We Can Cure the Gheys!

Mrmoe

It absolutely drives me mad when religion is brought into an issue like this. Like it or not all of our actions, urges and responses are brought about by physiological reactions. Our reproductive organs were designed to reproduce. If you are a man and your weiner is turned on by another mans weiner then that suggests to me that it does not function as it was supposed to - reproduction. Do I care that someone is gay? No. Does it bother me? No. However, if someone tries to claim that homosexuality is normal then that is a falsehood. It is like saying that an albino person born in Africa is normal.

galwayrush

Perez Hilton can be cured.:D

GirlInterrupted

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

A lot of people are deeply uncomfortable with homosexual urges.

I don't think this would work on people who are "fully gay" but perhaps with bisexuals it might help them.

You hear about men with families who start homosexual affairs. Or Bi adolescents who aren't comfortable with homosexual urges.

I'd like to know more about this Dr.Nicolosi guy, if he's religiously motivated I'd be tempted to write him off but maybe he is actually out to help people like the above.

I believe, that rather than the case of it being straight men with families who start gay affairs, that its more likely to be gay closeted men who start families with straight partners.

Straight people don't suddenly have gay urges, but gay people do sometimes try to conform to 'norms' in society because of the difficulties of coming out.

Blazer

prinz wrote: »

I like how you automatically jumped to the 'it must be religion's fault' standard come-back when anyone dares suggest anything that isn't p.c.

I have a gay friend who was deeply unhappy about it. The fear of the stigma, the fear of coming-out to his parents ( and it was a non-religious family - just because you happen to be atheist does not mean you're suddenly happy your only child is gay ). He was afraid of people knowing, he was too reserved to ever act on it in public ( ie go to gay-bars etc. )for years. He loves kids and went into serious depression that he may not get the chance to have a family.

He has relaxed these fears in the last few years, his family knows and have accepted it, his friends accept it, but I know it still upsets him, have oft sat down with him having the 'why me conversation'. He is also in treatment for acute depression stemming from this.

I truly believe that if someone could cure it tomorrow he'd be right at the front of the queue.




+1

This has been about the only intelligent post in this thread so far.
Here the op has a gay friend who's deeply unhappy about and cannot understand why he's gay.
I see people saying "get him to understand these feelings etc..blah blah".
The point is and this metaphorically speaking--- a cause for homosexuality was found and a "cure" found, should we deny this to people just because they're expected to conform to gay beliefs? Or should we give any gay person the option to change his lifestlye if he/she wanted it?
We have the technology to allow people to change their gender so why not homosexuality?
And before the pc brigade begin..I'm don't hate gays...one of my mates is gay and I don't have a problem with it.
I just don't want it rammed in my face with people like Graham Norton etc..I jst don't find them funny.

Terry

ntlbell wrote: »

You're on the ball, I did compare it, I didn't say it was one, which i mentioned in a previous post.

I got this far and that was enough reason for a banning.

ntlbell wrote: »

No and I'll use cancer again, I think it's wrong, I wish we could cure/fix every type but i don't _hate_ people with cancer.

ntlbell wrote: »

I was tuned in long before windows95

Then I saw this and I thought this dude has been using the internet for at least 14 years. He must understand net etiquette.
Then I looked at your history.
That's some amount of bans.
Then I remembered that it's AH.
So what to do?
What to do?
1 year. That'll do.
Trol after that and it's permanent.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm curious to see how religion does interfere where it doesn't belong. The main objection here for the most part is that in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, homosexual relations are seen to be morally wrong. That's a part of their belief system, it gets blown out of proportion completely, and people tend to focus on this a lot more than other moral rulings in the Biblical text, which I think is highly unfortunate.

Anyhow. The idea in Christianity is, that we don't expect for non-Christians to follow the Biblical rulings. We believe that God's authority is ultimately binding on all, but it is only through faith in Christ that people are likely to accept God's rulings. That's my view on it anyway, given what Paul advocates concerning judgement on sexual immorality in the church:



I think it isn't so much the case that religion interferes (infact we aren't meant to deal with anything external to the church), but rather that people ask Christians what they think about the subject, and then they get offended, and deem that it is "interfering". Interestingly the following is mentioned on the first page of this thread:



However, I am increasingly seeing that the "tolerance" that people promote, doesn't work two ways, rather it works one way. It's more "hold my views on this subject, and I'll tolerate you", rather than an equal sharing of ideas and beliefs on the subject.

Keep your bible bashing to the religious forums.
I'm getting sick of seeing it here.

S.I.R

20 quid says the cure involves the third Reich and a bullet in the head of anyone who isnt classed as " normal "

Capt'n Midnight

galwayrush wrote: »

Perez Hilton can be cured.:D

yeah roll her in a barrel of salt :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

S.I.R wrote: »

20 quid says the cure involves the third Reich and a bullet in the head of anyone who isnt classed as " normal "

Vot !
you obviously haven't been to the eugenics lectures :eek:

philologos

Terry wrote: »

Keep your bible bashing to the religious forums.
I'm getting sick of seeing it here.

I believe bible bashing would be to try and force people into adherence. I haven't done that here yet. I merely used 1 verse to explain that K4t was talking nonsense about Christianity as usual on AH. I think that's entirely reasonable.

JangoFett

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I'm guessing most of you are going to agree that this is a little extreme. Ahh religous nutters, what else will they think of next. Why can't they just leave people alone.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8015711.stm

God damn christians.

You never hear of us athiests telling people who they can or can't have sex with. A hole's a goal, that's our motto!!

Acacia

prinz wrote: »

I like how you automatically jumped to the 'it must be religion's fault' standard come-back when anyone dares suggest anything that isn't p.c.

I have a gay friend who was deeply unhappy about it. The fear of the stigma, the fear of coming-out to his parents ( and it was a non-religious family - just because you happen to be atheist does not mean you're suddenly happy your only child is gay ). He was afraid of people knowing, he was too reserved to ever act on it in public ( ie go to gay-bars etc. )for years. He loves kids and went into serious depression that he may not get the chance to have a family.

He has relaxed these fears in the last few years, his family knows and have accepted it, his friends accept it, but I know it still upsets him, have oft sat down with him having the 'why me conversation'. He is also in treatment for acute depression stemming from this.

I truly believe that if someone could cure it tomorrow he'd be right at the front of the queue.

Oh come off it. The vast majority (not all , of course) of anti-gay rhetoric is from religious viewpoints. Most of the time when I hear people complaining about gays, their justification is always it's a sin, un-natural and goes against God.

I'm not saying there aren't atheists who are anti-gay or homophobic, (and I never once said that an atheist would necessarily be happy about their child being gay, so I don't know where you pulled that from) but it's not like the main religions are open and tolerant of the gay community. Let's be realistic here.

Sorry to hear about your friend, but on the other hand, I have several gay friends who would be insulted and appalled if they were offered a 'cure' The fact that your friend is worried about the 'stigma' of coming out illustrates exactly the point I was trying to make (which in your haste to condemn me you appeared to have missed) - perhaps if there wasn't a stigma about being gay , people like your friend wouldn't feel they have to be cured.

thelordofcheese

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

This has been about the only intelligent post in this thread so far.
Here the op has a gay friend who's deeply unhappy about and cannot understand why he's gay.
I see people saying "get him to understand these feelings etc..blah blah".
The point is and this metaphorically speaking--- a cause for homosexuality was found and a "cure" found, should we deny this to people just because they're expected to conform to gay beliefs?

Only if a cure for being straight is found too, seeing as there are miserable straight people.

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

We have the technology to allow people to change their gender so why not homosexuality?

Except we don't, we can change someones outward appearance, but underneath it all they're still male or female.
I'd imagine any cure for "teh gay" would be along the same lines.

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

And before the pc brigade begin..I'm don't hate gays...one of my mates is gay and I don't have a problem with it.
I just don't want it rammed in my face with people like Graham Norton etc..I jst don't find them funny.

That's because Graham Norton isn't funny, not because he's gay. Were he straight he would still be unfunny.

philologos

Acacia wrote: »

Oh come off it. The vast majority (not all , of course) of anti-gay rhetoric is from religious viewpoints. Most of the time when I hear people complaining about gays, their justification is always it's a sin, un-natural and goes against God.

I would agree with you in some senses, that if misinterpreted religion could be a cause of homophobia. Being gay is not condemned in the Bible, but rather having relations with another of the same gender as with the opposite gender is. To second that, Christians don't consider homosexuality to be any greater than any other sin, and we are all fallen creatures. I can't even begin to remember how many times I've slipped up into sin in my life, and I don't think that I am any better than anyone else. A promotion of humility is needed in Christianity.

Acacia wrote: »

but it's not like the main religions are open and tolerant of the gay community. Let's be realistic here.

I have no issue with gay people, I just have disagreements over the ethics of homosexual activity. It is possible to disagree without hating someone.

El_Dangeroso

I love the way that all the people arguing for this cure do the typical, 'I don't hate the gays' schtick. It's the typical way of somehow justifying prejudice. It's like racist people starting a sentence with 'I'm not racist but <insert racism here>"

Not that there's anything wrong with that..

KnifeWRENCH

I only half read this thread, but I still cannot believe someone actually made a comparison between homosexuality and cancer!

Anyways, if someone is truly unhappy with being gay and they want to be "cured" I don't really see what the big deal here is. Of course it would be better if that person could just accept that they are gay and not feel ashamed or unhappy about it, but in extreme circumstances that might just not be possible.
Now if it was a case of gay people being rounded up and forced to be "cured" then it would be a different story.

There should be an equivalent straight "cure" though - some people may be miserable being straight and want to be gay.

dr.bollocko

square_igloo wrote: »

There should be an equivalent straight "cure" though - some people may be miserable being straight and want to be gay.

As evidenced by the movie In and Out the cure for that is Magnum PI.

philologos

neddas wrote: »

I love the way that all the people arguing for this cure do the typical, 'I don't hate the gays' schtick. It's the typical way of somehow justifying prejudice. It's like racist people starting a sentence with 'I'm not racist but <insert racism here>"

I don't argue that homosexuals need to be cured at all. Infact there are many gay people who are happy in the church, but have chosen to be celibate to follow Biblical teachings. However, yes, I don't have any reason to hate homosexuals, infact it wouldn't be very Christlike of me. I don't know where on earth people get the idea that relations with the same gender is a huge huge huge sin in comparison to others in Christianity though.

El_Dangeroso

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't argue that homosexuals need to be cured at all. Infact there are many gay people who are happy in the church, but have chosen to be celibate to follow Biblical teachings. However, yes, I don't have any reason to hate homosexuals, infact it wouldn't be very Christlike of me. I don't know where on earth people get the idea that relations with the same gender is a huge huge huge sin in comparison to others in Christianity though.

I'm sure the homosexual community takes great comfort in your tolerance. :pac:

philologos

neddas wrote: »

I'm sure the homosexual community takes great comfort in your tolerance. :pac:

I really don't care if they do or if they don't. All I know is there is more to Christianity than dealing with questions about sexuality.

KeyLimePie

I know many gay people, not personally but I know of them, like ellen. And there was this girl in the college basketball team who wasn't officially but we just assumed...............

Anyway if a gay doesn't want to be gay that's fine with them, as long as people don't force it on others

rainbow kirby

Jakkass wrote: »

All I know is there is more to Christianity than dealing with questions about sexuality.

Then why do you make it your business to talk **** on every thread which even remotely mentions LGBT issues?

AckwelFoley

With their "thou shalt not wear a rubber "Christianity spreads more AIDS than Homosexuals.

Lets cure Christianity

philologos

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Then why do you make it your business to talk **** on every thread which even remotely mentions LGBT issues?

Do I not have a right to impart my opinion on these issues like everyone else? This is a free forum of discussion I thought?

I've discussed various other aspects of Christianity on this forum from the time I accepted Christianity for myself (in 2007) onwards, between the A&A and the Christianity forum.

I assume that you have been responding to this thread because of your identity as a lesbian, fair enough, I've been responding to this thread because of gratuitous attacks on Christianity on this thread, I think it is only fair that I should attempt to clarify them?

I can only hope that more common ground will be found between the LGBT community and the Christians, without unwillingly compromising the beliefs of either. You mightn't think this (but then again you don't know me in real life anyway, so who cares), but I'm actually a reasonable type of guy who is willing to listen and discuss about it.

D.Q

in fairness some calpol wil fix that right up.

Darkbloom

Only if a cure for being straight is found too, seeing as there are miserable straight people.

...straight people who want to be attracted to their own gender?

Reflector

prinz wrote: »

Always interesting how people value homosexuality as an orientation, but disregard bisexuality simultaneously as something that can be "fixed".

That's almost a bigoted opinion my good chum if it wasn't so ironic given the basis of the rest of your posts.

No you got me wrong here. I meant that as a bisexual person is attracted to both sexes the therapy works in the sense that it supresses their side that is attacted to men. So therefore this is given as proof that it works. I don't believe that this "fixes" a bisexual person but rather eliminates part of the person they are. I don't agree with that and certainly don't believe it is a fix rather a damaging procedure.

Dennis the Stone

But it wouldn't really work in supressing their attraction to men though, would it? If they are attracted to men, they are. Even if they remained in exclusively female relationships it wouldn't change who they are attracted to

Nodin

Tago Mago wrote: »

But it wouldn't really work in supressing their attraction to men though, would it? If they are attracted to men, they are. Even if they remained in exclusively female relationships it wouldn't change who they are attracted to

Realistically, no. Certainly I can't see this kind of thing resulting in anything other than suppression.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4893735.ece