Well, the main argument of the article is: Homosexuality is a health risk, mainly because of HIV/AIDS.
That statement, however, is nonsense, as it only takes into account MALE homosexuality. Lesbians indeed have a much LOWER risk than the general population.
From that standpoint, heterosexuality amongst women would also have to be classified a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences.
As a guy I'd have to ask: Who would want this?
I agree heterosexuality outside of a monogamous marriage is as risky as homosexuality. But the article addresses many other disease that are horrible. Have you ever heard of anal cancer? I hadn't
Actually, I think the point of the article was to show the consequences of male homosexual behavior. Even if there are 0 health consequences associated with lesbianism, it doesn't suddenly make male homosexual behavior healthy. You are using the same fallacious reasoning pro-gay proponents repeat constantly.
Lesbians indeed have a much LOWER risk than the general population. From that standpoint, heterosexuality amongst women would also have to be classified a disorder on the basis of its medical consequences.
Only if you look at the total number of infections, ignoring the fact that lesbians represent a very small % of the US population (even lower than male homosexuals). "of 246,461 women were reported as HIV infected. Of these, 7,381 were reported to have had sex with women; however, most had other risk factors." http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm
7,381 is around 3%~ of 246,461; lesbians only represent around 2% of the population, maybe less. Therefore they are on par with heterosexual women in terms of infections.
PS- I am well aware that the website says they can't confirm* that the infections were caused specifically from lesbian behavior, and I know there were other risk factors. However, that doesn't change the fact that those within the lesbian community are spreading HIV as quickly as heterosexual women if you look at things proportionately.