Gay Cure MERGED

[Erasmus70]

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]

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

[toolmaggot]

The world's already overpopulated as is.

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

[heron]

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]

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]

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. Spartans were gay, i dont think theres was a overpopulated problem in greece 2.400 years ago.

[mushie18]

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".
agreed.

[andcrs2]

What's to 'cure'?

[Erasmus70]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Bassist]

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]

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.Yeah, I had two anoles, Fred and George, that would always fuck each other.

But I think they were just lonely.

[toolmaggot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

dont forget a cure for circumcioners.

[GypsyPriestess]

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]

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

[El Guzano]

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]

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]

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]

.


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]

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]

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)

[hipunk]

change your sexual desires to Bisexual.



good point.

[hipunk]

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]

What would you do if there were no hypothetical questions?

[hipunk]

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]

, 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]

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.

[hipunk]

.

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]

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

[hipunk]

...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]

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]

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

[Green]

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]

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]

Nope, dude.
I like women too much;)

[WalrusKeeper]

"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]

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]

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]

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

[Erasmus70]

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]

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]

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]

.


... 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]

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]

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]

wow.. you covered it all.

[Erasmus70]

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]

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]

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

[Erasmus70]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.

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]

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]

.


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]

.


Oh, and another thing, enough of this nonsense!



Please

don't feed the

TROLL!




.

[Erasmus70]

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

Im almost sorry you have given up already.
:(

[hippypaul]

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]

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

[hippypaul]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
You seem to be getting closer and closer to saying that Gay folks are evil and are going to hell.
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. "the human mind (which definately affects physiology) is a complex little wonder". What does that mean - are you saying that being gay is

1. A mental illness
2. A deviant behavior
3. A bad habit
4. A poor life choice
5. An alternative
6. A separate sex
7. A biological difference
8. Another category that you would like to define yourself

Which will you have?

[Erasmus70]

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]

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

[TheMistress]

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]

"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]

.
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]

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]

.

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]

.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Erasmus70]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.
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]

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]

.
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]

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]

.
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[GypsyPriestess]

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]

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]

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]

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