No, only you are the fool for not being able to admit you are wrong that homosexuality itself isn't dangerous or the risk factor for contracting HIV. Even the author of that study went on record saying that anti-LGBT groups like FRC were wrong to use the study to make that inference. You would know that if you read my articles, but you are too afraid to step outside the echo chamber (I read your articles btw). I haven't been arguing against your statistic, only your logic.
Answer me one last question which sums up my point:
If a homosexual has sex with only one person and doesn't get HIV, is homosexuality still harmful?
By your logic, because some women die in child birth as a result of heterosexual intercourse, heterosexuality is harmful and therefore wrong. Actually, that makes way more sense than your argument.
No, I didn't use negative health effects of gay sex as my only argument. But you are trying to exploit the much less common "Man bites dog" cases here. It's a fact that LGBT people have WAY, WAY more sex partners (by many times over) on average.
For one, it's an unnatural act. You wouldn't use two bolts to secure something. You'd use a bolt and a nut because they complement each other. It's a FACT that kids brought up in homes with hetero parents grow up better than ones in GAY homes. The kids under gay parents are more likely to be sexually active and more adventurous (just like their parents).
For two, they have no biological purpose. Two guys can't make a baby. This is why gay "marriages" aren't really marriages. They are sterile unions.
Three, it displeases God. Whether or not he exists is another argument. However, if there is no God, then there aren't any universal morals because there is no standards to hold things to whatsoever in a godless universe.
