The gay cure?

[Labrocca]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html

Seems scientists are working on a cure for gay sheep which has outraged gays. As I have argued about the "gay gene" and if it's biological then will a cure be found.

I thought this might make a good topic.

[underdawg]

Personally, I don't concider homosexuality to be a disease, but it does look like interesting research. I think when you try to mess with hormones you might cause more problems than you will fix. What might "cure" a homosexual male, might cause a girl to become a lesbian or the other way around. Sometimes too much male hormone would cause a girl fetus to grow a penis.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

It's really one small part of a broader subject, the right of parents to manipulate the fetus for desirable traits, be they sex, health, appearance, etc...

Already the technology exists to greatly influence to likelihood of one sex or the other in a conception, but society has disallowed that (although some fertility doctors will allow a patients desire to trump regulations)

However I fail to understand the outrage of the homosexual protesters. If being homosexual really is such a disadvantage, why would they want it not to be cured? The only reason I can think of is the possible loss of young, nubile sexual partners 18 years (or whatever their preference is) from the cure implementation.

[underdawg]

The only thing that makes homosexuality a disadvantage is that they have to deal with a country full of bigots who are intent on making their lives difficult.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The only thing that makes homosexuality a disadvantage is that they have to deal with a country full of bigots who are intent on making their lives difficult.


And that seems like something a loving mother would save her child from if she had the power to do so, right?

[Elrathin]

And that seems like something a loving mother would save her child from if she had the power to do so, right?


Why, what's wrong with being gay? Personally, we should be looking to cure the "asshole" gene that some people have in treating gay people.

[underdawg]

I agree. The bias gene seems to be a bigger problem and more of a disease than any sort of gay gene. I say we deperately need a cure for that.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And that seems like something a loving mother would save her child from if she had the power to do so, right?


Why, what's wrong with being gay?


Did you read the post I replied to? Underdawg spelled it out.

If you come up with some treatment that prevents a fetus from becomin a bigot, by all means add it to the other treatments a mother might choose for her child one day. Freedom of choice, isn't that what it's all about?

[Nitrus]

And whos gonna ask the un-born fetus what it wants? huh?

[Professor]

I think when you try to mess with hormones you might cause more problems than you will fix. What might "cure" a homosexual male, might cause a girl to become a lesbian or the other way around. Sometimes too much male hormone would cause a girl fetus to grow a penis.


I agree with that. Down Syndrome is caused when there is only one small mistake in chromosomes, but the results are dramatic. It only takes one small change for something big to go wrong. You risk stunting this person's sexuality, their urges and feelings. That's not something I think any parent would want to do.

I don't think a "gay cure" is necessary because there is nothing wrong with being gay. Further more the idea of parents "saving" their kids from the pain it will cause is rubbish. Kids and adults might be frowned upon for being gay. But they also might be if they are overweight, live in the wrong part of town, are of any race or religion, are too smart or too dumb, too rich or too poor or even drive the wrong car. If it's not something it's another.

I think the outrage from the gay community comes because they don't want their way of life regarded as an illness. I don't think most homosexuals regard their sexuality as a handicap, but want to raise awareness of their situation and make a change.

It's similar to being African American. During the Civil Rights movement and until today blacks wanted to draw attention to the fact that they were struggling to survive, a situation that was staunchly unjust. They didn't see their skin color as a handicap, but something that needed to be acknowledged and accepted by society. In the 60's people marched, they didn't try to decolorize their skin.

It's this simply acceptance that will get us farther than gay cures. Today African Americans are widely accepted to have equal rights as Caucasians. No science was needed, only open mindedness. Perhaps the same will work with the supposed gay cure.

[underdawg]

You hit the nail on the head professor. I couldn't have said it better.

[Alonzo]

If you come up with some treatment that prevents a fetus from becomin a bigot, by all means add it to the other treatments a mother might choose for her child one day. Freedom of choice, isn't that what it's all about?


Ya, but this is america. There would be little market for such a drug and, therefore, little reason for any company to produce it.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I don't think a "gay cure" is necessary because there is nothing wrong with being gay.


That is really up to the parents to decide. If genetics can be altered slightly to make a healthier, slimmer, smarter child that should be allowed for the parent who desires that for their child as well.

Why would you deny a parent the ability to give their child a happier life?

[Labrocca]

Why, what's wrong with being gay?Â*Â*Personally, we should be looking to cure the "asshole" gene that some people have in treating gay people.


We do..it's called Prozac. There are a number of drugs people take to adjust or deal with their disorders. I would classify homosexuality as one.

I don't think a "gay cure" is necessary because there is nothing wrong with being gay. Further more the idea of parents "saving" their kids from the pain it will cause is rubbish. Kids and adults might be frowned upon for being gay. But they also might be if they are overweight, live in the wrong part of town, are of any race or religion, are too smart or too dumb, too rich or too poor or even drive the wrong car. If it's not something it's another.

Well...kids as young as preschool take things like ridilin to alter their unsocial behavior. Fat people take drugs to help reduce their appetite and weight. These are imho all the same...part of a disorder (mental or physical). People with panic attacks take pills too.

There is the constant comparison of blacks to gays...totally inappropriate and they are NOT similar. There will NEVER be a pill to change a black person into white. It would require extreme changes in DNA. If there was proven a single point of failure in the child development process then a cure could be applied.

BTW....my ideas imho don't make me a bigot. I have nothing against people with any handicap or disorder. If anything..I feel a bit sad when a person is stricken with a disorder they can't control.

Homosexuality shouldn't be classified as a normal sexual preference. It's obviously NOT normal. The urge to have sex with the same sex is a deviant behavior that should be controlled or altered by drugs. Does this mean I hate gays...nope. I don't hate people with ADHD either but I think they should get help. I think Alcholics should be helped as well. Our society is now filled to the rim with dysfunctions and disorders. There are now various drug treatments to deal with them. Why is treating homosexuality wrong?

Again...Why is a treatment for homosexuality wrong?

[Buck Laser]

Again...Why is a treatment for homosexuality wrong?


For one thing, the American Psychiatric Association dropped homosexuality from its list of personality disorders about 40 years ago. For another, there is an increasing body of evidence that suggests that homosexuality has a genetic cause. And biologists keep on identifying patterns of homosexual behavior in other species of animals.

I think I can understand how someone might feel it's a disorder if they were brought up in a family that put undue emphasis on "orthodox" sexual behavior as proof of one's state of grace...certainly the unfortunate youngster, being told time and time again that if he doesn't "manly," God will punish him, is gonna look for any means he can to deny or change his sexuality. And I guess I wouldn't be opposed to loving counseling with those who do want to try to change their sexual behavior. The evidence, however, for the success of that kind of counseling is miserably scant, and usually impossible to judge by standard scientific methods.

I have a kind of tangential personal experience with this issue, because I was unusually late in achieving sexual maturity. I spent some pretty miserable teen-age years wondering if I was going to be "different." I went to doctors and psychologists, who all assured me that slow development was just as common as precocious sexuality.

Human sexuality is an enormously complex subject that we are just beginning to be able to describe, despite the fact that it's at the very core of most animal behavior.

If you wanna "treat" people for homosexuality, I suppose that's your right: but the moment you start defining what "proper" sexuality is for me and mine, then I'm gonna be all over you like a duck on a june bug.

[Oedipus Rex]

I've always thought that homosexuality is a form of mental retardation or some other chromosome defect.

[underdawg]

I used to think that homosexuality meant that a guy wanted to be a girl, but I learned differently.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Again...Why is a treatment for homosexuality wrong?


For one thing, the American Psychiatric Association dropped homosexuality from its list of personality disorders about 40 years ago.


which means nothing, since many undesirable traits are not listed in the DSM.

You really haven't given any valid reasons for the removal of homosexuality from a fetus to be wrong.

[Oedipus Rex]

I used to think that homosexuality meant that a guy wanted to be a girl, but I learned differently.





Damn! I'm afraid to ask you to explain but I have this ugly mental picture in my head of some bald-headed guy wearing a mini skirt. There are just some things in this world better left unsaid.;)

[Drocket]

There is the constant comparison of blacks to gays...totally inappropriate and they are NOT similar. There will NEVER be a pill to change a black person into white. It would require extreme changes in DNA. If there was proven a single point of failure in the child development process then a cure could be applied.

But lets just imagine for a second that there WAS: some amazing medical breakthrough wherein a black mother can take a pill that causes her child to come out white. Its not a permanent genetic change (just as homosexuality doesn't appear to be genetic), so the result isn't passed on to future generations. The only thing that happens is that the kid comes out appearing to be white. Just a minor chemical change wherein the kid's melanin production is permanently suppressed.

If that pill existed, then shouldn't parents be obligated to give it to their kids? Because lets be honest, even today racism is alive and well. So why shouldn't parents make that choice for their kid's benefit?

[Labrocca]

I have a big-ass Italian nose. If in the womb my mom could have made it smaller..I would have wished it. It caused me a lot of strife as a teenager.

And I guess I wouldn't be opposed to loving counseling with those who do want to try to change their sexual behavior. The evidence, however, for the success of that kind of counseling is miserably scant, and usually impossible to judge by standard scientific methods.

But what about a medical treatment? Would you also oppose medical treatment of child molestors to curb their urge to have sex with children? Pedophilia is imho a sexual preference the same as homosexuality. If a pedophiliac never acted on their impulses would you consider them normal and acceptable still? What if they just fantisized and masturbated about children? What if you were a child molestor and your parents had the choice to cure you before birth? Wouldn't you want the cure?

If you wanna "treat" people for homosexuality, I suppose that's your right: but the moment you start defining what "proper" sexuality is for me and mine, then I'm gonna be all over you like a duck on a june bug.

So you are saying that homosexuals are your "kind"? Hmm..interesting. Do you feel it's homosexuals VS the world? Do you think pedophiliacs feel the same? Personally I am not against homosexuals...just against homosexuality.

[Labrocca]

But lets just imagine for a second that there WAS: some amazing medical breakthrough wherein a black mother can take a pill that causes her child to come out white.Â*

Why not just say that a man can get pregnant and have a billy goat for a baby. I started this thread with a link to an article about an actual cure for homosexuality. The need for gays to equate to blacks I can understand for their cause but it's unmerited. They are NOT the same. 2 blacks have a black child...supposedly 2 gays don't automatically have a gay child. It's insulting to place the 2 together.

[Oedipus Rex]

Gays usually try to equate their 'struggle' with that of blacks. 'Civil rights' they scream. But what it really is, amounts to special rights.

[Elrathin]

Why not just say that a man can get pregnant and have a billy goat for a baby.

This response is getting tiring. Is a billy goat a sentient life that can give LEGAL consent? No it isn't, please don't be this dumb, you're smarter then this to use that as an excuse Labrocca.

Equating Beastiality to homosexuality is about as dumb as can be.

[Oedipus Rex]

Why not just say that a man can get pregnant and have a billy goat for a baby.

This response is getting tiring. Is a billy goat a sentient life that can give LEGAL consent? No it isn't, please don't be this dumb, you're smarter then this to use that as an excuse Labrocca.

Equating Beastiality to homosexuality is about as dumb as can be.


You missed his point.

[Drocket]

Personally I am not against homosexuals...just against homosexuality.

I started this thread with a link to an article about an actual cure for homosexuality.

If there's a 'cure' for homosexuality, then homosexuality is, essentially by definition, an illness. If you go around telling people that you think there's something inherently wrong with them - that you think they're defective - then its kind of hard to get around the fact that you're not exactly on the best terms with who/what they are.

[underdawg]

Labrocca you said that you were against homosexuality. Could you explain why? Any personal reasons other than the Bible says it is a sin?

[underdawg]

For me personally, I think I feel pretty neutral about heterosexuality. It is not like I feel for it or against it. It is just kinda like "there". Sorta like a fact of life. If a guy is all excited for a girl or vice versa, I would think, "thats nice, I am glad they are happy." I feel the same way about homosexuality. If both adults are are happy, then what is there to cure?

[Elrathin]

You missed his point.


Not really it is an incoherent slippery slope argument that is used.

Much like if we let blacks marry whites, the whole institution of marriage will fail. That one went into the record books as being nothing but idiotic as well. Soon the "if we let gays marry the world will end" will join it.

[Buck Laser]

I've always thought that homosexuality is a form of mental retardation or some other chromosome defect.

You're out there all alone by yourself, boyo!

[Buck Laser]

There is the constant comparison of blacks to gays...totally inappropriate and they are NOT similar. There will NEVER be a pill to change a black person into white. It would require extreme changes in DNA. If there was proven a single point of failure in the child development process then a cure could be applied.

But lets just imagine for a second that there WAS: some amazing medical breakthrough wherein a black mother can take a pill that causes her child to come out white. Its not a permanent genetic change (just as homosexuality doesn't appear to be genetic), so the result isn't passed on to future generations. The only thing that happens is that the kid comes out appearing to be white. Just a minor chemical change wherein the kid's melanin production is permanently suppressed.

If that pill existed, then shouldn't parents be obligated to give it to their kids? Because lets be honest, even today racism is alive and well. So why shouldn't parents make that choice for their kid's benefit?


I'm sorry, but this strikes me as the most stark raving looney idea I ever heard in my LIFE!!!! Do you actually believe there would by some moral value in changing the color of a child's skin?

Frankly this sounds like something from the worst "genetic engineering" fascist science fiction I ever heard in my life. I think you should be ashamed of yourself for even bringing it up!

[Drocket]

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as the most stark raving looney idea I ever heard in my LIFE!!!! Do you actually believe there would by some moral value in changing the color of a child's skin?

Do you actually believe there's some moral value in changing a person's sexuality?

That isn't even the argument I made, though: the previous argument was that, even if there isn't anything 'wrong' with being gay, its socially unpopular, therefore children should be 'fixed' simply so they fit in better. Being black is also socially unpopular - study after study after study shows that even if racism has gone underground somewhat and isn't quite so blatant anymore, its still alive and well. If you're black, its more difficult to get a job, its more difficult to get credit, its more difficult just to hail a freaking cab. So if a parent could save their children those problems by turning them white, why shouldn't they?

No moral judgment on being black there, just a recognition that its more difficult than being white. Just as its easier to be straight than it is to be gay.

[Buck Laser]

I'm sorry, but this strikes me as the most stark raving looney idea I ever heard in my LIFE!!!! Do you actually believe there would by some moral value in changing the color of a child's skin?

Do you actually believe there's some moral value in changing a person's sexuality?

That isn't even the argument I made, though: the previous argument was that, even if there isn't anything 'wrong' with being gay, its socially unpopular, therefore children should be 'fixed' simply so they fit in better. Being black is also socially unpopular - study after study after study shows that even if racism has gone underground somewhat and isn't quite so blatant anymore, its still alive and well. If you're black, its more difficult to get a job, its more difficult to get credit, its more difficult just to hail a freaking cab. So if a parent could save their children those problems by turning them white, why shouldn't they?

No moral judgment on being black there, just a recognition that its more difficult than being white. Just as its easier to be straight than it is to be gay.


Sorry, I don't think that'll fly. I agree that it's totally socially acceptable to be straight, but I can't find it within me to actually believe that homosexuality is a choice. If I were born gay, I can certainly imagine wanting to be straight. And I'm willing to grant that there are probably people who could go either way. In my life I've know a number of essentially asexual people, who seem to function very well without sexual relations--or who at least subjugate their sexual desires. Despite the beating that Catholic Religious People have taken in recent years, I've know a few religious people, including my dearest and closest aunt, who survived an asexual life for 95 years or so.

I guess the problem is that there are at least two dimensions in measuring one's sexuality: either attracted to the same sex or the opposite; and level of sexual need. The two dimensions as I see them are totally independent of each other, though popular folklore depicts gays as being constantly in heat. I really don't believe that stereotype will hold water.

[Drocket]

I have absolutely no clue where on god's green earth where you're going with this non sequitur argument.

Being straight is completely socially acceptable. Being gay not so much. Ergo, its easier to fit in if you're straight, ergo being gay is harder. I said absolutely nothing about gay people being 'constantly in heat', and haven't the faintest idea of where you're coming from there.

[Buck Laser]

I have absolutely no clue where on god's green earth where you're going with this non sequitur argument.

Being straight is completely socially acceptable. Being gay not so much. Ergo, its easier to fit in if you're straight, ergo being gay is harder. I said absolutely nothing about gay people being 'constantly in heat', and haven't the faintest idea of where you're coming from there.

It seems to me that lots of people identify homosexuals as inherently sexually overactive. Perhaps you don't, but that's what I hear from many people who' qualify as full-blown homophobes. What I'm saying is that there are levels of sexual activity independent of one's sexual preference. A homosexual person with a low sexual drive might have no difficulty "fitting in" with society, while a high level of sexual drive is likely to produce problems for anyone, regardless of sexual preference. Please tell me how these two ideas are non sequiturs, because I see them simply as different dimensions of one's sexuality.

[Drocket]

Please tell me how these two ideas are non sequiturs, because I see them simply as different dimensions of one's sexuality.

Because we're discussing the difference between being gay and straight, not how sexually active someone is.

Anyway, I'd say the stereotype of gay men as being super sexually active is actually part of a larger stereotype: the idea that men want sex all the time, and that its the job of women to say no. This is a negative stereotype for both genders, as it makes men out to be mindless sex fiends who can think of little else, while women use sex as a weapon to manipulate men to do their bidding.

Since there isn't a woman involved in a gay relationship, there's no one to say no, therefore gay men must have sex continuously. This stereotype is a lot of the reason why some people think that allowing gay marriage is the end of civilization: marriage only exists in the first place because women can force men into it by withholding sex. The whole thing is a completely fucked-up view of human nature.

[Labrocca]

Let me be clear here. Sexuality has no relationship to race in a debate. That's like saying religious belief is the same as race or sexuality. There is ZERO correlation.

If the best you can do is bring up race in this argument then it means you have lost this debate.

You still never answered my question about a pedophile being cured before birth. Pedophilia is a sexual preference.

pedophilia, psychosexual disorder in which there is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children. Pedophiles are almost always males. The children are more often of the opposite sex (about twice as often) and are typically 13 years or age or younger; they may be within or outside the pedophile's family. Sexual fantasies, looking, or fondling are more common than genital contact. Sexual offenses against children make up a significant proportion of reported criminal sex acts.

The cause or causes of pedophilia are not well understood. Personality problems may be evident, and the pedophile often shows little or no concern for the effects of his sexual behavior on the child. Researchers have reported that psychotherapy in conjunction with the use of testosterone-lowering drugs has substantially reduced the desire in male pedophiles to molest children. See also child abuse.

Homosexuality was described in a similar way up till the 70's. When I am sure some gay researches came up with the bright idea to say it's normal. Sorry but it doesn't fly with me or most people. You can study the moon and tell me it's square but that doesn't make it true.

So I ask...would you cure the sexual preference of pedophiliacs before birth if given the chance?

[Oedipus Rex]

I've always thought that homosexuality is a form of mental retardation or some other chromosome defect.

You're out there all alone by yourself, boyo!


If the truth be known, I'm betting that a lot of other folks feel the same way but are reluctant to say it publicly. As for me, I tell like I see it... warts and all.

[Labrocca]

Labrocca you said that you were against homosexuality. Could you explain why? Any personal reasons other than the Bible says it is a sin?


You won't catch me quoting the bible. I admit being a Catholic though. It's how I was raised and I feel the Christian values have good sound merit. Love thy neighbor...do unto others..that kind of stuff imho is what everyone should be taught. I don't count myself as religious.

All that being said...I think homosexuals have a screw loose somewhere. I have gay friends...many as a matter of fact. I have no problem with gay people. I am not afraid of gay marriage either...I just think it trounces on a religious tradition and is disrespectful to the institution of marriage. I would be accepting of gays having a civil union with similar rights.

Now in my heart of hearts..I think homosexuality is wrong and against nature. I am more darwinian in my ideas on this. I see homosexuality as the end of a bloodline. I see it as a defect in the person. Now people have LOTS of defects and different types of them. I myself am not a perfect person. But if you could fix my problem with a pill. I would take it. I have ADD and take Prozac...it's totally changed my life. I don't hate other people for their problems I just hate their problem.

Does that explain my thinking well enough for you?

[Oedipus Rex]

Labrocca you said that you were against homosexuality. Could you explain why? Any personal reasons other than the Bible says it is a sin?


You won't catch me quoting the bible. I admit being a Catholic though. It's how I was raised and I feel the Christian values have good sound merit. Love thy neighbor...do unto others..that kind of stuff imho is what everyone should be taught. I don't count myself as religious.

All that being said...I think homosexuals have a screw loose somewhere. I have gay friends...many as a matter of fact. I have no problem with gay people. I am not afraid of gay marriage either...I just think it trounces on a religious tradition and is disrespectful to the institution of marriage. I would be accepting of gays having a civil union with similar rights.

Now in my heart of hearts..I think homosexuality is wrong and against nature. I am more darwinian in my ideas on this. I see homosexuality as the end of a bloodline. I see it as a defect in the person. Now people have LOTS of defects and different types of them. I myself am not a perfect person. But if you could fix my problem with a pill. I would take it. I have ADD and take Prozac...it's totally changed my life. I don't hate other people for their problems I just hate their problem.

Does that explain my thinking well enough for you?


So, you see homosexuality as a form of mental illness or mental retardation?

[Alonzo]

Let me be clear here.Â*Â*Sexuality has no relationship to race in a debate. That's like saying religious belief is the same as race or sexuality.Â*Â*There is ZERO correlation.Â*Â*

If the best you can do is bring up race in this argument then it means you have lost this debate.

Well, people keep bringing on non consensual sex as a comparison to consensual sex.

pedophilia, psychosexual disorder in which there is a preference for sexual activity with prepubertal children. Pedophiles are almost always males. The children are more often of the opposite sex (about twice as often) and are typically 13 years or age or younger; they may be within or outside the pedophile's family. Sexual fantasies, looking, or fondling are more common than genital contact. Sexual offenses against children make up a significant proportion of reported criminal sex acts.

The cause or causes of pedophilia are not well understood. Personality problems may be evident, and the pedophile often shows little or no concern for the effects of his sexual behavior on the child. Researchers have reported that psychotherapy in conjunction with the use of testosterone-lowering drugs has substantially reduced the desire in male pedophiles to molest children. See also child abuse.

Homosexuality was described in a similar way up till the 70's.Â*Â*When I am sure some gay researches came up with the bright idea to say it's normal.Â*Â*Sorry but it doesn't fly with me or most people.Â*Â*You can study the moon and tell me it's square but that doesn't make it true.

So I ask...would you cure the sexual preference of pedophiliacs before birth if given the chance?
[/quote]

Why is this even treated as a legitimate question? Pedophilia, when acted on, is almost always harmful. Pedophiles cannot act out their behavior without risking significant emotional harm to children, and denial of sexuality can lead to emotional disturbances (this is really the only issue that pedophiles share with the rest). Pedophiles have also been shown to, in many cases, have issues with maturity and emotional development.

So, with pedophiles, you have dangerous desires, desires that cannot be acted upon due to legal, psychological and the non consensual nature of the desires, and emotional distress of having to supress their feelings.

Homosexuality has not been directly linked to other psychological conditions (unlike pedophilia), does not inflict significant psychological damage by engaging in homosexual activity (unlike pedophiles), and, are not forced to have to supress their desires because the near certainty of such harm does not exist.

You want to talk about politically incorrect science then you can look at transexuality, something which has been linked to other psychological issues. While it's not harmful to others like pedophilia is, it is not without risks to the individual. And, just like homosexuality and the majority of pedophiles (excluding the ones who adopt pedophilia desires due to stress), it is virtually impossible to change.

Pedophilia (again, excluding the form which appear later in life due to stress), homosexuality, heterosexuality and transexuality are all essentially untreatable. You can attempt to teach people to control their desires and impulses, something which usually fails (even among highly motivated patients), does not change emotional needs, and can result in additional psychological distress when it fails. If you got a pedophile then try it, but with the other 3 (particularl homosexuality and heterosexuality), the tiny potential for success is outweighed by the risks.

Look, it this were 15th century europe, or even Iran (particularly outside tehran, which has a gay scene), if you got a pill to cure homosexuality then use it. But the social environment is much different in the u.s. And, while I think drocket made a horrible suggestion, if you were living in 17th century virginia, and you could make all black babies white, then, considering the social realities and the issue of slavery, by all means give every last one the pill. But the level of oppression of homosexuals and blacks in this country is nowhere near that level.

Now in my heart of hearts..I think homosexuality is wrong and against nature.Â*Â*I am more darwinian in my ideas on this.Â*Â*I see homosexuality as the end of a bloodline.

Well, it's found throughout the animal world. But, homosexuality could have been beneficial. Homosexuals would be less likely to have their own children, meaning more people to care for the existing children and the existing community, and their efforts would be focused on ensuring the survival of other young, not their own. Essentially, its like having more workers but less people to feed. It's similar to how altruism can be beneficial. It doesn't pass on your specific genes, but it aids in the passing on of genes that are similar to yours.

[Labrocca]

Great post Zo but you didn't answer my question.Â*Â*

Would you cure a pedophile in the womb?

Well, people keep bringing on non consensual sex as a comparison to consensual sex.

Yes because SEX is still the operative word there which is what makes it similar.Â*Â*I will agree they are not exactly the same but it's still a sexual preference or behavior however you want to define it.Â*Â*Hey...maybe parents will want to have a gay kid and alter the child to be a homosexual.Â*Â*Parents will eventually have choices in their child development process.Â*Â*Already parents can abort a fetus found to have defects.Â*Â*If the defects could be fixed in the womb then why abort?Â*Â*It just makes sense to me.Â*Â*Some parents may NOT want to have a gay child thus alter it in the womb.Â*Â*They also may want their child to have green eyes.Â*Â*I know I may be stretching a bit off-topic but I am just trying to make my point.

I started this thread with a link for a cure for homosexuality. So the main discussion here is treatments.Â*Â*Inevitably it lead to discussion of pre-birth treatment.

What are gays afraid of if someone they don't know BEFORE birth was treated? Our society allows for breast augmentation, prozac, mood altering drugs, colored contacts, steroids, and a variety of things people do.

Where is the harm to alter someone's sexuality?

If someone was going to be born blind but you can cure them pre-birth would other blind people be offended? There is NOTHING wrong with being blind. I have nothing against blind people.

[Buck Laser]

Please tell me how these two ideas are non sequiturs, because I see them simply as different dimensions of one's sexuality.

Because we're discussing the difference between being gay and straight, not how sexually active someone is.

Anyway, I'd say the stereotype of gay men as being super sexually active is actually part of a larger stereotype: the idea that men want sex all the time, and that its the job of women to say no. This is a negative stereotype for both genders, as it makes men out to be mindless sex fiends who can think of little else, while women use sex as a weapon to manipulate men to do their bidding.

Since there isn't a woman involved in a gay relationship, there's no one to say no, therefore gay men must have sex continuously. This stereotype is a lot of the reason why some people think that allowing gay marriage is the end of civilization: marriage only exists in the first place because women can force men into it by withholding sex. The whole thing is a completely fucked-up view of human nature.


I do know that some people find the idea of homosexual acts frightening or disgusting. As you say, the whole thing is a completely fucked-up view of human nature. And I think a lot of responsiblity for that fucked-up view rests with the church and its misidentification of sex with original sin. It took me a long time to understand that that the church is simply wrong in most of its teachings regarding sex, but at long last I've come to understand it. And I suspect that we're not too far apart on the question of whether it's sexual orientation or sexual drive that incites homophobia. However, I think the view of the "homosexual lifestyle" (and boy, do they love that stereotype) is made worse by the perception that unlimited promiscuity is the norm among gays.

But I have to say that a promiscuous life style, straight or gay, bothers me. It's not that I don't have a kind of grudging admiration for these sexual athletes, but as I've washed my own preoccupation with sex diminish over the years, I see other values as of equal importance.

[underdawg]

It would seem to me that the person with the so called illness must be the one to experience his condition as a problem. It seems to me that the people who are against homosexuality have the problem with homosexuality. It would make more sense that the people who have a problem with homosexuality should be the ones seeking treatment.

[Labrocca]

So, you see homosexuality as a form of mental illness or mental retardation?


To put it bluntly yes. However I prefer to call it a dysfunction or disorder.

[Labrocca]

It would seem to me that the person with the so called illness must be the one to experience his condition as a problem. It seems to me that the people who are against homosexuality have the problem with homosexuality. It would make more sense that the people who have a problem with homosexuality should be the ones seeking treatment.


Well..not to get too personal on you but you have stated you are gay. Which imho is cool. I think anyone who is gay should do their best to adjust. I think self-awareness and high self-esteem is important for any individual. We must accept who we are and accept others for who they are. Now that being said...did you ever feel uncomfortable in your sexuality as a youth? Did you ever feel you had a problem because of your sexual identity? I say this because while you now may be out and accepting of your own identity..there may have been a time in your development when you were confused, unsure, and felt something was amiss.

Now I felt the same way but not about my sexuality. I am sure many of us have ackward emotions and feelings in our development. This is just puberty and imho natural. However kids now as early as 3-5 years old are being treated for phsycological disorders so they can adjust better and internally feel more normal. My son has ADD as well and we started to medicate him last year. There has been a VAST improvement. So just 2 months ago I also started to medicate myself with prozac after being diagnosed as well with ADD. Now I feel 10x better and certainly wish I would have taken this drug years ago. It would have improved my life immensely.

This is my experience and why I have my own ideas and beliefs about this. I would love to hear your ideas about your childhood if you wouldn't mind sharing.

[underdawg]

Yeah, when I was younger I was not upset that I was feeling attractions to other guys. Getting a crush on someone is a great feeling. The problem was that the environment was very much against me having such feelings. The gays jokes, listening to family and friend's negative comments. The pain comes from knowing that you are different and not being able to talk about it with anyone for fear that they will reject you. And as a child learning that you are bound to hell for something you have no control over is a tremendous burdon to carry. Suicide at this age is common for homosexual children not because they are homosexual, but because they have learned that the whole world is against them and have no where to turn. The disease is one created by the society at large.

[Alonzo]

Great post Zo but you didn't answer my question.Â*Â*

Would you cure a pedophile in the womb?

Yes. It's like giving a homosexual a pill to be heterosexual in an environment where their sexuality puts their safety at significant risks, something which is the case with pedophiles. On top of that, with pedophilia, their sexuality puts others at significant risk as well.

What are gays afraid of if someone they don't know BEFORE birth was treated? Our society allows for breast augmentation, prozac, mood altering drugs, colored contacts, steroids, and a variety of things people do.

Two reasons. One, it reinforces the idea that homosexuality is a disease. Two, it makes it more difficult, if such a treatment were available, for those who do not get the treatment. That would likely be particularly true in places where homosexuality is not accepted.

Where is the harm to alter someone's sexuality?

Well, currently, its harmful because you are giving a patient the hope of change when, realistically, the hope is minimal. It's like a mother telling her child that her and the father will get back together soon, when she knows that they never will. It makes the person expect something that will likely never happen, instead of getting the person to come to terms with reality, something they need to do to live a healthy life.

If someone was going to be born blind but you can cure them pre-birth would other blind people be offended?Â*Â*There is NOTHING wrong with being blind. I have nothing against blind people.


Well, you know that you don't believe that there's nothing wrong in being gay. You may not have anything against gay people, but you've been pretty blunt in the past with saying there is something wrong with being gay.

[Oedipus Rex]

So, you see homosexuality as a form of mental illness or mental retardation?


To put it bluntly yes. However I prefer to call it a dysfunction or disorder.


That's two of us. Are there any others?

[Labrocca]

Well, currently, its harmful because you are giving a patient the hope of change when, realistically, the hope is minimal.

What if in 10 years the research showed a 99% success rate?

Good post though Zo. Lots of neat debate you added and gives me something to think about.

[Alonzo]

Well, currently, its harmful because you are giving a patient the hope of change when, realistically, the hope is minimal.

What if in 10 years the research showed a 99% success rate?

Good post though Zo.Â*Â*Lots of neat debate you added and gives me something to think about.


It would be one of those things that can be treated, though I suspect treatment would not be recommended. Right now if ones sexual orientation causes the individual significant distress (whatever their sexuality may be) then that is considered a psychological disorder and treatment is advised. The treatment typically deals with changing their beliefs and feelings about their orientation, not the orientation itself.

If homosexuality can be fully treated then, in all likelihood, heterosexuality could be treated as well. If such things were possible then that would fundamentally alter how we view sexuality.

Essentially, such treatment, even if possible, would likely only be advised (at least by the major mental health organizations) when the client suffers distress due to their orientation and wants to change, or if their orientation presents a real danger to them and they cannot or don't want to remove themselves from that situation.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I still have not seen one valid reason why a mother shouldn't be allowed to treat her unborn fetus to correct abnormal sexuality.

[Labrocca]

So you would think that treatments of a sexual deviant behavior also means getting rid of sex for heterosexuals. WOW...so basically let's just end all sex and the human race. How absurd Zo.

So let me get this straight. If we can get rid of a sexual behavior such as pedophilia by curing the fetus...then it's your logic that we just make everyone sterile sexually? Maybe I am missing something here.

Our race (humanity) is a naturally heterosexual mammal that reproduces itself by mating with the opposite sex. Or do you have a different idea?

[Alonzo]

So you would think that treatments of a sexual deviant behavior also means getting rid of sex for heterosexuals.Â*Â*WOW...so basically let's just end all sex and the human race.Â*Â*How absurd Zo.

So let me get this straight.Â*Â*If we can get rid of a sexual behavior such as pedophilia by curing the fetus...then it's your logic that we just make everyone sterile sexually? Maybe I am missing something here.

Our race (humanity) is a naturally heterosexual mammal that reproduces itself by mating with the opposite sex.Â*Â*Or do you have a different idea?


I am completely confused as to why you're talking about sterility and getting rid of sex. "Treating" homosexuality would typically involve making them bisexual or heterosexual, and "treating" heterosexuality would typically involve making them bisexual or homosexual. My point is, if making homosexuals heterosexual is possible, making heterosexuals homosexual would also likely be possible, assuming the current information on sexuality is correct.

Homosexuality is not deviant, as you are using the term anyway. It's only statistically deviant, just like an iq of 120.

[Labrocca]

Deviant: Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.

Hmm...I think I win that one. Homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior.

If you have another definition for deviant I would like to see it.

You don't "treat" normal behavior and in case you need help with what normal means.

http://www.answers.com/normal&r=67
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.

That's really the heart of the debate on whether homosexuality is natural or an abnormality. Gays are attempting very hard to gain acceptance of homosexuality as normal and an accepted practice. Eventually they may gain this...but not without a fight from me and many others. The debate rages on.

[underdawg]

Homosexuality might somewhat deviate from what is the norm, but that in no way makes homosexuality a handicap or a disease that needs to be treated. The only people who have a problem with homosexuality are those biased against it. Perhaps they need counceling to learn to cope with their own affliction.

[Oedipus Rex]

Homosexuality might somewhat deviate from what is the norm, but that in no way makes homosexuality a handicap or a disease that needs to be treated. The only people who have a problem with homosexuality are those biased against it. Perhaps they need counceling to learn to cope with their own affliction.


Yep, anytime you'd rather go 'in' the 'out' door, you're normal.:rolleyes:

Homosuckuals are deviant. If it were a viable sexual identity, they'd be able to procreate naturally.

[Alonzo]

Deviant:

S: (adj) aberrant, deviant, deviate (markedly different from an accepted norm) "aberrant behavior"; "deviant ideas"

S: (n) pervert, deviant, deviate, degenerate (a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior)


http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=deviant

Deviant can mean significantly different from the norm, it can mean perverted, it can mean violating the acceptable norms of society etc. Homosexuality, itself, whether the society considers it deviant really depends on the location at this point in history. Does homosexuality violate the average persons definition of whats acceptable in texas? Yes. Does it in MA, Sweden, Ontario? No. The average person in many areas seems to view homosexuality as acceptable behavior, even if they oppose marriage. The definition of deviance you used is subjective.

But the definition of deviance that I focused on was statistical deviance, which is anything not statistically normal (high or low intelligence, creativeness, strength etc.). That states absolutely nothing about desirability. The other form of deviance I focused on, and the way I assume you meant it, was essentially a sophisticated term for perverted (which is another definition of deviant) and a violation of the norm of nature.

In terms of nature, homosexuality is seen throughout it. In many species 2-10% are homosexual, and some species, like bonobo's (a type of chimp), bisexuality (including penetration and oral sex) is almost universal. Homosexuality, as a occurence in the natural world, is only statistically deviant. With society, the question of whether its deviant depends on the use of the term (is it not consistent with the majority, is it a violation of the accepted norms of a society, or is it perverted).

Is homosexuality statistically deviant? Yes. Is it deviant in relation to nature? No. Is it socially deviant? Depends on society that surrounds you.

Think of seal hunting. Is it deviant in all of america? No. Is it deviant in the bulk of the lower 48 states? Yes. But in most of alaska it isn't deviant, as it doesn't violate accepted norms of society. Yet, in most of alaska, it would still be deviant in the sense that it is not normal for a person to be a seal hunter, and seal hunters are a small minority of the population.

Just like the term normal, deviant can be used and understood in many different ways. Sometimes the context is not sufficient to pinpoint the meaning being used. The meanings I most commonly use are statistical deviance and, in everyday speech, as a violation of the accepted rules of society.

[underdawg]

As far as going "in the out door" homosexuals certainly don't have a monopoly on that one. Lots of men's wives take in the"our door".

Oedipus if not being able to naturally procreate sexually were a criteria for being deviant, then children with Downs Syndrone, the elderly, people who are paralyzed, the infertile, and guys unable to get an erection would all fit into that category.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The only people who have a problem with homosexuality are those biased against it. Perhaps they need counceling to learn to cope with their own affliction.


Not a valid point in this context. A mother would want the best for her child, and that would usually include normal sexuality even in a mother who didn't think anything was wrong with homosexuality.

The mother would want her child to be free from being affected by bigotry, and would also likely wish for the greatest chance for grandchildren.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

then children with Downs Syndrone, the elderly, people who are paralyzed, the infertile, and guys unable to get an erection would all fit into that category.


And wouldn't a responsible parent eliminate those afflictions as well in their children if they could (with the exception of elderly, but on that tack a parent would certainty choose a long healthy life)?

[underdawg]

Only if those traits were to be seen as negative to the person who had those traits. You are just assuming that a homosexual wants to change. The only people who see it as disease are the one's who have a bias against it.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

You are just assuming that a homosexual wants to change.


You miss the point entirely, as did alonzo.

It has nothing to do with an adult who has chosen to be gay, it is solely about what parents would want for their children, and so far no one has counter argued from that perspective.

There are good reasons a parent would likely prefer a normal child.

[Oedipus Rex]

1. As far as going "in the out door" homosexuals certainly don't have a monopoly on that one. Lots of men's wives take in the"our door".

2. Oedipus if not being able to naturally procreate sexually were a criteria for being deviant, then children with Downs Syndrone, the elderly, people who are paralyzed, the infertile, and guys unable to get an erection would all fit into that category.


1. That's true butt the homoflexables have made it into an art form, so to speak.:D

2. Let's devide this broad range into several groups. First, you have those who are handicapped or suffer from mental retardation. Secondly, you have those who are beyond the range of birthing offspring. Thirdly, you have those who have a legitimate medical problem.

Tell me, which category do you think I'm putting the gays in... 1, 2, or 3?

[Oedipus Rex]

You are just assuming that a homosexual wants to change.


You miss the point entirely, as did alonzo.

It has nothing to do with an adult who has chosen to be gay, it is solely about what parents would want for their children, and so far no one has counter argued from that perspective.

There are good reasons a parent would likely prefer a normal child.




Don't you find it curious that some of those who view aborting a fetus, the choice of the mother but altering a gay fetus is unspeakable/wrong?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Don't you find it curious that some of those who view aborting a fetus, the choice of the mother but altering a gay fetus is unspeakable/wrong?


It's likely based on the same reason I would argue against only male children. When I'm in my 60's I still want there to be 20 year old women. If I had chosen a homosexual lifestyle I would likewise want 20 year old gay men to be around when I was an old codger.

[Alonzo]

As far as going "in the out door" homosexuals certainly don't have a monopoly on that one. Lots of men's wives take in the"our door".

Oedipus if not being able to naturally procreate sexually were a criteria for being deviant, then children with Downs Syndrone, the elderly, people who are paralyzed,Â*Â*the infertile, and guys unable to get an erection would all fit into that category.


A significant amount of homosexuals don't even engage in that. I can't remember, but it was somewhere between 25-50% who only do oral.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

As far as going "in the out door" homosexuals certainly don't have a monopoly on that one. Lots of men's wives take in the"our door".

Oedipus if not being able to naturally procreate sexually were a criteria for being deviant, then children with Downs Syndrone, the elderly, people who are paralyzed, the infertile, and guys unable to get an erection would all fit into that category.


A significant amount of homosexuals don't even engage in that. I can't remember, but it was somewhere between 25-50% who only do oral.


Not that it matters to the points made, but cite please.

[Alonzo]

In modern times in Western cultures, anal sex is popularly associated with homosexual or bisexual men. Studies (Lauman, for example) claim that about 80% of homosexual men in the United States have engaged in anal sex.
Not all, however, regularly engage in anal sex or find it pleasurable. According to the Lauman study a significant minority (the remaining 20%) never engage in it at all. Corroborative research, including the Gay Urban Men's Study (P.I. Stall, UCSF) and the Young Men's Study (YMS, PI Osmond/Catania, UCSF), indicate that only 50% of men surveyed engage in anal sex. Furthermore, the numbers in sexual surveys tend to reflect whether those surveyed have ever had anal sex or have had anal sex in the last year, instead of distinguishing between men who have simply tried it and men who regularly engage in it. Since data on homosexual and bisexual sexual behavior tend to arouse controversy, it is difficult to draw reliable conclusions in this area.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Anal_sex

I never really looked into it much, as I don't see it as particularly important, so I haven't looked into the studies themselves.

[Labrocca]

children with Downs Syndrone, the elderly, people who are paralyzed, the infertile, and guys unable to get an erection would all fit into that category.

FBM already commented but what a loaded gun you handed to us. You just made our point that any reasonable parent would want to cure their child of any and all of these diseases. Now I am not calling homosexuality a disease. I have called it a disorder. But curing it is exactly what many parents would choose to do if they had that choice. A gay child means no grandchildren (naturally).

As a parent of 4 I have a chance that one of my kids will be gay. I accept that. If it happens I deal with it and love my child as best I can and accept him or her. However if I can do something to prevent it...I most certainly will.

I can't believe you handed us that statement Underdawg. Talk about on a silver platter!

[underdawg]

This does bring up a concept that is starting to be common in our society. Designer babies. Not that there really is anything wrong with the children, but the parents think something is not perfect about their children. You don't like blue eyes, or the height of your child, now the next logical step is to do gene manipulation, or hormone therapy to insure you of the perfect child. It seems to me Hitler wanted to develope the perfect man.

In a country where people are afraid of cloning, genetically altered food, fetal tissue reasurch, it seems odd that you would hate homosexuality enough to subject your own children to such research. I will not if I think it is right or wrong, but I would say be careful what you wish for. The outcome might not always be pleasant.

[Buck Laser]

This does bring up a concept that is starting to be common in our society. Designer babies. Not that there really is anything wrong with the children, but the parents think something is not perfect about their children. You don't like blue eyes, or the height of your child, now the next logical step is to do gene manipulation, or hormone therapy to insure you of the perfect child. It seems to me Hitler wanted to develope the perfect man.

In a country where people are afraid of cloning, genetically altered food, fetal tissue reasurch, it seems odd that you would hate homosexuality enough to subject your own children to such research. I will not if I think it is right or wrong, but I would say be careful what you wish for. The outcome might not always be pleasant.


My guess would be that the recent epidemic of homophobia has spoken to the deep fears of many insecure Christian Fundamentalists, who've been whipped along by the perverts from the American Family Association and even Westboro Baptist Church. They've grown so fearful of homosexuaity, and that they might wake up gay some morning (or worse--their kids wake up gay), that they're perfectly willing to fuck around with genetic manipulation to try to change what common sense and empirical investigation tells us is perfectly within the range of behaviors native to humanity.

If you try to discuss the situation rationally, their hands go over their ears and they sing "Nanananana Na...I can't HEAR you!! It's a sad situation.

[Labrocca]

My guess would be that the recent epidemic of homophobia has spoken to the deep fears of many insecure Christian Fundamentalists, who've been whipped along by the perverts from the American Family Association and even Westboro Baptist Church.

These organizations have ALWAYS frowned upon homosexuality. What has changed is gays asserting themselves into society and attempting to be accepted as normal. It doesn't take a church going christian fundamentalist to see that.

[Stoner]

Personally, we should be looking to cure the "asshole" gene

But the gay gene is much creepier.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Personally, we should be looking to cure the "asshole" gene

But the gay gene is much creepier.


Not to mention a pain in the ass.

[Stoner]

Not to mention a pain in the ass.


http://planetsmilies.net/happy-smiley-611.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[underdawg]

My guess would be that the recent epidemic of homophobia has spoken to the deep fears of many insecure Christian Fundamentalists, who've been whipped along by the perverts from the American Family Association and even Westboro Baptist Church.

These organizations have ALWAYS frowned upon homosexuality.Â*Â*What has changed is gays asserting themselves into society and attempting to be accepted as normal.Â*Â*It doesn't take a church going christian fundamentalist to see that.


You are exactly right and high time we did too.

[Buck Laser]

My guess would be that the recent epidemic of homophobia has spoken to the deep fears of many insecure Christian Fundamentalists, who've been whipped along by the perverts from the American Family Association and even Westboro Baptist Church.

These organizations have ALWAYS frowned upon homosexuality. What has changed is gays asserting themselves into society and attempting to be accepted as normal. It doesn't take a church going christian fundamentalist to see that.

What has actually changed is that a significant number of people in the US have grown up enough to recognize that homosexuality isn't a behavior that harms other people, and that it isn't really a matter of choice for most people. I'm glad gay people are beginning to assert themselves, because I didn't really understand when I was younger how painful it must be to be hated for what you are.

I think the fundamentalists and the homophobes actually represent a desperate and hate-filled remnant who can probably never learn to accept people who aren't exactly like them. They are the Archie Bunkers of the 21st century.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

They are the Archie Bunkers of the 21st century.


Archie Bunker was a pretty good person, for a fictional person. He did a lot more good in the world than that Jack guy from will and grace.

Homosexuals have pushed forth an agenda that isn't just about disgusting parades anymore, it includes recruiting high school students for the homosexual lifestyle.

But with modern science it will become possible to cure sexual deviancy at some point. Then the whole thing will be a memory for the social history classes.

[Elrathin]

He did a lot more good in the world than that Jack guy from will and grace.


Cite please.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

He did a lot more good in the world than that Jack guy from will and grace.


Cite please.


He served in the army in WWII in the european theater.
He tried to stop a KKK cross burning.
He raised a family.
He took in an orphaned girl and became her foster parent.


What did Jack do that was good for the world?

[underdawg]

They are the Archie Bunkers of the 21st century.


Archie Bunker was a pretty good person, for a fictional person. He did a lot more good in the world than that Jack guy from will and grace.

Homosexuals have pushed forth an agenda that isn't just about disgusting parades anymore, it includes recruiting high school students for the homosexual lifestyle.

But with modern science it will become possible to cure sexual deviancy at some point. Then the whole thing will be a memory for the social history classes.


I find it amazing that someone who in previous posts believes that homosexuality is a choice and even here in this post think that gays recruit high school kids, can contradict himself in the very next paragraph by suggesting that it can be cured by science.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I am surprised that someone thinks that is actually a contradiction. There are all kinds of choices that have or are seeking scientific cures, overdrinking, smoking, obesity, drug use, posting on political forums, etc...

Once homosexuality is chosen I'm sure it becomes a habit, and like other habits I'm sure some people have more of a tendency to gravitate toward that choice than others, just like the girl with low self esteem is the most likely to become a sex toy.

There is no telling what other benefits might come with the cure of the underlying causing of choosing homosexuality.

[underdawg]

How are you certain that homosexuality is a choice being that "I am asuming" you are not homosexual yourself? Do you have some personal experience or scientific research to lead you to this conclusion? If you can not answer this question then you are only guessing at most.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

How are you certain that homosexuality is a choice



I went through this once already, because I could, if I wished to, choose to be gay.

Also the ex-gay movement, "curing" people of homosexuality by choice seems to confirm this.

[Stoner]

Homosexualality is a choice.Â*Â*Period.Â*Â*No matter how hard you try and spin it it's a choice.Â*Â*Always has been, always will be.

I could get into the specifics of why people become gay (mostly acceptance) but we'll save that for a later debate.

[slappy]

How are you certain that homosexuality is a choice

I went through this once already, because I could, if I wished to, choose to be gay.
With all due respect, by that reasoning blindness is a choice because I could, if I wished to, choose to poke out my eyes. Aren't you ignoring the possibility that some people aren't presented with all of the same choices that other folks take for granted?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

How are you certain that homosexuality is a choice

I went through this once already, because I could, if I wished to, choose to be gay.
With all due respect, by that reasoning blindness is a choice because I could, if I wished to, choose to poke out my eyes.


Poking out the eyes is a choice.

You are drawing an inaccurate analogy to use a permanent example.

Homosexuality can already be cured, the ex-gay movement had had success.

[slappy]

Whether it's a choice and whether it can be reversed are related issues, of course, but not directly relevant to your earlier argument.

Forget blindness. Choose any condition that some people choose and others do not. Is pregnancy always a choice? Obesity? Unemployment? Spinsterhood?

Sometimes, each of these are choices. Other times, any of them could be forced upon a person without any regard to their ultimate preferences.

I don't choose to prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry. I simply prefer it.

"The heart wants what it wants." --Woody Allen

[underdawg]

Stoner if you have scientific evidence to show that being a homosexual is a choice, then by all means present it. I am sure we are all eager to read your research.

From everything that I read and all the people that I have met who have gone through either the church or so called doctors to "cure' their homosexuality, the only thing that happened was that it taught people to change their behavoir, but not their desires. Those people are still gay, they are just reentroduced to "the closet".

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Is pregnancy always a choice?


Generally yes, there are exceptions to every rule of course, but the exceptions don't make the rule.


I don't choose to prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry. I simply prefer it.


At some point you chose chocolate over strawberry.

[slappy]

Is pregnancy always a choice?

Generally yes, there are exceptions to every rule of course, but the exceptions don't make the rule.
No, exceptions don't make a rule. They disprove a rule. The fact that some pregnancies are not chosen does not prove that pregnancy is never a choice, but it does disprove the rule that all pregnancies are chosen. The fact that you can choose to act as a homosexual suggests that perhaps some homosexuals may be choosing their behaviour but it does not imply that all homosexuals choose the preferences behind their homosexual behaviour. That's all I'm saying.


I don't choose to prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry. I simply prefer it.

At some point you chose chocolate over strawberry.

I choose chocolate over strawberry every time I'm offered the two options, but I never chose to have a preference for chocolate over strawberry. That preference was wired into me, either through genetics or environment or some combination thereof. Surely you wouldn't suggest that, at some time in my life, I consciously decided to prefer one flavour of ice cream over another.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

No, exceptions don't make a rule. They disprove a rule.


No, they prove that in usually rare circumstances a way around a rule might be found.

A good rule might be that it's not good for children if people drive through parks at high rates of speed with their eyes closed. If someone does that and happens to miss every kid but squash a pedophile it still does not prove the rule wrong.






I choose chocolate over strawberry every time I'm offered the two options, but I never chose to have a preference for chocolate over strawberry. That preference was wired into me,


Not at all, at some point you chose one over the other as your favorite. Even twins raised in the same house have different preferences in some things.

[Labrocca]

Let's not get too off-topic here. It's about a gay cure remember.

[slappy]

FBM: I think you're overlooking the difference between descriptive and prescriptive rules. You may also be conflating preference with choice: one is dispositional and the other behavioural.

Labrocca: Isn't the question of whether or not homosexuality is a choice directly relevant to the question of "curing" it? If homosexuals have absolute freedom of choice in the matter, what is there to cure?

Bringing the discussion back to the subject of genetic disorders, isn't there a major hurdle in establishing homosexual preferences as a disorder? Just because something is statistically out of the ordinary, does that mean we should seek to "cure" it? Is left-handedness something we ought to seek to stamp out? Red hair? Dark skin?

To be clear, I see no reason why a parent cannot choose any of the above for her child. I just balk at the notion of labeling any of the above genetic traits a "disorder" needing a "cure".

[Buck Laser]

Let's not get too off-topic here. It's about a gay cure remember.


Man, I have a hard time with the concept of a gay "cure." It's like looking for a cure for left handedness. Why do you keep referring to it as a "choice"?

[underdawg]

Labrocca earlier stated that he thought it would be best to "cure" homosexuality not because it was in the best interest of the child but in the best interest of himself. He said that he felt that homosexuality was simialr to being retarded or having a defect. As a gay man, I do not experience being gay as a defect. I can lead a happy, productive, independent life. Unlike the mentally retarded, the physically handicapped, I do not need to assistence, hospitilization, or prison. Your reasoning for altering the child would not be in its best interest , but your own.

This reminds me of fathers who want their sons to follow in their footsteps in the family business, yet the son wants to do something else entirely. I see the same here. A father who wants his son to follow in his footsteps and be a father like himself and have grandchildren. This "cure' is done for more selfish reasons than it is done for the child.

Do you want your child to be grow up to be whatever he was born to be, or do you think a child is born to serve the will of the parent? Do we owe our parents grandchildren? Do we owe our parents a debt other than our thanks?

[Labrocca]

Labrocca earlier stated that he thought it would be best to "cure" homosexuality not because it was in the best interest of the child but in the best interest of himself.

It's offensive to put words in someones mouth.Â*Â*You can draw conclusions on your own but to say I stated something that I didn't is slanderous.

He said that he felt that homosexuality was simialr to being retarded or having a defect.

NO...you said that and I just agreed.Â*Â*I said homosexuality was a disorder. I could care less what you call it.

Why do you keep referring to it as a "choice"?

Well let's say you are right.Â*Â*That it's NOT a choice but instead it's biological error such as left-handedness.Â*Â*Then a CURE would certainly be possible with gene or hormone therapy.Â*Â*Gays can't have it both ways.

And yeah...it is in my interest on MY OFFSPRING.Â*Â*You can call that selfish all you want I call it the responsibility of every parent.Â*Â*If you had kids you might understand this.Â*Â*Every good parent does all it can to help their children and you might call this selfish but I call it love.Â*Â*I love my family and want the BEST for them.

My 1 son has ADD much like me.Â*Â*I can see myself in him very well. If I can help him to be a better person than I was I will.Â*Â*Parents wanting their children to be and have better is natural and why we aren't savages that eat our young.Â*Â*We teach all children in the hopes they will be better than ourselves.Â*Â*WTF are you thinking?

[underdawg]

Labrocca you are right. I reread what I wrote and it was not an accurate paraphasing of what you said, but how I interpreted what you had said . I apologize for what I have written. I will try never to do that again.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Unlike the mentally retarded, the physically handicapped, I do not need to assistence, hospitilization, or prison.


Neither do most retarded or handicapped people.

The gay cure as it is done for these sheep works in the womb, if that is offered for humans it will be the end of homosexuality, which will be better for society.

[Buck Laser]

Well let's say you are right. That it's NOT a choice but instead it's biological error such as left-handedness. Then a CURE would certainly be possible with gene or hormone therapy. Gays can't have it both ways.

Boy, I think you put your foot in it there, LaBrocca. Left handedness is a biological error? From all I've been able to observe, left-handed people have advantages that offset the difficulties of living in a world that's 90% right-handed. One of my five grandchildren is left-handed, and she's by FAR the most creative of them all. I'm right-handed myself, but as I've pursued wood sculpture, I've become almost fully ambidextrous--well, at least ambi-awkward, and it's a great help to me. I would no more try to choose handedness for my children than I would choose some other physical trait. On the other hand, I wish I hadn't passed along some of my physical traits to my kids, like the tendencies to diabetes, heart trouble, and so forth. But at least they know what to look out for as they age.

This business of seeking "cures" for things that aren't diseases troubles me deeply. For example, I wish my daughter hadn't inherited my tendency to depression: but if she hadn't got that, she also might not have gotten the creative spark that makes her able to make enormous contributions to her community. There are always unintended consequences and unforeseen side effects to choices we make for our children. What they become is a crap shoot.

But let's take a hypothetical: suppose you knew that a child you were about to father would be: a., gay; b., an outstanding intellect; c., enormously creative, and; d., susceptible to a fatal disease which might kill her/him before the age of 30. If you could change just one trait, what would it be? And why?

[Labrocca]

I knew you would take the bait on that comment. I said it in jest as you were the one that originally made a comment about left-handed. I just thought to use that as an example to throw you off...and it WORKED! hehe

But let's take a hypothetical: suppose you knew that a child you were about to father would be: a., gay; b., an outstanding intellect; c., enormously creative, and; d., susceptible to a fatal disease which might kill her/him before the age of 30. If you could change just one trait, what would it be? And why?

hehe...you are gonna love my answer. B ...I would change his outstanding intellect since then he would be stupid enough not to care he was gay and stupid people should die young anyways. :) ROFLMAO

[underdawg]

It deeply disturbs me and sometimes I have to try hard to contain my anger and outrage for being labeled a deviant, an abomination, that people say I have a condition like mental retardation, that I am a pediphile, etc. I find it tiring that that have to spend my time trying to justify my existence to the rest of the world. I am told that I am not worthy to get married like my peers, I am told that I am not fit to have a family like my peers, I am told I am not fit to serve my country like my peers. I have people who have no idea of what it is like to be gay claiming to know my own mind better than I do myself telling me I made a choice to be gay. They even go so far as to say that the creator of the universe hates me not because of what I did but because of what I am.

People will say that the fight for racial equality is not the same as civil rights for gays. In many ways we are quite similar , but in other ways it is more difficult. Blacks when confronted with hatred have their family to turn to. Gays growing up have no one to ask for support. Blacks will turn to god, and the church for spiritual help. Gays have no such help. In fact the church is usually the main enemy.

I disagree that homosexuality is something that needs to be cured. Most gays that I know are highly creative, intelligent people . Those who are able to make it through high school without killing themselves because of being taunted, picked on, and the depression that comes from it, come out of it stronger. You learn to take all that life can throw at you, maybe even more so that most other men with fragile egos.I don't think that being a heterosexual is better, only different.

I find it very disturbing that a father would voice his hatred towards homosexuality and imagine how bad a gay son might feel if he were made to feel like damaged goods by his father.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Pity the gays, give them marriage, and let them be gay soldiers!

It's the least you can do, and you know it's the right thing to do!

[Labrocca]

Awe underdawg...if you were here now I would give ya a hug.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Awe underdawg...if you were here now I would give ya a hug.



Now that I am liberal and gay, you can give me a hug, from behind even!

[Stoner]

Pity the gays, give them marriage, and let them be gay soldiers!

It's the least you can do, and you know it's the right thing to do!


Don't forget to blame Bush and call him 3rd grade names. You wouldn't be a true liberal if you didn't.

[piratemonkey]

There is the constant comparison of blacks to gays...totally inappropriate and they are NOT similar.Â*Â*There will NEVER be a pill to change a black person into white.Â*It would require extreme changes in DNA.Â*Â*

Ok, Dr. Physiology.Â*Â*Why couldn't there be a treatment to change a black fetus into a white fetus?Â*Â*Tell us what these "extreme changes in DNA" are.

The changes might be greater, but they are no more or less changable than any other DNA sequence.Â*Â*All it would take is a vector and a way of getting it into the fetal cell early in development.

We may not be able to do that right now, but it's anything but "extreme" theoretically.


BTW....my ideas imho don't make me a bigot. I have nothing against people with any handicap or disorder.Â*Â*If anything..I feel a bit sad when a person is stricken with a disorder they can't control.

The idea that this is a handicap or disorder is a bigotted and illogical position.


Homosexuality shouldn't be classified as a normal sexual preference. It's obviously NOT normal.Â*
Obvious to you maybe, but not to scientists and most of the educated world.


Â*The urge to have sex with the same sex is a deviant behavior that should be controlled or altered by drugs.Â*

Have you ever gotten a blowjob?Â*Â*Have you ever masterbated?Â*Â*That's deviant behavior in some peoples' opinion.Â* Some people say that behavior isn't "normal." Â*Maybe we should "drug" or "control" you.

Why is treating homosexuality wrong?

Again...Why is a treatment for homosexuality wrong?


Why is treating the desire to masterbate wrong?Â*Â*

Why would treating a black fetus to make it white wrong?

[piratemonkey]

Here's the funny part about listening to y'all talk about this topic:

Sexual differentiation can be produced in EXACTLY the same way as sexual preference in a fetus.

Give a female fetus androgens during one stage of fetal development and you will turn that female fetus into a male, parts and all.

Give a female fetus androgens during a different stage of development and you will turn that female into a lesbian, a female that prefers sex with other females.

By your criteria, being a male is a handicap or disorder.

[Labrocca]

I love sexually deviant behavior. :)

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Pity the gays, give them marriage, and let them be gay soldiers!

It's the least you can do, and you know it's the right thing to do!


Don't forget to blame Bush and call him 3rd grade names. You wouldn't be a true liberal if you didn't.


Chimpy is a poo poo head who hates gays, probably because he is in the closet himself! Doesn't Laura look kinda mannish! I think so!

[Buck Laser]

I knew you would take the bait on that comment. I said it in jest as you were the one that originally made a comment about left-handed. I just thought to use that as an example to throw you off...and it WORKED! hehe

But let's take a hypothetical: suppose you knew that a child you were about to father would be: a., gay; b., an outstanding intellect; c., enormously creative, and; d., susceptible to a fatal disease which might kill her/him before the age of 30. If you could change just one trait, what would it be? And why?

hehe...you are gonna love my answer. B ...I would change his outstanding intellect since then he would be stupid enough not to care he was gay and stupid people should die young anyways. :) ROFLMAO

I'm beginning to get confused, Labrocca. Do you actually believe the s--t you write, or are you acting like another member who shall go unnamed, just trying to stir things up? I ask this because for the first half of my life or so, I believed that homosexuality was essentially a deviant or abnormal behavior. The psychology I studied in college and graduate school treated it that way, but when my childhood best friend came out of the closet at the age of 30 or so, I began to ask questions and read a lot more. I found out that except for people bound by some religious dogma, the clear consensus was emerging that homosexuality is fully within the range of normal human behavior--in fact, it seems to be fairly widespread in the animal kingdom as a common behavior. Of course, it's never majority behavior--the results of that would obviously lead to extinction. But when I started to think about the issue, and search my own faith, I could find no good reason to condemn it.

I know my own opinion seems to be slightly in the minority at the present, but then my opinions about race have pretty much always been in the majority. Nevertheless, public attitudes are changing with regard to race, and they're coming along on sexual preference as well.

Another thing I fail to understand is why so many conservatives are convinced that sexual preference is a choice: I can never remember deciding that I can choose to like females or males. It was just never an issue. Perhaps someone should start a thread entitled "when did you decide which gender you prefer?" The gay friends I have all say that they always knew they were different. Is your experience different? Or do you just not have any gay friends?

[slappy]

Another thing I fail to understand is why so many conservatives are convinced that sexual preference is a choice: I can never remember deciding that I can choose to like females or males. It was just never an issue. Perhaps someone should start a thread entitled "when did you decide which gender you prefer?" The gay friends I have all say that they always knew they were different. Is your experience different? Or do you just not have any gay friends?


Indeed. This is the point I was trying to make earlier regarding choice versus preference. We choose a certain way because of our preferences. We do not choose the preferences themselves. If we did, we'd be choosing them on the basis of some further (deeper) preference.

If someone wishes to characterize a gay man as having chosen to be gay, there remains the fact that his choice was based on some manner of preference which he did not choose, ever. On that basic level, homosexuality cannot possibly be a choice. Anyone who tries to paint it as such is looking for a bootstrap argument.

[Labrocca]

Choice is based on a lot of things. It could be what your parents told you to like. It could be based on experience as a child. It could have to do with a tragedy or trauma.

As I have said...if being gay is something that happens in the womb then there is a real possibility it can be altered (notice I didn't use cured).

If being gay is something from development then it's also possible to alter the behavior.

Either way it may very well be possible to take a homosexual and turn them into a heterosexual. I wonder about guys in prison for 10-20 years...one must think homosexual activity rises in prison. Do the prisoners that get out with those experiences ever feel heterosexual again? Makes you wonder.

And Buck...don't always take me too seriously. Don't forget this is my forum and it's part of my duty to spark discussion and debate. At times I write stuff just to be a devil's advocate. There are always 2 sides to every argument...you don't have to be blind to how the other side would argue.

[Alonzo]

I wonder about guys in prison for 10-20 years...one must think homosexual activity rises in prison. Do the prisoners that get out with those experiences ever feel heterosexual again? Makes you wonder.

Homosexual activity doesn't equal homosexual. Just like heterosexual activity doesn't equal heterosexual.

You watch porn, do you really think all those girls are lesbians?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Homosexual activity doesn't equal homosexual.


How so?

[Alonzo]

Homosexual activity doesn't equal homosexual.


How so?


A lot of it is curiosity and experimentation. Many more experiment than actually continue homosexual activity. Just as this stud points out, homosexual experimentation, while higher among this group, does not correlate with higher rates of homosexuality.

[Labrocca]

So please tell me what seperates homosexual activity from homosexuality?Â*Â*I just want to hear your opinion on this before I dig my trench. Are you of the opinion that I could have homosexual activity on a regular basis but not be a homosexual?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Homosexual activity doesn't equal homosexual.


How so?


A lot of it is curiosity and experimentation. Many more experiment than actually continue homosexual activity. Just as this stud points out, homosexual experimentation, while higher among this group, does not correlate with higher rates of homosexuality.


How is having homosexual sex not being homosexual? There has to be an underlying same sex desire to have same sex, and isn't that desire what defines a homosexual?

[Oedipus Rex]

Homosexual activity doesn't equal homosexual.


How so?


A lot of it is curiosity and experimentation. Many more experiment than actually continue homosexual activity. Just as this stud points out, homosexual experimentation, while higher among this group, does not correlate with higher rates of homosexuality.


You may want to oil those hinges on your closet door.

[Alonzo]

So please tell me what seperates homosexual activity from homosexuality?Â*Â*I just want to hear your opinion on this before I dig my trench.Â*Â*Are you of the opinion that I could have homosexual activity on a regular basis but not be a homosexual?


It's possible, but less likely. Regular heterosexual activity, because it's expected (say in a marriage) isn't that odd for homosexuals. Since homosexuality is not the expected path in life, it's unlikely one would have regular homosexual activity and not be homosexual. With heterosexual sex, many can go through much of life not enjoying sex or getting much out of marriage, but to them it's always been that way and they think it's normal.

Colleges sexual activity though, if all homosexual activity was evidence of homosexuality, would be filled with statistically large amounts of homosexuals when compared with the general population. But, for most of the students who engage in some homosexual activity, it's more curiosity about what it's like or just desire to experience it to see if they like it.

[slappy]

How is having homosexual sex not being homosexual? There has to be an underlying same sex desire to have same sex, and isn't that desire what defines a homosexual?
I'd say so. And do we choose our desires?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

How is having homosexual sex not being homosexual? There has to be an underlying same sex desire to have same sex, and isn't that desire what defines a homosexual?
I'd say so. And do we choose our desires?


For the most part, yes.

[slappy]

Help me out here, FBM.

Choices express preferences, values and desires, yes? When a person makes a choice (a choice of activities, of sexual partners, of careers, of ice cream flavours) he is revealing his preferences...in other words, he is making his choice based upon the relative value he places upon each of the options from which he had to choose. People do not generally make choices without reference to preferences and values; in fact, most people would say that a choice made blindly is hardly a meaningful choice at all. When an adult plays a guessing game with a child ("Guess which hand has the candy?"), this is choice in only the most superficial sense, like flipping a coin and choosing heads or tails. Most choices operate on deeper, much more meaningful substrates of preexisting values.

Now, you say that we choose our desires. If you really believe this, then you must either count such choices as completely unguided (like heads vs. tails) or else you likely agree with me that our choice of which desires to feel is based on some deeper set of preferences. If you really do believe that desires are chosen rather than simply experienced, I don't see a third option.

Personally, I think that it's our desires that guides our choices, and not the other way around. A person can wish he did not desire a certain thing (same sex encounters, cigarettes, fried foods, etc.) but he can only choose to take steps to ignore, suppress, or circumvent that desire if he already has an even stronger desire to attain some other goal that is inconsistent with that certain thing. In taking steps to ignore, suppress or circumvent the first desire, he is not choosing what to desire; he is being pushed by one desire in a direction that conflicts with another. A gay man may be so driven by the desire for acceptance by his homophobic father that his desire for a homosexual lifestyle will go completely unfulfilled, if not suppressed or ignored. This does not mean that he has chosen not to desire a homosexual lifestyle; it only means that the desire for parental approval was stronger, in his case, than the desire for sexual or romantic fulfillment.

Meanwhile, I've had a chance to reflect a bit further on this idea of a "cure", I still do not understand how a relatively harmless preference of any kind can be so cavalierly labeled a sickness or disorder by so many. I find the preference for country music rather astounding, for the most part. The preference for watching golf seems bizarre to me, and the preference for raw oysters strikes me as perfectly mad. Yet, if I had a child who felt compelled to shuck oysters while watching muted golf broadcasts with a Hank Williams CD blasting from the stereo, I'd not look at any of these deviant preferences as any sort of disorder, let alone wish science had somehow allowed me to screen them out.

Of course, society is not nearly so cruel to oyster-shuckin', done-me-wrong-song-hummin' golf enthusiasts as it is to regular old gays, so I suppose I do see some point to a parent wishing he could spare his child the heartache of growing up homosexual in a straight person's world.

At any rate, more to the point as I see it, I think that parents make all sorts of medical decisions for their children that do change the sort of person their children will ultimately become. I think parents are really supposed to make decisions like this for their infants and small children. It may make me uncomfortable, and it may raise spectres of Brave New World for me and many others, but it's really just a part of the continuing high-tech extension of the parent's duty to care for and guide the development of her children.

If a parent is offered the opportunity to remove a growth on the pituitary gland of her three year old son so that the risk of future giantism or dwarfism will be substantially reduced, are we supposed to be offended on behalf of giants and little people? If a child's natural progression toward total blindness (due to some disease) can be prevented with a simple run of antibiotics or other therapy, does the parent risk making a politically incorrect gesture to the effect that blind people are not as good as sighted folk?

This is not the same as sending a gay teen, who may have a fully developed sexual identity, to some sort of gay camp where he is expected to be somehow "cured" of his basic sexual preferences. There we have a young person with pre-existing desires being pushed by his parents into a role that may not ever make him happy. Here, it seems to me, we see another part of a parent's job: nudging a young child's development in the general direction of their own values, be they social, moral, or even some aesthetic idea of physically and psychologically "normal".

I still refuse to think of this as a "cure", because I really don't see homosexuality as any more of a disorder than red hair or left-handedness. However, I can't bring myself to look upon this idea of selecting or influencing a child's sexuality as substantially different from the many other ways in which parents select for their values over the course of early childhood development.

[Labrocca]

But, for most of the students who engage in some homosexual activity, it's more curiosity about what it's like or just desire to experience it to see if they like it.

I love this ...I love it.Â*Â*So basically you are saying that some gays are making a "choice" to be gay. Honestly...it is what you are saying.Â*Â*Try it and see if you like it? This is the fear of heterosexuals and parents alike.Â*Â*That "trying it" will become acceptable by society and more people may "like it".Â*Â*Does this make them homosexuals?Â*Â*That's a good argument but it certainly does mean the person is involved in sexually deviant behavior.

Slappy- There is so much ammo and so many holes in your post I don't even know where to begin.

[slappy]

Slappy- There is so much ammo and so many holes in your post I don't even know where to begin.
Ammo for what? Are we at war? :)

Seriously, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with those remarks. Care to pick at the most gaping hole? I'll do my best to either explain myself or correct myself if you take the trouble to point out where you see me going so horribly wrong.

[Alonzo]

But, for most of the students who engage in some homosexual activity, it's more curiosity about what it's like or just desire to experience it to see if they like it.

I love this ...I love it.Â*Â*So basically you are saying that some gays are making a "choice" to be gay. Honestly...it is what you are saying.Â*Â*Try it and see if you like it? This is the fear of heterosexuals and parents alike.Â*Â*That "trying it" will become acceptable by society and more people may "like it".Â*Â*Does this make them homosexuals?Â*Â*That's a good argument but it certainly does mean the person is involved in sexually deviant behavior.



Umm.... no. The thing is there isn't any decision to be gay here. Increased experimentation, as the study pointed out, is not linked to increased homosexuality.

They aren't making a choice to be gay, they're making a choice to engage in homosexual behavior.

Think of it like fishing. Someone may try it, may even try it a second time, but unless it is enjoyed and/or fulfilling the practice doesn't continue, and the person won't be considered a fisherman.

The rates of those who have experienced homosexual acts differ, the rate of those who have a desire to continue in engaging in such acts, or form homosexual relationships, does not.

[Labrocca]

So Zo..you are contending that everyone that simply experiments in homosexual activity won't like it and hence isn't gay? What's your definition of gay then?

Let's look into the future..say 10 years and gay marriage is allowed. Now in college some guy experiments with his roomy and they enjoy the sex. They decide to be in a relationship since gay relationships are widely accepted. Now after college they get married...however 5 years later they divorce and 1 guy marries a girl. Was the guy that married a girl a homosexual? Because for about 10-15 years he had a preference for a guy. Was that a choice or was it his wiring?

Slippery slopes my friends.

[Alonzo]

A homosexual is someone who's sexual desire is primarily directed towards members of the same sex. Romantic interests are also primarily directed towards members of their own sex. Actual behavior is indicative of sexual orientation, but is not proof of orientation in and of itself.

If the guy enters into a homosexual relationship, enjoys the sex and falls in love with the guy, and then later does the same with a girl, you could safely say he was bisexual. But there are many people in heterosexual relationships who get neither of those two things out of it. We wouldn't call them heterosexual, would we?

Labrocca, if elton john married gwen stefani and had 2 kids, would he be heterosexual?

[underdawg]

All through my life I knew that I was attracted to guys, but was under the false impression that since I never had sex with a woman, I thought maybe if I were to have sex with a woman my desires would change and my latent heterosexuality would "kick in". When I finally did have sex with a woman, it was then that I realized that it wasn't going to"kick in". I was able to go through the actions, but the desire to do so just wasn't there.

[Labrocca]

Labrocca, if elton john married gwen stefani and had 2 kids, would he be heterosexual?

No that would make Elton John the luckiest son-of-a-bitch alive.

[Buck Laser]

So Zo..you are contending that everyone that simply experiments in homosexual activity won't like it and hence isn't gay? What's your definition of gay then?

Let's look into the future..say 10 years and gay marriage is allowed. Now in college some guy experiments with his roomy and they enjoy the sex. They decide to be in a relationship since gay relationships are widely accepted. Now after college they get married...however 5 years later they divorce and 1 guy marries a girl. Was the guy that married a girl a homosexual? Because for about 10-15 years he had a preference for a guy. Was that a choice or was it his wiring?

Slippery slopes my friends.


I don't like the term "slippery slope," but it's clear to me that there are many degrees of sexual proclivity, from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual, with many variations on the theme. Haven't you heard of bisexuality? Next thing you know, you're going to say only "man on top" is OK, and no oral sex---right?

[Labrocca]

I like being on the bottom actually. :) Now that's a slippery slope!