Gay Cure MERGED

In Short: Your answer is not good enough.

Heterosexuality is not a disease or malfunction (is it?) so you still have all things equal.
If you insist niether are malfunctions then which do you choose for your child.
Remember, the moment its possible to remove the 'Gay Gene' is the moment you have a choice whether you want it or not.

You choose to deny them heterosexuality?
What if they ask you later why you didnt do that for them?

 

You know what I said about Western culture being constrained by its basis in opposition?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Like I said, no I would not "remove" homosexuality. Maybe you don't agree with my reasons, but I gave an answer, so my answer IS good enough.

If homosexuality and heterosexuality are both not diseases and malfunctions (which I believe), I choose to let my child be how it was created.

 

Basically he's saying that heterosexuality and homosexuality are two different things, and that if you don't think this then you're nuts. If you don't want your kid to be homosexual, you deny it the right to comply to an entirely unnatural sexual delineation that will probably cause it emotional torment at some point during its life. The same obviously doesn't apply to heterosexuality, for obvious reasons that are obvious. Obviously.

If you characterise homosexuality as a disease, you characterise heterosexuality as a disease as well, because they are both inherently unnatural.

 

Two interesting ideas - one the third position as a style of argument by infiltration. I have not heard that identified as such but I have seen people operate that way. It seems a useful term. The other idea is the notion of our kids (at a future time) holding us responsible for pre birth genetic choices. That is an interesting idea. As we get closer to babies by order, I think it will become a real factor. O goody more work for lawyers. Welcome to the brave new world.

 

The idea that genetics can be used to perfect the human race has been around since Nietzsche's concept of the uberman ('super' human). This is nothing new. If there is one single lesson which we should learn from the 20th century, it is that this line of thought should never be pursued again.

 

Thankyou.

Erasmus, again, its fairly obvious what my stance is on homosexuality, as it is fairly obvious what your stance is on the topic, I feel no more explaining needs to be done.

I have not wavered from the same attitude, nor ideas, and if it seems this way, it is in relation to different subjects altogether.

 

Hmmm interesting discussion... all I have to add is that these people that are so into homosexuality and speak against it, and try to cure it... most likely are unconfortable with thier own tendecies, because most human beings are bi-sexual... total straight and total gay people are in the small minority... based on what I read about the sexual analysis by Kinsey and those that followed him.

 

GanjaPrince: Nobody brings heated discussions to braking halts like you can.
Well done my friend.
Kinsey has probably done more damage to the cause of sexual education than anyone I could think of besides maybe RJ Kellogg.
Having said that.
I think its obvious that everyone is potentially 'omnisexual' and there are literally thousands of fetishes, lusts, infatuations and 'lifestyles' to be found and fostered to serve all kinds of interests.
Just as many passing interests or lusts that come and go, change or decline.

The most ridiculous and unlikely thing I can imagine is that somehow just homosexuality is the one that is different.
This is the one that people are 'born to do' and they are really 'a people' a 'race' and a third 'gender'.
Give me a fucking break!

What the world has always known is that there never has and never will be such a thing as a human who is 'a gay' but its nothing more and nothing less than another one of a hundred sexual indulgences to be persued if you are so inclined to do so.

 

Well finally a clear statement... And what a statement!

The world has always known eh?
Well, there was a time when the world "knew" that the earth was flat.

Now, be a good boy, and leave the gay forums, you are not gay nor a sympathiser.

 

No, there was never a time the world 'knew' the world was flat.
Please consider studying history.

If you are reduced to the 'poor wittle boy' method of flaming then please note that hasn't been effective for 38 year old women since around 1999 era Internet.
The last time I heard 'Go along little boy' was when 'Newsgroups' an treeline threads were popular lol!

As mentioned before, these are free speech forums and we dont limit and censor ideas because someone like you may 'feel bad' or thinks they should protect others from hearing Erasmus ideas (so they wont feel bad).

Homosexuality is and always has been known as a behavior.
Spartans, Greeks, Romans, Gauls, Persia whereever we go and find literature and recorded cultures its simply something sexual you can or cannot do.
There is not a 'type of human' called 'a gay' who lives among the 'hetero humans' or any of these ridiculous and very abberant beliefs invented just recently.

One thing none of those cultures held to - the belief the world was flat.
Im not aware of any cultures that did not know it was round.
Maybe there was some people somewhere.
Maybe some others who believed there were a type of human called 'A Gay' or something like this?

 

Two questions, Erasmus:

1) Would you agree that heterosexuality is a type of behaviour as well? Or would you argue that it's more like a default setting; that if you're not involved in homosexual behaviour, you are heterosexual?

2) If homosexuality is a behaviour or hobby like anything else, why is there any need to "cure" it, anymore than there is a need to cure stamp collecting or watching TV with some friends?

 

No.

 

Well we agree on the potential of the human mind to get into all kinds of sexual areas and so on... There we agree. I would call it the mud of the lotus flower.

I would say that there is also no such thing as a human that is hetro IN MOST CASES, although I think there are exceptions where some people could be totally one way or other... we all have all these sexual potentialities... Thus it is pointless to make a third gender, a race or a people... It is just a stupid and seperating people by race... Why should we call certain people black.. some "white" people are kind of brown when they get in the sun, does that make them black... the labels or race are useless.

Yet I think it is useful to say, well "I" have a sexual preference. meaning GanjaPrince has a preference for women, thus he could be called a hetrosexual, even though I admit I have the potential for both tendencies. I have had the occassional dream and rare thought, that revealed to me my unconscious tendies toward the same sex... making me technically bisexual, but since I lean far far into prefering the oppossite sex in my matrix of sexual desire... This shows that my preference is hetrosexual. I am comfortable with that... and I have noticed that most of my so called hetrosexual friends, also have tendencies subtly revealed...

Yet this is random sample... thus I rely on the studies to formulate my understanding of sex, not just these observations of friends.

But why make the sexual preference of homosexual, a gender? I think that is just silly and wouldn't help...

Although I would agree to it, if it would help "gay" people get more tolerance and rights. Same way I agree to affirmative action, even though it labels race and so on. And gives power to those labels... it helps balance things out, thus I am for it.

But the fact remains, that despite all these sexaul potentialities, most of us fall on this scale that puts us eithers mostly hetrosexual or mostly homosexual... there are a lot of people that fall in the middle, but it is rare to find a 100% homo or hetro male or female person. Kinsey taught that most people fall in the middle, but most recent surveys show most people prefer one over the other even if they have some tendecies for both which most people seem to have.

What creates this I feel is not simply we were born into it... Yes genetics plays a role and brain development plays a role, but so does socialization, and raising by the parent and life experiences... and deeper then that past lives play a role... there are so many factors that lead to one's sexual preference...


Despite all this silliness...


The problem with sexuality is not the preference for one or another or both or whatever... It is our ATTACHMENT to sexuality. or making it some great stimuli that's wonderful... This creates suffering... homosexual by itself is just like anything, it does not create suffering unless one is attached to it. Thus there is no reason to cure it. This comes from taking it so seriously.


We must get the joke of sex, and learn to laugh compassionatly at our sexuality... Thus by lightening up... we can learn to get beyond our ego which may prefer this to that or whatever... and see our unity, our oneness. our one love... transend sexualness through our sexuality, tantra! whatever kind of sex it be... or celibacy I am for that to! whatever works for you. But we MUST GET BEYOND!

Then with our LOVE, sex becomes play, it becomes leela, not a desperate thing we MUST have, an addiction or whatever.


And we will see that from the perspective of ONENESS, it is alright to PLAY with men and women... who are of age (I personally would make the age of consent 14 like in our island state).


And there is no need to cure our ego's preference. There is a need to CURE our attachment to what that ego is into. can ya dig that?

 

They need a cure for Bible thumpers . Torah Thumpers , Quran Thumpers . First!.

 

I agree with you sir, need a cure for thumpers.

 

??

 

The issue that was raised initially was that there was a condition, behavior, trait, call it what you will that we label as Gay. The question was asked. If it were possible to change this call it what you will before birth would you do so. The answers have revolved around the fact that Gay folks are not treated well in our culture. Therefore, should we change them or change the culture. I, for one, come down on changing the culture. Others do not. They seem to suggest that being Gay is a disability or a handicap and as such should be cured. This is my understanding of the discussion to date. Nevertheless, do we all agree on the statement that it is more difficult to be Gay in the US than to be Hetro?

 

I would agree that Heterosexuality is the default setting.

The hypothetical question was based on the assumption that Homosexuality is the result of a Gene.

A behavior may be unhealthy. Cigarette smoking might be gratifying but its a behavior that is unhelpful to the participant and there are plenty of good reasons why a person should stop the behavior.

Maybe thats a good hypothetical too: If we found a gene that is basically responsible for 'enjoying smoking' and could remove it - should we?
would you?
If you knew it would take away the possibility your child would ever be addicted to cigarettes?

 

I've stated this in another thread, but I actually had a friend who tried telling me, as if it were well known fact, that homosexuals have something "wrong" with their brain, that makes them act the way they do. I lost about 70% of the respect I had for him, at that moment. The rest of it went out the window, later on.

Anyways, I wouldn't do it. If I was gay, I wouldn't change it. And on the chance that one of my kids ever turns out to be gay, no way would I change that. I want my children to be happy, and I'm not going to "alter" their DNA, to make them any other way.