LAT: Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality

[Zguy28]

(as an aside, meteors don't exactly rise)

Or change course rapidly.

Do we have a code Indigo Delta Echo Niner?

[Hubbs]

Or change course rapidly.

Do we have a code Indigo Delta Echo Niner?

This whole thread is a Charlie Foxtrot.

[stevenaa]

1) I'll be happy to respond to your question. Just as soon as you respond to mine. You're still trying to come up with "Well, discriminating against gays is OK, but against blacks, it's not."

2) I'll also point out that if you'd read my posts, (like I'm reading yours), instead of trying to find reasons to hide from your own statements, then you'd notice that I already have pointed out "a single cogent reason why it should be left untreated if it were found to be a genetic predisposition".

Not trying to come up with anything. Stating clearly. Race and homosexuality are not equal. Should we not treat autism, or downs, or any other genetic malady if we have the means?

[Larry]

Race and homosexuality are not equal. Should we not treat autism, or downs, or any other genetic malady if we have the means?

And no one ever said that they are absolutely 100% identical in every way.

Now, answer the question: If a medical treatment permits parents to chose the race of their child, then . . .

Does that, in your opinion, make race "a choice"?

And does that, in your opinion, make it OK to discriminate, based on it.

----------

(When you answer that question, then we can get to your continued attempt to pass off your opinion of somebody else's life as a medical issue, through your continued attempts to label homosexuality as a defect.)

----------

Edit:

On second thought, don't bother.

It's obvious what your answer is. To everybody in the thread.

It's obvious that you have no intention of ever saying what it is, out loud. You're going to keep hiding.

It's obvious why.

[superhero voice]

My job here is complete.

[/superhero voice]

[stevenaa]

And no one ever said that they are absolutely 100% identical in every way.

Now, answer the question: If a medical treatment permits parents to chose the race of their child, then . . .

Does that, in your opinion, make race "a choice"?

And does that, in your opinion, make it OK to discriminate, based on it.

----------

(When you answer that question, then we can get to your continued attempt to pass off your opinion of somebody else's life as a medical issue, through your continued attempts to label homosexuality as a defect.)

Then stop making the comparison. It either is the same or it isn't. Homosexuals as a group haven't suffered anywhere near what blacks as a group have in our country. It's an offensive comparison IMO.

If you assume it is genetic, the argument for it being abnormal is far stronger than the counterpoint.

Enlighten me on where I indicated it is ok to discriminate against Homosexuals. Treating the condition if possible, is not discriminatory.

Edit:

You've read enough of my posts over the years to know I don't hide my beliefs. If you wanted to know if I view it as a defect or abnormal, all you had to do was ask in a direct fashion. I didn't get what you were asking initially. No intention to hide anything. But as usual, your condecension prevails and you fail to make any argument not based in discrimination.