techhunter80 said:
techhunter80 said:
How can you cure something that isn't ill?
|
Michael-5 said:
That depends of if you consider them ill or not.
|
I wouldn't consider it an illness of any kind, to me it just what they're attracted to. Like if a guy was into older women, or how someone can be attracted to someone of a different race. It's not wrong it's just a opinion on what they're sexulity attracted to. So there's nothing wrong with it at all.
|
Well, my opinion on homosexuality differs from yours. I don't think homosexuality is a matter of preference (like likeing Black guys, or older women), I think it's much deeper. If it was a matter of preference, then I think two things. 1. There is no homosexual, only a bisexual because preference is, as stated, a preference, not a limitation. 2. People's preferences change (you can be into older women for a while, have a bad relationship, and then be into women you age, etc), so homosexuals should easily be able to become heterosexuals if they chose too. However this isn't the case.
NintendoPie said:
Michael-5 said:
Genetic modification is not as easy as you think. We don't have a cure yet, much like we don't have a cure for Down Syndrome, but you are right, we can change our genes to become anything. We could alter ourselves to have two vagina's/dicks if we wanted to, or just become hairless.
I don't think everyone should be "cured", but I think the option should exist for homo's who wish to live a hetero lifestyle.
|
I agree with you on that. But if the option is available then someone somewhere is bound to abuse it.
|
I agree with you, lol. You are a logical thinker.
Now this brings the question, which is worse? A community without a cure for homosexuality, which oppresses ALL of the homosexuals who wish to live heterosexual lifestlyes, or a community with a cure, which oppresses SOME homosexuals into "cure" themselves?
I know in Canada, we would never resort to the second option, but I bet in the Middle East, this would be an immediate law.