What if there were a cure for being gay?

You still trying to treat yours, or have you finally started to accept it?

Hence, his nick name of gliar.

He's like Baba, only retarded.

Google "homosexual life expectancy".

Top hit:

According to the International Journal of Epidemiology, life expectancy at age 20 for homosexual and bisexual men is eight to 20 years less than for all men. That's a lifestyle shortening of life expectancy greater than obesity and tobacco use.​

Second hit:

In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men.​

The third hit quotes the second hit, along with noting that Vancouver gays have the same life expectancy as average Canadian men in 1871.

Fourth hit:

Yet Another Study Confirms Gay Life Expectancy 20 Years Shorter​

I used to go caving with a flaming gay geologist. He and his partner, not surprisingly, are both dead now. They live fast and die young, or at least prematurely.

Ah yes, the scientific bastion that is lifesitenews.com.

Please, tell us more about the things you read on bathroom walls.

Also, if anyone can't tell the difference as to why we don't consider who you like to bone in bed a mental illness versus behavior issues that impact every other aspect of life such as schizophrenia or Down's syndrome, they're too stupid to live.

Note that they're quoting studies that analyzed gay obituaries. There are a whole lot of those.

If gays don't die young how come so many gay people know dead gay people? Do you think they really hang out with Lemon Party.org types?

You idiot! Cameron's methodology would have yielded similar results for any group selected. That's what happens when your study sample only includes dead people.

It's not who, it's how many.

A classic, large-scale study by Bell and Weinberg conducted during the 1970s and published by the Kinsey Institute found that forty-three percent (43%) of white male homosexuals had had sex with 500 or more partners, and twenty-eight percent (28%) had had sex with 1,000 or more partners. Seventy-nine percent (79%) said that more than half of their sexual partners had been strangers. In 1985, Pollack found that gay men averaged “several dozen partners a year” and “some hundreds in a lifetime” with “tremendous promiscuity.”[ii] In their 1997 study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven, et al., found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners.​

Factor in the rampant toll that AIDS took in the 80s and early 90s and the drug use that was big due to the abuses many in the community used to face till recently in history.

That's the only thing I can think of, but now that gays are protected by civil rights and are free to marry (cutting down on promiscuity), I imagine it'll even out in ano the decade or so.

@Anna, you are arguing with a lie, don't give it validity by trying to explain the statistic. The claim is flat out wrong, no need to spin it.

Oh I'm sure it is, but it's a slow day at work.

The 1994 study that used gay newspaper obituaries as its sample?

Other studies produced the same result. It's hard to reach an AIDS death toll of 34 million without a lot of dead gays.

You are being irrational. Perhaps you are not as intelligent as I thought.

@Soma meet @gturner.

Are you trying to be clever? I don't think it's working.

In what way? Having a massive AIDS crisis and a long stream of movies about gay people dying of AIDS is, perhaps, directly linked to a much shorter life expectancy for gay people, along with some other factors. Gay people were very much more likely to transmit AIDS than infected heterosexual people, and one CDC study found that heterosexual people would have to have about five times as many partners as gay people to maintain the same rate of transmission. But aside from prostitutes and frequent johns, heterosexual people don't have anywhere near that number of partners. 75% of American men have less than 20, and 20% of American men only have one.

to each their own decision. Can't see how it would concern anyone else.

specific to trans though, based on current scientific/medical progress, it's MUCH more likely the day will come in the next few decades that we'll be able to treat a assumed-male-identified-female person such as to make them physically a fully functional female (and vice versa) than that we'll find a way to rewire the brain. We don't even yet know what specific architecture of the brain controls gender identity.

I'll wager 95+% of black people would prefer to be white. Just sayin...

That's patently stupid. Science assumes things constantly.

while we understand the process slightly better in trans people, given the possibility that the "normal" architecture of the brain closely associates sexual orientation with gender identity (i.e. in the correct state, your sexual orientation is towards people of the gender opposite your own) it's likely that innate homosexuality, like being transsexual (which in turn parallels intersex conditions) , is a result of a Disorder of Sexual Development that affected the brain. These may, but need not be, genetic in nature.

Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.

People want acceptance for who they are, not to be put into some box for bigots like yourself to discriminate again.

we know a great deal more than you seem to be aware of.

It's also perfectly possible to rule out "mental disease" (whatever the fuck THAT is) without establishing a conclusive theory concerning an alternative.

Let's say it's like the mutant gene, if somebody decided they wanted a cure, for whatever reason, would you be fine with that?

Define "mutant gene." I have a gene which enables me to taste things other folks can't, should I be "cured" of that? Temple Grandin is autistic, which has a genetic basis, she's stated unequivocally that if a cure is developed for autism she'd never take it, because she likes being autistic. Its one thing to cure a genetic disease, like cystic fibrosis, which does measurable harm to someone and provides no benefits, its another thing to alter someone's genes to prevent them from developing in a way that does no harm to anyone.

"Accept it"?

It's FICTION!

If the next Star Trek features a winged unicorn that dispenses lemonade from it's horn because science has learned to genetically engineer such a creature then...okay. What's to accept? I already accept transporters don't I?

I'm specifically talking about X3 where Stryker had a cure for the Xgene. I'm comparing that to the "gay" gene.

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

That's not what I'm asking. If scientists came up with some kind of pill or whatever that made gay people straight and some gay people decided they wanted to take it, would you be okay with that?