Yes, wil, I do have time to do your homework for you.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016243.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001096.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/mmwr/pdf/mmwr04jul81.pdf
Now you can note that this unpopular information comes from not some "weird" Christian site, but the Centers for Disease Control.
Oh, I have a problem with any of this information.. but I'm not sure what you want me to make of this linked info. Your thesis seems to be that homosexuality is significantly harmful to those who practice it, so much so that we should seek a cure. But these statistics do not show that. They each look at a particular disease and describe how, given the incidence of a particular disease in a patient, that patient was likely to be homosexual. In other words, given disease X, there's a high probability that the patient is homosexual. What they don't show is this: Given that a particular person is homosexual, there is a high probability that the patient has the disease.
If that doesn't make sense to you, think about another example. Almost all confirmed cases of hemophilia are males, since it is an X chromosome disorder. So if you took a survey of hospital visits from patients suffering from hemophilia, you'd find that nearly all of them are male. If you were to do a survey of all males searching for incidences of hemophilia, you'd find that very few actually suffer from it. You'd find that simply being male does not put one at a severe or alarming risk for hemophilia.
Therefore, the information you provided does not establish any significant risk inherent in being homosexual. Nor does it establish that there is any compelling reason to attempt to "cure" homosexuality.
Furthermore, we can slice up many other demographics in similar ways that show shocking rates of disease transmission or social ills. Take the black population - they account for 70% of all gonorrhea cases, and 51% of all reported aids cases (see
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/healthdisparities/AfricanAmericans.html). If we were to remain consistent with your principles, it seems as if we should be searching for a cure for blackness too.
Additionally, in each of your citations the samples were small and only from a few select cities - not enough to make any conclusive judgments about the general national or worldwide homosexual population.
And the fact remains that your spin is still wobbly. If the state is striking language that has been in the law for decades, then it is changing it's position on the origin and causes of homosexuality...
Huh? The text in the bill, either in its original or amended form, has nothing to say about the origin of homosexuality, at all. Not one bit. Not even close. You're just wrong.
It is not "remov(ing) the implication that homosexuality is some form of sexual deviance which puts children at risk," that implication was not contained in the original language.
Erm... Yes it was... given the historical context of the bill, what it was drafted for, it most certainly does contain the implication and assumption that homosexuality is a form of sexual deviance related to sex crime and that homosexuals are sexual predators. Hell, this bill was created at a time homosexual activity was still criminalized, under sodomy laws. Homosexual conduct WAS a sex crime back then, and there was even more misinformation surrounding it than there is today.
It is removing homosexual behavior from the list of sexual behaviors that should be studied to reduce their prevalence, despite the clear evidence that it causes both physical and mental harm to those that practice it.
Because it would be stupid to do so. If homosexuals are suffering from high incidences of certain diseases, the solution is to cure those diseases. Even if the prevalence of a disease is extraordinarily high in the homosexual population, its almost certain that many more heterosexual people actually suffer from the disease as well. And you can't cure them by "curing" gayness.
It seems like you just want to slice up these problems at the level of sexual orientation because your ideologically aligned against homosexuality, not because fighting the problems at that level would the most rational or effective place to do so.