Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[aCultureWarrior]

I use the term, "gay" because that is the word I was taught in school. Using the term 'homosexual' makes one sound like Falwell.

School is in session. Use the word "homosexual" when referring to someone that engages in homosexual behavior. While I frown on words that demean those that proudly engage in homosexual behavior, the words "sodomite", "buggerite" and "fag" have on a rare occasion appeared in these pages.

There was no need of a Police State when we were still a society that at least proported to follow Judeo-Christian values. If you believe that we could NOW return to that state, and the whole gay and liberal masses would not rise up in revolt, requiring martial law, then you have not noticed how things have changed, even since 2008.

We're no longer a society that embraces Judeo-Christian values. If you think so, there are 57,000,000 dead unborn babies out there that would argue with you if they could.

Good on you for shaking hands with Plante

In hindsight I would have joined Hutcherson's cause, R-1192.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-look-to-win-gay-marriage-battle-in-wash-76097/

Yes, I am conflicted. I need help. Then why don't you help me?:madmad: Or do you want to pass me off to the same APA which endorses homosexuality?

I'm here to help all that are confused on this issue. If you continue to say crazy things, I'll continue to call you out on them.

 

[GFR7]

Alright. Your clarification helps.

Thanks, and all is always most appreciated.:up:

OK. "Homosexual" it is, then.

Please note that I was indeed saying we are no longer a nation professing Judeo-Christian values.

What became of R-1192? Why didn't it work? :think:

Wash. Governor Signs Gay Marriage Bill Into Law

State Becomes Seventh in U.S. to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.christianpost.com/news/wash-governor-signs-gay-marriage-bill-into-law-69376/

 

[GFR7]

I can recall a point in the late '90s when LGBTQ Advocates were raising the figures to as high as 10 - 20%.

So one can see that actual homosexuals comprise less than 2% of the population in the US, the rest being bisexual or "unidentified".

Of course comments from posters show they are "skeptical about the methodology" (what else is new? :think: )

US: 3.4% of adults do not identify as straight, health survey finds

The US government’s first comprehensive health survey into sexuality has found that 3.4 percent of adults do not identify themselves as being heterosexual.

According to the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 1.6 percent of adults surveyed self-identify as gay or lesbian, while 0.7 percent self-identifying as bisexual. 96.6 percent self-identified as straight.

A further 1.1 percent declined to answer, with some saying that they did not know or did not fit into any of those categories.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/07/1...not-identify-as-straight-health-survey-finds/

In any case this ought to raise suspicions about the Rainbow flags which hang at Embassies, airports, government buildings such as City Halls, the rainbow crosswalks painted in London and other cities: This is NOT being done simply because 1.6 % of the population can get married.

It has worked to advocacy's advantage as well, to make people think there are far more gay people [in need of "equality"] than there actually are:

[2012]

Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are

Surveys show a shockingly high fraction think a quarter of the country is gay or lesbian, when the reality is that it's probably less than 2 percent.

One in ten. It's the name of the group that puts on the Reel Affirmations gay and lesbian film festival in Washington, D.C., each year. It's the percent popularized by the Kinsey Report as the size of the gay male population. And it's among the most common figures pointed to in popular culture as an estimate of how many people are gay or lesbian.

But what percentage of the population is actually gay or lesbian? With the debate over same-sex marriage again an emerging fault line in American political life, the answer comes as a surprise: A lower number than you might think -- and a much, much, much lower one than most Americans believe.
[. . . ]

"Estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual," the Williams Institute's Gary J. Gates concluded.

These numbers are significant because identity -- and not behavior -- is the central determinant of whether or not someone will seek a same-sex marriage.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

@a Culture Warrior: This is another aspect of educating the public, summed up right here:

Correcting the misimpressions about the size of a minority group hasn't been proved to have much impact on beliefs about them in the short-term, but that doesn't mean that they might never.

One thing's for sure: it's hard to imagine the fact that so many think the country is more than a quarter gay or lesbian has no impact on our public policy.

*** I think when this was written 2 years ago in 2012, the author was thinking that if people were to come to know that gays comprise only 1.6 % of the population, they would feel less threatened, ergo, they would be MORE inclined to support SSM. I think what he doesn't realize is that this could cut the other way, too: To realize that this tiny group is so prevalent in advertising, media, entertainment, politics, political correctness policy and policing, etc. might make people realize that dissent from the Rainbow cause is easier than they had suspected. GFR

 

[Omniskeptical]

School is in session. Use the word "homosexual" when referring to someone that engages in homosexual behavior. While I frown on words that demean those that proudly engage in homosexual behavior, the words "sodomite", "buggerite" and "fag" have on a rare occasion appeared in these pages.

We're no longer a society that embraces Judeo-Christian values. If you think so, there are 57,000,000 dead unborn babies out there that would argue with you if they could.



In hindsight I would have joined Hutcherson's cause, R-1192.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-look-to-win-gay-marriage-battle-in-wash-76097/



I'm here to help all that are confused on this issue. If you continue to say crazy things, I'll continue to call you out on them.

And all have to say is this. :loser:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

What became of R-1192? Why didn't it work?

As shown in the AFTAH link, NOM didn't back it as Ken Hutcherson and other pastors involved in the initiative were "too controversial".

Something was ringing in my ears while I was outside doing yard work:

3. I need not love persons - family or not - who have done extreme harm to me and my family, and never repented of it.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3970822&postcount=676

It would take a very big person to talk about your past (LMOHM/Pete has done it and I respect him greatly for that); I think it's very important to show that child molestation is a big part of homosexuality as well as the homosexual movement.

Feel free to open up, you're amongst friends at this Christian conservative website.

 

[GFR7]

@aCW:
You are not exactly right, but to be honest, I can't say you're far off, either.
Maybe at some point I can think of how to tell it. thnx , G

 

[alwight]

School is in session. Use the word "homosexual" when referring to someone that engages in homosexual behavior. While I frown on words that demean those that proudly engage in homosexual behavior, the words "sodomite", "buggerite" and "fag" have on a rare occasion appeared in these pages.

As has "homophobic bigot" aCW. lain:

 

[shagster01]

I can recall a point in the late '90s when LGBTQ Advocates were raising the figures to as high as 10 - 20%.

So one can see that actual homosexuals comprise less than 2% of the population in the US, the rest being bisexual or "unidentified".

Of course comments from posters show they are "skeptical about the methodology" (what else is new? :think: )



http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/07/1...not-identify-as-straight-health-survey-finds/

In any case this ought to raise suspicions about the Rainbow flags which hang at Embassies, airports, government buildings such as City Halls, the rainbow crosswalks painted in London and other cities: This is NOT being done simply because 1.6 % of the population can get married.

It has worked to advocacy's advantage as well, to make people think there are far more gay people [in need of "equality"] than there actually are:

[2012]



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/

@a Culture Warrior: This is another aspect of educating the public, summed up right here:

Correcting the misimpressions about the size of a minority group hasn't been proved to have much impact on beliefs about them in the short-term, but that doesn't mean that they might never.

One thing's for sure: it's hard to imagine the fact that so many think the country is more than a quarter gay or lesbian has no impact on our public policy.

*** I think when this was written 2 years ago in 2012, the author was thinking that if people were to come to know that gays comprise only 1.6 % of the population, they would feel less threatened, ergo, they would be MORE inclined to support SSM. I think what he doesn't realize is that this could cut the other way, too: To realize that this tiny group is so prevalent in advertising, media, entertainment, politics, political correctness policy and policing, etc. might make people realize that dissent from the Rainbow cause is easier than they had suspected. GFR

Even so, with a population of roughly 319,000,000 aCW wants to lock up about 6.5 million gay people to add to our 2.5 million already there. Plus he wants harsher drug laws, putting the prison population well over 10 million.

How does he propose fitting 10 million people into jail? That is 4 times the amount we already have in our overcrowded jails. And how is that better for society? Those are 10 million people not supporting their family or the economy while locked up.

 

[GFR7]

Even so, with a population of roughly 319,000,000 aCW wants to lock up about 6.5 million gay people to add to our 2.5 million already there. Plus he wants harsher drug laws, putting the prison population well over 10 million.

How does he propose fitting 10 million people into jail? That is 4 times the amount we already have in our overcrowded jails. And how is that better for society? Those are 10 million people not supporting their family or the economy while locked up.

I can't venture to say. Incarceration is not a positive thing.

What I would propose is a change in cultural/social beliefs so that the homosexual lifestyle would be less celebrated, promoted, etc. This would serve to reverse many of our present ill-effects and worries.

Many would choose not to be part of the gay life or would be so in a private way (which at this point in history, might have to be respected. We cannot return to a time which has long past). I know this will make aCW believe I am all off-base, but the fact that homosexuality was illegal for 200 years does not mean that with all that has come to pass since 1969 we can now return to that state. I would hope righteous laws could be passed, Lawrence v TX appealed, but the demographic of LGBTQ liberal supporters is HUGE--but I continue to see if aCW will prove me wrong.

We already have in place laws against corruption of minors and child pornography, so aCW's argument that we must protect children is already being addressed.

 

[Nazaroo]

Look what I found:

... The World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with new guidelines that advise all homosexual men without HIV to take anti-HIV drugs to prevent themselves from becoming infected. This policy has presumably come about because HIV prevention education has not gotten through to homosexual men who continue to practice unsafe anal sex with dozens of new partners a year. This has hastened the global spread of the virus. The World Health Organization has suggested for the first time that all men who have sex with men should take antiretroviral medicine, warning that HIV infection rates among gay men are exploding around the world. In guidelines published Friday, it said that it “strongly recommends men who have sex with men consider taking antiretroviral medicines as an additional method of preventing HIV infection.” Similar guidelines were issued by the U.S. in May. ​ While the media has done a great job portraying homosexuals as “just like” heterosexuals (deserving of marriage benefits and infinite compassion), it’s clear that the similarities are few. Homosexual men engage in extreme high-risk and extreme promiscuous activity and, as the article linked above states, are “19 times more likely than the general population to be infected by HIV.” Bisexual men have become the perfect vessel to transmit the HIV virus to the heterosexual population, especially to women, who are more likely than men to become infected by HIV during patriarchal male-female sex. Last year, the NBC made a stink about gay men not being able to donate blood, and even now there is a growing political movement to allow gay men to donate. Thankfully for my relatives in the US who I hope never needs donated blood, the ban on gay men from donating still stands, because health organizations (WHO, FDA) fully understand the danger that homosexual men pose to society due to their degenerate lifestyle. This news is obviously important from a health standpoint, especially since it involves a disease that kills people. That means the American media has reported it fully, right? Wrong. Let’s compare the reportage of the new WHO guideline with the CIA’s jokey Twitter feed: The American media has become so infected with the politically correct virus that it is silent when it comes to informing the public of a real virus, all because it contradicts their heterophobia party line that aims to paint gay couples as wonderful and loving. Male homosexuality is not monogomy, hand-holding, and baking—it’s anal intercourse with an insane amount of strange men, often without protection and without any care of not spreading HIV. Here’s what one heterosexual man learned about this lifestyle: From hearing them talk, I know there are (public) places in town where they can go and [receive anal intercourse] by multiple dudes during a *** lunch break if they want, without having to pre-organise anything first. They said you go there, make eye contact, and [engage in intercourse]. One bragged about 10 guys going up him, one after the other, and another said “That’s pretty good for this time of day!” This, in a public *** place where anyone could walk in! I disputed the ease and numbers once, and said they were BSing and big noting themselves. One of the *** nurses knew my private email and put my stats on a mailing list without me knowing just to prove his point, and I woke up one morning to 150+ messages in my inbox offering to [engage in oral or anal intercourse], without even knowing what I looked like. In just under six hours! I wasn’t *** impressed, but what was I going to do, file a sexual harassment suit like a ***? I mass deleted, but I guarantee you one of those would have been from him. This in a country town 1/10th the size of San Fran, in a supposedly-homophobic country, pre-Grinder. …self-reported statistics are prone to people underplaying their sexual experience for not wanting to appear too promiscuous. Gay acceptance is built on the false myth that they’re ‘just like you an me’ and that ‘love is love’. To win societal acceptance, they need to obsessively pretend they’re family-focused, because they seem to operate on two driving desires: sex and approval, and children offer neither, though I suppose being seen to be good parents could offer narcissistic supply. I was tolerant when I was younger. My views about homosexuality changed due to my day-to-day experience working with gay men, right from the horse’s mouth. They function like children. I don’t hate them, but I don’t see why society has to excessively-champion them just because they have such a voracious need for approval. ​ A common argument for homo acceptance is the following: “Why do you care how two gays live or whether they want to get married?” Because their lifestyle is spreading a virus that can kill people who aren’t gay. Society should rightfully accept that homosexual men are the bringers of death, a sort of grim reaper wrapped up in fuzzy progressive packaging. Even the FDA is vigorously fighting attempts to allow them to donate blood for the general population. We should be thankful they are on the side of those who don’t have HIV or engage in activities which easily spread it. Whenever someone waves a rainbow flag in your face and insists that you get with the times, tell them that maybe they can start a beef instead with the World Health Organization. They are so alarmed at what gay men are doing that they are pushing a desperate and expensive policy to prevent an epidemic that is not being controlled in spite of everything we know about preventing HIV with condom use. The least we can do is keep this virus contained within the homosexual population, and it may soon be prudent to even consider legislation that prevents homosexuals from sleeping with non-homosexuals. Read Next: The Truth About AIDS & Heterosexual Transmission

I won't give the website: you can google it yourself.

 

[GFR7]

Look what I found:

... The World Health Organization (WHO) has come out with new guidelines that advise all homosexual men without HIV to take anti-HIV drugs to prevent themselves from becoming infected. This policy has presumably come about because HIV prevention education has not gotten through to homosexual men who continue to practice unsafe anal sex with dozens of new partners a year. This has hastened the global spread of the virus. The World Health Organization has suggested for the first time that all men who have sex with men should take antiretroviral medicine, warning that HIV infection rates among gay men are exploding around the world. In guidelines published Friday, it said that it “strongly recommends men who have sex with men consider taking antiretroviral medicines as an additional method of preventing HIV infection.” Similar guidelines were issued by the U.S. in May. ​ While the media has done a great job portraying homosexuals as “just like” heterosexuals (deserving of marriage benefits and infinite compassion), it’s clear that the similarities are few. Homosexual men engage in extreme high-risk and extreme promiscuous activity and, as the article linked above states, are “19 times more likely than the general population to be infected by HIV.” Bisexual men have become the perfect vessel to transmit the HIV virus to the heterosexual population, especially to women, who are more likely than men to become infected by HIV during patriarchal male-female sex. Last year, the NBC made a stink about gay men not being able to donate blood, and even now there is a growing political movement to allow gay men to donate. Thankfully for my relatives in the US who I hope never needs donated blood, the ban on gay men from donating still stands, because health organizations (WHO, FDA) fully understand the danger that homosexual men pose to society due to their degenerate lifestyle. This news is obviously important from a health standpoint, especially since it involves a disease that kills people. That means the American media has reported it fully, right? Wrong. Let’s compare the reportage of the new WHO guideline with the CIA’s jokey Twitter feed: The American media has become so infected with the politically correct virus that it is silent when it comes to informing the public of a real virus, all because it contradicts their heterophobia party line that aims to paint gay couples as wonderful and loving. Male homosexuality is not monogomy, hand-holding, and baking—it’s anal intercourse with an insane amount of strange men, often without protection and without any care of not spreading HIV. Here’s what one heterosexual man learned about this lifestyle: From hearing them talk, I know there are (public) places in town where they can go and [receive anal intercourse] by multiple dudes during a *** lunch break if they want, without having to pre-organise anything first. They said you go there, make eye contact, and [engage in intercourse]. One bragged about 10 guys going up him, one after the other, and another said “That’s pretty good for this time of day!” This, in a public *** place where anyone could walk in! I disputed the ease and numbers once, and said they were BSing and big noting themselves. One of the *** nurses knew my private email and put my stats on a mailing list without me knowing just to prove his point, and I woke up one morning to 150+ messages in my inbox offering to [engage in oral or anal intercourse], without even knowing what I looked like. In just under six hours! I wasn’t *** impressed, but what was I going to do, file a sexual harassment suit like a ***? I mass deleted, but I guarantee you one of those would have been from him. This in a country town 1/10th the size of San Fran, in a supposedly-homophobic country, pre-Grinder. …self-reported statistics are prone to people underplaying their sexual experience for not wanting to appear too promiscuous. Gay acceptance is built on the false myth that they’re ‘just like you an me’ and that ‘love is love’. To win societal acceptance, they need to obsessively pretend they’re family-focused, because they seem to operate on two driving desires: sex and approval, and children offer neither, though I suppose being seen to be good parents could offer narcissistic supply. I was tolerant when I was younger. My views about homosexuality changed due to my day-to-day experience working with gay men, right from the horse’s mouth. They function like children. I don’t hate them, but I don’t see why society has to excessively-champion them just because they have such a voracious need for approval. ​ A common argument for homo acceptance is the following: “Why do you care how two gays live or whether they want to get married?” Because their lifestyle is spreading a virus that can kill people who aren’t gay. Society should rightfully accept that homosexual men are the bringers of death, a sort of grim reaper wrapped up in fuzzy progressive packaging. Even the FDA is vigorously fighting attempts to allow them to donate blood for the general population. We should be thankful they are on the side of those who don’t have HIV or engage in activities which easily spread it. Whenever someone waves a rainbow flag in your face and insists that you get with the times, tell them that maybe they can start a beef instead with the World Health Organization. They are so alarmed at what gay men are doing that they are pushing a desperate and expensive policy to prevent an epidemic that is not being controlled in spite of everything we know about preventing HIV with condom use. The least we can do is keep this virus contained within the homosexual population, and it may soon be prudent to even consider legislation that prevents homosexuals from sleeping with non-homosexuals. Read Next: The Truth About AIDS & Heterosexual Transmission

I won't give the website: you can google it yourself.

Thank you for all of this. I believe it is Return of Kings, but I cannot find the title yet.

I have always been annoyed at those commercials which try to suggest that HIV is everyone's concern (yeah, right). A few years ago, there was a really obnoxious public service announcement that showed people driving through a middle class, suburban neighborhood, saying "first this family died, then the Johnsons, then the Smiths" and then it flashed on screeen: HIV affects us ALL. I knew it was a total lie.

Thanks again - reading more of your post. G

 

[TracerBullet]

Because we're a bunch of LIARS! LIAR! LiARS!.

presenting false information is lying

 

[GFR7]

This really says it all, too (Return of Kings/The Truth about AIDS)

http://www.returnofkings.com/3882/the-truth-about-aids

 

[GFR7]

@Nazaroo:

From your link above: This is as delusional as it is arrogant and hubristic:

This National Blood Drive Is Fighting the FDA Ban on Gay Donors

A nationwide blood drive is protesting an FDA ban on gay men donating blood

 

[GFR7]

From ROK piece posted by Nazaroo:

This is an important paragraph and what I have been suggesting to many, to no avail:

The American media has become so infected with the politically correct virus that it is silent when it comes to informing the public of a real virus, all because it contradicts their heterophobia party line that aims to paint gay couples as wonderful and loving.

Male homosexuality is not monogomy, hand-holding, and baking—it’s anal intercourse with an insane amount of strange men, often without protection and without any care of not spreading HIV.

 

[GFR7]

Simple FDA Truth vs LGBTQ Agenda and DELUSION

Simple FDA Truth vs LGBTQ Agenda and DELUSION

Ha, the FDA is speaking without an agenda (other than public safety); without political correctness; without the Rainbow lobby and it's glitter; without Joe Biden and Hilary and all the other left-wing ideology:

Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

FDA's primary responsibility with regard to blood and blood products is to assure the safety of patients who receive these life-saving products.

Is FDA's policy of excluding MSM blood donors discriminatory?

FDA's deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation. :chuckle:

What about men who have had a low number of partners, practice safe sex, or who are currently in monogamous relationships?

Having had a low number of partners is known to decrease the risk of HIV infection. However, to date, no donor eligibility questions have been shown to reliably identify a subset of MSM (e.g., based on monogamy or safe sexual practices) who do not still have a substantially increased rate of HIV infection compared to the general population or currently accepted blood donors. In the future, improved questionnaires may be helpful to better select safe donors, but this cannot be assumed without evidence. :chuckle:

http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/bloodbloodproducts/questionsaboutblood/ucm108186.htm

Wow, imagine that?! :jawdrop:

 

[TracerBullet]

Yep.

I know you don't value facts and honesty much but come on...

You are kidding yourself. Census' are a very good way to determine a group sampling and rarely stray from other forms of data collection.
You are confusing this with 'random sampling.'

I guess I do have to spell it out for you. :loser: If you only report numbers from those under 40 of a survey then it is highly unlikely that you will get many individuals who have been married more than 20 years.

:nono: In a more discussed paper from FRC, he acknowledged that and discussed those points at length. .

the Xiridou study wasn't about relationship longevity or monogamy. it was about modeling the spread of HIV in gay men who WERE NOT in a monogamous relationship. all of those gay men were excluded from the study.

There were no monogamous relationships or monogamous commitments. That's the sad reality of being gay

if this were true why do you need to falsely represent the scientific work of others to back up the claim?

It was a direct quote.

WOW are you trying awfully hard.

it was a direct (and false) quote from Joseph Nicolosi not he author of the study being cited

Wow, just wow. Current stats confirm the same so the year makes little difference when no significant change occurs.

what current stats? all that is presented here has been fabricated and misrepresented.

again if it were true why do conservative Christens have to present on

:nono: Else they'd be monosexuals. Where do you get this stuff?

Are you gay and therefore making excuses? You are VERY interested in this topic. Should we wonder oh great "Born-this-way?"

Christians are supposed to be opposed to false witness yet here you are churning it out and defending it. are you even a Christian?

:nono: much higher by all comparative studies. The modal range means that the number that popped up between these was over 100 partners. It wasn't about the percentage of males. You don't seem to know what modal means.

the numbers don't lie

Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997) found


28.5% of older gay men had 1 lifetime sexual partner
44.9% of older gay men had between 2-5 lifetime sexual partners
23.9% of older gay men had between 2-5 lifetime sexual partners

showing that the claim that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101-500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners." is false

How is it not?

Not everything in the article needed to reference the Van de Ven study.
The presenter of this article has a PhD and you have what? A problem you are trying to justify?

do you know what is Daily's PhD is in?

 

[TracerBullet]

@Lon:

I am glad you were able to point out Tracer Bullet's confusion about research methodology, census and random sampling , and modal range.

No matter what statistics or studies I threw his way, he always insisted they were meaningless and conducted by dolts.

I would agree that nothing has changed since 1973.

if they misrepresent the legitimate research of others and expect to fool people then they are dolts

 

[GFR7]

.......And I think this ROK poster echos my own experience and thoughts exactly:

Gay acceptance is built on the false myth that they’re ‘just like you an me’ and that ‘love is love’. To win societal acceptance, they need to obsessively pretend they’re family-focused, because they seem to operate on two driving desires: sex and approval, and children offer neither, though I suppose being seen to be good parents could offer narcissistic supply.

I was tolerant when I was younger. My views about homosexuality changed due to my day-to-day experience working with gay men, right from the horse’s mouth. They function like children. I don’t hate them, but I don’t see why society has to excessively-champion them just because they have such a voracious need for approval.

 

[GFR7]

if they misrepresent the legitimate research of others and expect to fool people then they are dolts

But if things are as you say, why does even the FDA continue relentlessly to refuse gay donor blood because they believe it is high-risk blood? (see my post #696)

I have also read numerous articles from both sides, each accusing the other side of false methodology and political motivations, so many studies have to be taken with a grain of salt , whether pro-LGBTQ or anti.

However, even this Queerty article in 2012 seemed to confirm the risks:

You Are All Diseased: Gay Men's HIV Infections Rising 44X Faster Than Straight Men's

We’re really trying to wrap our heads around this statistic, because it’s off the deep-end of troubling. “A new analysis released Wednesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention,” relays D.C. Agenda, “shows that the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men, also referred to as MSM, is more than 44 times greater than that of other men and 40 times greater than that of women. The study also shows that the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.” This is not going to bode well for activists hoping to halt the branding of AIDS as “the gay disease.”

http://www.queerty.com/you-are-all-...-rising-44x-faster-than-straight-men-20100312