My God this is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever seen. We all know what the cause is. Male homosexual intercourse makes it far eiser to contract the disease. The study says it specifically yet you in this fatal attempt to provide cover for CC's failed argument can't even admit to basic biological facts.This obvious tells us its something else in the community that is causing disproportionately large numbers of homosexual men to have HIV rather than heterosexual men, and that said thing can not simply be their status as homosexuals because it can easily be proven that being homosexual in and of itself doesn't make you more or less prone to gaining the disease. Thus, there is likely an additional factor/factors that is more prevalent in the homosexual male community than in heterosexual male communities. Most evidence seems to point to a high proliferation of more casual sex mixed with the smaller community pool of potential partners to engage in said sexual style with, leading to the higher proliferation of this. Both factors can arguably be contributed to the fact that society and the rule of law denies them the traditional incentives for monogamous relationships while also ostracizing them from being "normal" thus increasing the seeming need to require them to go about things more "discreetly" and on the down low than possible rather than traditional relationships.
If they have condoms, If they are in committed relationships is complete nonsense. You are throwing out as many "what ifs" as you can possibly think of to ignore the facts around male homosexual sex.
“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC
Thats it, PERIOD end of story. Stop the pathetic excuses. Those are the FACTS. And since male homosexuality's main form of sex IS anal sex its only logical they are more at risk.
I have never EVER seen anyone provide more cover for a failing argument like trying to claim you can limit marriage based on the positive and negative benifits to a society.
For many of you have completely forgotten the claim you keep trying to defend that CC made. This was simply an example of how weak that argument is and why it fails true scrutiny.