Mynamescox44 :

I know a few moderators who would disagree with that statement regarding the color of your name.

Yes, I am warning people about the bad side of it. I am sounding the alarm as a researched individual who I'm willing to bet knows a lot more about the topic than you do at the moment. But you think that I am taking this too personally?

Look "friend". When you go as far as to call something that someone is doing a figurative "crusade" after the nice opening line your first post in this thread. That says something to me about you and the fact is that you are attempting a personal assault on my character.

You don't have anything against me huh? What do you mean you don't have anything personal against me? Then why did you say this?

So, at this point I just have to ask...

That is an attack on character! You do have something against me. You make this clear from the very beginning of your first post! Why I choose to research something does not determine if the research itself is true or not. It can be good to note some people's motives, but we also cannot become completely devoid of bias. That is a handicap you and I are going to have to work with. I present my research in the best faith that I can however, and others have been receptive of it. In fact, I think it's fine to have something against someone, but not to use personal attacks within a debate- those are better for after the fact- if they are true. But even then I'm not so sure I would like to act upon it.

Maybe we can reset. After all, what if I did read you wrong? I prefer doing things logically and if what you're saying is true, then there's no reason we can't debate.

I would like to ask you one question though- to get back on track. It basically boils down to the basis of my debate, it is as follows.

If homosexuality is so safe, then why do these staggering statistics consist across even a 40 year period across the USA?

Is it because large portions of homosexuals do not know about safe sex?

Or is there some underlying reason behind this? Is it that safe sex (such as handjobs, and use of condoms) is not good enough, so they need to do things more "raw" in order to enjoy a relationship?


And if safe sex is not good enough, then why are we supporting homosexuality knowing that safe sex doesn't quite satisfy for it?

That is a key factor in why I have started researching this. For knowledge. I cannot in good faith support homosexuality with what I now know and what I've looked into.

I will have you know that me and Zlinqx have been good friends on this site. We generally respect each other and have lots of fun exchanging ideas. I talk to him because he's a good informant from where he lives, and I know that he likes to think about things. We have different life experiences that have put us where we are, but we understand just how arbitrary beleifs can be, and that's why I like him. I hope that you and me can get along like me him and other's I haven't mentioned have also been able too. I think are a more logical person, but I will save the compliments for when this is all over. There is a proper time and place for that and I want to see if what you have is closer to the facts and the truth.

You're all free to think whatever you like of me. I don't need anyone from the Internet to tell me whether or not I'm a "good person" lol.

If homosexuality is so safe, then why do these staggering statistics consist across even a 40 year period across the USA?

How is simply being homosexual any more dangerous than heterosexuality? In theory, with preventive measures, a gay person or straight person have the exact same chances of contracting a disease as the other. There's also been a rise lately in mouth / throat cancer in males from performing oral on females with HPV. Should we get rid of that too?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/859572

It's not who they're attracted to that have caused these rates to be higher, it was the choices and actions of certain individuals within this group. Not to mention we have no idea how widespread these diseases actually were before we became aware of it.
"People sometimes say that HIV started in the 1980s in the United States of America (USA), but in fact this was just when people first became aware of HIV and it was officially recognised as a new health condition."
An excerpt from-
http://www.avert.org/professionals/history-hiv-aids/origin

"Phylogenetic and statistical analyses have dated the last common ancestor of HIV-1 group M to around 1910 to 1930, with narrow confidence intervals. This indicates that after pandemic HIV-1 first emerged in colonial west central Africa, it spread for some 50 to 70 years before it was recognized."
As noted here-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234451/

Another big factor is just how many people have STDs and never realize it. So many people never show symptoms, or show them years or even decades later, they never take the time to get themselves tested or worry about spreading anything.

Something to think about is that the truth behind this may or may not be as condemning as you believe. If gays make up such a small amount of our population, but so many cases go unreported overall, the percent of them effected might be less disproportionate than we're lead to believe, especially since gays have been a little more "under the microscope" over the past few decades. Just something to consider.
"Many cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis continue to go undiagnosed and unreported, and data on several
additional STDs — such as human papillomavirus, herpes simplex virus, and trichomoniasis — are not routinely reported
to CDC. As a result, the annual surveillance report captures only a fraction of the true burden of STDs in America."
https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats13/std-trends-508.pdf

Is it because large portions of homosexuals do not know about safe sex?

When we first became aware of the problem, probably not. In 1975, Twenty different state legislatures voted to restrict or abolish sexuality education. That's right about the time where kids who were in their early teens needed it, becoming young adults in the 80's (and when HIV became / already was so widespread). From 1970 - 2010 Congress and multiple Surgeon Generals have been consistently pressing for more and more funding and resources into advancing sexual education. Up until '96 most of these programs were entirely abstinence based, not teaching kids how to have safe sex, but just to avoid sex altogether (let alone any of them actually teaching about same sex relationships). Sounds to me like people probably weren't all that well educated on the subject over the past few decades.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/serced/1859-history-of-sex-ed

Or is there some underlying reason behind this? Is it that safe sex (such as handjobs, and use of condoms) is not good enough, so they need to do things more "raw" in order to enjoy a relationship?

Adding to what was said above, being gay has nothing to do with these individual's decisions to not practice safe sex if they are aware of it. I'm straight, and have never used a condom. How does that make what I have done any better than someone who is gay doing the same thing? It doesn't, and being gay isn't the cause of the problem. It's not about whether gays feel the need to go "raw" or not, but rather if the individual is willing to lower the pleasure of the act to reduce the risk. If we're looking at total numbers (not percentages) alone, then there's a great deal more straight people who feel the need to go "raw" than there are gays. It's all about self-gratification, lack of self-discipline, and / or lacking care of our own well-being which is why so many people (like myself) don't use protection.

Also, there are many other factors as to why these people take the risks they do. Social or other external aspects have a big role in why things play out the way they do.
"However, population-level factors such as limited or overlapping social and sexual networks are also associated with higher rates of STDs, including HIV among MSM.
MSM of lower economic status may be particularly vulnerable to poor health outcomes, especially if they belong to racial and ethnic minority populations. Among Black MSM, factors such as community isolation and limited social support may drive sexual risk taking. Similarly, for Hispanic MSM, the relationship between individual experiences of oppression (e.g., social discrimination and financial hardship) and risk for sexually transmitted infections in the United States has also been documented."
Taken from-
https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats15/msm.htm


I wanted to add a bit more, but it's late and I'm tired...

Sword legion : The reason more homosexual people have AIDS and other types of STDs is that the common way of having sex for them  is anal sex. Which when unprotected carries a much higher risk of transmission. The whole added risk for homosexuals stems not from that they're inherently more receptive to these diseases but rather because AIDS is already widespread in the homosexual population. Thus you're more likely to have sex with a person that carries it. Wearing a condom however eliminates that risk. A man having anal sex with another man (having HIV) while using a condom has no more of a chance of getting it than a man having a sex with a woman where one of them has HIV and the man uses a condom. To begin with the high percentage stems from the homosexual population having unprotected anal sex, especially in the past when sexual education was even less prevalent than it is now. Which is why we need advocate the importance of safe sex (through the use of condoms) as a way to stop this spread.

But let's for a moment say that in theory you can in fact turn a person straight. This wouldn't really solve the issue but if anything make it worse by your logic. Because then you'd be opening up this disease widespread in the homosexual community to spread more rapidly among heterosexual people as well. So even from that point of view I don't really understand your point. I don't for a second believe that it has to do with "not getting the same amount of enjoyment" because many straight people capable of having vaginal sex also enjoy anal sex. It may be less enjoyable for the person on the receiving end (I honestly don't know since I'm not gay) but trying to go into as you describe it more "raw" forms of sex isn't going to change that.

 Look past this whole argument and just look at a homosexual man. He is no less capable mentally or physically because of his homosexuality. If a homosexual man isn't having sex or is having safe sex by using a condom then why would there still be a problem? He is not harmful to society or any more likely to contract it at this point so why would he need to be "rehabilitated" You're not really discouraging it based on it being harmful but rather that it has an increased risk of harm. That would be similar to forcing people to not eat a lot because it increases their risk of developing health problems (and even then at least we know your weight mainly comes down to your own decisions). That's without factoring in how something like this would even be organized or that the person himself doesn't want to be rehabilitated. You seem in most respects to me like a big advocate of personal freedom in you reason behind supporting various things so I would expect you to understand where I'm coming from.

I also don't believe for a second that it is something that is capable of being "cured". Suppressed maybe, but one could do the same with heterosexuality if aiming to do so, that is really just going to lead people depression and other mental problems because of their inability to be themselves and the shame they would feel from their own thoughts. The difference is people have no preconceived bias against heterosexuality so they have no reason to attempt to change it. Now sure many people claim to have reversed but I think there's a good chance many factors influence that like being conditioned into thinking its shameful/sinful and feeling pressure to be a certain way by the surrounding environment. Like how one of the people of the article you linked admitted to thinking its wrong on religious grounds. Not to mention people often times make wild claims without there really being any evidence, there are still people who claim there was no holocaust during ww2 or that the Earth is flat for example. So I don't think they are any more than empty claims. Meanwhile there are people who have voluntarily taken their own life because of the discrimination and violence they've had to face as a consequence of being homosexual rather than try to "turn straight".In these cases we're clearly able to see the results and I think that goes to show that it is not some sort of choice. There are multiple stories about homosexual kids/teenagers being sent to places who claim they can "cure" them and committing suicide there as well. So by all accounts to me it seems like the evidence is pointing in the direction of it being no different than heterosexuality.

Aside from that I don't think it is up to you or me to juge what is true happiness for other people. I'd argue what makes a person happy is entirely subjective. I have several IRL homosexual and bisexual friends and acquaintances who by all accounts seem to be living happy and content lives being able to be open with their sexuality. To take a real life example there was this one girl a few years ago, that I used to be good friends with (attends a different secondary school so don't talk too much now) that I didn't even learn was bisexual until several months after we first started talking. She hadn't been hiding the fact, it just never came up when we were talking and not once before that was I struck with the thought that she seemed unhappy or unfulfilled in her life, in fact I almost always saw her in a positive mood. So what is there to save her from? Really people grow up in normal households and turn out gay so I don't see how it would be unnatural, you haven't provided any logical argument to suggest otherwise other than people making claims that there is no telling whether they're true or not. I don't buy into your design philosophy because that goes by the assumption that we humans were designed with a specific purpose to begin with. That's letting your religion influence your beliefs. It doesn't really hold relevance to the discussion point of this thread and kind of leads me into thinking that you're letting your pre existing bias influence the way you look at it And going even further one could argue homosexuality is a natural process to prevent overpopulation so it could still have a clear purpose if one subscribes to that way of thinking. 

"While true, animals may perform homosexual acts, how does this validate such actions among humans?"

When you say that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, you shouldn't be surprised when people give you examples of it occurring in nature.

"What is natural- is the instinctive distaste for homosexuality when we see it take place."

What are your reasons for believing that this distaste is both natural and instinctive? I do not share your distaste.

"What's interesting is when you see a 40 year old caressing a 10 year old girl. You would doubtlessly become angry and jump to her defense. Some people would do the same when they see to males kissing out in public. Why? Perhaps we inherently understand this is bad for our preservation as a species, and seek to stop it from continuing, like we would any bad situation happening to our fellow man."

Defending a 10 year old from a predator is about saving her from being victimized. It has literally nothing to do with preservation as a species.

"Very big difference between being pedophile and homosexual eh? Really?"

Yes, sword. There is a huge difference between two adults of the same sex being together and someone raping a kid.

Evolution only cares about offspring. Last I checked, homosexual relations don't make babies. While bisexuality might have some evolutionary benefits, homosexuality is certainly an unfit byproduct.

Txgangsta : is abstinence a sin too? :p

Sword legion : Great points. I agree entirely that practices dangerous to society should not be allowed. But there's something you missed. While sex between men has a higher than average rate of STD transfer, sex between women has the lowest rates of STD transfer of all groups; heterosexual sex is far more dangerous for the spreading of diseases, especially HIV.

What you didn't know about heterosexuality is shocking. After years and years of society slowly asking us to become more accustomed to it. As the behavior began to grow as acceptable in our society. Now several children are taught from a young age, that it's okay to be what they want to be, and to do what they feel will make them most happy inside. We as logical people have to ask ourselves this. Is love without logic justified? Is it moral to condone these acts against humanity to prosper? Even now people are moving to legalize pedophilia and animal marriage as we move on. The arguments based on identity, and justification hold no merit against he medical facts providing logical attrition. We need to return to our senses and defend the well being of our communities against this insanity. It's clear by this point that we need to stop heterosexuals from engaging in sex and spreading their venereal diseases. Put an end to all sex that isn't lesbian sex.

SilverHyruler : It would be if morality and evolutionary fitness were identical. I don't think hardly anyone except the borg think that.

Mold and Crumbs : hush! you can't just show someone how circular the logic that they're using is! that's rude!

Homosexuality should be allowed no matter what. What have they done to you? Nothing? Exactly!

Mynamescoxx4:

Oral based problems are avoided by not partaking in oral sex. It's simple. Besides that, most straight couples are sexual satisfied in the traditional manner. Missionary position. . . . some kissing ect.

Gay people don't have that option. Every other option that they can take comes with a risk factor (especially with oral) or they have to use a condom. One must ask why over the last 40 years with efforts to teach safe sex, why these terrible statistics continue in the homosexual community. Is it that they don't know? Or they just won't take precautions for some reason? Is it really that hard for them to understand how to do it safely? This should be common sense- and if it is, then it's common sense they refuse to partake.

I'm sure you are aware that sexual intercourse is not planned all the time and is sometimes completely sudden.

Because of this factor- it has everything to do with the diseases they get.

You keep telling me that "being gay has nothing to do with it." But you're really overlooking something here. It's not only the biological way that penis is stimulated, and how to best get it to ejaculate- but also the dangerous measures one must use to stimulate it. We're not just talking about AIDs here either. Cancer, "gay bowel syndrome", MRSA, gonorrhea, ect are all problems that the homosexual community faces. I am aware that most people believe that AIDs started in Africa, and I'm not necessarily going to debate that topic here, but I'm not 100% sure that I buy it.

Yes, we cannot be 100% certain of how many gay people or straight people that there are who have AIDs along with other viruses. Not everyone participates in polls or turns their issues into the CDC for that matter.

But the question still nags- even if there were something as large as a 20% in some of these statistics. Why is that homosexuals account for as much as 80% of these cases in reported cities. It's undeniable that this is a hugely disproportionate issue in how it affects homosexual people. Maybe the amount of gay and straight people who don't attend these polls is about the same. Most straight people don't have STDs. (Not all though.)

I will tell you why it is. Gay people can't have very much safe sex, and safe sex doesn't satisfy. So eventually, and even constantly, they overlook it. Meanwhile straight people who have one lifetime partner without some disease passed down to them via pregnancy or some other issue are just fine.

It's ridiculous. STDs are far from the last reason to avoid being gay.


Zlinqx :

Anal sex is one reason it gets so widespread in the first place. . .

Condoms do not protect 100%. I've heard people say as high as 98% if used properly- other's have suggested 80%. I'm pretty sure that's all situational, but I need to bring something to your attention here. Condoms can ruin erections hard, if not just make them harder to keep. Some men refuse to use them. It's like asking them to stare at a golden retriever while trying to have sex with their boyfriend. Some things are hard to jump as a gap in psychological aspects. While every person is different, I still point to the ridiculously high percentage of homosexuals who have these STDs, anal cancer ect. I think this is because they simply cannot enjoy sex within the boundaries of safety. They are more susceptible to STDs because of the sex that they practice- and not just AIDs. If homosexuals were capable of being happy with only safe sex, then 50% of them wouldn't come down with some sort of horrible disease consistently over the last 40 years! Maybe gay people claim that they need to have sex with a man to be happy. But do they also need to have unsafe sex to be happy?

It seems so. The lack of a vagina stimulation means that they need to compromise. It seems as though the drasticness of the need for a way to enjoy sex has lead them to ignoring the safe boundaries, and into utter indulgence. If gay people would have safe sex and be satisfied, we would not have seen these statistics showing over the last 4 decades. Technically, could you justify bestiality with the same logic? That so long they practiced more versions of safer sex with the animal. . . then they also wouldn't have problems with STDs ect?

As for if AIDs can be cured. . . I don't know. The more aspects I try to look at in this debate, the more time I have to research and cross reference everything. Which isn't exactly fun- but at a glace I will tell you this. Twelve years ago my mom was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and she was told that she had ten years to live. However, my mom sat down on the computer, and did a ton of research. After hearing about a place in Mexico where she could get natural treatment and learn how to eat better and cure cancer naturally, she decided to go there. One reason that she had to go to Mexico was because in the U.S. laetrile (a substance commonly found in apricot seeds) Is actually illegal. In Mexico, they applied laetrile into her body via a needle. However that was just to jump start her. The long term cure was teaching my mom how to eat right- avoid processed foods, and let her body cure itself naturally. It's been 12 years and she's alive and healthier than she used to be. The tumors in her throat have disappeared and she's established my family with a much healthier diet in their youth. The power your body has to heal itself is amazing if we revert back to a more appropriate diet which it was built for. As I researched (very briefly) I did find several small articles talking about how AIDs and HIVs can be healed naturally. I'm not going to jump on the boat yet, but given what my mom found out about cancer (and how evil our drug companies are for making something like laetrile illegal) I think it's worth looking into.

I guess if you want I could research it more, but my responses are getting long. At any rate, the impending danger of homosexuality is something we need to stop and reeducate people on. At least we can spare the next generation if we cannot cure our current one.

And hey. . . if you want to compare homosexuality to being fat then be my guest. Both are not very good practices, but the later is something too many Americans have fallen into sadly. . . I think that obesity is misunderstood and comes from more than just eating too much. It comes from a lack of exercise- and the content in our foods as well. (Many processed foods have unnecessary sugars- which also adds the the dental crisis humans face in modern countries.) What I'm talking about here though is what people should STOP doing and STOP encouraging. . . not whether the government should take actions against people who participate in any of these actions. (At the moment) all I'm doing is encouraging is for people not to be gay. Obesity isn't nearly as severe until you reach really high numbers anyways. Most western people are a little fat, but it's tolerable- not at all desirable however. I think you would agree with me that obesity is something we should discourage and be honest about. I feel the same way about homosexuality.

I am actually not incredibly libertarian as people might think. They assume that because of my conservative values, but I actually lean pretty far authoritarian- in aspects of enforcing morality for the benefit and preservation of the community. An example most every believes in is the restriction of some drugs almost completely from public consumption.

Happiness comes from function. You cannot be happy by doing things that will not work with the physical buildup of your brain. I think you view happiness as something that's too subject and forget that we as humans all share basic needs and desires which when fulfilled, our body rewards us with that happy feeling. It's simple biology, psychology and science. You cannot change everything about your brain. When one looks at the buildup of the body and the chemicals involved in the brain, I don't think you would argue with me that we are made to have sex with the other gender, right?

If you're doubtful of the ability to cure homosexuality, then let me ask you this. . . do you believe that sexual attraction to children, animals, or even mechanophilia can be cured?

If so, why do you view these problems different? I've seen many people say that these desires are inherent and unfixable. I would think that you would be aware of this factor too.


soxfan849 :

"Defending a 10 year old from a predator is about saving her from being victimized. It has literally nothing to do with preservation as a species."




Mold and Crumbs:

Reading the OP helps.


Txgangsta:

When your condition means you no longer pass down your genes. . . that's pretty bad by evolutionary standards.


Pokemonfan1000 :

I ignore the OP when I'm just posting all over the place for the sake of posting too.

Sword legion : Yep. Especially if it's very late and I want to get to bed. Also using this to show off my new layout which is based off of the other two layouts I used (Nebraska and Iowa) Let me know if there's any issues.

"One must ask why over the last 40 years with efforts to teach safe sex, why these terrible statistics continue in the homosexual community. Is it that they don't know? Or they just won't take precautions for some reason? Is it really that hard for them to understand how to do it safely?"

I literally answered those same questions in my last post? My time is a little more valuable to me than to constantly reiterate the same points over and over again, hoping it sticks. 

"Most straight people don't have STD's."

That's not actually true. About half of all sexually active people will contract an STD by 25. More than half of all people will contract an STD in their lifetime. By age 50, 80% of all women have contracted HPV. Every year, 25% of teens contract an STD. And the list goes on...

None of these stats have anything to do with orientation, it's including ALL people. If STD's are that prevalent, homosexuality is really only a fraction of the problem, considering how small of a group they are in the general population (something like 2 or 3%). As far as diseases go, orientation has little to do with how widespread they really are, even if it is somewhat disproportionate. Stats taken from-
http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/stdsstis/statistics/

"Meanwhile straight people who have one lifetime partner without some disease passed down to them via pregnancy or some other issue are just fine."

And it could be argued that homosexual people who only have a single lifetime partner without inherited diseases are just as safe. This is where my argument of "homosexuality isn't the issue" comes from. Any argument that can be used to defend why a straight person is better off can also be applied to someone who is gay, if they take the same precautions.

The same goes with your "safe sex doesn't satisfy" argument. I never used a condom because it didn't feel as good. It had nothing to do with what kind of hole I was sticking it in, or my preference of gender. Some of the guys I've talked to have actually said they prefer anal to vaginal sex for various reasons. Vaginal may be what procreates, but it's not always the most satisfying. Sexual satisfaction is entirely subjective, which can be proven by all the different fetishes people have. Some people are satisfied by the strangest of things, most of which I can't mention here, but that doesn't fit biology to a letter either?

Sword legion : I, unfortunately, did read your OP. There's nothing compelling in there beyond some vague ranting about homosexuality and STD's. If we're to admit that gay sex is dangerous because of the spread of disease, we must also admit that heterosexual sex also spreads disease. Lesbian sex is the safest in terms of the spread of disease, far more so than heterosexual sex. Thus, by your logic, heterosexual sex is more dangerous than lesbian sex, and heterosexuals are more dangerous than lesbians. I feel bad for having to type that out for you.

honestly let's ban hetero sex and let some half decent species like fish or bugs take over

I have a question.

Aside from STDs (the statistics could be argued all day from what I've seen), religious reasons (some people are atheists), and it not being "natural" (this site isn't natural and you're on it :p), what other reasons are there as to why homosexuality is "dangerous" in your eyes?

(This isn't supposed to be condescending btws- I'm genuinely curious and tired of STD talk)

ZeroTails : I'll field this one: there is no reason. Even STD's can be controlled with safe sex practices (the reason gay populations have low instances of condom use is actually quite interesting and far more complex than it seems at face value). Homosexuality also is natural, so that argument, which makes no sense to begin with, is wrong. There are no good reasons to hate homosexuals as a group, which is why people go to such great lengths to try and justify their homophobia and pass it off as something more benign.

Pokemonfan1000 : That is a very low standard of ethics. This discussion involves more than "They don't hurt me, I don't hurt them". Most people believe there is a lot more to right and wrong.

Mold and Crumbs : How about the reason I listed above? Evolutionary fitness is solely about reproduction of fit offspring, and that's only accomplished through heterosexual relations. It wouldn't mean bisexuality was bad or homosexuality 100% bad, but being 100% homosexual means that your genetic code will die, and you were not fit to reproduce. It would mean your parents were not genetically fit because they produced something that doesn't reproduce.

Sword legion : Condoms do remove the risk, assuming they're working and being used properly. The risk of a condom breaking is very low. I'm not denying there's that 0.01% chance something goes wrong and someone ends up being exposed but even then it doesn't guarantee an STD will be transmitted if a person has it. So if everyone used condoms, STDs wouldn't really be an issue the same way it is today, as it would be nowhere near as widespread (which is a large reason the risk is there to begin with).

I find it hard to believe that condoms ruin some people's ability to have sex. I could see people preferring not using one (and maybe using that as an excuse) but I hardly doubt it makes it "physically impossible" for someone to have intercourse using one. If it is the case that's just something they'll have to deal with. For the vast majority of people (homosexual or not) it isn't a problem.

"Lack of vaginal stimulation" plays no part. People that are homosexual do not want vaginal sex, kind of makes sense considering they're not heterosexual. There are also heterosexual people who prefer anal sex to vaginal sex. So I don't see how you conclude lack of vaginal stimulation to be the reason. Homosexual people likely don't use condoms because (and I already mentioned this before) most people view condoms as something to prevent pregnancies. In other words many people don't realize they also serve to protect against STDs which results in homosexual people not using a condom (because there's no risk of becoming pregnant). In the same way many heterosexual people likely use condoms not aware that they protect against STDs or use other preventatives that do not protect against them without realizing the risk of STDs.

I fail to see how the risk of an STD transmitting plays much of a part in whether bestiality is justified or not. You're taking advantage of an animal which is incapable of giving consent like an adult human being can. When was the last time you heard someone say bestiality is wrong based on an increased chance of contracting an STD?

Again there is no "inherent" danger with homosexuality. Not any statistics you have supplied in here support that conclusion. You're basing the assumption that it is dangerous on your preexistent bias against homosexuality likely influenced by other factors. The danger lies in unprotected anal sex with people that carry an STD not the state of being homosexual. Case in point, there is no increased risk if you're simply homosexual but not having sex or you're having anal sex using condoms.

I made the comparison to being fat to make a point. Everything carries a certain risk to it. If we really wanted to do what is "safest" sex should be condemned in any way shape or form. Because there is always the risk of people contracting an STD. Anything except asexuality is therefore dangerous. Gaming could be discouraged on a similar principle. Research shows that sitting still and playing video games for long periods of time (or just sitting still in general) is both damaging to your overall physical health as well as to your eyes. So logically we should ban video gaming. See now how this argument can be made for nearly every type of activity? There's always a risk to everything we do. Trying to base everything on what is best for our physical health is not only impossible to do to begin with but would also ultimately result in a quite an unfulfilling existence where we're barred from doing pretty much anything without it making much of a difference. The key is making people aware of the health risks and the ways which they can be prevented. Unlike all of these other things however homosexuality does not carry a physical risk to your health, unprotected anal sex does.

"Happiness comes from function". Right now all you're doing is basing your argument on arbitrary ideals that haven't been scientifically proven. I've met and still know homosexual people who live in their view happy fulfilling lives. At the same time I've met heterosexual people who are depressed and live unfulfilling lives. Even so the scientific consensus is that homosexuality is something that is part of your brain makeup, it is part of your state of mind, in other words not a choice. Just because a person is physically capable of doing something that doesn't mean they should.

No I do not believe pedophilia can be "cured" only suppressed the same way homosexuality and heterosexuality can be suppressed. The scientific consensus seem to support this. Which is why I do feel sorry for people who are pedophiles. Not every pedophile act on their sexual urges, but in stead end up isolating themselves and don't dare get help being afraid of the condemnation that will result from coming out. While it is unrelated to the topic, I feel this is a reason we need to recognize that pedophiles can't choose to be that way and that those who are truthful about it, should be given support in stead of being condemned.

Txgangsta :  
If evolutionary fitness is the goal, why don't people who are against homosexuality for that reason also advocate against allowing people with Dwarfism or genetically inherited diseases to procreate as well? Technically that's not ideal for the genetic pool either, but few seem to think they shouldn't be able to have kids of their own, or to imply that they are bad / inferior people. Or are we going with it's ok, so long as people reproduce at all.

And since society at large plays into this, what about all the gay couples who adopt since they can't have children of their own? Isn't that a benefit to all the orphans and the facilities that care for them, let alone society as a whole? Last I heard there's more orphans than people willing to take them in, and said community is helping in that area. More so than hetero couples anyway.

So while it may be true their genes are very unlikely to be passed down, they do play a beneficial role in continuing our survival as a species. Just for the record, the whole "gay parents make gay kids / gays are unfit to be parents morally, etc etc" argument is pure myth.

Adoptions facts taken from-
http://gayadoption.org/facts-supporting-gay-adoption/
(among other sources that i can reference if necessary)