410 replies to this topic

[Elindoril]

It's true, the homosexual agenda is finally being put into motion. Expect to see the first heterosexual conversion centers opening in 2015. We'll outnumber the heterosexuals by 2050.
 
Be prepared.

They already have their own gaming convention.

[Barcodite]

If someone says that gay marriage should be outlawed because the couple can't produce children, therefore they should believe that infertile people or people who have no interest in having children should also not be allowed to get married. And for IVF and test-tube babies, I honestly don't see what's wrong with using these technologies to aid people in having children. Granted, people can abuse IVF like Octomon did, but most of the people who use these things are people who couldn't have children otherwise. 

 

I don't think that homosexuality becoming more "socially acceptable" is going to turn the majority gay. Wearing glasses is a fairly recent trend in the history of mankind, and is regarded as a normal human variation, yet the epidemiology of myopia (something proven to be caused by a combination of nature and nurture) has not changed. People have always had nearsightedness, but it has only been recently addressed by mankind. People have always been gay, but it has only been recently addressed by mankind.

 

Also, I don't think being gay has actually become more prevalent, but it seems that way because more people are becoming comfortable with sharing their sexuality. I also think the interconnectedness of the internet makes it seem to be more prevalent. For example, I probably couldn't find one person in my city whose favorite band is the same as mine, but the internet has allowed be to connect with thousands of people who enjoy the same music as I do. People are going to seek out others who are similar to them, and for many gay people, that means they want to connect with people with whom they can speak and share their experiences.

 

Anyway, I don't really believe in the institution of marriage at all, gay or straight. Love has always been a thing, marriage has not. You should be allowed to love who you love without any stigma, or complications visiting your significant other in the hospital or filing your taxes.

[Waser Lave]

So what if the population starts getting homsexual. Everybodys hair will look amazing.

[Grandmaster]

So you can make absolute statements but I can't? That doesn't seem awfully fair to me.

I already used a bit of hedge statement by saying "when one day", it is not saying it will definitely happen but the whole scenario could happen very likely if the trend continues freely. Absolute statements tend to use absolute terms like "never", "always", "definitely", "must" and so on. Do feel free to point them out when I used them since occasionally, it's easy to get carried away.

 

How can you argue with a person who is apparently oblivious to population growth and predicted growth? Not to mention for some reason you think people will want robot children when there are and always will be a plethora of ways to obtain real children. And that said robot children and homosexuality being the "cool thing" will drastically reduce the human population. Yikes

Do not imagine robots as just mechanical assembly of metals and use of computer programs. With more research into steam cell and biology integration with electronics, the whole concept of robot may change entirely. You may not be able to differentiate a human between robot on the surface a few decades later. I have already suggested the ways for homosexual to obtain real children but that's only the next step. The whole process still takes 8-10 months or maybe a few months. So further step to next could really be robots, the new kind of robots I mentioned earlier.

 

appreciate your view... but are you serious lol???? your basically saying with counselling like you would do for a kid who steals you can cure homosexuality?? I'm sorry man but your completely 100% wrong. someone who is homosexual likes who they like.... and are repulsed by what they don't like.. just like a straight person. it's people like  you who have kids, and make them to ashamed to be who they are.... and then they end up in LOVELESS marriages.. and are never happy.... and eventually leave there husbands/wives anyways.... you see all they time now a days... older men/woman who were forced to act "straight" by people with your view... and only now in there 40s 50s feel strong enough to be who they were meant to be, and there whole life was wasted living a lie. For example my uncles wife, forced by homophobic parents who didn't accept her to be "straight", had 2 kids... was with my uncle for 25 yrs... then just leaves him for a woman. it all comes down to what you think is better , LIVING A LIE AND BEING UNHAPPY. or doing what makes you happy and flipping the finger to people like you. 

 

I have not even talked about curing homosexuality. I'm just talking about how the widespread legalisation of gay marriage and promotion of homosexuality could potentially lead to problems that human may not be able to solve later on.

 

The problem with homosexuality now is that people don't even think that it's a problem to deal with so naturally the kind of possible cures available is limited and not very helpful. People tend to associate it with free will or whatsoever. I have asked before elsewhere if there is a cure for homosexuality, would homosexuals want to try out. The answer is often not since they feel that this is the way of life for them. Counselling may not work for everyone but with advance of technology, there would be likelihood of changing genes, homones, etc to solve those issues.

 

If someone says that gay marriage should be outlawed because the couple can't produce children, therefore they should believe that infertile people or people who have no interest in having children should also not be allowed to get married. And for IVF and test-tube babies, I honestly don't see what's wrong with using these technologies to aid people in having children. Granted, people can abuse IVF like Octomon did, but most of the people who use these things are people who couldn't have children otherwise. 

 

I don't think that homosexuality becoming more "socially acceptable" is going to turn the majority gay. Wearing glasses is a fairly recent trend in the history of mankind, and is regarded as a normal human variation, yet the epidemiology of myopia (something proven to be caused by a combination of nature and nurture) has not changed. People have always had nearsightedness, but it has only been recently addressed by mankind. People have always been gay, but it has only been recently addressed by mankind.

 

Also, I don't think being gay has actually become more prevalent, but it seems that way because more people are becoming comfortable with sharing their sexuality. I also think the interconnectedness of the internet makes it seem to be more prevalent. For example, I probably couldn't find one person in my city whose favorite band is the same as mine, but the internet has allowed be to connect with thousands of people who enjoy the same music as I do. People are going to seek out others who are similar to them, and for many gay people, that means they want to connect with people with whom they can speak and share their experiences.

 

Anyway, I don't really believe in the institution of marriage at all, gay or straight. Love has always been a thing, marriage has not. You should be allowed to love who you love without any stigma, or complications visiting your significant other in the hospital or filing your taxes.

 

That's actually the type of debate argument I want to see. Thanks, Barcodite. I will reply to your arguments later on.

[Ladida]

We should probably be more concerned about first cousins marrying each other and mucking up the gene pool with their increased probabilities of genetic defects.

 

Also, I just came down with gayness after a Neocodex random event. I'll toddle across the threads infecting everyone in my path! I might even go on irc No one is safe from me! Maybe afterwards I'll go to the Codex Pharmacy and buy something to become straight again.. But you never know, I might fall gay again.. And again.. Be afraid, it's contagious!

[Romy]

 

That's actually the type of debate argument I want to see. Thanks, Barcodite. I will reply to your arguments later on.

Inb4 you don't.

[Turnip]

Of course I support gay marriage! I think it'd be better being happy and marrying someone you genuinely love whether their gender is different or the same as yours rather than restricting yourself to what is considered "acceptable" by other people's shitty opinions and being unhappy~

 

I have not even talked about curing homosexuality. I'm just talking about how the widespread legalisation of gay marriage and promotion of homosexuality could potentially lead to problems that human may not be able to solve later on.

 

The problem with homosexuality now is that people don't even think that it's a problem to deal with so naturally the kind of possible cures available is limited and not very helpful. People tend to associate it with free will or whatsoever. I have asked before elsewhere if there is a cure for homosexuality, would homosexuals want to try out. The answer is often not since they feel that this is the way of life for them. Counselling may not work for everyone but with advance of technology, there would be likelihood of changing genes, homones, etc to solve those issues.

 

>"Curing" someone's happiness by forcing your own ideals and what makes you personally happy down their throats (keep in mind that these people do not even give one single shit about you or your sexuality) so you can feel better about yourself at the end of the day and make them miserable/making them believe they're happy when they really aren't

>you think that is a good thing

Hahahah oh my god I'm sorry but that is absolutely awful! Like actually terrible. I can't wait until there is a cure to close-mindedism, that'll be pretty good don't you agree!（　°‿ゝ°）

 

If by problems you mean population issues the world is already filled with enough people. It's not like every single person ever is going to slowly turn gay just from homosexuals being allowed to marry each other or um nearly everyone is gonna turn gay and those who are still straight stop breeding completely because of it. That's uh preeettty unrealistic considering the amount of people on this planet. And do you honestly think that people are really going to just turn around and say "oh hey I thought I was straight but now that I can get married to people of my own gender that means I'm actually gay"?? That is NOT how sexuality works dude :V

 

Also I don't really get what you mean by ~*it's just a trend*~? Hasn't homosexuality been around since forever? Like it was brought up in at least the bible so it's been around for a pretty long time. Aren't trends supposed to die out after a while or something?? Unless you're trying to say that being happy and doing what feels right to you is nothing more than a trend

[mintpro]

I have not even talked about curing homosexuality. I'm just talking about how the widespread legalisation of gay marriage and promotion of homosexuality could potentially lead to problems that human may not be able to solve later on.

Let's deal with global warming first and worry about gays later.

[Grandmaster]

If someone says that gay marriage should be outlawed because the couple can't produce children, therefore they should believe that infertile people or people who have no interest in having children should also not be allowed to get married. And for IVF and test-tube babies, I honestly don't see what's wrong with using these technologies to aid people in having children. Granted, people can abuse IVF like Octomon did, but most of the people who use these things are people who couldn't have children otherwise. 

 

I don't think that homosexuality becoming more "socially acceptable" is going to turn the majority gay. Wearing glasses is a fairly recent trend in the history of mankind, and is regarded as a normal human variation, yet the epidemiology of myopia (something proven to be caused by a combination of nature and nurture) has not changed. People have always had nearsightedness, but it has only been recently addressed by mankind. People have always been gay, but it has only been recently addressed by mankind.

 

Also, I don't think being gay has actually become more prevalent, but it seems that way because more people are becoming comfortable with sharing their sexuality. I also think the interconnectedness of the internet makes it seem to be more prevalent. For example, I probably couldn't find one person in my city whose favorite band is the same as mine, but the internet has allowed be to connect with thousands of people who enjoy the same music as I do. People are going to seek out others who are similar to them, and for many gay people, that means they want to connect with people with whom they can speak and share their experiences.

 

Anyway, I don't really believe in the institution of marriage at all, gay or straight. Love has always been a thing, marriage has not. You should be allowed to love who you love without any stigma, or complications visiting your significant other in the hospital or filing your taxes.

 

First, comparison between infertile couples and gay marriage is not a convincing one since the former is being recognised as an illness that a lot of people sought cure for but the latter is not being recognised as an illness currently and most gays prefer to stay the way they are even if there are cures.

 

Second, for those people who have no interest in having children, there could be a wide range of causes such as late marriage, not enough money to bring up children, too hectic lifestyle with work, etc. It may not be that they have the initial idea of not having children in the first place but more of victim of circumstance. That is different from the inability to reproduce.

 

Third, the problem of abuse for technology is likely to be more significant when more people start to adopt these technologies. For now, these technologies are still not widely adopted so even if there are abuses, the effect will not be significant. But once it becomes widely adopted, then problem of abuse could be significant and irreversible.

 

Fourth, the statement that "people have always been gay" is still questionable. There is no study so far to prove that being gay is completely by nature, but more of both nature and nurture. In fact, nurture could play a more significant role. If that's the case, then it's possible that people can be turned into gay by the way they are nurtured, then more people or even majority of people turning gay is possible.

It's possible to have people to born with a tendency to steal, but if stealing is agreed by common standard that it is wrong, people would have react to it and ensure that they either control this tendency or find ways to remove this tendency, that's where the nurture part comes in. Similarly, it is possible to be born with a tendency to be homosexual, but it does not mean that this tendency will eventually lead to homosexual action. It really depends on the nurturing stage as well. By nurturing stage, it does not necessary mean that it should be forceful. Most of the time, it is the gradual change that actually helped most people. More often than not, we often see people commenting that they need to release their innate desire to be truly happy while controlling or stifling their innate desire will result in unhappiness. But when you apply this to the desire to steal, is it really the case? Sometimes, such desires can be substituted with more meaning purposes.

[Waser Lave]

I already used a bit of hedge statement by saying "when one day", it is not saying it will definitely happen but the whole scenario could happen very likely if the trend continues freely. Absolute statements tend to use absolute terms like "never", "always", "definitely", "must" and so on. Do feel free to point them out when I used them since occasionally, it's easy to get carried away.

"When, one day" is an absolute statement. You're definitively saying that something will happen "one day", not if something will happen "one day".

Personally, I don't think homosexuality will ever become a majority sexuality, firstly, because we (and most other species) have evolved over millions of years to prefer the opposite sex so it would take an unprecedented change (or very significant evolution) to undo that and, secondly, because penises just aren't attractive enough to be desirable by a majority of the male population (tbh I don't think most straight females find them particularly desirable but they serve a practical purpose so they put up with them).

[Strategist]

People who think homosexuality is a disease..... close-minded much?

[Mishelle]

Actually, instead of just commenting that any reasoning is trolling or bullshit, please provide alternative substantiated argument. Most of the reasonings I found for gay marriage are rather weak in this thread. This is a debate thread, not a thread just for simple opinions. You cannot discredit other people's argument just with simple comment or just simply your feelings.

 

What I have illustrated may be a bit difficult to imagine now. But considering how fast things developed in the past decade, all the Internet and LGBT movement, it's quite clear that eventually most of the countries in the world will legalise gay marriage. So what's the next step forward for gays/lesbians? Either they just want the relationship and no children so no reproduction anyway, or they also want children which is only possible for the technologies I mentioned earlier. If the latter becomes a widespread phenomenon (due to maybe also heterosexual couples who can't have children but wanted children), then there's no turning back in terms of technology. Once these artifical technology is adopted, people can easily go one more step further to think why we need so much complicated process to produce humans, robots may be easier (technology could have advanced a lot by then, allowing humans to develop robots with high artificial intelligence and majority of the robot parts with human skin tissues). These technologies are already being researched into but it is just because governments are still banning their use so not many people can advance further than experimentation stage. But if people can start questioning and pushing governments to approve gay marriage which has been considered somewhat forbidden for milleniums, then I don't see why they cannot push anything for their rights (technology rights) even if they seems so unrealistic to us now.

 

Homosexuals aren't a recent phenomena that just popped up. There's always been gay people, there always will be gay people. Legalizing gay marriage won't "create" more gay people. That's not how sexuality works.

First, comparison between infertile couples and gay marriage is not a convincing one since the former is being recognised as an illness that a lot of people sought cure for but the latter is not being recognised as an illness currently and most gays prefer to stay the way they are even if there are cures.

 

Second, for those people who have no interest in having children, there could be a wide range of causes such as late marriage, not enough money to bring up children, too hectic lifestyle with work, etc. It may not be that they have the initial idea of not having children in the first place but more of victim of circumstance. That is different from the inability to reproduce.

 

Third, the problem of abuse for technology is likely to be more significant when more people start to adopt these technologies. For now, these technologies are still not widely adopted so even if there are abuses, the effect will not be significant. But once it becomes widely adopted, then problem of abuse could be significant and irreversible.

 

Fourth, the statement that "people have always been gay" is still questionable. There is no study so far to prove that being gay is completely by nature, but more of both nature and nurture. In fact, nurture could play a more significant role. If that's the case, then it's possible that people can be turned into gay by the way they are nurtured, then more people or even majority of people turning gay is possible.

It's possible to have people to born with a tendency to steal, but if stealing is agreed by common standard that it is wrong, people would have react to it and ensure that they either control this tendency or find ways to remove this tendency, that's where the nurture part comes in. Similarly, it is possible to be born with a tendency to be homosexual, but it does not mean that this tendency will eventually lead to homosexual action. It really depends on the nurturing stage as well. By nurturing stage, it does not necessary mean that it should be forceful. Most of the time, it is the gradual change that actually helped most people. More often than not, we often see people commenting that they need to release their innate desire to be truly happy while controlling or stifling their innate desire will result in unhappiness. But when you apply this to the desire to steal, is it really the case? Sometimes, such desires can be substituted with more meaning purposes.

 

There's no cure for homosexuality they debunked that myth decades ago so stop right there. 

 

Some breeders abuse the privilege of having kids, I don't see you debating their right to get married. You don't need a study to prove that people have always been gay all you have to do is read up on a bit of history, or hell even go to wikipedia. And why are we even debating this considering gay people can also have kids. And no they don't always need IVF to do it, you can do it with a willing surrogate and a turkey baster.

Edited by Mishelle, 04 July 2013 - 02:39 AM.

[Grandmaster]

There's no cure for homosexuality they debunked that myth decades ago so stop right there. 

 

Some breeders abuse the privilege of having kids, I don't see you debating their right to get married. You don't need a study to prove that people have always been gay all you have to do is read up on a bit of history, or hell even go to wikipedia. And why are we even debating this considering gay people can also have kids. And no they don't always need IVF to do it, you can do it with a willing surrogate and a turkey baster.

 

"Cure for homosexuality" a myth, can you find supporting evidence for this? Even counselling have worked for some people. But the main problem is that people are not even actively finding cure for homosexuality, they reject the idea of any possible cure for something they don't think is an illness but another way of life or desire. Just think about the method I discussed earlier, adjustment to genes and hormones is possible to achieve if there are serious research into this field. If we have so quickly dismiss any possible cure for any kind of symptom, a lot of illness would have been uncurable.

 

"a willing surrogate and a turkey baster" is an worse option than IVF and other technology. Initially, people talked about gay marriage, it is still confined within two persons. Now, you are bring the third party into the picture, which in itself is controversial, even for heterosexual couple.

[mintpro]

"a willing surrogate and a turkey baster" is an worse option than IVF and other technology. Initially, people talked about gay marriage, it is still confined within two persons. Now, you are bring the third party into the picture, which in itself is controversial, even for heterosexual couple.

Monogamy is prevalent in the Western worlds, but other mating systems are not that controversial in other cultures or animal species.

 

And what about celibacy then? Should people who choose to be sexually abstinent to pursue some beliefs be cured?

[Bone]

"Cure for homosexuality" a myth, can you find supporting evidence for this? Even counselling have worked for some people. But the main problem is that people are not even actively finding cure for homosexuality, they reject the idea of any possible cure for something they don't think is an illness but another way of life or desire. Just think about the method I discussed earlier, adjustment to genes and hormones is possible to achieve if there are serious research into this field. If we have so quickly dismiss any possible cure for any kind of symptom, a lot of illness would have been uncurable.

"a willing surrogate and a turkey baster" is an worse option than IVF and other technology. Initially, people talked about gay marriage, it is still confined within two persons. Now, you are bring the third party into the picture, which in itself is controversial, even for heterosexual couple.

What, exactly, makes you believe that homosexuality is a disease? No major health organization of repute has recognized it as such since the 90s.

[zandra]

I am okay with gay marriages, however I am not okay with the term marriage to be used. Another word should be used/created, unless they identify themselves as the opposite sex.

 

Definition of marriage "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law".

[Waser Lave]

I am okay with gay marriages, however I am not okay with the term marriage to be used. Another word should be used/created, unless they identify themselves as the opposite sex.
 
Definition of marriage "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law".

I've never really understood why it's important for people to have a different word for what is essentially the same thing. Does it really make a difference if the word 'marriage' is used? Definitions aren't set in stone after all and they adapt over time.

[darkmadness]

 

 

The problem with homosexuality now is that people don't even think that it's a problem to deal with so naturally the kind of possible cures available is limited and not very helpful.

 

Are you serious? Homosexuality is a problem? For who? The people uncomfortable dealing with it?

 

I have asked before elsewhere if there is a cure for homosexuality, would homosexuals want to try out. The answer is often not since they feel that this is the way of life for them.

 

Ever think that their answer is no because in their eyes there's nothing wrong, that they would prefer acceptance as opposed to people assuming a cure should even be on the table? 

 

Where do you sit on transsexualism? Do you believe that is just a hormone imbalance that can be "fixed"?

 

[Turnip]

"Cure for homosexuality" a myth, can you find supporting evidence for this? Even counselling have worked for some people. But the main problem is that people are not even actively finding cure for homosexuality, they reject the idea of any possible cure for something they don't think is an illness but another way of life or desire. Just think about the method I discussed earlier, adjustment to genes and hormones is possible to achieve if there are serious research into this field. If we have so quickly dismiss any possible cure for any kind of symptom, a lot of illness would have been uncurable.

 

Is there a cure for heterosexuality? Asexuality? Bi/pan/demi/everything else that exists-sexuality? How about throwing in transgender things too while we're at it! Since every single one of these could be considered a "disease" using that logic. Why are you unwilling to accept that, as no two people are the same (keeping in mind that there are a loooot of people on this planet!), everyone has a different way of feeling "right". That's a horrible mindset you got there! Do you mock people who don't have the exact same hobbies or music taste as you too or something hahah

 

I find it absolutely disgusting that you think it's sane to do all these hormonal experiments on a group of people just to change their sexuality to something you personally agree with. Why do you even care what happens in their households and bedrooms and all! No one is giving you shit for being presumably straight as a plank, and it's not because "ohh heterosexuality is normal". Its because sexuality is a very private thing that you shouldn't stick your nose into, and definitely not trying to tell them that uh they're wrong just because you said so. Counselling too! Jesus christ, think about how you would feel if you were forced to take counselling and listen to some person you don't even know personally or care about start going on you for an hour or longer, saying that everything in your life is wrong and you're a failure and you'll only be recognised as a person if you follow this extremely precise list of rules. The person who wrote that of course being a bigot who only wants to make you think you're disappointing/disgusting everyone around you for doing what makes you happy.

 

 

Hmmm... Let's say you have a child and they came out to you. How would you react? Would you support them at all? Or how you would react to finding out that they pretended to be straight just so you wouldn't disown them for doing what they felt was right and made them feel complete as a person? Finding out that they were miserable with every single partner they were with and just faking a smile. Maybe even suicidal because of it all.

[Grandmaster]

Is there a cure for heterosexuality? Asexuality? Bi/pan/demi/everything else that exists-sexuality? How about throwing in transgender things too while we're at it! Since every single one of these could be considered a "disease" using that logic. Why are you unwilling to accept that, as no two people are the same (keeping in mind that there are a loooot of people on this planet!), everyone has a different way of feeling "right". That's a horrible mindset you got there! Do you mock people who don't have the exact same hobbies or music taste as you too or something hahah

 

I find it absolutely disgusting that you think it's sane to do all these hormonal experiments on a group of people just to change their sexuality to something you personally agree with. Why do you even care what happens in their households and bedrooms and all! No one is giving you shit for being presumably straight as a plank, and it's not because "ohh heterosexuality is normal". Its because sexuality is a very private thing that you shouldn't stick your nose into, and definitely not trying to tell them that uh they're wrong just because you said so. Counselling too! Jesus christ, think about how you would feel if you were forced to take counselling and listen to some person you don't even know personally or care about start going on you for an hour or longer, saying that everything in your life is wrong and you're a failure and you'll only be recognised as a person if you follow this extremely precise list of rules. The person who wrote that of course being a bigot who only wants to make you think you're disappointing/disgusting everyone around you for doing what makes you happy.

 

 

Hmmm... Let's say you have a child and they came out to you. How would you react? Would you support them at all? Or how you would react to finding out that they pretended to be straight just so you wouldn't disown them for doing what they felt was right and made them feel complete as a person? Finding out that they were miserable with every single partner they were with and just faking a smile. Maybe even suicidal because of it all.

 

I think this has gotten too much into personal attack and use of emotive words. Just take note that the debate itself is not meant to win anybody over as people usually have different opinions. The purpose of debate is to put forth reasonings that are valid and substantiated. People can judge for themselves which side they want to take.

 

Also, it seems that I'm the only one on this opposition view so I may take some time to reply to some of the questions raised.

[zandra]

I've never really understood why it's important for people to have a different word for what is essentially the same thing. Does it really make a difference if the word 'marriage' is used? Definitions aren't set in stone after all and they adapt over time.

 

yeah, but changing this would change the age old meaning of marriage. I dont like the idea of changing that.

[Bone]

yeah, but changing this would change the age old meaning of marriage. I dont like the idea of changing that.

Why are you opposed to changing (really, expanding) the definition of marriage? That doesn't impact you at all if you're heterosexual. The idea of marriage predates the current Christian-influenced institution, anyways.

[Galadriel]

TL;DR

[Frizzle]

yeah, but changing this would change the age old meaning of marriage. I dont like the idea of changing that.

 

So why are you ok with the changes from Biblical times then? It used to be that you could view women as property and marriage was a contractual deal, i.e different from now.

 

It used to be divorce was a sin and immoral, i.e different from now?

 

It used to be that marriage was only intended for Christians, yet millions of atheists/agnostics/people without faith get married all the time.

 

Why do you care that the current definition of marriage could be altered slightly to increase the civil/human rights of millions of people around the globe, or are you that selfish that only your views matter? 

[shrouded]

I think this has gotten too much into personal attack and use of emotive words. Just take note that the debate itself is not meant to win anybody over as people usually have different opinions. The purpose of debate is to put forth reasonings that are valid and substantiated. People can judge for themselves which side they want to take.

 

Also, it seems that I'm the only one on this opposition view so I may take some time to reply to some of the questions raised.

 

I think the issue is you have this tin foil hat idea that homosexuals are going to rule the world just because they don't have to face social stigma anymore.