If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[Gabriel Syme]

I would say that, if it were preventable, then yes homosexuality should be prevented.

My opnion is based primarily on the good of the individual. I dont think any gay people would choose to be gay, and I think people would generally be happier and more fulfilled in life with a conventional relationship and family. Despite widespread political correctness and social pretence, homosexuality can never duplicate the features and strengths of a heterosexual relationship.

Ther would also be wider social benefits - HIV would essentially disappear in the west, for a start. (In western society, the disease affects gay men almost exclusively).

Not all, but many gay people I encounter on forums, websites generally, the media etc seem to be in a constant state of anger about something or other. Often it is because someone has aired a different opinion to theirs, especially if it is about gay "marriage" or "gay families". I dont think its healthy or constructive to be constantly angry.

I do not regard this opinion as being controversial, not even slightly. Many babies are aborted because of tiny imperfections, (and ones which can be fixed medically), such as a cleft-pallette or haired-lip.

Judging by this, I certainly think some people would abort, if they could prove their unborn child would turn out gay, so obviously many people would choose to prevent homosexuality occuring if they could.

[LastPoet]

Gabriel, all I can muster from that post is that I truly wish you to be a poe, please?

[downbeatplumb]

I would say that, if it were preventable, then yes homosexuality should be prevented.

My opnion is based primarily on the good of the individual. I dont think any gay people would choose to be gay, and I think people would generally be happier and more fulfilled in life with a conventional relationship and family. Despite widespread political correctness and social pretence, homosexuality can never duplicate the features and strengths of a heterosexual relationship.

Ther would also be wider social benefits - HIV would essentially disappear in the west, for a start. (In western society, the disease affects gay men almost exclusively).

Not all, but many gay people I encounter on forums, websites generally, the media etc seem to be in a constant state of anger about something or other. Often it is because someone has aired a different opinion to theirs, especially if it is about gay "marriage" or "gay families". I dont think its healthy or constructive to be constantly angry.

I do not regard this opinion as being controversial, not even slightly. Many babies are aborted because of tiny imperfections, (and ones which can be fixed medically), such as a cleft-pallette or haired-lip.

Judging by this, I certainly think some people would abort, if they could prove their unborn child would turn out gay, so obviously many people would choose to prevent homosexuality occuring if they could.

Why do theists have it in for the gays? They aren't doing anybody any harm.

About HIV, lesbian sex is the least likely of all to transmit the disease so do they have an out or would you get rid of them too?

[Cinjin]

Bonus, at the end of this video there is a reference to Bob Jones University.

[Gabriel Syme]

Why do theists have it in for the gays?

I dont have it in for anyone, downbeat. I am only answering the question as posed by the OP.

They aren't doing anybody any harm.

They do themselves harm.

1 in 5 gay men in the USA has HIV, it rises to 1 in 2 in Frisco.

1 in 20 gay men in the UK has HIV, it rises to 1 in 10 in London.

Just to be clear - HIV is an incurable diease which requires daily medical intervention, if the infected person is to stay alive.

(this daily medcal care costs taxpayers a fortune).

The anti-viral drugs used to prevent HIV becoming AIDs are so aggressive that these themselves can (and do) actually cause death (via actue pancreaitis).

No-one talks much about HIV these days - a remarkable turn around from the very scary (and rightly so) health campaigns of the 1980s.

The reason no-one talks about it badly anymore is that, if homosexuality is to be normalised, then so too must HIV - because the two go hand in hand, as the figures show.

About HIV, lesbian sex is the least likely of all to transmit the disease so do they have an out or would you get rid of them too?

I didnt say I "wanted to get rid" of anyone. I only answered the OPs question. For a start, I do think many people would abort if they knew their unborn child was gay, and so if homosexuality could be prevented - thus preventing abortions - they that is obviously a good thing. The needless destruction of life is wrong.

You are right that, due to their physical bodies, Lesbians are not nearly as effective transmitters of HIV as are gay men.

However, there is a different set of health issues which goes along with Lesbianism, though I think its probably fair to say that they are not as equally serious as HIV, for the individual or society.

[downbeatplumb]

You are right that, due to their physical bodies, Lesbians are not nearly as effective transmitters of HIV as are gay men.

However, there is a different set of health issues which goes along with Lesbianism, though I think its probably fair to say that they are not as equally serious as HIV, for the individual or society.

Such as?

[Question Mark]

Ther would also be wider social benefits - HIV would essentially disappear in the west, for a start. (In western society, the disease affects gay men almost exclusively).

Would you care to provide evidence for this baseless assertion? Statistics in favour of nonsense like this hasn't been around since the 80's so far as I'm aware. HIV being a "gay disease" has been proven a myth by about every respectable medical institution. Google it.

Not all, but many gay people I encounter on forums, websites generally, the media etc seem to be in a constant state of anger about something or other. Often it is because someone has aired a different opinion to theirs, especially if it is about gay "marriage" or "gay families". I dont think its healthy or constructive to be constantly angry.

Like on Fox news, for instance?
It's hard to be happy when there's a large percentage of the population who'd sooner spit on you than shake your hand. If people would simply extend common courtesy instead of conjuring up social circumstances that come about because of the hate directed against them as reasons for them not to exist, there would be no problem.

I do not regard this opinion as being controversial, not even slightly. Many babies are aborted because of tiny imperfections, (and ones which can be fixed medically), such as a cleft-pallette or haired-lip.

Judging by this, I certainly think some people would abort, if they could prove their unborn child would turn out gay, so obviously many people would choose to prevent homosexuality occuring if they could.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that gay babies should be aborted? That is beyond bigotry, that's genocide.

[Esquilax]

My opnion is based primarily on the good of the individual. I dont think any gay people would choose to be gay, and I think people would generally be happier and more fulfilled in life with a conventional relationship and family. Despite widespread political correctness and social pretence, homosexuality can never duplicate the features and strengths of a heterosexual relationship.

How about you back that up with anything, quick draw? Your bald assertions- especially yours, since you have a history of homophobia on this forum- don't really count for much. 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.

See what I did there? And with exactly the same amount of credibility and evidence that you provided!

Not all, but many gay people I encounter on forums, websites generally, the media etc seem to be in a constant state of anger about something or other. Often it is because someone has aired a different opinion to theirs, especially if it is about gay "marriage" or "gay families". I dont think its healthy or constructive to be constantly angry.

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? 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'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 do not regard this opinion as being controversial, not even slightly. Many babies are aborted because of tiny imperfections, (and ones which can be fixed medically), such as a cleft-pallette or haired-lip.

Again, something you'd need to prove. And I still can't believe you can say things like that and still not understand how you anger gay people.

[Gilgamesh]

However, there is a different set of health issues which goes along with Lesbianism, though I think its probably fair to say that they are not as equally serious as HIV, for the individual or society.

How do the health issues stack up against the health issues of heterosexual people?

Also, I'm confused. Is gay sex a cause for HIV or do a lot of gay men just happen to have HIV?

[Aractus]

Ther would also be wider social benefits - HIV would essentially disappear in the west, for a start. (In western society, the disease affects gay men almost exclusively).

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?