Tristan put them up already.
Considering YOU are the one trying to claim they are significant and indicative of homosexuality mentality, YOU should have been the one to prove that.
But, as usual, you insist that others prove you wrong when you have done nothing to prove yourself.


Both exist.
And who is to say that the person involved in thinking that they are going to "trap" the other person via pregnancy is going to let the girl have a "say" in the matter?
Puncturing the condom (or for a girl not taking birth control pills) is an easy way to avoid giving them a "say" in it at all.

And yes. It is stupid.
So is getting HIV on purpose.
That's the whole point of the analogy.

Please quote me where the articles state that each man was straight.

Yes, who is to say. Therefor by your own admission no one can say. Therefore, your example is null and void.

Alias, check out the section on this page under the "What trials for Criminal Transmission have there been?" header. You'll find mostly male->female or female->male transmissions (or possible transmissions).
Criminal, Delibrate and Reckless HIV Transmission

The men are intentionally spreading HIV to women, by having sex with women, and you want proof they are straight...
If only you had the common sense to be embarrassed by asking such a question.
Just out of curiousity, does that mean we can't assume that a man having sex with another man is gay?

Or is this yet another area where you are grossly hypocritical?

tell the truth - you don't really know the difference between straight and gay, do you?

Wow!
Talk about a THOROUGH INCAPABILITY to comprehend simple English on your part.

It was a rhetorical question to point out the obvious. An obvious point that obviously STILL goes over your head.

The point of that phrase, which you obviously abused for your own purposes disregarding how I ACTUALLY was using it, was that when such a thing exists, the other partner is NOT given a choice.
That's the whole point of "trapping" the other person.

Yet, you take one phrase in my statement, concentrate SOLELY on that phrase excluding everything else including how I ACTUALLY used it, and ignore my comments because of it.
Pathetic trick. If you think it convinces anybody, then you're deluding yourself.

Ask him if a married man molesting his 5-year old son makes the man "gay"...
The hypocrisy will jump out at you ...

People who have bug parties are mentally ill. Homosexuals are not mentally ill.

The following article describes a bunch of heterosexuals who killed a homosexual:

Come Out Fighting: Nicholus Ray West Murdered 13 Years Ago Today - Texas GLBT/ Queer Issues - North Texas Indymedia

Should I look at this article and say,

"And they keep trying to convince us that heterosexuals are not mentally ill."

Of course I shouldn't! Just because I posted an article talking about a small group of heterosexuals doesn't mean that their actions are the same as the vast majority of heterosexuals. In the same fashion, just because you've posted an article talking about a small group of gay people doesn't mean that those actions apply to the vast majority of gay people.

Yes, there are a few stupid, mentally ill gay people. But there are a few stupid, mentally ill straight people too. What's your point?

I don't understand why anybody, straight or gay, would intentionally try to infect as many people as possible with HIV/AIDS.

But, whatever the motive, there should be severe punishment for it.


Of course, if the "partners" of these sick individuals are "WILLING partners" in sex, perhaps the punishment ought to be less severe. After all, sex isn't just sex. The same basic genital contact can be either wonderful love-making, or rape.