Suppose homosexuality could be reversed.

[Stario]

If one was to accept homosexuality should one also accept incest &/or other sexual deviant behaviours? Where does a moral society draw the line?

[xcorps]

Wait...you are attempting to say that homosexuality is a deviant behavior?

You are wrong.

Homosexuality is an attraction. Incest is a behavior. They are not "also".

You might be trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. But you are still wrong.

[Macunaíma]

If one was to accept homosexuality should one also accept incest &/or other sexual deviant behaviours? Where does a moral society draw the line?

Incest may have consequences on the children it causes. Homosexuality does not (it doesn't even cause children).

[Col. Tartleton]

If one was to accept homosexuality should one also accept incest &/or other sexual deviant behaviours? Where does a moral society draw the line?

The problem is lumping very different things together as a first move. One should start by examining each concept and then once one has a feel for them to bring them into categories.

Lets examine incest shall we?

Now, if a father and daughter or father and son or mother and daughter or mother and son (add a generation or two in to the difference if you will) are engaged in sexual activities isn't it quite clear that it undermines the notion of parental responsibility. A parent engaged in sex with a child is going to be unable to serve in the role of a parent, and a parent engaged in being a parent is going to be unable to engage in sex. I'd go into more detail as to why that is unacceptable, by I think with reflection it is rather self explanatory how authority figures have no business trying to have sexual partnerships with those in their care. A sexual relationship which is not abusive is based on co-equality. So I think the genetic argument is really quite secondary in this case. We don't even have to get into the medical issue. The idea is already a bad one purely on the function of societal roles. It is essentially a matter of statutory rape (and the more specific and equally heinous act of pedophilia. After all, it is clear that if you're arguing that a specific statutory rape case is not a big deal you're in all likelihood really questioning the age of consent, not the concept of consent.)and being an adult on the part of the child does not mitigate the fact you are forever a child to a parent. In this case I believe incest is highly illegal and most felonious.

Now if we have siblings or to a lesser extent first cousins/half siblings, what have you, engaged in a relationship, they are essentially coequal. In these cases we see a disruption of the nuclear family for other reasons. To an extent there is an issue of innate sibling relationships, but it is less pertinent than that of a parent and child. Fundamentally this is where we should discuss the genetic argument. On these grounds I believe that incest is not a crime, but it is an act which should be taboo. I cannot justify imprisoning someone for making this sort of decision, but frankly I think that within reason they get whatever is coming to them. If they have a child which is the harmed product of incest, then I don't think they can be absolved of responsibility. They have to accept the consequences and they certainly may not compound the act by inducing abortion and destroying the life they created through their contempt for nature. No, that's not acceptable. They must live with the consequences.

Now, if we are discussing step siblings that's reasonable. That's not really a familial relationship. There's a world of difference between the step sibling of a second marriage and the half siblings of that second marriage.

Finally I fail to see how homosexuality can be compared to the serious issues I already mentioned. Homosexuals are not inherently going to be in a compromised relationship like an incestuous one, and they do not risk genetic harm for an offspring, seeing as there is no offspring. Venereal diseases are spread regardless of orientation. That homosexual men are more at risk of HIV than straight couples, lesbians are less likely to catch it. Certainly we cannot go so far as to argue that everyone ought to be a lesbian for the sake of preventing HIV. In addition homosexual parenting is not going to interfere with the child's well being in the way that an incestuous parenting would. Homosexual parenting is far superior to no parenting and in many cases to heterosexual parenting, but I do think conceptually heterosexual couples are slightly superior at parenting. But it's not because of a book.

We can debate these points a thousand times and using facts and reason we will always come to the same conclusions. Which is the conservative perspective, not that homosexuality is wrong. That's a theological argument. There's nothing conservative about it besides being very old. It's not arguing by means of facts and reason, it's just coming to the same wrong conclusions again and again.

*smokes pipe thoughtfully*

[Stario]

Wait...you are attempting to say that homosexuality is a deviant behavior?

Homosexuality is an attraction. Incest is a behavior.

Bollocks, I personaly know of a relationahip between first cousins that clearly involves attraction, love, & even a marriage decades old. However, you are just being pedantic & fault me about my choice/use of an descriptive adjective.

You might be trying to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

Not at all. Paedophilia is altogether a different 'can of worms'. Here, the distinction that needs to be highlighted is that it is of an un-equal, non-consensual relationship involving minors.


@mindOverdrive,

Sure, incest may have consequences on offspring. However, with homosexuality the worst scenario is that the cycle of 'evolution' is completely severed; i.e. no offspring equates to the eventual extinction of the species. Now I don't quite know which is worse (but that's beside the point).


@Col. Tartleton,

Likewise, is a homosexual immune to engaging in non-consensual relationships with minors? No. However, let it be apparent, here I am making reference to consensual relationships between adults based on co-equality; there is a distinction here.

Does homosexuality too not disturb the nuclear family? Last time I checked, a nuclear family (in the classical sense), consisted of a father, mother, & their children. Now suppose this definition is altered from its classical meaning so as to be more compatable with the whole 'gay' movement, will this be good for society as a whole in the long run? No, because a child needs both a father & a mother during development. This is because both sexes bring 'to the table', their own unique attibutes/qualities during a childs developmental period. Homosexuality not only disturbs the 'nuclear' family, but the whole of society.

Finally, if one can acknowledge the simple disgust of an incestuous relationship between a father & his [adult] daughter, or that of [adult] siblings, or be it [adult] cousins, then how does one fail to acknowledge the disgust in a man putting his penis inside another man.

[Col. Tartleton]

@Col. Tartleton,

Likewise, is a homosexual immune to engaging in non-consensual relationships with minors? No. However, let it be apparent, here I am making reference to consensual relationships between adults based on co-equality; there is a distinction here.

Are they immune? No. No one is immune to that. Alright.

Does homosexuality too not disturb the nuclear family? Last time I checked, a nuclear family (in the classical sense), consisted of a father, mother, & their children. Now suppose this definition is altered from its classical meaning so as to be more compatable with the whole 'gay' movement, will this be good for society as a whole in the long run? No, because a child needs both a father & a mother during development. This is because both sexes bring 'to the table', their own unique attibutes/qualities during a childs developmental period. Homosexuality not only disturbs the 'nuclear' family, but the whole of society.

I'm not gay. I don't feel biased for or against them. I think that a good dad and a good mom is better than a single dad or single mom or neither or two dads or two moms. I wouldn't want to be giving orphans to single parents, but it's better than no parents. I also wouldn't want to be giving orphans to gay parents, but it's better than a single parent or no parents at all. Gays are naturally outside of the nuclear family and only take on that responsibility out of altruism. Do I think gays are good parents? Not across the board. But some would be. I also find a lot of gay people incredibly annoying and want nothing to do with them. But every gay isn't the same.

Finally, if one can acknowledge the simple disgust of an incestuous relationship between a father & his [adult] daughter, or that of [adult] siblings, or be it [adult] cousins, then how does one fail to acknowledge the disgust in a man putting his penis inside another man.

I don't care about disgust. I already gave other reasons why incest was wrong. Disgust tells me I shouldn't do it. It doesn't tell me that others shouldn't do it. when I eat too much I'm disgusted by food. After :wub: I'm often disgusted by the notion of porn. Disgust is a personal thing. I acknowledge homosexual disgust. You don't see me participating. But to each their own. I want to punch emo kids in the face. I don't. I curb my desires to protect the rights of others. Disgust is healthy.

I'm aroused by multiple women copulating. Ideally with my involvement since I'm straight. That doesn't make it right or wrong. Some women are into gay porn as they're straight. That's the same thing. It's personal preference.

[Irishman]

I'm all for genetic manipulation. I don't see anything wrong with making so called "designer babies" in the act itself. Would I do it specifically to prevent homosexuality? No. There is nothing wrong with being gay, but the idea of giving your child the best chance of success in life would be just silly to pass up. Of course, this goes for everything, height, weight, features etc. We already do this through choosing a mate, so why not explicitly?

Socially, though, designer babies could cause huge problems. It may create a deep socio-economic schism between those who can afford the treatment and those who cant.

Of course, this is assuming an idealized treatment. I am skeptical that such a treatment could exist without greatly affecting every part of the person in unintended ways.

[frozenprince]

Likewise, is a homosexual immune to engaging in non-consensual relationships with minors? No. However, let it be apparent, here I am making reference to consensual relationships between adults based on co-equality; there is a distinction here.

Then he or she is not a homosexual, he or she is a pedophile.

Does homosexuality too not disturb the nuclear family? Last time I checked, a nuclear family (in the classical sense), consisted of a father, mother, & their children. Now suppose this definition is altered from its classical meaning so as to be more compatable with the whole 'gay' movement, will this be good for society as a whole in the long run? No, because a child needs both a father & a mother during development. This is because both sexes bring 'to the table', their own unique attibutes/qualities during a childs developmental period. Homosexuality not only disturbs the 'nuclear' family, but the whole of society.

Can we stop with this non-sensical argument for the love of all that is holy. I am unaware that this is still the 1950's, where the father is big and tough and a mans man, while the mother is a homemaker and baby machine. A child needs social interaction during development, not both parents, and not nesissarily a single parent either. The words "Nuclear Family" have been altered constantly for a variety of reasons. The first is now being a single parent is no longer taboo. The second is that the term imply's that one way is the only way, and there are a variety of famly units that can and in fact do exist. Just because one makes you feel slightly icky inside doens't meen that it isn't good for the child.

Finally, if one can acknowledge the simple disgust of an incestuous relationship between a father & his [adult] daughter, or that of [adult] siblings, or be it [adult] cousins, then how does one fail to acknowledge the disgust in a man putting his penis inside another man.

Right, and again, this is just you thinking that gay people are icky. Congrats.

Every gay isn't the same.

Such a radical opinion, that people aren't all the same generic stereotype based upon one simple peice of their personality. How do you sleep at night believing in such radical nonsense.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'd rather just invest in acquiring a calculating athletic brunette engineer. That way she can even out my tall dark and handsome Clark Gable looks and brilliant/crazy mind. I'd say blonde or red head, but I'm so dark haired our kids would be brown haired anyway, so it's not useful and if they managed to get the blond pigments they'd really end up being red haired because I have that Irish Red Highlight/"So Dark Brown It Looks Black" rather than say Japanese Blue/Black.

Such a radical opinion, that people aren't all the same generic stereotype based upon one simple peice of their personality. How do you sleep at night believing in such radical nonsense.

I eat a lot of animal proteins and I drink. A lot.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Maybe the polll should be expanded to include lesbianism or LGBT in general. It's male-centric.
Irishman brought up some good points, and the theme of my favorite movie, Gattaca.
In Canada this is a news item already, as some ethinc communities are using prebirth gender identification technology to detect whether or not they're going to have a boy child. Girls are aborted and the boy/girl birth ratio in Southeast Asian and some Asian communites is shockingly below the norm.

Even if one were against perfecting their child before birth, they'd almost be obligated to do so, because so many others would have absolutely no qualms about increasing their child's IQ, eyesight, longevity, athleticism, etc.

Some here may object to...de-homosexualizing their children, but the same communited cited above would leap on it.

[frozenprince]

Maybe the polll should be expanded to include lesbianism or LGBT in general. It's male-centric.

This is a rather Male-centric Foura. So I can understand making it such. Though I agree it needs some tweaking.

[SLN445]

Do I think gays are good parents? Not across the board. But some would be. I also find a lot of gay people incredibly annoying and want nothing to do with them. But every gay isn't the same.

Ive met alot of people whome are Gay (being bisexual tends to do that ) and i havent seen any more annoying people amounst their ranks then i do in the Straight population, though being in a minority group does tend to may the annoying ones more vocal...

[Col. Tartleton]

Maybe the polll should be expanded to include lesbianism or LGBT in general. It's male-centric.
Irishman brought up some good points, and the theme of my favorite movie, Gattaca.
In Canada this is a news item already, as some ethinc communities are using prebirth gender identification technology to detect whether or not they're going to have a boy child. Girls are aborted and the boy/girl birth ratio in Southeast Asian and some Asian communites is shockingly below the norm.

Even if one were against perfecting their child before birth, they'd almost be obligated to do so, because so many others would have absolutely no qualms about increasing their child's IQ, eyesight, longevity, athleticism, etc.

Some here may object to...de-homosexualizing their children, but the same communited cited above would leap on it.

Which me and the conservatives know is genocide. Killing inferior kids, not making them better, that is. There's nothing wrong with enhancing things. I don't know what Viagra is like, but it sounds awesome.

Frankly I'd rather try to chisel a well rounded awesome human being from a block of granite, than starting off with someone who is inherently made of marble.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

For some reason the industry I'm in attracts a higher than average gay to straight ratio. Not being part of the community myself, I was quite surprised to see the lack of solidarity in the community that is so highly touted in the media. From my observations in the workplace, many gay men absolutely, Kahn-vs-Kirk-o-lutely hate each other with a passion. I've noticed this particularly between the Alexandrian gays, that is men who are involvied in manly salubrious living, vs flamboyant gays with the lisps and affectations. Very interesting. Not good or bad, mind, just interesting.

Frankly I'd rather try to chisel a well rounded awesome human being from a block of granite, than starting off with someone who is inherently made of marble

From rough to perfect Ashlar, as some junior fraternities say.
Man, I love all these ideas and converstations. No matter what peoples' viewpoints, they make our world interesting.

[Col. Tartleton]

I like the "Alexandrian" gays they don't bother me. They're dudes. I can chill with dudes. Even straight dudes grab my ass. That's just people being people. Chicks do it too. I'm adorable. It's gonna happen.

Can't stand the other ones. They do nothing for me. They make me uncomfortable. I resent them for it. People might think that's homophobic. I don't think so. I've thought about it.

I concluded that I can put up with a lot of "hot girl bull ." We all know what I'm talking about. Hot girls are almost always annoying, often dumb, and sometimes crazy. But I can deal with that because I'm designed as a male to ignore it. That's why I'm checking her out. It's my brain saying "Buddy, I know she's an idiot, but honestly she's good looking and you should try to reproduce with her for the sake of the species." And you know what? I treat completely annoying girls like they're interesting and awesome. I'm looking for options of course, as soon as I find a girl who is attractive, interesting, and interested I'm homing in on her. But that's not really the point. The point is why I don't like gays.

They're hot guys. They're little girls. But they're actually grown ass men. So my brain says "Put this thing which looks like a schlub and acts like she's hot down a peg."

That's what that "hate" really is. We generally dislike obnoxious women but we tolerate them because they're hot. But honestly why the hell would we ever put up with a dude who acts like that. We'd beat the out of him and rub his nose in it. Which is wrong, but it's the impulse.

[basics]

DimeBagHo,

It is not a case of whether it can be taken away at all because it can. To begin with we must understand that homosexuality is a sin caused by the lusts of the flesh brought about by man's fall from grace in the garden scene. It is no greater a sin than any other. All sin can be removed at any time by God and homosexuality is no different.

The point is that at rebirth, the lusts that men once followed are replaced by another nature that is not under any curse and if that applies to any other sin it also applies to homosexuality. It is said that one in five men can be homosexual or have experience of homosexual activity yet not being dyed in the wool homosexuals. Can everyone place their hands on their hearts and say that they have not indulged with their pals at one time in sexual activity between themselves, because I can't.

I am not a homosexual, but by the grace of God I could have been. One of my brothers is and at one time he was part of the Church of England's social work group. Oh, he got married, had a son, but that lasted until his wife walked in on him in bed with another fellow. Is his sin any greater than mine was? Not in the least because all of us were handed over to the lusts of our hearts by the fall of man. And by God's grace any one can be regenerated to a new life in Jesus Christ, wherein the old has passed away.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Sure, incest may have consequences on offspring. However, with homosexuality the worst scenario is that the cycle of 'evolution' is completely severed; i.e. no offspring equates to the eventual extinction of the species. Now I don't quite know which is worse (but that's beside the point).

Except only a minority of human beings are gay. And even many of those have children biologically. Are you under the impression that everyone is gay? You might simply be incorrectly assuming your own homosexuality is also present in everyone else, and must suppressed.

Incest shouldn't be illegal. Child abuse should be, whether than involves incest or not. If two cousins want to get it on with protection, well, I don't like the idea of that, but it harms noone and should be allowed.

Does homosexuality too not disturb the nuclear family? Last time I checked, a nuclear family (in the classical sense), consisted of a father, mother, & their children. Now suppose this definition is altered from its classical meaning so as to be more compatable with the whole 'gay' movement, will this be good for society as a whole in the long run? No, because a child needs both a father & a mother during development. This is because both sexes bring 'to the table', their own unique attibutes/qualities during a childs developmental period. Homosexuality not only disturbs the 'nuclear' family, but the whole of society.

How many people are raised by nuclear families? A majority, sure, but not a vast majority. Plenty of people have one absent or incapacitated parent, or no parents. I know of a guy who was raised by his mother, aunt and uncle living in the same house, because his father died.

Finally, if one can acknowledge the simple disgust of an incestuous relationship between a father & his [adult] daughter, or that of [adult] siblings, or be it [adult] cousins, then how does one fail to acknowledge the disgust in a man putting his penis inside another man.

I don't care what consenting adults do in private. I know many cousins get married in every western country every year.

[frozenprince]

It is not a case of whether it can be taken away at all because it can. To begin with we must understand that homosexuality is a sin caused by the lusts of the flesh brought about by man's fall from grace in the garden scene. It is no greater a sin than any other. All sin can be removed at any time by God and homosexuality is no different.

Yea, this is wrong. "Praying away the gay" doesn't work. I know for a fact that "Reperative/Reformative therapy" does not work, and in fact is very harmful to the physical and mental well being of the individual. Asking god to 'fix' homosexuality is as idiotic as asking him to cure an illness, or fix your car for you, or to beam down on a chariot of bloody skulls and make you a pastrami sammich. It's all a nice little fantasy that has no bearing in reality.

The point is that at rebirth, the lusts that men once followed are replaced by another nature that is not under any curse and if that applies to any other sin it also applies to homosexuality. It is said that one in five men can be homosexual or have experience of homosexual activity yet not being dyed in the wool homosexuals. Can everyone place their hands on their hearts and say that they have not indulged with their pals at one time in sexual activity between themselves, because I can't.

Do you not know how Ex-gay therapy works? It used to follow that idiology, that if you pray and go through the certain types of therapy (I.E. pshycosomatic torture) you won't be attracted to the same sex anymore. And this stoped being practiced once people realized that you CAN'T change ones sexual orientation, you can mearly repress the desires. Which as multiple studies show is just as harmful, if not more so. And what the hell does people experementing with their sexuality have to do with anything? It is a normal event in most peoples formative years (13-17 or there abouts) to experement with different peices of their sexuality. Many are heterosexual. And the fact that you experimented as well has no bearing on weather or not god is a viable 'cure' for something that isn't a mental or physical illness. No matter what you argue, that is an immutable fact.

I am not a homosexual, but by the grace of God I could have been. One of my brothers is and at one time he was part of the Church of England's social work group. Oh, he got married, had a son, but that lasted until his wife walked in on him in bed with another fellow. Is his sin any greater than mine was? Not in the least because all of us were handed over to the lusts of our hearts by the fall of man. And by God's grace any one can be regenerated to a new life in Jesus Christ, wherein the old has passed away.

See, you always bring that up, so your brother is gay and made a mistake, what bearing does that have to do with anything other than re-affirming your own beliefs in your own mind? Many homosexual and bisexual individuals hide their sexuality for years, they even feign heterosexuality in order to appear normal and appease their families or culture or religion or any other number of things. But inside they are still a homosexual, and repressing your desires can only go on for so long before you snap and do it anyway. Repressing sexual desires is never healthy. By making these statements you imply that everybody is in fact bisexual, and has free reign over which path to walk, but thats a lie. It makes your worldview make sense to you, but its still a lie.

[DimeBagHo]

It lowers genetic fitness of that individual. It causes social difficulties. It spreads STD's faster. I'm not sure how you can't call it a defect. It might be a situation where the slippery slope fallacy is no longer a fallacy (if not homosexuality why not adjust for other traits as well), but while homosexuality is normal that doesn't mean its desirable. Added if the treatment were legal, gay populations would crash, your child's future partners would only be the % of naturally gay males whos parents decided to not test/treat. Instead of the 3-10% of the population it is now their life would be more like this...

From an evolutionary point of view homosexuality might be a defect, but I don't think we have much reason to care about the evolutionary point of view in this case. Evolution is not a god that needs to be appeased. What matters here is whether homosexuality is a defect from the point of view of someone who is a homosexual. When you ask that question it is easy to see how a broken leg is a defect. Whatever you want, being unable to walk is probably going to be a problem. It is harder to see how a preference for sex with people of your own gender could be a defect because it just is part of what you want.

To show that a biologically based preference is a defect, from the point of view of the person who has the preference, all you can really do is show that it conflicts with other more important preferences that they have. For example, an intense fear of spiders is typically a defect because it tends to interfere with satisfying other preferences that arachnophobes themselves consider to be more important. It is harder to make that sort of argument with homosexuality because our preferences in this area tend to be given precedence. A lot of homosexuals might, for example, think that an excessive desire for social acceptance is getting in the way of their more important desire to get laid.

Maybe the polll should be expanded to include lesbianism or LGBT in general. It's male-centric.

In its more technical usage 'homosexual' just refers to people who are sexually attracted to people of the same sex, so it includes lesbians.

It is not a case of whether it can be taken away at all because it can. To begin with we must understand that homosexuality is a sin caused by the lusts of the flesh brought about by man's fall from grace in the garden scene. It is no greater a sin than any other. All sin can be removed at any time by God and homosexuality is no different.

I don't believe in divine intervention, so I am more interested in the question of what we ought to do with an available medical intervention. However, while I think it is reasonably likely that we will get an intervention that can be applied at an early stage of development, I doubt that we will get an intervention that can be applied to a fully developed adult any time soon. Like frozenprince I think the alleged treatments currently available are quackery.

Still I suppose it is worth considering the possibility of a treatment that could be applied to adults. The case is simpler in some ways because you have an adult making a choice for themselves rather than a parent making the choice on behalf of a child. It is more complicated in other respects because you have an adult doing violence to an important aspect of his own personality, rather than a parent shaping the future development of a personality that has not yet come into existence.

[Macunaíma]

It is not a case of whether it can be taken away at all because it can. To begin with we must understand that homosexuality is a sin caused by the lusts of the flesh brought about by man's fall from grace in the garden scene. It is no greater a sin than any other. All sin can be removed at any time by God and homosexuality is no different.

The point is that at rebirth, the lusts that men once followed are replaced by another nature that is not under any curse and if that applies to any other sin it also applies to homosexuality. It is said that one in five men can be homosexual or have experience of homosexual activity yet not being dyed in the wool homosexuals. Can everyone place their hands on their hearts and say that they have not indulged with their pals at one time in sexual activity between themselves, because I can't.

I am not a homosexual, but by the grace of God I could have been. One of my brothers is and at one time he was part of the Church of England's social work group. Oh, he got married, had a son, but that lasted until his wife walked in on him in bed with another fellow. Is his sin any greater than mine was? Not in the least because all of us were handed over to the lusts of our hearts by the fall of man. And by God's grace any one can be regenerated to a new life in Jesus Christ, wherein the old has passed away.

I came .