Should We Eradicate Homosexuality with Gene Replacement Therapy?

You're mistaken. I did not say that pedophiles had no sexual attraction to adults. I did state that they could be in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex for decades, remember?

And you're changing the goal posts a bit. First you say it's not pedophilia you're talking about, then you say it is.

So what gives with these inconsistencies?

And you see, that's also why it is not homosexuality.

Homosexuality means attraction to the same gender. NOT the opposite gender, NOT both genders. NOT adults, children, and toddlers. Just the same gender.

And as far as the page goes, you might want to check out the sources he lists to back up his claims.

To which he lists a lot of them.

To dismiss a blog just because of a blog is dismissing something because of a label.

 

If homosexual orientation was entirely due to a simple genetic switch then yes, eliminating that switch would eliminate any behaviour directly associated with homosexual orientation, good, bad and indifferent. I'm not convinced it would ever be that simple though.

It was an intentionally exaggerated metaphor but the point is I don't believe such a change would only impact homosexual orientation.

I'd suggest the vast majority of the world would like everyone to follow their religion too. That doesn't make them right.

Sure, because people like you seek to make it so much harder for homosexuals to be happy. If homosexuals weren't routinely discriminated against, this wouldn't be anything like as much of an issue.

Probably. It depends on the clinical specifics and there are some controversies in this area that need careful consideration though.

 

No you didn't but your SOURCE did. Dr. Herek, who is homosexual by the way (shocking I know right?), is making those claims in that ucdavis blog.

And the primary or exclusive sexual interest must be in children. And there's no way to know that without the honest answer of a child molester. So really, pedophile is a subjective term with little to no meaning unless you want to take the "honest" word of a child molester.

My bad that was a quoted post from someone else earlier.

That first part is correct but I'm not just talking about homosexuals when I refer to males who have sex with males. I'm referring to anyone who engages in such acts.

Furthermore, you're wrong about the definition of homosexual or heterosexual not including adults, children or toddlers. There is nothing in the definition, neither the dictionary or the medical dictionary definition of homosexual or heterosexual that makes any consideration for age. Homosexual and heterosexual is simply a classification for what sex the other individual prefers. Hence why homosexual pedophile and heterosexual pedophile are legitimate characterizations even though homosexuals don't like it.

No I'm dismissing it because it's not a study. It's a group of hand-picked surveys from the 80's that he mischaracterizes so he can accomplish his stated goal of being an advocate for homosexuality.

 

Immortal ... What is incorrect ? what is "that's". Your response is to long post with many points. How am I supposed to know which point you are referring to and why is that point incorrect ?

1) You have assumed that because something was believed "back in the day", it should be accepted today.

Just because folks believed some strange things "back in the day" does not make those beliefs true.

2) Your second flaw is the suggestion that the only way to reject previously held belief is to "prove a negative" = "prove it is not a mental disorder"

Just because you can not prove that Pluto's moon is not made of green cheese (Prove it is not made of green cheese) Does not mean that Pluto's moon is made of green cheese.

It is up to the APA to prove that 1) The classification "Mental disorder" was correct to begin with and not the reverse.

Prove that Slavery was not a good thing ? By your logic we could never get rid of bad laws as a negative can not be disproven.

The question here is whether or not the designation was legitimate to begin with.

 

yes none of it

"Claim 1: Homosexuals are demanding money that I earned to subsidize their perverted behavior." u r not subsidizing anything, they get the benefits married people get; if they weren't, why wud they need to subsidize your lifestyle? (not that this logic wud be sound anyway)

"Claim 2: Homosexuals are attempting to force their way into my religion" since when is it your religion? also, do SOME examples justify generalizing an entire community? (this a matter of opinion anyway, i actually also don't think the churches shud be forced, but i can see the other argument)

"Claim 3: Homosexuals are attempting to push their disturbing lifestyle on children at school as young as kindergarten" hilarious, they r getting educated not brainwashed...if u argue from the premise that everything said relating to homosexuals that is not negatively connotated equals brainwashing then any debate with u is useless anyway....

 

Why do you insist on proving time and again, with each inane post, that you are really unable to learn anything new, or understand the complexity of human sexuality? WHY??!

 

I still cannot understand why a Christian is calling on science to sort out something that god could do if he existed.
Where is the faith in God?
Where is the faith in the power of prayer?
Why are the gay Christians so obviously winning?
Why is the op not tackling the theological issues?

The question is do you want to trust in God or in science?

 

Here's something maybe nobody has considered....maybe not the OP...



before doing a "gene replacement" to "cure" homosexuality....you'd have to develop a TEST to show that the "gay gene" was present in the cells.

What I wonder is.......how many male homophobes....would allow THEMSELVES to be tested?

 

If it was true that it's genetic, and it's not true. And if there was gene therapy that could fix it, we should at least OFFER the therapy.

Homosexuality is as much in the genes as racism is.

The arguments are the same for both. => Racists can't help it. They were born that way even if it didn't show up till they were 30.....

 

Would it upset you if you did have a 'dark gene'? Do you think it would effect your behaviour in any way, if you did have one?

What!? How does the separation of church and state have anything whatsoever to do with paying taxes? Where did you get that bit of idiocy from? Can you provide evidence for that belief?

 

Why should homosexuality be eradicated? I can understand if a person who is homosexual makes the decision for this, but I cannot understand why homosexuality is such a threat to others?

 

Well it is obvious that we cannot discuss the ethics of of scientific advancement with people on this forum. Many here cannot seem to get past the term homosexual. That is for both sides by the way. What a waste of time and effort you all are putting into NOT debating and discussing an interesting topic. Instead it really devolves into EWW gays are yucky and EWW that guy hates gays.

 

Mr.Immortal, I'm sorry but do you realize how much you are playing to the stereotype of the off-the-charts obsessive anti-homosexual acting that way because of a fear that he has homosexual tendencies? Like I said, you might want to go back to the hatin'-on-dark-people meme. It is a lot less fraught with personal sexual baggage and much more 'accepted' around here. Jus' sayin',bro. Your Liza Minelli lovin' amigo, Nat the Nudist

 

Nice job Immortal - you have them all lined up at the pulpit trying to justify their deviant behaviors. Keep up the good work .

 

I agree that a discussion of the ethics involved in the OPs question would likely be interesting.

But, given that the OP seems often to bash gays in his posts, I don't think that it is unreasonable that members should come to the conclusion that he created this thread merely to indulge in more of the same and respond as they have.

If a more neutral person had started the thread, such a discussion might have had more chance of happening.

 

What's to justify, thankfully religion has no power any more, certainly in the UK. TheImmortal may as well bark at the moon for all the difference it will make.
But in the battle of faith within the Christian Church looks like the Gay Christians are the ones soon to be standing in the pulpit! and next to each other at the alter!.

 

how about a gene therapy to eliminate hate filled bigots, the greatest scourge of the planet...>>>MOD EDIT Off Topic Removed<<<

 

What amazes me most about you is NOT your profound ignorance, but the way in which you seem to be immune to all criticism. You keep repeating the inane mantra about homosexuality being either genetic or a choice, without so much as acknowledging the fact that there is another point of view. You don't even attempt to provide a counter argument to those like myself who have been saying that homosexuality is thought to be the result of a complex and little understood interaction between biology and social environment. Nature and nurture. You utterly lack any desire or capacity for intellectual inquiry and that it truly fascinating.

You just keep repeating the same clap trap as though it were established science and as though by doing so, it will somehow, magically become true. Repeating bovine excrement does not make anything but bovine excrement, no matter howmany times you say it.

 

This reminds me of when I went into the first grade and three of us were put in the front of the classroom and told we couldn't be left-handed. Such deviant behavior wouldn't be tolerated. We were hit, our left hands were tied to our legs, the teacher and the principal yelled at us. Two of the three switched. One is still left handed.

 

Again, once we have the "gay gene" TEST....I say we administer it to all male homophobes....

uh...to test for "false positives"....of course, of course.

 

Good post, kudos..

 

if they'd treated ME like that, my left hand would have had a knife in it the next day and somebody'd be unable to use their right hand, for the rest of their life.

 

Yeah, and any of youse guys touch galant's stuff?.....he'll kill ya. So keep ya meat hooks off.

Also, he don't like nobody touching him...so any of you homos touch him?....he'll kill ya.

 

Thank you, but it wont change anything I'm afraid. His pattern has been to start a hateful argument and then go somewhere else when starts to get too much heat, and does it all again. Right Mr. The Immoral?