally act to stop such abusive people. We have enough of it in life I don’t see why we should be constantly putting up with lowlife abuse from a more than willing Gay news site such as PinkNews. It makes PinkNews worthless to allow such people to abuse their readers, something they should value not demean.

          1. Just so you know, you diseased idiot, PN does not allow me to post and have taken many steps to prevent me. I am able to circumnavigate them in different ways. Furthermore I usually ignore your bigotted, prejudicial posts but here I am defending PN on behalf of the village idiot with the most childish username
            You are back on ignore.

          2. Jock S. Trap 6 Nov 2011, 10:54am

            Whats ironic is you don’t see the problem in your comment there.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all