If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[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.