Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...

Please. Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. My comments border on stupidity? Its a well known fact it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Don't you remember the birds and the bees talk?

Quote: Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...

Oh they can, with people they are not attracted to. I guess I was assuming people knew I was plainly talking about men having sex with each other not being able to reproduce.

Quote: Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay. I won't say "all" because there are a few strange people out there.

[LostSoul3412]

John Galt wrote: I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay.

That's a loaded statement.

I think that most parents out there wouldn't care either way. While that technically fits under your statement, because it deems that a parent wouldn't necessary promote homosexuality, it isn't the intended message because they also wouldn't promote heterosexuality.

[toddytodd]

John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...

Please. Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. My comments border on stupidity? Its a well known fact it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Don't you remember the birds and the bees talk?

Quote: Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...

Oh they can, with people they are not attracted to. I guess I was assuming people knew I was plainly talking about men having sex with each other not being able to reproduce.

Quote: Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay. I won't say "all" because there are a few strange people out there.

Yes, your statements do border on stupidity. Many times, they cross the border (and without any Passports).
Case in point: Quote: Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. How often we forget about gay women. :roll: This is a statement one would expect to hear someone say 40-50 years ago. But I am not surprised to see it here.
In all actuality, 100 years ago, that might have been the case. But isn't modern technology great!?!
I suppose that if many uber-religious people (or as I call them, religious zealots) would have ever thought that artificial insemination could result in giving gay people the chance to have children (aka happiness), they would have been against that. Sickening really.

[toddytodd]

LostSoul3412 wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay.

That's a loaded statement.

I think that most parents out there wouldn't care either way. While that technically fits under your statement, because it deems that a parent wouldn't necessary promote homosexuality, it isn't the intended message because they also wouldn't promote heterosexuality.

There are people that do care and would terminate the pregnancy if they were to find their unborn child to be gay, unfortunately. Parents shouldn't be bothered if their kids are gay - if they are good parents.

[John Galt]

toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...

Please. Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. My comments border on stupidity? Its a well known fact it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Don't you remember the birds and the bees talk?

Quote: Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...

Oh they can, with people they are not attracted to. I guess I was assuming people knew I was plainly talking about men having sex with each other not being able to reproduce.

Quote: Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay. I won't say "all" because there are a few strange people out there.

Yes, your statements do border on stupidity. Many times, they cross the border (and without any Passports).
Case in point: Quote: Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. How often we forget about gay women. :roll: This is a statement one would expect to hear someone say 40-50 years ago. But I am not surprised to see it here.
In all actuality, 100 years ago, that might have been the case. But isn't modern technology great!?!
I suppose that if many uber-religious people (or as I call them, religious zealots) would have ever thought that artificial insemination could result in giving gay people the chance to have children (aka happiness), they would have been against that. Sickening really.


Again, can a homosexual couple reproduce naturally? NO. I really don't see how you could possibly have a point. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes. But that's like saying homosexuals can legally marry. Right? Yes, yes it is.

[John Galt]

toddytodd wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: John Galt wrote: I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay.

That's a loaded statement.

I think that most parents out there wouldn't care either way. While that technically fits under your statement, because it deems that a parent wouldn't necessary promote homosexuality, it isn't the intended message because they also wouldn't promote heterosexuality.

There are people that do care and would terminate the pregnancy if they were to find their unborn child to be gay, unfortunately. Parents shouldn't be bothered if their kids are gay - if they are good parents.

I think most parents if given a choice would want their child to not be queer, in any sense of the word.

[toddytodd]

John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...

Please. Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. My comments border on stupidity? Its a well known fact it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Don't you remember the birds and the bees talk?

Quote: Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...

Oh they can, with people they are not attracted to. I guess I was assuming people knew I was plainly talking about men having sex with each other not being able to reproduce.

Quote: Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay. I won't say "all" because there are a few strange people out there.

Yes, your statements do border on stupidity. Many times, they cross the border (and without any Passports).
Case in point: Quote: Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. How often we forget about gay women. :roll: This is a statement one would expect to hear someone say 40-50 years ago. But I am not surprised to see it here.
In all actuality, 100 years ago, that might have been the case. But isn't modern technology great!?!
I suppose that if many uber-religious people (or as I call them, religious zealots) would have ever thought that artificial insemination could result in giving gay people the chance to have children (aka happiness), they would have been against that. Sickening really.


Again, can a homosexual couple reproduce naturally? NO. I really don't see how you could possibly have a point. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes. But that's like saying homosexuals can legally marry. Right? Yes, yes it is.

Your sad out look on modern society is just that. Now you throw the word 'couple' into the mix. Fine - that still doesn't help your 'cause'. A gay couple can reproduce naturally. All it takes is one sperm and one egg (let's remember biology). Can a gay man create an egg naturally? Or a gay woman create sperm naturally? No (remember biology?). However, a gay male of female couple can naturally create a child by natural (sperm and egg) means. Come forward to the 21st century with the rest of the world please - it is called 'technological advancement'.
Quote: A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes... Finally you understand-- congrats :roll:
Quote: Yes, yes it is. Don't ever speak for me again. Kindly only speak for yourself, as I am sure you wouldn't appreciate me speaking on your behalf (although it would be of your benefit).
Finally, your antiquated view on family and sexuality is sad in it purest form, in my opinion. I am sure my opinion to you is as useless as your opinion is to me. That being said, I kindly suggest you move your trite argument on to another thread as you have no legitimate point and you are off topic.

[John Galt]

toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...

Please. Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. My comments border on stupidity? Its a well known fact it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Don't you remember the birds and the bees talk?

Quote: Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...

Oh they can, with people they are not attracted to. I guess I was assuming people knew I was plainly talking about men having sex with each other not being able to reproduce.

Quote: Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay. I won't say "all" because there are a few strange people out there.

Yes, your statements do border on stupidity. Many times, they cross the border (and without any Passports).
Case in point: Quote: Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. How often we forget about gay women. :roll: This is a statement one would expect to hear someone say 40-50 years ago. But I am not surprised to see it here.
In all actuality, 100 years ago, that might have been the case. But isn't modern technology great!?!
I suppose that if many uber-religious people (or as I call them, religious zealots) would have ever thought that artificial insemination could result in giving gay people the chance to have children (aka happiness), they would have been against that. Sickening really.


Again, can a homosexual couple reproduce naturally? NO. I really don't see how you could possibly have a point. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes. But that's like saying homosexuals can legally marry. Right? Yes, yes it is.

Your sad out look on modern society is just that. Now you throw the word 'couple' into the mix. Fine - that still doesn't help your 'cause'. A gay couple can reproduce naturally. All it takes is one sperm and one egg (let's remember biology). Can a gay man create an egg naturally? Or a gay woman create sperm naturally? No (remember biology?). However, a gay male of female couple can naturally create a child by natural (sperm and egg) means. Come forward to the 21st century with the rest of the world please - it is called 'technological advancement'.
Quote: A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes... Finally you understand-- congrats :roll:
Quote: Yes, yes it is. Don't ever speak for me again. Kindly only speak for yourself, as I am sure you wouldn't appreciate me speaking on your behalf (although it would be of your benefit).
Finally, your antiquated view on family and sexuality is sad in it purest form, in my opinion. I am sure my opinion to you is as useless as your opinion is to me. That being said, I kindly suggest you move your trite argument on to another thread as you have no legitimate point and you are off topic.

Your inability to comprehend the simple statement of "homosexuals cannot reproduce" is a poor excuse to insult me. "Homosexuals" imply more than one, the word does not include heterosexuals. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual who is having heterosexual relations is quite capable, to be sure (and something I never denied). Since you declined to quote what I said, I can assume you don't like the fact that your "argument" about semantics is along the same line of thought that says homosexuals can marry legally. But since you'll cry if I put "word in your mouth" "again" (what the hell you are talking about I do not know) I won't do that. But you cannot blink facts that are not to your taste. As for my argument -- that if a procedure to cure genetic homosexuality is found (please do not cry about my use of the word "cure" as it is the only word that works) that it is not for homosexuals to decide whether or not they will chose it, it is heterosexual couples deciding for their children that will matter -- I fail to see how it is not germane.

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...

Please. Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. My comments border on stupidity? Its a well known fact it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Don't you remember the birds and the bees talk?

Quote: Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...

Oh they can, with people they are not attracted to. I guess I was assuming people knew I was plainly talking about men having sex with each other not being able to reproduce.

Quote: Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay. I won't say "all" because there are a few strange people out there.

Yes, your statements do border on stupidity. Many times, they cross the border (and without any Passports).
Case in point: Quote: Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. How often we forget about gay women. :roll: This is a statement one would expect to hear someone say 40-50 years ago. But I am not surprised to see it here.
In all actuality, 100 years ago, that might have been the case. But isn't modern technology great!?!
I suppose that if many uber-religious people (or as I call them, religious zealots) would have ever thought that artificial insemination could result in giving gay people the chance to have children (aka happiness), they would have been against that. Sickening really.


Again, can a homosexual couple reproduce naturally? NO. I really don't see how you could possibly have a point. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes. But that's like saying homosexuals can legally marry. Right? Yes, yes it is.

Your sad out look on modern society is just that. Now you throw the word 'couple' into the mix. Fine - that still doesn't help your 'cause'. A gay couple can reproduce naturally. All it takes is one sperm and one egg (let's remember biology). Can a gay man create an egg naturally? Or a gay woman create sperm naturally? No (remember biology?). However, a gay male of female couple can naturally create a child by natural (sperm and egg) means. Come forward to the 21st century with the rest of the world please - it is called 'technological advancement'.
Quote: A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes... Finally you understand-- congrats :roll:
Quote: Yes, yes it is. Don't ever speak for me again. Kindly only speak for yourself, as I am sure you wouldn't appreciate me speaking on your behalf (although it would be of your benefit).
Finally, your antiquated view on family and sexuality is sad in it purest form, in my opinion. I am sure my opinion to you is as useless as your opinion is to me. That being said, I kindly suggest you move your trite argument on to another thread as you have no legitimate point and you are off topic.

Your inability to comprehend the simple statement of "homosexuals cannot reproduce" is a poor excuse to insult me. "Homosexuals" imply more than one, the word does not include heterosexuals. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual who is having heterosexual relations is quite capable, to be sure (and something I never denied). Since you declined to quote what I said, I can assume you don't like the fact that your "argument" about semantics is along the same line of thought that says homosexuals can marry legally. But since you'll cry if I put "word in your mouth" "again" (what the hell you are talking about I do not know) I won't do that. But you cannot blink facts that are not to your taste. As for my argument -- that if a procedure to cure genetic homosexuality is found (please do not cry about my use of the word "cure" as it is the only word that works) that it is not for homosexuals to decide whether or not they will chose it, it is heterosexual couples deciding for their children that will matter -- I fail to see how it is not germane.

Quote: Your inability to comphrend the simple statement of "homosexuals cannot reproduce" is a poor excuse to insult me. You considered that an insult? :lol: Gays can very easily reproduce. Semantics or not (between you two), I think you should really learn to say what you mean and mean what you say John. Maybe gays can't correctly biologically reproduce, but they most certainly can.
Quote: "Homosexuals" imply more than one... But earlier in this argument, didn't you even say A ISLAND OF GAY MEN? Yes I think you did.....
Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce This has been covered - not sure why you continue to force you incorrect statement on others. But I guess when yuo only have one small insignificant argument... :think:
Quote: I can assume you don't like the fact that your "argument" about semantics is along the same line of thought that says homosexuals can marry legally What the...? huh?!? :lol:
Quote: But you cannot blink facts that are not to your taste Something you should learn to remember yourself I think.
Quote: (please do not cry about my use of the word "cure" as it is the only word that works)
HA - This shows your true underlying feelings. How about: to bring about recovery from, eliminates, alter, change, alleviate, relieve, soothe; ease, lighten, moderate, temper....if you were really that concerned about finding a correct term that hides your apparent true feelings about being gay, it isn't very hard. And if you couldn't come up with a term on your own: webster.com
Quote: that it is not for homosexuals to decide whether or not they will chose it... Obviously you missed the point of the original question :roll:
Quote: ...it is heterosexual couples deciding for their children that will matter And that is frightening.
I wonder if there will be a pill they could take to eliminate pompous arrogant personalities....:think:

[toddytodd]

John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...

Please. Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. My comments border on stupidity? Its a well known fact it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Don't you remember the birds and the bees talk?

Quote: Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...

Oh they can, with people they are not attracted to. I guess I was assuming people knew I was plainly talking about men having sex with each other not being able to reproduce.

Quote: Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay. I won't say "all" because there are a few strange people out there.

Yes, your statements do border on stupidity. Many times, they cross the border (and without any Passports).
Case in point: Quote: Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. How often we forget about gay women. :roll: This is a statement one would expect to hear someone say 40-50 years ago. But I am not surprised to see it here.
In all actuality, 100 years ago, that might have been the case. But isn't modern technology great!?!
I suppose that if many uber-religious people (or as I call them, religious zealots) would have ever thought that artificial insemination could result in giving gay people the chance to have children (aka happiness), they would have been against that. Sickening really.


Again, can a homosexual couple reproduce naturally? NO. I really don't see how you could possibly have a point. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes. But that's like saying homosexuals can legally marry. Right? Yes, yes it is.

Your sad out look on modern society is just that. Now you throw the word 'couple' into the mix. Fine - that still doesn't help your 'cause'. A gay couple can reproduce naturally. All it takes is one sperm and one egg (let's remember biology). Can a gay man create an egg naturally? Or a gay woman create sperm naturally? No (remember biology?). However, a gay male of female couple can naturally create a child by natural (sperm and egg) means. Come forward to the 21st century with the rest of the world please - it is called 'technological advancement'.
Quote: A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes... Finally you understand-- congrats :roll:
Quote: Yes, yes it is. Don't ever speak for me again. Kindly only speak for yourself, as I am sure you wouldn't appreciate me speaking on your behalf (although it would be of your benefit).
Finally, your antiquated view on family and sexuality is sad in it purest form, in my opinion. I am sure my opinion to you is as useless as your opinion is to me. That being said, I kindly suggest you move your trite argument on to another thread as you have no legitimate point and you are off topic.

Your inability to comprehend the simple statement of "homosexuals cannot reproduce" is a poor excuse to insult me. "Homosexuals" imply more than one, the word does not include heterosexuals. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual who is having heterosexual relations is quite capable, to be sure (and something I never denied). Since you declined to quote what I said, I can assume you don't like the fact that your "argument" about semantics is along the same line of thought that says homosexuals can marry legally. But since you'll cry if I put "word in your mouth" "again" (what the hell you are talking about I do not know) I won't do that. But you cannot blink facts that are not to your taste. As for my argument -- that if a procedure to cure genetic homosexuality is found (please do not cry about my use of the word "cure" as it is the only word that works) that it is not for homosexuals to decide whether or not they will chose it, it is heterosexual couples deciding for their children that will matter -- I fail to see how it is not germane.

It was not meant as an insult - just the truth as I see it. If I ever wanted to insult someone, it would be clear and unquestionable.
I am sorry that you mistook my statement as an insult, but I am not sorry for what I said, nor do will I defend it. So, let us move on, huh?!

[toddytodd]

connermt wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: toddytodd wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...

Please. Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. My comments border on stupidity? Its a well known fact it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Don't you remember the birds and the bees talk?

Quote: Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...

Oh they can, with people they are not attracted to. I guess I was assuming people knew I was plainly talking about men having sex with each other not being able to reproduce.

Quote: Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

I don't think many heterosexuals WANT their children to be gay. I won't say "all" because there are a few strange people out there.

Yes, your statements do border on stupidity. Many times, they cross the border (and without any Passports).
Case in point: Quote: Homosexuals with themselves cannot reporduce. An island full of gay men will die off. How often we forget about gay women. :roll: This is a statement one would expect to hear someone say 40-50 years ago. But I am not surprised to see it here.
In all actuality, 100 years ago, that might have been the case. But isn't modern technology great!?!
I suppose that if many uber-religious people (or as I call them, religious zealots) would have ever thought that artificial insemination could result in giving gay people the chance to have children (aka happiness), they would have been against that. Sickening really.


Again, can a homosexual couple reproduce naturally? NO. I really don't see how you could possibly have a point. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes. But that's like saying homosexuals can legally marry. Right? Yes, yes it is.

Your sad out look on modern society is just that. Now you throw the word 'couple' into the mix. Fine - that still doesn't help your 'cause'. A gay couple can reproduce naturally. All it takes is one sperm and one egg (let's remember biology). Can a gay man create an egg naturally? Or a gay woman create sperm naturally? No (remember biology?). However, a gay male of female couple can naturally create a child by natural (sperm and egg) means. Come forward to the 21st century with the rest of the world please - it is called 'technological advancement'.
Quote: A homosexual engaged in heterosexual sex can, yes... Finally you understand-- congrats :roll:
Quote: Yes, yes it is. Don't ever speak for me again. Kindly only speak for yourself, as I am sure you wouldn't appreciate me speaking on your behalf (although it would be of your benefit).
Finally, your antiquated view on family and sexuality is sad in it purest form, in my opinion. I am sure my opinion to you is as useless as your opinion is to me. That being said, I kindly suggest you move your trite argument on to another thread as you have no legitimate point and you are off topic.

Your inability to comprehend the simple statement of "homosexuals cannot reproduce" is a poor excuse to insult me. "Homosexuals" imply more than one, the word does not include heterosexuals. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. A homosexual who is having heterosexual relations is quite capable, to be sure (and something I never denied). Since you declined to quote what I said, I can assume you don't like the fact that your "argument" about semantics is along the same line of thought that says homosexuals can marry legally. But since you'll cry if I put "word in your mouth" "again" (what the hell you are talking about I do not know) I won't do that. But you cannot blink facts that are not to your taste. As for my argument -- that if a procedure to cure genetic homosexuality is found (please do not cry about my use of the word "cure" as it is the only word that works) that it is not for homosexuals to decide whether or not they will chose it, it is heterosexual couples deciding for their children that will matter -- I fail to see how it is not germane.

Quote: Your inability to comphrend the simple statement of "homosexuals cannot reproduce" is a poor excuse to insult me. You considered that an insult? :lol: Gays can very easily reproduce. Semantics or not (between you two), I think you should really learn to say what you mean and mean what you say John. Maybe gays can't correctly biologically reproduce, but they most certainly can.
Quote: "Homosexuals" imply more than one... But earlier in this argument, didn't you even say A ISLAND OF GAY MEN? Yes I think you did.....
Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce This has been covered - not sure why you continue to force you incorrect statement on others. But I guess when yuo only have one small insignificant argument... :think:
Quote: I can assume you don't like the fact that your "argument" about semantics is along the same line of thought that says homosexuals can marry legally What the...? huh?!? :lol:
Quote: But you cannot blink facts that are not to your taste Something you should learn to remember yourself I think.
Quote: (please do not cry about my use of the word "cure" as it is the only word that works)
HA - This shows your true underlying feelings. How about: to bring about recovery from, eliminates, alter, change, alleviate, relieve, soothe; ease, lighten, moderate, temper....if you were really that concerned about finding a correct term that hides your apparent true feelings about being gay, it isn't very hard. And if you couldn't come up with a term on your own: webster.com
Quote: that it is not for homosexuals to decide whether or not they will chose it... Obviously you missed the point of the original question :roll:
Quote: ...it is heterosexual couples deciding for their children that will matter And that is frightening.
I wonder if there will be a pill they could take to eliminate pompous arrogant personalities....:think:

Now I think this might be an insult :think:
Come on people, let's stay on topic please.....

[toddytodd]

Back on topic:
If there was a non-evasive medical procedure (gene therapy for example) that was 100% guaranteed to make a gay person straight, would you take it?

Why or why not?
As of 8/7/6, only six people answered the poll which stands at 100% NO

[gj86]

Mare Tranquillity wrote: If I'm not mistaken the point John Galt was making was that IF a fix for genetic homosexuality is found, that probably ALL parents will avail themselves of it to change their gay children into straight children, thus genetic homosexuality as we know it will die out.

His reference to religious people was an acknowledgement that some fundamentalist religious types are so opposed to genetic manipulation that only they will continue to raise homosexual children.

I doubt that such a fix is possible either but it's an interesting question to ponder, thanks toddytodd. As a transgender person I would definitely have taken a "fix" to make my brain and body match when I was younger, but now I've taken the long, painful, expensive medical route to that end and I wouldn't care much to have to undo it and start over again.

How does genetically changing someone from gay to straight cause the gay gene to die out? Straight people now pass on the gay gene (if there is one)...not gay people.

In any case, I am a 51 yr old gay male, and I would not change a thing about my life. I think perhaps a cure of ignorance so that people would be more accepting might be better, and not just for homosexuals.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: I never will understand where people get this ridiculous notion that homosexual = sterile. Homosexuals are capable of reproduction, and they've been doing it for years - just not with each other. (unless you count gay men reproducing with lesbians, of course)

Using this line of thought...

GAY PEOPLE CAN LEGALLY GET MARRIED.
We always could - to someone of the opposite sex. But as usual, you're purposely missing the point. Sterility and fertility aren't determinative of who can or can't get married. That being the case, limiting government recognition only to opposite-sex marriages doesn't make a lot of sense. It relies on squishy, heavily massaged 'reasoning' that isn't terribly rational nor compelling (at least in my opinion).

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: An island full of gay men will die off.
Society isn't comprised exclusively of gay men. Your argument is irrelevant.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: "OK Mr. and Mrs. Smith, it looks like your child will be an althetic superstar, get straight As, have a Mensa IQ, and will be a homosexual. Anything you'd like to change about that? Anyhing at all? Cuz we can change anything you don't like. Anything. Name it. Go ahead."
And if the scenario ends up being:

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith, it looks like your child will be an athletic superstar, get straight A's, have a Mensa IQ, and will be a homosexual. We can get rid of the homosexuality if you like, but it means he'll have a 72% of developing testicular cancer before age 30, and a 95% chance that he'll be unable to develop normal male/female relationships and turn into a criminally insane rapist. What would you like us to do?"

You can complain that it's a ridiculous scenario all you like - it's not necessarily anymore so than the one you submitted to us. For all we know, 'fixing' someone's orientation may end up breaking something else.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: "OK Mr. and Mrs. Smith, it looks like your child will be an althetic superstar, get straight As, have a Mensa IQ, and will be a homosexual. Anything you'd like to change about that? Anyhing at all? Cuz we can change anything you don't like. Anything. Name it. Go ahead."
And if the scenario ends up being:

"Mr. and Mrs. Smith, it looks like your child will be an athletic superstar, get straight A's, have a Mensa IQ, and will be a homosexual. We can get rid of the homosexuality if you like, but it means he'll have a 72% of developing testicular cancer before age 30, and a 95% chance that he'll be unable to develop normal male/female relationships and turn into a criminally insane rapist. What would you like us to do?"

You can complain that it's a ridiculous scenario all you like - it's not necessarily anymore so than the one you submitted to us. For all we know, 'fixing' someone's orientation may end up breaking something else.

The OP said:

Quote: If there was a non-evasive medical procedure (gene therapy for example) that was 100% guaranteed to make a gay person straight, would you take it?

I answered with why it's not gay people's choices in the end. You then counter with a fallacy that goes against this scenario.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: I never will understand where people get this ridiculous notion that homosexual = sterile. Homosexuals are capable of reproduction, and they've been doing it for years - just not with each other. (unless you count gay men reproducing with lesbians, of course)

Using this line of thought...

GAY PEOPLE CAN LEGALLY GET MARRIED.
We always could - to someone of the opposite sex. But as usual, you're purposely missing the point. Sterility and fertility aren't determinative of who can or can't get married. That being the case, limiting government recognition only to opposite-sex marriages doesn't make a lot of sense. It relies on squishy, heavily massaged 'reasoning' that isn't terribly rational nor compelling (at least in my opinion).

What you said above really is irrelevant to the semantics argument you were presenting that is perciecly the same as I said above. My saying "homosexuals cannot procreate" is the same as you normally saying "homosexuals cannot legally marry." You do not qualify it, explining that they cannot marry people of their choice, every time you say it. No you assume. Now if you'd like to say it was wrong for me to assume people would plainly read it the same way you assume people plainly read your statement, fair enough. But then at least realize that every time you say "homosexuals cannot legally marry" you are purposefully misleading others. I was not trying to do so intentionally, and will qualify things to placate you in the future. I hope you do the same, lest I bring up some pointless semantics argument.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: An island full of gay men will die off.
Society isn't comprised exclusively of gay men. Your argument is irrelevant.

Of course it isn't. But gay men cannot procreate. Heterosexuals are the ones who do.

Wait we have to qualify all of this now don't we. Gay men who have sex with men cannot procreate, as sodomizing men, or women for that matter, does not produce children. Heterosexual intercourse has a possibility of producing children, especially if the cervix is lowered and the mucus is receptive and not tacky. Since heterosexual intercourse is almost exclusively practiced by heterosexuals, while homosexual intercourse is almost exclusivley practiced by homosexuals, we have the distinct probability that homosexuals will not plant seed and produce an offspring while heterosexuals will. Back to the OP's situation, if genetic homosexuality can be changed to being a genetic heterosexual, manty parents would change that in their unborn children, if given the means. So my argument really isn't irrelevant at all.

[toddytodd]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: An island full of gay men will die off.
Society isn't comprised exclusively of gay men. Your argument is irrelevant.

Of course it isn't. But gay men cannot procreate. Heterosexuals are the ones who do.

Wait we have to qualify all of this now don't we. Gay men who have sex with men cannot procreate, as sodomizing men, or women for that matter, does not produce children. Heterosexual intercourse has a possibility of producing children, especially if the cervix is lowered and the mucus is receptive and not tacky. Since heterosexual intercourse is almost exclusively practiced by heterosexuals, while homosexual intercourse is almost exclusivley practiced by homosexuals, we have the distinct probability that homosexuals will not plant seed and produce an offspring while heterosexuals will. Back to the OP's situation, if genetic homosexuality can be changed to being a genetic heterosexual, manty parents would change that in their unborn children, if given the means. So my argument really isn't irrelevant at all.
Quote: ...especially if the cervix is lowered and the mucus is receptive and not tacky... Now that was a pleasant mental picture :shock:

As I was the original poster, I would like to clear up any potential confusion - perhaps I should have been more clear: The gene therapy (or what have you) that I proposed was, in my mind, to be taken by gay adults to 'change' their sexuality (gay > straight).
However, your point as I understood it John, is an interesting one (changing the sexuality before birth). Speaking in this regard, the choice wouldn't be a gay person's choice as I understood John to say.
Quote: ...{many} parents would change that in their unborn children, if given the means... Odds are, this is a very correct statement - at least currently. However, I believe this would change as society evolves. As gay parents start having children, I wonder how many of them (which may have had a rough growing up) would change their child's sexual identity? I doubt many, but I am sure some would.