Like I said, if you post a comment to oppose me, provide me with overwhelming proof to support your views. http://www.mygenes.co.nz/transsexuality.htm

by Anonymous 10 years ago

'fixing them'.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Many of them NEED surgery to get to what they say they are. If a man is trapped in a woman's body or vice versa, and needs a surgery to FIX or CHANGE it, then would we normally not say that the person had a defect or abnormality? We typically, regularly, and normally only have surgery to FIX things that are broken or messed up. But you already thought about all that right?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

What is there to fix on a gay person?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

You bore me. You can't ever provide anything stimulating and never provide anything to back up your little questions. You have told me you disagree with everything because you don't know much. So if you don't wish to step up intellectually and bring something of substance to the table, what is the point jostling with you? Show me the consensus and overwhelming proof that gay is from and at birth...............................

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I don't need facts for a hypothetical. I'm disagreeing with you saying gays should be fixed at birth if possible. What is there to fix?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

And not just ONE random biased report or research done by a group supported and funded by the LGBT movement.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

There does not need to be evidence to support a question. He is merely trying to further elaborate on //your// opinion of the subject, and trying to find out what you see about homosexuality that needs to be changed. With trans-gender people, sex typically needs to be fixed to contour to their mental perceptions of themselves (and not the other way around, for reasons I can elaborate if you don't see yourself). But why do you think gay people need to be changed? Provide us with specific reasoning to refute, not just a blatant statement. If we don't know what you think, how can we address your thoughts?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

What does science overwhelmingly teach us about animal and/or human nature? Is the PATTERN and evolutionary process (if you ascribe to such - I don't) for male to be with male, and female to be with female? YES or NO? It is so obvious and clear. If a person CHOOSES something, then I will stand beside their choice. But our society has been duped into believing and accepting that they are BORN THIS WAY.................................. Wake up dude and put on your thinking cap. You just want to argue for the sake of nothingness, and you don't ever provide a stimulating discussion. I do all the work while you sit back and disagree. I have seen your pattern on all my posts, and it is always the same. Challenge me with some substance and something to actually THINK about!

by Anonymous 10 years ago

You do pointless work because this is a site for opinions which can be agreed and disagreed with. you post conspiracy theories and other stuff that needs backing up with statistics and other peoples thoughts. That's pointless, it's my opinion, I'll use my words and my thoughts, not some blog or whatever. Saying homosexuality is a choice doesn't make any sense. Why would you choose to be oppressed and attacked? Gay people have been around for a very long time, some getting married to people they don't find attractive at all. I had a gay teacher who has had sex with women and gone on dates, obviously he didn't want to. I think it's more of a thing you develop, nothing you're born with or anything you choose. It's not something to be 'fixed' it's something to live with.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Ok, I will put your opinion to the test. The world is just beginning today. We are going to put 2 men (or 2 women) together to start our new world. There is no science, technology, or anything else to aid them in pro-creating. Please explain to me (in your opinion) where children will come from and how the planet will be populated.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

The planet wouldn't be populated by humans. I don't see why that hypothetical matters. We live in a world with over 7,000,000,000 people I don't think gay people need to be surgically altered or whatever 'fixed' means. You have to adjust with the times. Back then, gay was bad, now, gay is just another person. I'll ask again; What is there to fix on a gay person? Do we need eunuchs again? Exorcism? I think that's trying to ruin a perfectly fine human being, not fix a lesser being.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

The gay people don't need surgery, and I did not say that. Transgender people need surgery to become what they say they are not or should be. Why can't you separate those 2 concepts? You have chosen 1 of the 2 things I put together and focused entirely on it. I ONLY put those 2 groupings together because the majority of people in those groupings make the claim that they WERE BORN the way they are! But you said this in an earlier comment: "I think it's more of a thing you develop, nothing you're born with or anything you choose. It's not something to be 'fixed' it's something to live with." I don't think you are gay [you have never told me], so how would you know what they think or believe? I have talked with several on here, and several in other places. I am seeking to understand the "hows" and "whys" of the matter. You say or feel they are NOT born the way they are. Then how do you explain any and every one of them who says they were or are? My point is - which is it? Is it birth and genetic, or is it a choice? Or is it both? And if birth or genetic, then science can and should clearly PROVE it and show the research. If it exists in other animals and species and is proven by science [as JH suggests in earlier comments], then why is the human species unverifiable? And you are still lost on the "fixing" word. IF as you say, and as many gay people say, that they would never CHOOSE the humiliation and stigma that goes with being gay, then couldn't it all be "fixed" if it were simply a birth "defect" or "abnormality?" If the medical community is about saving lives and promoting the healthiest and most quality of life FOR all people, then wouldn't we logically want all people to be gender happy and free of something that causes them pain and rejection?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I'm only choosing one, because I can understand wanting to change a transgender (though I really doubt babies/fetuses/zygotes know what boys and girls are and which of the two they feel most resonates with them), but gays I don't get, so I don't agree with you. Plus I hate debating and I think its pointless for me to do it anyway, I just wanted to leave my first comment and move on. How would you fix a gay person in the first place? Would you just make them straight somehow? How would one do that? Regardless, you can't really call homosexuality a defect. They wouldn't be discriminated against if everyone accepted them for who they are so it can only be considered a bad thing because the human race hasn't 'okay'd' it. Not all people accept them, so they can have troubles in life because of it. Much like black people a few decades ago in America and anyone who wasn't Aryan in Hitler's eyes.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

If the majority of people on the planet are not gay, and if the ones on the planet still believe fully that they are being traumatized, tortured, punished, discriminated against, rejected, persecuted, etc., then there is clearly something to fix! A majority of the world still views this as a behavior more than a birth issue. I cited the animal kingdom as a solid clear example. There may be a random occasional animal or species of something that does not fit the rule or pattern of the rest of every thing in existence, but that just shows there are exceptions to every rule. Exceptions NEVER BECOME the rule in the wild or in the human race. Somehow, it appears to me, that we are trying to do that very thing with this issue.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

What needs to be fixed is how people view homosexuality. People need to be more accepting. It is not hurting them at all.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

So if the masses of people on the planet don't like or agree with a lifestyle, then it is the duty of government and those in the "minority" lifestyle to make sure all people accept them? Acceptance can not be forced on the masses. That is a bit like taking a child who hates broccoli and demanding that they eat it. Back in my day, I was forced to eat everything on my plate whether I liked it or not. But most in society ALLOW their children to pick and choose what they like and don't like - what they want to eat, or don't want to eat. Why are we imposing one group's sexual lifestyle on all others? Just like religion haters don't want religion forced down their throat, most straight people don't want sexuality forced down theirs. Most of us KNOW what we like and/or want when it comes to sex. We don't need to be told or shown what we should be or what we should accept. Here is a question for you. Many people are in to "dark" or "painful" sexual practices such as (BDSM) bondage, dominance, restraint, and sadomasochism (S&M), This lifestyle includes: spanking, whipping, chaining, choking, slapping, urinating and excreting upon, shocking, piercing, binding, pinching, biting, burning - among other things left to the imagination. Is it YOUR express opinion that ALL people should accept these practices and behaviors as normal and perfectly fine? I hate and despise pain, so there is nothing remotely attractive or appealing about ANY of these practices when incorporated with sexual pleasure that seeks a "good feeling" as the outcome. If people want to do any or all of that stuff in the PRIVACY of their homes, I could care less. But drag it out in to public arena and demand that government and the schools all teach it as perfectly fine and just another preferred lifestyle - does not work or settle well.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Okay, what I meant was, people shouldn't worry about it because it's none of their damn business. And if that's your view, then straight people should keep their lovin in their own homes, too. And a lot of gay folk don't just parade aroun advertising the fact, either.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

It's not the way they are that causes pain and rejection. It's the way that //homophobes// are. THEY are the ones with a defect that causes them to forget that gay people, too, are human beings and such qualities of cowardice, bigotry, and cruelty to other people is what is truly detrimental to society and needs to be fixed, not the homosexuality. If homosexuality doesn't affect other people, then why gang up on people and make them think it's a defect, when it doesn't really do any harm. It's political correctness //past the extreme//. If it bugs people that others are gay, then they need thicker skin, because there's no harm done to anybody, and it's unfair to push people to change to avoid making others feel offended, especially to this degree.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

If your first line is true and correct, then gay would be dominant and the surviving force in all of survival or society. That is CLEARLY not the pattern or norm throughout history. If you know something I don't, then please share it. Male/female relationships are what the planet was built on, not Male/male or Female/female. Remove all Male/female relationships off the planet, and it would be just a matter of time before civilizations ceased to exist. You are actually grossly negligent to suggest that homophobes are a defect. Guess your science lessons are not coming along too well. Better check that "survival of the fittest" thing out again.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Before you begin to question my understanding of evolution, please give your full and respectful consideration to my argument as to why an evolutionary perspective is completely unimportant in this context. It does not matter what the planet was built on, only what will take it in a good direction in the future. Not all that helped us in the past is critical at this point in humanity. If we were desperately trying to populate as quickly as possible, homosexuality would stand in the way of that. But that's not the case. In today's society, it is not detrimental in any way, if not beneficial. It doesn't make evolutionary sense, but that's no reason to try to change it, especially when there's no harm done by it. Homophobia //is// a defect because it's defensive and counterproductive to becoming an adaptive, open-minded, and logical race. That statement refers to homophobes that truly detest gays because of innate fears of what they don't understand. Sooner or later, science is going to get even crazier than before and we'll be confronting the ridiculous, unfathomable unknowns regularly. If a homophobic attitude were applied to that, then new discoveries would be rejected and ignored out of fear and unfamiliarity, because people are afraid to embrace foreign concepts and alter their convictions. It's a detrimental human trait to hold convictions against what one does not, nor cares to try to, understand. Just because gays are targeted, doesn't mean they'd be the "dominant force" if they weren't. I don't see where you got that idea.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Obviously you have not read up on or heard about the atrocities that occur because of the sexual practices. You say no "harm" done or to no one. I beg to differ. Are you aware of the things or objects that these men choose to push in to their rectums? I am. I alluded to some of their practices in above comments. Flashlights, bottles, rounded sticks, etc. [anything of a penile shape or nature]. Did you read about the story of the ranch where gay men were going to let stud horses have sex with them? The reports had to be careful not to rattle the gay activist groups, so they tip-toed all around it and worded everything oh so carefully so as not to "offend" any straight person! To be blunt, 1 man died because his ass was ripped wide open by the horse's cock. How is that for a great and normal time of sexual activity? http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2002382718_horse15m.html This incident was in 2005. Maybe a death does not occur every day, but beastiality is not uncommon within the LGTB community. And I also alluded to the children that are preyed upon by gay men. Yes, straight men may molest or rape children and younger women, but gay men specifically target little boys. No harm? Find the boy who was raped or molested by one and then tell me no harm. And we have not even touched on the AIDS issue and the spreading of such. The gay community does not want you to hear that gay sex often times results in tearing the lining of the anus [because it was not designed to be pounded and rammed with a penis]. Tears expose blood and create sores. Again, perfectly normal and natural - don't you agree? Does any of this make me "afraid" as you put it? Hell no! But do I think or believe it should be viewed as perfectly normal and/or acceptable? Absolutely not. Why should every child sent to school starting at Kindergarten age, now be taught that gay, lesbian, or transgender lifestyles are exactly the same as and equal to a male/female relationship? Can you show me any Kindergartner that by design and simple reason could not figure out on their own without the assistance of brainwashing, that a hole in the ass is for "poopie" and a penis on the front goes in to the hole on the front of a girl? HELLO! Didn't any science or biology class you have taken teach you that the rectum or anus is for disposing of human waste products? That means something is supposed to go OUT of it, not IN to it. The vagina on the other hand is specifically designed for reproduction. Amazing how that all works. Oh, but we need some minority group to come along and re-educate us and dumb us down to the point of believing and accepting that the rectum is actually designed and serves the purpose of receiving another male penis! If your brain will actually allow you to fall to that level of thinking and/or understanding, then I don't know what else to say.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

First off, I appreciate your straightforwardness on the issue. On the issue of beastiality and molestation- I do not think these are products of homosexuality. It does not directly cause immoral and harmful behavior. A problem occurs when gay people also have bad morals and integrity, and do horrible things. However, that happens with straight people, too- can you call heterosexuality bad because it's the leading cause of rape, and child molestation (heterosexual)? No- because it's the immorality that's the crime. Straight people also molest, rape, and engage in beastiality (like Russia's Catherine the Great). On the subject of the purposes of the rectum- you have a point about how it might not be designed for that. You made me change my way of thinking a little bit (or reveal a thought I didn't notice I had before)- that maybe we should design a procedure so that gay people become straight //if they want to//. I don't know what your stance on this is, since the post didn't mention it, but they shouldn't be //forced// to change, but there's nothing wrong with offering. In fact, maybe offering straight people to change wouldn't be so bad, either, if it really made them happier. Anyways, back to anuses. Not all gay people stick wacky props in their butts, and if they like to, why not let them at their own risk? If we design a procedure to give them the opportunity to change orientations, shouldn't they have a //right// to decline and to whatever they want with their bodies? If the only harm done is to their own butts, then who are we to complain?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

This is much more balanced. I have made it clear that I support people's CHOICE to be or do as they choose. The whole point of the post was to try and bring attention to and see if there is anyone who can convince me that it is in fact a BIRTH issue. As I have stated throughout the thread, if a birth issue, then the scientific and medical community should be able to recognize it and "fix" it (resolve, tweek, make necessary adjustments) to or for the person having it at birth so they don't HAVE TO spend their lives fighting an upstream battle of equality, acceptance, or fairness. The majority of people on the planet are clearly straight, so why not just make it so all are? The person arguing so heavily with me says that many gays are such because of their environment or problems in upbringing (which I have agreed with). So why not "fix" the problems going in to the making of gay people instead of changing a whole world's views or opinions about such? And since so many feel and believe all these new ideas from the gay community are so right and good for the masses, then I would be in favor of giving them their own state or area to call their own, and let them show us collectively how well it would work in reality. I am very tired of all the fringe groups running around trying to force their will, ways, and ideas on the rest of society. They have the smallest percentages but the loudest voices and the most media coverage. They don't want my tax dollars used to support or fund things that I view as right or correct in the public education system, but see no hypocrisy in using my tax dollars to have their agenda and lifestyle promoted to all students. Since many gay and transgenders SAY they are born with it or as it, then I only take issue and offense because they constantly send a mixed signal to all onlookers. When cornered, they will tell you that they developed or chose this over a series of time or events and circumstances. This proves to me that they were not born with or as it. If you are born with or as something, a choice is not going to change it. I respect all humanity as humanity. I do not have to respect or agree with all lifestyles - especially if they can be shown to be unhealthy or even destructive. I did not once bring religion in to my thread of comments and argued from a view of nature, science, logic, and common sense. And yet, many still say that the views of natural selection or survival of the fittest don't apply to this issue. I say they do and nature IS the best example. Male lions are not choosing and preferring male lions to mate with. Female dogs are not choosing female dogs to mate and partner with. If these kinds of behavior or sexuality were normal and common, then we would see examples of it in all living things. But no, it takes the highest evolved species on the planet to come along and change the natural order of nature and question its validity! For me, that is an insult and the "dumbing down" process that I referred to earlier. And if you are NOT born with or as something, then that means you have to be TAUGHT, INFLUENCED, CONDITIONED, OR BRAINWASHED in to believing that it is perfectly normal or acceptable. Why do you think these groups have made sure that the public schools start "educating" our children starting in Kindergarten? Tell people something long enough, and they will believe it. That is the exact argument and logic that I have heard the atheists on this site use about the belief in or of God. I put this much in the same category. The atheists are the smallest minority out there and yet they want to attack and tell everyone who believes in God or deity that they are wrong, ignorant, and lower class. I get sick of that rationale. It simply is not true. And I have heard several people on this site say that numbers don't matter when deciding on an issue. Really? Tell that to advertisers, television and network ratings analysts, big corporations, millionaires and billionaires, recording artists, actors, Wal-Mart, McDonalds, Google, Facebook, Yahoo............and on and on the list could go. Numbers and size DO matter and are pretty much everything in the real world. Everyone knows it. But cite how many Bibles have been sold or how many people believe in God, or how few gay people there are in relation to the total, and now all of a sudden, the numbers don't matter or count. Tell that to a statistician or math major, but the "numbers don't lie." I am for giving any fringe group their space and say. I am not for allowing their views to be taught or imposed on all people as the normal acceptable way of life. If it were, we would have known about or had record of it in history long before right now!

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I'm glad we agree on the "choice" idea, that seems the most important to me- but: 1. the science doesn't exist yet to offer choice 2. some people will chose not to change Therefore, there will be homosexuals no matter what, basically (assuming it's not a direct result of a nurtural flaw). It is therefore a decision that we need to allow, respect, and neither encourage nor discourage. We want people to chose what makes them happier, and it's not right for us to bias them. Therefore, neutrality is best. But because people can't chose, they have to be the way they are, and therefore I think it's right for schools to teach us not to hate people for something they have no control over. It's exactly like racism. And I don't get why you're still bringing up evolution- our needs as a race change, so why go by what was once impractical? It doesn't mean it's impractical //now//, so you need to get your mind in the present. It's just not relevant. I don't see your logic for referring to it so often. (I'll go to bed after this, but I'll continue in the morning).

by Anonymous 10 years ago

That is fine. I will leave our comments as is. I could accept and go along with your "neutrality" view, but the gay community can not. They are extremely political (in spite of what they say), and they are always at work behind the scenes to attack any and all who speak negatively of or about them. If you just listen to daily news, you will hear regular efforts of/by the gay community targeting a business or group that either said or did something they deem "offensive" or "discriminatory." I just read last night about a bakery that was forced to shut its doors by the gay community because the owner of the bakery chose not to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. The owner of the bakery fully believes that she had the right to refuse service to any customer, and she felt that by baking a wedding cake for the couple she would be approving of their soon to be marriage. She opposes gay marriages. The couple filed a lawsuit against her, and the gay community began protesting the bakery. Business dwindled, hate emails and phone calls bombarded her incessantly, so she closed the doors. This is completely wrong, and now a family does not have livelihood - all because the gay community wants to dictate what the world can or can not say about them. And I believe without reservation that their sexuality should go back to being private and personal, just like they demanded from those who are straight because of their "morality." Their biggest argument against the straight community was that straight people were imposing their sexuality and morality on gay people by walking in public holding hands or kissing. And that is not imposing anything. It is a male and female showing natural affection for each other - just as nature intended for it to be. They are not marching in the streets, demanding that their views or ideas be forced on anyone BECAUSE the majority of people ARE straight and are acting straight. The same flawed logic is used by the atheist that says because he sees a cross or religious symbol in public, that someone is imposing or forcing religion on them. No, not at all. The majority of people are religious and value religious symbols. Why should all religious symbols and expressions of religion have to be removed from society to accommodate the minority? They should not. If they wish to erect their own symbols or teach their views, fine. But they want to do that while taking away everyone else's rights and freedoms. Once all of their values (or lack thereof) are in place and imposed upon everyone, then what happened to the rights and freedoms of everyone else? They have been trampled and replaced by the agenda of the minority group. Finally, if I understood your last paragraph correctly, you are saying that evolution allows for gays because of a present need for change. So is this evolving ONLY occurring within and among human beings and not the rest of all living things? Why nothing in the animal kingdom remotely on the scale of what we see among humans?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I don't agree with everything gay organizations are doing politically, and I see your point there, but them imposing their sexualities on the world is a faster way to make people more tolerant, after which there will be no need for imposition, and I'm sure they'll be as quiet and modest about it as straight people- both should have a right to public affection, and so on. The bakery story is also pretty cruel. I don't believe that's fair at all. However, if all it took to shut it down was to let people know about it, it would likely have happened anyways. People have a right to know who they're buying things from, and if homophobic bakers discourage business, than that's that. It was the public that stopped buying cakes, and they had a right to do so, and a right to know. My last paragraph was mostly saying that evolution no longer exists or occurs with humans today, because we are able to allow anybody to survive. In the past, homosexuality would not have been useful, but today it does not have to be bad. People can be gay and live happy lives with spouses, adopt children, and have jobs, so the only major difference is that instead of having children, they adopt- which is not bad at all, considering they're giving orphans better lives. So I don't think there's any inherent bad in being gay. People should be allowed to chose, but not encouraged to- or not to.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

So your only backup for the notion that homosexuality is bad is that it //might// leave us unprepared for the //highly likely// scenario that only 4 people are left on this earth? It might be impractical if we needed to populate as quickly as possible, but the world is doing just fine with population, if not slightly overpopulating. That is not a valid argument for why homosexuality is impractical because it is both highly unlikely, and even if it did occur, then a gay man and woman can still reproduce, they just won't like it.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

How do you suppose the medical community go about detecting this? After all, babies aren't even born with a sense of self. This article from Emory's psychology department discusses this: http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/EarlyObjectificationoftheSelf.pdf If a child isn't able to identify himself, how is he able to identify others? This is speculation, but I'd imagine that newborn babies, regardless of their adult sexualities, are not sexually attracted to either gender. If you can find a respectable study to show that I'm wrong in my assumption, feel free to. Additionally, the mind develops much later in life than the body. Lastly, you say in the description of your post that you don't want speculation, but rather concrete facts. However, you go on to make claims without any support, valid or invalid. I also am not sure that you understand that psychology is different than physical sciences, because there are no facts, really, in psychology. We cannot prove psychological theories; we can only justify them beyond reasonable doubt.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

If we are BORN with it, then it is genetic. It can be determined by blood or gene testing. What does sense of self have to do with anything? I was not talking about self identity. If someone is born as or a certain way, they have no choosing in the matter. They are what they are.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Not everything you're born with is genetic. A baby can become deformed as a result of stimuli (drugs, alcohol, prematurity, physical disruption) even if all of the child's family is healthy and normal. Can you determine if someone's straight through blood work? No. Because its psychological. If a child can't recognize himself, he likely can't recognize others, and therefore isn't attracted to them. "If someone is born as or a certain way, they have no choosing in the matter. They are what they are," well no shit. I never said anything that opposed that.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

You are basing your argument on the baby growing up and having awareness of sexuality and recognition of such. If born with a pre disposition, that would not matter or enter the picture.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I think you missed a valid point in her argument: //can// you detect sexuality through DNA analysis? However, I think that question only needs to be addressed if we come to a consensus that something //should// be done about it. And I say that it should not, because gay people have the potential to be happily in a relationship, bring happiness to other people, and adopt and raise children with their partners. Same with transgender couples. I see absolutely nothing that generates need for change. In fact, they adopt children who otherwise would likely grow up in orphanages, so I think that if anything, they provide a benefit to society for that reason. That doesn't need a statistic. It's common knowledge that gay couples often adopt, and that most orphaned kids do not get adopted.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Oh, and here is one link to get you started. I don't think I should have to do your research. The internet and Google is available to all. I found this in 2 minutes. Might make a great topic to research and write a report about. http://www.net-burst.net/hope/infant_sex.htm

by Anonymous 10 years ago

If you don't have to do my research, why can't you do your own, too? -> "If you wish to argue with me, at least provide substance and proof." That doesn't relate to any trustworthy studies, and I wouldn't say that the source is reliable. The language is informal, the sources listed at the bottom aren't known to be reliable, and neither is this one. I'm not as stupid as you seem to think I am, and I am willing to let you change my mind if you can do so with respectable studies and facts, rather than making your own, unjustifiable, obvious, unrelated, claims.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I don't think you are stupid. I just think you like to make lots of "to do" over things you don't know anything about. I have done lots of research and reading. I don't come to a post with an empty air head approach or no depth to my thoughts. I do nothing but reflect and question things all day long. It is my nature and pattern throughout my life. Before I made the post, I did nothing but read transgender research. If you wish to provide something solid to refute what I have suggested or posed in my post or explanation, feel free to do so, I am not out to change your mind about anything. I made it clear that I am looking for answers and trying to see this through their eyes. You have not offered anything to help with that. You have not challenged, rebutted, or nullified anything I have said in my post or comments. My post, my opinions, my views.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Haven't I? Have I seriously not challenged anything you said? Really? My comments, my opinions, my views which are often supported.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Your opinions are as strong to you as mine are to me. What is so strange or special about that? Most people think that because they say something that their take or view is "better," "more correct," or "superior" to what the other person said. I allow for ANYONE (including you) to say or believe anything you wish. That will remain your opinion. Unless you can PROVE me wrong (which you clearly have not even come close to doing), then my opinions are every bit as much valid and strong as yours. I can handle different views, but you, obviously have an issue with it, and feel that I must come over to YOUR side. Not happening today.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Once again, you have misinterpreted what I have said, and I'm out of ideas in concern to try to explain it to you. Then again, I've never been all that good at clearly explaining my thoughts.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Good ending.....................

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Always

by Anonymous 10 years ago

brrrrhrrrhrrrrhrrr... this question is too gay to play

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I just commented on like 6 parts of this post, sorry. If you want to save some time, you can just make one big response to one of them addressing everything.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

I do not feel gay people need to be "fixed", and transgendered people should make the change on their own terms, I think.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Disagree. Nothing needs to be "fixed" about it.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

brrrrhrrrrhrrrrhrrrr this post is gay

by Anonymous 10 years ago

WHY IS YOUR BODY TEMPERATURE TRANSLATING TO YOUR NONSENSICAL COMMENTS AND POSTS!? BUY A THERMOSTAT OR STOP TYPING IT... ACTUALLY, DO BOTH.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

brrrrhrrrhrrrhrrr stop trying to be sassy and cook dinner naked for homo jimmy if you are a man brrrrhrrrrhrrrrhrrrr thats too wild to be mild.

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Why, exactly, do they need to be "fixed"?

by Anonymous 10 years ago

Read the whole thread..............

by Anonymous 10 years ago

The way you worded this is obviously extremely misleading. Regardless, there isn't anything to "fix" with homosexuals. I get what you mean with transexuals. I don't know if we'll ever be able to detect these sorts of things though.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

The way I worded it is exactly the way I intended it to be. I enjoy thinking outside of the box over being told WHAT or HOW to think about a topic like so many mindless clones seem to enjoy doing. You or nobody else can PROVE that homosexuals are born with it (genetic) or if they choose it. They don't even agree among themselves about the topic. Any other medical issue that is genetic is studied and researched carefully by the scientific and medical community to look for ways to "cure" it. If anything can be cured or "fixed" by a pill, shot, or surgery, why the hell wouldn't that be the desired goal - especially in light of the numerous homosexuals who make the statement that NOBODY would choose to be gay because of all the difficulties that are associated with it. Also, did you read this entire thread and everything that went in to it? My analysis of the issue is this: if genetic, then cure or "fix" it. If a choice, then leave it purely up to each individual to choose it, but then allow them to live with the consequences of the "choice" they made - just like every other choice in society. If a person "chooses" to hang out with thugs and druggies, more than likely there will be some negative criticism and consequences that go with that "lifestyle." The same is true with homosexuality. Since it is NOT what most humans engage in or "choose" as a lifestyle, then it obviously will have some negative connotations and consequences that go along with it. Agree or disagree - this is how life and nature work.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I'm convinced that it is both genetic and psychological. No one is born actually saying "I like v*gina" or "I like p*nis" lol. But genetic things, including hormones, increase the chances of being of one orientation over others. Some people can be psychologically pushed towards another orientation. I feel that genetics play a role here too. So does personal willpower obviously. I don't think anyone who is only attracted to one sex can just choose on some random day to like another sex. There, I feel, has to be a genetic and/or a psychological push. Regardless of genetics or a choice, there is still nothing to "fix". Homosexuality is natural in our species like it is in hundreds of others.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

You may "feel" many things, but this is the least persuasive basis for an argument or debate. There is no hard fast credible or consensus data to prove either argument (genetic or choice), so that opens the door for people like myself to think outside the box and come up with my own thinking and theories. I will continue contending that it is unnatural and is not the desired or preferred choice by the masses. If it were natural and normal, and the desired preference, then it would have risen to the top of the evolutionary ladder in lifestyle example and psychological orientation. The family unit that we have known for centuries would never have been the model we so commonly refer to as the "nuclear family." I remember all through school (even in elementary) that when looking at pictures in the science books, prehistoric families were shown with male/female unions. It is too bad that we have reached a point and place in society that we are actually trying to deny simple logic and reasoning just to protect and promote a certain lifestyle. History can not, nor should not, be rewritten just to accommodate a group seeking mass acceptance. You do not have to agree with me, and I am perfectly fine with that.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I don't really feel like debating. Just stating my views.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

As am I..............

by Anonymous 9 years ago