Simon Callow, Aids and the choir

  Sad story. The London Oratory School - Catholic, state -  has dropped the Terence Higgins Trust as a beneficiary of its World Aids Day concert,  because the charity's "philosophy, aims and practices  [do not] support Christian values. "  Instead their charity is Surf, which helps survivors of the Rwandan genocide who had been "deliberately infected" with Aids.  Simon Callow,  as patron, is threatening to withdraw his support.  Meanwhile, ironically, it emerges that one of the priests at Brompton Oratory, the church attached to the school, was HIV positive and was actually cared for by the THT in the late 90s.
    Admittedly the THT does go large on "safe sex" messages in garish pink boxes,  but the
sadness lies in this distinction being made, explicitly, between the 'innocent' and the gay victims of the same disease.  Both need support.      

Comments

[Dan]

I refer you to the excellent onion news site.....

Christian Charity Raising Money To Feed Non-Gay Famine Victims...

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/christian_charity_raising_money

[Martin]

Well, of course the THT is incompatible with Catholicism. It is inappropriate that it should be a beneficiary of a concert at a Catholic school, and the school has done the right thing.

[Oliver McCarthy]

But how on earth can a "charity" that supports homosexuality also be anti-AIDS? It doesn't make sense. Homosexuality spreads AIDS. If they want to cut down the amount of AIDS they should be cutting down the amount of homosexuality. The problem is that they like homosexuality but they don't like the consquences -- such as disease and death.

[Carl Waring]

"Homosexuality spreads AIDS....The problem is that they like homosexuality but they don't like the consquences -- such as disease and death."
Posted by: Oliver McCarthy

OK, let me just say that I understand that in the interests of free speech and freedom of thought all views should be heard, however unpalatable. The issue I have is that this is just so staggeringly and obviously incorrect! It's the intellectual equivalent of saying that the moon is made of cheese, and about as helpful.

It ignores natural incidences of homosexuality (Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, St. Martin's Press, 1999), ignores the fact that many of those infected with HIV/AIDS are women probably because most people infected with HIV are infected through heterosexual intercourse (Deschamps M et al., Heterosexual transmission of HIV in Haiti, Annals of Internal Medicine, 1996), ignores the fact that many of these women were raped (WHO report, 2006) and ignores the historical incidences of homosexuality free from disease (though never far away from ignorance or persecution sadly).

It's basically just a pig-ignorant post, full of the usual lies and misinformation so beloved of the anti-homosexual brigade. If you don't lke homo/bisexuality because your God tells you not to, fine. Just be honest about it.

[Tony Francis]

Carl, what are you saying? Homosexuality doesn't spread AIDS? It would appear promiscuity of all kinds spreads AIDS. I don't know any other way to get it, other than the few unfortunates who contact it via blood transfusions, or possibly accidental needle sticks. Oh yes, there are the intravenous drug users who share needles. They get it, too. I am not saying this is retribution for immoral behavior. But that is the way people get AIDS.

[Carl Waring]

"Carl, what are you saying? Homosexuality doesn't spread AIDS?"

No, Tony, that is not what I am saying at all. Have a look at Oliver's post, and then have another look at mine. What I am saying is that, contrary to Olivers assertion, homosexuality and homosexuals are not the prime vectors of HIV/AIDS. Oliver appears to believe that AIDS is Gods/natures way of killing gay people, and propogates the myth that homosexuality spreads AIDS, as opposed to promiscuity and unprotected sex.

"I am not saying this is retribution for immoral behavior."

But that is more or less exactly what Oliver is saying. I notice how you pick over my post but leave Oliver's logically, intellectually and evidencially flawed post well alone. Perhaps a bit of perspective might not go amiss?

[Tony Francis]

Well, Carl, not to belabor the point. If AIDS is spread, inter alia, via homosexual practices, then it can't be a myth that homosexuality spreads disease. Concerning divine retribution: many believe that disease is a punishment from an angry God. But the New Testament would indicate otherwise. However it must be acknowledged that foolish or risky behavior of all kinds has its consequences. I would consider promiscuity, in the least to be foolish or risky behavior, on several levels.

[Carl Waring]

"Well, Carl, not to belabor the point. If AIDS is spread, inter alia, via homosexual practices, then it can't be a myth that homosexuality spreads disease."

The myth is that HIV/AIDS is spread by homosexuality alone, in absentia of anything else Tony. Look, once again, at Oliver's post. Besides which, to single homosexuality out as the main vector of HIV/AIDS is both inaccurate and unhelpful.

"However it must be acknowledged that foolish or risky behavior of all kinds has its consequences. I would consider promiscuity, in the least to be foolish or risky behavior, on several levels."

Quite. However, HIV/AIDS also affects those who have not engaged in risky/foolish behaviour. Look at the children born with the virus in Africa, and those orphaned by it.

It's a nasty, pernicious virus Tony. I'm disappointed that your good self and others have not taken this chance to dispel dangerous and destructive myths about it.

[Tony Francis]

Carl, children infected with AIDS become infected because of foolish or risky behavior, albeit the actions of their parents, who are supposed to be in charge of them. I don't know the numbers, but it is an established fact that homosexual activities can spread the disease. Short of either complete abstinence or long term (that is life-long) monogamy by both partners, I don't know there is any guarentee the disease won't be spread. People who consider themselves "sort of monogamous", that is monogamous for the length of the relationship, be it a few months or a few years, are still vulnerable. They can potentially be infected with many diseases, because they are accessing the entire sexual history of the new partner. Even with occassional "flings", the numbers start to add up. It is still a matter of argument and speculation whether "safe sex" practices are effective. If they end up encouraging promiscuity, then there is a good chance they are ineffective. This is because the number of sexual encounters in a population increases because the perception is "sex is now safe". That is the theory, anyway. I am not saying these people "deserve to be infected on a moral basis". But this is the reality of the situation. It can be compared to motorcycle riders who end up with more broken necks, head injuries and amputated legs than the general population. It is an increased risk associated with the activity.

[Carl Waring]

"Carl, children infected with AIDS become infected because of foolish or risky behavior, albeit the actions of their parents, who are supposed to be in charge of them."

Hmmm...straw man, Tony. I said: "HIV/AIDS also affects those who have not engaged in risky/foolish behaviour." This statement still stands.

"I don't know the numbers, but it is an established fact that homosexual activities can spread the disease."

Nice try, Tony. It's an established fat that *any* sexual activity (involving at least 1 person who carries the HIV/AIDS virus) can spread the disease. This is in no way limited to homosexual activities, but encompasses the whole spectrum of sexual orientations and activities.

"It is an increased risk associated with the activity."

If you define the activity as being risky and/or promiscuous sex then YES. If you define "the activity" as homosexual sex alone, then NO. The threat is there in the general population, not just the LGBT community.