Not at all. The lack is irrelevant to whether homosexuality is harmful—it is, and given the prevalence of fatal STDs; it can be logically extrapolated that male homosexuality decreases that cohort’s lifespan. It’s only a matter of degree that cannot be determined.
Your argument is literally like saying since we cannot determine the exact number of heroin addicts killed by fentanyl; then we shouldn’t advance any argument against heroin use.
What sense does that make? The issue is never the issue, and the argument is never the argument. The perfect is always the enemy of good.
“Your argument is literally like saying since we cannot determine the exact number of heroin addicts killed by fentanyl; then we shouldn’t advance any argument against heroin use.”
No. I am saying arguments that try to put a number on it cannot be conclusive at all and shculd not be reported as facts. Yes, the death rate for all “gays” is most certainly lower due to the rate of deaths for HIV. But what is that lower rate, accuratately? There is none. So when someone says its X, and that X is a “fact” I know that is not proven true.
When deaths get reported as “gay” or “straight” accurate conclusions can be made as to “gay” mortality. Until then it is speculative, and should be spoken of as speculative, not as “fact”.