If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[Question Mark]

Oh, but it isn't a strawma though. You're using the appeal to emotion over the icky prospect of other people performing sodomy, and using that to persecute a single group, where as you'll dismiss the fact that heterosexuals doing it to further your condemnation of that single group.
That's not a strawman, that's what you're doing, and it's hypocrisy.

Yes, you can have your opinion, I would gladly stand up for your right to voice your opinion, but should you have the right to support laws that destroy other people's freedoms based on those opinions? No, just no. The mere fact that people do that is disgusting, because they would throw a hissy fit if someone did it to them

It's called a STRAWMAN. You're arguing against a proposition that I didn't make. I didn't say only gay people sodomize, and yet you felt the need to argue that.

I oppose gay sex, whether you like it or not. I frankly don't care what you think about my opinions. Especially since you have nothing of value to argue with.

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.