> Men are dangerous for the same reason rabid animals are dangerous; they are terrified.
The male motivation towards promiscuity is motivated by this terror, and homosexual promiscuity is not exempt from this - rather, homosexual promiscuity is likely to be even more strongly motivated by this terror. Especially homosexuals of the openly misogynistic subtype.

This terror is incurable, inherent and instinctive.
Psychopaths may be exempt from this, due to their brains being fundamentally incapable of the experience of interpersonal anxiety (this is also the reason they have no trouble passing polygraph tests), but psychopaths have other problems.
So, the solution is the same as the solution to incurable terror in rabid animals. They should be put down.
And just like rabies this is morally imperative for everyone's sake, both for their potential victims and for their own internal suffering.

There can be no exemption for "controlled" specimens who are unable to victimize others.
It is still morally imperative to shoot Old Yeller to alleviate his own suffering even if he is penned up and unable to actually inflict harm on others.
>but how will we species continuation without the sperms
Antinatalism is an ethically valid position. The perpetuation of suffering solely for the sake of genetic continuity is not.
If genetic continuity were a sufficient imperative to justify suffering and hazard then that would have a profound effect on abortion debates.