[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"][QUOTE="curono"]This is a hard one, because it is a trick question. Let's say for sakes of discussion that homosexuallity could be controlled as if it were caused by a single biological thing. 1. You'd have to ask if this "biological cause for homosexuality" is a valid biological diversity or if it is something that requires to be cured, like most wisdom teeth growing just to F#ck your mouth. 1.1. If being gay was cause of a biological disorder, you'd have to ask how much of that conduct is a disorder. Let's say you are in a party, not so sober, and as highly skilled random dude starts doing you a blowjob in the dark. It should feel right, so is that proof that your biology isn't working well? 1.2 If this is a biological "disorder", you'd have to ask if it is something that MUST be cured or if the treatment is optional. Things like flat feet and harmless wisdom teeth can be something people live with with no problem whatsoever. Why should you impose a cure over that special thing? 2. Now, let's say that you are willing to change someone's sexuality. There is a very important question. How will that affect your personality and your own image? Imagine (just to prove a point) that you (straight man) magically become attracted to 40 yr old men. Like raging boner attracted. Think how much your self image would shatter by that drastic change. Would you be happy after realizing that you have changed that much by just a second? Second of all, would you like to have that change, if you are currently living a happy life in your condition?curono
If we develop a "cure" why do we need to worry about it being a biological disorder? As far as I know, wisdom teeth growing in can damage you, while being gay cant physically damage you like wisdom teeth can. Is there something I'm missing?
Is getting a bj from a man that different than getting one from a woman? I don't think it is gay if you are on the receiving end?
That last question you pose is a good one. If I was living a happy life, straight or not, I would not want to change it just because someone deemed I needed something fixed, and that something fixed would not negatively affect me in any way if I didn't change it.
As for your first question, I can answer it with an example. Blue eyes are the "beauty norm". If we could "cure" brown eyes, why worry about it being a biological disorder? Just cure it! Of course that is wrong. If it is not a biological disorder, then acting against homosexuality wouldn't be a cure. It would be the imposition of your moral and social norm, which if taken to an invasive biological action, could very be the equivalent of a forced brainwashing. On the second comment. Having sexual contact with a man isn't gay? Being the receiver or the giver is unimportant. I repeat my question: A form of sex with a man would not be considered gay?When did this blue eye beauty norm start? I understand your point though. What I am saying is that some things can negatively affect our health (illness, wisdom teeth) and we develop vaccines, cures or procedures to minimize the risk. While being gay inherently does not seem to oppose any threat to a person (though rectum widening could be a part of that I suppose). I'm basing the judgements I made on potential inherent harm to the body.
Let me pose you this question. You are making out with a woman at a party. She then unbuttons your pants and starts playing with you, you close your eyes and enjoy the bj. You open your eyes only to discover a man is finishing you off. Are you gay? Honestly I don't think a single act of "acting gay" constitutes someone as gay. I would categorize "gay" as someone who seeks out same sex relations. A specific consenting act with someone of the same sex might be a gay act, but does that make someone gay?
Just my thoughts.
Log in to comment