A Hypothetical "Gay" Cure

[ParanoiA]

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

 

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...

[ParanoiA]

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

 

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.

[Dak]

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.

 

what is that case?

 

what you could have been, were 'supposed to have been', etc, is kinda irrelevent to who you are. if you found out you were XX, and the sex-determining-region had accidentally been copied from your fathers Y-chromosome to one of the X chromosomes you got, would that mean you 'should' have been female, and we should reccomend a sex-change?

 

anyway, theres no 'intent' that you be normal in every way. don't forget, we're designed to make mistakes when replicating, so having a few abnormalities is intentinal and normal. not that i particularly think that matters.

 

not, for that matter, that you were supposed to be strait. a chain of events resulted in you being so; a chain of events in others resulted in them not being so. wether the difference was genetic or due to lemonate is rather moot.

 

Are "you" the summation of all of your parts, including unintended accidents and bumps along the way? Evolution didn't plan that...

 

evolution kinda relies on that happening

 

 

 

Sure, it's normal to have lungs to breath. It's abnormal not to.

 

it is abnormal and bad to have no lungs, so no-lungs should be fixed

 

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.

 

green skin is abnormal but not bad, so theres no specific need to 'fix' the greeness

 

What is there to justify? I think it's quite reasonable to suggest "normal", in the context of medicine.

 

no, arbritrarily altering someones natural condition to make them conform to the average trait is pointless. would you suggest altering lefties to be right handed?

[ParanoiA]

green skin is abnormal but not bad, so theres no specific need to 'fix' the greeness

 

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 kinda relies on that happening

 

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, arbritrarily altering someones natural condition to make them conform to the average trait is pointless. would you suggest altering lefties to be right handed?

 

No, because lefties are not abnormal. And moreso, no one would be in their right minds...

[Pangloss]

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

 

Well the thing is, one likes to believe in the freedom of music. But glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.

 

(yeah)

 

(Hey is it just me or does YT look a bit like Geddy Lee?!)

[ParanoiA]

Well the thing is, one likes to believe in the freedom of music. But glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.

 

(yeah)

 

(Hey is it just me or does YT look a bit like Geddy Lee?!)

 

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

[Sayonara]

And you apparently have never been exposed to the conflict and misery homosexuals often go through to get to that point.

You are having a laugh, right?

 

To be proud takes strength and humility in a society like ours, and that doesn't come easy.

It doesn't come at all when some bright spark says "hey kids, don't worry about going through these tough times to come out stronger on the other side and confident in yourself. Take a pill instead!"

 

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.

The difference between "abnormal" and "wrong" has been covered extensively already, so I will leave this one.

 

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?"

Granted, but that can be done as a casual query without any investment in the result, whereas a recommendation implies that one believes one is "improving" the patient in some way, or bringing them closer to one's own ideal.

 

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.

Doesn't that strike you as being a quick fix to a problem that is not even a problem with your hypothetical "patient", but a problem with society at large?

 

Consider that examples of what you are proposing already exist. Take, for example, the minors who somehow convince their (presumably mad) parents that they will just DIE if they don't get surgically enhanced boobies.

 

Because, arguably, the person experiencing the condition has no capacity to think of it objectively.

I don't see any objective reason for "curing" gay people, so I am not sure that is really a good argument. Also I find it offensive that you would even say that, quite frankly. Talk about broad sweeps of the brush. I mean, I can see where you are going with it, but you really are swinging back towards the Victorian "mental disorder" way of delivering the message

 

 

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...

I would favour this approach provided that:

1) It came with no expectations whatsoever, and

2) No value judgements were made or even implied in the circulation of this information.

[ParanoiA]

Doesn't that strike you as being a quick fix to a problem that is not even a problem with your hypothetical "patient"' date=' but a problem with society at large?

 

Consider that examples of what you are proposing already exist. Take, for example, the minors who somehow convince their (presumably mad) parents that they will just DIE if they don't get surgically enhanced boobies.[/quote']

 

But that's for them to decide. You're placing a value judgement too, as in it has none. How dare you judge whether or not it should be considered a problem by your patient.

 

Homosexuality is a very divisive subject with many perspectives - so where do you receive the credentials to decide which perspective they should adopt? Because that's what you're doing when you decide for them, that homosexuality is not a problem.

 

I don't see any objective reason for "curing" gay people, so I am not sure that is really a good argument. Also I find it offensive that you would even say that, quite frankly.

 

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.

[the tree]

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.

So it's not normal to have one of an array of sexual preferences?

[Dak]

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?

 

I'm objecting to the suggestion that they should. figuring out how to, and telling them that they can, is fine. suggesting that they should do so is, imo, wrong. I always balk at suggestions that people should become 'normal', as if anormalicy is wrong by dint of being uncommon.

 

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.

 

it's nothing to do with pc, its to do with the fact that gay people aren't incorrect, even if it's due to part of them being 'broken'.

 

No, because lefties are not abnormal. And moreso, no one would be in their right minds...

 

heh.

 

being left handed is abnormal. normal people are right handed. if you are left-handed, then, you are abnormal.

[ParanoiA]

So it's not normal to have one of an array of sexual preferences?

 

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.

[ParanoiA]

I'm objecting to the suggestion that they should. figuring out how to, and telling them that they can, is fine. suggesting that they should do so is, imo, wrong. I always balk at suggestions that people should become 'normal', as if anormalicy is wrong by dint of being uncommon.

 

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:

 

Doesn't that strike you as being a quick fix to a problem that is not even a problem with your hypothetical "patient", but a problem with society at large?

 

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?

[ParanoiA]

being left handed is abnormal. normal people are right handed. if you are left-handed, then, you are abnormal.

 

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.

[Phi for All]

Not abnormal. There are too many lefties to conclude that it's abnormal.

About 1 in 10 people are left-handed. What is normal? If 1 in 10 people carried a concealed weapon would you say it was normal for people to carry a concealed weapon?

[ParanoiA]

About 1 in 10 people are left-handed. What is normal? If 1 in 10 people carried a concealed weapon would you say it was normal for people to carry a concealed weapon?

 

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.

[YT2095]

I think the lines are being confused here between Normal and Representative.

[Phi for All]

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.

I know what you mean. Carrying a weapon was a vivid example. If 1 in 10 people carried some kind of good luck charm we'd probably say it was normal.

[ParanoiA]

I think the lines are being confused here between Normal and Representative.

 

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.

[YT2095]

Yes, it is important, the distinction Needs making.

else face the inevitable foot-in-the-door for potential Strawman arguments.

 

Apples/Oranges + early acceptance = Later strawmanning!

[Dak]

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.

 

1-10% homosexuality, 8-15% left-handed (from wiki), both are abnormal, and neither needs fixing just because of that.

 

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.

 

you seem to be thinking that something is bad because it's a medical condition, whereas it's the other way round.

 

if something is abnormal and bad, then it's a medical condition. if somethings common and bad, it's just a fact of being human. if something is just abnormal, then it's just an abnormality.

 

compare paedo and homosexuality, both similar 'conditions', as they're sexual preferences. paedo is a 'medical condition' because it's rare and bad. homosexuality is not a medical condition because it's just rare.

 

unless you're taking 'medical condition' to mean 'condition caused by biology/chemicals', in which case heterosexuality would be just as much a condition. the default, in the abscence of any hormones/chemicals/whatever, would presumably be asexual.

 

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

 

no, the patients perceptions would be the way that they are because of that condition. like i said, gay joe isn't strait joe who's being forsed to be gay by a condition; he's gay joe.

 

also, being heterosexual is a condition; you just don't think of it like that because its the common one.

[ParanoiA]

I think you make the best case Dak.

 

But you don't see the subjectivity of your bias in this statement?

 

if something is abnormal and bad, then it's a medical condition. if somethings common and bad, it's just a fact of being human. if something is just abnormal, then it's just an abnormality.

 

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.

[mooeypoo]

I made a youtube video about this issue, actually.

 

 

Insanity is poorly defined as it is. What IS insanity? If it's 'not normal' then you need to define "normal". If it's a brain problem, you need to define what a PROBLEM in the brain is.

 

I think homosexuality can be described as insanity only if any other sexual affinity (blondes? younger women/men, etc) is. I also think it's irrelevant. Homosexuality hurts NO ONE.. Declaring it as insanity is only opening a can of worms politically, and requires examining all other social and sexual behaviors. Everyone has different "insanities" in them is homosexuality is being insane.

 

 

Beyond that, homosexuality is not hormonal, it's genetic. The debate of 'nature vs nurture' goes on, but leans towards genetic; regardless, it's definitely not hormonal. It's not 'insanity' and there are no "drugs" to "cure" it. Homosexuality is not a disease, it's a lifestyle choice, and it's none of YOUR business; you don't have to LIKE it.

 

 

~moo

[Dak]

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.

 

sort of. but, that was sort of my point: if it's not bad, then it's not bad... iow, if it aint broke, don't fix it (or reccomend that it should be). things aren't generally considered medical conditions unless they're bad.

 

unless it can be shown that homosexuality is actually bad, then there shouldn't be a suggestion that it be fixed. pimples aren't bad, but people often care about having pimples enough to make them a problem... so, i suppose, if someone cares about being gay enough to make it a problem, then treatment should be reccomended (in both cases i'd slap 'em and tell 'em to deal with it, but that's just me).

 

and, even if they do cause themselves to have a problem with it by caring too much, a pimply fag is not 'supposed' to be a clear-skinned heterosexual, who's been hijacked by a condition. he just is a pimply fag. untill he gets medically altered, i suppose, in which case there'd be just as little point in saying he's supposed to be a pimply fag.

 

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.

 

yes, ok good point. but when you consider, say, that peoples brains stop working after 18 hours... that's what i'd call a design flaw, but it's not a 'medical condition' (even tho it's blatantly neurological/chemical based) 'cos of how common it is. many birds don't need to rest their brains, so it's not unavoidable as such.

 

yet, if you have to rest your brain every 10 hours, then that's a medical condition, because it's not only bad, but rare.

 

i guess my definition of medical condition sucked. i was just trying to get across that 'medical condition' != something chemical/phisiological and abnormal. in fact, your point is quite useful: some things like cancer are quite common (1/3 people get cancer), but because they're bad, they're conditions without even being that abnormal (tho i suppose 'having cancer/heart problems' is an abnormal state for any given person). homosexuality is abnormal, but ok, so it's not a medical condition. some element of 'badness' is required to be a condition that requires treatment, although we'll overlook too common flaws as just part of being human.

 

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?

 

chemicals, psychology, neurology, etc, all contribute to one's sexuality, wether it's gay or strait. i just meant that if gayness is caused by chemicals... then so is heterosexuality. so, just being caused by the balance of chemicals you have doesn't qualify something as a medical condition; or, if it does, then heterosexuality is a condition, too.

[Dak]

Beyond that, homosexuality is not hormonal, it's genetic. The debate of 'nature vs nurture' goes on, but leans towards genetic; regardless, it's definitely not hormonal.

 

do you know how the genes manifest themselves? is it developmental, chemical, or unknown?

 

i thought developmental was the main suspect, even over genetic...

[mooeypoo]

Actually, as far as I know it's a mixture of both genetic and social. I need to re-find the documents, and I promise I will soon (have a few homework.. but i will try to do it after).

 

In any case, it's not HORMONAL. It may be more leaneant to developmental ("nurture") but not hormonal.

 

There are also not IDENTIFIED genes for homosexuality.

 

~moo