First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Ex-Gay Reparative Therapy movement
Posted 2/7/08

Karok wrote:

Im sorry but no amount of therapy is gonna turn me straight Its something i would never lose even when im told its evil/wrong etc. (the same old rubbish). Its not something bad so why does it need to change?
In my opinion with enough therapy you could do anything to anyone...


While i do accept that being gay is natural and also that there is nothing technically wrong with it it never fails to bring on a twinge of revulsion whenever i see two men kiss. To me it seems just revolting. Sorry I have nothing against gays its just they naturally disgust me sometimes...
16241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

Stickmania wrote:


Karok wrote:

Im sorry but no amount of therapy is gonna turn me straight Its something i would never lose even when im told its evil/wrong etc. (the same old rubbish). Its not something bad so why does it need to change?
In my opinion with enough therapy you could do anything to anyone...


While i do accept that being gay is natural and also that there is nothing technically wrong with it it never fails to bring on a twinge of revulsion whenever i see two men kiss. To me it seems just revolting. Sorry I have nothing against gays its just they naturally disgust me sometimes...


Its okay, its not just you. Men naturally disgust me anyways! and not like i'm complaining...much? not like i can take out a gun and shoot every men on earth now, can i? *other than feminine guys, for some odd reason, I like them! =O* (Note: not all feminine guys are gay )
357 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

Omok wrote:


Stickmania wrote:


Karok wrote:

Im sorry but no amount of therapy is gonna turn me straight Its something i would never lose even when im told its evil/wrong etc. (the same old rubbish). Its not something bad so why does it need to change?
In my opinion with enough therapy you could do anything to anyone...


While i do accept that being gay is natural and also that there is nothing technically wrong with it it never fails to bring on a twinge of revulsion whenever i see two men kiss. To me it seems just revolting. Sorry I have nothing against gays its just they naturally disgust me sometimes...


Its okay, its not just you. Men naturally disgust me anyways! and not like i'm complaining...much? not like i can take out a gun and shoot every men on earth now, can i? *other than feminine guys, for some odd reason, I like them! =O* (Note: not all feminine guys are gay )


lol funny comments

Omok: sorry for being a guy, but at least you show some tollarance so i guess it's not that bad :P

Stickmania: same sort of thing im glad you seems to tollerate people being gay, it's a good thing. I don't really like seeing herto couples kissing but i put up with it. Not too big a fan if it isn't too guys but it doesnt disgust me really just dont find it attrative...

Maybe i just need some therapy
16241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

Karok wrote:


Omok wrote:


Stickmania wrote:


Karok wrote:

Im sorry but no amount of therapy is gonna turn me straight Its something i would never lose even when im told its evil/wrong etc. (the same old rubbish). Its not something bad so why does it need to change?
In my opinion with enough therapy you could do anything to anyone...


While i do accept that being gay is natural and also that there is nothing technically wrong with it it never fails to bring on a twinge of revulsion whenever i see two men kiss. To me it seems just revolting. Sorry I have nothing against gays its just they naturally disgust me sometimes...


Its okay, its not just you. Men naturally disgust me anyways! and not like i'm complaining...much? not like i can take out a gun and shoot every men on earth now, can i? *other than feminine guys, for some odd reason, I like them! =O* (Note: not all feminine guys are gay )


lol funny comments

Omok: sorry for being a guy, but at least you show some tollarance so i guess it's not that bad :P

Stickmania: same sort of thing im glad you seems to tollerate people being gay, it's a good thing. I don't really like seeing herto couples kissing but i put up with it. Not too big a fan if it isn't too guys but it doesnt disgust me really just dont find it attrative...

Maybe i just need some therapy


*laughs* no you don't need therapy just because you don't like to see heterosexual people kissing! I don't like it much either xDDD *other than in animes...RL its' kind of nasty* but hey! seeing gay guys kissing *imagines* is actually kind of hawt...*rolls eyes, and i'm suppose to be lesbian!*

and you don't need to be sorry for being a guy =) its, completely fine with me. Just, don't try to hug me, or anything be on that. *doubt you would, but yeah! this is my rule for all guys xD* I'm friends with more guys than girls anyways *shrugs*

477 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / toronto canada
Offline
Posted 2/7/08
not just humans but their are animals that are gay or lesbian too hermaphradite can also be a factor. But, people who once liked the opposite sex change to likeing the same sex is due to genes evolving and changing over time. Many factors..
7716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / M / Florida, US
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

Omok wrote:

Fact:15% of heterosexual girls have actually TIRED kissing another girl
Fact:A lot of homosexuals are actually bisexual; just don't know it.
Fact:A lot of heterosexuals are actually bisexual; just don't know it.

but back to the question of "can all homosexuals be changed in to heterosexual?" PERSONALLY I think thats' completely BS. Its' like saying you can force a duck into a dog. -_-; It's unreasonable to think so; because after all, there's no scientific proof that it can be changed.

and as for the research that homosexual may actually be caused by Genes....doesn't that also apply to heterosexuals then? because then, those heterosexuals can now be changed into homosexuals; I don't think people will like that now, wouldn't they? because if you were to view homosexual as a sickness, then you'll have to view heterosexual the same because the two are indifferent to a degree aside from the different gender that which they're attracted to.



1) Do you have actual data for the facts?
2) If people are saying that homosexuality within a species is a genetic or mental deviation/problem, then changing that is obviously nothing like changing a duck into a dog... Unless you accidentally made a horrible analogy. I think interspecies changing is a bit more extreme (personally not even in the same page) as personal traits/behavior changes within humans (1 species).
3) Yes. No one wants to be told that their preference or identity is wrong, an error, or anything with a negative tone to it. That doesn't mean that the world should be pressured into walking on eggshells whenever any traits are discussed. I don't know if homosexuality can count as a genetic/mental disorder or issue. All I know is that homosexuality is biologically counter-productive to sexual reproduction. If anyone argues that medical/science breakthroughs have allowed us to be homosexual while creating offspring; if technology/medical applications are required to create offspring while we are still able to sexually reproduce, something isn't right. So, sure. Heterosexuals will probably not want to be changed. But why are we changing human beings to homosexuals when we're a species that procreates heterosexually?
"...because the two are indifferent to a degree aside from the different gender that which they're attracted to."
I'm Asian. And if they found strong scientific data that Asians were genetically flawed, I'd have to consider it and/or agree. Not that I would like it or want to change. But I admit or consider any possibility even if it might ostracize me or belittle my identity.

I'm not attacking homosexuality and have friends who are. But I believe that this topic like every sensitive issue should be analyzed as objectively as possible. And biologically speaking, I admit to seeing some logic in homosexuality as being a negative deviation from human procreation and survival. Think of it this way. If the first 100 human beings were all heterosexual, we wouldn't think anything of it. If the 1st 100 were all homosexual; extinction would be imminent. One is required and the other isn't. So which is ultimately more beneficial for the survival of a sexually reproductive species?
15 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

Inoperfection wrote:


artgeek707 wrote:

cured? That makes it sound like it's a disease. You can't "cure" them, but you can make them lie. Anyway I thought there was a gene that determined sexuality


Being gay is a mental disease. However gay people can choose whether they wish to be cured or not. Those that choose not to will probably not get to heaven. I think a treatment center is great but cures depend on the persons personality.


I don't think it's fair to use terms such as "mental disease", or say that someone can "choose whether they wish to be cured or not", or say someone "will probably not get to heaven".

Take using the term "mental disease", it's like meaning the legal eagles definition of insanity with everyone taking it to mean the medical definition of insanity. The two are entirely different and it's misleading, I mean, someone who sleepwalks is legally insane in an English court of law, or someone who has a hyperglaeceamic attack (I think that's the one where you get high blood sugar?) when they have diabetes is also legally insane under English law, yet niether of these is classed as medically insane (and by the way, having schizophrenia is legally not insanity in England, while obviously being medically insane). This is because the two use different definitions, and the legal one needs to be updated due to an advancement in knowledge and society since it was created. Unless you can say you are a medical person speaking from a scientific medical point of view, saying homosexuality is a mental disease is meaningless really.
Also, since when was it established that being gay is a thing of the mind? A conscious decision? I thought attraction to another person was caused (at least partially) by your body's compatibility to the pheromones the other person gives off. If so, how can they (or anyone) help the way they feel? It's hormones!

As for choosing to be cured, if someone wants to choose whether to be cured, they first have to recognise they have a problem that needs fixing. If they don't recognise they have a problem, or don't believe they have, they don't have the choice about wishing to be cured. I doubt many gay people think they have a problem, and are actually quite happy, so they don't have this choice, like you say they do. Personally, I don't think being gay is something people need curing of, as there are worse things plaguing our population than falling in love with people others maybe wouldn't have expected.

And, are you saying to be mentally ill is a throwing into hell offence? Or that they have to go to purgatory or something, to atone for being sick? If you really believe, then you should remember judge not lest you yourself be judged; just because somebody is different doesn't mean they're evil (or good) or have a mental disorder, or that having a mental disorder makes you evil. That's not for us to decide.


357 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2/7/08
Really it should be argued as carefully and factfully (is that a word?) as possible but really it comes down to being your opinon. Without both sides of the argument nothing will change and thats a backwards society...
Anyway homosexual tendancies have existed from creation im sure which at least goes to show there must be a natural element to it, anyways...

Omok: Yeah i seem to have more friends that are girls... how sterotypical of me , im just too touchy feely for must guys too handle plus the whole homophobic attitude floating about its quite depressing sometimes...

maybe thats a little off topic so i shall say: boo on therapy
16241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

tobydiah wrote:
1) Do you have actual data for the facts?


The first fact: was from my Health Class Notes. And i lost them. *laughs* but i'm pretty sure its true, because the unit that we were studying was "sexuality" (sexuality is not just which gender you're attracted to) and this was "related" to it, so my teacher gave us a fact sheet on it. so, er, don't doubt this one.

as for the other two. Er...i'll give few links which may relate to them -_-; i read about it some where...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 the data in this Article proofs in a sense, that ones sexuality is not known for sure by the person *only applies to some cases*


tobydiah wrote:
2) If people are saying that homosexuality within a species is a genetic or mental deviation/problem, then changing that is obviously nothing like changing a duck into a dog... Unless you accidentally made a horrible analogy. I think interspecies changing is a bit more extreme (personally not even in the same page) as personal traits/behavior changes within humans (1 species).


Well, considering humans are 50% like a banana...I don't think, according to genetics...we'll be much different from a dog. After all, dogs have 78 chromosomes, and humans have 46..o_o; and our genetics are made up of the same substances...o__o; So, its not much different from changing a duck to a dog...So same goes to duck and dog...ducks have 95 chromosomes...>_<

If by personal traits/behavior changes, and those changes relate to "changing of genes"..yeah...its on the same page...because if according to "gene" changing, we can change the gene of a banana or add/take away genes and make that banana a /human/ ...o_o;



tobydiah wrote:
3) Yes. No one wants to be told that their preference or identity is wrong, an error, or anything with a negative tone to it. That doesn't mean that the world should be pressured into walking on eggshells whenever any traits are discussed. I don't know if homosexuality can count as a genetic/mental disorder or issue. All I know is that homosexuality is biologically counter-productive to sexual reproduction. If anyone argues that medical/science breakthroughs have allowed us to be homosexual while creating offspring; if technology/medical applications are required to create offspring while we are still able to sexually reproduce, something isn't right. So, sure. Heterosexuals will probably not want to be changed. But why are we changing human beings to homosexuals when we're a species that procreates heterosexually?
"...because the two are indifferent to a degree aside from the different gender that which they're attracted to."
I'm Asian. And if they found strong scientific data that Asians were genetically flawed, I'd have to consider it and/or agree. Not that I would like it or want to change. But I admit or consider any possibility even if it might ostracize me or belittle my identity.


But why are we changing human beings to heterosexual when we're a species that procreates homosexuality? Same theory.

Your asian example, sure, its acceptable. though would you accept it if people merely told you "oh, you're Asian, so therefore you're flawed"

Now tell me, would you accept that? A reason without proof. Thats' the same case for homosexuals. Which ever you may want to believe, there's no scientific information that say "Homosexuality is abnormal, and flawed" We had the argument of "whether homosexuals is abnormal or normal" before. Your theory was, anything that isn't norm in the sense of generalizing, is abnormal. That point i agree on, but i can also say "There's no abnormal, there is ONLY normal" because abnormal is a "tent" of normal. like shades. in a sense, saying one is abnormal, is also saying one is normal. Even if they're completely different, like light and dark. there's only one of either.

homosexuals aren't "unhappy" because people are calling them abnormal and what not, or saying they're having a mental disorder. we're unhappy because there's no proof, and people keep believing in this unproven theory. its like saying "the sky is GREEN!" and wheres' the proof?

but, lets just say science found proof that homosexuals can be changed through genes...even YOU need "Strong scientific Data" for proving asians are flawed. This would also be the case for Homosexuals. And have they found it? I believe not.



tobydiah wrote:
I'm not attacking homosexuality and have friends who are. But I believe that this topic like every sensitive issue should be analyzed as objectively as possible. And biologically speaking, I admit to seeing some logic in homosexuality as being a negative deviation from human procreation and survival. Think of it this way. If the first 100 human beings were all heterosexual, we wouldn't think anything of it. If the 1st 100 were all homosexual; extinction would be imminent. One is required and the other isn't. So which is ultimately more beneficial for the survival of a sexually reproductive species?


But the thing is, your example is impossible, considering the "first 100 humans" there's no proof that they are here, humans according to science where "apes" but the problem is, the most human like ape that science have ever found "the Lucy" I believe that's what it's called. is classified as 'Ape" not humans. There's no proof.

But through the logic of your example, what you have said; would be true. Though, applying logic, as i have mentioned, that would be an impossible example 1: its the past 2: what are the odds of the first 100 human beings being homosexual? 3: what happens to the birth parents of those humans? what are they? homosexuals as well?

there can be never a "complete" of something, and your theory cannot be proven correct, or even relate to logic in a sense because its truly /impossible/ to be real. For we cannot travel back time to see, and those 100 humans have birth parents, do they not? and as the first 100 humans, would you say they're smart enough to even think about sexuality?

of course homosexual is "negative" deviation from human procreation and survival. But what are the odds of homosexuality becoming a problem in that sense? as i have mention the data before that 1~10% of the population are homosexual. there's still 90% left. and we already have too much of a over populations in countries like china and U.S.A....wouldn't it be better if the world is more homosexual then? So in that sense, isn't it negative as well that people are too straight? *points to the amount of single family homes, amount of kids without parents, and the kids the Africa who can't rely on their parents, also the child workers)

people only dislike homosexual because it goes against their world, their box, and their mind. (note: what people dislike, doesn't mean its always right to dislike it.)
348 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / usa
Offline
Posted 2/7/08
homosexuality is not a disease.
189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:


Omok wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

No, it's genetic. Maybe it could once gene therapy is more developed.


There's no proof that is genetic. Because my whole line of family there's no homosexuals o_o; If i'm correct, i'm the only homosexual in my huge group of family

but i'm not doubting that it may be genetic, its just that there's no proof yet; so i wouldn't believe in it.

genetic things are still quite new to human kind, after all, we only discovered it around 2x years ago, and it wasn't till 20 years ago were we able to attract genetic thingys from our cells *I'm having this unit in Science class..xD*

and there are so many more things that science don't know about it, 99.9999% of the genes we have are almost useless to us, only less than 1% have a huge control over us. and its that "less than 1%" that can kill someone, or effect one person later on in life.


It's true that it hasn't been proven to be related to genetics but it's a theory that has a some backing to it. Other therapies wouldn't work anyway.



well, as people are born and as genes are passed on, there tends to be a small bit of mutation involved, and certain mutations thrive and others cause you to die and not pass on your genes...other people in omok's family also might be repressed homosexuals... Many theorize homosexuality is a form of neurological intersexuality, which is a medical phenomenon that appears in EVERY type of animal. An intersexual is someone with an ambiguous physical sex/genitalia. You can think of hermaphrodites as the most "complete" intersexuals. It's theorized to be caused by an influx of hormones at certain points in pregnancy, and has actually been induced with mild torture to animals. Homosexuality has also occurred in nature in various instances and species. On that note, there are numerous primates etc. who use sexual intercourse to resolve disputes, including two male primates getting it on.

The Greek military used to put gay lovers next to each other on the battlefield so that they'd fight harder etc. Society, i.e. religion, has really created a stigma against something that's existed in all walks of natural life for an eternity and a half.

So do I think it's "natural?" Yes. Can you "choose" to be gay? No, but yes, it is possible to repress sexual urges. This can certainly cause mental problems though.
189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

Omok wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

No, it's genetic. Maybe it could once gene therapy is more developed.


There's no proof that is genetic. Because my whole line of family there's no homosexuals o_o; If i'm correct, i'm the only homosexual in my huge group of family

but i'm not doubting that it may be genetic, its just that there's no proof yet; so i wouldn't believe in it.

genetic things are still quite new to human kind, after all, we only discovered it around 2x years ago, and it wasn't till 20 years ago were we able to attract genetic thingys from our cells *I'm having this unit in Science class..xD*

and there are so many more things that science don't know about it, 99.9999% of the genes we have are almost useless to us, only less than 1% have a huge control over us. and its that "less than 1%" that can kill someone, or effect one person later on in life.


on a different note, genetics aren't new per se, people were creating breeds of plants/animals hundreds of years ago. Did they know the exact science of what was going on? No, but they realized different traits were passed on down the line. I'm not sure what you mean by 99.9999% of the genes are "useless..." Most of them don't really affect our mental state directly, yes, if that's what you mean. There are many really "screwed up" zygotes, embryos, fetuses etc. that can't manage to live and die in the womb, so their screwed up genes or whatever other type of defect certainly kills them, often before people know they're pregnant.
16241 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 2/7/08

Nipin wrote:


Omok wrote:


darkmagiciangirl911 wrote:

No, it's genetic. Maybe it could once gene therapy is more developed.


There's no proof that is genetic. Because my whole line of family there's no homosexuals o_o; If i'm correct, i'm the only homosexual in my huge group of family

but i'm not doubting that it may be genetic, its just that there's no proof yet; so i wouldn't believe in it.

genetic things are still quite new to human kind, after all, we only discovered it around 2x years ago, and it wasn't till 20 years ago were we able to attract genetic thingys from our cells *I'm having this unit in Science class..xD*

and there are so many more things that science don't know about it, 99.9999% of the genes we have are almost useless to us, only less than 1% have a huge control over us. and its that "less than 1%" that can kill someone, or effect one person later on in life.


on a different note, genetics aren't new per se, people were creating breeds of plants/animals hundreds of years ago. Did they know the exact science of what was going on? No, but they realized different traits were passed on down the line. I'm not sure what you mean by 99.9999% of the genes are "useless..." Most of them don't really affect our mental state directly, yes, if that's what you mean. There are many really "screwed up" zygotes, embryos, fetuses etc. that can't manage to live and die in the womb, so their screwed up genes or whatever other type of defect certainly kills them, often before people know they're pregnant.


Lol, i'm not so sure about the 99.99% thingy neither, but my Science teacher showed us a video about it yesterday (no duh, i'm learning this stupid unit! *am talking to self*) there was something about 99.99% of genes, but i'm like 60% sure, that they said 99.99% of your genes doesn't effect you. or was it something like even if 99.99% of your genes was normal, long as theres' that 0.0001% abnormal or went wrong, it can create a dramatic change in the human (which is true)
189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40
Offline
Posted 2/7/08
To the above post: Yes, the latter statement is certainly true Other things besides genes can really screw you up physically/mentally as well... I heard some figure suggesting that some odd 90% of lesbians are victims of sexual abuse, though I don't think it's accurate at all... Some people also suggest that women don't have sexual orientation, but rather sexual preference, but of course I haven't heard a woman say that yet, only men.
2197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Wherever this tak...
Offline
Posted 2/7/08
....Cured? Like the way you make it sound like a disease...(that was deep-seated sarcasm btw)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.