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.