Poll: Thought experiment: What if homosexuality COULD be "cured" medically?

[Scorekeeper]

Not my business. If they wanted to change, I'd let them. If they didn't want to, I'd protect them.

 

[A.A.K]

Eeeehhh.
They can do whatever the hell they want...but my stance on that effects drugs too. If adults want to take 5 ounces of heroin after breakfast, let em. Doesn't bother or concern me.

 

[Wintermoot]

it,s their choice.
my only concern is if a person where to use this would he/she still be the same? as in personality.

 

[Spinozaad]

Wouldn't support it, because it would mean more children.

And god damn, do I hate children...

 

[Loonyyy]

WAIT!!! Before you immediately vote "no" because "homosexuality is not a disease, you homophobe!" I just want you to think about it for a minute.

This is just a hypothetical scenario in which say, scientists have discovered homosexuality is caused by some sort of chemical brain chi something or other and they've developed a pill that could make gay people straight. First, would you support it if it were utterly painless with no real side-effects? Second, what do you think the reaction would be from the masses? The gay community? Please try and keep discussion civil.

It comes across as homophobic no matter what, since you don't suggest the opposite: What is Heterosexuality could be cured medically?

Either way, the only way to answer is: It's their choice. Any other answer is morally wrong.

Civil reaction? It would be construed as "homophobic" by the gay community, and stupid by anyone with sense, and taken up by confused and desperate people. So, not really a good thing in my mind, but anything you do that doesn't adversely influence others should be your choice.

 

[Thomas Eshuis]

That's also why i hate the gay gene argument when everyone knows its just a fetish.

So tell me, is heterosexuality also a fetish?
If no, how do you figure?

 

[Skin]

The question is "if a woman could take preventative measures to ensure that their child was not gay, would it be ethical to allow her or even create such measure in the first place". I would say yes.

As a man of science, I can tell you that despite what the DSM would have you believe, homosexuality is a "disease". Go have a read at what some mental disorders constitute of and see if you wont be scratching your head or booking an appointment with a shrink. For some odd reason, homosexuality is the exception to every rule.

That's not to say that homosexuality is a disease or not, its just that our definition of what constitutes a malady in mental health is poorly defined and bordering on subjectivity.

 

[Thomas Eshuis]

If the drug was announced as being a "Cure for the gay", then yes, a lot of people would be pissed. It would be the same as offering a "Cure for the White" which sounds like medical genocide or a "Cure for the Gamer" which sounds like culture-o-cide. <- Needs revision.

That sounds like the deaf people that don't want children to have their hearing restored.

being deaf is a serious disabilty

Why? You are "born that way", just like you are born gay.

being gay? how is that any worse than say..being turned on by bondage or robots or feet? should we "cure" those people too because god forbid what people get up to in their bedrooms should be of great concerin to us "normal" people

So what's so wrong with being deaf? They have their own languages, cultures, what's intrinsically different about deaf and gay? Deaf people often argue that hearing people calling them disabled is offensive and its no more a medical condition/disability than being gay is.

theres nothing wrong with being deaf, but Im not comfortable with the Idea of parents making such a choice on their childs behalf...

Interesting. Did you know that the only even partial cure available to give hearing only works if the operation happens as a child? (Otherwise the brain has never wired for sound until it is too hard wired to accept the new input). So, either the parent decides, or the child stays deaf for life. Still feel the same way?

what I ment was Im not comforable with the Idea of a parent deciding NOT to give thier child a chance at hearing because of spme moral standing, its thier child not a representation of their belives

like somone already said being gay "shouldnt" affect your life aside from the child rearing thing (which wouldnt be such as in issue if peopel would let them adpot)

it wpuld just be easyer if we were all bi-sexual...where the pill for that?

It doesn't matter if it shouldn't, it DOES. And the fact that you think a child should get medical treatment to be "normal" when it comes to hearing but not "normal" when it comes to sexuality only peaks to you asking on YOUR own biases. Either both are ok to "fix" or neither are.

unless you make it a vital part of your identity and boradcast it to everyone then I dont see why it should, you can still do watever you capable of/set out to do...and if need be its sotmhing you can hide...to me its like aying being into bondage is going to hold you back in life..not if you let it

deafness means adapting to a world made for people who can hear, and sure some do it fine..but the fact is its there...it affects what you can do MORE than being gay

deafness and being gay are not the same thing

I'm still waiting for a reason that isn't your personal opinion.

being gay also means adapting to a world made for people who are straight.

reason for what?

I dont think comparing being gay and being deaf is fair....

Once again, your personal opinion. You may not feel like you want to compare them, but they potentially are the same thing. Either its ok to adjust people to be "normal" or you should accept people for how they were born, right?

of coarse somone who is born deaf if "accepted" as that being the way they are, but the way I see it is WHY deny that child the chance to be able to hear? hearing is a great thing, why deny that?

being deaf is a disability..a disabiliity alot of peopel mange and overcome yes

gayness is who you choose to fuck, its not a medical "condition" or a disability...its more line with somones soft drink preference or what colur they like

You still haven't identified what makes being deaf a "disability" where being homosexual is not. In both cases you are missing out on something but an entire culture exists for that group and the people in it are largely happy and functional. Why is it ok to give the child a chance to hear but not give the child a chance to fit into society better and have children naturally?

The only difference is your perspective on the issue.

If the drug was announced as being a "Cure for the gay", then yes, a lot of people would be pissed. It would be the same as offering a "Cure for the White" which sounds like medical genocide or a "Cure for the Gamer" which sounds like culture-o-cide. <- Needs revision.

That sounds like the deaf people that don't want children to have their hearing restored.

being deaf is a serious disabilty

Why? You are "born that way", just like you are born gay.

being gay? how is that any worse than say..being turned on by bondage or robots or feet? should we "cure" those people too because god forbid what people get up to in their bedrooms should be of great concerin to us "normal" people

So what's so wrong with being deaf? They have their own languages, cultures, what's intrinsically different about deaf and gay? Deaf people often argue that hearing people calling them disabled is offensive and its no more a medical condition/disability than being gay is.

theres nothing wrong with being deaf, but Im not comfortable with the Idea of parents making such a choice on their childs behalf...

Interesting. Did you know that the only even partial cure available to give hearing only works if the operation happens as a child? (Otherwise the brain has never wired for sound until it is too hard wired to accept the new input). So, either the parent decides, or the child stays deaf for life. Still feel the same way?

what I ment was Im not comforable with the Idea of a parent deciding NOT to give thier child a chance at hearing because of spme moral standing, its thier child not a representation of their belives

like somone already said being gay "shouldnt" affect your life aside from the child rearing thing (which wouldnt be such as in issue if peopel would let them adpot)

it wpuld just be easyer if we were all bi-sexual...where the pill for that?

It doesn't matter if it shouldn't, it DOES. And the fact that you think a child should get medical treatment to be "normal" when it comes to hearing but not "normal" when it comes to sexuality only peaks to you asking on YOUR own biases. Either both are ok to "fix" or neither are.

unless you make it a vital part of your identity and boradcast it to everyone then I dont see why it should, you can still do watever you capable of/set out to do...and if need be its sotmhing you can hide...to me its like aying being into bondage is going to hold you back in life..not if you let it

deafness means adapting to a world made for people who can hear, and sure some do it fine..but the fact is its there...it affects what you can do MORE than being gay

deafness and being gay are not the same thing

I'm still waiting for a reason that isn't your personal opinion.

being gay also means adapting to a world made for people who are straight.

reason for what?

I dont think comparing being gay and being deaf is fair....

Once again, your personal opinion. You may not feel like you want to compare them, but they potentially are the same thing. Either its ok to adjust people to be "normal" or you should accept people for how they were born, right?

'They potentially are the same thing' is a pretty poor argument for how they are in fact the same thing. I can say that your argument is the same one Hitler used to kill Jews, they're potentially the same thing! Except lacking support for how they're the same thing kinda ruins it all. What kind of argument is just saying repeatedly that they're comparable without demonstrating how they are?

It's not as if it's just a desire to make them 'normal'. No, the idea is to give them an ability they lack. It deprives them of nothing while giving them something more.

If the drug was announced as being a "Cure for the gay", then yes, a lot of people would be pissed. It would be the same as offering a "Cure for the White" which sounds like medical genocide or a "Cure for the Gamer" which sounds like culture-o-cide. <- Needs revision.

That sounds like the deaf people that don't want children to have their hearing restored.

being deaf is a serious disabilty

Why? You are "born that way", just like you are born gay.

being gay? how is that any worse than say..being turned on by bondage or robots or feet? should we "cure" those people too because god forbid what people get up to in their bedrooms should be of great concerin to us "normal" people

So what's so wrong with being deaf? They have their own languages, cultures, what's intrinsically different about deaf and gay? Deaf people often argue that hearing people calling them disabled is offensive and its no more a medical condition/disability than being gay is.

theres nothing wrong with being deaf, but Im not comfortable with the Idea of parents making such a choice on their childs behalf...

Interesting. Did you know that the only even partial cure available to give hearing only works if the operation happens as a child? (Otherwise the brain has never wired for sound until it is too hard wired to accept the new input). So, either the parent decides, or the child stays deaf for life. Still feel the same way?

what I ment was Im not comforable with the Idea of a parent deciding NOT to give thier child a chance at hearing because of spme moral standing, its thier child not a representation of their belives

like somone already said being gay "shouldnt" affect your life aside from the child rearing thing (which wouldnt be such as in issue if peopel would let them adpot)

it wpuld just be easyer if we were all bi-sexual...where the pill for that?

It doesn't matter if it shouldn't, it DOES. And the fact that you think a child should get medical treatment to be "normal" when it comes to hearing but not "normal" when it comes to sexuality only peaks to you asking on YOUR own biases. Either both are ok to "fix" or neither are.

unless you make it a vital part of your identity and boradcast it to everyone then I dont see why it should, you can still do watever you capable of/set out to do...and if need be its sotmhing you can hide...to me its like aying being into bondage is going to hold you back in life..not if you let it

deafness means adapting to a world made for people who can hear, and sure some do it fine..but the fact is its there...it affects what you can do MORE than being gay

deafness and being gay are not the same thing

I'm still waiting for a reason that isn't your personal opinion.

being gay also means adapting to a world made for people who are straight.

reason for what?

I dont think comparing being gay and being deaf is fair....

Once again, your personal opinion. You may not feel like you want to compare them, but they potentially are the same thing. Either its ok to adjust people to be "normal" or you should accept people for how they were born, right?

'They potentially are the same thing' is a pretty poor argument for how they are in fact the same thing. I can say that your argument is the same one Hitler used to kill Jews, they're potentially the same thing! Except lacking support for how they're the same thing kinda ruins it all. What kind of argument is just saying repeatedly that they're comparable without demonstrating how they are?

It's not as if it's just a desire to make them 'normal'. No, the idea is to give them an ability they lack. It deprives them of nothing while giving them something more.

lol @ Godwin.

You are right, I shouldn't have used "potentially", I was being diplomatic. It IS the same.

And according to people in the deaf community, it DOES deprive them of something. It's the same as taking all the aboriginal kids and stripping them of their culture so that they only know "white" culture. That was also supposed to give them something more while depriving them of nothing. (and yes, its the same, in both cases. Provide opportunity and culture at the cost of culture).

If the drug was announced as being a "Cure for the gay", then yes, a lot of people would be pissed. It would be the same as offering a "Cure for the White" which sounds like medical genocide or a "Cure for the Gamer" which sounds like culture-o-cide. <- Needs revision.

That sounds like the deaf people that don't want children to have their hearing restored.

being deaf is a serious disabilty

Why? You are "born that way", just like you are born gay.

being gay? how is that any worse than say..being turned on by bondage or robots or feet? should we "cure" those people too because god forbid what people get up to in their bedrooms should be of great concerin to us "normal" people

So what's so wrong with being deaf? They have their own languages, cultures, what's intrinsically different about deaf and gay? Deaf people often argue that hearing people calling them disabled is offensive and its no more a medical condition/disability than being gay is.

theres nothing wrong with being deaf, but Im not comfortable with the Idea of parents making such a choice on their childs behalf...

Interesting. Did you know that the only even partial cure available to give hearing only works if the operation happens as a child? (Otherwise the brain has never wired for sound until it is too hard wired to accept the new input). So, either the parent decides, or the child stays deaf for life. Still feel the same way?

what I ment was Im not comforable with the Idea of a parent deciding NOT to give thier child a chance at hearing because of spme moral standing, its thier child not a representation of their belives

like somone already said being gay "shouldnt" affect your life aside from the child rearing thing (which wouldnt be such as in issue if peopel would let them adpot)

it wpuld just be easyer if we were all bi-sexual...where the pill for that?

It doesn't matter if it shouldn't, it DOES. And the fact that you think a child should get medical treatment to be "normal" when it comes to hearing but not "normal" when it comes to sexuality only peaks to you asking on YOUR own biases. Either both are ok to "fix" or neither are.

unless you make it a vital part of your identity and boradcast it to everyone then I dont see why it should, you can still do watever you capable of/set out to do...and if need be its sotmhing you can hide...to me its like aying being into bondage is going to hold you back in life..not if you let it

deafness means adapting to a world made for people who can hear, and sure some do it fine..but the fact is its there...it affects what you can do MORE than being gay

deafness and being gay are not the same thing

I'm still waiting for a reason that isn't your personal opinion.

being gay also means adapting to a world made for people who are straight.

reason for what?

I dont think comparing being gay and being deaf is fair....

Once again, your personal opinion. You may not feel like you want to compare them, but they potentially are the same thing. Either its ok to adjust people to be "normal" or you should accept people for how they were born, right?

of coarse somone who is born deaf if "accepted" as that being the way they are, but the way I see it is WHY deny that child the chance to be able to hear? hearing is a great thing, why deny that?

being deaf is a disability..a disabiliity alot of peopel mange and overcome yes

gayness is who you choose to fuck, its not a medical "condition" or a disability...its more line with somones soft drink preference or what colur they like

You still haven't identified what makes being deaf a "disability" where being homosexual is not. In both cases you are missing out on something but an entire culture exists for that group and the people in it are largely happy and functional. Why is it ok to give the child a chance to hear but not give the child a chance to fit into society better and have children naturally?

The only difference is your perspective on the issue.

Ehm gay people can still reproduce naturally. They haven't become infertile.
By your logic people who do not want children also have a disability.
Not being able to reproduce is only a disability if that person wants to reproduce.
Gay people can reproduce.

 

[Thomas Eshuis]

despite what the DSM would have you believe,

You mean despite what the actual experts say about this issue?

homosexuality is a "disease". Go have a read at what some mental disorders constitute of and see if you wont be scratching your head or booking an appointment with a shrink. For some odd reason, homosexuality is the exception to every rule.

It isn't odd since being gay does not hinder a person in his life in any way.
Homosexuals can reproduce (even naturally) if they wish. Reproduction is not required to survive nor to be a productive member of society.

 

[Thomas Eshuis]

They can't reproduce naturally though gay sex.

Irrelevant. You said they cannot naturally reproduce, which they can. You're changing your argument.

And I'm not the one claiming gay people are disabled. I'm stating they are no more or less disabled than deaf people and that the only difference is cultural bias.

And not being able to hear is only a disability if that person wants to hear.

See?

You are the one claiming they cannot naturally reproduce.
Sorry about the disability part I mistook you for Skin since you have the same avatar.
Again my apologies for that.

 

[Skin]

despite what the DSM would have you believe,

You mean despite what the actual experts say about this issue?

Yep, just be ignorant. Believe the "experts". It would kill you to look into a book and see things for yourself. It is wrong to search for the truth.

The world is flat. Experts have told us.

 

[dvd_72]

This is.... a difficult one.

My normal answer would be "it's their choice" seems like the... best compromise to me. There will be those who take the pill because social pressures make them feel bad about being homosexual which is wrong, but... well I don't know any homosexuals who would become straight if they could.

If I say "no", then I would be condemning the unhappy gays to their unhappiness. Yes, they are generally unhappy because of the view their friends/family/society/culture has of homosexuals, meaning that the environment is wrong and needs to change. Thing is, it's easier to change a person than a group, and taking away the choice wouldn't feel right.

As for "Yes", I'm assuming that means that gays would be forced to take it, because supporting a "cure" doesn't mean you want to make it mandatory. In this case, the answer is definitely no, because you're taking away their right to be who they naturally are.

I guess it all comes down to giving them the choice. In the end, no matter what the situation, taking away peoples choice is wrong. I guess I'll have to go with that after all!

 

[Thomas Eshuis]

despite what the DSM would have you believe,

You mean despite what the actual experts say about this issue?

Yep, just be ignorant. Believe the "experts". It would kill you to look into a book and see things for yourself. It is wrong to search for the truth.

The world is flat. Experts have told us.

Except the definition of disability is that it has to hinder a persons life.
I fail to see how homosexuality in any way hinders a person.


You're positing the baseless assertion that homosexuality is a disease or disability, you have failed to show how/why.

 

[Thomas Eshuis]

They can't reproduce naturally though gay sex.

Irrelevant. You said they cannot naturally reproduce, which they can. You're changing your argument.

And I'm not the one claiming gay people are disabled. I'm stating they are no more or less disabled than deaf people and that the only difference is cultural bias.

And not being able to hear is only a disability if that person wants to hear.

See?

You are the one claiming they cannot naturally reproduce.
Sorry about the disability part I mistook you for Skin since you have the same avatar.
Again my apologies for that.

I don't have an avatar lol

With the last couple pages of back and forth on this maybe my original point is now unclear. My point was always that a gay person who is strictly gay can not reproduce without going against the feelings/desires or without medical intervention.

I have a lesbian friend that does have a child, her options were either to go outside the marriage for sex enough times to get knocked up (could take years as we all know, and she's one of those "men are gross" lesbians), or spend a minimum of $10,000 for AI. Also only one of the married couple could be the genetic parent, and at this state in tech nothing can change that (I know they can do F:F fetuses technically but its not available yet, and that's definitely medical intervention required)

That's a disability. She can overcome it (just as a deaf person can overcome barriers), but it was a real barrier caused by her orientation.

Ask yourself this... why does it bother you if being deaf is considered the same as being gay?

Double mistake. Getting a bit tired I guess. I mistook your 'notable poster' achievement for your avatar, Skin has it on the far left just like you.

"My point was always that a gay person who is strictly gay can not reproduce without going against the feelings/desires or without medical intervention." This is true.

"That's a disability." Only in the sense that it hinders her getting a child.
Homosexuality neither makes a person infertile nor does it hinder them in living or being a productive member of society.
My point is that calling homosexuality a disability like blindness is a bit to simple.
It bothers me because blind people cannot see, period. Gay people can still reproduce, even if the process itself might be unwanted.

I'm not saying either is preferable, better or whatever, just that it isn't a valid equation.