Gay Cure MERGED

Oh, I agree. I just don't see why we should have to keep refuting it.

 

I've mentioned Third Positionists before, but the posts keep getting buried and ignored. I think it's important enough to discuss.

.

 

Is this the same kinda thing?

 

I've put him on my ignore list. No point in reading all that rubbish.

 

Third Position Tactics..lmao!
God forbid anyone should actually consider WHAT IS being said rather than just argue for a 'for or against' and 'hold either/or at all costs'.
How sad.
Its like someone is giving up trying to look at 'what is' and now wants to cut off the debate or discussion before it even starts.
Hilarious but so sad.
'Third Positionists' - what a hoax!

 

Should have posted this a while ago. I have taken it upon myself to move this argument to the Christianity forum where it belongs. Anyone who cares to take a look, Here it is

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146632&page=1&pp=10

 

Why so? It's surely an ethical debate more than a specifically Christian one.

 

It was moved and then 'turned around' to a question on whether or not Christianity was a predetermined genetic condition and whether or not a person would remove the 'Christian Gene' if that technology became available.

.errrr Ok.

 

Wacky.

I wish I could pick a side in this but they're all pretty retarded.

 

From the inception this thread was only thinly veiled propaganda. It was never a debate as far as eraz was concerned. At best, it has been a debate of Christian ethics. You go to church or a seminary for that.

After 350 posts we have had our debate on this topic in the Gay Forum. That is why I have started to post my replies in Would you cure Conservative Christianity if it becomes available? . I encourage you to join us.

The title is an ironic joke on the retarded nature of this thread. The idea to move our posts from here to there came later, after I admitted I had stopped posting here because of the skewerd nature of this type of poll.

.

 

Yes, thankyou hippunk. Self COntrol, did you actually look at the thread?

An ethical debate belongs in the ethics forum, not the Gay forum. The gay forum is for gay people to hang out and find a place where they can be accepted.

A forum titled 'Would you cure Cure Homosexuality', is religious in nature as it proposes the Christian idea that homosexuality is a disease.

I'm simply proposing the same thing, (ERASMUS PLEASE NOTE) in a purely metaphorical sense, that conservative christianity is a disease also, not a genetic one, and i invite erasmus to quote me where i actually said anything of the sort, but a disease of the mind. This was pretty clear from the first post. Erasmus is (as another poster said), simply trying to 'worm himself out of an awkward situation'.

Please care to actually take a look, how anyone can take my ironic proposal seriously is a great mystery of the universe, just like how anyone can take the proposal to 'cure homosexuality' seriously.

Its the last paragraph of the beginning post that has the real substance, but like I said, Erasmus would like to worm his way out for making my sarcastic attempts look serious...a severe lack of understanding, or else a complete liar.

Anyway, I think the thread has served its purpose. I'll stop being creepy now and let Erasmus make an idiot of himself, he does a good job.

 

Your premise is wrong.
Thats why your 'turnabout' does not work in the first place.

Christianity does not beleive homosexuality is a 'disease' however there are many 'pro gay' proponents who insist that it is a 'disease' or (as they insist) a genetic or 'physiological' problem.

You 'could' make an argument that the Christians see it as, ultimately part of the same 'disease' everyone is born with - Sin Nature or sometimes dubbed "The Human Condition'.
That is to say all humans are born with the potential to develop lust, greed, idolatry, hate, and every behavior that can go with it from cigarette usage, alcoholism, adultery, homosexuality, shoe fetishs, lust for violence, love of gossip and so on.

So once again - YOU are the one who believes it is a genetic or physical situation.
NOT Christians (in general).

YOU dont think Christianity is a gene or a hormone.

This is why your big plan here is superlame.

 

Yes, my plan is superlame, its a sarcastic joke. The premise has nothing to do with the scientific nature of the argument. Its that both arguments are just as ignorant as each other.

Only in my case, i'm joking. And in your case, you're stupid.

I feel I can rightly justify such a comment since you made the following:
"The reason why most people on hipforums don't understand my ideas is because most of them are morons"

The way I see it, a majority of hipforumers either don't care, are learning (but have a fairly good ability to rationalise) or are much wiser and smarter than I. And a very small minority, are insane.

I have a pride problem, but i don't give anyone the label of 'insane' without due consideration of their behaviour (IN COMPARISON TO OTHERS). Congratulations, I feel I have every justification to lend you such a title, and i'm sure plenty here would feel the same way.

By the way, I don't like your approach to reality, but I love you.

 

Could you please state your position on the nature of homosexuality?
- to you beleive it is a physical (genetic, hormonal, physiological) trait
and/or
- Do you believe it is a behavior (learned, psychological, practiced)?

Just answer the question and stop trying to make things 'true or not' depending on what consequences you think might happen depending on what is true or not.

 

Well chucks, you want a straight answer? How about trying to GIVE a straight answer!

 

Lietchi, please post content one of these days.
47 posts and most are useless attempts at belligerence.

 

The word "cure" is written in quotees, though. And to imply that homophobia in our society is entirely religious seems a little facetious. It may stem from religion, but so does the majority of our culture and societal construction. If you grew up in a Western culture, and weren't an actual outlaw, you have subscribed to Christian teleology for most of your life.

I seriously don't think you actually need to answer that in order to engage in the debate. Obviously the grounds of the debate change, but to commit to one - without proof one way or another - just closes off avenues of discussion which it would be far more valuable to leave open.

One is perfectly at liberty to have a position and argue from it, of course, but given the shortage of evidence available to answer the questions you're asking, it seems pointless to insist that one must take one to take part in the debate. I for one have no idea whether homosexuality is genetic or learned. Personally I don't remember ever being straight. But I also don't remember being born, so if I say I was born gay I'm speaking from a position of no experience whatsoever.

To me, a logical position would be that human sexuality is inherent, but that sexual orientation is learned from society, family, etc., in the formative years of one's life. That applies to straight, bi and gay people. We learn to be heterosexual because of the culture we are in. Some of us unlearn that restriction, but because of the oppositional basis of Western culture, many of us just learn to be gay instead. Others - bisexuals, pansexuals, whatever you want to call them - dismiss societal orientation altogether.

This, to me, seems a far more natural way to go about things. What's that old saying: "The only unnatural kind of sex is not to have any at all." Self-denial is entirely a societal construct; you don't see it in the uncivilised world. In times of societal hardship, there is a need for self-control, thrift, rationing etc. In times of plenty there is none. In the case of sex, a society in its infancy needs babies and lots of them, so it makes sense that recreational sex be discouraged. But now, with the world population more than capable of sustaining itself, reproduction is far less important, and we can all afford to have sex for fun rather than just to breed. [/rant]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

To quote our Lord and Saviour Homer Simpson: "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." The most insular and ignorant attitude in the world is to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you takes that position because they don't "get" it, and that the only logical thing to do is agree with you.

 

No, but seriously, a slight majority are total morons.
The only reason I need to mention it is for the benefit of the morons - who dont actually see that forest through the trees.

 

Ouch. That hurts. I would gladly REpost my ideas, if I thought you would notice/understand...

In short: no I would not cure homosexuality, because it is not a disease or malfunction.