Gay Cure MERGED

Yep it was John Stuart Mill finely dug up the quote

The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure

 

Now I love that quote too, thanks for sharing.
And
Erasmus, I don't care if you think that Im not doing what I am biologically designed to do.
hell I hardly ever do what I am supposed to be doing.

You see the problem that I have is that you cant get past the sex. sex. sex sex. thats all you talk about.

Im a lesbian b/c I love a women. I do not love men in the way that I love a women.

When I talk about the fact that I am gay I never refer to sex. I can and have achieved orgasms with men and women, Ive even enjoyed sex with men and women. Ive had bad sex with men, and bad sex with women.

I am gay because of my inability to love men.

you dont understand that.You cant get past the fact that the person I love and make love to has the same who-ha as me. That we cant make babies.

fine.
I can get past the fact that you dont understand this.
but dont worry, I accept you for your shortcommings.

 

I think this is the point Im getting at.
When we decide that there is a third option available to be had - people will end up there sometimes.
As far as I can see - this seems to be more true for women who get into lesbianism.
(but in general for both).

One thing that would be nice is if you dropped this pretense that sexual relations are somehow 'beside the point'.
Bullshit.
That pretty much IS where you discern the difference between yourself and 'a hetero' and the very reason you call yourself 'a gay'.

If you were NOT having sexual relations (or the desire to) then you would not even distinguish yourself and neither would the rest of society, including most everyone who calls themselves 'gays'.

If you showed up at a big gay community event and explained how you and your female roomate have a tremendously loving relationship and are sworn Spinsters and take care of each other - however - you have no interest in sex with women .. then you are not a lesbian or a gay.

But anyways... "I am gay because of my inability to love men."
This is kinda sad to me and I know a lot of people have serious problems with this nowadays.
I still suggest that just because you cant get the square peg through the square hole means you should fool yourself into believing making a round peg 'seem to get in there' is a valid option?
Thats what your doing isnt it?

 

Oh, bullshit. I have no fucking desire to fucking fuck with anyone, for fucking health reasons. What the fuck does that make me? A fucking tree?

Oh, bovine fesis. They're coming up with new ways to get chicks pregnent without sex, and the world has too fucking many people anyways. How you like them fucking apples?
Btw, I wish I could go bisexual so I would have twice the options.

 

I dont think I have ever seen you swear that much Clouds.
A real ripper you went on there.
Its what I do.

 

I posted this in another thread a while back, and it seems to be relevant here:

 

Actually, Heterosexuality is not just in the mind but entirely apparent in a signifigant portion of the human body.
Women in particular have a very large amount of their bodies energy and time (and space) dedicated to quite a bit of 'machinery' that is all just waiting for an ejaculating penis.
If not - its a helluva big waste of time, space and energy if its not going to be used for that and the natural consequences of the ejaculating penis.

So here is the dilema - IF the lesbianism is 'perfectly normal' and she is meant to think and act on lesbian desires...
Then her womb and ovaries are the mistake.
The 'Illness' so to speak?
Lesbians are born with a tremendous physical burden for absoltely no reason at all.

So what is wrong here - the body or the mind?

 

yes, but if she's happy being a lesbian and you are happy being straight.... THEN WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?

i can see the point you're trying to make but it seems futile since ultimately, people's sexuality is their own business and not really dependant on others acceptance of that.....

 

It's probably easier to remove someone's ovaries than it is to change their sexual orientation. If I was a lesbian (and I'm never going to be) I'd be quite happy to donate my ovaries to someone who was actually going to use them. I certainly don't have much use for my semen.

 

and besides, say you did manage to convince a majority of people in this discussion that homosexuality was not 'normal'... so what? people will still be gay if that is what they feel is right for them, no amount of anyones personal logic will affect that

...

this is like arguing that no one should be vegetarian because our canines are evidence that we are designed to eat meat... e.g. pointless

 

Like I said, I think it's facetious to argue this issue on the grounds of whether homosexuality is "natural", as the point where something ceases to be "natural" is entirely subjective.

I think it's more relevant to ask: if a parent found out that their kid was going to be gay, and wanted to change that, would their reasons for doing so be legitimate?

 

I do happen to believe everyone has a 'natural' disease they are born with, oft dubbed 'The Human Condition' and known in Church circles as 'inherint Sin nature'.

I think your second paragraph asks the better (and on-topic) question.

If you could change your childs sexual orientation from 'gay' to 'straight' then what would be the reasoning?

I would most definatly see the desire for a family (Grandchildren) would be one of the main reasons.
That one has social, emotional and even financial security issues all over it.

Another reason would be statistics indicating that homosexuals (at least males) have a very high murder, suicide and disease rate.
Not to mention hard drug abuse and addiction being very high for these groups.
Im saying that would be cited as a reason for removing the 'gay gene' or taking the hormonal/medical therapy to change them into 'heterosexuals'.

 

Any group that is seen by the majority as being abnormal or less than human has a high incidence of murder, suicide, drug abuse, STD’s, and drug abuse in the “studies” produced by the majority. See the “scientific” studies of blacks in the early 1900, of the poor in Victorian England, or of hippies in the 1960’s. Subcultures are always credited with all of the negative behaviors defined by the dominant culture. Some of this data is true. Some of the behaviors happen as a result of the persecution of the majority. However, most of the data is bullshit. How would we know if gay folks have a higher rate of anything? No two studies can agree within an order of magnitude how many gay people there are in the US. So how in the hell or you going to define a rate with out even having a denominator that you can trust.

PS I am still awaiting your reply to my request.

 

This is what I thought. The question is, is it ethical to write out a trait that does little implicit harm simply because a society dislikes it? With the exception of grandchildren, most of the negative factors you describe (emotional problems, suicide rate, drug abuse, not sure about some of them) are more a product of our society's attitude towards homosexuality than of the trait itself.

The issue of continuing the species is one we've all heard, but the most obvious counter-argument would be that the planet is already grossly over-populated (I recently heard a scientist say in an interview that he believed our planet could support 2-3 billion without too much trouble) and that even if it weren't, 90% of people would still be heterosexual. If homosexuality really is genetic, it's not a gene that is easily passed on, and it certainly isn't going to run riot through the population (how could it?)

Again, I'm not disputing what you're saying. The reasons you've given are the same ones I was thinking of. Where you and I perhaps differ is on whether those reasons are themselves legitimate.

A comparable argument would be with mixed-race children: the parents know that the child will be mixed-race, and that certain societal factors may make the child's life difficult. Is it therefore acceptable to "cure" mixed-race children?

 

I dont accept (entirely) that the murder, violent domestic abuse, suicide and drug addcition rates among the 'homosexual' demographic are a result of them being victimised or treated harshly.
I suggest much of it has to do with willful infatuation with dangerous activities, self-medicatiing as a way to deal with their problems and degrees of depression brought on by the emotional conflicts resulting from their behavior (independant of any outside forces or even knowledge).

I can see where there would be a mix and variety of the cause and effects sure.
The rampant hard drug abuse is probably the one Id be most concerned about and it goes on in cities and cultures where homosexuality is not only accepted but celebrated.
So anyways... I had also thought that it could just as easily be considered very desireable and even 'trendy' to have children given the gayness too.
Especially considering that homosexual men are very popular on TV shows and as movie characters - many expecting mothers might want a few boys but at least one of them who will be fashionable, tidy and have a hilarious gay personality.
It might even be a status symbol.
Overprotective Fathers might want to turn their girls into Lesbians for the sole purpose of never having to go through the anxiety and nervousness of a daughter starting to date teenage boys.

Im really sorry but for some reason your posts have been boring the hell out of me lately so I just skim them.
What was your request again?

Was it one where you took something I said - then rephrased it, put it in a slightly different context and then asked me to 'confirm' this was my opinion or not?

 

hahhahahhhahaa
"Overprotective Fathers might want to turn their girls into Lesbians for the sole purpose of never having to go through the anxiety and nervousness of a daughter starting to date teenage boys."

so are you suggesting that parents might try to raise there children to be gay???
thats very funny to me. what kind of sick individual would do something like that? they might turm there children into murders instead of homosexuals!(ever read about Ed Gein?)

"it could just as easily be considered very desireable and even 'trendy' "
Now this comment I have to give some merit too. Because I have noticed among some women it has become trendy to be bisexual. It makes the guys want them more because they think they can have threesomes with them.
These girls are only looking for attention, and it fucking pisses me off. It makes the gay/bisexual population look bad. Makes us all look like pitiful attention seekers.

but please dont get mixed up between the fakers and the real ones. We are discussing the real ones here.

and i wanted to add that Im not sure that I believe that being gay is genetic.
maybe it is somewhat responsible, but I think that environmental factors play a key role. example:

My dad treated me and my mom like shit. I was an only child..I never had a good relationship with a man (like father-daughter) when I was young, I never learnt how to love my father. I thought that is was wierd when I was 14 I heard my friends dad tell him he loved him, and I started to laugh, I thought it was so wierd..."your dad tells you he loves you?!" I remember saying "thats wierd". My friend told me that his dad was normal, that mine was abnormal. Now I treat men like garbage, I treat men like I seen my dad treat my mother. I really am heartless when it comes to men. But I can love women whole heartedly. I think Im a lesbian because of the shitty why my dad treated me. Now not everyone becomes a lesbian because there daddy was an asshole. But Im just saying I think that this plays a factor with me. Maybe something genetic is at work to.. like a pre-dispostion brought on by environmental factors..

another example the movie Gia. It shows early on a shady relationship with her father. and a strong inclination to the mother.

and many lesbians that I know have been molested. and now they distrust men, even go as far to say that they are scared of men.

I dont know about male homosexuality. Im not a man. Maybe a male would like to share???


really Im not too concerned. Im very happy with loving women. Women are beautiful in a way that a man can never be to me.

 

I'm afraid I can only back this up with my own experience, (not that you're troubling yourself with much in the way of evidence) but most homosexuals I've encountered are anything but infatuated with dangerous activities, wilfully or otherwise, unless you count dressing for shit as an extreme sport.

As for the emotional conflicts, you seem to have a cyclic form of logic here; are you saying that we take drugs because of emotional problems, or that we have emotional problems because we take drugs?

I'd like to check your sources on this "rampant hard drug abuse". I've not seen it.

I suggest you test this theory. Ask a few prospective mothers if, given the choice, they would rather have a gay child than a straight one. See what answer you get. Report back. I'd be very surprised if the results bore out that theory. There may be those who have children simply as a shallow status symbol, but I very much doubt they represent anything more than the most minute fraction of all parents. Homosexuality may have become more widely tolerated, but it is far from fashionable; otherwise everyone would be doing it, and I can tell you from my experience that everyone isn't.

Again, I really very much doubt that is the case.

While your input is appreciated on this matter, I think it would be beneficial if you refrained from complete speculation, or at least found some statistical basis for any argument that refers to "rampant hard drug abuse", for example. If it's as rampant as you say it is it shouldn't be hard to come by.

 

Okay, here me out on this. If everyone goes gay, are you with me so far here? Okay, if everyone goes gay, then dudes could go wank and put their sperm in a sperm bank. Now stay with me here people, stay with me. Then for whatever strange reason if a woman wants to have, oh lets say a baby, then she could go get some of that sperm and use it, nome sayin'? I gave this example before, but I guess no one got past the f bombs.

 

cure!?...Im not gay, but i can see this ones ridiculous. Thats like asking to be "cured" of having blue eyes or brown hair, or prefering chocolate ice cream to vanilla.

Anyone can be unhappy with who they were born as, whether theyre gay or not. Look at all those having plastic surgery. But we were born this way for a reason, and must learn to live and grow as us.

Xx

 

Agreed on that one. If a cure was available, I think anyone unhappy with their sexuality should be allowed to rectify it. I know a few gay guys who would prefer to be straight (and vice versa), but to be honest, I don't think it'd actually be that popular.