DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
I actually think that Is ridiculous. The issue is the Russia is highly homophobic and treat it like a terminal illness. Some parts (or most) of Russia even denies that they have LGBT community. To make it even worse, some areas like Chechnya actually go after LGBT and put them in jail or beat them. It is a violation of human rights. I don't believe it is "curable" or should be treated like a disease. I suggest we accept LGBT community and let them be. We don't need to join them, just accept them for who they are.
No, it's usually found by the person at a young age and it lost likely in curable. It's just in their genetics. In the future, a cure could be developed, but I don't believe that's a priority for the near future and possibly a while from now as well due to letting people be happy.
@melanielust, I agree. "Cure" sounds like a Chechnya talk in their attitude towards LGBT. My position on that topic is accepting of the gay community, although I personally don't have that preference. a more appropriate phrase for this debate probably should have been "change sexual orientation" instead of "cure". In any case, I think it's pretty much genetic.
It's kind of fun to do the impossible - Walt Disney
There are a few sides to this question. Let us explore them all.
First of all, it is not entirely clear yet whether "gays" exist. Science has not discovered any significant differences between people exhibiting homosexual and heterosexual preference. It is possible that sexual orientation is not a hard-wired individual characteristic, but, rather, a preference heavily influenced by the society. Some people prefer blue-eyed partners, others prefer brown-eyed partners - but generally the eye color is not a definitive characteristic. Perhaps sexuality is like this as well; some people prefer women more, others prefer men more, and it is the society enforcing the anti-homosexual stigma that prevents many of us from discovering this side of us.
Then, the word "curable" assumes that the object is harmful to the individual. I fail to see why being a gay would be fundamentally detrimental to one's life. Aside from not being able to get a blood-related child easily (bypassable with modern science), and from being ostracized by the society (which is the societal failure, not the individual one), there is nothing being a gay impairs one with, hence it is hardly something that needs to be "cured".
So, given the previous two are settled, can one change from being a gay to being non-gay? Yes and no. As of now, no scientifically verified ways of inducing such a transformation are known; in the future, however, when we learn to easily manipulate genes and cells, there will probably be a way to change one's sexuality on the fly.
Have gays gone straight, yes, just like straights have gone gay. Though some of the instances of the gays gone straight, they did so with help and or wanted the help, which imo is totally different than "coming out". So if you consider that a "cure" then your answer is yes.
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood" The Animals
The issue is that Homosexuality is not just a persons choice it is a lie told publicly, so yes it can be curable so to speak with the truth. The understanding for constitutional separation is only the accusation sets a legal precedent based on the lie that is told. A choice is still just a choice not lie. As we are expected to tell a truth, a whole truth.
@ethang5 yeah the gays are totally to blame for people deciding to have kids later and later in life and to only have 1 or 2 children. The average familynot person, but married couple that decides to have children, has ~2 kids on average. When straight couples are only replacing themselves and not producing a surplus the population can only logically remain the same size at absolute best. When you factor in people who die before having kids and straight married couples who decide not to have any kids at all then obviously the population will decline.
Sorry but the gays aren't making the population decline, straight families that decide not to have kids or not to have more than two kids are making the population decline. Sorry we don't live in a world where women are forced to be a baby factory like your religion would prefer anymore.
>yeah the gays are totally to blame for people deciding to have kids later and later in life and to only have 1 or 2 children.
Lol. Guess you think gays do contribute to population growth. How in the world could you have concluded from my post that I was blaming gays for the choices of others?
>The average family not person, but married couple that decides to have children, has ~2 kids on average. When straight couples are only replacing themselves and not producing a surplus the population can only logically remain the same size at absolute best.
PEOPLE who procreate contribute to population growth, and PEOPLE who do not procreate contribute to population decline. There is no need for weasel words.
>When you factor in people who die before having kids and straight married couples who decide not to have any kids at all then obviously the population will decline.
But we won't "factor in" gay people because according to PC dogma, homosexuality can have no negative effects, right?
>Sorry but the gays aren't making the population decline, straight families that decide not to have kids or not to have more than two kids are making the population decline.
How liberals can say such silly things with a straight face is fascinating. Everyone who doesn't have offspring make the population decline. Gays are not exempt.
>Sorry we don't live in a world where women are forced to be a baby factory like your religion would prefer anymore.
Who forced your mom? And I'm sure this new world you live in will be a comfort to those countries that are disappearing. They'll be extinct, but will take comfort that the women weren't forced.
With illogical PC thinking like this, how will western countries NOT go extinct?
The genius posted a .gif, I must concede his superior debating skill.
Hey z-guy, what say we wait 5 years till you're 20 and then debate? I might be mature enough for you then.
mmmm...
or it’s because religious people like you are extremely homophobic for no good reason and as such has no common sense about the reality of the world around them
WordsMatter493 Pts  -  edited January 2019
@ethang5 did you ever go to math class? If 2 people make 2 people then guess what? You stay constant at 2. The people that are having kids have about 2 kids so you should get on the horn and tell all your friends with kids they better go have more babies. Most people are contributing to population decline, let's force all women to have more babies
>....or it’s because religious people like you are extremely homophobic for no good reason....
Stop posting your opinion. It isn't argument and makes you look .
>....has no common sense about the reality of the world around them.
But you won't state what this "reality" is. This is why liberals will not answer questions put to them.
In ANY population, homosexuals do not contribute to the growth of that population. The higher the percentage of homosexuals in the population, the closer the population growth will be to zero.
This is a common sense fact. No amount of .gifs or PC opinion will change that.
Now, you could address that, or, being the sharp thinker you are, post another .gif or rant about homophobia.
>....or it’s because religious people like you are extremely homophobic for no good reason....
Stop posting your opinion. It isn't argument and makes you look .
mmm... no.
highly religious people are homophobic that's a fact.
>....has no common sense about the reality of the world around them.
But you won't state what this "reality" is. This is why liberals will not answer questions put to them.
Not a liberal. Just pointing out how out of touch you are
In ANY population, homosexuals do not contribute to the growth of that population. The higher the percentage of homosexuals in the population, the closer the population growth will be to zero.
Such an absurd claim
This is a common sense fact. No amount of .gifs or PC opinion will change that.
Prove that it's common sense fact
Now, you could address that, or, being the sharp thinker you are, post another .gif or rant about homophobia.
Yawn.
My reaction to your bigot homophobic comments ignorant religious person
>My reaction to your bigot homophobic comments ignorant religious person
This is a debate site jasper. Can you SAY how the truth that homosexuals depress a countries population growth is homophobic? Or are we to take your pronouncements on faith?
All you have is self-righteous emotion, thinking free. Go be a social justice warrior somewhere else. We need logic here.
Homosexuals do not contribute to population growth. That is a fact. That your PC dogma forces you to interpret that as negative, and then conclude that I'm somehow attacking homosexuals, is not my concern.
>My reaction to your bigot homophobic comments ignorant religious person
This is a debate site jasper. Can you SAY how the truth that homosexuals depress a countries population growth is homophobic? Or are we to take your pronouncements on faith?
So, simply because of homosexuals exist, they depress a countries population growth? They make up roughly 10% of the population. So it's not a huge issue if some people are LGBTQ+
All you have is self-righteous emotion, thinking free. Go be a social justice warrior somewhere else. We need logic here.
I'm no SJW. You're just complaining that 10% of the population don't reproduce even though the world is going through an over population issue, and 10% of the world being LGBT isn't enough of an excuse to complain.
Homosexuals do not contribute to population growth.
So?
That is a fact. That your PC dogma forces you to interpret that as negative.
No, it's actually neither negative nor positive because 10% of the world population being gay isn't going effect anything!
and then conclude that I'm somehow attacking homosexuals, is not my concern.
The way you've structured your sentences it seems like you're bashing gay people because they don't help with population growth, even though genocides around the world are worse than gay people existing
@ethang5 so what exactly is the problem with gay people not having kids? What is the solution? Even if you make hat marriage illegal it's not like they are going to say "oh well since I can't do that I'll just have a bunch of kids instead." They still aren't going to have kids.
What should we do with me? I'm absolutely never going to have kids and if I get a girl pregnant I'm going to heavily suggest abortion whether it's legal or not. But that's a small window as I'm getting a vasectomy so it will be impossible for me to ever have a child
>so what exactly is the problem with gay people not having kids?
I guess it depends on whether you view negative population growth as good or bad.
>What is the solution?
The solution for what? Negative population growth or homosexuality?
>Even if you make gay marriage illegal it's not like they are going to say "oh well since I can't do that I'll just have a bunch of kids instead." They still aren't going to have kids.
Why would I make gay marriage illegal?
>What should we do with me?
Who is "we"?
>I'm absolutely never going to have kids and if I get a girl pregnant I'm going to heavily suggest abortion whether it's legal or not.
Yet I bet you will take social security and a pension. And people wonder why social security is going bust.
>But that's a small window as I'm getting a vasectomy so it will be impossible for me to ever have a child
Thousands never have a child without ever getting a vasectomy.
>....I'm absolutely never going to have kids....... If I ever get a girl pregnant....
No, homosexuality cannot be "cured", but it can be prevented.
Countries now disappearing under negative population growth are finding a new reason of how homosexuality is detrimental to society.
I canc also get a vasectomy to gaurentee I never have kids from that point on. You claim homosexuality is detrimental to society because countries are "disappearing" because of negative population growth.
Therefore anyone who doesn't have kids is detrimental to society, including me. So what do you do to fix those detriments? Nevermind the fact that I'm working providing a benefit to the economy, and paying taxes that some of which go towards raising other people's kids.
Pensions are already gone except some government jobs, I don't work for the government so I won't be taking a pension. By the time I retire social security will be gone so I won't be taking that, plus I started my retirement fund at 18 so I'll be fine. Got any more problems besides those two?
Homosexuality is neither curable or genetic. First of all, if homosexuality was a hereditary trait, then it would've died out, because gay people, get this, don't make babies! It can't be cured either, and isn't a disease. Let's take a look at history. in more unforgiving times, when it was thought to be a thing that could be cured. Take Alan Turing, as a famous historical example (the Cumberbatch movie is amazing). He was given a medication for a process known as chemical castration, which affects your hormones and reduces your sex drive, though it was later shown to have various negative effects, such as bone density loss, this was the solution of the times. Modern pharmaceuticals generally follow the practice of symptom suppression. An allergy medicine will reduce inflammation and congestion, but you will still have allergies. Your sore throat goes away, but you're still sick. This approach DOES help you, your body's expending more energy on fighting the disease, rather than producing those symptoms. However, homosexuality is a psychological function, so it's not as if suppressing the symptoms will do any good. As soon as the medications wear off, sex drive will return, and the subject would still be attracted to the same gender. Moreover, saying that homosexuality can or cannot be cured makes it sound like a disease, which it isn't, so the entire questioning of whether it can or not is just flat out false.
"We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
@ethang5 also over the past 20 years Russia's population growth has fluctuated between -.4% - +.1% it is the 9th most populous country, and In the first world, in the top 3 strongest powers in the world. Yet they have been and still are VERY anti LGBT. So it would seem there is some other factor that is affecting developed countries population growth to be negative in recent years. China doesn't have a negative population growth but 60% of their population is still agrarian, so they are developing but not yet developed. It would seem there is something about a country being established as developed, rather than accepting gay people, that leads to a negative population growth.
>I can also get a vasectomy to gaurentee I never have kids from that point on.
True.
>You claim homosexuality is detrimental to society because countries are "disappearing" because of negative population growth.
No. I said negative population growth is one of the results of people not having children. That is undeniably true. The end result of negative population growth is the disappearance of the country.
>Therefore anyone who doesn't have kids is detrimental to society, including me.
As far as population growth goes, yes.
>So what do you do to fix those detriments?
There are only 2 cures for negative population growth. More children, or more immigrants. Is that not obvious?
>Nevermind the fact that I'm working providing a benefit to the economy, and paying taxes that some of which go towards raising other people's kids.
People can do both good and harm at the same time.
>Pensions are already gone except some government jobs, I don't work for the government so I won't be taking a pension.
Some private company jobs have pensions.
>By the time I retire social security will be gone so I won't be taking that, plus I started my retirement fund at 18 so I'll be fine.
Lol. So the problem is solved? Your attitude is very selfish no? Why will social security be gone? Is no social security not a detriment?
>Got any more problems besides those two?
Sure, but if the end result of negative population growth is the death of a country, do other problems matter?
>You're still not getting it. Simply because some people don't reproduce doesn't mean they're the devil.
I did not call them devils. You must be able to differentiate between what I say, and what you think.
>And without a lick of evidence, you continue to call me an SJW, despite the fact I despise them so... fail
You have concluded that I "sound" to you like I want homosexuals killed, (!!) and that I refer to them as devils. You are a typical liberal PC snowflake. Always ready to be outraged at what you imagine.
>And speaking of SJWs. They're the real problem.
>How?
>False rape accusations.
You mean like false homophobic accusations?
>Since the Kavanaugh issue, people have been staying away from people of the opposite gender. Why?
>Because they don't want their reputations destroyed. And as such reproduction will decrease.
Lol. Population decrease is due to the Kavanaugh issue? Funny.
>So, why don't you look at the bigger issue instead of only picking out the LGBT community.
What is the issue bigger than the LGBT one? I did not "pick out" the LGBT "community", (whatever that is), I simply stated the truth.
And you went into an SJW froth, thinking I was picking out and calling the LGBT "community" devils, and wanting them "rounded up and killed".
If you weren't a progressive liberal snowflake, I'd call you deluded, but I don't want to be redundant.
>also over the past 20 years Russia's population growth has fluctuated between -.4% - +.1% it is the 9th most populous country, and In the first world, in the top 3 strongest powers in the world. Yet they have been and still are VERY anti LGBT.
Can you blame them?
>So it would seem there is some other factor that is affecting developed countries population growth to be negative in recent years.
There is more than one factor, yes. There is war for example. Just as detrimental.
>China doesn't have a negative population growth but 60% of their population is still agrarian, so they are developing but not yet developed.
So?
>It would seem there is something about a country being established as developed, rather than accepting gay people, that leads to a negative population growth.
You probably should have edited the above paragraph. The simple truth is, negative population growth comes from people not having offspring. Their sexual preference doesn't matter.
But for you SJW snowflakes, ANYTHING not overtly congratulatory of homosexuality is hate, and you will deny any truth you think contradicts your PC dogma.
>You're still not getting it. Simply because some people don't reproduce doesn't mean they're the devil.
I did not call them devils. You must be able to differentiate between what I say, and what you think.
>And without a lick of evidence, you continue to call me an SJW, despite the fact I despise them so... fail
You have concluded that I "sound" to you like I want homosexuals killed, (!!) and that I refer to them as devils. You are a typical liberal PC snowflake. Always ready to be outraged at what you imagine.
>And speaking of SJWs. They're the real problem.
>How?
>False rape accusations.
You mean like false homophobic accusations?
>Since the Kavanaugh issue, people have been staying away from people of the opposite gender. Why?
>Because they don't want their reputations destroyed. And as such reproduction will decrease.
Lol. Population decrease is due to the Kavanaugh issue? Funny.
>So, why don't you look at the bigger issue instead of only picking out the LGBT community.
What is the issue bigger than the LGBT one? I did not "pick out" the LGBT "community", (whatever that is), I simply stated the truth.
And you went into an SJW froth, thinking I was picking out and calling the LGBT "community" devils, and wanting them "rounded up and killed".
If you weren't a progressive liberal snowflake, I'd call you deluded, but I don't want to be redundant.
How would a snowflake have been different from how you behaved?
Snowflakes are unable to discuss homosexuality without accusing someone of homophobia. To them, any comment about homosexuality, is either advocating full acceptance, or mass genocide. No middle ground.
You thought I wanted gays killed!
Stay away from mirrors if you don't want to be surprised by a liberal snowflake.
>But simply because I say that gays aren't the problem for population....
They are a problem. The reason you can't admit they are a problem is because you are trapped by liberal PC dogma that forbids you from pointing out any negative traits to homosexuality.
>(Water shortages, food shortages, war etc are bigger issues)
Bigger issues does not mean homosexuality is not an issue. The thread was about homosexuality, not food or war.
>.....means I'm a liberal
You aren't even aware that the PC zeitgeist has corrupted your ability to think. In our short time interacting, you have towed the liberal line on every issue we've discussed.
And like a liberal, you don't debate. You don't argue points. You assume you're right, post a .gif or a mime, and, tadaa! You think your point is proven.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news kid, but you sir, are a typical PC libtard snowflake.
How would a snowflake have been different from how you behaved?
1. An SJW would've reported and blocked you. I've done neither 2. An SJW would've complained to the news about you. I've not complained about this 3. An SJW would cause a dog pile which I've not done 4. An SJW wouldn't use facts to back up their claim. I've used multiple websites to show that the LGBT community isn't negatively effecting the population. YOU. On the other hand have yet to link me to some sort of website that proves the LGBT community is negatively effecting the population
Snowflakes are unable to discuss homosexuality without accusing someone of homophobia. To them, any comment about homosexuality, is either advocating full acceptance, or mass genocide. No middle ground.
There is a middle ground. But not here right now.
You think simply because they exist and since they cannot reproduce, they're somehow resulting in a negative population growth, despite the fact by 2050, the population with be a roughly 9 billion people. It's still growing even with their existence
I think you're demonizing them because they cannot reproduce, despite the fact people, people, straight or LGBT, can choose whether or not to reproduce.
It's funny how you single out the LGBT community for a "negative" population growth.
Once again just explaining how your first argument is phrased... Oh, and you've yet to show me HOW serious LGBT people when it comes to population growth.
You thought I wanted gays killed!
Once again, it was how your sentences where phrased. Not actually you...
No, homosexuality cannot be "cured", but it can be prevented.
"But it can be prevented"
That sounds like you want to prevent homosexuality from existing simply because they don't reproduce.
And it just so happens one of the ways to prevent homosexuality involves a little killing.
I was saying how you phrased your sentence, not actually saying you were a killer
You're missing the point
Stay away from mirrors if you don't want to be surprised by a liberal snowflake.
I've seen a liberal or conservative snowflake before...
I'm talking to one right now, because I've told you multiple times what I'm saying.
>But simply because I say that gays aren't the problem for population....
They are a problem. The reason you can't admit they are a problem is because you are trapped by liberal PC dogma that forbids you from pointing out any negative traits to homosexuality.
You've yet to show actual proof of this...
>(Water shortages, food shortages, war etc are bigger issues)
Bigger issues does not mean homosexuality is not an issue. The thread was about homosexuality, not food or war.
If you're going to complain about gays being a population issue, actually research to see if it's an actual issue. The population growth is doing just fine last I heard. You treat it as if the small part of the population who can reproduce will lead to our extinction, instead of actually focusing on real population issues (mainly the fact overpopulation is an issue)
>.....means I'm a liberal
You aren't even aware that the PC zeitgeist has corrupted your ability to think. In our short time interacting, you have towed the liberal line on every issue we've discussed.
Oh, people have tried to corrupt me with political correctness. If it did work, why would I put a debate with my argument criticizing it? If I was an "SJW" I would be say how good it is!
It hasn't worked AT ALL
And like a liberal, you don't debate. You don't argue points.
I did argue a post, with links to show that the population is growing at very steady pace even with gays living on the earth. You haven't given me a lick of proof that they're a serious problem
You assume you're right, post a .gif or a mime, and, tadaa! You think your point is proven.
I put that gif there because I found your claim ignorant, but wasn't going to waste my time, because something like this going to happen, especially with your failure of arguments with religion.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news kid, but you sir, are a typical PC libtard snowflake.
You've yet to also prove that, and I've shown multiple debates of me criticizing SJWs, their ideology and political correctness.
1) There is no gay gene, so there is no known valid biological objection. The gay gene question has been put to rest by extensive research from people who took DNA tests. 2) Sexual identify is fluid, especially for younger people, with many having 'switched' sexual preferences. From WebMD:
Sexual fluidity appears to be particularly common among adolescents. In one small study of high school students, more than one fourth of the girls and about 10% of the boys reported a fluid sexual identity. Almost a third of the girls and 10% of the boys reported fluid sexual attractions.
Even the APA has acknowledged that “for some, sexual orientation identity . . . is fluid or has an
indefinite outcome.”
3) No one should be forced to go through gay conversion therapy. It should be voluntary.
The most basic right of an adult patient is self-determination and it should be respected, even when you disagree politically with their choice.
4) The majority of studies show most do not 'change' after conversion therapy. However, the APA acknowledged, “Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE . . .”
Nicholas A. Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association and
former chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente, wrote in USA Today that “of the patients I oversaw
who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.”
5) The evidence that conversion therapy causes harm is fairly weak. There are some studies that have shown this, but they had less than 50 patients in their studies and were mostly antidotally based. The APA admits that there is no “valid causal evidence” that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) are harmful.
I would like to slightly revise the outlook I described here 5 years ago. Nowadays I am leaning heavily towards there not being any hard-wired sexualities at all, but, rather, heavily individualized products of biological factors, personal experiences, cultural influences, character traits, intentional choices and many other factors. Some people's romantic/sexual interests encompass virtually all of humanity, while others are extremely picky and can have preferences that do not follow under any of the commonly accepted classifications. I mentioned here before that I am virtually exclusively attracted to Asian women and no one else, but there are also people who do not seem to discriminate based on looks at all and are attracted solely to people's character - although even such people still typically have a heavy gender preference. Gender discrimination (in the neutral sense of the word) seems to be one of the most deeply seated biological instincts in all gendered animals, including humans.
From this perspective, a gay would be someone who has a heavy romantic/sexual preference towards men, for whatever complex reasons. Changing it seems to be as possible as changing my preference towards Asian women, or my friend's preference towards cute-looking people regardless of their gender. It seems that these preferences are so intrinsic, that changing them would require changing a lot of other personal characteristics. It is like changing one's preference towards STEM fields in favor of humanities: you do not change that by just shifting a couple of gene expressions in their RNA, or by putting them through a therapy program.
Intrinsic, however, does not equal biological. Intrinsic equals heavily integrated into one's psyche. The same person, given a completely different life path, could have evolved to have very different romantic preferences. As such, I do not believe that "people are born gay" or "people are born straight", although they probably have some biological predispositions that cause them to be more likely to develop the particular preference.
I would like to slightly revise the outlook I described here 5 years ago. Nowadays I am leaning heavily towards there not being any hard-wired sexualities at all, but, rather, heavily individualized products of biological factors, personal experiences, cultural influences, character traits, intentional choices and many other factors. Some people's romantic/sexual interests encompass virtually all of humanity, while others are extremely picky and can have preferences that do not follow under any of the commonly accepted classifications. I mentioned here before that I am virtually exclusively attracted to Asian women and no one else, but there are also people who do not seem to discriminate based on looks at all and are attracted solely to people's character - although even such people still typically have a heavy gender preference. Gender discrimination (in the neutral sense of the word) seems to be one of the most deeply seated biological instincts in all gendered animals, including humans.
From this perspective, a gay would be someone who has a heavy romantic/sexual preference towards men, for whatever complex reasons. Changing it seems to be as possible as changing my preference towards Asian women, or my friend's preference towards cute-looking people regardless of their gender. It seems that these preferences are so intrinsic, that changing them would require changing a lot of other personal characteristics. It is like changing one's preference towards STEM fields in favor of humanities: you do not change that by just shifting a couple of gene expressions in their RNA, or by putting them through a therapy program.
Intrinsic, however, does not equal biological. Intrinsic equals heavily integrated into one's psyche. The same person, given a completely different life path, could have evolved to have very different romantic preferences. As such, I do not believe that "people are born gay" or "people are born straight", although they probably have some biological predispositions that cause them to be more likely to develop the particular preference.
I agree with you that 'intrinsic' as you defined it, is not equal to biological. Many thoughts and repeated actions develop behaviors. These are not easily changed. However, behaviors, though difficult to change, can be changed, provided the individual wants to change them. If someone wants to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, I think they have the right to pursue the life they want. In the same way if someone wants to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle, I don't think we should impede them.
I agree with you that 'intrinsic' as you defined it, is not equal to biological. Many thoughts and repeated actions develop behaviors. These are not easily changed. However, behaviors, though difficult to change, can be changed, provided the individual wants to change them. If someone wants to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, I think they have the right to pursue the life they want. In the same way if someone wants to pursue a heterosexual lifestyle, I don't think we should impede them.
I fully agree with this. I would only add that, while people are free to live their life however they see fit in this respect, it is not helpful to encourage irrational idealistic thoughts. There are some objective issues that come with choosing a homosexual partner: possible social ostracizion, inability to have biological kids (biology is important, and while adopting kids is possible, for most people the experience is not going to be the same as having their biological kids would be), lack of motherly figure in the life of the kids, obvious issues when it comes to sex (homosexual sex is very much feasible, but human bodies are designed to make heterosexual sex much more natural and risk-free)... Many people nowadays try to pretend that being engaged in a homosexual relationship, let alone in a relationship with a transsexual or someone of some bizarre sexual identification ("non-binary" or whatever they call it), comes with absolutely no extra baggage relative to a heterosexual relationship, aside from (in their eyes unjust) societal ostracizion - and this delusion is going to have a highly negative impact on their quality of life. It is important to understand what limitations one's choices (caused by either biology or something else) induce and accept them, rather than blindly believe that everything will just sort itself out.
I do not think that someone who is strongly attracted to men is going to be very happy in a relationship with a woman: no matter how much they love the woman, their natural affinity is going to play an essential role in their life, and they will constantly eye men and wonder what their life could have been if they had been with a man instead... But nor do I think that they are going to be happy in a relationship with a man which they enter without understanding the range of potential shortcomings of such a choice.
But that goes for any relationship whatsoever: every relationship has upsides and downsides. As long as both individuals involved in a relationship understand these upsides and downsides and work with them, it is likely to work out quite well.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't believe it is "curable" or should be treated like a disease. I suggest we accept LGBT community and let them be. We don't need to join them, just accept them for who they are.
  Considerate: 43%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 26%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 33%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 22%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
don't have that preference.
a more appropriate phrase for this debate probably should have been "change sexual orientation" instead of "cure". In any case, I think it's pretty much genetic.
- Walt Disney
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Countries now disappearing under negative population growth are finding a new reason of how homosexuality is detrimental to society.
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 75%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 78%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.32  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Sorry but the gays aren't making the population decline, straight families that decide not to have kids or not to have more than two kids are making the population decline. Sorry we don't live in a world where women are forced to be a baby factory like your religion would prefer anymore.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
>yeah the gays are totally to blame for people deciding to have kids later and later in life and to only have 1 or 2 children.
Lol. Guess you think gays do contribute to population growth. How in the world could you have concluded from my post that I was blaming gays for the choices of others?
>The average family not person, but married couple that decides to have children, has ~2 kids on average. When straight couples are only replacing themselves and not producing a surplus the population can only logically remain the same size at absolute best.
PEOPLE who procreate contribute to population growth, and PEOPLE who do not procreate contribute to population decline. There is no need for weasel words.
>When you factor in people who die before having kids and straight married couples who decide not to have any kids at all then obviously the population will decline.
But we won't "factor in" gay people because according to PC dogma, homosexuality can have no negative effects, right?
>Sorry but the gays aren't making the population decline, straight families that decide not to have kids or not to have more than two kids are making the population decline.
How liberals can say such silly things with a straight face is fascinating. Everyone who doesn't have offspring make the population decline. Gays are not exempt.
>Sorry we don't live in a world where women are forced to be a baby factory like your religion would prefer anymore.
Who forced your mom? And I'm sure this new world you live in will be a comfort to those countries that are disappearing. They'll be extinct, but will take comfort that the women weren't forced.
With illogical PC thinking like this, how will western countries NOT go extinct?
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
The genius posted a .gif, I must concede his superior debating skill.
Hey z-guy, what say we wait 5 years till you're 20 and then debate? I might be mature enough for you then.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 58%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.36  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
>....or it’s because religious people like you are extremely homophobic for no good reason....
Stop posting your opinion. It isn't argument and makes you look .
>....has no common sense about the reality of the world around them.
But you won't state what this "reality" is. This is why liberals will not answer questions put to them.
In ANY population, homosexuals do not contribute to the growth of that population. The higher the percentage of homosexuals in the population, the closer the population growth will be to zero.
This is a common sense fact. No amount of .gifs or PC opinion will change that.
Now, you could address that, or, being the sharp thinker you are, post another .gif or rant about homophobia.
Yawn.
  Considerate: 33%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
>did you ever go to math class?
All the way up to college yes.
>If 2 people make 2 people then guess what? You stay constant at 2.
Lol. What, parents aren't counted in the census? What about the homosexuals having zero children? Do we still stay constant at two?
>The people that are having kids have about 2 kids so you should get on the horn and tell all your friends with kids they better go have more babies.
Sorry liberal. Ethan doesn't do . No matter how many kids heteros have, homos will still be depressing population growth.
Sorry if reality is inconvenient to you because of your illogical PC POV.
>Most people are contributing to population decline,
Untrue. Most people will have kids. It is the people not having kids at all, including homosexuals, who depress population growth.
>....let's force all women to have more babies
By forcing homosexual men to impregnate women?
Religious hate doesn't make you smarter. And try answering a few of the questions put to you.
Who forced your mom? Which church? Or was it the Holy Spirit?
No answer?
  Considerate: 29%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 23%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
>My reaction to your bigot homophobic comments ignorant religious person
This is a debate site jasper. Can you SAY how the truth that homosexuals depress a countries population growth is homophobic? Or are we to take your pronouncements on faith?
All you have is self-righteous emotion, thinking free. Go be a social justice warrior somewhere else. We need logic here.
Homosexuals do not contribute to population growth. That is a fact. That your PC dogma forces you to interpret that as negative, and then conclude that I'm somehow attacking homosexuals, is not my concern.
Neither is your juvenile opinion.
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 34%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
>The way you've structured your sentences it seems like you're bashing gay people because they don't help with population growth,....
It seems that way to you because you operate more on emotion than logic. PC-ness corrupts clear thinking.
>So, simply because of homosexuals exist, they depress a countries population growth?
No genius, it's because they don't procreate, not because they exist.
Ten percent of the world's population is not gay, it's less than that, and it is indisputable that homosexuals do negatively affect population growth.
>This sentence looks like you want to kill all gays as means to "prevent" it
Your silly perceptions are not my problem. There is a difference between reality and what things "look like" to you.
>Detrimental sounds like you want to deport them and/or round them up and put them in camps because they're somehow negative to society
Again, I couldn't care less about how things "sound" to you. But most rational people think negative population growth is detrimental to a society.
Homosexuals do not contribute to population growth.
>So?
You tell us. You're the one arguing against that fact.
And yes, your juvie opinion is off topic.
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.02  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
What should we do with me? I'm absolutely never going to have kids and if I get a girl pregnant I'm going to heavily suggest abortion whether it's legal or not. But that's a small window as I'm getting a vasectomy so it will be impossible for me to ever have a child
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
>so what exactly is the problem with gay people not having kids?
I guess it depends on whether you view negative population growth as good or bad.
>What is the solution?
The solution for what? Negative population growth or homosexuality?
>Even if you make gay marriage illegal it's not like they are going to say "oh well since I can't do that I'll just have a bunch of kids instead." They still aren't going to have kids.
Why would I make gay marriage illegal?
>What should we do with me?
Who is "we"?
>I'm absolutely never going to have kids and if I get a girl pregnant I'm going to heavily suggest abortion whether it's legal or not.
Yet I bet you will take social security and a pension. And people wonder why social security is going bust.
>But that's a small window as I'm getting a vasectomy so it will be impossible for me to ever have a child
Thousands never have a child without ever getting a vasectomy.
>....I'm absolutely never going to have kids....... If I ever get a girl pregnant....
You seem fuzzy on the word "absolutely".
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Therefore anyone who doesn't have kids is detrimental to society, including me. So what do you do to fix those detriments? Nevermind the fact that I'm working providing a benefit to the economy, and paying taxes that some of which go towards raising other people's kids.
Pensions are already gone except some government jobs, I don't work for the government so I won't be taking a pension. By the time I retire social security will be gone so I won't be taking that, plus I started my retirement fund at 18 so I'll be fine. Got any more problems besides those two?
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're still not getting it. Simply because some people don't reproduce doesn't mean they're the devil.
And without a lick of evidence, you continue to call me an SJW, despite the fact I despise them so... fail
And speaking of SJWs. They're the real problem.
How?
False rape accusations.
Since the Kavanaugh issue, people have been staying away from people of the opposite gender. Why?
Because they don't want their reputations destroyed. And as such reproduction will decrease.
So, why don't you look at the bigger issue instead of only picking out the LGBT community.
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
It can't be cured either, and isn't a disease. Let's take a look at history. in more unforgiving times, when it was thought to be a thing that could be cured. Take Alan Turing, as a famous historical example (the Cumberbatch movie is amazing). He was given a medication for a process known as chemical castration, which affects your hormones and reduces your sex drive, though it was later shown to have various negative effects, such as bone density loss, this was the solution of the times.
Modern pharmaceuticals generally follow the practice of symptom suppression. An allergy medicine will reduce inflammation and congestion, but you will still have allergies. Your sore throat goes away, but you're still sick. This approach DOES help you, your body's expending more energy on fighting the disease, rather than producing those symptoms.
However, homosexuality is a psychological function, so it's not as if suppressing the symptoms will do any good. As soon as the medications wear off, sex drive will return, and the subject would still be attracted to the same gender.
Moreover, saying that homosexuality can or cannot be cured makes it sound like a disease, which it isn't, so the entire questioning of whether it can or not is just flat out false.
  Considerate: 73%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 20%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 1.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
True.
>You claim homosexuality is detrimental to society because countries are "disappearing" because of negative population growth.
No. I said negative population growth is one of the results of people not having children. That is undeniably true. The end result of negative population growth is the disappearance of the country.
>Therefore anyone who doesn't have kids is detrimental to society, including me.
As far as population growth goes, yes.
>So what do you do to fix those detriments?
There are only 2 cures for negative population growth. More children, or more immigrants. Is that not obvious?
>Nevermind the fact that I'm working providing a benefit to the economy, and paying taxes that some of which go towards raising other people's kids.
People can do both good and harm at the same time.
>Pensions are already gone except some government jobs, I don't work for the government so I won't be taking a pension.
Some private company jobs have pensions.
>By the time I retire social security will be gone so I won't be taking that, plus I started my retirement fund at 18 so I'll be fine.
Lol. So the problem is solved? Your attitude is very selfish no? Why will social security be gone? Is no social security not a detriment?
>Got any more problems besides those two?
Sure, but if the end result of negative population growth is the death of a country, do other problems matter?
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
>You're still not getting it. Simply because some people don't reproduce doesn't mean they're the devil.
I did not call them devils. You must be able to differentiate between what I say, and what you think.
>And without a lick of evidence, you continue to call me an SJW, despite the fact I despise them so... fail
You have concluded that I "sound" to you like I want homosexuals killed, (!!) and that I refer to them as devils. You are a typical liberal PC snowflake. Always ready to be outraged at what you imagine.
>And speaking of SJWs. They're the real problem.
>How?
>False rape accusations.
You mean like false homophobic accusations?
>Since the Kavanaugh issue, people have been staying away from people of the opposite gender. Why?
>Because they don't want their reputations destroyed. And as such reproduction will decrease.
Lol. Population decrease is due to the Kavanaugh issue? Funny.
>So, why don't you look at the bigger issue instead of only picking out the LGBT community.
What is the issue bigger than the LGBT one? I did not "pick out" the LGBT "community", (whatever that is), I simply stated the truth.
And you went into an SJW froth, thinking I was picking out and calling the LGBT "community" devils, and wanting them "rounded up and killed".
If you weren't a progressive liberal snowflake, I'd call you deluded, but I don't want to be redundant.
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
>also over the past 20 years Russia's population growth has fluctuated between -.4% - +.1% it is the 9th most populous country, and In the first world, in the top 3 strongest powers in the world. Yet they have been and still are VERY anti LGBT.
Can you blame them?
>So it would seem there is some other factor that is affecting developed countries population growth to be negative in recent years.
There is more than one factor, yes. There is war for example. Just as detrimental.
>China doesn't have a negative population growth but 60% of their population is still agrarian, so they are developing but not yet developed.
So?
>It would seem there is something about a country being established as developed, rather than accepting gay people, that leads to a negative population growth.
You probably should have edited the above paragraph. The simple truth is, negative population growth comes from people not having offspring. Their sexual preference doesn't matter.
But for you SJW snowflakes, ANYTHING not overtly congratulatory of homosexuality is hate, and you will deny any truth you think contradicts your PC dogma.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 70%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 38%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
Calls me an SJW.
Completely ignores this:
https://debateisland.com/discussion/3228/are-social-justice-warriors-actually-good-for-social-justice
and, this:
https://debateisland.com/discussion/3150/has-political-correctness-gone-too-far
Oh, and calling Liberalism a mental disease
https://debateisland.com/discussion/2884/is-modern-liberalism-is-a-mental-disease
But simply because I say that gays aren't the problem for population (Water shortages, food shortages, war etc are bigger issues) means I'm a liberal
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
"What is the issue bigger than the LGBT one? I did not "pick out" the LGBT "community", (whatever that is), I simply stated the truth."
"Countries now disappearing under negative population growth are finding a new reason of how homosexuality is detrimental to society."
Your statements are at odds
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 47%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
>Not a liberal snowflake...
>You're just being annoying right now
How would a snowflake have been different from how you behaved?
Snowflakes are unable to discuss homosexuality without accusing someone of homophobia. To them, any comment about homosexuality, is either advocating full acceptance, or mass genocide. No middle ground.
You thought I wanted gays killed!
Stay away from mirrors if you don't want to be surprised by a liberal snowflake.
  Considerate: 35%  
  Substantial: 73%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
>Your statements are at odds
So you claim. I think your perception is at odds with itself.
But maybe when you have the time to make an actual argument, you will do so instead of just making a bald claim.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
>But simply because I say that gays aren't the problem for population....
They are a problem. The reason you can't admit they are a problem is because you are trapped by liberal PC dogma that forbids you from pointing out any negative traits to homosexuality.
>(Water shortages, food shortages, war etc are bigger issues)
Bigger issues does not mean homosexuality is not an issue. The thread was about homosexuality, not food or war.
>.....means I'm a liberal
You aren't even aware that the PC zeitgeist has corrupted your ability to think. In our short time interacting, you have towed the liberal line on every issue we've discussed.
And like a liberal, you don't debate. You don't argue points. You assume you're right, post a .gif or a mime, and, tadaa! You think your point is proven.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news kid, but you sir, are a typical PC libtard snowflake.
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 53%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://twitter.com/Zombieguy19871
Taxation is always theft
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.52  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
2) Sexual identify is fluid, especially for younger people, with many having 'switched' sexual preferences. From WebMD:
Even the APA has acknowledged that “for some, sexual orientation identity . . . is fluid or has an indefinite outcome.”
3) No one should be forced to go through gay conversion therapy. It should be voluntary.
The most basic right of an adult patient is self-determination and it should be respected, even when you disagree politically with their choice.
4) The majority of studies show most do not 'change' after conversion therapy. However, the APA acknowledged, “Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE . . .”
Nicholas A. Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association and former chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente, wrote in USA Today that “of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.”5) The evidence that conversion therapy causes harm is fairly weak. There are some studies that have shown this, but they had less than 50 patients in their studies and were mostly antidotally based. The APA admits that there is no “valid causal evidence” that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) are harmful.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
From this perspective, a gay would be someone who has a heavy romantic/sexual preference towards men, for whatever complex reasons. Changing it seems to be as possible as changing my preference towards Asian women, or my friend's preference towards cute-looking people regardless of their gender. It seems that these preferences are so intrinsic, that changing them would require changing a lot of other personal characteristics. It is like changing one's preference towards STEM fields in favor of humanities: you do not change that by just shifting a couple of gene expressions in their RNA, or by putting them through a therapy program.
Intrinsic, however, does not equal biological. Intrinsic equals heavily integrated into one's psyche. The same person, given a completely different life path, could have evolved to have very different romantic preferences. As such, I do not believe that "people are born gay" or "people are born straight", although they probably have some biological predispositions that cause them to be more likely to develop the particular preference.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not think that someone who is strongly attracted to men is going to be very happy in a relationship with a woman: no matter how much they love the woman, their natural affinity is going to play an essential role in their life, and they will constantly eye men and wonder what their life could have been if they had been with a man instead... But nor do I think that they are going to be happy in a relationship with a man which they enter without understanding the range of potential shortcomings of such a choice.
But that goes for any relationship whatsoever: every relationship has upsides and downsides. As long as both individuals involved in a relationship understand these upsides and downsides and work with them, it is likely to work out quite well.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra