I once told somebody that HIV was more likely in gay men...the conversation started with DADT...some Navy ships create their own emergency blood supply with donations from the crew...and a gay crew puts the blood supply at risk. I had CDC numbers to back me up.
Response: Your CDC numbers are outdated. Ah - the liberal mind - historical data can be ‘outdated’.
On a side note, I actually believe some people are born gay, or at least intrinsically gay (i.e. not just acting gay to get attention, get back at the parents, etc.). However, the fact that you are ‘born gay’ does not make it correct, or normal. If you are born with 9 toes, or some crippling condition, it is not considered ‘normal’. If you grow up to be a psychopathic serial killer...you have a mental disease...and it is not ‘tolerated’. Homosexuality used to be considered a ‘mental disorder’...I think until the 1980’s. So I say yes, you can be born that way....but don’t fall into the trap of conceding that this standard (if proven) means gays are normal...somebody finds two male dogs humping each other, and they declare ‘its natural’, under that standard.
I once told somebody that HIV was more likely in gay men...the conversation started with DADT...some Navy ships create their own emergency blood supply with donations from the crew...and a gay crew puts the blood supply at risk. I had CDC numbers to back me up.
That’s probably among the main reason for why they bothered with not allowing overt or open homosexuality in the military, they didn’t want to be responsible for a bad blood transfusion to someone else.
“I once told somebody that HIV was more likely in gay men . . .”
In the early ‘80s, HIV hit gay men exclusively, then drug-users. In order to “humanize” the disease and assure the cash for its research, it had to become less exclusively a gay disease. With some overly sympathetic “reporting” and overblown claims (”women are as likely to contract this disease as men;” “HIV isn’t a behavioral problem, it’s an epidemic [like measles]”)along with congressional support, HIV/AIDS became a protected species. Not only was mandatory AIDS-testing and quarantining of likely groups outlawed, most venereal disease testing (as in pre-marriage licensing) ceased as well. All this to deny that behavior had anything whatsoever to do with the disease and to allow those bent on continuing that behavior the freedom to spread it. Still amazes me . . . cigarettes are baaaad, but homosexuality’s okay.
I understand, I think, what you mean by “born gay.” It’s not so much born gay, as born with, as you say, a disorder (homosexuality was indeed diagnosed as a psychosis by the APA until the outbreak of AIDS). The psychosis, as I read it years ago, was a proclivity based on a number of weaknesses or lack of coping skills that COULD, but not necessarily, lead to homosexuality. Homosexuality was simply the full indulgence of the proclivity—as kleptomania would be the full indulgence of a proclivity towards greed, or murder the full indulgence of envy or anger. And, as so much was explained by Freud, it was mother-relationship caused.
But of course none of this served the gay community who needed not just “permission” to continue unnatural activity (freedom from sodomy laws, say) but recognition that such behavior was an unalienable right—not a fault, not a disorder or disease, but a valid, heretofore denied lifestyle choice! And our wise congress chose to give them that “right.”
Because, however, gayness cannot logically be an unalienable, God-given right (how can God convey a right to a behavior He apparently rejects?), it can be taken away. And I pray for more reasons than you cite that at least DADT and gay marriage will be repealed by a more sensible Congress and Court.
Homosexuality is a behavior. Is being a thief genetic? A murderer? A pedophile?
If you are born with 9 toes, or some crippling condition, it is not considered ‘normal’.
Having 9 toes is not a behavior.