If homosexuality were preventable should it be prevented?

[Ryantology]

The human body is not biologically constructed for same gender sex. Gay sex is unnatural.

Please provide a list of physical adaptations one must undergo before engagement in gay sex is possible.

[Darth]

The human body is not biologically constructed for same gender sex. Gay sex is unnatural.

Please provide a list of physical adaptations one must undergo before engagement in gay sex is possible.

NSFW

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8QPOsLBeXM

---

[Aractus]

Ryantology, the fact that it causes damage I think is what he was getting it. If it was "natural" there wouldn't be extensive tissue tearing that takes place regularly, and there wouldn't be the risk of incontinence because of it or infection from faecal matter.

• 
  The anal sphincter muscle is not anatomically designed to comfortably admit external objects--it is designed to relax and stretch when stimulated internally by rectal fullness from stool. The automatic reflex is for it to contract and tighten when pressure is applied externally. So relaxation of the sphincter for external penetration is learned over time because otherwise it is very uncomfortable, and must only be done with gentle continual pressure, and lots and lots of lubricant. The risks, even with gentle insertion, are laceration of the anal tissue, and rectal mucosa, resulting in pain, bleeding, and difficulty passing stool comfortably.
  
  Any presence of blood can potentially expose the insertive partner to bloodborne STDs like Hep. B, Hep. C, and HIV. In addition, exposure to stool can result in urethral infections in a male insertive partner.

[Ryantology]

Since when does 'natural' mean 'without risks'? If we have asses into which cocks can be inserted with only small risk of anything harmful resulting, then we have an activity nature has provided us the means to enjoy. Let us ignore several important points, such as the fact that only a minority of gay men have anal sex on a regular basis, or that gay women exist and this argument does not apply to any but a tiny percentage of them.

There are countless other activities which carry risks and cause damage to bodies not 'designed' to handle them optimally and are not 'natural' if that is your definition of 'natural', and I'm sure you both engage in some of them. Here's just a short list:

- Smoking tobacco
- Drinking alcohol
- Typing on a keyboard
- C-section birthing
- Walking upright
- Driving automobiles
- Drinking cow's milk
- Consume processed foods
- Ride on commercial aircraft
- Consume caffeine
- Undergo surgery
- Ride in rollercoasters
- Receive x rays
- Play tennis

I could go on, and I wonder how many of those who participate in these activities should be prevented from existing. I have no doubt the Bible will provide reasons to kill any of these people.

Stop trying to rationalize your superstitious hatred scientifically. It's repulsive.

[Question Mark]

Ryantology, the fact that it causes damage I think is what he was getting it. If it was "natural" there would be extensive tissue tearing that takes place regularly, and there wouldn't be the risk of incontinence because of it or infection from faecal matter.

• 
  The anal sphincter muscle is not anatomically designed to comfortably admit external objects--it is designed to relax and stretch when stimulated internally by rectal fullness from stool. The automatic reflex is for it to contract and tighten when pressure is applied externally. So relaxation of the sphincter for external penetration is learned over time because otherwise it is very uncomfortable, and must only be done with gentle continual pressure, and lots and lots of lubricant. The risks, even with gentle insertion, are laceration of the anal tissue, and rectal mucosa, resulting in pain, bleeding, and difficulty passing stool comfortably.
  
  Any presence of blood can potentially expose the insertive partner to bloodborne STDs like Hep. B, Hep. C, and HIV. In addition, exposure to stool can result in urethral infections in a male insertive partner.

Really, both you and A Theist are completely missing the point. A Theist seems determined to miss the point actually. If we were at all concerned about general health when it came to activities, then we'd ban most of what Ryan just listed.
The fact of the matter is that homosexuality occurs, it occurs without intervention and unnatural influences or help, and no matter how many times people like A Theist bleat that it's unnatural, the fact of the matter is that it happens in nature, and it's not going to stop unless Hitler 2.0 The Immortal Nazi rises up and decides that going after the Jews is just a little too ambitious.

Besides, let's say for a moment that naturalness is based on the risk factor. Does that make lesbian sex more natural than hetero sex? Should we also condemn hetero sex in favour of lesbian sex because of its STI risk?

[Aractus]

Mr Question - I never said that engrained sexuality doesn't exist....

[ideologue08]

Since when does 'natural' mean 'without risks'? If we have asses into which cocks can be inserted with only small risk of anything harmful resulting, then we have an activity nature has provided us the means to enjoy. Let us ignore several important points, such as the fact that only a minority of gay men have anal sex on a regular basis, or that gay women exist and this argument does not apply to any but a tiny percentage of them.

There are countless other activities which carry risks and cause damage to bodies not 'designed' to handle them optimally and are not 'natural' if that is your definition of 'natural', and I'm sure you both engage in some of them. Here's just a short list:

- Smoking tobacco
- Drinking alcohol
- Typing on a keyboard
- C-section birthing
- Walking upright
- Driving automobiles
- Drinking cow's milk
- Consume processed foods
- Ride on commercial aircraft
- Consume caffeine
- Undergo surgery
- Ride in rollercoasters
- Receive x rays
- Play tennis

I could go on, and I wonder how many of those who participate in these activities should be prevented from existing. I have no doubt the Bible will provide reasons to kill any of these people.

Stop trying to rationalize your superstitious hatred scientifically. It's repulsive.

What's repulsive is the damage done to the anus through repeated penetration and the out of control HIV rates amongst gay men.

[Esquilax]

You are so willfully ignorant it literally boggles my mind.

What I find telling, really, is that here we have an awful disease ravaging people, and guys like Mo here seem to have absolutely no empathy at all. To him, the deaths of gay men are just another reason to feel self righteous.

[ideologue08]

You are so willfully ignorant it literally boggles my mind.

What I find telling, really, is that here we have an awful disease ravaging people, and guys like Mo here seem to have absolutely no empathy at all. To him, the deaths of gay men are just another reason to feel self righteous.

Did I call for the killing of homosexuals? No. That's a vile thing to say and to be honest, I haven't been posting on this forum very long and you're not a good advert for civil debates. Sort yourself out.

[Ryantology]

What's repulsive is the damage done to the anus through repeated penetration and the out of control HIV rates amongst gay men.

As repulsive as the damage done to the lungs by tobacco smoke? To the liver by alcohol?

If it bothers you so much, don't get fucked in the asshole. If other people want to, it's none of your business.