Thread: A "fix" for homosexuality

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

ice try to redirect

That is one example of many I've provided.

Which you and your allies always find a way to ignore, or worm your way around.

Yeah, I "didn't answer your question" and you never answer mine.

Dance alone then

Tell you what, let's be blunt and direct with each other. If you post the question you'd like me to answer, I'll answer it with a clear and direct response; you can do likewise with my question. My question was: Are you really upset about the change in definition of a word (in this case, marriage) or is it something else?

Originally Posted by noahath

Can you clarify just what entitlements homesexuals are seeking that are different from heterosexuals? I'm interested in knowing just these special things are.

Well, one thing is your incorrect supposition that they ought to be compared equally to heterosexuals. Another is supposing working is a right and not a privilege. If working was a right there would be no unemployment. So, the entire attack against the existing culture of the US military is made based on "rights" that is nothing more than an entitlement.

Serving is not a right but a privilege. The homosexual agenda is to advance the notion that this privilege is something they are entitled to have.

A third thing is marriage. I am opposed to the notion of a "legal" marriage but that is besides the point. Why does the State have legal marriages with certain benefits? Because procreation is necessary for the survival of the State. Homosexuality does not benefit the State this way. Therefore, they are looking for benefits from government, entitlements from government, without providing the same benefit back to the State as heterosexual marriages.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

No they don't. They want the legal right to marry their loved one, just like everyone else.

If they wanted a different minimum wage or favored tax status for gays, then they would be seeking special entitlements. In actuality, they're not asking for anything that isn't available to everyone who is non-gay.

See post above. A heterosexual marriage has the potential to benefit the State by keeping it alive for another generation. A homosexual union produces no such equal benefit to the State. The question is, what is in it for the State to offer benefits? Nothing (nothing equaling heterosexual marriages).

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

I half think the entire "study" may have been a sort of joke or hoax.

Like so much of the global warming "science" is being shown to be. Like the "gay gene" they found .. or wished they had found ... but insist must be there; "We're looking for one, so there must be one to find."

I do believe homosexuals are born that way. I do not believe it is genetic but a neurological problem in the development of the brain in the womb. I have no evidence but this is what I believe. Acts of homosexuality are deviant.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Well, one thing is your incorrect supposition that they ought to be compared equally to heterosexuals. Another is supposing working is a right and not a privilege. If working was a right there would be no unemployment. So, the entire attack against the existing culture of the US military is made based on "rights" that is nothing more than an entitlement.

I'd like to tell me, as a gay man, why I should not be compared equally to a heterosexual man?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Serving is not a right but a privilege. The homosexual agenda is to advance the notion that this privilege is something they are entitled to have.

I keep missing these damn meetings. I've been gay my whole life but I've never once been invited to a meeting of the gay caucus where our plan to take over the world is discussed. I don't even get sent the minutes! As far as I knew the gay agenda was simply not to get beaten up at school; no to get bullied throughout life simply because of my sexuality. Clearly I missed the boat on the agenda issue. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

A third thing is marriage. I am opposed to the notion of a "legal" marriage but that is besides the point. Why does the State have legal marriages with certain benefits? Because procreation is necessary for the survival of the State. Homosexuality does not benefit the State this way. Therefore, they are looking for benefits from government, entitlements from government, without providing the same benefit back to the State as heterosexual marriages.

The old procreation issue. So I gather from your comment that you also oppose marriage for those heterosexuals who are unable to bear children, or who choose not to have children? Clearly they aren't able to, or choose not to contribute to the survival of the species.

BTW, homosexuals have been around as long as humans have been, and the species hasn't dies out yet ... so this argument is a mute one. Still, it's one that is raised anytime someone runs out of other things to say...

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I do believe homosexuals are born that way. I do not believe it is genetic but a neurological problem in the development of the brain in the womb. I have no evidence but this is what I believe. Acts of homosexuality are deviant.

You think as I do on this issue. I think something goes awry in the developmental stages of the fetus. But to mistreat these people because of something they could not help, is rather cruel.

If one uses the word "deviant" this puts them in a class that I do not want them in. Deviant is a negetive word. I would hope that in the future we do find a cure for this affliction, so those that want the cure, can access it. At least provided that option. Gay folks miss out on the dance of life, yet they don't know what they are missing, due to their proclivities.

I think many males, while growing up, flirt with homosexuality, but move beyond it as they get older, and start noticing what they are really attracted to..the female of the species. And not having a bad wiring of the brain, they stay with the female. And do what all life does, to procreate and keep life going.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

You think as I do on this issue. I think something goes awry in the developmental stages of the fetus. But to mistreat these people because of something they could not help, is rather cruel.

My only problem here is with the value judgments implied. We don't know what causes homosexuality; it may be genetic, environmental, or a combination of the two. We do know that it isn't a choice.

But why insist that there is something wrong with the condition? That doesn't make any sense at all to me, and I can't see a valid argument in favor of such an attitude. Why not accept that whether people are attracted to the opposite gender, their own, or both, that's just how they are and it's all love at best and pleasant lust at minimum and it's all good?

Some have presented an argument that because homosexuality is non-procreative there is something unnatural about it. But this reduces the purpose of human sexuality to procreation, which is only one of the many purposes it serves. It gives us pleasure, bonds us with each other, makes people happy, expresses love. Sex is a good thing for itself, not just because it makes babies. Homosexual sex isn't unnatural because it doesn't make babies any more than heterosexual sex when using contraceptives, which also doesn't make babies (or at least isn't supposed to). We don't need for every person to make babies, nor is it impossible, using modern medical techniques, to make babies without having heterosexual sex.

There is really no reason to look down on gay sex at all, except religious teachings (which, frankly, is a better argument against religions that do that than it is against gay sex) and personal squeamishness.

We seem to be undergoing a cultural shift away from these arbitrary, love-denying rules about sex and towards a different set of rules that say: respect one another. Respect one another's right to choice. Do not rape. Do not coerce. Do no harm. And do not condemn another for his or her sexual nature -- that, too, is part of respect.

Some are uncomfortable with that change. I am pleased with it, and want to see it move forwards.

Originally Posted by noahath

I'd like to tell me, as a gay man, why I should not be compared equally to a heterosexual man?

Mainly because you are not.

Originally Posted by noahath

IAs far as I knew the gay agenda was simply not to get beaten up at school

Yea, this is why homosexuals claim being in the US military is a "right."

Originally Posted by noahath

The old procreation issue. So I gather from your comment that you also oppose marriage for those heterosexuals who are unable to bear children, or who choose not to have children? Clearly they aren't able to, or choose not to contribute to the survival of the species.

BTW, homosexuals have been around as long as humans have been, and the species hasn't dies out yet ... so this argument is a mute one. Still, it's one that is raised anytime someone runs out of other things to say...

Homosexuality is deviant behavior, like alcoholism or obesity. Just because some people throughout time are prone to deviancy does not affect the morality involved. Hence, the "old" procreation issue. It is eternally relevant.

I oppose the concept of "legal" marriage. Therefore, I certainly am opposed to expanding it. As far as it goes, however, in terms of benefiting the State, other than calling it old, you have not explained how a homosexual marriage EQUALLY benefits the State in terms of procreation. Here is where you want special entitlements. You want EQUAL benefit from government without EQUAL benefit to the State.

Heterosexual couples who CANNOT have children is not a moral issue. Morality involves choice. Heterosexual couples who do not want to procreate should not get married. Even if they do, they may change their mind or be blessed with "a happy accident."

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

But to mistreat these people because of something they could not help, is rather cruel.

If one uses the word "deviant" this puts them in a class that I do not want them in. Deviant is a negetive word.

Acts of homosexuality are negative. It deserves a negative word.

Name one person who supports treating homosexuals cruelly?

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

My only problem here is with the value judgments implied. We don't know what causes homosexuality; it may be genetic, environmental, or a combination of the two. We do know that it isn't a choice.

On the contrary, we KNOW acts of homosexuality are choices. Being an alcoholic is not a choice but taking another drink is a choice.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

But why insist that there is something wrong with the condition?

Mainly because there is. The ultimate moral standard is life. W know acting homosexually is wrong by examining the theoretical results if everyone did it at each decision point. The result? Extinction of the species after this generation.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

We seem to be undergoing a cultural shift away from these arbitrary, love-denying rules about sex

This cultural shift is called multiculturalism, which has love-denying rules and is arbitrary. The arbitrary is there is no moral wrong. It is love denying because it is life denying. This is why the Pope said America is embracing a culture of death.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Acts of homosexuality are negative. It deserves a negative word.

Name one person who supports treating homosexuals cruelly?

John Cain, a guy I was in the military with. He used to cruise the streets of Denver, and he and his friends would beat the crap out of gays.

I think some in society still sees this affliction as BAD, IMMORAL, and WRONG. And some of these hate because of this. Where you have hate, you have cruelty to spring from that hate.