What is the best solution to homosexuality?

I support gay marrage, but only if both chicks are hot.

I'd like to say that I'm impressed with the general tone of the discussion on this thread, especially for this area of the board. Kudos to you guys!

Like interracial marriage, I think the gay marriage resistance will eventually die out as the older generations that make up the bulk of the resistance passes on. The younger generation, regardless of political leanings, overwhelmingly supports it.

The fact is, more and more people have gay friends, family, coworkers and that exposure to it teaches them that they are no different than the rest of us and should have the same rights.

The "redefinition of marriage" argument is bunk. The definition of marriage has continually changed throughout human history. Marriages in the past were normally arranged for financial / political reasons - marrying for love is a relatively new change. We no longer treat women as chattel when marrying. Women are continuing to gain more equality in marriages. Marital rape is less acceptable.

These are good things, but were all changes from what used to be a "traditional definition of marriage".

I'm sorry, if you aren't capable of understanding my point. I can't make you any smarter.

I'd like to say that I'm impressed with the general tone of the discussion on this thread, especially for this area of the board. Kudos to you guys!

Like interracial marriage, I think the gay marriage resistance will eventually die out as the older generations that make up the bulk of the resistance passes on. The younger generation, regardless of political leanings, overwhelmingly supports it.

The fact is, more and more people have gay friends, family, coworkers and that exposure to it teaches them that they are no different than the rest of us and should have the same rights.

The "redefinition of marriage" argument is bunk. The definition of marriage has continually changed throughout human history. Marriages in the past were normally arranged for financial / political reasons - marrying for love is a relatively new change. We no longer treat women as chattel when marrying. Women are continuing to gain more equality in marriages. Marital rape is less acceptable.

These are good things, but were all changes from what used to be a "traditional definition of marriage". Originally Posted by jbravo_123

"Bunk", you say? You're obligated to back up your POV with a cite illustrating where any society here-to-fore ever formally defined marriage as a bond between two individuals of the same sex.

I'd like to say that I'm impressed with the general tone of the discussion on this thread, especially for this area of the board. Kudos to you guys!

Like interracial marriage, I think the gay marriage resistance will eventually die out as the older generations that make up the bulk of the resistance passes on. The younger generation, regardless of political leanings, overwhelmingly supports it.

The fact is, more and more people have gay friends, family, coworkers and that exposure to it teaches them that they are no different than the rest of us and should have the same rights.

The "redefinition of marriage" argument is bunk. The definition of marriage has continually changed throughout human history. Marriages in the past were normally arranged for financial / political reasons - marrying for love is a relatively new change. We no longer treat women as chattel when marrying. Women are continuing to gain more equality in marriages. Marital rape is less acceptable.

These are good things, but were all changes from what used to be a "traditional definition of marriage". Originally Posted by jbravo_123

The exact same argument should eliminate bigamy laws.

Trade them for Syrian refugees.

I hear the peace loving muslims are real nice to homo's in the middle east.

The exact same argument should eliminate bigamy laws. Originally Posted by DSK

So? Who cares? If all parties freely consent, who's business is it? How many wives did King David have? And other "Christian" heroes. Not everyone should have to conform to your narrow values and definitions.


And as far as the cake is concerned, that bakery shouldn't have to bake a cake for anyone they don't want to. If they want to lose money, let them. Somebody else will take the money, and probably bake a better cake. And stay in business.

Then how do you explain bisexuals? Seems like they have a choice. Are they hard-wired to swing either way?
. Originally Posted by lustylad

Yes.

You don't have to "explain" bisexuals to determine that homosexuals are wired to be attracted to the same sex.

Bisexuals don't offset or contradict homosexuals.

Yes.

You don't have to "explain" bisexuals to determine that homosexuals are wired to be attracted to the same sex.

Bisexuals don't offset or contradict homosexuals. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, but they do contradict the argument that homosexuality is never a choice. The fact that there are bisexuals means sexual preference may be a continuum rather than a discrete question of straight versus gay, at least for some people. If that's the case, then a bisexual could be 90% straight and 10% gay, or vice versa. Or maybe 50/50. Clearly there is an element of free choice involved - and a likelihood that at least some bisexuals could respond successfully to therapy if they wanted to go one way instead of both ways. That's not something the queers want to acknowledge. They hate any suggestion that there might be a "cure" for homosexuality.
.

No, but they do contradict the argument that homosexuality is never a choice. The fact that there are bisexuals means sexual preference may be a continuum rather than a discrete question of straight versus gay, at least for some people. If that's the case, then a bisexual could be 90% straight and 10% gay, or vice versa. Or maybe 50/50. Clearly there is an element of free choice involved - and a likelihood that at least some bisexuals could respond successfully to therapy if they wanted to go one way instead of both ways. That's not something the queers want to acknowledge. They hate any suggestion that there might be a "cure" for homosexuality.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

I think you are onto something here. Probably correct on the continuum and also you have illustrated where conversion therapy should concentrate to regain its credibility.

So? Who cares? If all parties freely consent, who's business is it? How many wives did King David have? And other "Christian" heroes. Not everyone should have to conform to your narrow values and definitions.


And as far as the cake is concerned, that bakery shouldn't have to bake a cake for anyone they don't want to. If they want to lose money, let them. Somebody else will take the money, and probably bake a better cake. And stay in business. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I didn't communicate that very well. I want to eliminate bigamy laws. In a rational world a successful man should have several wives, and losers should do without.

Trade them for Syrian refugees.

I hear the peace loving muslims are real nice to homo's in the middle east. Originally Posted by Muscleup

At the least, let's do a pilot program, and see what kind of results we get.

JL, you should know better than try to mask your blatant homosexual tendencies in a thread searching for a "solution to homosexuality." It seems as though homosexuality is a problem for you. Not the homosexuals. And certainly not the fucking constitution.

Another great thread, Uncle Han.

No, but they do contradict the argument that homosexuality is never a choice. Originally Posted by lustylad

No, they don't. Because they are not homosexuals. They are bisexuals. They are different to begin with.

The fact that there are bisexuals means sexual preference may be a continuum rather than a discrete question of straight versus gay, at least for some people. If that's the case, then a bisexual could be 90% straight and 10% gay, or vice versa. Or maybe 50/50. Originally Posted by lustylad

And your point is? The "split" attraction of bisexuals is no more relevant to homosexuals than it is to heterosexuals. That sword cuts both ways. Are you not really straight - like you think you are - because someone else is at least partially attracted to both sexes? That means heterosexuality is a choice, too, right?

Clearly there is an element of free choice involved - and a likelihood that at least some bisexuals could respond successfully to therapy if they wanted to go one way instead of both ways. Originally Posted by lustylad

Not true. Even if it was something of a choice, that does NOT mean that therapy can affect it one way or another.

And I recall reading about a survey that studied bisexuals that were put in a situation where one of their partners forced them to make a choice. The overwhelming majority of bisexuals chose to break off the hetero relationship and stay with their homosexual partners.

What does that tell you about "bisexuals"? Perhaps that a LOT of them are not really attracted to the opposite sex. They just play the part to fit in to society, perhaps for family or religious reasons.

So, your argument rests on the alleged choices of people who are mostly faking same sex attraction.

That's not something the queers want to acknowledge. They hate any suggestion that there might be a "cure" for homosexuality. Originally Posted by lustylad

And there you give away your whole argument. Thanks for putting cure in italics

It's all about getting rid of people you don't like. And you will grasp at any dishonest straw to give yourself hope. Even phony reparative therapies that not only don't cure homosexuals, but often inflict significant emotional damage on them.

You can't pray the gay away. No matter how much you pray you can.

I think you are onto something here. Probably correct on the continuum and also you have illustrated where conversion therapy should concentrate to regain its credibility. Originally Posted by DSK

Conversion therapy lost its credibility because it doesn't work AT ALL.