Gay Cure MERGED [Archive]

Erasmus70

12-19-2005, 05:04 AM

A few years ago a lot of suspicious 'Scientific evidence' started being tossed about suggesting that people are actually 'Born Gay'.
The idea has been extremely popular and most all of the 'Gay Orgs' and self-appointed reps are very much touting this as the unofficial position to be taken.
Gays and Lesbians are really a sort of 'type of human' in the sense of a third and fourth Gender. (so to speak).

What if we do find and isolate a 'Gay Gene'?
With all the advancements in DNA and the Human Genome Project maybe we do find ourselves asking:

Do you then cure it?

Presuming some gene therapy can be perfected you have two possibilities:
- Expecting Parents could choose to have the child 'innoculated' beforehand and hence guaranteeing a 'Hetero' baby.

- People who are already born 'a gay' might be able to receive some sort of genetic threapy which would counter or 'cure' the gay genes in them which cause them to want to have gay sex etc.

Keep in mind - if our hypothetical unborn baby has the gay genes removed before birth (and puberty) then its not gonna change anything for them in the sense they will simply understand that they are Hetero is all.
They wont know any different anyways.

Would you do it?
If not - why?

Comments?

Duncan

12-19-2005, 06:19 AM

I say no. I have no comment. The notion is ridiculous. Being heterosexual is not the big bargain in life.

toolmaggot

12-19-2005, 06:36 AM

The world's already overpopulated as is.

Let queers be queers, I say. They don't make babies.

heron

12-19-2005, 06:40 AM

you know tool, it can be said that that is exactly the cause.

It is theorized that when a species becomes overpopulated
that more and more will be born homosexual to stop the
expansion.

Besides, if you can be born hetero, why cant you be born homo?

Sex is sex and love is love, let it be.

Bassist

12-19-2005, 07:04 AM

I say no as well.

If I were suddenly to be "cured" of my homosexuality, I would lose a part of myself that I felt I had a strong grasp on. I accept it, and I'm not about to change everything to fit the "norm".

El Guzano

12-19-2005, 07:27 AM

mushie18

12-19-2005, 07:51 AM

andcrs2

12-19-2005, 07:59 AM

What's to 'cure'?

Erasmus70

12-19-2005, 08:03 AM

I haven't seen anything to indicate that China or India have been giving birth to increasingly gay babies?
A country like Canada with a rather low population density has a fair amount of homosexuals per capita.

The point is that IF the truth is that people are 'born gay' then there might be a way to reverse it. Eliminate it.
Given that the child would not 'know any better' - then it seems it would be ideal if they were given the best possible scenario of heterosexuality.
If its true that homosexuality is a burden on the individual?

A good question on using the 'gay gene' to create gay children.
Would you choose that option?
In the near future maybe it will be possible to decide to add the gay gene to an otherwise heterosexual baby?

What about it?

mushie18

12-19-2005, 08:12 AM

I don't understand the point of this thread.. Why would anyone change the dna of their child. Let them be who they are supposed to be; As "god" intended.

El Guzano

12-19-2005, 08:29 AM

I don't understand the point of this thread.. Why would anyone change the dna of their child. Let them be who they are supposed to be; As "god" intended.same idiots who circumcise them "sort of the same mentality group" i think they are the ones who needs to be eliminated from the gene pools.

heron

12-19-2005, 03:15 PM

If its true that homosexuality is a burden on the individual?

Only because of society.

If there were a "cure" for being black, would people take it?

sounds fucked up huh.

"but what if its a burden to be black"

see?

dont "cure" people, accept them.

rain_in_summer

12-19-2005, 03:40 PM

I completely agree with what hipunk said in another thread:

What we need is not a cure for homosexuality but for homophobia.

Lol, if scientists found a homophobia gene, would you manipulate your child's DNA in order prevent it from becoming a homophobe? ;)

hippypaul

12-19-2005, 03:50 PM

Bassist

12-19-2005, 04:29 PM

Only because of society.

If there were a "cure" for being black, would people take it?

sounds fucked up huh.

"but what if its a burden to be black"

see?

dont "cure" people, accept them.
.

toolmaggot

12-19-2005, 05:36 PM

toolmaggot

12-19-2005, 05:39 PM

And I don't think it's so much a gene as a personality trait... eh.. for lack of a better term. It's just how you roll. Not your genes.

Stillravenmad

12-19-2005, 06:00 PM

Only because of society.

If there were a "cure" for being black, would people take it?

Worked for Michael Jackson.

The gay community doesn't want to be cured, it just wants to be left alone. Live and let live.

heron

12-19-2005, 06:35 PM

LOL guess it did huh Raven.

Its a shame that its the straight white right that
are the standard by which the world is judged.

I am pagan, bi, and polyamorous, maybe i need a cure too =)

hipunk

12-19-2005, 07:22 PM

Keep in mind - if our hypothetical unborn baby has the gay genes removed before birth (and puberty) then its not gonna change anything for them in the sense they will simply understand that they are Hetero is all.
They wont know any different anyways.

1. The "gay" gene has not been found, just as the "left handedness" gene has not been found.

2. If it is found it would have to be determined that it is a defective gene in order for it to be "repaired", just as "left handedness" would have to be discovered to be caused by a defective gene in order for it to be repaired.

3. It is unlikely that the "gay gene" is defective. Since scientists consider it unethical to alter non-defective genes in a human being, like eye color for instance, it is unlikely that anyone but a Nazi would want to change the "gay gene" of an infant.

4. You're "hypothetical" question is preposterous and self defeating. I wish you wouldn't feed into folks self loathing. Why don't you just come out with what ever it is you want to say about gay ppl rather then try to shroud it in some kind of mumbo jumbo?

Listen, God made me gay. I ain't gunna fool with His perfection.

p. s. Like rain_in_summer said, If there was one gene that I wish would be cured it would be the assholeness gene; then there wouldn't be any homophobia and this conversation would be moot.

.

El Guzano

12-19-2005, 07:33 PM

dont forget a cure for circumcioners.

GypsyPriestess

12-19-2005, 07:42 PM

What will I think be interesting will be the abortion question. Long before there is a "cure" (which I am against) there will be an in vitro test to determine if a child is gay before birth. That will make for some interesting changes in position. Will all the good little Christians become pro abortion? Will our position change to anti abortion? Something to think about.Ooooooh....a hit, a very palpable hit....hippypaul, I just love it when you say such thought provoking things. I can't wait to ask my mom that one!

Listen, God made me gay. I ain't gunna fool with His perfection.My thoughts exactlyhttp://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

dmgreen

12-19-2005, 07:53 PM

simple answer......HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!

El Guzano

12-19-2005, 07:58 PM

I don't understand the point of this thread.. Why would anyone change the dna of their child. Let them be who they are supposed to be; As "god" intended. Is easy this are the type who thinks the german death camps were allright along with the spanish inquesition. or the slaughter of the native american indians, etc.

SageDreamer

12-19-2005, 10:20 PM

The real point is that there is no cure for being gay. I once attempted to become heterosexual and it didn't work. This bears repeating; it didn't work. It seems pretty obviously that they aren't going to find a cure. Anyone who expects there to be a cure should just get over it. Gay people are here, and we're not going anywhere.

Erasmus70

12-20-2005, 08:08 AM

1. The "gay" gene has not been found, just as the "left handedness" gene has not been found.
So you believe that the behavior is dictated by genetics. Ok.

2. If it is found it would have to be determined that it is a defective gene in order for it to be "repaired", just as "left handedness" would have to be discovered to be caused by a defective gene in order for it to be repaired.
Nobody said anything about defective but rather would you choose to eliminate it if this becomes possible.
There is an argument to be made that, for example, the male anus is not designed to be copulated with an erect penis without causing an unacceptable amount of damage.
So a Parent might decide to replace the 'gay gene' with a 'hetero' gene in order to take away that risk.
Its entirely possible.

3. It is unlikely that the "gay gene" is defective. Since scientists consider it unethical to alter non-defective genes in a human being, like eye color for instance, it is unlikely that anyone but a Nazi would want to change the "gay gene" of an infant.
Well thanks for speaking for everyone else and pre-villifying those who dont agree with you or whatnot.
There is efforts to 'repair' genetic problems by non-Nazis. Not sure if you knew that?

4. You're "hypothetical" question is preposterous and self defeating. I wish you wouldn't feed into folks self loathing. Why don't you just come out with what ever it is you want to say about gay ppl rather then try to shroud it in some kind of mumbo jumbo?
If my question is preposterous then you can thank many many people before me (esp the Gay Orgs and pundits) who have been insisting that homosexuality is something you are 'born with' and is actually a genetic imperitive.

Im not sure what you think 'self defeating' means but that was an interesting choice of words to say the least.

Why dont you let the question stand or fall on its own.

Listen, God made me gay. I ain't gunna fool with His perfection.
Once again you are insinuating its genetic?
If you had a genetic deformity would you consider it a perfection not worth 'fooling with'?
There is probably about 5 other topics in that comment.

p. s. Like rain_in_summer said, If there was one gene that I wish would be cured it would be the assholeness gene; then there wouldn't be any homophobia and this conversation would be moot.
I dont have an irrational fear of homosexual sex and Im asking a question about your belief that this is a genetic condition which makes you desire sexual contact with like minded members of your gender.

The question would and is a very valid one whether or not you believe in homophobia or not.
The ability to eliminate the 'Gay Gene' might make homosexuality a thing of the past if enough people chose to remove it.
Thats signifigant!

hipunk

12-20-2005, 11:40 AM

.

Erasmus70, I know that you can read, but something seems to misfire with your synapses between reading the written word and processing it. I wrote: "The "gay" gene has not been found," You wrote: "So you believe that the behavior is dictated by genetics." That isn't what I wrote. I believe that we are born gay. How that happens is beyond me. Since the "gay gene" hasn't been found I wouldn't hazard to speculate.

the male anus is not designed to be copulated with an erect penis without causing an unacceptable amount of damage.
So a Parent might decide to replace the 'gay gene' with a 'hetero' gene in order to take away that risk
Its entirely possible.

You're talking out of your anus.

There is efforts to 'repair' genetic problems by non-Nazis. Not sure if you knew that?

There's that synapses problem again. If there is a "gay gene" found, it is unlikely that it would be found to be damaged. Therefore it is considered unethical to transpose that gene with a more "desirable" trait. I used eye color as an example. We should also look at left handedness, a socially undesirable trait. But if you had read my last post you would know that. Gawd you're a poop!

Once again you are insinuating its genetic?

You obviously have a tiny grasp of logic and the scientific process otherwise you wouldn't make such a deduction. You seem to be interested in this topic. I suggest you broaden your source of information and read some scientific journals on the topic. There are many determinants that happen before birth, other than genetics. I have yet to state an opinion on that because, scientifically, the only thing that can be agreed upon is that some of us are indeed born gay.

The ability to eliminate the 'Gay Gene' might make homosexuality a thing of the past if enough people chose to remove it.

That is the science fiction proposed by the x-gay movement.
Not only does it dismiss what we know about genetics but it forces us to make a moral decision about something that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening. What you are really asking is would I wish myself or my child to be straight. Which in and of itself is a valid question. But rather than asking that question, you wrap it in some sort of scientific mumbo jumbo, where it becomes a question of repairing my gayness, and an allegory for the x-gay movement which shames me. And you are an ass for asking me that question.

.

Erasmus70

12-20-2005, 12:58 PM

The 'Gay Gene' was not proposed and then promoted and PRed by the 'X-gay' people - it was highly touted by the 'pro-gay' crowd.
To the point it was accepted, or at least spoken of as a 'fact' and suggesting otherwise became akin to 'homophobia'.
In this case, I most definately do not believe there is a 'gay gene' or any biological difference which accounts for homosexual behavior.
I can accept some sort of idea that there may be some 'predisposition' which, when combined with other factors and choices is part of the mix.

The question is hypothetical and for a large number of people (especially those who are gay) this is something they either believe in, or suspect might be possible.
Thats a fact.

Whats your entire angle on this topic - that its not actually happened?
Well great.
Thanks, I think we all sorta gathered that by how its a 'what if' question in the first place Einstein.

Now Im not interested in the shame you have over your actions.
Obviously this has something to do with you and your values vs your behavior and I wish you luck in solving that.
The question still stands here - if a drug, therapy, genetic, hormonal.. ok fine, come up with it but would you take this therapy if you knew it would change your sexual desires to Hetersexual?

hippypaul

12-20-2005, 02:23 PM

hipunk

12-20-2005, 03:22 PM

change your sexual desires to Bisexual.

good point.

hipunk

12-20-2005, 03:25 PM

The 'Gay Gene' was not proposed and then promoted and PRed by the 'X-gay' people

I never said it was. However, spicing the "gay gene" as if it were defective in order to create a heterosexual is an x-gay prerogative.

I most definately do not believe there is a 'gay gene' or any biological difference which accounts for homosexual behavior.

Then why did you ask your preposterous question?

The question is hypothetical

So is this question: When did you stop beating your wife?

Whats your entire angle on this topic - that its not actually happened?

Gosh, you must only read the words you want to read, and fill in the rest. My "angle" is truth and knowledge. The truth it that a "gay gene" has been proposed, but not as a scientific fact. To repeat myself: scientifically, the only thing that can be agreed upon is that some of us are indeed born gay. I have stated my "angle" and guessed at yours. It seems like I'm right.

The question still stands here - if a drug, therapy, genetic, hormonal.. ok fine, come up with it but would you take this therapy if you knew it would change your sexual desires to Hetersexual?

And my answer still stands: that is a demoralizing and asinine question which doesn't deserve an answer.

There is no cure. Grow up!

.

SageDreamer

12-20-2005, 04:23 PM

What would you do if there were no hypothetical questions?

hipunk

12-20-2005, 05:00 PM

Well, for one thing I wouldn't be able to answer your question because it wouldn't exist. ;)

I don't have a problem with hypothetical questions.
It's hypothetical traps that bug me.

heron

12-20-2005, 05:37 PM

, the male anus is not designed to be copulated with an erect penis without causing an unacceptable amount of damage.

I am pretty sure a female anus is just the same, and i know plenty
who love it, can't blame em either. You should try it Erasmus,
you are a prime example of a male anus.

And of course you dont believe in a gay gene. A "Gay Gene" is exact opposite of what Christians want. That would mean they are created and born that way, and "God" would never ever do that. That is why they have the "gay-no-more" camps, because, to them, it is just perversion of choice, not the way someone naturally is.

I am glad for gay men, i am more comfortable around them most times, because i can be more myself without the social stigma of heterosexuality.

Erasmus70

12-20-2005, 10:54 PM

hipunk

12-20-2005, 11:34 PM

.

You are welcome to believe in what ever you want.

What I conclude from all this is that there are still fools in the world, but I'm sorry I didn't need proof.

And boo hoo, we didn't fall for your trap.
Well you are quite a cry baby!

I rarely make what-if statements, but when I do they are never on the lines of "what if you stopped being black?" unless it's in jest.

Like I sad, "There is no cure. Grow up!," you're free to quote me on that whenever you catch me making a what-if question.

.

Erasmus70

12-20-2005, 11:45 PM

Perhaps you noticed the Title of the Thread asks would you 'Cure' it?
Congratulations on not answering the question.
That says a lot.

hipunk

12-21-2005, 12:02 AM

...the Thread asks would you 'Cure' it?...

How many ways do I have to put this?

There is nothing to cure.

Would you cure brown eyes or dark skined?

.

DreamerSpirit

12-21-2005, 01:15 AM

I must agree wih Hipunk... there is no more need to 'cure' it than there is to 'cure' blue eyes or a love of literature.

Raving Sultan

12-21-2005, 01:19 AM

Hanging out with gay guys is cool. they usually have hot girl friends and they wont cock block you

Green

12-21-2005, 06:57 AM

Sexuality and genes are not something that needs changing. In some Asian countries they are modifying their babies so that they are born male, and they have many more males than females in their society.

Back in Sparta there was overpopulation. Humans have been overpopulated for thousands of years, maybe not in our eyes when trying to meet our needs, but in the eyes of nature or how many of us nature thinks there should be.

I expect that it will be an option in the future. I might like being able to go to the doctor and get some pills or shots or something that would change my sexuality. I could become bisexual. Its not gay or straight, its what gender your attactacted to, and we have the ability to figure out how to configure our heads to like a certain gender.

People could change both ways. I wouldn't be opposed to it.

hippypaul

12-21-2005, 06:11 PM

So what we have concluded is that there are people who believe this might be possible one day
However,
The question makes them uncomfortable and they 'feel bad' about the possible answer to it - so its therefore not 'worth answering'.
It has possible implications 'for' the 'other side' and that makes them mad.

Well this is quite a crowd!

Im sure within ten or twenty posts same ones complaining about this will be making 'what if' statements on some other issues.
I guess this one is frowned upon.
What am I - chopped liver? I have posed several questions to you to try to explore your opinion and you did not design to answer. Please point out to me how I have evidenced discomfort, anger, or a reluctance to answer your question. Or do you have a preselected "crowd"

kindred_spirit81

12-25-2005, 11:58 PM

Nope, dude.
I like women too much;)

WalrusKeeper

12-28-2005, 07:10 AM

"The point is that IF the truth is that people are 'born gay' then there might be a way to reverse it. Eliminate it."

Doubtful, it's most likely an extremely complicated and integrated genetic structure that would account for sexualty IF it exists at all.

Erasmus70

12-28-2005, 11:29 AM

Erasmus
If a drug, therapy, genetic, hormonal.. ok fine, come up with it but would you take the therapy if you knew it would change your sexual desires to Bisexual. After all, it would double your chances of getting a date for New Years Eve. (Grin)

It would seem it would double my chances of being childless.
(if we are going on chances here)

So are we all in agreement that 'if' you could choose to be straight you would?
If so why?

hippypaul

12-28-2005, 02:46 PM

No, we are not in agreement that "if" you could choose to be straight you would. I happen have been born straight. Many people I know happen to be born gay. None of them has ever said to me "You know paul, I really wish I could be straight like you" Do I think my friends want to be straight - No. Would I change my friends if I had the power - No. Therefore, I do not see where we have come to an agreement.

mushie18

12-28-2005, 05:56 PM

no, i would not choose to be straight. I am who I am, I don't want to change anything about myself.

Erasmus70

12-28-2005, 10:55 PM

It used to be very common to hear people say things like "Believe me... if I could wake up tomorrow an be straight I would love that.. if only I could life would be so much easier!"

I wonder if its possible they will be able to develop tests at the hospitals which can determine which of the newborns are 'homosexual babies'?
Thats not quite what our question is based on but if we only got that far - it could give the parents a heads up.

hippypaul

12-28-2005, 11:53 PM

Given a genetic profile of a "gay" human being then an in vitro test would be a very simple thing. Then how would people feel about abortion. Hummmm? The next 5 to 15 years are going to be very interesting. Also maybe I have been under a rock all these years but I have never heard a gay person state that they wanted to be straight

Erasmus70

12-29-2005, 12:32 AM

You think that many parents would choose to Abort the 'Gay' Babies growing inside them.
Interesting.
I think those parents would 'rather' find a way to remove/replace the gay gene but if that was not possible yet then I wonder what that says that some parents would think it was better if they were dead than gay.

That even brings about a better question here:
IF we are saying that people are 'born gay' then if we did see wholescale eliminations of the 'gay gene' or the fetus's carrying it....... do we then see homosexuals begin to disappear in a few more generations?

Is that a bad thing?

hipunk

12-29-2005, 02:21 AM

.

... if we did see wholescale eliminations of the 'gay gene' or the fetus's carrying it....... do we then see homosexuals begin to disappear in a few more generations?

Is that a bad thing?

I am starting to believe that you are seriously sick in the head. Yes that is a bad thing. There is a name for it, "The Final Solution", that's Hitler's name for the murder of millions of Jews and anybody else they didn't like. I suppose you wonder if that was a bad thing too, don't you Erassmas70?

You would never be able to get rid of your "gay gene", even if you murder every gay baby! God will still keep making us. That is what is so sick about your moot argument. Now, like I said and will keep saying, if we could get rid of the ass-hole gene, I wouldn't being having this discussion with the likes of you.

.

Erasmus70

12-29-2005, 03:48 AM

No no.. dont try and run away and hide behind Hitler again.

The hypothetical question, and the 'what if' logical consequences was being persued here and persued by you as much as anyone.
Dont go 'aborting' everything the moment it gets difficult.

IF we are to suppose that there is a 'gay gene' and that people are somehow 'born gay' then we can easily speculate that its passed on through generations.
IF that is the case then we have all kinds of possibilities.
IF the biological 'gayness' is removed then we might have some situation where the people DO PROCREATE even more (since they are now hetero) but maybe that STILL passes on to their offspring.
Now you would (in total theory) have many more people 'born gay'.
But ....
IF we go back to our scenario where its identified in the womb and enough people are aborting - well you may very well see that particular 'trait' start getting eliminated from the population.
After a few generations there are no more gay-gene carriers left to pass it on and it all becomes a thing of the past.

IF those abortions went on that is.
Its possible there would be many people who would WANT to have gay children?
Even creating a whole new social subclass of 'Gay Bearers' and maybe parents who want to produce gay kids to replenish the world for other gays etc?

Interesting aint it?

Funny thing though.. not everyone is so eager to insist that people are 'born gays' now?

hipunk

12-29-2005, 06:22 AM

No no.. dont try and run away and hide behind Hitler again.

I am sorry, but I have to call 'em like I see 'em. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck but wants to genetically engineer a "better" human being, it is a Nazi.

The hypothetical question, and the 'what if' logical consequences was being persued here and persued by you as much as anyone.

Sorry again honey, but I know for a fact that you failed every "logic" course you might have taken and didn't even comprehend the text of any "logic" book you have ever touched. So, don't pull that 'logic' crap, till you know what you're talking about.

Early on I pointed out how impossible and deceptive your hypothetical question was. That was an example of logical progression, you moron.

Let's look at your pseudo "logical progression", shall we?

"IF we are to suppose that there is a 'gay gene'"
That is a hypothesis, however as we will see, there are no facts to substantiate it. No 'gay gene' has been found. Just as no 'left handedness' gene has been found. There isn't even evidence as to how these things occur genetically.

Now, to be frank with you I could provide lots of criticism at this point for and against a "gay gene". I could explain what I know about genetics and what I have read on the subject. But you haven't researched your subject and I don't want to educate you, because I am afraid of what you would do with that knowledge. You have proven yourself to be ignorant and mean spirited, a dangerous combination but not as deadly as educated and mean spirited. I not only worry for you, Erassmas70, but for the people around you.

"and that people are somehow 'born gay'"
The key idea here is 'some how' not 'born gay'. There is substantial evidence that we are born gay. There is also substantial evidence that might indicate that some folks develop their orientation as early as 1 or 2 yrs old. Exactly how or why this happens is speculation right now. We agree people are born gay. We just don't know how that happens.

"then we can easily speculate that its passed on through generations."
That is a second hypothesis. You are building a hypothesis on a hypothesis. Illogical. You must prove the first in order to speculate on the second. We could just as 'easily speculate', as you say, that the FSM passes on the gay gene.

Listen, after this your argument just gets squirrelier and squirrelier. If -If -If -If -If -ain't logic, buster, if you aren't making any deductions.

"IF that is the case"
You have yet to provide any evidence that it might be, because there isn't any.

"If you were any nuttier"
You wouldn't be able to form the one half of your sentences that do make sense and then you probably (in total theory) wouldn't be able to sign in your password and we would be relieved of your nonsense.

IF those abortions went on that is.
You're creepy, you know that?

So you're trying to convince me that killing gay babies is going to make parents want to adopt gay kids to replenish the stock and how stupid am I to not realize this and how asinine am I to not agree with you in the first place when all you originally wanted to do was just a little gene therapy -not kill me, which if I took the time to think about it would actually benefit mankind. Is that what you were trying to explain with logic?

And you wonder why nobody wants to play with you.

mushie18

12-29-2005, 06:32 AM

wow.. you covered it all.

Erasmus70

12-29-2005, 07:23 AM

wow.. you covered it all.
Which would be true if this actually was a scientific debate.. but its not really, so while it 'sounds like' you are seeing some real cool 'break down' type of post from Hippunk - it actually sucks big time.
..and that is the technical term here - sucks bigtime.

You cant even begin to believe there is a problem with 'what if' speculation and realistically that is exactly how most innovation comes about in the first place and how most of the public reacts to the innovations (they also running 'what ifs' and 'what consequence' scenarios).

So its not only legitimate to speculate but in this case it may be very important.
Despite all kinds of, effectively meaningless' posts like this last one trying to apply inappropriate or uncalled for standards... you still have the question and the call for answers:

IF it becomes possible to 'cure' homosexuality - would you do it, for yourself or for the expected child?

Im not going to sit around here pretending like this is difficult when three year olds get how a 'what if' speculation works.
"But Erasmus.. I explained why it isnt real and I used the words 'hypothesis from a hypothesis so.."
No.
Shut up and sit down and stop acting like a huge dork.
Thanks.

Others can feel free to chip into the obviously simple idea here - What if its possible.
Would you even have your expected child tested for gayness?

hippypaul

12-29-2005, 03:12 PM

I must break ranks somewhat with Hipunk in that I am willing to accept your hypothetical situation. This is if I understand it is as follows:

1. Being Gay is Genetic
2. This Genetic trait can be detected before birth
3. By selective abortions we could eliminate Gay individuals
4. Most people would chose to abort a Gay Baby

Is that a fair statement of your hypothesis?
Let me know if I am with you so far.

SliceNDice

12-29-2005, 07:26 PM

Why "cure" homosexuality? There's nothing wrong with being homosexual.

Erasmus70

12-30-2005, 12:40 AM

I must break ranks somewhat with Hipunk in that I am willing to accept your hypothetical situation. This is if I understand it is as follows:
1. Being Gay is Genetic
This has been supposed by many and a whole lot of 'science' was touted about the media and 'gay orgs' claiming this was the proof that homosexual behavior was a genetic predisposition and even an imperative.
So lets just go with that...

2. This Genetic trait can be detected before birth

If they are right about this, then its not long before that becomes a very good possibility alright.

3. By selective abortions we could eliminate Gay individuals
Depends. Its a possibility if we were to accept point 1 and 2.
What do you think?

4. Most people would chose to abort a Gay Baby

Says Who?
You?
Seems to me that was a suggestion or insinuation made by another member but Im not convinced.

Is that a fair statement of your hypothesis?
Let me know if I am with you so far.

Yeah ok then.
What exactly are you having difficulty with?
Can you be more specific here or what?

hippypaul

12-30-2005, 01:31 AM

You stated

"So are we all in agreement that 'if' you could choose to be straight you would?"

Therefore, I asked if "most people would choose to abort a Gay baby" was part of your Hypothesis

You answered "Says Who?"

I ask again Is that not what YOU are saying

hipunk

12-30-2005, 02:51 AM

I don't want to educate you, because I am afraid of what you would do with that knowledge. You have proven yourself to be ignorant and mean spirited, a dangerous combination but not as deadly as educated and mean spirited. I not only worry for you, Erassmas70, but for the people around you.

hippypaul, I am not insulted that you "broke ranks" with me. I could have given the same outline as you yourself have. But what you will find if you read Erassmas70's posts, is that he has a strange capacity for selective reading. He not only doesn't reason or listen to facts but he only seems to collect snippets and phrases that suit his own twisted logic. He is playing with half a deck, why would I provide him with the Aces and all the wild cards?

But I will look at your list, please understand if my guarded answers seem incomplete.

1. Being Gay is Genetic
That hasn't been determined, but if you use that for your postulate, you could be a little more specific. But Gene therapy seems to be the gist of this query.

2. This Genetic trait can be detected before birth
We are unsure how gayness is affected by genes. The exact workings and interrelations between gene strands and sets of strands is a fascinating subject. Since the fruition of the Human Genome Project (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml) we've seen all kinds of wild speculation (like this). The Genome Project, as far as I am aware, has yet to issue a statement concerning the ethics or origins of sexual orientation. (see: Human Genome Diversity Project (http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp.html), Minorities, Race, and Genomics (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml). If you have info on Genome and sexuality, please let me know.)

The Genome Project has helped to bring certainty to some previous theories concerning the chemical reactions and make up of DNA. But at the same time it's raised new questions. They've been able to recognize aberrant genes strands, (in this case I mean genes which are so unusual that they warrant close inspection.) Some of these genes are believed to cause genetic illnesses, like Down Syndrome; others seem to be inert, residual or "turned off".

But there is exciting work under way which may prove to be beneficial to certain genetic illnesses, like Sickle Cell Anemia (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20051227-18250500-bc-us-sickle-cell-cure.xml). This isn't surprising, as a cure for SCA was one of the early enticements to mapping the Human Genome. Other genetic treatments for blood type illnesses are sure to be seen in our lifetime.

There seems to be quite a bit of study in eye color for obvious reasons, It's a physical trait inherited and yet vastly similar in different gene pools. Also logic dictates that it would be easier to study due to the simplicity of choices for eye color as opposed to nose shape, size etc. This is an area of genetic study that has traditionally offered plenty of data on inherited traits and scientists continue to add to those data.

However the genetic mechanisms for nonphysical inherited traits, like left handedness or a capacity for mathematics, which is obviously controlled in the brain, have proven to be vastly more complex than anticipated and quite elusive.

So, your third supposition, should be

3a. Is this trait caused by aberrant genes, like a genetic disease like Down Syndrome?
This appears to be improbable and probably impossible from what is known about genetics.

3b Is this trait caused by genetic variance like eye color?
That is highly improbable (damn near impossible), as homosexuality occurs at the same rate across all gene pools.
Though it is supposed that certain variant genes someday may be manipulated to change eye color it really isn't known how you would even do that! (I would also like to note that someday they may find a perpetual motion machine -a more likely event) However, like the treatment for SCA, help with the aging and hardening of the of the cornea and cataracts is being studied. Messing with these genes for any other reason then health is considered unethical. Now, it might be cute to ask, "if you could pick your child's eye color through genetic engineering what color would you pick?" But that question, while silly and improbable, is not politically charged and a metaphor for cleansing a gene pool.

3c Is this trait caused by a genetic mechanism like left handedness, or a capacity for math -and not a single inherited gene?
Evidence points in this direction; this is the most likely. What is frustrating is that these mechanisms are complex and elusive. It's quite possible that one part of the mechanisms that influences the proclivity for a "gay" sexual orientation may also be part of the same mechanism for something like a proclivity for artistic expression. Therefore, a more likely question from what we know is: Would you alter the genetic make-up of your unborn child to be 'straight' if it would also affect his ability to become an artistic genius?

Please don't confuse genetic treatments, like for Sickle Cell, with a cure for homosexuality. It ain't the same, not even close.

A simple way to phrase the original question would be: if you could wish to be straight would you? Another simple question is to ask: if you could wish the sexual orientation of your child, would you wish it to be straight? However, to shroud this question in science fiction presented as science fact is insulting to me and a dangerous proposition. Much of the Nazi "justification" for the medical torture of jewish children was to improve the Master Race and purify it of genetic traits like homosexuality*. (why are these people always after our defenseless children, anyway?)

*in all honesty homosexuality wasn't concidered a genetic trait by the nazis, per say, but indicative of the maladies they wished to cleanse from the Master Race.
.

BlackGuardXIII

12-30-2005, 03:16 AM

I have met so many gay men who are very good looking, smart, personable, kind, and successful that I would support the choice of their staying gay. Too many more stiff heterosexual dating competitors vying for the hottest ladies' love is what I see if they didn't. It is also my view that gay folk are only different than straights in that they face a more hostile world, and have a higher chance of being harmed than straights. If that battle against hate became too much for a gay person, and they chose to change, I would support their decision, but I would feel that it was tragic that hate caused it. 'And it harm none, do what thou wilt.' 'Live and let live.' Those are my rules for dealing with others, and so I support gay rights totally.

hipunk

12-30-2005, 03:59 AM

.

I should add to my previous lengthy post, Genetic Cleansing of Gay Gene (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2063135&postcount=60), and finish my version of the hypothetical situation (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2061709&postcount=56) as outlined by hippypaul.

1. Being Gay is Genetic
2. This Genetic trait can be detected before birth
3. By selective abortions we could eliminate Gay individuals
4. Most people would chose to abort a Gay Baby

I left off at 3, which is actually an elaboration of 2 above.

4.* Since the detection before birth of a proclivity for gayness would not be certain, it is unlikely that most people would abort a fetus just because it had a 'chance' of developing gay tendencies. And even more unlikely, if it also meant that the child may also develop other special gifts, like a proclivity for math. Also, as gayness may not be entirely inherited, and seems to be variant (of normal genetic mechanisms), it would be useless to try to remove it by selection, as in aborting all those fetuses, because it would still continue to occur in other seemingly unaffected gene pools. To wipe out homosexuality that way, you would have to delete the entire human race.

5. However, bigotry is a still a compelling force, and bigots are crazy bastards and there is no telling what they will do with any piece of information. I mean, that's why I can't stop relating this to the Nazi's, lest we forget how innocently that whole thing started before it swept over a whole nation.

*I keep forgetting this is suppose to be hypothetical bullshit, like if your nose were long enough would you fuck yourself. Okay, If it could be shown that gayness is caused by a simple genetic variance like eye color, (or the interference of the FSM) then, yeah, I suppose lots of parents would abort those fetuses.

p.s. If you don't think Nazi cleansing could happen again or in the good old USA, please study the atrocities in Armenia, Rwanda & Buruni, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, or East Timor. Never forget the genocide or it's humble origins. Sadly, the threat of that kind of evil is always pressing at the fabric of civilization, as Erasmus70 so aptly demonstrates.

See: Genocide Documentation Centre (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide.htm).

.

Erasmus70

12-30-2005, 07:42 AM

Fantastic.
Captain Term Paper is thinking he can scholastice me into looking like a genocide monger.
Wonderful.

In the mean time, I enjoyed the parts of your posts which were non-stupid and it looks like there has been a purpose served in asking the hypothetical question.
Im not involved in homosexual sex so I dont always have the wherewithall to sit around and think through some of the propaganda pseudo-science being pumped up like 'The Gay Gene' or people in the last 10-15 years really pushing hard for this 'Born Gay' belief which is seemingly the now 'official' opinion to be held.

I do recall the whole 'Nazi Like' Pseudo Science rumours that a 'Gay Gene' or a almost Holy Grail Like obsession to 'prove for once and for all we are born this way' was superhuge in around 1990ish.
Then after a few years and many 'New Studies show that Homosexuality is not a choice but a ..." Then Someone in the GaySpeak Orgs realised that IF we found out who was 'born gay' before they were even born - bam - you could see mass abortions all over the place.

Wierdly, what started out as a Golden Fleece to be saught by Gaydom is now being turned around (as usual) and used as some propaganda AGAINST the very same people who were debunking it in the FIRST PLACE.

Anyways.. I suppose you will one day get your wish to kill off as many Christians as you can.
If anyone thinks people like you dont do such things.... let me remind you of Rwanda, Yugoslavia, East Timor etc etc.

Lets face it - if YOU thought you could abort 'Christian' fetus' you would support that wouldnt you?
After all they spread 'Hatred' and Hatred is 'Bad' Right?
So (to you) Killing Baby CHristians is 'Good' Right?

Yeah.. You know Im right.

hipunk

12-30-2005, 08:06 AM

.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck but wants to genetically engineer a "better" human being, it is a Nazi.

Captain Term Paper is thinking he can scholastice me into looking like a genocide monger.

But what you will find if you read Erassmas70's posts, is that he has a strange capacity for selective reading. He not only doesn't reason or listen to facts but he only seems to collect snippets and phrases that suit his own twisted logic.

Anyways.. I suppose you will one day get your wish to kill off as many Christians as you can. (etc, etc, etc)

And he likes to make stuff up, too!

You have proven yourself to be ignorant and mean spirited,

Lets face it - if YOU thought you could abort 'Christian' fetus' you would support that wouldnt you?
After all they spread 'Hatred' and Hatred is 'Bad' Right?

No, no, no dear, I would spank them and put them to bed. Now, bend over and take it like a man.

.

hipunk

12-30-2005, 08:53 AM

.

Oh, and another thing, enough of this nonsense!

Please

don't feed the

TROLL!

.

Erasmus70

12-30-2005, 09:39 AM

I just realised how awesome I really am after reading your second to last post.

Im almost sorry you have given up already.
:(

hippypaul

12-30-2005, 01:18 PM

Hipunk I fear that you are right I cannot seem to get Erasmus70 to define the terms of his hypothetical situation. Which I was trying to extract and put in one format so it could be discussed. For the record, my non-hypothetical opinion is that being Gay is a complex trait that involves multiple markers. However, I believe that some people are born Gay and others are not. I would not support any sort of genetic selection for Hetro people any more than I would support a selection for light-skinned people. I think that if you get into the area of eugenics that you are very close to the racial cleansing that has been done by various unpleasant people in the past.

Erasmus70

12-30-2005, 01:45 PM

hippypaul

12-31-2005, 04:08 PM

I fail to see how sexual behavior gets to stand along side physical appearance.
This is because they are what we call 'different'.
Maybe you would like ask more cheeky questions about my position on this HippyPaul?
Try coming up with replies 'on your own' on this without asking for more retarded clarifications you dont really need anyways.
Thnx
You seem to be:

Unable to define the terms of your position

Unable to carry on discourse with out personal attacks

I am also glad to find that you consider me impertinently bold, impudent, and saucy

Always did think of myself as a saucy sort of a fellow. (Grin).

Sexual behavior gets to stand besides physical appearance because they are inbreed traits of human beings by the terms of my argument. I think I gather that you believe (or is it just hypothetical) that sexual behavior is just a habit like smoking cigarettes.

BlackGuardXIII

12-31-2005, 07:12 PM

I just realised how awesome I really am after reading your second to last post.

Im almost sorry you have given up already.
:(
Novel use of the word awesome, but if you mean stunningly incomprehensible, and tremendously insulting, shockingly un-Christian, and profoundly homophobic... then I see your point.
I have not yet met a gay man as 'awesome' as you.
Kudos.

Erasmus70

01-01-2006, 08:15 AM

Being Awesome is great and all but its not a requirement to be able to discern the difference between physical appearance and physical behavior.
I realise that Nazi's believed that ones physical 'colour' and facial features was not so different than a persons behavior.
Im surprised to see so many people here agreeing with Nazis on this.
(not shocked though).

How insulting though.. to tell some guy he is having homosexual relations with the other guy because he 'has to' and his body is simply making him do it.
Like they are some kind of animals or even some sort of 'robots' who cant simply be said to be making a choice.
Just like I would when I go to smoke a cigarette.
At least when im smoking.. I can be said to be my own man, making my own choice and so be it.
They gay guy is said (by you people) to be behaving due to some physical condition.

Gimme a break!

You dont even believe that!

hippypaul

01-01-2006, 01:12 PM

Let’s try to make this very simple. The act of having intercourse with a male or a female is a choice. Just as the act of smoking a cigarette is a choice.
The sexual attraction to males or females is an inherent trait. You do not get to choose if you are excited by the thought of males or females. You can measure the brain activity of people while they are looking at pictures of males and females and see the difference.
In addition, I suspect and research supports the idea that when you are having your smoke that you are acing out a predisposition to additive behavior that you inherited. I am truly sorry that you do not have as much free will as you thought you did. You, like the rest of us, are a complex mix of nature and nurture.

Erasmus70

01-01-2006, 02:15 PM

there are psychological factors which lead to the attraction to homosexual sex.
As we all know the human mind (which definately affects physiology) is a complex little wonder and can be attracted to things which are horrifying, indecent and violate its owners own values and ethics.
Often this is brought on by anxiety and depression and the act of something so bold, shocking or even horrifying can be used to distract the mind from the constant ongoing worry cycle.
In a real sense this helps relieve the unbearable stress and anxiety.
In that sense the act becomes extremely 'addictive' or to say it becomes a coping mechanism.

The Cigarettes comparison is probably not exactly parallel but thats because nicotene does eventually affect the body that the smoker can really be fulfilling a 'real' physical craving.
The act of homosexual sex is probably more emotional and psychological.. although you could make a good argument that we do need orgasms to satisfy our bodies.
So in that sense they are not that much different.

hippypaul

01-02-2006, 03:39 PM

Erasmus70

01-02-2006, 11:51 PM

So do I hear you saying that being Gay is some sot of posttraumatic stress syndrome? In which people are attracted to horrifying, indecent things, which violate true values and ethics.
And that being Gay somehow relieves this unbearable stress and anxiety becoming first a coping mechanism and then an addiction.

Your pretty close there.
Alcohol and Drug use and abuse would definately be a most common coping mechanism.
Homosexual sex might be a lot less common but maybe more common than 'self mutilation'.
Mind you, the amount of teen girls cutting themselves seems like its becoming more common than anything.

But yeah.. you have the right idea anyways.
For some people.

I realise you want to be stupid and 'trick' me into 'looking like' I said ALL GAYS had this situation.
Then you can provide an exception and then Im totally dismissed and now Gay is Ok.
Idiot.

This describes a percentage of people when asked 'Why are you gay' (see topic) and I think you know that anyways.

You seem to be getting closer and closer to saying that Gay folks are evil and are going to hell.
Nope.
Nothing I have said gives you that impression.
You 'want' that to be true because again, it would be easy to then dismiss the entire case.[in your mind].

Why don't you just come right out and say it - you know you will feel better. You hate Gay people for some reason and wish them ill. You are just cloaking this with a lot of psychobabble.
I dont buy into 'psychobabble' either. You used terms like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder but I think our culture is so used to using these clinical terms that we use them anyways.
You can just use the good old common sense words like 'Worry' and 'Lust' and 'Pain' or whatever you like.
Most of these things did not need to be 'discovered and classified' because we already knew what they were before a 'Doctor' made a Latin name and published a book about it.

"the human mind (which definately affects physiology) is a complex little wonder". What does that mean - are you saying that being gay is
If you dont think that the mind (brain) affects the physical body then all you need to do is show a teenage boy a picture of a naked woman.
The astonishing physical changes will put away any doubt.
Simply thinking about a sad song can make some peoples eyes water.

Do I think 'being gay' is:

1. A mental illness
2. A deviant behavior
3. A bad habit
4. A poor life choice
5. An alternative

Can I pick all of the above?
I think you can find a bit of one and more of another in anyone cant you?

6. A separate sex
7. A biological difference

Absolutely not.
There is zero reason to believe there is a type of human that was 'born different' or has a different body which makes them some sort of 'third gender' that is called 'A' Homosexual.

8. Another category that you would like to define yourself
Sure, If you ask me the most common reason now is the enjoyment for orgasms.
I thought the best explanation Ive heard came from a guy recently interviewed on the News (identity hidden).
He said "Look. I have a very high sex drive. I like sex and I have a fulltime job which gives me little time... so I go to the park on my way home from work and I get blowjobs"
He went on to explain how he was very nervous the first time but that like anything else - you just get over your fears and eventually its nothing new.

That to me is the answer that best sums up why the majority of people are into it nowadays.
Of course this guy put it in very basic, straightforward terms.

daisymae

01-02-2006, 11:58 PM

I would rather that they found a cure for cancer....at least that would be useful....

TheMistress

01-02-2006, 11:59 PM

Im really happy being a lesbian.
I wouldnt change it for all the money in the world.
If this "gay gene" is real, I would be completely opposed to reversing it.
Its not like its some life-threatening disease.
omigod, my kid is gay....
jesus.
I should hide in shame now.
Whoever thinks like this shouldn't have children.

hippypaul

01-03-2006, 12:07 AM

"If you dont think that the mind (brain) affects the physical body then all you need to do is show a teenage boy a picture of a naked woman.
The astonishing physical changes will put away any doubt."

However, in a percentage of teenage boys the picture of a naked woman is a matter of total indifference. They respond to a picture of a naked man. How do you explain this? By using PET scans, you can see the changes within the brain even before puberty. Do you think people have chosen their sexual orientation that young in life?

hipunk

01-03-2006, 04:19 AM

.
All of your arguments are true of straight as well as gay. Even true of gay folks who feel compelled to pretend they are straight.

Alcohol and Drug use and abuse would definately be a most common coping mechanism.

Drug abuse is a common for all sorts of reasons, and used to cope with depression and anxiety and is often used as an "excuse" for all kinds of behavior. However, it won't turn you gay.

Homosexual sex might be a lot less common but maybe more common than 'self mutilation'.
Mind you, the amount of teen girls cutting themselves seems like its becoming more common than anything.

Where's the documentation? I'm not worried, you won't ever provide it because it's nonexistent.

Irrelevant, and you know, it seems like the amount of bigoted asses are becoming more common than anything, but I know that the only reason it seems like that is because one bigot goes along way in stinking up a room.

I realise you want to be stupid and 'trick' me into 'looking like' I said ALL GAYS had this situation.

smart, you have learned your lesson. If you are going to make sweeping generalizations, you have to remember you are not writing on the KKK board. Because we all know that generalizations = bigotry. As much as you like to deny you're a bigot and a homophobe, you have a funny way of trying to hide it.

This describes a percentage of people when asked 'Why are you gay' (see topic) and I think you know that anyways.

Where's the documentation? I'm not worried, you won't ever provide it because it's nonexistent.

I am amused and flattered, again you are referencing one of my other posts, I didn't realize you were reading everything I wrote.

I dont buy into 'psychobabble' either.
... Most of these things did not need to be 'discovered and classified' because we already knew what they were before a 'Doctor' made a Latin name and published a book about it.

You want it both ways. On one hand you wish to damn the entire psychology community and scientists in general, yet you continue to refer to certain facts and out dated studies. Which is it? I mean, I know it's difficult for you to understand obscure words, so is that why you prefer to make up your own science?

Do I think 'being gay' is:

1. A mental illness
2. A deviant behavior
3. A bad habit
4. A poor life choice
5. An alternative

Can I pick all of the above?
I think you can find a bit of one and more of another in anyone cant you?

Like I said, straight folks too. And you chose a very middle of the road answer, because you don't even "think" gay is anything, you "feel" it; and when you feel it if feels disgusting. You may never admit that, but that is a handicap that will keep you an emotional child until you get over it.

Regardless, being gay is an orientation, not those other things.

There is zero reason to believe there is a type of human that was 'born different' or has a different body which makes them some sort of 'third gender' that is called 'A' Homosexual.

There are plenty of data to show just that. The vast majority of psychiatric associations agree that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.

See: Professional Associations' statements about Homosexuality (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prof.htm) from religious tolerance org. Dissenting opinions are held by certain Religious Professionals, but they are more concerned with dogma than the well being of their clients.

American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/about/)
Based in Washington, DC, the American Psychological Association (APA) is a scientific and professional organization that represents psychology in the United States. With 150,000 members, APA is the largest association of psychologists worldwide.

The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.

Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.

He said "Look. I have a very high sex drive. I like sex and I have a fulltime job which gives me little time... so I go to the park on my way home from work and I get blowjobs"

You are describing a sexual liaison, not a sexual orientation. Believe me, there are more straight couples getting blow jobs in parked cars than boys doing it in the bushes.

That sums it up. You are paranoid and homophobic. This disgust you carry with you is a handicap you will never be at peace until you find a way to resolve your conflicts. I wish you would get professional help for your situation. I worry for you.

.

Erasmus70

01-03-2006, 06:27 AM

Can I ask you if you were sexually molested (indoctrinated) by an older and/or influential male, during your youth?

I understand if you choose not to answer but Id appreciate it?

hipunk

01-03-2006, 06:57 AM

.

I was never sexually molested or indoctrinated (what ever that means) in my youth. I had the same childhood as my 4 straight brothers.

Now, can I ask you if you were sexually molested by an older and/or influential male, during your youth?

.

Erasmus70

01-03-2006, 10:21 AM

.

I was never sexually molested or indoctrinated (what ever that means) in my youth. I had the same childhood as my 4 straight brothers.

Were you introduced (discovered, found) homosexual pornography during your teen years?
This is a pretty common gateway nowadays with the internet in full force.
Perhaps you saw some homosexual pornography and believed that because you were aroused - therefore that 'proves' you are gay or partly gay?

Now, can I ask you if you were sexually molested by an older and/or influential male, during your youth?
No,
however several tried to get that opportunity.
I was actually so naive that I believed it worked to my advantage.
Now its blatantly obvious what they were trying to do.

hipunk

01-03-2006, 01:34 PM

however several tried to get that opportunity.

I am sorry if that happened to you. No one showed the least bit of interest in me in that way until after I decided to come out. But what if the opposite sex, a woman, had tried to come onto me, would that have made me straight? I mean, girls came onto me in high school, and I still had a crush on the captain of the track team.

Were you introduced (discovered, found) homosexual pornography during your teen years?

I didn't see any porn when I was a kid, except the occasional playboy, that my older brothers might have got somehow. But if gay porn makes you gay, then straight porn seems to have had zero affect -but it worked for my brothers!

Perhaps you saw some homosexual pornography and believed that because you were aroused - therefore that 'proves' you are gay or partly gay?

No, if anything I saw happy heterosexual couples and thought, "what would it be like to be married to him?" I knew I wanted to be with a man when I grew up, even before I knew what sex was or how babies are made.

When I was in kindergarden, they had a cool kitchen play set in the cloak-room. I was really hurt because the girls wouldn't let me play with them. No boys allowed. "O-U-T and that means Y-O-U!" So, the only thing I wanted for christmas that year was a set of play dishes. That's all I wanted, so Santa brought me a nice little set of play dishes. They came in a little black case with elastic that held the cups and plates in place. When I went to my grand parents for the first time with my travel dishes, my Grand Pa saw the case and asked if I was going to be a doctor when I grew up. I opened the case to show the dishes and said, "No, I'm gunna be a mudder!"

Now, Emeril (http://www.emerils.com/) probably got dishes as a little boy too, but he's straight.

Hey, you know -it's kinda strange being your lab rat. If you're truly interested in learning why people are gay or bi-sexual, you should check out my previous post (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2072834&postcount=79)with links to reputable studies and research. Also, another member, LogsOnSticks, found a brilliant paper written by a gay youth on the subject, the link is at this post (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2073040&postcount=55). After you read these reports and studies, I would be interested to know what you learned.

.

BlackGuardXIII

01-04-2006, 02:12 AM

Like psychological theories about any personality trait, maybe it is a little genetic predisposition, and some environmental influence which contribute to the choice of sexual preference.
Does a heterosexual actually choose to be so?
I don't feel like it was a choice for me, so much as the strong attraction towards the opposite sex that I have had as long as I remember. Sure I could choose to be with a man, but I am just not anywhere nearly as aroused or attracted by men.
Erasmus70, did you choose to be heterosexual? If so, tell me about it.
Gay friends of mine don't as a rule appear to have chosen to be gay. They just turned out that way.
It is not anything that I feel any reason to judge, it is no concern of mine. But if pressed, I would judge that being gay is normal. It's okay. Curing it is no more sensible to me than curing heterosexual people.

Erasmus70

01-04-2006, 03:27 AM

There is something 'telling' in Hippunks post (which I actually do appreciate the reply) and I want to asborb it for a while and then get back to it later.
Im already through the first (and expected) layer but there is a some angles and 'more' that I want to think about.
Thx.

ps.. You dont choose Heterosexuality. Thats true. Your Biology will determine it for you.
Obviously.
Homosexuality is a choice but I dont see how it can be any different than anything else when its many different choices, small and large at different turns of life.
Nobody just wakes up one day and says "Hey.. I think I want to be addicted to cigarettes"
It is true that nobody 'chooses' to be a 'NonSmoker' because, by nature and left to itself the lungs are just born and develop to breath air not smoke. Obviously.

mushie18

01-04-2006, 04:51 AM

Erasmus70

01-04-2006, 10:51 AM

sexuality is not something you just pick up, like smoking.
As far as I can remember, even when I was five or six, I was attracted to guys. One particular instance was when I was in second grade. I spent the night at a friends house, and later on we took a shower together. After we had gotten out, and were in his room about to change, we both noticed that I had an erection. Niether of us really knew what it was, but my friend said he got them when he saw a pretty lady, etc. I then explained that I got it from seeing him naked. We just dropped it, niether of us thought it was a big deal. This probably is not enough "proof" for you, but looking back on it now it's kind of funny.
I don't understand how you can believe that homosexuality is a choice. Why would anyone choose to be gay? I am who I am, Its something I cannot change.
Being straight would be a whole lot easier; but being gay is something I must live with.
You are recalling this event as part of a justification for your behavior.
Excuse for your behavior actually.
Hipunk is doing the same thing but there is more going on than just this... and thats what Im thinking through right now and how I can explain this back to you in a way that will be best understood.

btw.. you did not get an erection at five years old because the homosexuality inside you was making your five your old penis want to enter the other boys anus or mouth.
Its actually a very natural phenom .. especially at five years old (as in that specific age exactly) and thats another story but it does not equate to your being a homosexual now.
Other than you 'thinking it does' anyway.

SageDreamer

01-04-2006, 02:48 PM

There is still a lot humans don't know about sexual orientation. As a gay man, it's an issue that I have a certain interest in, and I've probably done more reading and talking and listening about it than most people who aren't behavioral scientists.

My hunch is that people are homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual or whatever for a variety of reasons. Given the discrimination and unpleasant treatment many gay men and lesbians endure, I doubt that very many of us actually "chose" to be this way. Some of us attempt to become heterosexual and fail in the attempt. I went through a great deal of frustrated effort and pain not to be gay, and after many years and struggle not to be, finally accepted who and what I am. For me, homosexuality was most emphatically *not* a choice. Counseling and prayer and will power did not make me heterosexual. Choice implies an ability to act on something.

So Erasmus, when you tell me that homosexuality is "obviously" a choice, I am profoundly and personally hurt and offended.

hippypaul

01-04-2006, 07:13 PM

During the late 60's in the mist of a 4some with another couple the women, who were bi challenged us (the two males) to try it. How do you know you are not bi if you have never tried. We were both open-minded and had few if any inhibitions so we spent almost an hour trying to have sex. Kissing, hugging, licking and sucking. Result nothing. Both of us stayed as limp as could be. After the women agreed we had given it a fair try we went back to what we were doing and had no problem getting erections. Now it would seem that if being gay was something you could just decided to do as a choice that it would have worked for us. In addition, several years later a gay male who was a friend of ours was claiming that he could give better oral sex than any woman could and used me as his test case. No results again. These experiences, talking to lots of Gay folks and reading current medical findings is what leads me to say that being Hetro or Gay is just something you are born with. Though I am sure that someone will tell me that had I spent more time and effort I could have become gay. Just like smoking, you do not like it at first. I am sure that the gay individuals reading this had to force themselves the first 10 or 20 times (yea right)

Amanda's Shadow

01-04-2006, 07:16 PM

The world's already overpopulated as is.

Let queers be queers, I say. They don't make babies.

exactly. besides, if nature/god did it then I dont think she/it/he would want us to fix it.

Besides, who would write our musicals and design our clothes? (jk)

mushie18

01-04-2006, 09:39 PM

erasmus, I do not get aroused when I look at a naked female, or a male and female having sex. I have had experiences with women, and it they were not satisfying for either of us. It isn't a choice when I get an erection while looking at a naked man or gay pornography. However, it is a choice to have sex with another male. Just like it would be a choice to have sex with a women.

TheMistress

01-05-2006, 12:04 AM

You dont choose to be gay.
you choose to be yourself.
When someone is attracted, or has feelings for someone of the same sex, you cannot control it. That is something that happens with thought.
Acting on this is a conscious choice.
So you do not choose to be gay, you just choose to act on your feelings.

I always do things that best suit who I am, and makes me happiest.
I am a lesbian.
I am in love with a women.

Now I COULD ignore this, and date a man. I could force myself to stay with a man, get married...do the "normal" thing. But I would be sacrificing my own happiness. I would be having children out of a loveless relationship. People deserve to find love and happiness, its not fair if I pretend to love a man just so that I can live a "normal" life.

Instead I have embraced that fact that I am part of a minority.

I am me. and thats all I want to be. and thats all anyone should ever expect me to be.

TopNotchStoner

01-05-2006, 12:27 AM

If I could cure anything involved in the issue of gay/straight, I would cure the ignorance that causes people to feel like homosexuality is something that needs to be cured. I am not gay, personally, but there is nothing wrong with it. Saying homosexuality is a disease is the same as saying heterosexuality is a disease. It is all based on personal preference.

hipunk

01-05-2006, 02:32 AM

.

There is something 'telling' in Hippunks post . . . I want to asborb it for a while . . . Im already through the first (and expected) layer but there is a some angles and 'more' that I want to think about.

Here he implies he's planning another rebuttal, which belies any sincerity that erassmus70 pretends to have. It is refreshing that these attacks are now reserved for me in particular, and not all gay folks, and that his hostility is confined to this thread.

His tiny intellectual battles are merely anti-gay propaganda. I've seen it all before! It's tired. :(

Homosexuality is a choice

Countless studies have shown that people do not choose to be LGBT. I have provided links to the information. Sexual orientation occurs before birth or in early development. The Medical community will not support your homophobia. You have yet to provide documentation for your pov because the only folks who agree with you are Nazis and wing-nut christians.

Okay, you may disagree with the largest association of psychologists worldwide -that's fine. However, you remind me of that bit on Conan O'Brien where they have the tele-link with Arnold Schwarzenegger (see: wmv of Late Night with Conan O'Brien (http://media.skoopy.com/vids/vid_00931.wmv).)

Conan will say something like, "You're making an irrational statement"
Arnold retorts, "You are an irrational statement!"
Conan says, "That doesn't make sense."
"You don't make sense," Arnold retorts. And then they pull the plug on him.

You prefer to carry on a childish conversation as well.

"You're choosing to be gay"
"Am not"
"Are too"
"Am not"
"You are too!!!"

This worries me. You should move on. You have made your point.

You are prejudiced. You have judged the situation before looking at the facts or the truth. There is no reasoning with you, because you seem to either lack the skills or reject truth in favor of a gut reaction of disgust; which btw, you seem to relish. You are a sick man, tired beyond your years. Please seek help, you'll only find misery while living with hate and bigotry.

Erasmus70

01-05-2006, 07:32 AM

Serious Question:
Why are you and others here absolutely determined to defend Homosexuality as a genetic imperative which 'makes you have gay sex' and to put it the other way around - why or what is the problem with anyone being born a 'hetero' meaning born wanting to use their genitals for the purpose they were made for, who then chooses to have gay sex?

Short Form: Whats wrong with Choosing to have gay sex?

Answers appreciated.

rain_in_summer

01-05-2006, 07:59 AM

What's wrong with choosing to have gay sex?

Nothing is wrong with it.
As long as both partners want to do it and no one is forced to do anything s/he doesn't want to (in which case straight sex is wrong, too), it does no harm.
Except for annoying some preachy Christians maybe, but that's another story. :rolleyes:

hipunk

01-05-2006, 08:33 AM

Whats wrong with Choosing to have gay sex?
Because It is an untruth. While anyone can have gay sex at gun point, (their choice) that doesn't make them gay. Myself, I only have two choices: one is to have a loving relationship with a man, the other is to be alone.

People like you seem to have realized the one precious lesson in life: there is only one valuable. We all know it isn't gold or money. Some people believe it is love. You and I know they are wrong. It is happiness.

You seem to think that if you can control other peoples happiness, that it will become your own. If so you are confusing power with possession. Power is control. Happiness comes from the heart. I wish you could find it in your heart to alow me my happiness.

You are prejudiced. You have judged the situation before looking at the facts or the truth. There is no reasoning with you, because you seem to either lack the skills or reject truth in favor of a gut reaction of disgust; which btw, you seem to relish. You are a sick man, tired beyond your years. Please seek help, you'll only find misery while living with hate and bigotry.

Erasmus70

01-05-2006, 11:20 AM

Because It is an untruth. While anyone can have gay sex at gun point, (their choice) that doesn't make them gay. Myself, I only have two choices: one is to have a loving relationship with a man, the other is to be alone.

People like you seem to have realized the one precious lesson in life: there is only one valuable. We all know it isn't gold or money. Some people believe it is love. You and I know they are wrong. It is happiness.

You seem to think that if you can control other peoples happiness, that it will become your own. If so you are confusing power with possession. Power is control. Happiness comes from the heart. I wish you could find it in your heart to alow me my happiness.
For starters.. I can have a loving relationship with a man and so do most men on the planet (hopefully having a Father or Sons etc).
If not a best friend.
A Mentor.
Having a meaningful loving relationship is something every man can and hopefully does have with a Father or Brother or like I say. perhaps a Coach or a Co-worker.

Anyways... I am digressing like you did in your last posts - far from the question here.
I ask it because it seems some holy mantra among the gay apologists to defend 'made to have gay sex' as some sort of unquestionable dogma to be defended at all costs.
Why?
So what if people can choose to have homosexual sex?
Maybe I decide I want to screw a guys bumhole next week.. so whats the problem here?
What is wrong (if anything) that some guy decides he really likes blowjobs and goes down to the 'Cruising Park' and gets 'BJ's from a another guy?

In fact, what exactly is the problem with a 'Shoe-o-sexual' just saying he has had a compulsion to have sex with shoes since he was a teenager and now he chooses to act on it.
He wasnt 'born a shoeosexual' and he knows full well his penis is specificaly and wonderfully designed to fit a vagina - not a shoe, but, he wants to choose to do it in a shoe to gratify his lusts and fantasy?

And i suppose the follow up to the question you refuse to answer - why cant someone just choose to have gay sex and if they DO.... why are they 'not gay' but you are?
What if they like it just fine and then choose to do it again. Or not. Whatever.
Why are you getting to be 'the real gay' and they are considered fakes?

hipunk

01-05-2006, 04:38 PM

some holy mantra among the gay apologists

No, it is the finding of the APA (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2072834&postcount=79), the largest association of psychologists worldwide, as well as other reputable orgs.

Why are you getting to be 'the real gay' and they are considered fakes?

Like I said before, god made me gay, you should ask him. While being gay is an innate orientation, having a homosexual experience is the prerogative of everyone. Don't confuse the two. Just because you can box left-handed, doesn't mean you were born that way. You know that!

I repeat:

People like you seem to have realized the one precious lesson in life: there is only one valuable. We all know it isn't gold or money. Some people believe it is love. You and I know they are wrong. It is happiness.

You seem to think that if you can control other peoples happiness, that it will become your own. If so you are confusing power with possession. Power is control. Happiness comes from the heart. I wish you could find it in your heart to alow me my happiness.

You are prejudiced. You have judged the situation before looking at the facts or the truth. There is no reasoning with you, because you seem to either lack the skills or reject truth in favor of a gut reaction of disgust; which btw, you seem to relish. You are a sick man, tired beyond your years. Please seek help, you'll only find misery while living with hate and bigotry.

KasabianRulesMan!

01-05-2006, 05:25 PM

i think the gay community differently (even if i'm not part of the club)... i believe in life as a chapter of a big book ...a wheel of life... reincarnation in fact...i believe in different chapter before this one ...different life thru centuries and millenium...

And this is my theory ...I think that people are gay (mainly) by three factors ...

the first one ... the story of your family
It's proved that sons in a family with bad fathers, sick mentaly, dead soon or leave home very soon without subsitute etc... fathers who give bad exemple for their sons ...and this same son had a talented mother who show the rights expemple ...a good and patient mother if you want... there's more probability that in this family the little boy will become gay... it's proved there's more probability... even if naturally there's more chance that he will be heterosexual...

secondly ...abused children had more chance than others to develop a gay sexual approach (recently i read this into a swiss journal...and too that probably 1 children for 10 were abused in their childhood! even if a lot of them just don't remember this...a cerebral autoprotection if u want)

thirdly... i belive in reincarnations ...so i believe even if it's always difficult to make experience and prove it...i belive that a lot of gays were woman in their previous life (if we are open to reincarnation...this seems to be a good theory)...

Naturally all my words are just a global approach ... there's a lot of gay...that don't enter in my explanation... it would be to easy...

have a nice day

TheMistress

01-05-2006, 05:44 PM

Short Form: Whats wrong with Choosing to have gay sex?

Answers appreciated.
Why is this all about sex? can you get past the fact that homosexuality isn't about the sex. Its about who you love, and your ability to love. Sex is not the primary goal and anyone who tells you that it is doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. sex is sex. If i fucked a guy right now it wouldn't make me straight, or bi. I would still be a lesbian.
Being gay has everything to do with love and your ability to love someone of the same sex as opposed to someone of the opposite.

melyn

01-05-2006, 06:12 PM

cured! wow, I think its already happened, I was with my doctor yesterday and he gave a strange purple liquid and made me drink it all down at once, when I was finished he looked into my eyes and my heart was all a-flutter, I wondered what i'd been thinking up until that moment, me, a woman, being attracted to women, peposterous. The doctor also told me that the cure for cancer was in that potion and that now i've drunk it, i'll never get it. Oh praise be, ITS A MIRACLE!!! :eek:

:rolleyes:

Give me a break. I don't think I could ever be "cured" ... men are too ugly :D

hippypaul

01-05-2006, 11:24 PM

Why is this all about sex? can you get past the fact that homosexuality isn't about the sex. Its about who you love, and your ability to love. Sex is not the primary goal and anyone who tells you that it is doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. sex is sex. If i fucked a guy right now it wouldn't make me straight, or bi. I would still be a lesbian.
Being gay has everything to do with love and your ability to love someone of the same sex as opposed to someone of the opposite.
Very very well said!

Erasmus70

01-06-2006, 07:58 AM

Very very well said!
Its not very well said at all.

It IS about sex. That IS the entire difference and its the only objectionable and/or debatable part of this.
HomoSEXUAL.
If we removed only the 'sex issue' then there is no more 'gays'.

Men and women always have and always will have long term, loving and dedicated relationships with the 'same gender' and we have already gone over this many times.
There are sisters that spend their lives together and there are legendary relationships between players and mentors or Soldiers who develop incredibly loyal and loving relationships with the other men.

Truth be told.. the very fact that men are now having less emotional bonded relationships with other men is even given as a contributing factor for homosexual sex.
Never mind that though.. it IS about sex and if you were not having (or lusting to have) sex with another women you are then no longer considered a homosexual, lesbian, a 'gay' and there is no more talk about it.

hipunk

01-06-2006, 08:42 AM

.
I would like to believe that you know the difference between friendship and love. That you have a distinct feeling from how you relate to your wife and your sister. (In most states it is illegal to confuse the two.)

Gay is about love, something you don't seem to understand. I am sorry for that, because otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. One may, like you have said, have sex with a shoe. However, god dictates whether you're gay or not. Nobody knows why he does that. Likewise, you may have a loving heart or a hateful heart -but that is something you can change.

I repeat:

People like you seem to have realized the one precious lesson in life: there is only one valuable. We all know it isn't gold or money. Some people believe it is love. You and I know they are wrong. It is happiness.

You seem to think that if you can control other peoples happiness, that it will become your own. If so you are confusing power with possession. Power is control. Happiness comes from the heart. I wish you could find it in your heart to alow me my happiness.

You are prejudiced. You have judged the situation before looking at the facts or the truth. There is no reasoning with you, because you seem to either lack the skills or reject truth in favor of a gut reaction of disgust; which btw, you seem to relish. You are a sick man, tired beyond your years. Please seek help, you'll only find misery while living with hate and bigotry.

.

Erasmus70

01-06-2006, 09:15 AM

This might be the heart of the matter... Is it Loving?
I would suggest it is very UNloving for you to condone and encourage that behavior in others and yourself.
Same for them towards you.
Unloving.

Chew no that for a while.

hipunk

01-06-2006, 09:25 AM

.
I am truly sorry that you are unable to understand love to the point that you will condemn it for others. You are a sad, sad boy. It must be lonely in there?
.

shrimpgirl

01-06-2006, 10:06 AM

ok, erasmus, your question is 'would we cure it'.
well, something is only candidate to be cured if it is debilitating or fatal (i know that is a simplistic interpretation, but for my purpose, please understand the connotation i'm pointing out).
so shouldnt your question, more to the point, be 'does homosexuality need to be cured?'
of course the answer to that depends on you being 'anti-gay' or a non-prejudicial person. so which are you? like others have said in this thread, being gay may make life more difficult at times, but not because being gay is inherantly debilitating, but because many members of society are homophobic in some shape or form and deliberately make life difficult for the gay community. in my opinion these people making life difficult for others are the problem, not the targets of their hate. others do not because they see no reason to discriminate against someone with a different sexual preferance than their own (because frankly, what business is it of theirs? and other than religious arguments -dont get me started- how can discrimination be justified, other than be its own logic....circular, does not stand up)

besides, of course i've met parents who seem embarrassed or in some way bothered by the fact that their children are gay, but mainly because the fathers feel their socially created masculinity is threatened by the fact that their son is gay or mothers socially created femininity is challenged by the fact that their daughter is gay.... or some other residue of their generation's mentality

anyway, i feel that you ignore the fact that your question immediately implies another: 'why would you, erasmus, imagine that some people might want to illiminate homosexuals, other than those motivated by simple prejudice?'

are you suggesting that we would somehow be better off without any gay people on earth? if so, better off in what way?
are you suggesting that gay people would be better off straight, for any reason other than to avoid the abuse of prejudiced members of society?

Erasmus70

01-06-2006, 12:10 PM

.
I am truly sorry that you are unable to understand love to the point that you will condemn it for others. You are a sad, sad boy. It must be lonely in there?
.
Dont be sad... I was condemning unloving and unhealthy relationships. At least that is what Im suggesting is the case.

Lets put this into a hypothetical scenario: You and some other dude want to have gay sex with each other.
You can even imagine that you are truly best friends.
Now let me ask you if you think this next step is Loving?
- Instead of getting it on, you stop and explain that although oral or anal sex might be gratifying and although it will evoke natural 'bonding' emotions (ie the feeling of being 'in love') ........instead....... you think it would be better on your hearts and minds if instead of sex, you bonded in standard male-male ways of friendship.

Let me suggest that would be an act of real love for that other dude.. and for yourself too.
Even if he did not agree - you still did a solid for him in this round.

What do you think of that as the real act of love?
Serious question.

GypsyPriestess

01-06-2006, 12:24 PM

Are you trying to say that a gay or bi person doesn't know the difference between love and lust? Or that a gay/bi person is incapable of being in love with their partner? Either way, you're WRONG!!!

hipunk

01-06-2006, 01:04 PM

I was condemning unloving and unhealthy relationships.

GLBT relationships are loving and healthy. The Medical community will not support your homophobia. You have yet to provide documentation for your pov because the only folks who agree with you are Nazis and wing-nut christians.

If you're truly interested in learning why people are gay or bi-sexual, you should check out my previous post (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2072834&postcount=79)with links to reputable studies and research. Also, another member, LogsOnSticks, found a brilliant paper written by a gay youth on the subject, the link is at this post (http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2073040&postcount=55). After you read these reports and studies, I would be interested to know what you learned.

Let me suggest that would be an act of real love for that other dude.. and for yourself too.
...What do you think of that. . . ?

Erasamus70, you know nothing of true love. The Rainbow Family is about love, something you don't seem to understand. This is not the time and place to teach you about love, but I wish I could. Your heart is black and filled with hate, it's hard to hear you speak of love or even imagine that you know how to love.

You are prejudiced. You have judged the situation before looking at the facts or the truth. There is no reasoning with you, because you seem to either lack the skills or reject truth in favor of a gut reaction of disgust; which btw, you seem to relish. You are a sick man, tired beyond your years. Please seek help, you'll only find misery while living with hate and bigotry.
.

Erasmus70

01-06-2006, 01:13 PM

Are you trying to say that a gay or bi person doesn't know the difference between love and lust? Or that a gay/bi person is incapable of being in love with their partner? Either way, you're WRONG!!!
Well if you say so...

..but seriously, Im going to suggest why males practicing homosexuality (which is meaning sex) will believe there is 'romance' or they are 'in love' and its actually very simple.
Because the physiology and just simply the mind of a human is most definately born and raised to fall in love and bond with a mate.

Here people want to throw about research and there is almost nothing more obvious than this but its well documented anyways (see: The Science of Love and others).
The very idea is that there is a wealth of skills and abilities in store for us to help us bond to a mate.
No joking about this - its absolutey essential to the very survival and continuation of mankind itself.
We all owe our very existence to these psychological and emotional, physiological attributes, causes and consequences.

One of the most obvious and basic ones is to begin to 'fall in love' during and after sexual relations.
We can 'desensitise' to that if we try but you only need to look at young guys who are totally pussywhipped to see the power of this.
Its actually a 'good thing' because God through Nature (or believe its nature if you want.. same results here).. Nature wants us to bond.
Its essential to the offspring (the result of sexual intercourse) that the mates develop strong bonds and become depend on each other.

OK.. I think we all actually agree on that so far.

Let me suggest that what happens with our hypothetical gay or lesbian 'couple' is really the same thing.
Remember.. physiology and emotions are 'blind'.
We showed this in the basic example of someone watching a thriller movie and actually have an accelerated heart beat.. a dump of adrenalin and even physically jumping off their seat - and thats looking at coloured lights on a tube screen and we even know its actors!!!

I suggest this is exactly what happens after either two dudes or two women have sex, reach orgasm and continue on in a physical 'faux-mating' relationship.
The body and mind are actually doing exactly what they 'think they should' in order to make all things work the way nature intended.
Good.
Except one problem - something is well... not quite right here.
It sure 'feels like a vagina' kinda sorta.. and the 'sensations' are there but there is no 'pheramone' for a male (or female depending on the example) and ... there doesnt seem to be any children coming...
The poor physiology is trying to do everything it should do.. the emotions are then trying to follow just as they should .. but.. hmmm?

Of course we are intellectual and imaginative creatures too so we have all kinds of ways to 'work around' anything we do.
Put a condition here.. act feminine or butch against the other so it 'fits more' and or take drugs or just plain and simply 'force through it no matter what'.

What Im asking is this:
- Is that Healthy?
- Is that loving to subject yourself or someone else to participate in?

Comments?

shrimpgirl

01-06-2006, 01:21 PM

k, i repeat my questions erasmus:

i feel that you ignore the fact that your question immediately implies another: 'why would you, erasmus, imagine that some people might want to illiminate homosexuals, other than those motivated by simple prejudice?'

are you suggesting that we would somehow be better off without any gay people on earth? if so, better off in what way?
are you suggesting that gay people would be better off straight, for any reason other than to avoid the abuse of prejudiced members of society?
because, seriously here, are you trying to argue that homosexuality is un-natural? is that the point of this thread? you should have said so in the first place.

shrimpgirl

01-06-2006, 01:27 PM

by the way erasmus, did you know that chimpanzee and other primates engage in homosexual behaviour?

if you're basing your argument on the fact that humans are able to be 'imaginative' and force things upon themselves, how would you go on the explain what other primates do?

Erasmus70

01-06-2006, 01:32 PM

k, i repeat my questions erasmus:
because, seriously here, are you trying to argue that homosexuality is un-natural? is that the point of this thread? you should have said so in the first place.
You wont answer or speak to my questions so I dont know why you feel you can skip over them or draw uncalled for conclusions and demand they be dealt with first.

btw.. Chimpanzees will actually bang their heads into walls and begin to go insane in captivity.
Many animals can be seen 'play fighting' and 'play humping' and I think that is pretty much self-explanatory.

Has nothing to do with what I posted and you dont have a 'one question begs another' situation here anyway.

But thanks for trying to derail the thread anyways...

hippypaul

01-06-2006, 01:41 PM

We can 'desensitise' to that if we try but you only need to look at young guys who are totally pussywhipped to see the power of this.

Comments?
Do you hate women too? I don' think I have heard anyone say pussywhipped in 20 years. I thought it was we old men who were supposed to live in the past.

Erasmus70

01-06-2006, 01:46 PM

Do you hate women too? I don' think I have heard anyone say pussywhipped in 20 years. I thought it was we old men who were supposed to live in the past.
I meant to add.. you can look at young women who are helplessly in love with the first boyfriend they slept with.
The poems, the undying loyalty and who can forget the girl in highschool with the abusive or loser boyfriend whom she lost her virginity to but stays with because, despite it all she wont dump him because.... "I love him".

btw.. I dont hate anyone.. except maybe people who are deliberately deceiving people.
That not you though.. you are a willing victim of those sorts as near as I can tell.

shrimpgirl

01-06-2006, 01:46 PM

i'm not trying to derail the thread erasmus, i'm trying to figure out what your point is.... because this thread has gone on for 12 pages now and you seem to be beating around the bush, so i thought i would ask you a more direct question.

i'm not making conclusions, i am asking questions, i would even say that the two things are polar opposites, since my questions arent rhetorical

mooka

01-06-2006, 07:58 PM

yes... i have to ask also, what is the point you are trying to prove erasmus?

GypsyPriestess

01-06-2006, 11:00 PM

Since you first posted this thread, I never thought I'd end up feeling sorry for you erasmus. But now I do. If you truly believe that love is nothing more than a byproduct of the biological urge to reproduce, and that one can "desensatize" oneself to it, you are officially one of the saddest people I've ever met. I still can't condone the prejudice and illogic you've put forth in this thread, but I do feel sorry for you. I'd think it would be a lonely life to live believing that.

mushie18

01-06-2006, 11:20 PM

If you truly believe that love is nothing more than a byproduct of the biological urge to reproduce, and that one can "desensatize" oneself to it, you are officially one of the saddest people I've ever met.
I don't think that's what he believes.. at least, not about straight people.

Erasmus70

01-06-2006, 11:45 PM

I dont think the physiological love and the emotions that follow it are 'all' there you can certainly find a higher love after that.
Heck.. there are people who show great acts of love for people they have never even met in person - or just met in person!
I think about the Pastors and Parents in the New Orleans 'Superdome' who gathered large groups of families and kids and then led the sections into songs and hymns.
Just amazing love happened in there.

But the biological and physiological impulses and bonds in a sexual relationship are most definately real.
I suggest that is exactly what gays experience and try to keep going even though they are not quite the intended combination.
Is there higher love added to this - sure.
Does it 'work right'.
I suggest that it rarely can or is done with a great deal of damage along the way.

BlackGuardXIII

01-06-2006, 11:53 PM

I read all E70's anti-gay posts, and I feel he isn't trying to prove a point, but to explain the 'truth', to teach us, and 'inshallah', save our souls. Gay is bad, mkay? This is his position. So, if I read him right, he want's to explain that 'truth' to those who he sees as misguided. I support gay rights, 100%, and I support Erasmus70's right to disapprove, but I differ in that I feel content to let others live their lives as they choose. If they are gay, right on, I accept them as they are. If being gay is wrong, which I don't think, then Erasmus70 will have to do better than what I have read so far if I am to change my view. Nothing he has said has in any way lessened the strength of the conviction of my pro-gay view.

TheMistress

01-07-2006, 02:14 AM

Erasmus70

01-07-2006, 04:11 AM

homoSEXUAL/heteroSEXUAL.. the word SEX meaning GENGER. Not sex/coitus.
Erasmus, I think your not getting the point. Maybe this is something that you will never understand, and thats ok. you dont have to understand homosexuality. Your striaght. So dont concern yourself with other peoples affairs. Live your life and let others live.
I love women, you love women.
lets rejoice in our similarties instead of dwelling on the differences.
Im suggesting that everyone is 'straight' and everyone is 'heterosexual' in that they are intended to be with a member of the opposite sex, sexually.
You 'Can' put a round peg in a square hole and you can even say 'look it fits' but that doesnt mean its what you 'Should' try and do.

Wheres the research for my suggestion?
Between your legs.
If you have a penis, testicles and produce sperm (along with a dozen other things specifically FOR a vagina) then that is called conclusive evidence where you are to be going.
Reverse that around for those with a vagina, womb, ovaries and what not.

Surprise.. Ovaries are not designed and exists for a hand!

[please do not interupt the conversation with exceptions to the rule as they only prove a rule exists in the first place. there are very very exceedingly rare examples of 'hermaphrodites' etc so please shut your piehole thanks]

BlackGuardXIII

01-07-2006, 05:40 AM

homoSEXUAL/heteroSEXUAL.. the word SEX meaning GENGER. Not sex/coitus.

Erasmus, dont concern yourself with other peoples affairs. Live your life and let others live.
I love women, you love women.
lets rejoice in our similarties instead of dwelling on the differences.

Bravo! Well put, thanks for the wise words, TheMistress. I try to find common ground with all people, though sometimes that is quite hard. I bet you a nickel that the member your post is intended for will not be able to accept that your sexuality is as normal as his. Not that that matters to me. I like Ben Franklin's advice quote, "Never give advice, the wise don't need it, and fools won't take it."

hipunk

01-07-2006, 06:31 AM

.
Erasamus70, your proof seems to revolve around your loathing of human genitalia. And thanks for the excellent exception to your ideas on gods plan, hermaphrodites, which aren't the only example that disproves your rule. There's a punk song with the chorus, "God doesn't always make the best god damned plans, now does he." It makes me laugh because it rings true, and is true of genitalia. Many animals have a tremendously difficult time copulating, to the point that most couplings fail to even pass seed.

Humans actually seem to be quite mismatched. The clitoris is placed out of the way, so that women require a hand in order to be stimulated to climax during sex. Also men with too long of a penis have done damage to the cervix. The anal cavity is much more accommodating. Men have a prostate gland, which is highly stimulated by anal sex. It is the only internal organ with such a response. There is absolutely no intelligent design reason for why it is so receptive to a stimulation that doesn't occur in male to female sex. Actually, the organ couldn't be better designed for male to male sex. I can attest to orgasms obtained by prostate stimulation alone.

You are groping at the terrible straws of bigotry. It is sad to witness your venom and hatred. What on earth did they do to you? You need help to get over it.
.

mushie18

01-07-2006, 07:35 AM

though they are not quite the intended combination
intended by who?

Erasmus70

01-07-2006, 09:53 AM

Humans actually seem to be quite mismatched.
No they dont. virtually all males can have successful intercourse with virtualy all females on the planet. So successfully that its considered 'really really incredible' and people constantly try or want to do it a lot.

The clitoris is placed out of the way, so that women require a hand in order to be stimulated to climax during sex.
Total nonsense.
Sounds like something you heard no a 'sexpert' radio show hosted by some lady.

Also men with too long of a penis have done damage to the cervix.
Total nonsense.
I already said beforehand that giving examples of people (in this case retarded or drug impaired people) only proves the rule.
The Cervix will loudly protest being bumped that hard and there is zero reason to continue doing it.
This is actually the very reason we have 'pain' sensations and they work perfectly in case of this exception.

The anal cavity is much more accommodating.
So wrong its not even funny.

Men have a prostate gland, which is highly stimulated by anal sex. It is the only internal organ with such a response.
No. You might have a psychological 'fetish' for this but in reality the prostate gland is an internal organ NOT INSIDE THE ANUS btw and I have no idea what exactly you mean by 'is the only internal organ with such a response'.
Huh?

There is absolutely no intelligent design reason for why it is so receptive to a stimulation that doesn't occur in male to female sex.

Well a doctor can enter your rectum and palpate the the prostate gland in such a way as to push out seminal fluid.
That is what is happening btw... its not an 'orgasm'.

Actually, the organ couldn't be better designed for male to male sex. I can attest to orgasms obtained by prostate stimulation alone.

I could go on a tear about how this is exactly what certain people have been wanting you and others to believe since the start of the 'Male Gspot' hoax/propaganda campaigns but...

.. You left out some horrible consequences here. While you might think its 'natural' to have a finger or erection push into the anus (which is not lubricating unless its by blood or feces?) then taking a sharp turn and by pushing throught the rectal lining and into the prostate gland - causing the seminal fluid to push itself out is all 'Normal'...
You should first know that there are some other problems - for starters, despite your belief a penis is made to fit into an anus, the penis does not have an ability to defend itself from fecal matter being pushed into it.
Its called 'bad'.
The acids in the rectum are also very bad for a penis but I suppose you can just deny that if you want.
Despite your belief that the anus is made for pooping AND being entered by a sperm depositing penis - it doesnt have ovaries.
In fact, semen is not beneficial to a rectum.
Worse yet - the lining of the rectum (which you insist should be pushed through) is absolutely not like the lining of a vagina.
It tears very easily actually and in case you were wondering this is why AIDS spread very quickly - semen easily getting into the blood stream through tears in the lining.

Anyways.. the whole feces thing should be enough to put the breaks on the theory of yours.
I think the fact there are no ovaries in the anus would be another problem for you there.

You are groping at the terrible straws of bigotry. It is sad to witness your venom and hatred. What on earth did they do to you? You need help to get over it.

This makes me wonder about your views of my position in life and where Im coming from?
You think Anal sex is 'natural' and even insinuate that it is superior to regular sex. You have even suggested that Im the one with a problem. That my thinking is 'unnatural'. So let me give you a chance to clarify your beliefs about my lifestyle:

Would you agree that There is something very unhealthy about Christianity?
If so:
Would you say The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death and When better understanding has become widespread - Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity?

Another question .. considering you believe homosexuality is not only protected by government (actually it is, I know) but maybe even to be condoned (ie Marriage etc) then would you see to it that the Churches cannot spread around teachings in conflict with the interests of the Government?
(if that was possible of course)

Your answers appreciated?

hailtothekingbaby

01-07-2006, 02:36 PM

Ahem..

http://loljesus.com/submissions/jesusloljesus_cuddle.jpg

hippypaul

01-07-2006, 03:39 PM

So your argument comes down to sex should be limited to the natural function of the anatomical parts. Ok that is a viewpoint - so that leaves us with penis in the vagina sex. No oral or anal sex for anybody. There are also sound infection control reasons (density of bacterial colonies on the hand vs. the sex organs) not to be having hand to sex organ contact. Also from an infection control standpoint oral kissing is a major disaster. That is what surgical masks are far. So down with kissing and masturbation. However, there are those STD’s to think about. The are spread by penis/vaginal sex. O but wait if we only have one sex partner each during out lifetime. That goes for each and everyone of you or it will not work. Then the STD’s will disappear. Now there is a certain amount of risk with each act of intercourse (especially once you have eliminated foreplay for health reasons) do not forget to keep your hands of those breasts also, there is some new information that mammograms may be harmful so we better not be playing with those either. I guess the only solution would be to limit sex to heterosexual vaginal intercourse done without foreplay only as needed for reproduction. Is that what you would like us to sign up for?

PS Since it is a quote from you, I would like to ask permission to add “a willing victim of those sorts” to my sig. I kind of like the ring of that.

SelfControl

01-07-2006, 06:11 PM

I personally wouldn't. But I can understand why people would. I'm not a parent myself (thank fuck), but I'm pretty sure that most people, if you asked them, would say they wanted a "normal" child. After that, it's just a question of how far you pursue that normality.

SelfControl

01-07-2006, 06:17 PM

I would cure it. It just goes against nature. I'm not bashing homosexuality but it just wasn't meant to be.
Perhaps. But you'd be going against nature by curing its defects anyway.

SelfControl

01-07-2006, 06:33 PM

Fleas aren't defects though, are they. More to my point, if there's one thing that characterises nature, it is its refusal to stick to one design, its tendency towards "defects" rather than direct copies. As I understand it, homosexuality is as much part of nature as an opposable thumb or a cleft palate. On those grounds, it seems facetious to declare something unnatural simply because it is undesireable.

It's not uncommon in a species, particularly an over-populated one, for an increase in those who do not reproduce. Nature even produces frogs whose genders change in accordance with what is beneficial to the population.

I'm not having a go or anything, but to me, the argument that homosexuality is unnatural seems like a dead end: not only do huge amounts of things human beings do could be considered unnatural by the same yardstick, the definition of "nature", "natural" etc. varies from person to person and from generation to generation.

SelfControl

01-07-2006, 06:51 PM

Men can't get men pregnant. Sex is for reproduction. Manipulate that statement all you want but dems is the facts. Case closed.
So you're that happy with your definition of what's natural then?

For the record, human beings aren't the only species who, in their natural environment and uninfluenced by outside agency, engage in recreational (i.e. non-reproductive) sex. So it wouldn't really be "manipulating" the statement to say that, in nature, sex isn't just for reproduction. In fact it seems that, whenever a population becomes dominant enough to have any spare time, they very often engage in "unproductive" variations of their "natural" behaviour.

But, as someone above said, if you think sex which doesn't at least attempt to make babies is unnatural and that unnatural things shouldn't happen, you're setting yourself up for a very grim existence.

SelfControl

01-07-2006, 07:07 PM

Same as a guy getting his rocks off inside your girlfriend's ass, then?

hipunk

01-07-2006, 07:33 PM

Getting your rocks off in your boyfriend's ass is your business but does no good for the rest of us earthly inhabitants.

Right, and it does absolutely no harm to the rest of you earthly inhabitants. God didn't put me on this earth to satisfy you. But if gay makes me happy, maybe that makes me a more pleasant person and that means I'll stop and help you pick up your groceries when your bag tears in the parking lot, rather than honk my horn and laugh. And that is good for the rest of you earthly inhabitants. (oh, and btw, thanks for counting me out of the race.)

You people confuse power and control with happiness. You believe that if you have complete control over my life that god will smile on you and you will be happy. That's just sick. Life doesn't work that way. You never find peace and happiness like that.

hippypaul

01-07-2006, 09:48 PM

CAESAR (recovering his self-possession). Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

ButterCupDaisy

01-07-2006, 10:00 PM

I don't understand the point of this thread.. Why would anyone change the dna of their child. Let them be who they are supposed to be; As "god" intended.

Agreed, God mad everything I think even if some people think it's good or bad.

hippypaul

01-07-2006, 10:17 PM

Right, and it does absolutely no harm to the rest of you earthly inhabitants. God didn't put me on this earth to satisfy you. But if gay makes me happy, maybe that makes me a more pleasant person and that means I'll stop and help you pick up your groceries when your bag tears in the parking lot, rather than honk my horn and laugh. And that is good for the rest of you earthly inhabitants. (oh, and btw, thanks for counting me out of the race.)

You people confuse power and control with happiness. You believe that if you have complete control over my life that god will smile on you and you will be happy. That's just sick. Life doesn't work that way. You never find peace and happiness like that.
moral theories are teleological theories that claim that human actions, motives, institutions, distributions of social benefits/burdens, and the like, are right if, and only if, they maximize overall happiness or welfare.

I think that J.S. Mill was the big guy behind this but I am not sure.

hippypaul

01-07-2006, 10:26 PM

Yep it was John Stuart Mill finely dug up the quote

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure

TheMistress

01-08-2006, 06:19 AM

I like Ben Franklin's advice quote, "Never give advice, the wise don't need it, and fools won't take it."Now I love that quote too, thanks for sharing.
And
Erasmus, I don't care if you think that Im not doing what I am biologically designed to do.
hell I hardly ever do what I am supposed to be doing.

You see the problem that I have is that you cant get past the sex. sex. sex sex. thats all you talk about.

Im a lesbian b/c I love a women. I do not love men in the way that I love a women.

When I talk about the fact that I am gay I never refer to sex. I can and have achieved orgasms with men and women, Ive even enjoyed sex with men and women. Ive had bad sex with men, and bad sex with women.

I am gay because of my inability to love men.

you dont understand that.You cant get past the fact that the person I love and make love to has the same who-ha as me. That we cant make babies.

fine.
I can get past the fact that you dont understand this.
but dont worry, I accept you for your shortcommings.

Erasmus70

01-08-2006, 07:26 AM

I am gay because of my inability to love men.

I think this is the point Im getting at.
When we decide that there is a third option available to be had - people will end up there sometimes.
As far as I can see - this seems to be more true for women who get into lesbianism.
(but in general for both).

One thing that would be nice is if you dropped this pretense that sexual relations are somehow 'beside the point'.
Bullshit.
That pretty much IS where you discern the difference between yourself and 'a hetero' and the very reason you call yourself 'a gay'.

If you were NOT having sexual relations (or the desire to) then you would not even distinguish yourself and neither would the rest of society, including most everyone who calls themselves 'gays'.

If you showed up at a big gay community event and explained how you and your female roomate have a tremendously loving relationship and are sworn Spinsters and take care of each other - however - you have no interest in sex with women .. then you are not a lesbian or a gay.

But anyways... "I am gay because of my inability to love men."
This is kinda sad to me and I know a lot of people have serious problems with this nowadays.
I still suggest that just because you cant get the square peg through the square hole means you should fool yourself into believing making a round peg 'seem to get in there' is a valid option?
Thats what your doing isnt it?

Beyond-the-Clouds

01-08-2006, 07:35 AM

If you were NOT having sexual relations (or the desire to) then you would not even distinguish yourself and neither would the rest of society, including most everyone who calls themselves 'gays'.
Oh, bullshit. I have no fucking desire to fucking fuck with anyone, for fucking health reasons. What the fuck does that make me? A fucking tree? Sex has to be pleasurable for humans to do it. But sex is a means to an end. Just getting your rocks off does nothing for the human species. Getting your rocks off in your boyfriend's ass is your business but does no good for the rest of us earthly inhabitants. Oh, bovine fesis. They're coming up with new ways to get chicks pregnent without sex, and the world has too fucking many people anyways. How you like them fucking apples?
Btw, I wish I could go bisexual so I would have twice the options.

Erasmus70

01-08-2006, 07:45 AM

I dont think I have ever seen you swear that much Clouds.
A real ripper you went on there.
Its what I do.

TopNotchStoner

01-08-2006, 09:17 AM

I posted this in another thread a while back, and it seems to be relevant here:

I'm not gay, and I don't understand how any man could be attracted to another man when women are so beautiful. I also don't see how WOMEN could be attracted to men when women are so beautiful lol. But homosexuality is certainly not an illness. It's a preference, and should be respected as a preference. It doesn't hurt anyone and I don't see how you allow yourself to be bothered by it. You don't like it, fine, but don't say that people are sick because of their sexual preference. I find it odd that this is a site dedicated to individuality, yet you create a thread denouncing people's right to pursue their individual happiness through their particular sexual preference.

You are right about one thing though, homosexuality IS all in the mind, but the same can be said about heterosexuality.

Erasmus70

01-08-2006, 10:23 AM

Actually, Heterosexuality is not just in the mind but entirely apparent in a signifigant portion of the human body.
Women in particular have a very large amount of their bodies energy and time (and space) dedicated to quite a bit of 'machinery' that is all just waiting for an ejaculating penis.
If not - its a helluva big waste of time, space and energy if its not going to be used for that and the natural consequences of the ejaculating penis.

So here is the dilema - IF the lesbianism is 'perfectly normal' and she is meant to think and act on lesbian desires...
Then her womb and ovaries are the mistake.
The 'Illness' so to speak?
Lesbians are born with a tremendous physical burden for absoltely no reason at all.

So what is wrong here - the body or the mind?

mooka

01-08-2006, 12:46 PM

yes, but if she's happy being a lesbian and you are happy being straight.... THEN WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?

i can see the point you're trying to make but it seems futile since ultimately, people's sexuality is their own business and not really dependant on others acceptance of that.....

SelfControl

01-08-2006, 12:46 PM

It's probably easier to remove someone's ovaries than it is to change their sexual orientation. If I was a lesbian (and I'm never going to be) I'd be quite happy to donate my ovaries to someone who was actually going to use them. I certainly don't have much use for my semen.

mooka

01-08-2006, 12:52 PM

and besides, say you did manage to convince a majority of people in this discussion that homosexuality was not 'normal'... so what? people will still be gay if that is what they feel is right for them, no amount of anyones personal logic will affect that

...

this is like arguing that no one should be vegetarian because our canines are evidence that we are designed to eat meat... e.g. pointless

SelfControl

01-08-2006, 12:55 PM

Erasmus70

01-08-2006, 02:05 PM

Like I said, I think it's facetious to argue this issue on the grounds of whether homosexuality is "natural", as the point where something ceases to be "natural" is entirely subjective.

I think it's more relevant to ask: if a parent found out that their kid was going to be gay, and wanted to change that, would their reasons for doing so be legitimate?
I do happen to believe everyone has a 'natural' disease they are born with, oft dubbed 'The Human Condition' and known in Church circles as 'inherint Sin nature'.

I think your second paragraph asks the better (and on-topic) question.

If you could change your childs sexual orientation from 'gay' to 'straight' then what would be the reasoning?

I would most definatly see the desire for a family (Grandchildren) would be one of the main reasons.
That one has social, emotional and even financial security issues all over it.

Another reason would be statistics indicating that homosexuals (at least males) have a very high murder, suicide and disease rate.
Not to mention hard drug abuse and addiction being very high for these groups.
Im saying that would be cited as a reason for removing the 'gay gene' or taking the hormonal/medical therapy to change them into 'heterosexuals'.

hippypaul

01-08-2006, 02:47 PM

Any group that is seen by the majority as being abnormal or less than human has a high incidence of murder, suicide, drug abuse, STD’s, and drug abuse in the “studies” produced by the majority. See the “scientific” studies of blacks in the early 1900, of the poor in Victorian England, or of hippies in the 1960’s. Subcultures are always credited with all of the negative behaviors defined by the dominant culture. Some of this data is true. Some of the behaviors happen as a result of the persecution of the majority. However, most of the data is bullshit. How would we know if gay folks have a higher rate of anything? No two studies can agree within an order of magnitude how many gay people there are in the US. So how in the hell or you going to define a rate with out even having a denominator that you can trust.

PS I am still awaiting your reply to my request.

SelfControl

01-08-2006, 02:52 PM

This is what I thought. The question is, is it ethical to write out a trait that does little implicit harm simply because a society dislikes it? With the exception of grandchildren, most of the negative factors you describe (emotional problems, suicide rate, drug abuse, not sure about some of them) are more a product of our society's attitude towards homosexuality than of the trait itself.

The issue of continuing the species is one we've all heard, but the most obvious counter-argument would be that the planet is already grossly over-populated (I recently heard a scientist say in an interview that he believed our planet could support 2-3 billion without too much trouble) and that even if it weren't, 90% of people would still be heterosexual. If homosexuality really is genetic, it's not a gene that is easily passed on, and it certainly isn't going to run riot through the population (how could it?)

Again, I'm not disputing what you're saying. The reasons you've given are the same ones I was thinking of. Where you and I perhaps differ is on whether those reasons are themselves legitimate.

A comparable argument would be with mixed-race children: the parents know that the child will be mixed-race, and that certain societal factors may make the child's life difficult. Is it therefore acceptable to "cure" mixed-race children?

Erasmus70

01-08-2006, 03:23 PM

TheMistress

01-08-2006, 06:38 PM

hahhahahhhahaa
"Overprotective Fathers might want to turn their girls into Lesbians for the sole purpose of never having to go through the anxiety and nervousness of a daughter starting to date teenage boys."

so are you suggesting that parents might try to raise there children to be gay???
thats very funny to me. what kind of sick individual would do something like that? they might turm there children into murders instead of homosexuals!(ever read about Ed Gein?)

"it could just as easily be considered very desireable and even 'trendy' "
Now this comment I have to give some merit too. Because I have noticed among some women it has become trendy to be bisexual. It makes the guys want them more because they think they can have threesomes with them.
These girls are only looking for attention, and it fucking pisses me off. It makes the gay/bisexual population look bad. Makes us all look like pitiful attention seekers.

but please dont get mixed up between the fakers and the real ones. We are discussing the real ones here.

and i wanted to add that Im not sure that I believe that being gay is genetic.
maybe it is somewhat responsible, but I think that environmental factors play a key role. example:

My dad treated me and my mom like shit. I was an only child..I never had a good relationship with a man (like father-daughter) when I was young, I never learnt how to love my father. I thought that is was wierd when I was 14 I heard my friends dad tell him he loved him, and I started to laugh, I thought it was so wierd..."your dad tells you he loves you?!" I remember saying "thats wierd". My friend told me that his dad was normal, that mine was abnormal. Now I treat men like garbage, I treat men like I seen my dad treat my mother. I really am heartless when it comes to men. But I can love women whole heartedly. I think Im a lesbian because of the shitty why my dad treated me. Now not everyone becomes a lesbian because there daddy was an asshole. But Im just saying I think that this plays a factor with me. Maybe something genetic is at work to.. like a pre-dispostion brought on by environmental factors..

another example the movie Gia. It shows early on a shady relationship with her father. and a strong inclination to the mother.

and many lesbians that I know have been molested. and now they distrust men, even go as far to say that they are scared of men.

I dont know about male homosexuality. Im not a man. Maybe a male would like to share???

really Im not too concerned. Im very happy with loving women. Women are beautiful in a way that a man can never be to me.

SelfControl

01-08-2006, 08:00 PM

I dont accept (entirely) that the murder, violent domestic abuse, suicide and drug addcition rates among the 'homosexual' demographic are a result of them being victimised or treated harshly.
I suggest much of it has to do with willful infatuation with dangerous activities, self-medicatiing as a way to deal with their problems and degrees of depression brought on by the emotional conflicts resulting from their behavior (independant of any outside forces or even knowledge).
I'm afraid I can only back this up with my own experience, (not that you're troubling yourself with much in the way of evidence) but most homosexuals I've encountered are anything but infatuated with dangerous activities, wilfully or otherwise, unless you count dressing for shit as an extreme sport.

As for the emotional conflicts, you seem to have a cyclic form of logic here; are you saying that we take drugs because of emotional problems, or that we have emotional problems because we take drugs?

The rampant hard drug abuse is probably the one Id be most concerned about and it goes on in cities and cultures where homosexuality is not only accepted but celebrated.
I'd like to check your sources on this "rampant hard drug abuse". I've not seen it.

So anyways... I had also thought that it could just as easily be considered very desireable and even 'trendy' to have children given the gayness too.
Especially considering that homosexual men are very popular on TV shows and as movie characters - many expecting mothers might want a few boys but at least one of them who will be fashionable, tidy and have a hilarious gay personality.
It might even be a status symbol.
I suggest you test this theory. Ask a few prospective mothers if, given the choice, they would rather have a gay child than a straight one. See what answer you get. Report back. I'd be very surprised if the results bore out that theory. There may be those who have children simply as a shallow status symbol, but I very much doubt they represent anything more than the most minute fraction of all parents. Homosexuality may have become more widely tolerated, but it is far from fashionable; otherwise everyone would be doing it, and I can tell you from my experience that everyone isn't.

Overprotective Fathers might want to turn their girls into Lesbians for the sole purpose of never having to go through the anxiety and nervousness of a daughter starting to date teenage boys.
Again, I really very much doubt that is the case.

While your input is appreciated on this matter, I think it would be beneficial if you refrained from complete speculation, or at least found some statistical basis for any argument that refers to "rampant hard drug abuse", for example. If it's as rampant as you say it is it shouldn't be hard to come by.

Beyond-the-Clouds

01-08-2006, 09:26 PM

Okay, here me out on this. If everyone goes gay, are you with me so far here? Okay, if everyone goes gay, then dudes could go wank and put their sperm in a sperm bank. Now stay with me here people, stay with me. Then for whatever strange reason if a woman wants to have, oh lets say a baby, then she could go get some of that sperm and use it, nome sayin'? I gave this example before, but I guess no one got past the f bombs.

verseau_miracle

01-08-2006, 09:38 PM

cure!?...Im not gay, but i can see this ones ridiculous. Thats like asking to be "cured" of having blue eyes or brown hair, or prefering chocolate ice cream to vanilla.

Anyone can be unhappy with who they were born as, whether theyre gay or not. Look at all those having plastic surgery. But we were born this way for a reason, and must learn to live and grow as us.

Xx

SelfControl

01-08-2006, 09:44 PM

Agreed on that one. If a cure was available, I think anyone unhappy with their sexuality should be allowed to rectify it. I know a few gay guys who would prefer to be straight (and vice versa), but to be honest, I don't think it'd actually be that popular.

mushie18

01-08-2006, 10:16 PM

but to be honest, I don't think it'd actually be that popular.
agreed.

Erasmus, do you believe that we simply don't want to love/be attracted to the other sex, or that we aren't capable of love the opposite sex?

Because as themistress stated, there were environmental factors that may have played a role in her sexuality. Do you just believe that she is ignoring her inclinations towards men?

In my case, I don't think it has ever been a question of my environment. I have a great relationship with my father, we have our differences, but we still enjoy activities together. I also had a great relationship with my mother. As long as I can remember I have been attracted to men. Even in elementary school I would have "crushes" on boys. I never really realized this difference until the end of my elementary days. When I got into middle school, I tried to repress my homosexual feelings, and attempted to have feelings for girls. Every single relationship I have had with a girl since then had been fake, I am unable to love them. Sexually, there is nothing there either, It just doesn't feel right.

Are you suggesting that we, homosexuals, should ignore our attraction/ability to love the same sex, and marry a person of the opposite sex?

SelfControl

01-08-2006, 10:21 PM

agreed.

Erasmus, do you believe that we simply don't want to love/be attracted to the other sex, or that we aren't capable of love the opposite sex?

Because as themistress stated, there were environmental factors that may have played a role in her sexuality. Do you just believe that she is ignoring her inclinations towards men?

In my case, I don't think it has ever been a question of my environment. I have a great relationship with my father, we have our differences, but we still enjoy activities together. I also had a great relationship with my mother. As long as I can remember I have been attracted to men. Even in elementary school I would have "crushes" on boys. I never really realized this difference until the end of my elementary days. When I got into middle school, I tried to repress my homosexual feelings, and attempted to have feelings for girls. Every single relationship I have had with a girl since then had been fake, I am unable to love them. Sexually, there is nothing there either, It just doesn't feel right.

Are you suggesting that we, homosexuals, should ignore our attraction/ability to love the same sex, and marry a person of the opposite sex?
I don't think that is what s/he's saying, no.

Erasmus70

01-08-2006, 11:15 PM

Im genuinely interested in the replies.
Actually Im a little bit surprised because I didnt expect such quality discussion.
I will try and do a little more research this weekend and get back to all five of you with something more substantial.

mushie18

01-09-2006, 04:39 AM

GypsyPriestess

01-09-2006, 09:41 AM

So anyways... I had also thought that it could just as easily be considered very desireable and even 'trendy' to have children given the gayness too.Considering how horrified most parents are to find out that their child is gay(lesbian/bisexual) I doubt seriously that it would be "trendy" to have you child modified to be gay. Unfortunately, the truly accepting parent is a rare animal indeed.

hippypaul

01-09-2006, 03:57 PM

Im really sorry but for some reason your posts have been boring the hell out of me lately so I just skim them.
What was your request again?

Was it one where you took something I said - then rephrased it, put it in a slightly different context and then asked me to 'confirm' this was my opinion or not?Well apparently all of our comments are not as interesting as you say (grin) The post in question was my request to add one of your "comments" about me to my sig as I rather liked it although I am sure you did not intend for me too. Being as it was a quote from you I (as is customary) asked your permission to use it.

TheMistress

01-09-2006, 10:45 PM

hippypaul, what was the comment???

BlackGuardXIII

01-10-2006, 09:12 AM

I would cure it. It just goes against nature. I'm not bashing homosexuality but it just wasn't meant to be.
I don't see how people who are gay, just the same as straight people, both of them which nature has clearly created, can be deemed 'against nature'. I feel that by their very existence, they are evidence that nature is not against them. They are, in my view, a part of nature, and therefore, not able to be anything but 'with nature'.
If I was told my someone that I 'wasn't meant to be', I would have trouble seeing that as not 'bashing' me.
I would be ecstatic if bigotry did not exist, and I wish it didn't, but, it does. So, though I despise it, I cannot state that I believe it wasn't meant to be. Two people who find love, and connect and bond with each other, is a blessing. It is a wonderful, lovely thing, that can only be good for both of them. It soothes loneliness, and brings joy to their hearts when that was lacking. Whether they are gay or not is totally immaterial. It is a good thing, and is doing nobody else any harm whatsoever, which something that I cannot say about bigotry.

SelfControl

01-10-2006, 11:46 AM

Considering how horrified most parents are to find out that their child is gay(lesbian/bisexual) I doubt seriously that it would be "trendy" to have you child modified to be gay. Unfortunately, the truly accepting parent is a rare animal indeed.
I think it'd be true to say that parents either don't want gay kids, or don't care one way or the other. I doubt many would (for example) actively encourage their kids to experiment with their sexuality, let alone choose to have a gay child. My parents were more concerned about me joining an overtly promiscuous and emotionally shallow culture (something which, in retrospect, I'm glad they discouraged me from) than they were with the actual mechanics of my sex life; in other words, they didn't if I was gay or straight, as long as I wasn't a slut.

BlackGuardXIII

01-10-2006, 01:12 PM

Considering how horrified most parents are to find out that their child is gay(lesbian/bisexual) I doubt seriously that it would be "trendy" to have you child modified to be gay. Unfortunately, the truly accepting parent is a rare animal indeed.
I so agree... trendiness must be the worst motive there is for a parent to try to change a child. I feel kids are of their parents, but do not belong to them. They are a responsibility, and to nurture, support, encourage, assist, and teach them is wonderful. But to force them to be what you think they should be, or coerce them into changing to fit your model of them... that is not my concept of love. Loving who they are, unconditionally, and accepting them wholly, as hard as that may be, shows them respect, and says that they are okay. That is hard for most people to do with strangers, let alone their kids. Kids might be the toughest people to resist trying to change that one will ever meet. They may be a lot like us, but they are not us, and shouldn't be.

hippypaul

01-10-2006, 03:06 PM

hippypaul, what was the comment???
On 01-06-2006, Erasmus 70 stated “btw.. I dont hate anyone.. except maybe people who are deliberately deceiving people.
That not you though.. you are a willing victim of those sorts as near as I can tell.”

I rather liked the sound of “a willing victim of those sorts” and have been asking for permission to use it in my sig. I think it has a sort of ring to it.

BTW I love your sig

TheMistress

01-11-2006, 02:05 AM

LoL it is pretty neat sounding:)
Thanks, I like you lil bunny thing, I see it all the time, its real cute!

Erasmus70

01-11-2006, 07:25 AM

On 01-06-2006, Erasmus 70 stated “btw.. I dont hate anyone.. except maybe people who are deliberately deceiving people.
That not you though.. you are a willing victim of those sorts as near as I can tell.”
I rather liked the sound of “a willing victim of those sorts” and have been asking for permission to use it in my sig. I think it has a sort of ring to it.
BTW I love your sig
Oh.
By all means feel free to put that in your signature.
Im not sure if you are asking me but feel free.
Its appropriate.

Hey, its funny because I was spending some time thinking through this conversation here.
One of the things apparent to me is that, like most things, there are always a multifold of issues that accounts for our behaviors.
One of the funniest 'Gaythink' catchphrase rhetorics in the last decade was to say something like:
"What.. you think I just woke up one morning and say Hey.. I think I will be gay now".
Of course, thats ridiculous and there is almost nothing we do that would ever start like that.
Nobody 'wakes up one day' and says 'Hey.. I think Im gonna be an Alcoholic/Anorexic/Chain smoker/Public Servant..."

We have gone over the possibility that it is a genetic defect in which babies are just 'born' as some sort of third gender or some different kind of human.

There is also the classic psychological issues here - the distant or absent Father, the domineering mother.

The funny thing was that it was an episode of 'The Family Guy' which grabbed and worked out something I have been looking at - and did so better than any internet link or study etc.
The basic Premise is that Meg is mistaken to be a 'Lesbian'.
She doesnt think she is a lesbian but.. they take her to the lesbian group in school.
She wants to have friends and be accepted so.. she just 'becomes a lesbian'.

Now this makes me think about Hipaul (or is it Hipunk) who describes the very common 'gay child' story in which he remembers incidents where he was doign things now associated with a 'gay man'.
Hanging out with girls.
Being at their tea parties.
By the sounds of it, many of the older boys at school, maybe the teachers and maybe even his own mother just decided he was 'like a gay boy'.
Maybe his father is a classic 'Hank Hill' and thinks the boy is 'a gay' because he doesnt like Hunting or is gentle or maybe even because he is artistic.

In reality, the boy has never even thought about wanting to have sex with another man.
Never even considered such a thing.
But
Eventually he just begins to take on that identity and even look for things to confirm it.
During some sexual embarrassment/discovery gets a boner while changing with another boy.
Someone tells him that "if you are gay then you get boners looking at naked men'.
Now he is even more convinced that its always been true.

If you want my opinion -this has got more to do with people 'becoming gays' than even the other causes like the Dominant Mother or this other theory that some 'different hormones and brain sensors' are somehow mixed up.

Of course, I would be sure there are always several factors that are going on at the same time.. and interconnect and given the moral situation - then theres your explanation more than anything else.

BlackGuardXIII

01-11-2006, 09:03 AM

I know gay men who have been gay all their lives, they just didn't know it for a few years. Everything clicked and made sense when it came out later in life, all the behaviours that were just somehow slightly different than the other boys were, in one revelation, solved. I am quite sure that there are as many reasons someone is gay as there are gay people, but from my observations, limited as they may be, the concept Erasmus returns to in many different forms, which is that some event, experience, trauma, or condition in ones youth is presumed to have 'made' someone gay. I doubt that. Maybe in rare cases. I have a different image of the biological aspect too, in that I do not consider any possible genetic predisposition to be a defect. No more than brown hair, blue eyes, and big ears would be.
I feel that the important point is not how, or why someone is gay. The important thing is that they are gay, and it is about accepting them just the way they are that I see as the good choice. I don't see any reason not to.
I chuckled when I read the 'boner in the change room' comment.
I'd have to say that if you got a boner from looking at the other boys, you might want to really get in touch with your sexuality. I know I never did, but I do think I have a little bit of 'gay' in me. Isn't that fabulous? Must have been from watching too much Monty Python as a kid....

Erasmus70

01-11-2006, 09:31 AM

Its extremely common and actually its 'typical' for children, around the age of five to go through a period of intense sexual curiousity.
This usually lasts for just about one year and then they do not return to the interest again until they hit puberty.
Parents and professionals will tell you that this is interesting because its a 'asexual' sexual curiousity.
In other words - they dont really know or care about who is who and for example - two boys may examine each others peni no more or less or differently than a boy and a girl.
They maybe be siblings, cousins or strangers.
They want to know why ones pee-pee is missing or if they all have bumholes and if they can stick things in them.

Where I see a problem and a clue is with the 'Hank Hill' or 'Will@Grace loving Mum' who discovers this and then decides 'AHA.. my boy is 'a gay' and I just found proof of it'.
Wrong.
No more than the example of cousins are 'Born Incestuous' or the boy and the girl are discovered to be 'born to be Doctors' becuase they were playing such.

Later, someone using homosexuality to either compensate for a trauma or to indulge in easy sexual gratifications (and I think both happen at once most times) can look back on this period and say "See... I was born as 'a gay' and that proves it right there".
Or
"Well its true I was artistic and gentle and did not like hunting so .. that 'goes to show' accordign to my Dad"
Bullshit I say.

SelfControl

01-11-2006, 11:22 AM

Good job those people only exist in any quantity on TV then, otherwise you'd be livid 24 hours a day.

If you want my opinion -this has got more to do with people 'becoming gays' than even the other causes like the Dominant Mother or this other theory that some 'different hormones and brain sensors' are somehow mixed up.

At the risk of pandering to "Gaythink" (can you elaborate on this term? does it relate to those awful T-shirts?), I'd be more inclined to trust homosexuals on this one. Personally I never had any kind of moment of revelation, didn't talk to anyone about my sexuality until long after I knew what it was, and have been gay literally as long as I can remember. I guess there is the odd occasion where people feel pressure into choosing an orientation based on childhood experience. But I think most people would have the sense to notice whether they had the odd "boner in the changing rooms" moment or continuous and heartfelt homosexual drives and desires. The former category may suffer some confusion, but I can honestly say that when you've never been attracted to a woman in your life, it's difficult to entertain the idea that you've just been fooling yourself for the past 10 years or whatever.

hippypaul

01-11-2006, 11:30 AM

Erasmus70

01-11-2006, 01:07 PM

Erasmus70 just for the record do you think that being gay is a bad thing. I realize that is getting away from the "hypothetical" tone of the discussion. In addition, it is of course somewhat of an impertinent question so you may well not answer. Nevertheless, there is such an undertone of dislike in all your comments that I wanted to ask you straight out.

I think its psychologicaly unhealthy, in major part due to stress on a persons physiology as well.
Will you die from it - I dont think so.
Will you cease to cope with daily activities - No.
Will you go insane - Probably not.

Do I think it will deprive a person at a good chance for a healthy and positive natural relationship with someone of the opposite sex and is that a crying shame - Yes.

Will it contribute to ones overall unhappiness level and limit their potential.
Yes.

Will it inspire hate, intolerance, petty vindictiveness and spite in many people - Yes.

Are some of the best intended, good-hearted and loving people on the planet engaging in homosexuality - Yes.

Are some of the sickest, truly disturbed and downright nasty people engaging in it - boy howdy is that true!

Is Pat Robertson a freakshow - Yes.

lietchi

01-11-2006, 01:47 PM

I'd be laughing at this thread (and E70 in particular) if it weren't so damned sad...

No, I would not "cure" my child.

A few points I'd like to make...
I believe homo/bisexuality is partly genetic, partly inborn, partly caused by environment/upbringing etc.
Inborn does not mean genetic, as there are other factors to a foetus' development in the womb. Genetic does not mean that there is one specific gene responsible, nor does it mean that it is a genetic defect.
People do not become gay because other people perceive some of their behaviors as gay (for example playing with dolls instead of cars). I used to play with cars, Lego and a little bit with dolls. Did my parents think "oh, she's bisexual"? No. Do I justify my own bisexuality with it? No. (I don't even believe in boys &cars and girls &dolls prejudice, I'm sure some straight boys want to play with dolls too)

I am bisexual myself. That means I am attracted emotionally AND sexually to both genders. Yes, sex is a factor. But love also is. Love is not the same thing as friendship, and moreover, there are several kinds of love, but E70 seems to be uncapable of making that distinction... Love is not caused by having sex. A person's behavior does not determine their sexual preference. I was bisexual before I ever had sex.
I am not a drug addict, nor traumatised and trying to cope, or whatever...

We cannot choose who we are attracted to... We can choose how we act on those attractions, but to act against our attractions will only make us unhappy.
I have had a healthy and positive relationship with a girl. A healthy and positive relationship doesn't depend on the gender of the partner, it depends on if the two people involved are emotionally and sexually compatible and attracted to each other.

I resent the use of the word natural... Do you find cameras or televisions naturally occurring in nature? No. Do you find same-sex sexual behavior in nature? Yes. Do you find non-reproductive sex in nature? Yes (dolphins for example).
I find the idea of "sex is purely for reproduction" very sad for those who believe it... If you're infertile, I guess you shouldn't have sex? Oh dear, God must have made a mistake, if he gave infertile people sex organs and the possibility to orgasm, but not the ability to conceive...
Anuses are not meant to be stimulated by penises (or fingers)? Beards are not "meant" to be shaved. Ears are not "meant" to support glasses....

Oh well, don't know why I bother replying, pointless no doubt...

BlackGuardXIII

01-11-2006, 09:20 PM

Will it inspire hate, intolerance, petty vindictiveness and spite in many people - Yes.
Are some of the best intended, good-hearted and loving people on the planet engaging in homosexuality - Yes.
Is Pat Robertson a freakshow - Yes.

I can agree with those 3 points. The rest of them had a strong anti-gay sentiment to them, and I don't agree with them.
btw, Erasmus, thanks for the early childhood psychology stage information, it sounded quite believable. I still feel that being gay is unlikely to be strongly influenced by that though, if it is something all of us go through. I remember wondering where girls peed out of, all I saw was hair.
As for the stress, that is from lack of acceptance by others mostly, so it is something that is wrong with other people, fix them, and then they won't cause so much stress for gays.
It is clear that a gay person is not accepted as being normal by you, but is somehow 'wrong', and needs to be fixed so you can accept him. I just accept them as they are, good enough, live and let live. Be happy.
The point about gays being deprived of a +ve, healthy, natural hetero relationship sounds the same as saying that heteros are being deprived of a +ve healthy natural homosexual relationship.
If they are truly gay, they will likely not miss it.
Limited potential, not in IQ testing at least, where gays score higher than us slow straight folk, on average.
Most limitations are imposed on them by intolerant others.
The boy howdy point has me looking for a motive for the choice of terminology, tone and phrasing. It is just as true a statement for straight people, so I don't understand the point of it. Bad straight folk? boy howdy yeah!

BlackGuardXIII

01-11-2006, 09:34 PM

I'd be laughing at this thread (and E70 in particular) if it weren't so damned sad...

No, I would not "cure" my child.
Oh well, don't know why I bother replying, pointless no doubt...

I liked all of your points, very well said. Particularly pointing out that you were bi before you ever had sex. That seems to be what was the case with a gay man I grew up with, he was gay long before puberty, I think.
Natural is such a loaded word.... to me being gay is natural, and not unhealthy in itself. Saying you're gay when you are in the wrong place could be very unhealthy.
I know why you replied. You felt the need to share some wisdom. It was far from pointless to me. Thanks, and if it wasn't so sad, I wouldn't be laughing, I would be furiously enraged by how mean, unfair, and harmful some of the traditional biases are.

lietchi

01-11-2006, 10:00 PM

Yeah, the laughing bit is ambiguous... Laughter and tears, they can be real close together...
Thanks for your appreciation... :)

SelfControl

01-11-2006, 10:05 PM

Just going to go through Erasmus' Q&A and ask some Qs which I feel follow a logical discourse. This is not a witch-hunt, and I would prefer it if anyone not interested in contributing kept out of the matter. If he/she feels like A-ing it would be just peachy.

I think its psychologicaly unhealthy, in major part due to stress on a persons physiology as well.
Where you do you imagine that stress comes from? Do you think it would be more beneficial to ignore or "deal with" that stress than it would be to attempt to identify and modify its source?

Will it contribute to ones overall unhappiness level and limit their potential.
Yes.

Will it inspire hate, intolerance, petty vindictiveness and spite in many people - Yes.
Is the onus to modify ones behaviour on the subject of petty vindictiveness, or on the petty and vindictive?

Are some of the best intended, good-hearted and loving people on the planet engaging in homosexuality - Yes.

Are some of the sickest, truly disturbed and downright nasty people engaging in it - boy howdy is that true!

Does this prove anything other than that there is no direct correlation between moral depravity and homosexuality? Do you believe that a disproportionate number of either category are homosexuals, compared to the population as a whole?

Do I think it will deprive a person at a good chance for a healthy and positive natural relationship with someone of the opposite sex and is that a crying shame - Yes.
Is there anything healthy or positive about a loveless relationship?

Is Pat Robertson a freakshow - Yes.
Well duh.

hippypaul

01-11-2006, 11:39 PM

As several people pointed out far better than I did. The problems with being Gay are caused by public opinion. People who are Black and People who are of small-scale religions beliefs have similar problems. As SelfControl said so well the onus to modify the behavior should be on society. I also found the difference between "Yes" and "boy howdy is that true!” to be telling.

SelfControl

01-12-2006, 11:43 AM

On could argue that who you choose to sleep with and how open you are about that is as much an issue of freedom of expression as the right to conduct oneself within a chosen religion.

If one were so inclined.

BlackGuardXIII

01-12-2006, 02:04 PM

'So, how does a man figure out if he is gay or not?'
'Well, if the answer wasn't instantaneous for you, you're probably at least a bit gay."
Okay, it needs work.
Why I would not 'cure' homosexuality
Live and let live'
No harm, no foul.
It's none of my business.
All men are created equal.
Let it be.
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Love is all you need.
It takes every kind of people.

Silly Angel

01-12-2006, 07:03 PM

Wow this entire thread got ridiculously out of hand. Why is it that every time someone asks an honest question, simply wanting to see other peoples' viewpoints, they get attacked? In the beginning of this thread, Erasmus70 did not insult anyone, he did not express any opinion on the matter. He simply presented a hypothetical situation (which is entirely possible) and asked for people to think about it and give their opinion on how the world would be affected and what you as individuals would choose to do if that situation ever presented itself. Suddenly everyone was percieving him as this nazi asshole who wants to eliminate homosexuality as whole. Give me a break. I do realize that later on after he had been challenged and attacked and completely misunderstood, that he brought things down to a more personal level and lost his cool, but so would anyone else in the same situation. The original topic was rarely addressed and when it was, the defensive argument transformed into a scientific debate.

Here is my response to the original questions proposed:

IF a single gene is isolated that decides the sexual orientation of a person, then I wouldn't even THINK to have the test run on my child. My first reason is that by simply proving that it's entirely genetic, we have then defeated EVERY defense people throw out for why homosexuality is wrong. If your homosexuality is something genetically predetermined, then you have made no wrong choice. You are completely unaccountable. You have made no decision in the matter, you simply are (which is what I believe anyway, but that is not the discussion at hand here.) Another reason I would not choose to test or alter or whatever is that by removing this gay-causing gene, how do you know that you would not be robbing your child of any sexual attraction at all? They may not be homosexual anymore, but they weren't heterosexual to begin with, what if then now have no sexual desire whatsoever? What if you have just taken away any sexual attraction they might have had in them? How cruel. And to choose to abort a child is horrendous to begin with, and people do it for many petty reasons. I wouldn't put it past the majority of people to abort a fetus after finding out that it's predisposed to homosexuality. People kill their unborn children for very selfish reasons, so this would not surprise me.

It's very sad to think that even with the definitive knowledge that people are born gay with no choice in the matter, that a large chunk of people would still hold dearly to their prejudices and continue to believe it is wrong or abnormal, just as so many humans continue to believe that races other than their own deserve suffering even though we all know by now that race is based on NOTHING but science.

There are several other debates going on in this thread that are not so hypothetical, and I don't wish to steer too far away from the topic that was originally presented (even though others have done a fine job at that), but there were a few things I wanted to bring up. 1) Erasmus70 if you are supposing that a gay gene would exist in your hypothetical situation, then you must also agree that the gene is on the same level as a gene that predetermines skin-color, eye-color, handedness, etc. The ACT gay sex is a choice, obviously, but why would you expect anyone to go against their feelings and physiological traits simply to satisfy social standard? 2) There was a comment earlier (I forget by whom) that genitals were made for a specific purpose. Well true, reproduction can only occur if the genitals are utilized in a specific way. But sexual gratification can occur in a LOT of different ways. And there is no one on this earth high and mighty enough to have determined that anal sex is not one of them. Afterall, as others have said, there is plenty of hetero anal sex going on.

All right, that's my little response (after an HOUR of reading other peoples' responses).

SelfControl

01-12-2006, 11:42 PM

The reason the thread wandered a bit was pretty much because certain parties prefer to state and restate the bleedin' obvious (i.e. that surprise surprise, they haven't changed their opinions as a result of an online debate) rather than respond to what has already been posted in any kind of logical fashion. C'est la vie.

I suspect that a consensus has been arrived at among the majority of posters, and those on the fringe aren't going to be swayed one way or the other.

Erasmus70

01-13-2006, 10:42 AM

TheMistress

01-13-2006, 10:24 PM

LOL! who calls you a Nazi!!??
Erasmus, I respect that you have put thought into your arguments.
I've seen many time people who just post that they dont like homosexuals, and thats all.
You on the other hand, expressed an opinion.

so you say "I would even suggest that I have changed my mind or had my opinions better informed because of it."
What have you changed your mind about, or been better informed of?

Silly Angel

01-14-2006, 12:41 AM

Erasmus70

01-14-2006, 11:09 AM

Im becoming increasingly convinced that homosexuality is increasingly engaged in for reasons other than (or less limited to) typical psychological trauma via upbringing (the dominant mother, absent father etc).
Of course, I know that these things are never that simple anyways but I am seeing more and more people choosing this as either a lifestyle or even more as simply an alternate sexual situation.
I stand by my earlier predictions that the very concept of a 'type of people' called 'the homosexuals' is going to be gone in about 10 years.. more or less once the baby-boomers fade away.
I know this is already true with many of the youth who already find that worthy of ridicule and insist everyone is omnisexual.
I think its going to be a bit longer before it gets to replace the current mainstream 'official' position on this.

Anyways.. I suppose I have already had this concept hanging there - but many interesting comments here have informed it or clarified certain angles I was missing at first and maybe given me second thoughts about some of the outdated ideas I was too reliant on?

SelfControl

01-14-2006, 11:46 AM

Well thanks and you're welcome to both of you. I just think it's silly when people take a completely plausible hypothetical situation and blow the questioning of it all out of proportion. I too am curious as to what you feel I may have informed you better about. It's good to know that you are an open-minded person. In fact, much more open minded than many of the people who were arguing with you in this thread, mainly because you were openly asking for opinions, and then took opinions that were presented well to heart. It's very, VERY seldom that people are willing to do that.
Seconded. Most people, whether pro- or anti-homo, are really open-minded right up until the point that someone of a differing viewpoint wants to engage in a discussion. Their opposite numbers ceases to be a faceless mass and becomes something real that must either be dealt with or run from. Too many people choose the latter, and that's why we're still having these kinds of arguments.

SelfControl

01-14-2006, 11:53 AM

I stand by my earlier predictions that the very concept of a 'type of people' called 'the homosexuals' is going to be gone in about 10 years.. more or less once the baby-boomers fade away.
You may be right, but I'm not sure. We've got a thread running that asks whether everyone is a bit gay, and the concensus seemed to be that they were, but only if you pushed the definition to breaking point (if you've ever looked at your own wang for non-medical purposes you must be bisexual).

I think fluid sexuality, omnisexuality, whatever, is an appealing idea, but that it is a long way off in practise. I base this on my experience: I have the most tolerant friends in the world who have no ethical or moral objection to homosexuality at all, but even with those barriers broken down, it's still not something they want to engage in.

So to me, the idea that greater acceptance will encourage sexual egalitarianism seems at best to be wishful thinking. It's also what's led me to believe there is at least some biological basis for homosexuality, since removing the barrier of societally-taught repulsion does not override people's sexual orientation.

KasabianRulesMan!

01-17-2006, 05:55 PM

Im becoming increasingly convinced that homosexuality is increasingly engaged in for reasons other than (or less limited to) typical psychological trauma via upbringing (the dominant mother, absent father etc).

It's what one of the thing i told (2 weeks ago) in my previous post here (somebody read it!?) even if it's not as simple as you said...

I want to tell something that some people maybe will don't think the same as me...
Homosexual relations....i don't funky care 'bout it ...everybody do what he want to fuck ...
But there's a question... imagine a (western) world with more and more homosexual and lesbian ...with less and less level of natality ...even critic in Germany & Italy & Japan for exemple...

It's not imagination it's actually what's happening

It's just a part true and a part science fiction but if things continue in both way too far ...the homosexual orientation would become a problem for this western world... ... but hopefully we are quite far from this ...
¨
But if in 50 years the homosexual community rise in the occidental world and the birth continues to fall ......
I know there's a lot of reason why it falls but the homosexual will become one of this reasons...

Hopefully the situation is ok in america (thanx black and mexicans) héhé...hum well...

In 200 years the european people will reprezent a very ridiculous part of the world ... if everybody here continue to have 1 child and the middle eastern...the africans and asiatic continue with 5 children ... in a few millenium you will became a precious gift for archelogic museum... i said you because i've got mixed up origin...i'm probably no less than the man of the future...:H

it's fun ...as i read my post a second time ...i imagine that it could make a good catastof movie directed by Roland Emmerich... cool ...i've got to write it and send him this republican scenario :& it's an ideal polemic film ...

WalrusKeeper

01-19-2006, 01:32 AM

typical psychological trauma via upbringing Good, because there was never much to suggest that was the "cause" in many cases of homosexuality to start with. I'd love to be refered to the kind of work you've been reading, if only to check out credibility.

But there's a question... imagine a (western) world with more and more homosexual and lesbian ...with less and less level of natality ...even critic in Germany & Italy & Japan for exemple...

It's not imagination it's actually what's happeningCould you provide citation for this. Insofar as... ...well... ...anyone knows, homosexuality have become more visible through social acceptance, and the number of homosexuals per capita (due to social stigma impossible to measure) would be estimated to have remained in the same region.

Don't be silly and alarmist, sir. You'll scare the horses.

hippypaul

01-19-2006, 03:31 PM

I would suspect that the genetic pattern for being Gay is a recessive spread widely throughout the species. The number of Gays within the population probably remains about the same. The amount of openness changes with social acceptance. It is interesting to note the recent executions in Iraq for the "crime" of being Gay. If there were any choice in the matter of being Gay one would think that the fear of having your head cut off would be a deterrent.

KasabianRulesMan!

01-19-2006, 04:58 PM

Good, because there was never much to suggest that was the "cause" in many cases of homosexuality to start with. I'd love to be refered to the kind of work you've been reading, if only to check out credibility.

Could you provide citation for this. Insofar as... ...well... ...anyone knows, homosexuality have become more visible through social acceptance, and the number of homosexuals per capita (due to social stigma impossible to measure) would be estimated to have remained in the same region.

yes europe in fact become a problem (apart of 2 country France & Ireland) as i said Italy and Germany are the most alarmist of all
they had real problems of population ...there's a lot of old people and just a few young... one of the solution is to make imigration easier for africans and turks and others... but not a lot of people want them ...if they open the door the extremist will profit to pilot the country... so it's a risk ... and now it's estern europe and russia that since 10 years had a very very low level of birth...
look what democracy give... it kills future babies... ah ah ah...

Don't be silly and alarmist, sir. You'll scare the horses.
it's alright...you're alright i'm probably too alarmist for most of the countries...but others got to find a solution very quickly...

Look at the news ... been alarmist is the new fashion right now ... the world seems to be more fragile than ever...but in fact it's just a part of illusions...

I'm not naive ...a world with 2 much informations just give the sensation to had insecurity and risk just behind everyone doors...

SelfControl

01-19-2006, 07:27 PM

KasabianRulesMan!

01-20-2006, 04:29 PM

I can't prove either way, but I'd be surprised if there were ever enough homosexuals for the birth rate to actually become a problem. It's not like the world wouldn't benefit from a few less people in it even if it did.

I think there's more advantage to people coming out as gay and not having kids than there is to them staying in the closet and having them. Because that's basically what is being proposed, if you believe that the reduced birth rate would actually be enough of a problem to require a solution.
you're probably right ...there's more adventage when gay don't had kids... it's more logic... 'cause if all the homosexual union will have children... a lot of children will reproduce the models and become homosexual too...
beein' homosexual is not a problem... but until which % of the population... this is a delicate question...

Silly Angel

01-20-2006, 04:56 PM

You guys are being goofy. Has anyone considered the possibility that it's not genetic? It's simply a part of who you are? There are a lot of things in this world that science can't seem to explain to us, why not this? What if it's not a choice, but it's not genetically pre-determined? It could just be engrained in your soul. It could simply be a part of who you are. OR what the hell, what if it is a choice??? (Although if it were, then why are only some people able to make that choice while others find absolutely no attraction to the same sex??) Maybe it's not genetic and we have nothing to worry about. The population won't all turn out gay. And if they do, meh, big deal. If they're happy, then who cares?? I just wonder when people are going to start to realize that THE SEXUALITY OF OTHERS DOES NOT AFFECT YOU. I'm guessing never, but we can all have dreams, right?

BlackGuardXIII

01-20-2006, 05:06 PM

you're probably right ...there's more adventage when gay don't had kids... it's more logic... 'cause if all the homosexual union will have children... a lot of children will reproduce the models and become homosexual too...
beein' homosexual is not a problem... but until which % of the population... this is a delicate question...
It is not supported at all by the case study results. It is not going to make you gay, just because you grow up with gay parents. It may be 'goofy' to acknowledge the scientific data that seems to indicate that environment and genetics are both factors, not just environment. I know of two men who raised five kids. Unfortunately, they all turned out straight. And the gay people I know grew up in straight households with straight siblings. They didn't 'model' their straight family. Because they are just who they are. that is who they are, and that is good.

Mychal

01-21-2006, 05:52 AM

The possible "environmental factors" come down to "something in the water", if you will. Hormonal changes during pregnancy, and early development of the child.

In early development, psychological factors seem to create certain sexual needs, if you will, but there has yet to be any direct connection to that and homosexuality. While having a week father and strong mother figure, as Freud pointed out almost a century ago, may lead to an effeminate or submissive boy, that is true of gay as well as straight. It doesn't make you gay, it makes you passive. There is no proof that you can raise somebody to be gay or to be straight. Exodus and other crazy Christians will try to torment these people into living a heterosexual lifestyle, but they do more harm than good.

Erasmus70

01-21-2006, 06:56 AM

GypsyPriestess

01-21-2006, 09:17 AM

There are increasing numbers of people coming out of Exodus (and other similar groups) who would certainly disagree with your idea that its harmful.

What exactly is the problem with someone using therapy to 'convert themselves' from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

This gets back to the notion that if they become 'straight' then there is no loss here because, after all, they think they are.
That is now their understanding of what they want.
So wheres the problem?
The biggest problem that I have with groups like that is that instead of letting someone be happy with who they are, they want to force you to change. What you generally end up with is a "recovered homosexual" who is miserable and living a lie. They are NOT "straight because they think they are", they are living a hetero lifestyle because they believe they should, no matter how wrong it feels. If said "recovered homosexual" then marries, instead of two people who may have been perfectly happy without each other, you end up with two people who are unhappy most of the time. Their life together is a lie, based on a lie, and held together by further lies. Not my idea of a good thing.

Silly Angel

01-21-2006, 11:19 AM

The problem is that they are getting their nosy asses involved in someone else's personal business that has nothing to do with them. They are creating a negative situation out of a perfectly positive one. They are contributing to lifelong depression, heightened suicide rates, hate crimes, etc. They ARE doing more harm than good. And if you know what that "good" would be, please share it with the rest of us, because I can't seem to see any.

SelfControl

01-21-2006, 03:51 PM

There are increasing numbers of people coming out of Exodus (and other similar groups) who would certainly disagree with your idea that its harmful.

What exactly is the problem with someone using therapy to 'convert themselves' from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

This gets back to the notion that if they become 'straight' then there is no loss here because, after all, they think they are.
That is now their understanding of what they want.
So wheres the problem?
It's no more wrong than a black man having cosmetic surgery to look whiter. The argument is generally that people are being urged to "correct" something about themselves which is only a problem because other people are making it one. If it's their decision, it's their decision.

I suppose there's also a relativist issue when you're talking about something as metaphysical as orientation, likes and dislikes etc. If someone is made to want something, on the one hand you're changing an aspect of their self, but on the other hand you're also programming them not to notice/mind. So no real difference, right? Maybe. Ignoring the ethical aspects of changing someone's personality, which I'm sure will be argued to death, I'd feel a lot better about people choosing to change orientation if I knew no-one was profiting from it.

How would you feel about a camp/clinic where straight people could make themselves homosexual/bisexual? Forget whether or not you think it would be a popular service, but simply on moral/ethical grounds, would that be something you would tolerate/object to?

SelfControl

01-21-2006, 03:57 PM

you're probably right ...there's more adventage when gay don't had kids... it's more logic... 'cause if all the homosexual union will have children... a lot of children will reproduce the models and become homosexual too...
beein' homosexual is not a problem... but until which % of the population... this is a delicate question...
Actually, I meant more that, if a gay guy stays in the closet and raises a family with a woman, and if there's no miraculous conversion, he's always going to have at least a little resentment towards that family. I don't believe that any relationship, especially one with children involved, benefits from being founded on a lie.

But yeah, re the homosexual children thing, it doesn't work. I know a few people with gay parents who aren't gay, and plenty of gay people who didn't have gay parents. It doesn't add up. I guess it's an argument against homosexuality being passed on genetically, but I don't know enough about genetics to say that for sure. I think if it is genetic, it must be something more complex than "if your parents are gay then you will be because you have their genes".

Erasmus70

01-22-2006, 08:38 AM

Ok.
I think we need to get some facts straight (no pun intended) about what is happening with Exodus Int.

..with who they are, they want to force you to change.
Fact: There is no such thing as 'Forcing'.
Get off of that.
Stop making up ridiculous things that are really the opposite of anything happening. Nobody is 'Forced' and anyone who decides to go attend workshops goes because they WANT TO.
They can leave, go to sleep, question, reject, go home, embrace whatever they want, whenever they want.
Nobody is even compelling anyone to be or do anything.
Im even told by a guy in that - they will actualy encourage people who appear disinterested to leave the program because they would rather have only interested people to work with.
btw.. Like AA, they are not 'telling people what to do' anymore than its the people themselves who are supporting each other through the courses.

Get off this nonsensical 'forcing' anything.

It's no more wrong than a black man having cosmetic surgery to look whiter. The argument is generally that people are being urged to "correct" something about themselves which is only a problem because other people are making it one. If it's their decision, it's their decision.
The reason we refer to physical appearance and behavior as 'two different things' is because they are 'two different things'.

Also: Stop disrespecting people by trying to attach behavior as equateable to their cause.

Again, nobody is 'Urging' anyone to do anything.
People join Exodus because they URGE themselves.
Period.
They will meet many people just like them with the same interests.
Nobody has to urge anyone to anything.

The problem is that they are getting their nosy asses involved in someone else's personal business that has nothing to do with them

Total Idiocy here.
Total.
Nobody is 'canvassing' anyone and nobody goes 'nosing' into anything and Exodus members can tell Exodus when and what to 'nose into' or not 'nose around in.
The person joining is making THEIR personal business whoevers business THEY decide or not.
Seriously.. what or who is telling you people these hysterical urban legends?

mooka

01-22-2006, 12:34 PM

to be fair erasmus, i agree that not one is being physically forced, but i dont think you can deny that pressure from society in general is a very REAL FORCE. so in the way that people may be 'pushed' to want to convert to being straigth (and perhaps redundant to point out that the conversion is to the ACCEPTED NORM), i dont think this is really 'total' idiocy, because if they 'think they are straight' why are their sexual impulses homosexual in the first place? And if they are not homosexual in the first place then they are straight and there is nothing to 'convert'.....
so of course people from exodus are not bullies who directly physically or psychologically 'force' people to want to be straight, but i do think that when you are a minority in a still conservative society, psychological pressure can be a very real thing for you....
just consider the amount of people that are coming out these days because in some cities there is more intellectual freedom to be who you want, compared to the amount of gay men and women who 50 years ago would never have dreamt of coming out (probably never even faced it personally) because there was so little possibility of them leading an otherwise normal life in their society..... thats what i mean by society as a real psychological force in people's lives and decisions.

SelfControl

01-22-2006, 01:35 PM

Exactly. The urging doesn't have to be done by people within the project itself. People may be recommended and pressured towards it by church groups and religiously minded parents, or as has been said, simply through the insistence of their society that they are abnormal and that their sexuality is equatable to a deformity.

The reason we refer to physical appearance and behavior as 'two different things' is because they are 'two different things'.

I find it interesting that you picked me up on the cosmetic surgery analogy, but really, all that comes down to is a basic disagreement over whether homosexuality is something you do or something you are. Substitute "nature" for "appearence" and that's basically the debate. I would argue that being gay is more to do with your nature than behaviour. I'm consider behaviour to be things like what brand of fabric softener you buy, whether you choose to go to college, rather than whether you have a cleanly nature or whether you're intelligent.

It's obviously not something we're going to agree on though. I was just trying to say that if someone is encouraged to believe that there is something wrong with their nature, is it right to humour them? You get those women who have breast enlargements every six months, not because they have small breasts but because they suffer from low self-esteem, poor body image etc. Is it right for a surgeon to keep operating on them?

I am not bringing this up because I am confused. I am bringing this up because this is the issue I have with personality modification. If someone is teased because they wear glasses, should they stop wearing them, go for contact lenses, or should they learn to defend themselves? If someone is homosexual and sections of society encourage them to despise themselves because of that fact, should they stop having sex, learn to be attracted to women, or give society the finger?

Also: Stop disrespecting people by trying to attach behavior as equateable to their cause.

Don't even try that one.

hippypaul

01-22-2006, 04:30 PM

From their website

"What is Exodus?

Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of "Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.""

Freedom from homosexuality that makes it sounds like an addiction. Sort of a twelve step program for Gays. "Hi! My name is Paul and I am a queer ---- Hi Paul." Through the power of Jesus Christ is that like driving out demons into swine or what. Does this involve laying on of hands? Do you have to pick up snakes?

Mychal

01-22-2006, 06:57 PM

Check out Ex-Gay Watch (http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/01/gays_more_likel.html), The site is written by gays who tried the Ex-Gay Ministry, They report on the recidivists of Exodus and others.

A humorous report of former ex-gay How"Ex-Gay" Therapies Made Me More Desirable to GAYS! (http://a_musing.blogspot.com/2005/11/how-ex-gay-therapies-made-me-more.html)

Documentary Fish Can't Fly (http://www.fishcantfly.com/).
Review of "Fish Can't Fly" (http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/07/review_of_fish.html)

A teenagers desperate plea for help Evangelicals Concerned: 'ABC-TV Debates Ex-gay Myth' (http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2005/07/evangelicals_co.html), they took everything from me, they don't want me to have outside influences-- I don't know how long I'm going to be on [the computer], because if they wake up... I'm just here to let everyone know I am still alive. Heart wrenching.

Another poor kid dragged to Ex-gay In which yet another teen is made to feel disordered (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2006/01/in_which_anothe.html).

It's a horrid little buisness.

mooka

01-22-2006, 07:12 PM

can we just all agree that as a christian organisation, exodus is departing with a clearly very narrow frame of mind?? i mean, to more devout christians, homosexuality is 'bad' simply because god says so. simply. and that is not the debate here (and is pretty much a pointless debate anywhere....)
so -unless someone is profoundly religious and 'disgusted' by their own homosexual urges, in which case if they'll have an easier time living 'straight' then good on them for trying- why should anyone be encouraged to 'cure' themselves of being gay if not to satisfy a broader society based largely on christian ethics?

BlackGuardXIII

01-22-2006, 10:37 PM

It may not be 'wrong', but it is, imo, a poor choice. If someone goes against their heart, solely due to the stressful coercion of others, that is sad. I do not condemn anyone who does, but I feel that they have been beaten into submission. Whether it is liposuction, a facelift, a bald man getting a toupee, a woman getting augmentation, accepting workplace harrassment, discrimination or slurs, when one makes changes they wouldn't have without others telling them they had to, that decision is made for the wrong reasons.

Mychal

01-22-2006, 11:17 PM

bad toupee: $49.99
liposuction treatment: $499.99
Lifetime of romantic fulfillment & happiness: priceless

This is what they do to us.
They convince us to sacrifice our happiness.
It's not only sad, it's so wrong.

Erasmus70

01-22-2006, 11:29 PM

mooka

01-23-2006, 12:36 AM

yea, i get what your saying, but my point is that it shouldnt even amount to an issue of 'who you are definetively'.... i mean say this guy your talking about, although he's had hetero urges 'up until now', is now begining to get homosexual urges.... so your saying that since he first experience hetero then he must be 'born hetero'... but still the question remains: if being gay or straight or whatever wasnt at all a problem in the eyes of 'society', then why would anyone have to worry about 'what we end up as'? i mean, if this supposed guy is now getting homosexual urges, as far as i know what 'urges' means, he finds other men sexually attractive. so if he has sex with a man, wont he be satisfying these, albeit 'new', urges? so i dont see a 'problem' either. and if in some years time he begins to get hetero urges again (maybe this guy is just bisexual....) then if he has sex with a women, he will still fulfill his sexual identity. it doesnt have to be so fixed, i think for alot of people thats unrealistic

mooka

01-23-2006, 12:38 AM

... but i dont get the comparison btw gay/heterosexual and white/black..??

SelfControl

01-23-2006, 01:12 AM

Sure, but turn the situation around.
A guy comes on here and says that he is having a lot of anxiety, difficulty and trouble because - although he has been in heterosexual relationships and all, he has this constant urge to want to be homosexual.
Maybe he even tried some homosexual sex before and although it was awkward (or not) he knows that is what he wants to persue.

YOU GUYS and honestly, every 'Gay Org' on the planet along with celebrity endorsers would NOT HESITATE to point out how he was 'A Homosexual' and the most beautiful thing would be to start acting like one.
The WORST thing he could do would be to try and deny it (thats the worst sin of all).

NObody here would be suggesting that he should 'Stop trying to change what he is.."
or
"Obviously you were born a hetero if you had those urges before.."
or
Encouraging and rallying to have him stop trying to be white (gay) and learn to accept his HETEROsexuality just as his skin colour - because thats 'who you are'.

Am I right people?I think you'll find you spell that "amirite".

I've never personally encountered any LGBT organisation that encourages people to exclude heterosexuality from their life in favour of exclusively homosexual orientation. I seriously don't know where you're getting that from.

As for people on here, they try and be supportive. No-one here claims to be able to cure heterosexuality, they just offer support and encouragement to people who are asking for help. No-one is saying "go gay and never go back to heterosexuality because it's unhealthy and wrong". No-one I've noticed, anyway. There may be a tendency for people to encourage experimentation based on minor urges (I personally try to avoid doing this), but even then, where's the harm? If someone tries it with both sexes they're in a far better position to make an informed decision about whether they are straight, gay, neither or both than if they just stick to one inspite of their curiosities. It's not about conversion, just making people feel better about those urges. A lot people are taught that those things are sinful, unnatural or whatever, when even my relatively conservative sex ed taught us that it's almost abnormal not to have some kind of homo urge, particularly in your teens.

So, back to those evil "GayOrgs": If you were just trying to present a hypothetical, fine, and I apologise, but really, if you're just trying to make us sympathise with your cause, making shit up isn't going to help. I'm calling you on this one: show us some evidence of an LGBT organisation that explicitly states as a goal that people should be exclusively homosexual rather heterosexual/bisexual. In fact, show us 3. If " every 'GayOrg' on the planet" does it, it shouldn't be hard to find that many.

SelfControl

01-23-2006, 01:17 AM

... but i dont get the comparison btw gay/heterosexual and white/black..??
My bad, I was using it as an analogy, but it only works if you believe the one's sexuality is part of one's nature, rather than just one's day-to-day behaviour.

mooka

01-23-2006, 01:23 AM

oh ok, thanks

SelfControl

01-23-2006, 01:28 AM

I would've directly mentioned Michael Jackson, but I thought better of it. It's basically the idea that people seek drastic acts of self-modification as a cure for something which is only really a symptom of a larger, more psychological problem. If someone who is completely well-adjusted and in a sound state of mind wants to be de-gay-ified, fine. But if someone's in a state of mental anguish/depression, it's likely that they're looking for a quickfix to a problem which has more to do with their own self-perception than just a dysfunction sex drive.

Silly Angel

01-23-2006, 02:23 AM

I really think that the basic disagreement is on what actually causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. So maybe keeping the arguments away from that would help. When some people believe that it's genetically pre-determined, and some people believe that it's a behavioral choice, then obviously a comparison to something like hair or eye color isn't going to make any worthwhile contribution to the discussion.

I do want to say that my earlier statement was out of anger, but I do not think it was "total idiocy." I also believe that the pressure of society is a force. No one made a distinction between that type of force and physical force. They ARE sticking their noses into other peoples' business. Just because they ask politely first, doesn't mean they aren't still being nosy. They are using their marketing budget to convince people that homosexuality is a horrid sin and Jesus can help set them free from it. The funny thing is, IF you believe in this, then you obviously didn't read your bible very closely, because Jesus already absolved us of our sins, all we have to do is repent. People sin every day. They are disrespectful, envious, dishonest, vengeful, and murderous. They steal, commit adultery, idolize "false" gods, and labor on the sabbath. Then according to christianity, they can ask for forgiveness, and be in the clear. Yet society can't seem to grasp that. They feel the need to intervene in so many situations. In some situations it's for the protection of others, such as theft and murder. But sometimes, it's simply out of cruelty, or maybe just ego. Whatever the reason, the interference is there one way or another.

People are beaten, harrassed, molested, raped, and murdered just for being gay. And for most people, it's a daily occurance. If this isn't forceful, I don't know what is. And Exodus and other organizations like it make these unfortunate people their prey. They wait until society has beaten them down (and you can bet that they are out there with metaphorical billy clubs, helping out like crazy) and then they tell them that Jesus can help rid them of their demons through anti-gay therapy. People who are so distraught, depressed, sometimes even suicidal because they can't find acceptance in their family, community, or elsewhere, turn to these ministries just to see if maybe they can wish or will it all away.

What I imagine is a society where people focused all of the same energy on acceptance, positive outreach, and love. Instead of making people believe that there is something wrong with them and then saying, "But we're good people and we can help you fix your flaws," they say, "There's nothing wrong with you. Do what feels right and makes you happy and I'll treat you the same either way." Then there is no need for ridiculous therapies. Can you imagine how many lives could be saved and how many unhappy people would be happy. There wouldn't be this huge run-around, people trying to change other people for their own sadistic purposes.

Erasmus70

01-23-2006, 11:36 AM

Total nonsense SC... repeatedly and over and over the overwhelming mentality and chorus is that anyone desiring homosexuality is thus a homosexual and it is the ideal and encouraged option that he/she must fulfil their identity.
In fact, the worst thing is to try and deny it.
Its not just a 'position' taken by the greater homosexual community but its the very underlying cause itself.

Even though we all know that Im right - I took the time to get some quotes and statements from various gay orgs and your right - not all feel the need to encourage homosexuality for anyone who wants it:
http://www.freetobeme.com/iti_gay.htm#confused
http://www.exodus.to/about_exodus.shtml
and the third one..
http://wiki.ehow.com/Admit-That-You-Are-Gay

Awesome!
For the record - how can you possibly say you wont encourage someone with homosexual urges to fulfill them?
Isnt that exactly what should be done to help them?

Silly Angel

01-23-2006, 04:49 PM

I'm really confused about that last post of yours Erasmus70. Are you trying to help his case? Because I looked at those links. The first one was in complete support of what SelfControl was saying. They encouraged the person to analyze the situation, try to figure out the reasons why they might feel this way, and not jump to any conclusions. They also encouraged them that it doesn't necessarily mean they are gay, that there are other reasons for attraction. And the last one was completely irrelevent. That was meant for someone who already KNEW they were gay and wanted help coming out to people they know.

Also, when you assume that everyone here would encourage someone in that state of confusion that they are gay and to admit it, not deny it is ludicrous. You can't lump us all together like that. Have you read some of the threads in this subforum at all? There are always going to be some people who convince others that if they get a tingle in their pants in the presence of a member of the same sex, they ARE gay. But most of the people participating in this conversation are not those people at all. PERSONALLY, I would give them advice similar to that offered on that first link you gave. Tell them that confusion does not mean you are gay. It means simply that you're confused or unsure.

I wonder how many people go to the Exodus Freedom Conference and instead of coming home "straight" they come home with a new gay/lesbian lover. Haha.

KasabianRulesMan!

01-23-2006, 05:58 PM

It is not supported at all by the case study results. It is not going to make you gay, just because you grow up with gay parents. It may be 'goofy' to acknowledge the scientific data that seems to indicate that environment and genetics are both factors, not just environment. I know of two men who raised five kids. Unfortunately, they all turned out straight. And the gay people I know grew up in straight households with straight siblings. They didn't 'model' their straight family. Because they are just who they are. that is who they are, and that is good.

yeah you're right it don't makes u gay if you've got gay parents! i think the same but probably from another point of vue...
I think that if you grow in a family with gay parents you've got more probability to become gay yourself than others with hetero parents...

there's probably not a lot difference (who knows?) but it's what i think ...that there's gonna be a difference...

and for the genetic... i don't really think the same ... it's has the importance of dust... but maybe i'm wrong

i talk a few weeks back in my first post here that as strange as it may be ...past life can maybe explain something... and others things like ...a son with a gentle or understanding mother and with a father looser as maybe more probability to become gay himself...he don't find, he can't find the model in his father...his mirror...so he try another way...but it's just an exemple in others where men autority goes in the wrong way (it's just general i know that a lot of gay had 2 cool parents...all the stuff)

but i don't want to re-write all what i wrote before so 'bye

mooka

01-23-2006, 08:00 PM

um.... i'm completely confused now erasmus, what exactly are you arguing?

i dont think people who've answered this thread are saying that exodus is 'bad' because they offer 'support' for making an informed decision. thats the point, they're not advocating 'informed personal decisions', they're advocating 'dont be homosexual', period.
its a narrow frame of mind and, incidentally, corresponds to the mentality of society at large.

SelfControl

01-23-2006, 09:22 PM

For the record - how can you possibly say you wont encourage someone with homosexual urges to fulfill them?
Isnt that exactly what should be done to help them?
That is pretty far from the point I was making. I won't argue that people here don't encourage others to try homosexuality, but no-one here has to my knowledge advised someone to jack in heterosexuality and never go back to it. It seems you're trying to over-simplify this; there may be the odd evangelical homosexual, but for the most part, no-one is seriously saying that heterosexuality is bad or unhealthy, and just to reiterate, encouraging someone to act on a homosexual urge is not the same as telling them to ditch their wife and kids and join the gay brigade.

If you can't see that then I don't really see the point in continuing this. If you can find a gay equivalent of the Erasmus project, then fine, but you're going to have to do better than a guide to coming out hosted by a site subtitled "The How-To Manual That Anyone Can Write or Edit". Learn the difference between a GayOrg and a blog.

Seriously man, I'm happy to discuss issues with you, but please don't insult my intelligence.

By the way, when you say:

Even though we all know that Im right
...who is the "we" you're referring to?

hippypaul

01-23-2006, 10:46 PM

The point on Erasmus70 links has been to well stated by others for me to say anything other than I agree. So much of it gets back to a simple slogans. "Leave people free to be whatever people be". It looked good on the sign and it works well in life too.

Mychal

01-23-2006, 11:13 PM

The links Erasmus70 provides to show the "gay" view point are insidious.

Free to Be Me is a right wing fundamentalist site pretending to be gay; it's run by New Direction for Life Ministries Inc, Toronto.

Exodus is a discredited right wing Ministry, not a gay group. They try to convert gay people and in the process do more harm than good. see Ex-Gay Watch (http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/).

wikiHow is an open forum like this one, which can easily be co-opted by anyone.

Erasmus70, your time would have been better spent actually looking for what GLBT organizations have to say. A good source on coming out is PFLAG (http://www.pflag.org/).

Rather than generalizing about what "The greater homosexual community" might believe, or what the "overwhelming mentality and chorus is" we should frame our own arguments with facts, rather than frame them with the fact that "Some other people say the opposite of what I believe."

Come on folks, we need a higher level of discussion here.

Erasmus70

01-23-2006, 11:47 PM

What do you mean by 'Right Wing' and 'Fundamentalist'?
Im asking because im not entirely familiar with New Direction Ministries for Life.
How are they 'Fundamentalist'?

Mychal

01-24-2006, 03:21 AM

Offering Christian support to men and women choosing to leave homosexuality, and equipping the church to minister effectively and compassionately.

You just happened to pick out two religious groups at random and they just happen to both be seriously anti-gay groups? And you had absolutely no idea what they are up to?
Pa-leeez. Who are you kidding?

Silly Angel

01-24-2006, 06:02 AM

New Direction and Exodus are both right wing and fundamentalist. They are both conservative evangelical movements that are intolerent of outside views. They adhere strictly to fundamental principles based on their religion.

Erasmus70

01-24-2006, 09:48 AM

BlackGuardXIII

01-24-2006, 11:08 AM

Conservative,
Evangelical,
Fundamentalist,
They are three different things. Evangelical and 'Fundamentalist' almost NEVER go together.
Basically you seem to be suggesting that ALL Christians are 'Fundamentalists'.
Except soft, liberal or uncommited ones who do not actually follow their Biblical principles or what?

Please stop applying 'Fundamentalist' to ANYthing and EVERYthing because already the word is nearly meaningless thanks to that.
Stop trying to make others change to be like you!
that is so symbolic of the promotion of a conservative, evangelical fundamentalist platform. Chill, live and let live. I know fundamentalist atheists, conservative as they come, and always evangelizing about the 'real' truth.
All those who think they know the truth, and others don't, and that they are within their rights to tell others they are wrong, and just won't let others live their own way, different as it may be, are all three.
And they seem to like to vote right wing for some reason.
I think it is more attractive in terms of potential economic benefits....

SelfControl

01-24-2006, 06:23 PM

henry101

01-24-2006, 07:30 PM

Frankly I get pretty uncomfortable around the ex-gayers. I'm not talking about Erasmus here, but one time I knew this guy who kept trying to set me up with an ex-gay therapist. There is a certain creepiness about people like that. For starters, I could tell off the bat that this guy was in the closet. That's all he ever talked about: how he hooked up with guys in seedy bathroom stalls, and how sinful it is and how therefore nobody should ever be gay. I should note that he was still cruising for gay sex around the time when he was trying to get me to see the ex-gay therapist.

Ex-gay is basically a neologism for closet case.

Basically this guy suggested that I take a 4 hour trainride to the scottish highlands in order to go meet with some quack out in the middle of god-knows-where. It's laughable now, but when he originally tried to convince me, it was creepy.

Silly Angel

01-25-2006, 09:47 AM

All I have to say, Erasmus70, is learn how to use a dictionary. Fundamentalist, conservative, and evangelical can quite easily go hand in hand. They certainly do not ALWAYS go together, but relating to the topic we are discussing, they do. New Direction, Exodus, etc. Describing them as fundamentalist, conservative, and evangelical is a pretty accurate description. Nice attempt at misdirecting the discussion though ;)

Erasmus70

01-25-2006, 09:59 AM

Its not misdirecting.
Im an Evangelical Christian who is well aware of what 'Fundamentalist' most recent popular meaning was.
You are using the Internet Culture definition which includes pretty much any and all Christians.
You do this to be devisive and probably to insult me as well.
YOU brought this up - Not me.

Erasmus70

01-25-2006, 10:07 AM

Please stop arguing semantics and answer the question that was originally asked of you.
But Arguable Semantics is the exact very reason you can 'ask the question' with any venear of 'confidence' in the first place.

YOU are the one who can use 'word games' and play definition to deny or dodge any way you want.

You can say:
'Well.. they mean those who ALREADY have decided they are gay"
Or
"Support groups for gay teens dont actually support or encourage the ones who are not gay."

Thats why you are the one relying on the Semantic Argument and thats exactly why their 'Mission statements' are so ambiguous and even the term 'Homosexual' or 'Gay' can mean.. almost anything.

Thats why you need me to tell you what it means (well you already know Im right) when I say that a man entering a gay org or subculture and saying he now want to be gay - WILL be accepted for this and encouraged to do exactly that.

Yet, you want to think it any different when a man walks into an Exodus and (just turn it around) says he wants to be straight now?
Why shouldnt he be encouraged to 'be himself' and do what he wants too?

If you want to tell me otherwise then I suggest YOU start giving me some reason to believe otherwise?

lietchi

01-25-2006, 11:51 AM

Thats why you need me to tell you what it means (well you already know Im right) when I say that a man entering a gay org or subculture and saying he now want to be gay - WILL be accepted for this and encouraged to do exactly that.

Yet, you want to think it any different when a man walks into an Exodus and (just turn it around) says he wants to be straight now?
Why shouldnt he be encouraged to 'be himself' and do what he wants too?

If a guy with (exclusively) straight feelings came into my gay organisation and said he wanted to be(come) gay, I/we would find it just as shocking as a gay guy wanting to become straight.
Don't make it sound as if "us gays" want to recruit people to become gay. If you are gay, we'll help you accept it (if you have problems accepting it), if you aren't gay we'll like you just the same and treat you with the same respect.

BlackGuardXIII

01-25-2006, 12:52 PM

It really appears that alot of homophobes are deathly afraid that contact with gay people could turn them gay. They either think that or else they are waging a major inner conflict between denouncing gays, and the curiosity to try and see what its all about. I would gladly visit any gay organization without a second thought.
And I doubt even the best public promoter of how great it is to be gay really tried to sell me on the idea of being gay, that it would work.
We are what we are.
What I am, I am. Sitting Bull.

Silly Angel

01-25-2006, 07:42 PM

First of all Erasmus70, you need to start separating all of us. There are several people responding to your posts and you are lumping us all together as if we are one person. You are refering to us all as one YOU, listing all of our quotes together and saying we are contradicting ourselves. Well maybe we are contradicting each other because we are DIFFERENT people.

Secondly, I am not using any internet culture definition of fundamentalist. I am using the actual definition. You know, the REAL one. I never said that it applied to all christians. In fact, I only said it applied to 2 organizations. And I never accused YOU of being one of them. Since you defend them so vehemently, why don't you tell us what it is that makes them NOT fundamentalist. That might be a good start.

Also, the situations that you are listing are completely different. 1) A man decides he wants to try to be straight because society has convinced him that the way he feels is wrong, everyone harasses him, his family has disowned him, and he shows up at Exodus because he thinks maybe he can change himself to please others. 2) A man has known that he is gay since he was 14. He's been in the closet for 10 years. He decides it is time to come out to his family and friends. He seeks out an organization for support and advice to help him through this tough time.

Do you see the difference here?? That is why you can't compare the two!! These so-called "gay-orgs" you are referring to are not there to try to TURN people gay. They are there to support you in coming out to people. Exodus and New Direction are about changing people from one to the other once they have lost all hope because society has convinced them that something in them is evil or wrong.

As far as ambigious mission statements, what are you even talking about? They don't leave the term gay open to interpretation. Maybe you think the word can have multiple meanings, but that doesn't mean their mission statement implies that.

SelfControl

01-25-2006, 09:01 PM

Thats why you are the one relying on the Semantic Argument and thats exactly why their 'Mission statements' are so ambiguous and even the term 'Homosexual' or 'Gay' can mean.. almost anything.

Thats why you need me to tell you what it means (well you already know Im right) when I say that a man entering a gay org or subculture and saying he now want to be gay - WILL be accepted for this and encouraged to do exactly that.

Yet, you want to think it any different when a man walks into an Exodus and (just turn it around) says he wants to be straight now?
Why shouldnt he be encouraged to 'be himself' and do what he wants too?

If you want to tell me otherwise then I suggest YOU start giving me some reason to believe otherwise?
So you're shifting the burden of proof onto me, on the grounds that you already backed up your claim amply with the words "you already know I'm right"?

Fuck you kiddo.

Erasmus70

01-25-2006, 09:22 PM

Aha.. but see how its semantics anyway that allows you two guys to turn it around on my position?
Now we say that 'encourage' and 'support' mean something different when its for the gay who wants to be gay.
(and even that means something we want)

When its the other way around and its a gay wanting to be straight then its just as easy for you to change the meanings around to mean something else too.

Im cutting through all that by giving the realistic events as they happen.
Again: guy walks into gay org and says he has been living a hetero life and knows he wants to be gay now = support given.
guy walks into Exodus and says he has been living a gay life and knows he wants to be straight now = support given.

The only reason a 'nefarious' or 'suspicious' spin is being put on the latter example is because its not what you like or want to see.
Not because its different.

SelfControl

01-25-2006, 09:27 PM

I'll go through this one more time.

Exodus, as I understand it, encourages people to cease homosexual activity and stick to heterosexual activity.
LGBT organisations, as I understand it, encourage people to experiment with homosexuality if they feel the need.

Am I wrong? Does Exodus only seek to encourage experimentation with heterosexuality?

hippypaul

01-25-2006, 10:28 PM

Erastmus70 stated:
“Again: guy walks into gay org and says he has been living a hetero life and knows he wants to be gay now = support given.
guy walks into Exodus and says he has been living a gay life and knows he wants to be straight now = support given.”

If that was the only basis of comparison, one might agree with you. However, Exodus caries a lot more baggage than just thinking being Hetro is the way to be. They also have a heavy religious agenda.
Their web site describes themselves as "A nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ, challenging those who uphold homosexuality as a valid orientation." That is one hell of a lot more than a Hetro support group. They have a commitment to a religious subset and they take a stand against being Gay as a valid orientation. That is a different trip from any gay origination that I have ever read about or known members of. Every gay activist that I have known in a lot of years in the movement, has without exception, once they found out that I was Hetro, refrained from making any serious comment about how I should change my lifestyle. I do not know any of my Gay or Lesbian friends who have had that experience when they tell people their orientation. They all have had to deal with fools who want them "to change their ways". That is one huge difference between Gay groups and folks like Exodus

Silly Angel

01-25-2006, 10:44 PM

Again: guy walks into gay org and says he has been living a hetero life and knows he wants to be gay now = support given.
guy walks into Exodus and says he has been living a gay life and knows he wants to be straight now = support given.
This is not what happens though. Do you really think there is some large number of straight people pretending to be gay and then seeking support as coming out as the heterosexual people that they are and they are the people going to Exodus and New Direction? If you really believe that, you're sadly mistaken. The people that seek out the help of these organizations are homosexual people. They have somewhere along the line been convinced that homosexuality is wrong, evil, unacceptable, etc. So they decide that they will go to this religious anti-gay support group and try to transform themselves into good little straight people like they are "supposed" to be. On the other hand, support organizations for homosexual people are not for straight people who want to transform themselves into gay people. They are for gay people who want support in sharing it with others. I really don't understand what is so hard to grasp about that. I think that perhaps you're just too stubborn to admit they are completely different scenarios, for the sake of your argument.

Erasmus70

01-26-2006, 12:46 AM

Whoa whoa.. again notice YOUR quirky way of using the wording and definitions when it comes to a member joining Exodus.
You all of a sudden have them as someone 'convinced that' and they are 'supposed' and all these new ways of putting it.

When its a guy who wants to be gay you see it as 'his own choice' and without a doubt its often called 'honest' and even 'courageous acceptance' of what 'they know they are' etc.

When the same guy decides he want to be straight (and if Exodus then he is deciding to be in a Christian based org).. but now it cant be 'honest' or 'sincere' and it must be the homosexual is 'weak' or 'influenced' and we saw before words like 'forced' or 'shamed'.
Whatever the words - the homosexual is now being 'made' or worked and his decision is now somehow suspect.

Like I say - the only reason the homosexual is praised one way - but suspected the other is simply because you dont like the other way.

Why dont we use those terms for the homosexual who wants to be gay and 'come out'?
Do you say that 'somewhere along the line he was convinced he is 'supposed' to be gay and being made to 'transform into a good little gay?
No.
You use positive wording instead.
Is a Gay Support Org 'Anti-heterosexual'?

Seriously, my point is made all the more - the more you DO remove the semantics and shifty word definitions.
There is a double standard here.

IF Im to believe a Peer Counsellor from Exodus - they make it a point to send the unsure or insincere clients home.
If they think someone is attending for reasons of 'being pressured' or is simply not commited in their own mind - they encourage them to come back later.
AA and most of these self-help type Orgs do that.
Its the rule.