If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[Brian37]

Why is this even a debate. Sexuality is a range, not a script, people who fear the sexuality of others need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

[Autumnlicious]

Why is this even a debate. Sexuality is a range, not a script, people who fear the sexuality of others need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

Because not everyone shares your beliefs identically fuck nut.

And that a debate is often used to reach a consensus by facts, evidence, rhetoric and fair amount of criticism and cross examination.

[Question Mark]

Why is this even a debate. Sexuality is a range, not a script, people who fear the sexuality of others need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

Because not everyone shares your beliefs identically fuck nut.

And that a debate is often used to reach a consensus by facts, evidence, rhetoric and fair amount of criticism and cross examination.

Aww, now we don't have to be mean about it.

The fact of the matter is that homosexuality and most orientations have been scientifically prove to be natural and reasonably innocuous aspects of the human condition. There's no legitimate secular argument against it.

When coming from the religious quarter, there's only "because god says it's bad", which if you think about it, isn't actually a reason, it's just an arbitrary prohibition. There's no "and god says so, because this could happen, and it affects people this way, &c.".
It's really just an emotional appeal, and not grounded in facts or real consequences.

[catfish]

"The fact of the matter is that homosexuality and most orientations have been scientifically prove to be natural and reasonably innocuous aspects of the human condition."

So, you found the gay gene have ya?

Look folks, if you're not gay, you shouldn't be answering this question, PERIOD!

[Question Mark]

So, you found the gay gene have ya?

Look folks, if you're not gay, you shouldn't be answering this question, PERIOD!

That's an over simplification of the truth, but in effect, the modern scientific consensus is that several factors including genetics, development of the brain, and environmental factors during early development determine the sexual orientation of the individual. These things occur naturally, so in short, yes it's natural. Almost all respectable medical research institutions hold this view.

I'm bisexual, am I supposed to be answering this question?

[catfish]

No such thing as Bi*
If you are a guy and you suck dick, you're gay... lol
.

[Ryantology]

No such thing as Bi*
If you are a guy and you suck dick, you're gay... lol
.

So, you're applying the One Drop Rule to sexual orientation?

[Zen Badger]

Look folks, if you're not gay, you shouldn't be answering this question, PERIOD!

Really? We shouldn't be speaking up in defence of people whom we feel are being targeted by small minded, bigoted bullies?

Tell us more.....

[Aractus]

The salient difference between homosexuality and cannibalism in terms of the relationship between animals and humans, is that the concept of homosexuality on its own is entirely innocuous, whereas cannibalism as a way of life is intrinsically invasive on the lives of other people.
IE. those people getting eaten.

So? We could avoid those problems by eating our criminals, or our children when they die or our parents when they die? In many animals that is normal behaviour. In even more animals it is normal behaviour to fight for a mate, sometime even to the death, and in many cases even when the one you're fighting is already the mate's present mate! Should we do that too?

---

Why is this even a debate. Sexuality is a range, not a script, people who fear the sexuality of others need to grow the fuck up and get over themselves.

Because not everyone shares your beliefs identically fuck nut.

And that a debate is often used to reach a consensus by facts, evidence, rhetoric and fair amount of criticism and cross examination.

EXACTLY.

Sexuality is a range, yes, but there are acceptable ways of expressing it and unacceptable ways, helpful ways, unhelpful ways, dare I say, moral and immoral ways, there are beneficial ways and there are harmful ways. Just like violence. Violence can be expressed in a healthy way or an unhealthy way. For instance, going to the gym and laying into a boxing bag for half an hour - or - going home and beating your wife, can you tell which one is the better way to express violence Brian37?

---

There's no legitimate secular argument against it.

Um, yes there is.

Adoption. Children need both a mother and father, this has been proven again and again. Children can be raised without a mother or without a father, but the best possible environment is with both a male father and a female mother. Just like you can cut off their right arm from birth and they'll still live and develop "normally", a child is supposed to have both their arms.

Speaking as someone who grew up without a father from the age of 10 I can personally attest to the truth of this.

Allowing children to be adopted by single people or by homosexual couples denies them the best possible start in life, and intentionally denies them either a mother or a father. Adoption is, after all, concerned with the best interests of the child first and foremost and not the "rights" or "interests" of adults.

There's your secular argument. Go nuts.

When coming from the religious quarter, there's only "because god says it's bad", which if you think about it, isn't actually a reason, it's just an arbitrary prohibition. There's no "and god says so, because this could happen, and it affects people this way, &c.".
It's really just an emotional appeal, and not grounded in facts or real consequences.
[/quote]

[Ryantology]

Adoption. Children need both a mother and father, this has been proven again and again. Children can be raised without a mother or without a father, but the best possible environment is with both a male father and a female mother. Just like you can cut off their right arm from birth and they'll still live and develop "normally", a child is supposed to have both their arms.

You have very deceitfully cited single parenthood as an argument against homosexual parents.

Allowing children to be adopted by single people or by homosexual couples denies them the best possible start in life, and intentionally denies them either a mother or a father. Adoption is, after all, concerned with the best interests of the child first and foremost and not the "rights" or "interests" of adults.

There are no independent studies which show, conclusively, a significant benefit to children who have a mother and a father compared to those who have same-sex parents. Because, of course, that's total bullshit. Children need loving parents, and two loving, devoted homosexual parents are undeniably better for any child than heterosexual parents who are neglectful and/or abusive, as many are.

Children of caring homosexual parents are undoubtedly more suited to the task than a great many devoutly religious heterosexual parents.
When I see young people denying evolution, expressing homophobia, or being forced to attend many kinds of sinister religious services (especially Catholic and evangelical Christian), I see child abuse, because these are kids who are being intentionally denied their best interests and must succeed at life in spite of this.

As I said in my first response to you, there is not a single secular argument against homosexuals marrying and adopting which does not apply (and much more strongly, arguably) to religious heterosexuals.