A Hypothetical "Gay" Cure

[ParanoiA]

Let's just make this very clear.

Homosexuality is only a mental illness in the most meaningless sense of the word.

Hormone treatments do not change psychological associations.

Got it?

 

Well' date=' wait a minute. Now, don't mistake this for being argumentative because I'm completely ignorant on the subject. But do we know, for a [i']fact[/i], those conclusions you just drew?

 

Man was pretty convinced the earth was flat at one point too, although I'm not sure whether or not it was touted as fact.

 

So, my question is, if it turns out it is a physiological symptom that can be treated, then doesn't that change the whole implication of homosexuality? Would we still insist on allowing gay marriage and teaching tolerance, when we're really talking about a medical condition?

 

 

[Admin edit] This thread was split off from the thread on Gay Marriage.

[Sayonara]

A "symptom" that can be treated implies some sort of harmful condition.

[ParanoiA]

A "symptom" that can be treated implies some sort of harmful condition.

 

Well sure. As harmful as being...ugly. Does being ugly hurt anyone or cause a problem? No. So who wants to be ugly? Anybody? Hello....?

 

I realize there would still be a choice, but if it's truly a medical condition, then wouldn't that be akin to rejecting treatment for the flu? "I have a right to have the flu and you can't judge me or violate my civil liberties!"

 

I don't think it would be the choice people settled on if it did turn out to be a medical issue. Maybe some, and certainly in the beginning - conspiracy stories flying around and such.

[Sayonara]

Well sure. As harmful as being...ugly. Does being ugly hurt anyone or cause a problem? No. So who wants to be ugly? Anybody? Hello....?

Right, so nobody ever self-harmed after years of being bullied about their looks, and cosmetic surgery is just an urban myth. You clearly omit the counter examples that show ugliness is not generally considered desirable.

 

The harmfulness issue aside, people want to be good looking because they perceive it to bring them benefits which they find desirable. The fact that you cannot imagine a gay person having similar wishes is an argument from incredulity.

 

I realize there would still be a choice, but if it's truly a medical condition, then wouldn't that be akin to rejecting treatment for the flu? "I have a right to have the flu and you can't judge me or violate my civil liberties!"

Well, no. Not if the affected person does not perceive their condition to be undesirable, the condition does not have inherently harmful effects, and the condition is not transmissible. Apples and oranges.

 

I don't think it would be the choice people settled on if it did turn out to be a medical issue. Maybe some, and certainly in the beginning - conspiracy stories flying around and such.

If you expect people to take a cure that will fundamentally change who and what they are, you are making the statement that you do not value their right to be. Societies like ours reject this approach.

[insane_alien]

Well sure. As harmful as being...ugly. Does being ugly hurt anyone or cause a problem? No. So who wants to be ugly? Anybody? Hello....?

 

this is the internet, £20 says someone out there has a fetish for it.

 

I realize there would still be a choice, but if it's truly a medical condition, then wouldn't that be akin to rejecting treatment for the flu? "I have a right to have the flu and you can't judge me or violate my civil liberties!"

 

flu is infectious. as far as i am aware, sexual preference is not.

[the tree]

So, my question is, if it turns out it is a physiological symptom that can be treated, then doesn't that change the whole implication of homosexuality?

I'm not at expert on the subject either. But I gather that those who are, are fairly sure that it's psychological. It can be "cured" by Classical Conditioning. You can also cure people from liking rock music by the same means. Does that change the implication of liking rock music?

Also, exactly what Sayo said.

[ParanoiA]

Right, so nobody ever self-harmed after years of being bullied about their looks, and cosmetic surgery is just an urban myth. You clearly omit the counter examples that show ugliness is not generally considered desirable.

 

So nobody ever self-harmed after years of being bulled about their sexual preference? Gay bashing is just a myth? You seem to have missed that homosexuality is not generally considered desirable - it's tolerated and accepted, particularly verbally - but it's still not desirable. I think you had to really want to disagree with me on this, not to see that.

 

The harmfulness issue aside, people want to be good looking because they perceive it to bring them benefits which they find desirable. The fact that you cannot imagine a gay person having similar wishes is an argument from incredulity.

 

And you don't see how a gay person might want to be straight because they perceive it to bring them benefits which they find desirable? Being gay is still tough on people in terms of how society treats them, so you don't think they might want to eliminate that?

 

If you expect people to take a cure that will fundamentally change who and what they are, you are making the statement that you do not value their right to be. Societies like ours reject this approach.

 

I'm not placing value any which way. I don't have any issues with homosexuality and have no problem with gay marriage. What did you read in my post that made you think so?

 

I'm simply predicting that I doubt many people will settle on the choice to stay gay. I think they'll choose the treatment option for the most part. Not so much at first, but ultimately in the end.

 

flu is infectious. as far as i am aware, sexual preference is not.

 

Bad analogy, I guess, but the point should still stand. If it's a physiological condition that's proven to be abnormal - as opposed to simply unique characteristics - then treatment should be recommended, in my opinion. Not forced, not condemned, no burning crosses...just recommended.

 

I shouldn't have to type this paragraph, but I feel like I've got a bull's eye on my back here so allow me to spell it out...

 

If it's proven not to be abnormal, just merely a variance of the human condition, then treatment would likely not be called "treatment" and obviously shouldn't be recommended, but rather reserved for those who simply wish to change.

[YT2095]

I'm not at expert on the subject.....You can also cure people from liking rock music

 

You`re Right, and you`re Soooo wrong! all in one!

[ParanoiA]

I'm not at expert on the subject either. But I gather that those who are, are fairly sure that it's psychological. It can be "cured" by Classical Conditioning. You can also cure people from liking rock music by the same means. Does that change the implication of liking rock music?

Also, exactly what Sayo said.

 

I think you'd have to prove it's abnormal - like a benign tumor or something - in order to justify a "cure" like you're talking about. Otherwise, it's just brainwashing.

 

If it was a case of the overused term "chemical imbalance", then would that be considered abnormal?

 

I think it's important to pinpoint whether or not the condition is proved to be a variance of human evolution, or if it's actually a "mistake" in the blueprint of that particular human.

 

And in either case, I would never propose a forced treatment or whatever. Live and let live is my philosophy.

[Sayonara]

So nobody ever self-harmed after years of being bulled about their sexual preference? Gay bashing is just a myth?

I don't deny this in the least.

 

The difference lies in the fact that whereas being ugly is not desirable to anyone who is ugly, not everyone who is gay perceives it to be a problem. There is a spectrum of responses.

 

You seem to have missed that homosexuality is not generally considered desirable - it's tolerated and accepted, particularly verbally - but it's still not desirable. I think you had to really want to disagree with me on this, not to see that.

Clearly you have never attended a Pride event.

 

And you don't see how a gay person might want to be straight because they perceive it to bring them benefits which they find desirable? Being gay is still tough on people in terms of how society treats them, so you don't think they might want to eliminate that?

Of course I think that there will be many who want to use a treatment. My issue is with the fact that everyone should be expected or recommended to use a treatment regardless of their own wishes, despite the fact that medically speaking there are no known ill effects associated with being gay that are not also associated with being straight.

 

I'm not placing value any which way. I don't have any issues with homosexuality and have no problem with gay marriage. What did you read in my post that made you think so?

When I said "you" I really meant anyone. I should have said "one".

 

I'm simply predicting that I doubt many people will settle on the choice to stay gay. I think they'll choose the treatment option for the most part. Not so much at first, but ultimately in the end.

I am simply stating why I think your prediction is perhaps premature.

 

Bad analogy, I guess, but the point should still stand. If it's a physiological condition that's proven to be abnormal - as opposed to simply unique characteristics - then treatment should be recommended, in my opinion. Not forced, not condemned, no burning crosses...just recommended.

Why does it even need to be "recommended"? Why can it not simply be THERE, on a subscriber basis? It's not like society has any need to rid itself of homosexuality.

 

If it's proven not to be abnormal, just merely a variance of the human condition, then treatment would likely not be called "treatment" and obviously shouldn't be recommended, but rather reserved for those who simply wish to change.

Aren't there quite a few states that we consider to be abnormal, and could treat, but don't?

[the tree]

You`re Right, and you`re Soooo wrong! all in one!

O.k. come to think of it, I'm not sure I actually have heard of Classical Conditioning being applied to musical taste, that was somewhat of a hyperbole. It can be applied to lots of things though, including sexual preference.

[the tree]

I think you'd have to prove it's abnormal - like a benign tumor or something - in order to justify a "cure" like you're talking about. Otherwise, it's just brainwashing.

Abnormal just means not normal, it doesn't mean good or bad or anything like that. Homosexuality is to do with the right response matching the wrong stimulus, what causes it is unknown, but really, it's only a negative condition if you say it is.

 

And yes, brainwashing is exactly Classical Conditioning is.

[YT2095]

O.k. come to think of it, I'm not sure I actually have heard of Classical Conditioning being applied to musical taste, that was somewhat of a hyperbole. It can be applied to lots of things though, including sexual preference.

 

no way, not with Rock, it can`t happen, it`s Hardwired into your skull and bones and Everything!

 

watched the SuperBowl, never seen the Hyper one tho

 

seriously now, don`t you think you`re sticking your neck out a little TOO far here, I`m so surprised you`ve gotten away with half of what you`ve said already

[ParanoiA]

Clearly you have never attended a Pride event.

 

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.

 

Of course I think that there will be many who want to use a treatment. My issue is with the fact that everyone should be expected or recommended to use a treatment regardless of their own wishes, despite the fact that medically speaking there are no known ill effects associated with being gay that are not also associated with being straight.

 

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?"

 

I am simply stating why I think your prediction is perhaps premature.

 

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.

 

Why does it even need to be "recommended"? Why can it not simply be THERE, on a subscriber basis? It's not like society has any need to rid itself of homosexuality.

 

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...

[ParanoiA]

Abnormal just means not normal, it doesn't mean good or bad or anything like that. Homosexuality is to do with the right response matching the wrong stimulus, what causes it is unknown, but really, it's only a negative condition if you say it is.

 

Exactly.

[YT2095]

"How would you like to wake up and your new favorite color is black and you're favorite music is satanic death metal?"

 

what like a normal day you mean?

[the tree]

Getting treatment for something that isn't a problem, don't you think that might be a slightly bad idea? All treatments have negative side-effects, which is why doctors don't write prescriptions on a whim.

Therapy to come to terms with homosexuality involves a lot less screwing with the mind than behavioral therapy to change it, so why would you suggest the latter?

[Dak]

"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".

 

you're getting too confused between 'abnormal' and 'wrong' (as the tree already pointed out). people don't start off 'normal' and then deviate from that by 'conditions', they start off generally normal with some abnormalities, and that's who they are.

 

homosexuality is abnormal (simple statistics. its not normal). sexual prefference is psychological. so, yeah, homosexuality is 'an abnormal psychological condition'

 

left-handedness is, by the same criteria, 'an abnormal developmental condition'. neither needs curing. who joe is is gay joe, not 'strait joe who is being made gay by abnormal psychology', for the simple reason that gay joe wasn't strait joe in the first place, any more than, if most people were gay, you'd be 'ass bandit paranoia, who's being made strait by brain chemicals and should get cured to find out who he really is ('really' meaning 'under the influence of mind-altering drugs', apparently).

 

people don't need to be x because x is common if y is a viable alternative, and they happen to be y.

[ParanoiA]

Getting treatment for something that isn't a problem, don't you think that might be a slightly bad idea? All treatments have negative side-effects, which is why doctors don't write prescriptions on a whim.

Therapy to come to terms with homosexuality involves a lot less screwing with the mind than behavioral therapy to change it, so why would you suggest the latter?

 

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?

[ParanoiA]

you're getting too confused between 'abnormal' and 'wrong' (as the tree already pointed out). people don't start off 'normal' and then deviate from that by 'conditions', they start off generally normal with some abnormalities, and that's who they are.

 

homosexuality is abnormal (simple statistics. its not normal). sexual prefference is psychological. so, yeah, homosexuality is 'an abnormal psychological condition'

 

left-handedness is, by the same criteria, 'an abnormal developmental condition'. neither needs curing. who joe is is gay joe, not 'strait joe who is being made gay by abnormal psychology', for the simple reason that gay joe wasn't strait joe in the first place, any more than, if most people were gay, you'd be 'ass bandit paranoia, who's being made strait by brain chemicals and should get cured to find out who he really is ('really' meaning 'under the influence of mind-altering drugs', apparently).

 

people don't need to be x because x is common if y is a viable alternative, and they happen to be y.

 

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:

 

Well' date=' wait a minute. Now, don't mistake this for being argumentative because I'm completely ignorant on the subject. But do we know, for a [i']fact[/i], those conclusions you just drew?

 

Man was pretty convinced the earth was flat at one point too, although I'm not sure whether or not it was touted as fact.

 

So, my question is, if it turns out it is a physiological symptom that can be treated, then doesn't that change the whole implication of homosexuality? Would we still insist on allowing gay marriage and teaching tolerance, when we're really talking about a medical condition?

 

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"?

 

people don't need to be x because x is common if y is a viable alternative, and they happen to be y.

 

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?

[the tree]

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?

No. You can artificially change peoples skin colour so that everyone looks Saxon, but would you suggest that?

[Dak]

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:

 

no, it absolutely, definately, 100% is the result of an anomoly, chemical or otherwize. the bit i'm not getting is where that's bad

 

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?

 

no

 

not unless theres actually a reason to change (other than conformity)

 

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?

 

no, because if you have that chemical imbalance, then your not actually homosexual -- you are heterosexual. unless you particularly wanted it, i wouldn't dream of suggesting you change your chemical balance to alter your natural sexuality, on account of the fact that homosexuality isn't better than heterosexuality, so you've no actual reason to change your natural sexuality.

[ParanoiA]

No. You can artificially change peoples skin colour so that everyone looks Saxon, but would you suggest 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.

[the tree]

Only if it's not normal. Our skin colors are different, but that's normal.

O.k. you read that again yourself, think about it.

[Dak]

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.

 

this is based on the assumption that we should all be 'normal'. can you justify that?