The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[BayConRong]

Yet you insist that gay people are selfish, and use that as your argument against homosexuality.

Note:too lazy to find the original quote even if it was just above. not to you kyle.

that gay people are selfish? that lesbians are taking up all the women isn't being selfish.... and saying all gay people are selfish is like saying all germans are nazi's or that all white people are KKK, that all mexicans are gangster along with blacks and that all asians either traffic women or are yakuza.

not everyone of a certain group are 100% anything. there are plenty of black and mexican people in large businesses as i'm sure you know not all germans are Nazi or KKK and there are Legit asians as well as asian's who couldn't add 2 and 2.

 

[Gashlycrumb]

I do find it interesting that the vast majority of homosexuals are happy going about their own lives and not impressing their views on the rest of society. Unlike, the close minded fundamental christians that seem hellbent on forcing the world to conform to their view of what is right. I certainly know which person I would rather share a pint with a the pub

 

[Small_Fryz]

Slightly late..
But i find it interesting to read up on creditable historic floods. Like the one that went down the colorado river about 50 times over a 2,000 year period. where a ice dam melted/failed then reformed over and over.

Interesting read..
Missoula Floods Floods like these are probably responsible for the "world wide" flood stories, as the amount of water is just insane..

 

[BayConRong]

Slightly late..
But i find it interesting to read up on creditable historic floods. Like the one that went down the colorado river about 50 times over a 2,000 year period. where a ice dam melted/failed then reformed over and over.

Interesting read..
Missoula Floods Floods like these are probably responsible for the "world wide" flood stories, as the amount of water is just insane..

out of curiosity what does that have to do with homocexuality?

 

[Small_Fryz]

a Very late and off topic post in relation to the discussion around this post
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2927399&postcount=585

 

[Famine]

I read post one at a time

So do most people. I find it terribly hard to read 1,100 posts simultaneously.

and I'm sorry if I'm not fluent in the ways of program that GT-Planet uses.

The "Edit" button allows you to edit new information into your post. Like more quotes.

I notice you've blithely ignored Sage's post. Just so you aren't labouring under any misconceptions - it's not a request. Do not double-post again.

 

[Sureboss]

What's wrong with being selfish? I enjoy a little selfish fornication every now and then. Does that make me evil?

No, but it will give you RSI in your wrist.

 

[Alfaholic]

Have you ever been in a gay person's house? I don't think "tidy" would have been an issue.

My best friend in SA was gay. I house sat for him and his partner plenty of times, had lots of parties there, spent many nights playing dungeons and dragons with them.

He and his partner were two normal blokes who fancied eachother.

My original quote also did not state nor suggest that if god created two men, they would have to be gay.

 

[Danoff]

No it doesn't ... just means you're selfish not a bad person ... everyone will be selfish few times in their lives.

So what's the deal? If being selfish isn't bad, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality right? If it is bad, I'd like you to explain that to me.

 

[Metar]

I do find it interesting that the vast majority of homosexuals are happy going about their own lives and not impressing their views on the rest of society. Unlike, the close minded fundamental christians that seem hellbent on forcing the world to conform to their view of what is right.

It does seem that fundamentalist anythings will always be louder than the things they oppose.

I certainly know which person I would rather share a pint with a the pub

Better yet, you don't have to share if you get someone's number

 

[CraftyLandShark]

So there's been a LOT covered in this thread, but as far as I can tell (I've been back through most of the thread but I could have missed it), we haven't yet touched on the most inflamatory aspect of this debate.

With the recent advances in genetics and the growing preponderance of evidence that homosexuality, if not entirely, is at least partially the result of polygenetic influence, it stands to reason that as gene therapy becomes more of a reality, the ability to screen prenatally for the marker or markers responsible may not be far off. If that becomes a reality, so too likely will the availability of gene therapy to "correct" the "error" before birth.

Gay rights groups seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place here. They want proof, if it exists, that homosexuality is a biological trait to disprove the position of those who believe that they (homosexuals) chose their sexuality, but if such proof becomes available, the possibility of a scientific "homosexual holocaust", as some have called it, comes into play.

Obviously if this test and therapy combination existed it'd be horribly wrong to FORCE parents to employ it. But should it be available at all? Obviously just given this thread there are many parents who WOULD employ it, and not just out of the belief that homosexuality is wrong - any loving parent when faced with the fact that their child will potentially face attitudes such as the ones some have displayed here would certainly tend to consider a prodecure that would reduce or eliminate that "risk".

So what are everyone's thoughts? If this technology becomes availabe, do you think it should be legal? Do you think it's no different than prenatal gene therapy to reduce risk of disease or deformity? Do you think it's immoral, or "playing god"? Most importantly, if you were an expecting parent and were faced with the choice, what would you do?

 

[Leonidae]

it should be illegal. You can mess around with religions and assumed divine entities, but DO NOT mess with Mother Nature..

 

[FoolKiller]

With the recent advances in genetics and the growing preponderance of evidence that homosexuality, if not entirely, is at least partially the result of polygenetic influence, it stands to reason that as gene therapy becomes more of a reality, the ability to screen prenatally for the marker or markers responsible may not be far off. If that becomes a reality, so too likely will the availability of gene therapy to "correct" the "error" before birth.

Ah yes, the "gay cure."

Go back and watch X-Men: The Last Stand and tell me what the meaning behind that was.

This opens up a huge box of worms.

And then if it is determined that parents cannot do this prenatally because the infant has rights what does that do to the abortion debate?

Personally, I am not about to try to "fix" my child's genetic personality traits. I will however be interested in this kind of treatment for medical purposes.

The best solution would be a way to have a treatment that can be performed after birth so that the person themselves can choose whether they want to receive it or not.


I will however be opposed to any form of forcing this procedure on a person, whether forcing a parent to do it prenatally, a parent forcing it on a child, or in the homosexual holocaust scenario. That is a completely unacceptable idea.


Then you can flip the page and assume that if homosexuality can be reversed that you can also engineer homosexuality, and then it does become a choice. Or you run the risk of lesbian couples who used a surrogate father in some way making their child homosexual.


Yep, big box, lot of worms.

 

[Metar]

Personally, I believe that anything which isn't a life-threatening or life-affecting disease (Sistic Fibrosis, hereditary diseases, etc) should not be allowed to be modified, but that's just my anti-designerveg view.

Seriously, genetically-engineered humans are something I very much oppose to - again, unless that gene causes a disease.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I tend to agree with everyone so far - I think it'd be pretty awfully immoral to get involved in something like that. As FoolKiller put it, there are a lot of big fat slime-festooned worms in that bucket, and they have long pointy teeth.

That said, I can understand where there will be those, should it become a reality, that want to do it with good intentions... though those good intentions by no means make it right. Yeah. Those teeth are sharp and salivate pure currare.

 

[Sage]

If gene therapy for homosexuality becomes demonstrably safe, I would have no moral problem with people “changing” their potential child’s sexuality. I personally wouldn’t do it myself, and I imagine most people wouldn’t bother doing it, but I certainly wouldn’t make it illegal.

 

[Loon]

So what are everyone's thoughts? If this technology becomes availabe, do you think it should be legal? Do you think it's no different than prenatal gene therapy to reduce risk of disease or deformity? Do you think it's immoral, or "playing god"? Most importantly, if you were an expecting parent and were faced with the choice, what would you do?

I suppose I'd be one of the few who would want to do this. If anything I would like to know yay or nay on is my child going to grow to be a homosexual. If I would go through with trying to "fix/change" my child is another matter that would be discussed thoroughly with my spouse and probably our families. I do think that I would lean towards wanting to go through with whatever therapy necessary to accomplish the desired effect though, but who knows how I'll feel when the time arises, if, it arises.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Loon's post brings up another interesting point I forgot to mention. This is all still hypothetical - if this happens, it will likely be some years down the road. Social stigma towards homosexuality is already in the process of reversing - if the progress continues at this rate and the social stigma is significantly diminished when the time comes to decide, how would that affect your decision? In other words, is your concern for the persecution the child may face, or is your concern that you'd prefer not to raise a potentially gay child for whatever other reasons? (General question, not specifically directed to Loon, though feel free to answer! 👍)

 

[Venari]

Go to your local DVD store.

Buy Gattaca.

Go Home.

Watch.

Watch the alternative credits.

Think.

(And don't forget to pause the DVD at that frame where Uma Thurman is resting her head on the door of the Citroen. In that single frame on the film, she is quite simply the most attractive woman in the universe. Perhaps even to women.)

 

[CraftyLandShark]

Go to your local DVD store.

Buy Gattaca.

Go Home.

Watch.

Watch the alternative credits.

Think.

(And don't forget to pause the DVD at that frame where Uma Thurman is resting her head on the door of the Citroen. In that single frame on the film, she is quite simply the most attractive woman in the universe. Perhaps even to women.)

Not only is she the most attractive woman, that is one of the best FILMS ever made. Easily in my all-time top-ten! I'm glad you mentioned it.

 

[Loon]

Loon's post brings up another interesting point I forgot to mention. This is all still hypothetical - if this happens, it will likely be some years down the road. Social stigma towards homosexuality is already in the process of reversing - if the progress continues at this rate and the social stigma is significantly diminished when the time comes to decide, how would that affect your decision? In other words, is your concern for the persecution the child may face, or is your concern that you'd prefer not to raise a potentially gay child for whatever other reasons? (General question, not specifically directed to Loon, though feel free to answer! 👍)

Interesting, I suppose I was thinking in the way that gays are persecuted by today's standard of whats right and wrong. It is quite possible that in the future gays are going to be accepted as everyone else is, it certainly looks like the trend is heading that way. I'm still not sure how exactly I'd feel if I was put into the position to choose, there's plenty of variables to consider.

 

[frestkd]

Yet you insist that gay people are selfish, and use that as your argument against homosexuality.

When did I say selfish is wrong?

 

[frestkd]

So what's the deal? If being selfish isn't bad, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality right? If it is bad, I'd like you to explain that to me.

I don't have an education in religion, I'm not an ordained minister, not a very religious man, or don't have a direct link to God so I don't have authority to judge others on how they're good or bad. I do believe in freewill so to me Homosexuality is a choice that is selfish nothing more.

 

[Rykon Zero]

Will you stop double posting?!? Please! I'm going insane!

 

[frestkd]

it should be illegal. You can mess around with religions and assumed divine entities, but DO NOT mess with Mother Nature..

Worshiping the Mother Gaea can viewed as a religion ... hehe what do the followers of Gaea think of homosexuality?

hehe

 

[Kylehnat]

When did I say selfish is wrong?

So there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, then?

 

[Leonidae]

Worshiping the Mother Gaea can viewed as a religion ... hehe what do the followers of Gaea think of homosexuality?

hehe

It's an aspect of the way things are in the nature and they respect it as such. actually, a lot of these re-established religions, like Wiccas for example, have a large amount of bi, gay and lesbian followers since they are more openminded.

 

[frestkd]

Will you stop double posting?!? Please! I'm going insane!

I got warned sorry ... some people are so uptight ... this might be my last post for a while ...

So there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, then?

I can't say that being gay is wrong, because I feel judging others is wrong. I believe in God and he/she is the only one who judges us at the end of our physical lives. I don't have any higher education in the study of religions, religious practices, or a direct link to God to judge people. If that drives people crazy oh well deal with it. Yes some of my viewpoints like civil liberties are rooted in a conservative values (Gun Control), but others are more liberal(Abortion).

 

[Sureboss]

Apparently Homosexuality is mentioned in the last book of the New Testament. If someone could do some research on that, it would be great for this discussion imo.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

I'll see what I can dig up. If it's mentioned in Revelation (the last book of the bible/new testament), it's probably in an off-the-wall allegorical manner - as I recall, John had been living alone in a cave in the desert for QUITE a while subsisting on only insects and desert fauna when he wrote it. If he stumbled across the wrong plant or cactus, that might explain some of the more extreme visuals in his 'prophecy'

<edit> So far, I'll I've been able to find is a bit of a wingnut, Ken Gentry, who in a series of lectures identifies homosexuality as "the Beast" mentioned in Revelation. I don't see any logical link there, but seeing as how you have to either buy the book or the video lecture to get the full skinny, I don't have much to speak to. No other verse pertaining to homosexuality is quoted from Revelation by any other credible source that I can find.

Either way, seems a bit outlandish.

Something interesting that turned up while I was searching:

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Matthew 19:12)

Not a specific accounting of homosexuality, but given the euphemistic metaphoric language of the bible, being a "eunuch because they were born that way" could easily mean one who is a homosexual. These, by the way, are the words of Jesus.

Metar, though this is written originally in Greek I believe, not Hebrew, I was wondering if you might have any insight on this verse with respect to the source text?