>>40856906
Retard.
>But can the argument be soundly made that homosexuality isn't harmful
The first mistake you make here is conflating the "harmful" with the "immoral". Under a standard christcuckian perspective the immoral is harmful, but the harmful is not necessarily immoral. Exercising too much is harmful (it can lead to lesions and health issues). Is it immoral? Eating a bit too little is harmful, is it immoral? Even if we presume that it is true that homosexuality is harmful, you have not proven it immoral, retardoid.
Suppose two monogamous homos, all they do is kiss and frot, at which risk of harm are them? None, so homosexuality isn't even inherently harmful.
>There exists quite a lot of data highlighting the many various ways in which homosexuality harms and kills, actually.
As of now, the life expectancy of homosexuals has surpassed that of straight men. How do you cope, retard?
The "harmfulness of homosexuality" is a practical problem, subject to a practical solution, in this case the simple use of condoms.
>nature is not indicative of morality
Congratulations on being right about one (1) thing retard, a shame you are right for the wrong reasons. Nature is not indicative of anything not because humans are god's specialest little guys but because everything is natural and so appeals to nature lead to contradictions being thus invalid.
>s not even 'natural' in the way you say it is
Retard. Natural doesn't mean "the good and healthy things". Viruses and cancer are natural as is rape.
>Gay sex results in disease and incontinence
A practical problem, subject to a practical solution. Did you know that women, just by existing, have a risk of developing incontinence that is as high as the most intensely ass wrecking faggots? Why did the wise god do this?