Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/29/06 06:09 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 11/29/06 06:03 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: If we had the technology to target specfic genes, then that wouldn't be a problem.

And how would you do that?

By distroying the gene. Therefore, the child (and parent) would have NO sextuallity. This is a hell of a lot less socially acceptable than being gay.

And that's without side effects...

Asexuallity would mean you didn't have sex at all, and people don't seem to hate priests. Also you wouldn't have to destroy it, you would have to rearrange it.

At 11/29/06 11:35 AM, Techware wrote:

At 11/29/06 11:18 AM, Peter-II wrote:

And, for some reason, you think "your" is short for "you are".

You are stupid showing?

Oh, I see.

Either way, it doesn't make grammatical sense. It should be "your stupid's showing" or something to that effect.

At 11/28/06 09:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/28/06 07:50 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 11/28/06 03:26 PM, troubles1 wrote: Stuff

Can we cure ignorance, and intolerance? Homosexuality is natural, the end.

If homosexuality was natural then homosexuals would be able to reproduce and self-sustain.

If homosexuality wasn't natural, it wouldn't exsist.

The singular purpose of sexuality is reproduction, sex between two members of the same gender cannot facilitate the production of children and serves no biological/reproductive/evolutionary purpose, thus same-sex attraction is not a natural result of our evolutionary development and is, in fact, a defect.

There is no purpose to posting messages in online forums, either, as that encourages sedentary behavior. In fact, doing so serves no biological, reproductive, or evolutionary purpose. Obviously, it must be a defect. No, the whole point of sex is not reproduction; not everyone who uses a condom is "defective." There are multiple intentions for every act, not all of which include serving humanity. And, by definition, homosexuality is a natural result of our evolutionary development; nobody artificially edited the genes of homosexuals to give them their sexual preference. The work was all done by Mother Nature -- that, by definition, is both natural and a byproduct of "evolution."

At 11/29/06 06:55 PM, Begoner wrote:
There is no purpose to posting messages in online forums, either, as that encourages sedentary behavior. In fact, doing so serves no biological, reproductive, or evolutionary purpose. Obviously, it must be a defect.

no, because one makes the conscious descision to post on an online BBS. Unless you're arguing that homosexuality is a choice, you have no point here.

:No, the whole point of sex is not reproduction; not everyone who uses a condom is "defective." There are multiple intentions for every act, not all of which include serving humanity.

Yes, sex exists because of the need for reproduction, the physical gratification is nature's way of rewarding you. You're correct, someone who uses a condom is not defective, because they're making the conscious choice to negate the reproductive effects of sexual intercourse, they're not hardwired to pursue sexual conduct which cannot result in reproduction, like homosexuals.

:And, by definition, homosexuality is a natural result of our evolutionary development; nobody artificially edited the genes of homosexuals to give them their sexual preference. The work was all done by Mother Nature -- that, by definition, is both natural and a byproduct of "evolution."

You're making a ridiculous semantic argument here. By that logic, dwarfism, down-syndrome, and sickle cell anemia aren't defects either. So long as they arose as a result of the natural process of human evolution.

At 11/29/06 05:45 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

If your gay, your gay.

You can't used to be gay.

Your either gay or you never were.

The how do you discover that you're gay?

At 11/29/06 08:35 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 11/29/06 04:57 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You can't used to be.

Yes you can. Don't blame me if you don't have a concept of past and present.

Look, mearly having sex with someone doesn't prove one sexuality.

If I can use Fli for an example, he has had sex earlier in his life with women when he was still questioning himself.

Does that make him straight.

Of course not.

Was he straight while he was doing it.

No.

He was mearly a confused young man.

There having gay sex, then there's being gay all together.

Like I said earlier, you can't used to be gay, you can stop having the acts but the urges will still be there. The attraction will still be there.

I have a question.

Is sexual orientation an identity or is it just a behavioral reaction for sexual gratification?

Is Homosexuality - Love for someone of the same sex or is sexual orientation between sames sex partners?

I have heard from numerous sources that a gay man who tries to find a faithful lover is far and in between. It is very hard to find men who want to commit in a relationship that for many is built upon sex.

Yet, if there are a large number of men who commit to one partner, it would be interesting to document since I here women find it easier to live as lesbian couples than gay men. I am not saying how society treats them but life partners.

Curing homosexuality is a moral issue and not an ethical one. To conservative Christians like myself, homosexuality is a perversion of heterosexuality. Thus, it cannot be viewed as Godly or natural in our God's eyes since it perverts something he created. In Christ, we believe all sins can be forgiven and freed from so a "gay" gene almost seems like an oxy-moron.

It also explains why Christians cannot accept "same-sex" marriage.

Yet, the Bible also says to not condemn the world. World = non-believers. Thus, the only individuals the church has the right to condemn for homosexuality are Christians. This makes a huge difference about how the church is to judge the outside world. They are not suppose to whatsoever.

At 11/29/06 09:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: He was mearly a confused young man.

Well... not confused.
I've always knew something was up with me as a kid... started when I saw He-Man "prettier" than She-Ra (of course, not a sexual kind of "prettiness" but the innocent type kids view life)

It was a way for me to appear "normal."
Of course such an act takes a lot of self-denial, self-illusionment, a lot of stress and angsty feelings...

There having gay sex, then there's being gay all together.

Like I said earlier, you can't used to be gay, you can stop having the acts but the urges will still be there. The attraction will still be there.

At 11/29/06 09:28 PM, TonioMiguel wrote: I have a question.

Is sexual orientation an identity or is it just a behavioral reaction for sexual gratification?

Is Homosexuality - Love for someone of the same sex or is sexual orientation between sames sex partners?

Daddy's Roommate... children's book about two gay dads. Adults can learn much from it... the son of the gay dad asks his mom, "Mom, what does it mean to be gay?"

She says, "Gay means another type of love."

Simpliest answer I have ever seen.

I have heard from numerous sources that a gay man who tries to find a faithful lover is far and in between. It is very hard to find men who want to commit in a relationship that for many is built upon sex.

Of course, it takes time...
and if you're a gay guy, you don't cruise at the Ramble, the arcades, or bath houses for a life mate... I mean, look at the type of people who you get to chose! Similarly... straight guys shouldn't marry a stripper or sex worker if he's gonna question her fedility.

Yet, if there are a large number of men who commit to one partner, it would be interesting to document since I here women find it easier to live as lesbian couples than gay men. I am not saying how society treats them but life partners.

Mmmm...
Men are hound dogs, pure and simple... gay or straight.

Curing homosexuality is a moral issue and not an ethical one. To conservative Christians like myself, homosexuality is a perversion of heterosexuality. Thus, it cannot be viewed as Godly or natural in our God's eyes since it perverts something he created. In Christ, we believe all sins can be forgiven and freed from so a "gay" gene almost seems like an oxy-moron.

It also explains why Christians cannot accept "same-sex" marriage.

Yet, the Bible also says to not condemn the world. World = non-believers. Thus, the only individuals the church has the right to condemn for homosexuality are Christians. This makes a huge difference about how the church is to judge the outside world. They are not suppose to whatsoever.

There are several gay Christians out in the world.
Metropolitian church is one of them...
And scores of gays who may not have an official religion but believe in Christ and God.

I'm not part of that group, but another well known gay on NG is Christian... Maus.

At 11/29/06 06:55 PM, Begoner wrote:

... by definition, homosexuality is a natural result of our evolutionary development; nobody artificially edited the genes of homosexuals to give them their sexual preference. The work was all done by Mother Nature -- that, by definition, is both natural and a byproduct of "evolution."

Man, you talk a lot of garbage.

You really know nothing about natural selection, do you? If homosexuality is indeed genetic, it woul dmost certainly fall under the classification of a disorder. Why? Because 1) it discourages procreation, and thus passing on genes, and 2) it falls outside the spectrum of normal development.

You know what else are products of "mother nature," by your logic? Club Foot. Sickle cell Anemia. Cystic Fibrosis. Muscular Dystrophy. Hemophilia. TAY-SACHS . All of which are horrible.

Whether or not the outcome is "natural" doesn't matter. The outcome itself matters.

Listen: No matter what society does, homosexuality will always come with a price: Suffering due to ineradicable homophobia, insecurity due to not being "normal." It isn't easy being gay.

Face it, being gay isn't "normal." I don't look down on gays because its not their fault. They were born that way. Do you look down on people born with hemophilia? No. BUT WHAT IF THEY WEREN'T BORN THAT WAY? It wouldn't be an issue.

Think of it this way: If you, before your child was born, that he was going to be gay, and you had the chance to change that gene, you would take it. Why? Because he would have an easier life. Because you could someday have grandkids.

It's not like we're violating somebody's choice. We're not suggesting genocide. We're trying to prevent people suffering.

At 11/28/06 03:41 PM, fli wrote:

At 11/28/06 03:26 PM, troubles1 wrote:
For instance, if scientists were able to document that a “rape gene” existed, we certainly would not blame an individual for possessing this gene, but neither would we allow him to act upon that rape disposition?

Of course you are comparing rape to homosexuality-- one is consentual and the other isn't.
Now let's compare apples and oranges.

That's true and I don't believe there is any comparison when it comes to law, but there is a point about genetic predisposition. People very well could be born to be rapists or pedophiles. This is how evolution works. It spits out every variation possible in the genetic code and tests to see what works and what doesn't.

In any case, I believe the state has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults, so that's particular gene is of nobody's business. When it comes to rape or pedophilia, we just don't allow them to act on it regardless if that's what they're born with because unlike homosexuality, that does interfere with our business. That's the difference right there. One is consenting adults, the other is one person forcing something on another.

At 11/29/06 10:43 PM, Grammer wrote: I know that, but there have been people, real people, who were once attracted to men, and now aren't. As in, now they're attracted to women. Don't tell me it's never happened, that's just ignorant.

Unless you can actually live life in the shoes of the "ex-gay"--
You won't truly know.

If there is such a thing, then it must be very rare.
And the cases out there right now... these are people who will do anything to be part of the "bigger community."

Nobody will never know if they're truly converted... or they're supressing and psychologically damaging themselves.

Since I've had more tangible experiances in this subject matter, I can speak more expertly although I won't claim I speak for every gay person's experiance. Just more expertly.

People are willing to go out on a limb to supress their identity if it means less redicule and less problems. And we can never figure out if ex-gays are truly turned on if they see a member of the opposite sex. We know women fake orgasms... ex-gays can fake a sexual experiance equally as well. I mean, from experiance I can tell you that I could "turn on/ turn of" in my previous relations... and add the "oooooohhhhhmmmmyeahhhh" and the "uggghhmph" and there you go: recipe for Denial Sex.

I don't believe ex-gay isn't possible... or at least not in the amounts that some of these fellows claim.
Although people can tune out their sexuality and become some sort of eunuch/ asexual being (although that also has its own set of problems)... but to be "converted?"

Lemme sell you ocean-front property in Arizona.

At 11/30/06 12:44 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: That's true and I don't believe there is any comparison when it comes to law, but there is a point about genetic predisposition. People very well could be born to be rapists or pedophiles. This is how evolution works. It spits out every variation possible in the genetic code and tests to see what works and what doesn't.

Even if such things such as pedophilia and rape-ism are genetic...
Even if homosexuality is genetic...

It wouldn't matter because towards the end, legal consent makes a difference.

In any case, I believe the state has no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults, so that's particular gene is of nobody's business. When it comes to rape or pedophilia, we just don't allow them to act on it regardless if that's what they're born with because unlike homosexuality, that does interfere with our business. That's the difference right there. One is consenting adults, the other is one person forcing something on another.

True... and although it's tough on the rapist or the pedophile... What can we do?
The rights of child safety and bodily-saftey far exceeds whatever biological urges such people may have.

The same cannot be said about homosexuality because, if people didn't hear, legal consent radiacally puts this in a different category unsimilar to rape-ism and pedophilia.

Yet, the Bible also says to not condemn the world. World = non-believers. Thus, the only individuals the church has the right to condemn for homosexuality are Christians. This makes a huge difference about how the church is to judge the outside world. They are not suppose to whatsoever.

There are several gay Christians out in the world.
Metropolitian church is one of them...
And scores of gays who may not have an official religion but believe in Christ and God.

I'm not part of that group, but another well known gay on NG is Christian... Maus.

The truth "gay" Christian is being pushed by liberal churches that are not being recognized as following the Bible. I am not judging Maus because I do not know what he means by "gay" Christian. Some people who call themselves "gay" Christians do not choose to act out in the gay behavior out of chastity towards God. I would agree that abstaining from homosexuality and living a Godly life it is possible to be a "gay" Christian. Yet, I would not agree that the "gay" lifestyle all a sudden because a group churches say its okay are correct. That is making a bigger change to the church dynamic then one would think.

Do I believe the church should bash homosexuality. No, I think it is uncalled for and not hearing Christ's teaching about the world.

Yet, claim homosexuality is acceptable in the church is going even further. Yes, I know the current stand of the Anglican church but many conservative denominations (Which is the majority of Christian churches) do not accept "gay" Christians who choose to act out in homosexuality but they do except the fact that for homosexuals to suddenly become heterosexuals or live as heterosexuals is asking a great deal out of an individual.

At 11/30/06 07:43 AM, Grammer wrote: I can imagine a lot of gay people don't want to change.

I don't see any reason they should or would.

At 11/29/06 06:03 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote:

If we had the technology to target specfic genes, then that wouldn't be a problem.

We could if it is more than one gene that affects whether a person is gay or not.

At 11/29/06 08:41 PM, Grammer wrote:

That same logic can be applied to pretty much every disease and disorder man has ever known ever. Not to say homosexuality is a disorder, but you get what I'm saying.

It's like, would you consider downs syndrome natural? It does exist, after all.

Yes, downs syndrome is something that naturally occurs.

At 11/29/06 06:12 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: Asexuallity would mean you didn't have sex at all, and people don't seem to hate priests. Also

Asextuallity isn't not have sex, it's not being atracted to any gender. Priests are still atracted to women, they are just not allowed to have sextual contact with them.

you wouldn't have to destroy it, you would have to rearrange it.

If it was as simple as that, than most likely, there would be no gay people left. Since most gay people don't reproduce, the gene would not be past on to the next generation.

And I want to know how, exactly, you would go about rearanging that gene. It's not something that you can do with a drug, unless you enjected yourself with hormones.

And the chances that those hormones would only effect the child is very, very slim.

How about a cure for plain being a FUCKING HUMAN while we're at it.
Personally, I say leave the gays alone and focus on actual diseases.

At 11/30/06 04:28 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

Asextuallity isn't not have sex, it's not being atracted to any gender. Priests are still atracted to women, they are just not allowed to have sextual contact with them.

Being asexual would take sex out of the equation, which is the source of the controversy in first place. In fact, some religious groups would view this as a gift to be able to be pure.

you wouldn't have to destroy it, you would have to rearrange it.

You would need a way to move around the amino acids to change any unwanted traits and put the modified DNA into the egg in much the same way you would a clone. I think. But I'm no biologist.

At 11/30/06 07:43 AM, Grammer wrote: I've heard stories.

This is correct.
You have heard "stories."

I can imagine a lot of gay people don't want to change.

It's an intrensic part of identity.
You as a Christian, would you be willing to change that part of your identity?

At 12/1/06 12:38 AM, fli wrote:

[homosexuality is] an intrensic part of identity.

Not necessarily true 100% of the time. Lets use the example of the ancient Greeks:

In ancient Greece, it was not only accepted to have a homosexual relationship, it was EXPECTED. Their idea of "true love" existed between two men (and I'm assuming two women, as well), and a person's desire to have sex witht the opposite gender was viewed as base instincts.

Now, our society views that as a preposterous viewpoint.

Do you think, if homosexuality is indeed genetic, that the vast majority of Greeks were gay, in terms of genetics? Probably not. If so, the gene pool would have little chance to disperse, and most greeks today would still be gay. Obviously, they aren't.

Thus, we have a little paradox, which can only be explained by saying that homosexuality must not ALWAYS be genetic.

There is no cure for gay people, because they have nothing wrong with them in the first place. They are just as human as anybody else. Like big deal that they don't have kids this world is already over populated. Infact by happily choosing to do something that makes them happy can make us happy as well by having less people.

There are also MANY unhappy, unhealthy so called straight couplings ie. A drunk mom or drunk dad, or a step father who beats the shit out of kids, or a dad who beats the shit out of son, marital affairs (that are done with "straight" partners, or perhaps spousicide (example: OJ Simpson, or Primier Thatcher of Saskatchewan. Should they be cured? it seems like their straight marriage is pretty unhealthy!

At 12/1/06 01:16 AM, KingCharles wrote: Thus, we have a little paradox, which can only be explained by saying that homosexuality must not ALWAYS be genetic.

Your religious choice isn't genetic.
Your cultural values aren't genetic.
Your whole being isn't purely genetic.

Sexuality, weither it queer or straight, is always an intrensic part of identity much like how being a White (genetic) Christian (non-genetic) is part of the identity of one person (let's say a friend) like how being a Mestizo (genetic) and Atheist (non-genetic) is part of the identity of another (let's just say... like me.)

It doesn't matter if homosexualiy is nature or nurture...
It's part of a people.

I have a good opinion on the search to find a gay gene...
How's about we solve the problem by curing cancer, and aids, and diabetes, and ebola, and all of those diseases. I'm pretty sure a worthwhile usage of doctors will solve this debate, by proving how inane it is.

At 11/30/06 05:30 PM, Ganon42 wrote: Personally, I say leave the gays alone and focus on actual diseases.

Good point. Why are we worring about and spending money on people being gay when we could be use that time and money to cure actual deseases like AIDS and cance; deseases that are actually hurting people.

gay people dont need a cure. There fine just being gay and getting on with there lives.

Ok most religious people are against gay people (those bastards)

To 'cure' gays you would need Genetic tampering which isnt even close in being reality. They can in vegitation, insects and very small animals but its extremely limited to humans.

There are religions that believe that blood transplants are unholy and would kill themselves if it happened to them so what are they going to say when a scientist says "I can manipulate peoples genes"

The same people who hate gays would go ape shit on genetic manipulation.

So tuff shit. Gays are here and there going to stay.

At 12/1/06 03:31 PM, Mercator wrote: However, doctors have noticed a significant correlation with STD's and homosexual men.

What about women?

Genetic "tampering" aka THERAPY is a very real thing. They have done it in large animals, and can, when it is legal, do it to people. The question is, is it moral?

Since when does therapy effect your genetics? Therapy can only change the way you were brought up, not the way that you were born.

Gene manipulation doesnt deal with blood transplants. Its done before you are even born. The reason is, is that even though you just had a blood transplant, the bone marrow inside your body will still produce the "old" blood that still contains the "gay" gene (if there is one)

If being gay is as simple as a gene, it wouldn't be in your blood. It would be in you brain.

But he was only relating the genetic mutation that would accure to blood transfers and the oppinion surrounding them, not saying that they would coexist.

No one really has a problem with that. Except of course the
the westboro baptist church

What planet are living on? If no one had a problem with it, than gay marrage would be legal and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

At 12/1/06 03:31 PM, Mercator wrote:

If you want to bash someone for being religious bash these people
www.godhatesfags.com

I will. Just let me stretch a little.

At 11/28/06 09:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/28/06 07:50 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 11/28/06 03:26 PM, troubles1 wrote: Stuff

Can we cure ignorance, and intolerance? Homosexuality is natural, the end.

If homosexuality was natural then homosexuals would be able to reproduce and self-sustain.

Homosexuality is not natural, it occurs in other mammals, but those same mammals also mate with the opposite sex in order to preproduce.

Now, if you isolate all the gay people of the world, then they would die off in a generation. Thats not natural.

So you're saying that ecerything natural in the world has to be able to reproduce? If nature intended every human to be straight, then it would be impossible to be gay. You can't just choose to be 50 feet tall and then grow 10 times faster.