Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Only to those that I routinely have to explain things to, at least twice...
|
Well how about explaining how that relates to what I posted then. I said your post was enlightening about how you said something. What does that have to do with explaining anything?
Quote:
Once again, a thoroughly meaningless response from you. 
Were you really stupid enough to think that I believed heterosexuality to be a failure? 
The fact that I actually had to explain I was being sarcastic just boggles my mind.
|
No, you were stupid enough to make that impossible, off the wall, meaningless "comparison".
You CAN'T in any way show where "heterosexuality" is a failure if there are no other options. But if we go back to Jaaman's post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaaaman
I think that is pretty much hogwash. Homosexuals by nature make lifestyle choices that are dangerous and invite themselves to a host of problems including HIV transmittion and STD infections. I don't think 'leveling out the playing field and giving homosexuals the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts' would really decrease the infection rate. I don't feel homosexuals in general would clean up their behavior and behave like their heterosexual counterparts just because they are afforded the same rights. The example can be made of a unhappy heterosexual couple that decides to have a baby to 'help the relationship get better' but most of the time does not help the failing relationship at all.
|
He said that homosexual relationships are inherently more dangerous in regards to HIV and other STD infections. And that making marriage available to them would make no difference.
The only possible exception that you can take with that is that he just gave the blank "homosexual" without listing "male". Female homosexual relationships seem to be relatively safe from most STD's. But then you have to look at the data available for male homosexuals and disease transmission. Specifically syphillis and HIV.
You said yourself the many homosexual men are more promiscuous. And that's understandable considering many men are horndogs and putting two men attracted to each other is nothing but trouble.
But again anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex
What is My Risk for HIV Infection - At Risk for HIV - HIV Risks
More if gay men have anal sex than any other demographic and with even the same number of partners as a heterosexual man, the risk is still greater for them. "Tops" have less risk than "bottoms". I really fail to see how your comment that "using anecdotal evidence you can show heterosexuality is a failure" something you admit was not only sarcastic, but logically impossible, compares to Jaaman's saying that homosexuality compels a lifestyle that is dangerous as far as STD's.
Netherlands has had "gay rights" for a while now....Yet..
WHO/Europe - Sexually transmitted... - Netherlands - HIV/AIDS country profile
HIV prevalence in the Netherlands is highest among MSM and IDUs. People living with HIV also account for a significant proportion of the prevalence of other STIs. The proportion of MSM in newly recorded HIV cases increased to 59% in 2006 and among the STI clinic attendees 3.1% of MSM, 0.2% of heterosexual men and 0.1% of women were found HIV positive.
So as I stated in my post, I would still love to see how even if stated sarcastically, you could prove heterosexuality is somehow a failure. Otherwise why even post that?
Actually your post about "heterosexuality is a failure" looks like it was much more useless than you are claiming my last post was. But then again, you are proving to be just as FOS as you so often like to accuse others of being.