Gay Cure MERGED

If I have kids, I HOPE TO GOD they are GAY, so they don't have more kids, for GOD's sake there are enough damn people in this world, up with homos!

 

I love the subtle difference in phrasing here. Not with me you wouldn't.

Well there's no harm in asking another one, is there.

Huge amounts of research went into establishing that there was a causal link between smoking and lung cancer. Can you offer anything like the same amount of (for want of a better word) proof that homosexual behaviour directly causes ill health? Whether you believe homosexuality is genetic or behavioural is pretty irrelevant as to whether the analogy works.

 

I am proud to be gay it is a part of me. It makes me feel unique. Plus I like being a fag.

 

Anybody who would honestly carry out something like that is in serious need of an education in individual rights and freedoms. The idea that one has any right to arbitrarily decide what is or is not healthy for any other people's lives, and then act on it, has no concept of boundaries. I am not gay, but if I was, and you managed to 'dart' me, I would make certain that I returned the favour. I'd either 'dart' you to make you gay, or else return your dart to you, likely in a manner that you would find hard to take sitting down.

 

Cigarette smoking does not necessarily show any signs of directly affecting someones health either.
However, its apparent that enough smoking over a enough time will lead to adverse health or 'less health' in many, if not most people.
[you might not get cancer but you are not able to run as many stairs as you might if you did not smoke all day]

Ok.
Now, I honestly do not think we really needed any huge amounts of research to know something that is self-evident.
Even in the 30s (before we needed a scientist to publish a paper) my Grandfathers generation could clearly see smokers were coughing, couldnt keep up with teammates and so on.

In the case of Homosexual behavior, its really obvious that people engaging in this have difficulty in regular or 'heterosexual' relationships.
Most do not have any successful heterosexual relationships at all.
By nature, its unhealthy for the penis and rectum of the homosexual users even though its not necessarily obvious until a few years later.
Even then, (like smoking) they might not necessarily get GBS (gay bowel syndrome), Fissures (torn open lining of rectal walls), or lose control of the sphincter muscles
BUT
eventually they will not be 'as healthy' as they would be if they were not carrying on this behavior.
Again, you dont necessarily have to get AIDS and most people wont but you are engaging in a behavior which (like smoking) puts one at a higher risk.

Even still, I think one of the main things to compare here are the psychological dependancy and addiction.
Its true, there are people who can just smoke cigarettes and then walk away and no problem.
But
Most find themselves addicted and the main concern is they are unable to cope without the cigarettes or experience traumatic withdrawals.

Every analogy would break down eventually and thats why they are analogies in the first place.
Communicating the 'weight' and or 'proportion' but not intended as point-by-point 'Replacements'.
I find the Smoking one close in enough ways to work to get some comparisons across.
It does not need to get 'all' comparisons across to do 'some'.

 

Gosh, why do you think that might be, Eras?

Pretty much everything you do in life has some degenerative effect on your health. But you were saying earlier about cigarettes I find highly dubious. The health risks of anal sex (which I'll remind you is neither an exclusively homosexual act nor a given in a homosexual relationship) do not even begin to compare to cigarette smoke, which pretty much every respected scientist not on the Bush administration's payroll will tell you will give you cancer if you smoke or are in proximity to a smoker for any length of time. Obvious yes, analogies do break down on deep analysis. But that's no excuse for making lazy comparisons which don't bear any kind of scrutiny at all.

So, to summarise: you would cure homosexuality because some of the things homosexuals do might be unhealthy if done to excess (like pretty much anything else, really), and because homosexuals very often don't have successful relationships with people of a gender they are not attracted to.

Do you even know what a homosexual is?

 

Did you forget circumcision ,

 

..

 

I thought that was what God intended. But all the same, a lot of people don't agree with it, as it was originally recommended in America by puritans who basically exist to ruin sex for everyone.

 

Then why the so call God put the foreskin in the begining along with every male mamal on earth?.

 

Well, I guess only homosexual males need to be "cured" then? Females can just stay the way they are...

 

Cuz He's a bit of a wacky character, or doesn't exist. That's the last 500 years or so of philosophy summed in one sentence.

 

HEHE I KNEW THAT ALLREADY!.

 

circumcision by the jews is older than 500 years i just figure i correct you on dates "only".

 

Biblically, its an innocent blood sacrifice (literally in Lieu of sacrificing Isaac) and is a 'shadow' of the Crufixion and real innocent blood sacrifice fulfilled by Jesus.
*note: the original practice only removed the 'fore' skin (which im not saying is nice either) but not the later tradition of cutting it all the way down past the gland which is entirely something else)
Your right though - it was a 7th day Adventist (not 'Puritans' per se) named RJ Kellogg who suggested that young American boys caught masterbating were doing so by compulsion to itch and 'rub' aggravating micro-hairs or particles under the foreskin.
He circumcised boys who were caught being 'dirty' (by this they meant moral hygiene NOT physical) and here is the proof it worked:
- Boys were NEVER EVER caught masterbating again.
But, in fairness, it was popularised by Jewish Hospitals in the 40s and 50s.

This is certainly the premise that needs to be established first or else everything else built on the nature of it will go either right or wrong (or both).

I must use the term 'homosexual' or use it as a noun (a person) because that is so common now that if I didnt it would cause confusion.
Yet
No, I most defiantely do not believe there is (in any real sense) a type of person called 'A Homosexual'.
For starters, the term itself is a 'medical term' for a psyhological illness.
Again, I realise people use the term like we might say 'an alcoholic'.
This is not that we believe there is a type of people called 'alchoholics' or this is some actual unique gender of some kind.

People can and will do all sorts of things.
Homosexuality is just one of them and quite frankly, there are all kinds of sexual fetishes, behaviors, kinks or whatnot that have just as many 'devotees' who make just as much of a dedicated lifestyles as 'homosexuals' do with their thing.

So if you ask me "what is a homosexual" this is like asking me 'Do you even know what an Alcoholic is?
Its not the right question.

Im not actually sure what your take on this would be?
Do you believe there is a type of human called 'a' homosexual or what?

 

Oh, I'm pretty sure that was a given anyway. No-one, no matter how anti-gay they are, ever argues as vociferously against Sapphism then the brown kind. And you know why? It's because they think it's hot. No other fucking reason. Seriously, anyone who tells you any different on that is lying. Those with aspirations of appearing intellectual may try and dress it up as something else, but they're still for the most part male.

(Eras has already confidently claimed that fratboys are horrified by lesbian sex. )

 

Yeah, that's no doubt a very good reason... Goody, for once guys are discriminated instead girls

Erasmus, there are homosexuals, just as there are blonds, Belgians, historians,etc These are all substantives, neither of them implies that they are a "race". It is simply a categorisation of people.
The fact that homosexuals cannot have succesful heterosexual relationships is a part of being homosexual, if they could have succesful heterosexual relationships they'd be bisexual. But of course, you believe homosexuality is a behavior, most gays do not.

 

Many Historians Agree modern Western civilazation was saved by the homo/bisexual Greeks "including the Spartans and carry over into the Roman Empire well known for homosexual activity even among the big wig Emperos "later on some of feudal kings"

 

IN Feudal Japan homosexuality was normal among fearless warrios.

 

I was clear that the physical distress and high risk for GBD and fecal infections in the penis are not the most signifigant problem here.
(even though the lesbian vagina is shaped for a penis not for fingers so you can go there too)

I was clear the danger is to the physiological system more than anything and of course we can include psychological/emotional in there.

Women who develop sexual relationships with other women will often have great difficulty in maintaining relationships with men.
So right there, you have a problem caused.

Of course, everyone wants to give some exception to the rule but I think those who know.. know.

My main concern is over that damage caused to the physiological response and what we see on the educational programmes as 'The Science of Love' and how those inbuilt responses can get their 'wires crossed' after homosexual relationships.

I most certainly do believe people can get back on track too.
Ive seen people make miraculous changes in the their physiology from quitting smoking and shifts and eating habits and even the way they respond to speed, shocks, and suprises etc.