If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[Gabriel Syme]

How about you back that up with anything, quick draw?

Well, is seems to be content we must be satisfied.

For something to be satisfied, it must complete its purpose.

Gay 'sex' and relationships do not complete the purposes of the human body. Just as a mans body is obviously not compatible sexual with another mans, it seems reasonable to suggest that a mans nature is not compatible emotionally with another male. (the first is fact, the second my assertion).

But let me provide a counterpoint to put us into neutral again anyway: Despite widespread political correctness and social pretence, heterosexuality can never duplicate the features and strengths of a homosexual relationship.

But this is absurd. When I referred to the features and strengths of heterosexual relationships, I was meaning:

- defined by the attraction of opposites (a common theme in nature - eg magnetic poles is another example)
- strengthened by the complimentary nature of opposites
- open to the possibility of creating new life
- has a natural and important social role
- the basic building block of human society

None of this applies to gay relationships and they do not have a similar list in return. The difference in heterosexual relationships is what gives those relationships their unique character and abilities; in contrast homosexuality is lop-sided, not different, and the sum of the two persons bodies do not produce anything greater than themselves.

See what I did there? And with exactly the same amount of credibility and evidence that you provided!

Well hope you are happier now.

Do you not understand that when you say that gay relationships are inferior to straight ones, that gay people are responsible for HIV, and that they should be prevented from existing at all, that's a personal attack?

- I do not recall describing gay relationships as inferior. I have described them as being disordered and as being different (to heterosexuality). Because they are.

- I said gay males are the driving force behind HIV spreading in the west. This is a fact. There can be nothing offensive about facts.

- I didn't say gay people should be prevented from existing. In the context of the thread question, I speculated that it was likely that some people would choose to abort in such cases.

There's no way to say those things that isn't mean and personally offensive to a gay person, and then you wonder why they're angry?

You making it up - what you claim I said (I) puts words in my mouth, (ii) claims telling the truth is wrong and (iii) twists my words into something else.

Gay activists are renowned for claiming the truth is offensive and so should be hushed up. They do not seek to debate, but to control language.

Anyone seeking to hide the truth - for any reason - should be seen as an enemy of all free thinkers.

BTW - strange you react to badly to the idea of gay babies being aborted. Youre OK with all the 100s of 1000s of other healthy babies being aborted every year for no reason, but its suddenly really bad if they were gay?

"You're a sinful, immoral person responsible for major diseases, who is going to hell because of your insistence on keeping your gay partner, who is inherently inferior to my straight one, all because you're obsessed with sex, since that's all homosexual relationships are... whoa whoa, why are you so angry? I didn't say anything to get you riled up!"

I understand what you are driving at and I would agree that those statements are phrased, are mean spirited.

I always try to present my facts and arguments in a non-derogatory fashion, to whomever I am speaking (I don't always succeed, but usually have to be provoked lol).

Whenever I present a fact I am not doing it to hurt anyones feelings or make anyone feel low, but to provide evidence of points I am making.

Often I do it to demonstrate that Catholics have opinions because we have thought carefully about things and their consequences, and are not the mindless bigots that some people claim.

I mean you no harm or offense and will always try to seek to avoid needless hurtful language or unsubstantiated facts.

Do note however that, as Christians are often told, "you don't have a right not to be offended".

If that is to be the standard of our society, then it cuts all ways Im afraid.

---

How do the health issues stack up against the health issues of heterosexual people?

Hi Gilgamesh,

Heterosexual people are not over-represented by several hundred percent in any serious diseases, like (eg) gay men are with HIV. (in my nation, gay men in society are over-represented by nearly 1,500% wrt HIV+ status). It would actually be impossible for heterosexual people to be over-represented by such, as they make up 98.5% of society (in the UK figures). But even a direct comparison shows the difference - what incurable sexual disease do 1 in 5 heterosexual American men have? Im sure they will have a few things alright, but 1 in 5 is not dependant on daily medication just to live, due to a sexual disease.

Rates of HIV among gay men in 'western' countries are similar to (in fact now overtaking) HIV rates among African populations. You find generally high rates in society, and they double whenever there is an especially large gay population in an urban centre).

Funny that we hear a lot about the Africans, but not so much about the gay men, eh?

Also, I'm confused. Is gay sex a cause for HIV or do a lot of gay men just happen to have HIV?

Gay activity, (note its not really sex - sex requires both partners to combine their sex organs; this does not happen with homosexual people - it is impossible), due to its disordered nature, is a much higher risk activity than heterosexual sex with regard to STD transmission.

The anus of either gender is not a sex organ and is not intended to be penetrated like the female vagina is. The vagina is self-lubricating, strong and pliable - to withstand intercourse and child-birth. In contrast, the anus is delicate and easily damaged by penetration. Even minor, microscopic damage opens the bloodstream, dramatically increasing the likelihood of transmission.

Additionally, the anus / intestines / gut are to enable us to digest our food, absorb nutrients and expel excrement. These organs are not intended to handle semen. Naturally the absorbent nature and processes of these organs also increase the chance of transmission.

There are many gay men who value their health and who are responsible sexually. But there are significant numbers of gay men who are not responsible, and many who say there are no exagerrated risks of associated with gay sex. This is misinformation and is leading people to risk their health.

---

This is true... did you know that you need to have unprotected vaginal sex an average of 700 times with an HIV+ partner to contract HIV?

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.

Saying it's a near purely gay disease wouldn't do anything to explain why Africa is having an epidemic. It's just residual nonsense from the 80's.

This is wilful self delusion.

In 2011, in my part of the UK gay men caused 67% of all new HIV infections.

In 2012, it rose to 71% of all new HIV infection among gay men.

These levels of statistics - that gay men cause 2/3 - 3/4 of all new HIV infections - are repeated throughout western societies, from the Uk, to the US, to Australia.

The next biggest HIV+ positive group in the UK is people from the 3rd world who have come to seek treatment.

The fact is, HIV In the west is strongly associated with homosexual men, and if they stopped homosexual activity, HIV proliferation would fall dramatically, immediately - saving lives and taxpayers money.

I have demonstrated this beyond doubt In the thread I linked you to previously.

As for Africa - its a different set of circumstances entirely; factors such as war - among which widespread rape took place - lawlessness and cultural issues (violent sexism etc) all contribute.

[Shell B]

Yes, violent sexism introduced by Christianity and Islam.

[Question Mark]

Not it isn't a STRAWMAN, captain capslock, because you're using the fact that a lot of gay men sodomize to persecute them, without persecuting hetereosexuals. Do you deny that you're only having a go at homosexuals for doing this?
If you included heteros, then I would be misunderstanding what you're saying, which might not happen if instead of crying strawman, you simply explained yourself.

I don't have an argument to put to you, because you haven't presented an argument, which is very odd on a forum. All you've done is say that it's icky, which is not an argument for anything.
If you don't want to argue a point, then it beggars belief why you're even here.

This thread is about homosexuals, hence me talking about homosexuals. Not too difficult to figure that one out!

Did I say it was "icky"? Captain Strawman strikes again!

You basically have absolutely no valid arguments. Building strawmen is all you seem to be doing. Total waste of time.

The irony here is that you're committing the actual strawman, by rearranging my point against you into something you can easily dismiss. Passive aggressive and disingenuous.

---

This is wilful self delusion.

In 2011, in my part of the UK gay men caused 67% of all new HIV infections.

In 2012, it rose to 71% of all new HIV infection among gay men.

These levels of statistics - that gay men cause 2/3 - 3/4 of all new HIV infections - are repeated throughout western societies, from the Uk, to the US, to Australia.

The next biggest HIV+ positive group in the UK is people from the 3rd world who have come to seek treatment.

The fact is, HIV In the west is strongly associated with homosexual men, and if they stopped homosexual activity, HIV proliferation would fall dramatically, immediately - saving lives and taxpayers money.

I have demonstrated this beyond doubt In the thread I linked you to previously.

As for Africa - its a different set of circumstances entirely; factors such as war - among which widespread rape took place - lawlessness and cultural issues (violent sexism etc) all contribute.

I like that last bit, where you hurriedly dismiss the bit about Africa. Not the least since the Catholic church is propagating the spread of diseases there by spreading false information about the "sinful" nature of contraception.
That, is willful self delusion.

67% does not make for 100%, either. One could easily make the same argument in favour of saying that it's a coloured virus, since a majority of HIV cases int he US at least are amongst blacks and hispanics. But I don't hear anyone toting that line for some reason.

Lastly, opening a comment to someone with a sentence that directly assaults their intellectual honesty and integrity is base rudeness. Grow up.

[Cato]

Gay 'sex' and relationships do not complete the purposes of the human body.

My 18+ year relationship with my wife, who had a tubal ligation before we met, means that there are at least two heterosexuals that are not completing your imagined purpose. We still enjoy fucking. So much for your purpose. Nevermind Navin R. Johnson's special purpose.

Just as a mans body is obviously not compatible sexual with another mans,...

Synthetic lube solves this problem. What of heterosexual anal sex? Not compatible my ass.

...it seems reasonable to suggest that a mans nature is not compatible emotionally with another male.

So much for a little 'male bonding' on a 'boys night out'.

[Question Mark]

Gay 'sex' and relationships do not complete the purposes of the human body.

I'm pretty sure it does. Successfully performing sexual acts of any sort provides the body with a great deal of benefits, such as stress relief, lowering of blood pressure, increased antibodies, possible increased heart health, lessen prostate cancer in men, and helps people sleep.

Those seem like legit purposes.

[Esquilax]

Well, is seems to be content we must be satisfied.

For something to be satisfied, it must complete its purpose.

Gay 'sex' and relationships do not complete the purposes of the human body. Just as a mans body is obviously not compatible sexual with another mans, it seems reasonable to suggest that a mans nature is not compatible emotionally with another male. (the first is fact, the second my assertion).

Two things: one, it's telling that your focus here seems to be on the homosexual configuration that, socially speaking, has the most stigma and vitriol attached to it by people like you; gay males.

And two, you'd have to also prove that the human body has a purpose beyond its own physical survival and the manipulation of the physical world around it before I'll take this argument as anything other than a bald, baseless assertion. Can you do that?

But this is absurd. When I referred to the features and strengths of heterosexual relationships, I was meaning:

- defined by the attraction of opposites (a common theme in nature - eg magnetic poles is another example)
- strengthened by the complimentary nature of opposites
- open to the possibility of creating new life
- has a natural and important social role
- the basic building block of human society

None of this applies to gay relationships and they do not have a similar list in return. The difference in heterosexual relationships is what gives those relationships their unique character and abilities; in contrast homosexuality is lop-sided, not different, and the sum of the two persons bodies do not produce anything greater than themselves.

Now I have three things: one, just because you haven't produced a list doesn't mean there isn't one, nor is the worth of a thing determined by the number of concepts you can pull out of your ass.

Two: way to prove my point. Again, all you've done is make a baseless assertion without proving a single point you've made. Every point on your list is nothing more than personal opinion, but you have no basis for any of them. I could go point by point, but why bother? Unless you can furnish me with any real world evidence for the worth of this "attraction of opposites" for example, why should I care?

Three: So, are you against all heterosexual relationships that do not bear children?

- I do not recall describing gay relationships as inferior. I have described them as being disordered and as being different (to heterosexuality). Because they are.

Oh, so when you said this:

Despite widespread political correctness and social pretence, homosexuality can never duplicate the features and strengths of a heterosexual relationship.

That wasn't meant to imply inferiority? When you call them disordered, no inferiority there? When you call them vectors of a wasting, fatal disease? I'm not supposed to take any negative meaning from these things?

You making it up - what you claim I said (I) puts words in my mouth, (ii) claims telling the truth is wrong and (iii) twists my words into something else.

Two choices, Gabriel: either the things you were saying were supposed to make the reader view homosexuality in a negative light, in which case you were doing exactly what I claimed you were. Or, you weren't doing that, in which case, why are you even here, making the same arguments that a homophobe would make, if you aren't set on making homophobic points?

Gay activists are renowned for claiming the truth is offensive and so should be hushed up. They do not seek to debate, but to control language.

I believe I've said this to you before, but your insistence on your viewpoint being the truth, to the point of dismissing any counterarguments, is pretty disgustingly smug, and smacks of trying to control the language too, you know.

BTW - strange you react to badly to the idea of gay babies being aborted. Youre OK with all the 100s of 1000s of other healthy babies being aborted every year for no reason, but its suddenly really bad if they were gay?

Well, first of all, I wasn't the one who responded to your abortion message. So I haven't reacted at all, yet. But yes, I am for pro-choice, even if I do find it offensive if the reason for that abortion was eventual sexual orientation.

It's like how I'm pro-free speech, but I find homophobia to be offensive. I can be for a broad concept while still disliking some of its uses.

Whenever I present a fact I am not doing it to hurt anyones feelings or make anyone feel low, but to provide evidence of points I am making.

And the purpose behind those points you want to make is...?

Because I gotta tell ya, there's a lot of misinformation in the facts you choose to present.

Do note however that, as Christians are often told, "you don't have a right not to be offended".

I'm not, nor has anyone else in this thread, told you you can't say things. We're just arguing back, which is sort of the point of a debate.

[Ryantology]

Gay 'sex' and relationships do not complete the purposes of the human body.

There is no 'purpose' to the human body.

None of this applies to gay relationships and they do not have a similar list in return. The difference in heterosexual relationships is what gives those relationships their unique character and abilities; in contrast homosexuality is lop-sided, not different, and the sum of the two persons bodies do not produce anything greater than themselves.

News flash: people do not live their lives just to satisfy your arbitrary criteria.

Gay activists are renowned for claiming the truth is offensive and so should be hushed up. They do not seek to debate, but to control language.

There is no truth in anything you say. It is slimy bigotry which you back up with a handful of statistics, which even if all were true do not justify or legitimize denying equal rights to homosexuals.

Anyone seeking to hide the truth - for any reason - should be seen as an enemy of all free thinkers.

Those who deliberately warp the truth to advance ancient, superstitious hatred are every bit the enemy to free thinkers.

BTW - strange you react to badly to the idea of gay babies being aborted. Youre OK with all the 100s of 1000s of other healthy babies being aborted every year for no reason, but its suddenly really bad if they were gay?

I am not okay with babies being aborted, on a personal level. That's where it ends. I do not support any attempt to deny others the right to make that choice, nor do I support attempts to demonize them for making it.

[Fruity]

I didn't have the time to read all replies, but I have to wonder what the gay community would answer (perhaps someone already did?). I'm a married woman who happens to like women and men. I wouldn't like to be cured and I don't think my husband would like me to be cured! I am glad it wasn't prevented. I like who I am. I like my life. I'm not imposing my preference (or lack of) on others the way Christians do. In any case, prevent religion and bigotry. It's the most contagious sickness of all!

[Aractus]

Jrsm, as I've pointed out in other threads, religions are centralized organizations that do huge amounts of charitable community work - in the case of Anglicans we do more community work in Australia than any other denomination (including Catholics). Banning religion would necessarily result in overthrowing this, obviously you are grateful for the community work that we do, correct?

[Fruity]

Yes. So, are you saying that if you didn't belong to a religious organization you wouldn't contribute? I volunteered when I was Christian in many community activities for charity, but I still do it now that I am atheist. I am not in favor of eliminating people's right for religion choice, but if you were to prevent homosexuality then what is the difference of that from preventing religion? I'm not trying to prevent people from doing good. Keep doing good. I do it. My sex desires are my business and not of perverts who wash their hands with religion to dictate how one experiments sex.

Drug cartels in Mexico make some towns wealthy and even sponsor schools. They also kill in horrible ways that I don't care to mention, rape, and torture people when they feel like it will help their business. Would I want them to stop business? Yes. Am I not glad people were helped? I'm glad for them, but if the cost is all of those other things, then by all means, STOP! If religion does good at the cost of having the right to choose how people will live their lives (instead of minding their own business), molesting children then covering, killing hundreds in suicide attacks, making women feel like shit if they aren't virgins (or straight), etc... then STOP. Perhaps if we educated people into understanding that they don't have to wait until they are in church to do good they'd pick up where religious organizations left off if the people in it stopped doing good. Personally, I don't need a godly figure to push me into doing good. I just feel like doing it. Bisexual and all.