mlurp, my friend, I can assure you, it isn't any more choice than you can choose to be smart or talented. You either are or you aren't.
American Idol is "proof-positive" of people who choose to sing, despite the fact that they can't.
Who would choose it? Do you "choose" to be male-thinking, or is that just the way nature made you?
What about people who feel, in their bodies' and souls' that they are the "wrong gender"? Do you suppose they chose to believe what they believe, or that it is reality, so much so, that many undergo gender reassignment, to correct what they feel is in error?
I have never wanted to be anything other than a man...I am. But I did not choose to be attracted to other men...it was not a choice. It was reality, for me.

I'd like to see how you prove "heterosexuality is a failure" as if there is another option.

Divorce is an individual human failure not a "heterosexual" one.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Only if you consider certain parts of Africa the whole "world". And "heterosexual sex" just means two heterosexuals screwed and says nothing about what sexual practices they participated in. Considering 90% of the world is het....It would kinda make sense that they should lead the stats by a huge margin. Only in Africa is that the case..."The world" doesn't live in Sub Saharan Africa.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

true - the entire world does not live there.
It IS however where the majority of all AIDS cases are.

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

But even among the "there" there are certain pockets where it is more pervasive. There are theories why that is the case, but still on the other continents, there are certain behaviors that drive the infection. Heterosexual, homosexual, prostitute, or Black isn't a behavior.
Anal sex, vaginal sex, IV drug use, poor medical practices are driving factors. And certain behaviors have a higher risk for infection than others if the partner is HIV positive.
The infected population tells you that a lot of people are doing something and getting infected. Just like in the rest of the world. They ain't sitting at home watching African Jerry Springer and getting infected.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

My reply was entirely sarcastic, showing how I could use the same "standards" Jaaaman put forward to prove something I see as equally false.


A generic form of that statement is precisely my point regarding "anecdotal" evidence.
And getting more to the heart of your contention (I think), I was trying to show how statistical data that is not anecdotal can even provide a false conclusion. My point was to show how his assessment was flawed by showing his means of reaching the conclusion as flawed.

LOL. Another post that is more enlightening about HOW you said it, that WHAT you said.
You are the King. I bow to your BS'ing superiority. No one can make "I was talking out of my a$$" look so impressive.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Only to those that I routinely have to explain things to, at least twice...


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.

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?


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...
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.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

I had to explain the obvious to you...
That I was using sarcasm, and that I DID NOT hold to the position that "heterosexuality" is pointless.


And now I'm having to explain to you WHAT I was previously explaining to you?
Can you be bothered to pay attention?


You didn't like it...
I'm crushed..

When you have a meaningful reply on the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE of what was said, let me know.
Otherwise, you are again wasting my time.


This claim is just stupid on its merits.
Before the Wright Brothers, we had all sorts of "failures" in flying.
Heck, the Wright Brothers flight was "unremarkable" in modern flying standards.
Of course you can have something be a "failure" at a time when all options are "failures".

That doesn't mean that the situation can't be fixed, which is what you are presuming.

But NONE of this has anything to do with anything.
You're just squabbling to try to claw some semblance of criticism cause you're in that mood, and you're not even talking about what was REALLY said.


And you're about to pull your usual bait and switch.
I replied to Jaaaman's post where he claimed ANECDOTAL evidence of his argument, and he demanded OTHERS research it for them.

THAT is what I was SPECIFICALLY responding to with my argument.
And you're about to pull some utterly dishonest bullsh!t in trying to reframe the issue and talk about something I was NOT applying my argument to.


Evidently, you haven't changed a bit...

I'll get back to YOUR additions in a bit, but you're pulling the same lame stunts that you've pulled time and time again. Nothing new.