If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[A Theist]

Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology.

Homosexuality = Our bodies are not constructed for same gender sex.

Homosexuality = Unnatural, even for animals.

Illogical = Homosexuality is natural.

But it doesn't defy our body's physiology, or else it wouldn't work, gay people wouldn't be able to orgasm. And it does work, they do orgasm. Therefore it does not defy our natural physiology.

You need to stop applying your own definitions to things. "Natural = occurs in nature", that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change.

But it doesn't defy our body's physiology, or else it wouldn't work, gay people wouldn't be able to orgasm. And it does work, they do orgasm. Therefore it does not defy our natural physiology.

So what...gays have orgasms. That doesn't prove it's natural. It still defies natural physical biology.

You need to stop applying your own definitions to things.

...and you need to stop applying your own social ideology to things.

"Natural = occurs in nature", that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change

Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology, " that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change."

[Esquilax]

Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology, " that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change."

Yep, just keep saying it. That's totally likely to make it more true.

Go check my counterarguments on the previous page, please. I'd be very interested in your response.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@A Theist

Why should what is "natural" or "unnatural" determine what is "good" or "bad"?

[Brian37]

But it doesn't defy our body's physiology, or else it wouldn't work, gay people wouldn't be able to orgasm. And it does work, they do orgasm. Therefore it does not defy our natural physiology.

You need to stop applying your own definitions to things. "Natural = occurs in nature", that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change.

But it doesn't defy our body's physiology, or else it wouldn't work, gay people wouldn't be able to orgasm. And it does work, they do orgasm. Therefore it does not defy our natural physiology.

So what...gays have orgasms. That doesn't prove it's natural. It still defies natural physical biology.

You need to stop applying your own definitions to things.

...and you need to stop applying your own social ideology to things.

"Natural = occurs in nature", that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change

Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology, " that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change."

Don't give us this "neutral" facade on this issue and try to cop out to "it isn't natural". That is your testosterone talking and your religion talking. There is no script to human sexuality, it is a range, not an absolute. Your hangups about gays are yours, not theirs.

It still defies natural physical biology.

No, you merely find same sex yucky. Too fucking bad. Grow up. You don't want to have sex with the same sex, then dont. But this bullshit of masking your phobia behind science does not wash here.

[Question Mark]

But it doesn't defy our body's physiology, or else it wouldn't work, gay people wouldn't be able to orgasm. And it does work, they do orgasm. Therefore it does not defy our natural physiology.

You need to stop applying your own definitions to things. "Natural = occurs in nature", that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change.

But it doesn't defy our body's physiology, or else it wouldn't work, gay people wouldn't be able to orgasm. And it does work, they do orgasm. Therefore it does not defy our natural physiology.

So what...gays have orgasms. That doesn't prove it's natural. It still defies natural physical biology.

You need to stop applying your own definitions to things.

...and you need to stop applying your own social ideology to things.

"Natural = occurs in nature", that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change

Unnatural = Defies natural physical biology, " that's a basic principle that simply rewriting does not change."

It's not a social ideology, it's basic observation of nature. Why when the truth is pointed out to you do you just close you eyes, shut your ears, and bleat the same crap over and over again?

Homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be a perfectly natural thing, and you saying "it defies physical biology" when I and others have consistently pointed out to you that it just bloody well doesn't, hasn't made the slightest dent in your stubborn refusal to see the truth.
What's more, "social definitions" are what you're doing, applying the "unnatural" label to something that is observed in nature.

Unnatural is us flying in a plane. Unnatural is us breathing underwater with scuba equipment. Unnatural is wearing a vest, getting shot, and surviving. Firing a gun is unnatural.
Gay sex is not unnatural. Do you see the difference?

[TheViolentFemme]

Calling a cessation of homosexuality a "cure" assumes homosexuality is a disease, as it used to be defined, a mental disorder. Homosexuality has not been defined as a mental disorder for many years. Therefore, the idea of a "cure" is moot.

[Aractus]

I'm afraid that is not actually true, it's a commonly held myth based on earlier studies. Whilst it is riskier for penile-anal sex to contract the disease, penile-vaginal sex can range from 1 per 1000 sexual acts to 1 in 3 sexual acts based on factors such as the stage oft he disease, circumcision, other present STI's, roughness of the acts, and a number of other things.

That's why I said average. The number is actually based on a more recent study, earlier studies believed 700 times to be the lower limit and the upper limit more around 3,000 times or more! HIV is transmitted through blood (as opposed to skin contact or other fluids). The easiest way for a man to get infected during sex with a female partner is through his foreskin. Similarly, it logically follows that the easiest way for a man to infect a woman with penetrative vaginal sex is also through the foreskin. So circumcision or the use of a condom (which will cover the foreskin), or both, are effective ways of reducing the risks of HIV transmission.

Although I did make an error with the number, the 2012 study to which I referred put the number at 1 in 900 times not 1 in 700 times, my apologies. -edit-

[Question Mark]

I'm afraid that is not actually true, it's a commonly held myth based on earlier studies. Whilst it is riskier for penile-anal sex to contract the disease, penile-vaginal sex can range from 1 per 1000 sexual acts to 1 in 3 sexual acts based on factors such as the stage oft he disease, circumcision, other present STI's, roughness of the acts, and a number of other things.

That's why I said average. The number is actually based on a more recent study, earlier studies believed 700 times to be the lower limit and the upper limit more around 3,000 times or more! HIV is transmitted through blood (as opposed to skin contact or other fluids). The easiest way for a man to get infected during sex with a female partner is through his foreskin. Similarly, it logically follows that the easiest way for a man to infect a woman with penetrative vaginal sex is also through the foreskin. So circumcision or the use of a condom (which will cover the foreskin), or both, are effective ways of reducing the risks of HIV transmission.

Although I did make an error with the number, the 2012 study to which I referred put the number at 1 in 900 times not 1 in 700 times, my apologies.

Fair enough on the facts. It'll probably alter slightly again over the years, it always does when there's a concerted effort to slow the spread of a disease.

Still, however, I'm not sure how the spread of a disease is an argument against homosexuality. On the same level, we could argue that it's best for only lesbians to have sex, given that they have the lowest infection rate.

Were you the one arguing this point? I admit I forget who it was making that argument.

[TaraJo]

Manipulating human genes?

no thank you

1) That's assuming that genes are what causes homosexuality. There are a whole stack of other possible causes for homosexuality (none of which are chosen).

2) Would it be equally bad to manipulate genes to eliminate Parkinsons or Down Syndrome or Sickle Cell Anemia or other detrimental genetic conditions?

Personally, I can see why people might want to prevent homosexuality, but the main reason boils down to social norms: being gay means people will hate you and any romantic relationship will be treated like it's not a 'real' relationship. That being said, I don't see any good reasons to eliminate homosexuality anyway.

[Aractus]

Fair enough on the facts. It'll probably alter slightly again over the years, it always does when there's a concerted effort to slow the spread of a disease.

Still, however, I'm not sure how the spread of a disease is an argument against homosexuality. On the same level, we could argue that it's best for only lesbians to have sex, given that they have the lowest infection rate.

Were you the one arguing this point? I admit I forget who it was making that argument.

No I wasn't, lol.

In Australia we see that Aboriginal people are far more likely to be incarcerated for a crime compared with white people. This isn't an argument "not to be ethnic" though.

Aboriginal people shouldn't drink alcohol, it only causes problems for them. When the Europeans colonized Australia, alcoholism was one of the two main things that killed off a lot of the existing aboriginal populations. The other was being exposed to diseases that Aborigines had never had before. That's the reason, despite the fact that the Europeans tried to save them, that there are no more original Tasmanian Aborigines - they all died.

The fact that Aboriginal people shouldn't drink alcohol shouldn't be a reason to tell white people and other ethnic groups in Australia not to drink alcohol.

Given the statistics of the homosexual populations in Australia, it is very clear that the number of sexual partners in this group of people is high. In fact, even women who identify as exclusively lesbian (not bisexual) have more male partners on average than an heterosexual woman. For gays, however, the problem is compounded as you know. With anal sex there is a much higher risk of exposure to blood than there is with vaginal sex. This makes catching the vast majority of STI's a lot easier. Then there is the issue of monogamy - gays are far less monogamous than heterosexuals, and in most male-male relationships (in Australia) which both partners view as "exclusive" and "monogamous" at least one partner (if not both) is regularly having sexual contact with another person/people. So this reiterates the importance for the gay community in Australia of using condoms every time they have sex, and the importance of regular STI testing, even if you believe your relationship to be monogamous.