• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If there was credible evidence for a method for converting homosexuals...

Gardener said:
You are simply projecting your own attitudes upon others here and assuming everybody is just like you.
Click to expand...
I would bet that MOST as in the GREAT MAJORITY of parents are not superexcited when they first learn their child is gay. Dads dont rush to the bars, buy a round of drinks and proudly proclaim "Hey!!! Just found out my son sucks ****!!! We are drinkin on my dime tonight bitches!!!" No...the mantra (understandably so) MOST OFTEN HEARD even amongst those that are very supportive is "I would tell them I love them and just want them to be happy." Good sentiment, and one I agree with...but thats exactly the same thing as parents being happy or joyous or excited to learn that their son or daughter is gay.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Someone who aborts chooses not to be a parent in the first place, and they have that right in the defense of their bodily integrity. Abortion is also not a medical procedure from the end of the fetus. It is a revocation of consent to occupy.

However, when something does not harm you, or them-- as a child being gay, or having a foreskin, etc -- you have no right to perform unnecessary medical procedures on them.
Click to expand...

I see. In your mind, It's OK to snip their little head off their little shoulders and suck them out with a vacuum tube but it's not OK to administer the proper hormones to prevent homosexuality.
 
VanceMack said:
I would bet that MOST as in the GREAT MAJORITY of parents are not superexcited when they first learn their child is gay. Dads dont rush to the bars, buy a round of drinks and proudly proclaim "Hey!!! Just found out my son sucks ****!!! We are drinkin on my dime tonight bitches!!!" No...the mantra (understandably so) MOST OFTEN HEARD even amongst those that are very supportive is "I would tell them I love them and just want them to be happy." Good sentiment, and one I agree with...but thats exactly the same thing as parents being happy or joyous or excited to learn that their son or daughter is gay.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The truth isn't always "politically correct" and sanitized so as not to offend the hyper-sensitive but it's still the truth.
 
VanceMack said:
I would bet that MOST as in the GREAT MAJORITY of parents are not superexcited when they first learn their child is gay. Dads dont rush to the bars, buy a round of drinks and proudly proclaim "Hey!!! Just found out my son sucks ****!!! We are drinkin on my dime tonight bitches!!!" No...the mantra (understandably so) MOST OFTEN HEARD even amongst those that are very supportive is "I would tell them I love them and just want them to be happy." Good sentiment, and one I agree with...but thats exactly the same thing as parents being happy or joyous or excited to learn that their son or daughter is gay.
Click to expand...

No, many parents are like myself. They love their children.

Unconditionally.
 
Gardener said:
No, many parents are like myself. They love their children.

Unconditionally.
Click to expand...
Precisely what I said. That, however, is NOT exactly the same thing as being happy, joyous, excited to learn that your child whom you love unconditionally, is gay.
 
Papa bull said:
Exactly. The truth isn't always "politically correct" and sanitized so as not to offend the hyper-sensitive but it's still the truth.
Click to expand...
If it was 'the truth' that parents are just over the moon with the news about their newly declared gay child then we wouldnt have SO MANY instances where kids do NOT feel loved, accepted, etc. Its really kinda ridiculous and not a little bit sad people cant be honest about basic realities.
 
VanceMack said:
Precisely what I said. That, however, is NOT exactly the same thing as being happy, joyous, excited to learn that your child whom you love unconditionally, is gay.
Click to expand...

If you had any reasoning skills, you would realize that such an attitude would not corroborate the claim that you were supporting in regards to this fantasy about nearly everybody choosing to alter their children.
 
Papa bull said:
I see. In your mind, It's OK to snip their little head off their little shoulders and suck them out with a vacuum tube but it's not OK to administer the proper hormones to prevent homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that you don't know how abortions work, I think it is the right of every human being to protect their bodies from non-consensual harm. That includes a woman who is being involuntarily invaded, and it includes a child whose parents are doing the same when the child poses no risk to them.
 
Gardener said:
If you had any reasoning skills, you would realize that such an attitude would not corroborate the claim that you were supporting in regards to this fantasy about nearly everybody choosing to alter their children.
Click to expand...

Not nearly everyone. Just parents who get positive test results for the hypothetical "gay gene" in their unborn child. It's a hell of a lot less intrusive and a great deal more humane to fix such an anomaly than it is to abort the child, don't you think?

Yet, for some reason, the very same people that think abortions are all hunky-dory are just aghast and shocked over the idea that one day parents might be able to prevent their children from becoming homosexuals with a simple non-intrusive test and medical treatment for their unborn child.
 
Gardener said:
If you had any reasoning skills, you would realize that such an attitude would not corroborate the claim that you were supporting in regards to this fantasy about nearly everybody choosing to alter their children.
Click to expand...
Except of course I said the exact same thing YOU said in the post you responded to.... :lamo
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Aside from the fact that you don't know how abortions work, I think it is the right of every human being to protect their bodies from non-consensual harm. That includes a woman who is being involuntarily invaded, and it includes a child whose parents are doing the same when the child poses no risk to them.
Click to expand...

So you have the conservative approach to abortion that it's only valid if the child poses a risk to them? That's interesting. Or are you still somehow managing to cling to the bandwagon that killing an unborn baby that is causing no risk to the mother is quite right and fine?
 
Papa bull said:
Not nearly everyone. Just parents who get positive test results for the hypothetical "gay gene" in their unborn child. It's a hell of a lot less intrusive and a great deal more humane to fix such an anomaly than it is to abort the child, don't you think?

Yet, for some reason, the very same people that think abortions are all hunky-dory are just aghast and shocked over the idea that one day parents might be able to prevent their children from becoming homosexuals with a simple non-intrusive test and medical treatment for their unborn child.
Click to expand...

Again, you indulge in nothing but projection.

I have said nothing about abortion here.
 
Papa bull said:
You shouldn't want to be different than you are. If there was early testing and treatment for unborn babies, you just wouldn't have been "how you are". You'd have been born with normal sexual orientation and would be happily heterosexual and you wouldn't desire homosexual relations. And you wouldn't miss same sex relations because you wouldn't be homosexual..........

Unless homosexuality is really all about choices. If it's about choices, there's no physiological condition to cure. It's those people that are positive that homosexuality is inborn that give the world hope that there may someday be a cure. If there is a physical cause, there is a real possibility there can be a medical cure. If there isn't, then it's just behavior and choice and there's no cure for that.

If the parents decide that they don't want their baby to be homosexual and there's a test and a cure, why shouldn't they or wouldn't they get that fixed? It's their choice, not the choice of the unborn baby. After all, it's not the choice of the unborn child whether to be aborted or not, is it? If you're pro-choice on the abortion issue, you can't logically and reasonably be against testing for and treating homosexuality in unborn children should such technology become available.
Click to expand...

I have a normal sexual orientation. It is normal for a certain percentage of the population to be homosexual. It is a normal variation of human sexuality. Is it the norm? No, but neither is being left handed, having red hair, or having a genius level IQ. Should we also "correct" those "abnormal" traits?
 
wolfsgirl said:
I have a normal sexual orientation. It is normal for a certain percentage of the population to be homosexual. It is a normal variation of human sexuality. Is it the norm? No, but neither is being left handed, having red hair, or having a genius level IQ. Should we also "correct" those "abnormal" traits?
Click to expand...

Well, we should leave that sort of choice to the parents, provided they don't decide to abort them out of convenience, of course.

Look at it like this. If you weren't born left-handed, you wouldn't miss being left-handed. If your mother had decided that being left handed was going to be inconvenient for you in life (and it would), and it was an easy thing to prevent, then why not? You wouldn't give a damn. It wouldn't make you something you're not because you wouldn't have developed to be left handed. Just like in this case, you wouldn't have been born homosexual and you wouldn't care that you weren't born homosexual. You'd just be yourself - the heterosexual self that was attracted sexually exclusively to people of the opposite sex, but it would be the only self you'd know. Heterosexuality would just be normal for you instead of homosexuality.
 
Papa bull said:
Wolfsgirl did. And it's not "projection". It's "generalization".
Click to expand...

No, I do not think abortions are "hunky-dory". I think that abortions are a necessary evil. I think that choosing to have an abortion is one of the hardest decisions a woman will even have to make. I also think that it is not my place to tell anyone what choices they should make for themselves, or their lives.

I also know that homosexuality is not some disease, or defect that needs to be cured. There is no detriment to ones life caused by homosexuality.
 
Papa bull said:
Well, we should leave that sort of choice to the parents, provided they don't decide to abort them out of convenience, of course.

Look at it like this. If you weren't born left-handed, you wouldn't miss being left-handed. If your mother had decided that being left handed was going to be inconvenient for you in life (and it would), and it was an easy thing to prevent, then why not? You wouldn't give a damn. It wouldn't make you something you're not because you wouldn't have developed to be left handed. Just like in this case, you wouldn't have been born homosexual and you wouldn't care that you weren't born homosexual. You'd just be yourself - the heterosexual self that was attracted sexually exclusively to people of the opposite sex, but it would be the only self you'd know. Heterosexuality would just be normal for you instead of homosexuality.
Click to expand...

My mother is left handed, and it hasn't caused her any problems in life. The only problem was caused by those that tried to force her to be right handed by binding her left hand to her body, or hitting her when she attempted to use her left hand. Much like my being homosexual hasn not caused any problems in my life, aside from how OTHERS have tried to change me.
 
Why should we add competition to the market as well as boost population numbers? I would bury the reliable conversion methodology somewhere.
 
DDD said:
Why should we add competition to the market as well as boost population numbers? I would bury the reliable conversion methodology somewhere.
Click to expand...

I used to have that same theory until I realized that it's a pretty equal split between male and female homosexuals, so there's not really any reduction in competition because some x-percent of the population is homosexual. The "available male:female ratio" doesn't change.
 
Papa bull said:
So you have the conservative approach to abortion that it's only valid if the child poses a risk to them? That's interesting. Or are you still somehow managing to cling to the bandwagon that killing an unborn baby that is causing no risk to the mother is quite right and fine?
Click to expand...

No. All pregnancies cause risk to the woman. They all deplete her body. They all use her body. Women are always justified in aborting if they don't consent to that.
 
wolfsgirl said:
My mother is left handed, and it hasn't caused her any problems in life. The only problem was caused by those that tried to force her to be right handed by binding her left hand to her body, or hitting her when she attempted to use her left hand. Much like my being homosexual hasn not caused any problems in my life, aside from how OTHERS have tried to change me.
Click to expand...

It's harder to find lots of stuff that is "left handed". Left handed automatic shotguns, left handed golf clubs, left handed bows, etc. etc. etc. Some stuff isn't even made in a left-handed model. It's inconvenient. What's the difference betwen a righty and a lefty (physically) except the inconvenience. If your Mom was right handed, she wouldn't be wishing she was left handed. Ambidexterous maybe, but that's different. There IS an advantage to that.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No. All pregnancies cause risk to the woman. They all deplete her body. They all use her body. Women are always justified in aborting if they don't consent to that.
Click to expand...

Well, between you and me, I can't think of a more radical way to modify or change a baby than to modify it from being alive to being dead. If you think it's always perfectly justified to kill the unborn baby but never justified to correct hormonal imbalances, then you have major inconsistencies in your values system. Not that there's anything wrong with that. They're your values and they don't have to make sense to anyone else.
 
Papa bull said:
Well, between you and me, I can't think of a more radical way to modify or change a baby than to modify it from being alive to being dead. If you think it's always perfectly justified to kill the unborn baby but never justified to correct hormonal imbalances, then you have major inconsistencies in your values system. Not that there's anything wrong with that. They're your values and they don't have to make sense to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Gay people do not have a "hormonal imbalance."

The difference is clear. The woman consents to what has happened to her body. That's why she had a kid. At that point, the kid has rights.

The CHILD does not consent to undergoing medical tampering for no reason, when there is nothing wrong with them, just so bigots feel less anxious.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Gay people do not have a "hormonal imbalance."
Click to expand...

I was talking about the theory about "conditions during pregnancy" causing homosexuality. Some think it might be a hormonal imbalance, possibly in the womb, so that's the example of the hypothetical fix.... sorting out the hormonal imbalance that causes homosexuality before the baby is even born.
 
Papa bull said:
I was talking about the theory about "conditions during pregnancy" causing homosexuality. Some think it might be a hormonal imbalance, possibly in the womb, so that's the example of the hypothetical fix.... sorting out the hormonal imbalance that causes homosexuality before the baby is even born.
Click to expand...

It is not an imbalance. It is a normal variant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom