The response is an understandable CYA, lest they be marginalized in the same manner John Lott has been marginalized in the area of firearms scholarship.
More to the point, however, this shows rather starkly the bad side of "being fair" to people who insist on doing stupid things.
The only way homosexuals can be accepted in society, is if they can cover up all of the bad stuff associated with their lifestyle.
We can, of course, cite the fact that homosexual practice is disgusting. But that's just "ignorance and intolerance."
It should be enough to cite the rectal nature of male homosexual practice. It can't be healthy to shove all that crap around, and to smear it where it shouldn't be smeared; not to mention the tissue damage. And so nobody talks about that: we've reverted to the euphemism of "unsafe sexual practices."
It should be enough to cite the extremely high rates of venereal disease -- but again, it's "unprotected sex."
It should be enough to cite the obvious fact that homosexual practice translates into a drastically lower life expectancy -- but instead we're faced with demands for "tolerance."
It should be enough to point out that the vast ill-health associated with homosexual behavior is easily avoided: "don't do that!" But instead we're told that condoms will take care of it.
None of this stuff can be hidden forever, though. Eventually it will become all too obvious what's going on, and the tide will turn against homosexuals.
I concur and think the above summarizes the situation very well.
My post was also a response to somebody who became a freeper this morning, posted only once on a hot cultural issue and with a screen name: temptest. Something just didn't seem right and now I see the account has been banned. What I suppose I'm saying is that sometimes the discernment that something isn't quite right may reflect in my response.