If there were a pill to make me straight, I would not take it

If you want, be nondenominational. That's what I am. Turn your religion into what it should be.

Besides, just food for thought, even Satan believed in God. Just because one is proclaimed religious, doesn't necessarily make them a good person, or the most credible.

 

Well, I'm sure you're not always wrong, but I think you're kinda confused on this one.

The term "metrosexual" is usually used to refer to guys, generally straight, who are really into grooming, fashion, etc. It's nothing to do with actual sexuality, just stereotypes.

Being bisexual or bicurious, or any of the other letters of the QUILTBAG acronym (Queer, undecided, intersex, lesbian, transexual, bisexual, asexual, or gay) isn't a fashion statement. Nobody meant to make you think that.

And in terms of the "organization" idea - there are various groups that purport to speak for some or all of the queer community and I guess some of them will probably centre more on some identities rather than others. But there's no queer UN or anything! You are who you are, and nobody else gets to tell you that you're not... whatever you decide.

Hang in there - I don't think anyone was trying to make you feel excluded.

 

Yeah, metrosexuality refers to fashion and grooming that is above the norm for males.

It's not a term for orientation despite the odd suffix.

Are you maybe thinking of another term, @Shattered Shields ?

 

No, no, no. Metroxexual is a fashion statement, but what you described was not metroxexual, it was bisexual or straight but very curious, depending on where you draw the line, and what exactly you are experiencing, it's hard to tell. And there is no defined club for LGBT, just a movement, though I do think we need consensus and shared logic when it comes to understanding how many they're are and which one people are and why.

 

You're joking, that isn't what metrosexual is?

Motherfucker, I'm just gonna go. My apologies for the erratic behavior, I'm having quite a bad day.

 

I feel like being contrary, so let's see what I can come up with...

There are definite bonuses to taking the straight pill:

A larger portion of the population is straight so it increases your dating pool.
If everyone took it we'd eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation by default. Sure it's not as noble as eliminating it through understanding and acceptance, but it works, and all it costs is a bit of our humanity.
It would reduce the load on pornstars, right now they're having to branch out in so many different angles, but this would calm that down a bit.
Assholes would have one less reason to justify their hatred of other people who have literally done nothing to them, narrowing down the amount of flawed logic we have to deal with to expose them as shit people.

 

No you don't

 

Here's a question: What if there were negative consequences to taking the straight pill? Let's say the pill would make you straight, but would decrease your IQ by ten points. Would you still take it?

 

I'd argue that it might put a lot of male pornstars out of business, or lower the payscale for all of them. By the numbers, gay porn is a bit of a niche market (assuming that gay men and straight men consume roughly equivalent amounts of porn per capita). If all of the gay male actors, who are currently employed at 2 or more per video clip (solo clips don't have orientation, although their viewers do) were to suddenly find themselves straight, they'd be in competition with the existing straight male porn actors. I don't think it's possible to oversaturate the market with female performers, but porn generally has comparatively few well-known male actors working at any given time. To ensure employment stability among the men, you'd also need a pill to make women increase women's visual erotic inclinations, thus upping their consumption of erotic videos/DVD/Blu-Ray/downloads.

 

Wait.. are you...

Well played.

I'd have to get some accurate statistics, gustimations, a blindfold, and a dart board with the words yes and no written on it but...

First, i'd find out the change in IQ if our entire gay population were to take the drug. Lets say its 100 now, the new average would be like a relative 97?
Studys have shown that IQ levels jump as progress is made, the average 100 IQ today is worth that of 130 a hundred years ago (genius level)
So, the question is, if we were to be more united as a people, would our civilization progress enough to overtake the loss from the pill?

If yes, go for it, if no, then it looks like its the hard way for us.

Reducing the number of people who have jobs in porn is my whole point. I hate the idea that we need to 'create' jobs, just so people can have work. If a market is saturated, don't artificially create jobs, give those people an opportunity to actually do something productive instead.

 

I wouldn't take a straight pill even if it would increase my IQ. There is nothing wrong with me for not being straight.

 

Shit, I'd trade 4 inches of height, go bald 10 years earlier, and take a pill that turned me gay for 10 IQ points.

 

Ok, so no "visual lbido" pill for women, but I don't think that the adult film actors/actresses are being stopped from doing other work by the availability of jobs in porn, and if you turn all the same-sex only performers straight, they're either competing for work with people who are already established in het-porn, or out of a job entirely. True, it's not a very large segment of the population, but you're still putting people out of work.

And we're steering this one towards the debate room again....

 

It would be more open market if everyone was pan though, and it would also avoid denying any pre-existing relationships. Not so contrary my normative friend. But seriously, any such efforts are simply not worth it. It would be expensive to change people like that, it would be time consuming to study, it would require a lot of marketing to get people comfortable with that level of change in their lives, and it doesn't have all that much benefit. People are fine as they are.

 

I think this is a debatable and inaccurate statement. I would say environmental factors affects a person's intelligence, and then there are also many forms of intelligence. Don't mean to derail here, but that statement just said 'wrong' to me.

 

Well, because like looks being intelligent is advantageous. It's not that lacking the advantage to the same degree as others in something that makes you wrong, it's that many insults are based not on morals but on the lack of good things. The insecurities that we are not as impressive as we could be.

 

I'd back the Kickstarter.

 

Might I interest you in this book? Torn by Justin Lee. Lee is the founder of the Gay Christian Network and an openly gay Christian - I often love his approach to things, because he seeks to create dialogue amongst Christians who disagree with each other.

And this book: Faith Unraveled: How a Girl who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask Questions by Rachel Held Evans. Excellent book and very honest. There's this one bit where she describes when her faith began to crumble, when she saw an execution of a Muslim woman on TV, live, and she asked herself: Can a loving God really allow her to live a life of pain on this earth, just to send her to eternal damnation and much more suffering? (she writes this a lot better than me btw) And later she looked at the Holocaust and all the shoes left behind by the Jews who went into the gas chambers, and she writes how she needs her God to care about every one of these shoes, to care for every person those shoes represented, to give them comfort and justice in the afterlife where they found none in their earthly life. She asks all the tough questions but she does not supply any of the annoying, you've-missed-the-point but theologically sound platitudes - she doesn't try to explain away all the questions, and I love it for that.

I'm sorry you're losing your faith because of this. But the church is not to be confused with God, and God's people not to be confused with God. We're flawed human beings who almost certainly have a flawed understanding of the Bible and the Gospel - I believe God will ultimately forgive us for this, because how can a finite human mind be expected to grasp all that there is to grasp about eternal truth and the nature of God? But the fact that the love - or the lack of - expressed by Christians is often broken doesn't mean God's love is broken too. We're all just trying our best to follow what we believe is true - we all need a bit of grace.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I'm a Christian who believes this whole LGBT stuff is honestly okay. I'm not called to judge. I'm called to love. I'm not the one who has to live with it, struggle through it. Right or wrong, it's between them and God. Right or wrong, marriage should be available to LGBT folks because everyone has the right to choose. And honestly, who chooses their friends based on sexual orientation? If they're nice people, then they are people I'd love to learn from and hang out with. Wisdom and grace aren't privileges of straight folks, and I care for my friends' character - who they choose to sleep with in their own time is honestly none of my business, and I don't see why I shouldn't celebrate faithful love just because it's with someone of the same gender, in any case. How can I say to a gay couple who's faithfully loved each other for 20 years, "Hey you don't reeeally love them!" - that would just be plain stupid. And the Bible says, there's no sin in perfect love - right?

 

I'm glad you're a nice human being with sense.

 

You've jumped ahead to everyone taking the straight pill. The first 'reason' is based on an individual, but for the rest to work, every gay person would have to agree to take the pill or else be forced/pressured to take it. Kinda hard for me to think of that as being a societal good...

 

I lose this argument 9/10 times on an individual level because of rights and what-not, but It's sound(ish) on a large scale.
Think of it like physics, like how general relativity works on the large scale, but when you look at the individual pieces, everything starts to fall apart.

As for forcing/pressuring people to take this pill, that's pretty easy to avoid. We already get tons of required vaccinations and other stuff growing up, just throw the straight pill in that cocktail. Yeah it'd take a few generations and a select few would fall through the cracks, but all-in-all you'd have sexual homogeneity.

Sure, dealing with sexism between men and women would still be around but I have some ideas for that.
Race too.

I'm going to stop before I start sounding any more like Hitler.

 

Having a pill would reinforce the idea that homosexuality is abnormal and something to be treated. I don't think that's good.