|
If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?
|
 RE: If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?
March 3, 2013 at 7:46 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2013 at 7:47 am by Ryantology.)
Quote:The human body is not biologically constructed for same gender sex. Gay sex is unnatural. Please provide a list of physical adaptations one must undergo before engagement in gay sex is possible.  RE: If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?
March 3, 2013 at 8:05 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2013 at 8:06 am by Darth.)
(March 3, 2013 at 7:46 am)Ryantology Wrote:Quote:The human body is not biologically constructed for same gender sex. Gay sex is unnatural. NSFW
Nemo me impune lacessit.
 RE: If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?
March 3, 2013 at 8:10 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2013 at 9:27 am by Aractus.)
Ryantology, the fact that it causes damage I think is what he was getting it. If it was "natural" there wouldn't be extensive tissue tearing that takes place regularly, and there wouldn't be the risk of incontinence because of it or infection from faecal matter.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK "That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke RE: If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?
March 3, 2013 at 8:55 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2013 at 9:02 am by Ryantology.)
Since when does 'natural' mean 'without risks'? If we have asses into which cocks can be inserted with only small risk of anything harmful resulting, then we have an activity nature has provided us the means to enjoy. Let us ignore several important points, such as the fact that only a minority of gay men have anal sex on a regular basis, or that gay women exist and this argument does not apply to any but a tiny percentage of them.
There are countless other activities which carry risks and cause damage to bodies not 'designed' to handle them optimally and are not 'natural' if that is your definition of 'natural', and I'm sure you both engage in some of them. Here's just a short list: - Smoking tobacco - Drinking alcohol - Typing on a keyboard - C-section birthing - Walking upright - Driving automobiles - Drinking cow's milk - Consume processed foods - Ride on commercial aircraft - Consume caffeine - Undergo surgery - Ride in rollercoasters - Receive x rays - Play tennis I could go on, and I wonder how many of those who participate in these activities should be prevented from existing. I have no doubt the Bible will provide reasons to kill any of these people. Stop trying to rationalize your superstitious hatred scientifically. It's repulsive.  (March 3, 2013 at 8:10 am)Aractus Wrote: Ryantology, the fact that it causes damage I think is what he was getting it. If it was "natural" there would be extensive tissue tearing that takes place regularly, and there wouldn't be the risk of incontinence because of it or infection from faecal matter. Really, both you and A Theist are completely missing the point. A Theist seems determined to miss the point actually. If we were at all concerned about general health when it came to activities, then we'd ban most of what Ryan just listed. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality occurs, it occurs without intervention and unnatural influences or help, and no matter how many times people like A Theist bleat that it's unnatural, the fact of the matter is that it happens in nature, and it's not going to stop unless Hitler 2.0 The Immortal Nazi rises up and decides that going after the Jews is just a little too ambitious. Besides, let's say for a moment that naturalness is based on the risk factor. Does that make lesbian sex more natural than hetero sex? Should we also condemn hetero sex in favour of lesbian sex because of its STI risk?
If you believe it, question it. If you question it, get an answer. If you have an answer, does that answer satisfy reality? Does it satisfy you? Probably not. For no one else will agree with you, not really.
Mr Question - I never said that engrained sexuality doesn't exist....
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK "That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke  (March 3, 2013 at 8:55 am)Ryantology Wrote: Since when does 'natural' mean 'without risks'? If we have asses into which cocks can be inserted with only small risk of anything harmful resulting, then we have an activity nature has provided us the means to enjoy. Let us ignore several important points, such as the fact that only a minority of gay men have anal sex on a regular basis, or that gay women exist and this argument does not apply to any but a tiny percentage of them.What's repulsive is the damage done to the anus through repeated penetration and the out of control HIV rates amongst gay men.  RE: If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?
March 3, 2013 at 9:56 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2013 at 9:58 am by Esquilax.)
You are so willfully ignorant it literally boggles my mind.
What I find telling, really, is that here we have an awful disease ravaging people, and guys like Mo here seem to have absolutely no empathy at all. To him, the deaths of gay men are just another reason to feel self righteous.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! (March 3, 2013 at 9:56 am)Esquilax Wrote: You are so willfully ignorant it literally boggles my mind.Did I call for the killing of homosexuals? No. That's a vile thing to say and to be honest, I haven't been posting on this forum very long and you're not a good advert for civil debates. Sort yourself out. (March 3, 2013 at 9:36 am)mo66 Wrote: What's repulsive is the damage done to the anus through repeated penetration and the out of control HIV rates amongst gay men. As repulsive as the damage done to the lungs by tobacco smoke? To the liver by alcohol? If it bothers you so much, don't get fucked in the asshole. If other people want to, it's none of your business. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
