ParanoiA

I think you make the best case Dak. But you don't see the subjectivity of your bias in this statement? Who decides it's bad? You think homosexuality is no big deal, and I would agree. It's not bad or good, it just is. But that's our opinion. Why would you then advocate being indifferent when you wouldn't in any other medical condition? Our opinion is irrelevant. Heart disease is common and bad, so that's not a medical condition? It's part of being human, and it's also recommended to be treated. How is heterosexuality a medical condition? How do we define a medical condition? How is a benign tumor any different than heterosexuality? How is pimples different than heterosexuality? Why do we cure anything? If every aspect of the human is a medical condition than how we define "cure"? Seems to me you could reduce a hospital down to a kiosk and a hippy "There is no wrong, man...just different....wow, deep dude..." And turn everyone away to live with their "change" in medical condition. Or is everyone supposed to initiate their own pursuit for a "cure"? Otherwise, you're just passing judgement on everyone's medical conditions when you suggest ANY treatment.

Yes. Isn't that weird? He's kind of hard to talk to though, so I have a hard time reading him. He's almost constantly joking, talking in funny voices, saying strange things trying to be funny that really just come off as awkward and strange. It's hard to get him to just talk straight.

And is it even relevant? Who cares if pimples are normal or not? It's a medical condition is it not? And it's up to the patient to decide whether to treat it or not, despite any recommendations from a doctor. But in all of these comparisons, none of them involve a medical condition that alters the perceptions of the patient. If homosexuality was somehow proven to be a purely medical issue, then we have to admit and understand that the patient's perceptions have been altered by that very condition. So not suggesting treatment, is irresponsible and inconsiderate. And to push our personal views of homosexuality would be overstepping our authority and quite disgraceful. That's why I think you simply advocate treatment of condition, regardless of what any political agendas might be on the table.

I don't know, really. I asked the same question in a different way. Heart disease is common, but is it normal? 1 in 10 sounds normal enough to me. Kind of a premature thought actually, but that's my quick answer so far.

Funny, I didn't understand it until just now... Is he still considering a run for president? Would love to see him debate with Ron Paul. Would be interesting to see Ron deal with Newt's logical approach.

Not abnormal. There are too many lefties to conclude that it's abnormal. And yes, you can make the same case with homosexuality. I don't think homosexuality is abnormal, by the way. However, if it's proven to be a medical condition, then yes, lefties should be suggested the treatment to become right handed. Personally, I would inquire as to how it would benefit me to become right handed, and what I would lose. This is a personal thing. However, it would still make sense to suggest the treatment.

Why would a doctor suggest treatment for pimples? Pimples aren't hurting anybody. Are the doctors trying to make them "normal" when suggesting it? Society has decided that being ugly is a consequence. Why let society judge people with pimples? If you suggest people to treat their pimples, then you're perpetuating the bias and prejudice to pimpled people. After all, they didn't CHOOSE to have pimples. And pimples are part of who they are. And to expand this to include Sayonara's quote: I would compare this to pimply teenagers too. Pimples are a problem with society at large. It's society that decides pimples are bad. Isn't treating them a quick fix to a problem that is not even a problem with the patient?

It may very well be. But, IF it was proven to be a medical condition, then would you call it normal or common? Heart disease is common, but is it normal? If it's proven to be a medical condition I simply think you have to look at it from any medical condition point of view. We usually treat the condition, regardless of it's negative, positive or nil effects. Of course, we weigh this with the side-effects and safety of the treatment, so I would approach this no differently. Often times, it seems it's more dangerous to remove a benign tumor than it is to just leave it there. If the same was to be found with this, I would approach it no differently. It's not me placing a value judgement - I'm just being consistent with what limited knowledge I have on the subject of medical conditions.

Well this ought to be interesting. I wish I could watch this at work, but unfortunately I'll have to wait until I get home tonight. Thanks for sharing this, I'm sure this is going to be great. I appreciate it. Also, while I realize I don't have to answer to anyone here, I feel compelled to shed some of the asshole image I may have created with this thread, so.. I apologized to my son this morning and told him he should be what he wants and that I was out of line to demand him to talk a certain way, even just my house. He shrugged his shoulders and acted like it was no big deal. I guess it's just me taking things way too seriously. But I'll still share this website/video and attempt to show him, convince him, that you should be proud of who you are and you shouldn't - as YT put it - Act Falsely in an overly Pretentious manner, just to fit in.

No, no. I've made it quite clear that recommendation and treatment only follows if it's concluded that it's a medical condition. My arguments are, and have been, consistently, within that context. I think it's ridiculous to act indifferent about one particular medical condition (if that were to be proven), yet clearly suggest a safe treatment for all others. That, in itself, suggests bias.

Yes he does. And that's my favorite line from that song by the way...

Hmm..the link doesn't take me to the documentary. What's the name of it?

No "need", because it doesn't hurt anything. But I'd have a hard time believing a doctor wouldn't suggest it. And that's all I'm saying about a "gay condition". Sure, being Y is just fine, no issues. But you should let Mr. Y know why he is Y, and that he can be adjusted to X, medically - it's only fair. Why is it so terrible to suggest? Are you all thinking that "suggest" implies a lengthy lecture from your doctor about how to conform? Evolution relies on my mom to rollover at 30 weeks and jab a sharp object into her tummy that causes a minor hemorrhage in my embryonic brain that leads to my imbalance? Remember, I said external factors. I would agree, that "you" are the summation of your parts and perhaps any accidents and bumps along the way, but you would ALSO be "you" if we corrected the changes from the accidents and bumps. I could very easily see scientists 200 years from now laughing about how we really thought broken parts were ok, and should be tolerated all PC-like. This seems very wrong to me. No, because lefties are not abnormal. And moreso, no one would be in their right minds...

You're absolutely right. And the kicker seems to be that while I realize my obvious hypocritical logic on this, I still can't make myself feel any different about it. It doesn't seem to matter that I know I did these same kinds of things as a teenager, I can't get my feelings to agree.

Noted. I was kind of joking though, but kind of not. I didn't want to reveal the intensity of my aversion to it, but I'm very honest with my kids. That might be biting me too, actually.

Sure, it's normal to have lungs to breath. It's abnormal not to. It's normal to have one of an array of various skin colors, green not being one of them. It's therefore abnormal to have green skin. What is there to justify? I think it's quite reasonable to suggest "normal", in the context of medicine.

It's not a question of "bad", it's that it's not "you". And I think this is subjective. On the one hand, I get the idea of "you" being the summation of all of your parts, abnormal or otherwise. But I can also see a case for "you" being the intended summation of all of your parts. After all, what caused the anomoly? Did mom drink too much pink lemonade during pregnancy? Some other external factor that slipped by the radar? Are "you" the summation of all of your parts, including unintended accidents and bumps along the way? Evolution didn't plan that...

Only if it's not normal. Our skin colors are different, but that's normal. If someone was born with green skin, wouldn't you suggest it if you could change it to a "normal" color? I still suspect overcompensation on the tolerance thing here...it's practical and responsible, in my mind anyway, to suggest treatment of an abnormal medical condition with all due respect to side effects.

Yep. And those things don't bother me by the way, I was just profiling...

Oh, ok. I get it now. I'm thick sometimes. No, it's not the baggy trousers, it's wearing them half way down your legs, sporting your underwear. But it's really the talk that gets me the most. Hehe..14 going on 21. He wants to drink, smoke, have sex, shoot guns, talk smack... Oh I swear I tried to keep my disgust of this secret - buried deep down, never to rear it's head until he was like 25 or so - because I KNEW this could happen. Yes, he apparently has figured me out quite well...

Dak, I'm not sure you're understanding me. This current deviation in the discussion is based on the hypothetical discovery that homosexuality is the result of a simple chemical imbalance, or some such physiological anomoly. Here's what started it: I make no implications of reality here, I don't have any knowledge in this area to have any. Was just an exercise in "what if"? But, if they are only Y for medical reasons and can be easily converted to X, then don't we have a responsibility to suggest it? Similary, if it turns out that I'm heterosexual because of the classic "chemical imbalance" curable with a prescription, and you guys let me run around my whole life screwing women, knowing full well I'm actually homosexual, that would tick me off. That doesn't sound irresponsible to you?

I never suggested behavior therapy. This "treatment" doesn't even exist - remember this started from supposing we do discover it's a medical condition - so any side-effects would have to be "supposed" as well. If there are side-effects to this hypothetical treatment, then I would just weigh that against the perceived benefit by the patient. Why do you think it would be a good idea not to? Someone has a medical condition, but since the condition is the center of controversy and societal tolerance, we're supposed to exaggerate our "tolerance" by pretending like it shouldn't be bothered with? That seems irresponsible and politically motivated. Your "openness" of homosexuality is irrelevant when considering the well being of others. That's why I keep using the magic word "abnormal". Although it still may be incorrect to use that term, the idea is to see the condition objectively and provide the patient their options. Benign tumors don't need to be corrected either right? But they still share this with the patient and provide options to deal with it. I would think if a benign tumor could be removed, without risk or much risk, then that would be a recommended option, would it not?

Because it wouldn't be racist, but rather ignorant, at best. Also, I meant black. It came from the black culture. Black dialect is also unique to black folks, but not quite the same thing. I'm referring to both things here, the lingo and the dialect rolled into "black talk". Over the years this has morphed I guess, into the white culture. I guess I still see it as most of us did 20 years ago, approximately, when rap hit the mainstream and MTV began telling me how cool it was - it was a black thing. I certainly don't mean to say that all black people talk and act like that. But then, that's a given when using generalizations. I still would say terms like "Yo G-money" are a black thing, whereas "Dude, man..." would be a white thing. Or I could spare everyone the semantics and save time and energy and attribute the characteristics to their originator and obvious identity. However, you're certainly not irresponsible for pointing it out, because I could very well be quietly racist. I don't mean to be, but I would have to admit a certain degree of resistance to pretty much anything the black culture has fed the pop culture mainstream. Of course, that responsibility falls on the followers rather than the leaders. This seems the most reasonable to me. This makes sense to me too. Good post Snail. You know, I always figured he'd go that way. He's deep and complicated and has usually had a pessimistic outlook on things. He certainly didn't get that from me...

Exactly.

And you apparently have never been exposed to the conflict and misery homosexuals often go through to get to that point. To be proud takes strength and humility in a society like ours, and that doesn't come easy. There's a big difference between "recommended" and "expected". I think it should be recommended, but only if we prove that it's an abnormal condition, but only recommended. Like you said, there's no reason to be expected to treat it, it's not causing any harm to anyone so it's like saying "How would you like to wake up and your new favorite color is black and you're favorite music is satanic death metal?" Fair enough. I'm coming at this from the conflicted, confused teenager that has to deal with their sexuality. When you have to consider the stigma placed on you by society, the disgust and resistance by your peers, I would think the prospect of treatment sounds better than the strength, ridicule and independence required to stay gay, proudly. Because, arguably, the person experiencing the condition has no capacity to think of it objectively. Of course I want to stay who I am. Who cares if I think I'm Pippy Longstocking when I'm actually a grown man? Not forced, but I think we have a duty others as reasonable people to say "Hey uh, Joe, your homosexuality is actually an abnormal chemical condition making you think that way. I recommend we correct it and find out who you really are. You don't have to, as it's a benevolent condition, but you should consider the fact that your present psychology is based on abnormal physiology". And let them make up their mind...