<<
<< <<Gays harm no one.>>
Prove it. >>
Logic fails you again. One need not prove a negative. The burden is on those making the assertion of a positive.
<< There has already been publications that linked the spread of AIDS to the blood supply, and then directly linked over 80% of these cases to homosexuals and drug users. Innocent people depended on that blood to be disease free. Hemophilliacs were harmed by the tainted blood supply. Accident victims were harmed by the tainted blood. Just last year we had four cases of HIV tracked down to a blood donor that tested negative. (Amused One said that its impossible for them to not be detected. Oops, I guess he was wrong.) Sure the blood supply is now much safer, but at what cost? >>
This was caused by promiscuity, and promiscuity is not mutually exclusive to homosexuality.
And it is impossible to test negative for HIV and carry it. You may test negative for the antibodies, but you will not test negative for the virus.
Meanwhile, I guess you're still having trouble following a very simple subject: It is impossible for a CHILD BORN WITH AN STD to reach sexual maturity and not have the STD be detected. Please, if you're going to accuse me of something, get it right.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of HIV cases world wide are heterosexual. The fastest growing segement of the US population with HIV is heterosexual. HIV and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive.
<< Just about every homosexual I've met has believed that marijuana should be legal to smoke, and some even went so far as to say all drugs should be legalized. Drugs are just another hedonistic idea that sinks to a slippery slope for society... i.e. if marijuana becomes legal, why not cocaine? >>
Irrelevant. I'm against the war on drugs, and I'm not gay.
<< I've yet to meet a homosexual that has had ONE sex partner for life, something I can say about many of the married couples I've met. I don't care if the person is gay or straight, promiscuity is wrong and society needs to punish more than just pedophiles. Alot of people feel that sodomy laws are unenforceable, because the sex acts are in private. Protected sex may be an answer to it, perhaps. But who is to say that every sex act they have is protected sex? There is no way to regulate them with a bunch of preconditions to their sexual habits other than to say no to all of them. >>
You live in freakin' Nebraska and are, I assume, very young. You have yet to meet a LOT of people.
At least you're finally starting to separate promiscuity from homosexuality. Very good
<< The people in some states, like Texas, have the good sense to actually enforce the sodomy laws on their books. The good people of Florida are another good example of a state doing its part to stop the spread of leud and perverted sex acts. >>
Uh huh, punishing people for sodamy takes away from punishing real crimes that harm other people. Not to mention it's just plain fascist. What two consenting adults do in the pricasy of their own bedroom is none of the state's business.