: Lark, though I disagree with you I don't buy the portrayal of you in a horrendous light, and I think that SDF's post was actually over the line in comparing you to a racist. : While I agree with you that the blatant lifestyle can be offensive, I don't think that you are factually correct, because I know gays who act just like anyone else, you'd never know they wete gay.
And though it may come as a surprise to some I happen to have close friends who are also homosexual (I never use the 'g' word, unless it's to describe a particular state or mood). I don't care what he does or doesn't do in the privacy of his home. But when people flaunt this characteristic, or that aspect of their lives for public consumption, then, yeah, by all means, let's debate.
I have a great time bringing up the Alameda County Public Health Department's report on the several classes of people who have contracted the AIDS virus since records have been kept, 1982, I believe. Of course, when that comes up then I'm 'homophobic', another word that is inaccurate and that has been created for political reasons. I'm not afraid of homosexuals, male or female. And I certainly don't think that they are 'heterophobic', or afraid of heterosexuals. But there seems to be many homosexuals who, like true lefties, will not neither debate nor discuss unless they have control of definitions and issues.
My advice? Ignore the names; 'racist', 'homophobe', and all the rest of it. If your stats say that 67% of AIDS cases are contracted by 'men who have sex with men', to hell with the name calling, stick to your guns. And do it with humor if possible. That really jerks their chains.
--
McSpotlight: Frenchy, it might be worth mentioning the fact that, in the countries worst hit by AIDS, it is a heterosexually transmitted STD with an 80% infection rate. The strain we have in the West only transmits heterosexually in 8% of cases of unprotected exposure.
