Gay Cure MERGED

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

 

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

 

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

Where you do you imagine that stress comes from? Do you think it would be more beneficial to ignore or "deal with" that stress than it would be to attempt to identify and modify its source?

Is the onus to modify ones behaviour on the subject of petty vindictiveness, or on the petty and vindictive?

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

Is there anything healthy or positive about a loveless relationship?

Well duh.

 

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

 

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

If one were so inclined.

 

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

 

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

Here is my response to the original questions proposed:

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Thank you very much for an attentive and thoughtful read and reply!
Its been refreshing and educational (for me anyways) to see some well thought out or just plain 'sincere' replies.
I would even suggest that I have changed my mind or had my opinions better informed because of it.

Usually its just the one guy calling me a Nazi or something like that.

 

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

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

 

Well thanks and you're welcome to both of you. I just think it's silly when people take a completely plausible hypothetical situation and blow the questioning of it all out of proportion. I too am curious as to what you feel I may have informed you better about. It's good to know that you are an open-minded person. In fact, much more open minded than many of the people who were arguing with you in this thread, mainly because you were openly asking for opinions, and then took opinions that were presented well to heart. It's very, VERY seldom that people are willing to do that.

 

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

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

 

Seconded. Most people, whether pro- or anti-homo, are really open-minded right up until the point that someone of a differing viewpoint wants to engage in a discussion. Their opposite numbers ceases to be a faceless mass and becomes something real that must either be dealt with or run from. Too many people choose the latter, and that's why we're still having these kinds of arguments.

 

You may be right, but I'm not sure. We've got a thread running that asks whether everyone is a bit gay, and the concensus seemed to be that they were, but only if you pushed the definition to breaking point (if you've ever looked at your own wang for non-medical purposes you must be bisexual).

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

it's alright...you're alright i'm probably too alarmist for most of the countries...but others got to find a solution very quickly...

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

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

 

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

I think there's more advantage to people coming out as gay and not having kids than there is to them staying in the closet and having them. Because that's basically what is being proposed, if you believe that the reduced birth rate would actually be enough of a problem to require a solution.

 

you're probably right ...there's more adventage when gay don't had kids... it's more logic... 'cause if all the homosexual union will have children... a lot of children will reproduce the models and become homosexual too...
beein' homosexual is not a problem... but until which % of the population... this is a delicate question...