seriously tho woody go check out the past couple pages and read the arguement me and this kid were having lol.
Ye i will when i have the time.
Whew, almost hitting 300. I thought this thread was dead, did Muddle just bring it back from the dead (Thus giving me an excuse not to waste my time over this thread >.>... Its gotten really old, its ike 249348 years old. xD)
Or is it still going?
Anyone for spam?
Anyone who belives that homosexuality is morally wrong and yet still wants to live in a society with basic civil liberties is a hypocrite. They belong in a cave next to Osama Bin Laden.
I don't know, this one is as old as recorded history, at least.
You can check back on the double digit pages, I think I had some work in there somewhere.
I read the entire thread before posting. I was actually hoping you might have had a response to my question about a "cure", as your post was about a man sometimes not wanting to be gay, and while you expressed his opinion adequately, I would like to hear yours.
If they find a gene that controls sexuality (which I think is crap anyway) then couldn't it work both ways? A "cure" for heterosexuality perhaps. Though of course I object to the use of the word cure.
My, 295 pages. Homosexuality sure is a hot topic. OHOHOHOHHO! Xzeno, I highly doubt you read every single one of those. Also, bad grammar doesn't necessarily mean that someone is uneducated, and it certainly doesn't invalidate their point. Please repeat your question about a cure. The site:"site" Google search doesn't seem to be working.
Christians, here I have a few questions. More specifically, samy. He has a viewpoint that I've seen countless parodies of and I want to understand better. Samy (or anyone else): 1. Is homosexuality a worse sin than others? Is there a Sinful Scale or something like that? 2. If gay people ask for forgiveness, is it fine? What if they confess their sins and then continue being gay?
They never will. No such thing. We are about 40% the same genetically as lettuce. The differences and subtleties of life are defined more by how the genes interact then a gene doing one thing.
Though of course I object to the use of the word cure.
As do I.
(which I think is crap anyway)
Why?
A "cure" for heterosexuality perhaps.
Interesting. While I have comments, I shall refrain for now.
I hate homosexuality it disgusts me if i ever see someone who is homosexual i would kick his face hard and then beat him up and then throw him into the sea
You just answered your own question in your first quote. There is no one specific gene that controls sexuality.
I hate homosexuality it disgusts me if i ever see someone who is homosexual i would kick his face hard and then beat him up and then throw him into the sea
Nice to meet you to. And I happen to like the sea. I'll enjoy the swim. Haha.
Xzeno, I highly doubt you read every single one of those.
Not like I had anything else to do.
Please repeat your question about a cure
My question is not based on reality, but rather hypothetical musings. Suppose that a shot in the arm could make a homosexual heterosexual, and visa versea. What do you think of the morality of this.
You just answered your own question in your first quote. There is no one specific gene that controls sexuality.
But do you disagree that genes are the cause of sexuality?
But do you disagree that genes are the cause of sexuality?
I do believe that our sexuality is hardwired in us. Brain scans on adults, I've provided links in back pages, show that the brain of a homosexual is different then a heterosexual. When comparing the two side by side a lesbians brain is more similar to a mans and a gay mans is more similar to a womans brain. An actual physical difference which must be determined by genetics. Is there a so-called "gay gene?" No, but our genetic makeup plays a role.
Hm. The shot in the arm thing sounds a lot like Dr. Seuss's Sneetches. (I take the side of Dr. Seuss on that one.)
Kris thinks that "The differences and subtleties of life are defined more by how the genes interact than a gene doing one thing." lol grammer n00b!!!!
I still find it hard to believe that you managed to read through 295 pages of arguments, of which about 95% are recycled from the other 294 pages.
Arguments concerning morality, are almost by definition, hard to pin down. I mean... A genocide based on lifelong potential would benefit the human race as a whole. The targets would die in 40 more years anyways. So why not do it? What makes murder wrong, besides "God said so."? I'll answer that so you don't have to. Morality is based off of compassion. People think, "Wow, I'd hate to be the target. )-=" Here, the people disgusted by gay people are the targets. Is their suffering enough to outlaw homosexuality? I say nay.
Aside: With gene therapy and whatnot, we may be able to create a "cure" for homosexuality. What do you think of this possibility? What moral issues does it pose?
Moral issues... Religiously controlled states wanting to impose treatment upon openly gay people, add to the conception that it is something that is wrong and should be cured... A disease... I don't really like the thought of such a thing, but for those who do not want to be homosexual for whatever reason, it might help. As long as it doesn't contribute to the hatred...
Aside again: We are also very close to developing a way for two women to be the genetic parents of one child. (I think they can only do it with mice as of yet.) What do you think of this?
I find it fascinating. Not fond of messing that much with eggs, though. While I approve of homosexual couple's right to raise children, I'm not particularly fond of the 'building life' strategies science is brewing up...
We are about 40% the same genetically as lettuce.
Awesome random info.
I hate homosexuality it disgusts me if i ever see someone who is homosexual i would kick his face hard and then beat him up and then throw him into the sea
*repeats exactly the same thing kris said* The sea is lovely this time of year. Oh wait, you said he. What about female homosexuals?
A "cure" for heterosexuality perhaps.
I have a strange urge to write a "sci-fi"(futuristic) story concerning some of the issues briefly mentioned like that one now...
Arguments concerning morality, are almost by definition, hard to pin down. I mean... A genocide based on lifelong potential would benefit the human race as a whole. The targets would die in 40 more years anyways. So why not do it? What makes murder wrong, besides "God said so."? I'll answer that so you don't have to. Morality is based off of compassion. People think, "Wow, I'd hate to be the target. )-=" Here, the people disgusted by gay people are the targets. Is their suffering enough to outlaw homosexuality? I say nay.
I saw this movie last night. T'was about the human society, evolved into a bored state, where watching criminals get slaughtered while they tried to make a run for it was prime time entertainment. How much would it take for the human race to go back to looking at gladiator fights and the like as entertainment? Why do we define one thing as wrong and not another? Humans do not make sense to me.
That was my primary issue of a "cure". It would seem to me that homosexuals that did not change their ways would be even more hated.
I find it fascinating. Not fond of messing that much with eggs, though. While I approve of homosexual couple's right to raise children, I'm not particularly fond of the 'building life' strategies science is brewing up...
Do you oppose humans creating life, or do you also oppose tampering with the reproductive system? (In Vitro fertilization, ect.) Regardless, why?
What about female homosexuals?
Ha ha, I hear that kind of thing a lot. Kinda disturbing, actually.
A "cure" for heterosexuality perhaps.
not to be sexist, but: I doubt many men would use it. Women, the percentages would probably be higher.
That was my primary issue of a "cure". It would seem to me that homosexuals that did not change their ways would be even more hated.
Exactly. Creating a cure would stamp it as a disease, and give more pepople a stupid reason to argue against it.
Do you oppose humans creating life, or do you also oppose tampering with the reproductive system? (In Vitro fertilization, ect.) Regardless, why?
Actually I'm not quite sure what my opinions are and why. I just find something iffy about messing around with how life is created. Something about it just doesn't feel right. I'm not religious, but "laying God" as scientists are often blamed for doing... It does creep me out a little. But that's my only argument. Haven't thought enough about it to be against it, but find it weird enough so as not to support it. Genetic manipulation and cloning and rearranging things on that scale... Creating chimeras, for example... I think I might just be scared of what could happen if it got out of hand, or people stopped being critical of it. That aside, something about it also appeals to me... Is it okay if I just say I'm still unsure of my opinion, due to lack of solid knowledge about the topic?
Ha ha, I hear that kind of thing a lot. Kinda disturbing, actually.
Most people tend to - ignore lesbians when discussing homosexuality. Just like some guys doesn't believe lesbians exist, they just haven't met the right man... -_- Also, I checked a couple of bibles, and I couldn't find the part where it says it's wrong for two women to be together. Will a Christian please tell me where it does? If it does?
*humms past with more random info* The actual science behind two men or two women being parents is rather basic, as the reproductive system is basic too. All wee need is an empty egg, and the cromosones from the parents. And a place the egg can be while developing.
... I wonder if Gaybashers have some kind of sixth sense to find out if someone is gay...
