If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[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?