Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I haven’t shifted the goalposts.
[/quote]

You have, and I showed exactly how and why. I literally quoted your words and explained how your second response abandoned the substance of your original claim in order to pursue the unrelated and entirely inconsequential non-issue of “who’s supposed to raise children, if not adults?!” You and I both know that that question is not in any way relevant to our discussion, and yet you used it in order to respond to a relatively long and completely on-topic criticism of your original claim.

As for the line that you only think government should “encourage marriage,” I know for a fact that you think it should in fact outlaw sodomy. Either way, that is not really what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is whether or not you can make the convincing case that homosexuality is immoral.

As for the burden of proof, you have assumed it by being the claim-maker. I am simply showing you that your claims are not remotely persuasive.

As for the “wisdom of the ages,” I am entirely a “conservative” individualist in this regard: I ascribe infinitely greater weight to the conclusions of my own rational faculties than to the so-called “wisdom” of long-dead men whose most fundamental views I’ve studied and, on evidence of which they were unfortunately deprived, concluded to be twaddle and nonsense. I don’t need to close my eyes, accept my own inferiority, and suckle some historical-opinion-teat.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Funny that you’d bring up deuteronomy in a discussion of morals/ethics; deuteronomy is a trip, to say the least. It lays out the many rules your god has for proper killing, with regards to who/how/where. It lets you know that a rape victim is only worth 50 shekels, and must marry her rapist. It lets you know that you’re not allowed to atend church if your testicles are damaged. It lts you know that a bastard cannot attend church, even to his tenth generation. It lays out rules for those who have two wives. It commands intolerance of other religions, and to destroy their alters/images. It lets you know how to dispose of a hated wife. To be sure, this is only a partial list.

LOL…deuteronomy is fun, as long as you’re into rape and killing that is.

[/quote]

I’m not going to argue with you about this. It has nothing to do with the thread subject. And no one is suggesting that you convert to Judaism and observe Jewish law so I fail to see how it would have any impact on you.

I don’t need lessons from you.

And to you.

And with that post, my participation in this thread concludes (because of work, not frustration or petulance). As always, it has been worthwhile, if not exactly productive.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I haven’t shifted the goalposts.
[/quote]

You have, and I showed exactly how and why. I literally quoted your words and explained how your second response abandoned the substance of your original claim in order to pursue the unrelated and entirely inconsequential non-issue of “who’s supposed to raise children, if not adults?!” You and I both know that that question is not in any way relevant to our discussion, and yet you used it in order to respond to a relatively long and completely on-topic criticism of your original claim.

As for the line that you only think government should “encourage marriage,” I know for a fact that you think it should in fact outlaw sodomy. Either way, that is not really what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is whether or not you can make the convincing case that homosexuality is immoral.

As for the burden of proof, you have assumed it by being the claim-maker. I am simply showing you that your claims are not remotely persuasive.

As for the “wisdom of the ages,” I am entirely a “conservative” individualist in this regard: I ascribe infinitely greater weight to the conclusions of my own rational faculties than to the so-called “wisdom” of long-dead men whose most fundamental views I’ve studied and, on evidence of which they were unfortunately deprived, concluded to be twaddle and nonsense. I don’t need to close my eyes, accept my own inferiority, and suckle some historical-opinion-teat.[/quote]

You appear to have misunderstood my meaning. When I said:

‘Who should rear children if not adults?’

It was in response to your assertion that child rearing is not the responsibility of adults. I contend that it is the personal responsibility of adults as they are the only ones capable of procreation. I realise we’re delving into the realms of the bleeding obvious but that’s where you took the discussion.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]

You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]

STD’s are prevalent among heterosexuals. Do you oppose the normalization of heterosexuality? [/quote]

No where near as prevalent. Sodomy is the most risky form of sexual activity there is.[/quote]

So it’s up to you to run around making sure everyone has the type of sex you think is best for them? Many heterosexual couples will have anal sex. What should we do with them?

In what other areas should the government (or you since you’re all knowing) tell people what they can and cannot do in a free society? Why would we stop at sex? We should ban all sorts of risky behavior? Fast food. Smoking. Driving over the speed limit (throw them in jail!). Anything you deem as not safe why not come down on? You’ve already made yourself judge.

[/quote]

Well I guess you have no problem with a father and his adult daughter having sex by mutual consent right? I mean who are we to want to uphold the norms and mores of civil society?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Well I guess you have no problem with a father and his adult daughter having sex by mutual consent right? I mean who are we to want to uphold the norms and mores of civil society?
[/quote]

Yeah, this is where most of the homophobic minded try to drive down. Well, if two gay guys can exist I guess you support kid rape!

Consenting adults is the big part.

Why does what I think matter anyways? You are the one who has determined you should decide what individuals are allowed to do. I’m not the one running around telling everyone else what to do. You’re the one who knows best, why even ask me?

And norms and mores change all the time. Everyone knows this.

I guess you have no problem with 9/11 and the Holocaust because you don’t want same sex marriage to happen?

Yeah, you’re losing hard on the logic part in this thread, but it’s fun to watch you flail.

[quote]H factor wrote:

Yeah, this is where most of the homophobic minded try to drive down. Well, if two gay guys can exist I guess you support kid rape!

Consenting adults is the big part.

[/quote]

Ah, I said a father and his adult daughter by mutual consent. And why not? I mean what business is it of ours what two consenting adults do? Why shouldn’t a man be able to marry a frog and the state prosecute priests who refuse to conduct the service? I mean fair’s fair right?

Yes they change for the better or the worse.

WTF?

[quote]

Yeah, you’re losing hard on the logic part in this thread, but it’s fun to watch you flail. [/quote]

You’re projecting.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I haven’t shifted the goalposts.
[/quote]

You have, and I showed exactly how and why. I literally quoted your words and explained how your second response abandoned the substance of your original claim in order to pursue the unrelated and entirely inconsequential non-issue of “who’s supposed to raise children, if not adults?!” You and I both know that that question is not in any way relevant to our discussion, and yet you used it in order to respond to a relatively long and completely on-topic criticism of your original claim.

As for the line that you only think government should “encourage marriage,” I know for a fact that you think it should in fact outlaw sodomy. Either way, that is not really what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is whether or not you can make the convincing case that homosexuality is immoral.

As for the burden of proof, you have assumed it by being the claim-maker. I am simply showing you that your claims are not remotely persuasive.

As for the “wisdom of the ages,” I am entirely a “conservative” individualist in this regard: I ascribe infinitely greater weight to the conclusions of my own rational faculties than to the so-called “wisdom” of long-dead men whose most fundamental views I’ve studied and, on evidence of which they were unfortunately deprived, concluded to be twaddle and nonsense. I don’t need to close my eyes, accept my own inferiority, and suckle some historical-opinion-teat.[/quote]

You appear to have misunderstood my meaning. When I said:

‘Who should rear children if not adults?’

It was in response to your assertion that child rearing is not the responsibility of adults. I contend that it is the personal responsibility of adults as they are the only ones capable of procreation. I realise we’re delving into the realms of the bleeding obvious but that’s where you took the discussion.[/quote]

Well, I guess I have to be sucked in for one last post.

Please go back and re-follow the progression of our debate. I’ve explained this a couple of times, but I’ll do it a last time: I attacked a particular claim of yours that had to do with an imperative responsibility–individual in scale and universal in scope–to have and raise children. This responsibility is, quite obviously, a premise which your argument requires if it is to persuade anybody that gays are shirking a responsibility and therefore embracing an iniquity. What I did not attack, and would obviously never argue, is the notion that adults are the ones who are fit to have and raise children. If you go back a bit, you will see that I drew the explicit distinction between something that only adults are fit to do, and something that all adults have a personal, imperative moral responsibility to do.

Thus, when you asked the question about who is or is not fit to rear children if not adults, you were–perhaps inadvertently–shifting in the direction of an unrelated non-issue when instead you should have been addressing the substance of the claim, which, again, had to do with an imperative human responsibility–individual in scale and universal in scope–to have and raise children.

To wrap up my thoughts, no such responsibility exists, and any attempt to persuade otherwise has been–and is going to be–riddled with fallacious reasoning.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Yeah, this is where most of the homophobic minded try to drive down. Well, if two gay guys can exist I guess you support kid rape!

Consenting adults is the big part.

[/quote]

Ah, I said a father and his adult daughter by mutual consent. And why not? I mean what business is it of ours what two consenting adults do? Why shouldn’t a man be able to marry a frog and the state prosecute priests who refuse to conduct the service? I mean fair’s fair right?

Yes they change for the better or the worse.

WTF?

If you don’t want equal rights for gay people then you want little kids to be raped by dogs right?

If you don’t want equal rights for gay people then you support genocide right?

Honestly you sound like a third grader. Make a consistent and logical argument and quit trying to drive down your lunacy roads. Guess if we don’t ban firearms we may as well just line little kids up and shoot them in the face!

It’s not projecting. You’re getting your ASS kicked in this thread by multiple people. Step your game up. Make actual logic based arguments and quit trying to drive down the lunacy road. I have a hard time even typing out stuff like the above, but those with poor arguments such as yourself don’t have any problem with ludicrous hypotheticals.

The reason? You can’t win logically so you must deflect, shift, do anything to try and take the focus off what’s being discussed and why.

What does it matter though, you have multiple people spelling things out for you and you still don’t get it. I can’t be surprised by someone who is so invested in the confirmation bias of what they want to be true that they read the type of far right trash you do.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I haven’t shifted the goalposts.
[/quote]

You have, and I showed exactly how and why. I literally quoted your words and explained how your second response abandoned the substance of your original claim in order to pursue the unrelated and entirely inconsequential non-issue of “who’s supposed to raise children, if not adults?!” You and I both know that that question is not in any way relevant to our discussion, and yet you used it in order to respond to a relatively long and completely on-topic criticism of your original claim.

As for the line that you only think government should “encourage marriage,” I know for a fact that you think it should in fact outlaw sodomy. Either way, that is not really what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is whether or not you can make the convincing case that homosexuality is immoral.

As for the burden of proof, you have assumed it by being the claim-maker. I am simply showing you that your claims are not remotely persuasive.

As for the “wisdom of the ages,” I am entirely a “conservative” individualist in this regard: I ascribe infinitely greater weight to the conclusions of my own rational faculties than to the so-called “wisdom” of long-dead men whose most fundamental views I’ve studied and, on evidence of which they were unfortunately deprived, concluded to be twaddle and nonsense. I don’t need to close my eyes, accept my own inferiority, and suckle some historical-opinion-teat.[/quote]

You appear to have misunderstood my meaning. When I said:

‘Who should rear children if not adults?’

It was in response to your assertion that child rearing is not the responsibility of adults. I contend that it is the personal responsibility of adults as they are the only ones capable of procreation. I realise we’re delving into the realms of the bleeding obvious but that’s where you took the discussion.[/quote]

Well, I guess I have to be sucked in for one last post.

Please go back and re-follow the progression of our debate. I’ve explained this a couple of times, but I’ll do it a last time: I attacked a particular claim of yours that had to do with an imperative responsibility–individual in scale and universal in scope–to have and raise children. This responsibility is, quite obviously, a premise which your argument requires if it is to persuade anybody that gays are shirking a responsibility and therefore embracing an iniquity. What I did not attack, and would obviously never argue, is the notion that adults are the ones who are fit to have and raise children. If you go back a bit, you will see that I drew the explicit distinction between something that only adults are fit to do, and something that all adults have a personal, imperative moral responsibility to do.

Thus, when you asked the question about who is or is not fit to rear children if not adults, you were–perhaps inadvertently–shifting in the direction of an unrelated non-issue when instead you should have been addressing the substance of the claim, which, again, had to do with an imperative human responsibility–individual in scale and universal in scope–to have and raise children.

To wrap up my thoughts, no such responsibility exists, and any attempt to persuade otherwise has been–and is going to be–riddled with fallacious reasoning.[/quote]

There is a moral imperative, individual in scale and universal in scope, for healthy adults to procreate and rear children. Why? Because they are the only ones capable of ensuring the survival of the human race. Why is it particularly important now? Because Japan has a fertility rate of 1.39 births per woman. Germany is at 1.36. Italy at 1.41. Western Europe is not much better. Why have fertility rates dropped?

  1. Permissive sexual culture.

  2. Contraception.

  3. Feminism.

  4. The undermining and devaluing of traditional marriage.

  5. The decline of family values.

  6. The decline of religion.

These things should be obvious to anyone who has studied the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Romans granted citizenship to barbarians, stopped serving in the military and hired barbarian mercenaries, became decadent and sexually permissive, allowed the Praetorian Guard unlimited power which they used to destabilise the state then eventually succumbed to Goths, Visigoths and Islamic fundamentalists.

[quote]H factor wrote:

If you don’t want equal rights for gay people then you want little kids to be raped by dogs right?

If you don’t want equal rights for gay people then you support genocide right?

Honestly you sound like a third grader. Make a consistent and logical argument and quit trying to drive down your lunacy roads. Guess if we don’t ban firearms we may as well just line little kids up and shoot them in the face!

[/quote]

On the contrary I was using your own criteria. Or rather Ron Paul’s that you have adopted. Namely, that consenting adults can do whatever they like so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. So by your own criteria you have no problem with a father having sex with his adult daughter by mutual consent. If you do have a problem with it then you agree that the state should regulate some forms of sexual behaviour. And once you agree to that your entire argument falls down around your ears.

I contend that I have made a good case. The fact that a gaggle of theophobes claim otherwise is neither here nor there. What is revealing however is that they had to result to childish personal attacks.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
There is a moral imperative, individual in scale and universal in scope, for healthy adults to procreate and rear children. Why? Because they are the only ones capable of ensuring the survival of the human race. Why is it particularly important now? Because Japan has a fertility rate of 1.39 births per woman. Germany is at 1.36. Italy at 1.41. Western Europe is not much better. Why have fertility rates dropped?

  1. Permissive sexual culture.

  2. Contraception.

  3. Feminism.

  4. The undermining and devaluing of traditional marriage.

  5. The decline of family values.

  6. The decline of religion.
    [/quote]

Is the human race in current danger of running out of people? No. Is it a realistic fear in 2014 to be worried about running out of humans? No. Is comparing the Roman Empire with fertility in 2014 completely illogical and stupid? Yes.

  1. So permissive sexual culture is why fertility rates have dropped? Why is that? You don’t have to cite something because you can’t cite anything as that is something you are just asserting. It’s what you believe. You’re grasping for straws.

  2. Contraception- I thought you were concerned about STD’s? Maybe if we get rid of contraceptives we can increase STD’s, the abortion rate, and have more babies which is what you really seem to want to happen. Look at Romania for those type of results Mr. Wannabe history buff. Talking to you is like riding a roller coaster, where will we head next? The guy who is concerned about STD’s wants to limit the ability of safe sex.

I’d continue to go down the list, but why? You aren’t actually listening to what other people say and you’re “list” is a collection of assertions, half truths or demonstrable bullshit kinda like you saying you’ve never said anything derogatory about gays. We shouldn’t have even begun the discussion when we could see your “sources” for things were absolutely demonstrably biased websites tailored to your point of view.

SexMachine must be the most ironic name in the history of this forum.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

There is a moral imperative, individual in scale and universal in scope, for healthy adults to procreate and rear children. Why? Because they are the only ones capable of ensuring the survival of the human race. Why is it particularly important now? Because Japan has a fertility rate of 1.39 births per woman. Germany is at 1.36. Italy at 1.41. Western Europe is not much better. Why have fertility rates dropped?

  1. Permissive sexual culture.

  2. Contraception.

  3. Feminism.

  4. The undermining and devaluing of traditional marriage.

  5. The decline of family values.

  6. The decline of religion.

These things should be obvious to anyone who has studied the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Romans granted citizenship to barbarians, stopped serving in the military and hired barbarian mercenaries, became decadent and sexually permissive, allowed the Praetorian Guard unlimited power which they used to destabilise the state then eventually succumbed to Goths, Visigoths and Islamic fundamentalists.[/quote]

Please note that the portion of your post which I’ve emboldened was not remotely supported by what followed it.

Does the complicated disintegration of the Roman Empire justify the nonsensical proposition that I have a moral responsibility to create and raise a child regardless of my desire and financial ability to do so? No, in no possible universe. I know I can’t persuade you to abandon this dystopian nightmare of a conception of imperative moral duty to the state (to the utter derision of personal freedom and individual conscience), but I can certainly thank god or dumb natural luck that it’s considered extreme, illogical, and dangerous by the people with whom I share citizenship and the actual political duty of determining the future course of my city, state, and country.

Similarly, does anything about Rome or Japan’s birth rate justify the social or legal condemnation of a small group of people who prefer to have a form of sex that is not progenitive? No, in no possible universe.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Here is more fuzzy argumentation, more logical fallacy. I am not one of those debaters who suffers shifting goalposts and devolving standards and squirming definitions. Your claim, and my objection to it, had to do with a compulsory responsibility, individual in scale and universal in scope, to raise children–a responsibility which is not met by homosexual sex and which thus condemns homosexual sex to the status of “iniquity.” But look at what you’ve done here: You’ve moved the chess-pieces around the board when you thought I wasn’t looking, opting–instead of addressing the compulsory and individual-universal “responsibility” to procreate that you were obliged to address–to respond to me on the entirely unrelated subject of “shouldn’t adults be the ones who raise kids???”

[/quote]

I haven’t shifted the goalposts. I maintain that child rearing is an individual responsibility. I also said the state shouldn’t force people into marriage/child rearing. I said the state should encourage, reward and protect the institution of marriage. You seem to be intent on twisting my words so you can build your straw men.

See above. It’s perfectly simple and I’m not going to repeat it ad nauseum.

We’ve been through this already. Morality is not something that is based on proofs but rather on observation, history, experience, reason etc. I’ve made my case but you have not attempted to make yours. You have made assertions by refutation of mine. You are asserting that the homosexual lifestyle is not immoral. If a burden of proof lies with me then it lies equally with you.

The same feeling my gf’s gay friends get when they see us kissing? Oh…

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Please note that the portion of your post which I’ve emboldened was not remotely supported by what followed it.

Does the complicated disintegration of the Roman Empire justify the nonsensical proposition that I have a moral responsibility to create and raise a child regardless of my desire and financial ability to do so? No, in no possible universe. I know I can’t persuade you to abandon this dystopian nightmare of a conception of imperative moral duty to the state (to the utter derision of personal freedom and individual conscience), but I can certainly thank god or dumb natural luck that it’s considered extreme, illogical, and dangerous by the people with whom I share citizenship and the actual political duty of determining the future course of my city, state, and country.

Similarly, does anything about Rome or Japan’s birth rate justify the social or legal condemnation of a small group of people who prefer to have a form of sex that is not progenitive? No, in no possible universe.[/quote]

I think when looking at cell phones in 2014 it is important to think back to the Roman Empire. They both had humans doing stuff therefore they are highly related. In fact, they are basically the same thing.

The sweeping generalizations and rigid, demanding way each side of this debate require others to live their life by, in order to avoid their own bigotry and pigheadedness, is absolutely hilarious.

And I’ve only read the first handful of posts and the previous page, lol.

*edit for logistics

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]

You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]

We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.

The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Please note that the portion of your post which I’ve emboldened was not remotely supported by what followed it.

Does the complicated disintegration of the Roman Empire justify the nonsensical proposition that I have a moral responsibility to create and raise a child regardless of my desire and financial ability to do so? No, in no possible universe.

[/quote]

I’m not suggesting that every single person must procreate. I’m suggesting it should be generally accepted that it is the duty of everyone who is in a position to do so to procreate. That doesn’t mean I believe anyone should be forced to do so. It simply means it should be an accepted proposition that, hopefully, people should adhere to if they are able to do so.

I’m already living in a dystopian nightmare - one where otherwise intelligent people can put forward the proposition that procreation should not be the primary responsibility of people and that traditional marriage has no more value than two homosexuals and a miniature poodle.

[quote]

Similarly, does anything about Rome or Japan’s birth rate justify the social or legal condemnation of a small group of people who prefer to have a form of sex that is not progenitive? No, in no possible universe.[/quote]

‘…in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see: and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings: fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid.’ - Titus Livius

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Please note that the portion of your post which I’ve emboldened was not remotely supported by what followed it.

Does the complicated disintegration of the Roman Empire justify the nonsensical proposition that I have a moral responsibility to create and raise a child regardless of my desire and financial ability to do so? No, in no possible universe. I know I can’t persuade you to abandon this dystopian nightmare of a conception of imperative moral duty to the state (to the utter derision of personal freedom and individual conscience), but I can certainly thank god or dumb natural luck that it’s considered extreme, illogical, and dangerous by the people with whom I share citizenship and the actual political duty of determining the future course of my city, state, and country.

Similarly, does anything about Rome or Japan’s birth rate justify the social or legal condemnation of a small group of people who prefer to have a form of sex that is not progenitive? No, in no possible universe.[/quote]

I think when looking at cell phones in 2014 it is important to think back to the Roman Empire. They both had humans doing stuff therefore they are highly related. In fact, they are basically the same thing. [/quote]

‘The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.’ - Winston Churchill

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]

You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]

We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.

The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]

No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.