A Hypothetical "Gay" Cure

[gcol]

Ah, but some researchers are "bending over backwards" in their desperate search for one. Try Googling Hamer Gay Gene for example. If one is found, instead of proclaiming proud to be gay, will the slogan be "I have the gene, so I cant help it, evolution says so".

[ParanoiA]

unless it can be shown that homosexuality is actually bad, then there shouldn't be a suggestion that it be fixed.

 

And that's pretty much been my point all along, or at least my arguments have been generated from that assumption - although I didn't want to use the word "bad" because you get into the same subjectivity as "good", obviously and no one can define that for everyone. Not that "abnormal" was any better...

 

Anyway, fun discussion about something that will likely never be in the first place. I still think there is an element of judgement being passed by the overcompensating tolerance crowd, but perhaps that's unavoidable.

 

Maybe a happy medium is to understand that medical professionals are people and when you enlist their service you understand their opinions on other matters than medical will peripherally enter the picture - so you keep that in mind when you're choosing your doctor.

[mooeypoo]

Ah, but some researchers are "bending over backwards" in their desperate search for one. Try Googling Hamer Gay Gene for example. If one is found, instead of proclaiming proud to be gay, will the slogan be "I have the gene, so I cant help it, evolution says so".

 

Actually it may be worse than that.. parents may ask Gene Therapy for their unaccepted son/daughter.

 

In any case, these things need to be defined. If homosexuality is a disease that is in need to be cured, then our line is stretched farther than we may want it to... many other things would be considered diseases. Any in any case, even if it IS a genetic "condition" that CAN be changed -- do we really have a business to? Do we really WANT to? It harms no one, and is something that defines a person's personality, like a whole lot of other traits that may well have a genetic application as well..

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

Would you deny others the right to change their genetic condition?

[mooeypoo]

No, I guess not, if it is proven STRICTLY genetic, then they have the right to do what they please. The question is - how far would you let this go? Would you let someone change their genetic tendencies to anything else?

 

How 'bout you allow people to play around with genes to make their kids have tendency to be atheletes instead of 'nerds'? or tendencies to like blondes? older women? how 'bout to change someone's genes from being black to being caucasian?

 

The point is that these "tendencies" - genetic or social - are harmless. Genetic evolution or Social evolution, they're part of our society, and they are HARMLESS, and define people's characteristics. The only reason people SUFFER for being gay is because our society is not fully accepting it. It used to not accept african-americans either, remember?

 

Would you suggest people change their genes to become white because being african-americans means they suffer, or would you suggest changing the social background that MAKE them suffer..?

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

No, I guess not, if it is proven STRICTLY genetic, then they have the right to do what they please. The question is - how far would you let this go? Would you let someone change their genetic tendencies to anything else?

 

As far as they want, as long as it's theirs to change. I would also consider children under their parent's jurisdiction, so could change them however they want. Any and all tendencies as long as the change causes no harm to others - like creating a child that emits gamma rays is probably not a good idea.

 

The point is that these "tendencies" - genetic or social - are harmless. Genetic evolution or Social evolution, they're part of our society, and they are HARMLESS, and define people's characteristics. The only reason people SUFFER for being gay is because our society is not fully accepting it. It used to not accept african-americans either, remember?

 

But people have a right to be racist and homophobic. If they choose to put their beliefs into action and alter their genes and their children's genes based on their racist views, so be it.

 

Would you suggest people change their genes to become white because being african-americans means they suffer, or would you suggest changing the social background that MAKE them suffer..?

 

I would suggest they do what makes them happy. If they want my opinion, I would just be who you are and society can kiss my ass if they don't like it. I'm not a big believer in changing yourself to make society happy. But I also don't force my tolerance on other people either, that would be intolerant.

[mooeypoo]

As far as they want, as long as it's theirs to change. I would also consider children under their parent's jurisdiction, so could change them however they want. Any and all tendencies as long as the change causes no harm to others - like creating a child that emits gamma rays is probably not a good idea.

Yes, look at Michael Jackson..

 

I don't disagree with the right of a person to do it to HIMSELF. But what would you do with parents who - in advance - want to "prevent" their child from becoming whatever..? Or parents who want to change their own minor son/daughter because they don't like his/her lifestyle choices or skincolor?

 

 

But people have a right to be racist and homophobic. If they choose to put their beliefs into action and alter their genes and their children's genes based on their racist views, so be it.

The fact they have a RIGHT to does not mean we shouldn't try to change it socially...

 

 

I would suggest they do what makes them happy. If they want my opinion, I would just be who you are and society can kiss my ass if they don't like it. I'm not a big believer in changing yourself to make society happy. But I also don't force my tolerance on other people either, that would be intolerant.

Again.. it all depends who makes the decision and how far it goes. Obviously we're discussing something htat's FAR from being realistic, and I'm quite happy about that, to be honest, but regardless, for the sake of the argument, I do believe this opens a lot more troubles than good; parents have a right over their MINOR children; would you support parents taking their gay son to a clinic to have gene therapy and change him? how 'bout changing their black adopted son to a white son?

 

Having the RIGHT to does not mean we should consider it ethical, OR that we should accept it and do nothing. We could state that since it's racism and homophobia, and that they're both wrong, we would like to eliminate them using education.

 

We did it (well.. mostly.. and still trying to) with racism (african americans and minorities) and with women acceptance into workplace. Parents have a RIGHT to, but is it ethical to do it?

 

Shouldn't we change these social opinions?

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

I don't disagree with the right of a person to do it to HIMSELF. But what would you do with parents who - in advance - want to "prevent" their child from becoming whatever..? Or parents who want to change their own minor son/daughter because they don't like his/her lifestyle choices or skincolor?

 

You don't do anything. Tolerance isn't a FACT, it's an opinion. An opinion that you and I believe very strongly in, but can't prove that it's correct. We have no right to force others to be tolerant - only enough so that they don't violate the civil rights of others.

 

People already teach their children hatred. Why is the KKK still around?

 

The fact they have a RIGHT to does not mean we shouldn't try to change it socially...

 

Absolutely. In fact, we may even have a duty to do so.

 

would you support parents taking their gay son to a clinic to have gene therapy and change him? how 'bout changing their black adopted son to a white son?

 

Good questions. I'm not sure.

 

We could state that since it's racism and homophobia, and that they're both wrong, we would like to eliminate them using education.

 

But that's still an opinion. You can't prove that racism is wrong or homophobia is wrong. In-group / out-group psychology has a purpose. Most of us believe it's presence in racism and intolerance to alternative lifestyles is merely a by-product, for lack of a better phrase, but for all we know the psychological override we call tolerance could be our doom.

 

Obviously, I don't believe that, but I can't prove anything either. This is tantamount to believing in god, but not forcing it on others. I appreciate people like that. So, I try practice the same thing with tolerance.

 

By the way, I love the quote in your signature...

[Sayonara]

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.

I am making no such judgement.

 

I am making the observation that it is only a real problem for anyone because society occasionally says this is so.

 

Homosexuality is a very divisive subject with many perspectives - so where do you receive the credentials to decide which perspective they should adopt?

Allegations of judgements notwithstanding, my "credentials" for this discussion come from personal experience, observation, getting involved with the community, and a great deal of research.

Perhaps you would care to share your own "credentials", seeing as we now apparently can't discuss this in a civil manner without them.

 

Because that's what you're doing when you decide for them, that homosexuality is not a problem.

As I said, I made no such decisiom. Stop chucking red herrings about the place.

 

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.

Noted, but the issue still exists that the recommendation to "fix" something which might not be perceived as problematic by the patient (or, indeed by anyone else) requires justification.

 

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.

On the other hand, as has been mentioned by pretty much everyone else in the thread, it might simply suggest a lack of incentive.

 

Again, if homosexuality is shown to be a medical condition, why does it need curing?

[mooeypoo]

If someone is unhappy with himself, he has a right to change himself, regardless of WHAT it is he's changing: Hair color, Eye color, Limb Length, Skin Color, or sexual affinity.

 

If it's POSSIBLE to change and safe to, the individual has a RIGHT to.

 

The thing is, however, that we should make sure a person choses to change whatever he wants to change because this is what he *wants* and not because this is what society declares - arbitrarily - as a non-accepted issue.

 

You want to change your skin color? Go right ahead, but if you do that because society says black people are sick, diseased, or "lower" socially and mentally than "whites" then that decision is coming from the wrong reason, regardless what it is you want to change.

 

Also, these type of declarations (that certain things are 'diseases' or 'mental problems' or whatever) opens the ground for SOCIAL decisions: the elimination - in advance - of these type of behaviors or genetic affinities.

 

We try to make sure we do not bear genetically flawed children that will suffer in their life during pregnancies. If we declare something as a genetic PROBLEM, we need to be prepared for the possibility our society nips the bud before birth. Would you be prepared for that? Is it ETHICAL to do that?

 

There's a difference between someone making a PERSONAL decision about himself, and society just decides to eliminate certain types of genetic conditions.

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

I agree mooeypoo.

[ParanoiA]

Homosexuality is a very divisive subject with many perspectives - so where do you receive the credentials to decide which perspective they should adopt?

Allegations of judgements notwithstanding' date=' my "credentials" for this discussion come from personal experience, observation, getting involved with the community, and a great deal of research.

Perhaps you would care to share your own "credentials", seeing as we now apparently can't discuss this in a civil manner without them.[/quote']

 

Wow. You have decided since you're really smart that you should be able to decide what other's value judgements should be?? No, I don't see any civil manners present in that attitude.

 

Because that's what you're doing when you decide for them' date=' that homosexuality is not a problem.[/quote'']As I said, I made no such decisiom. Stop chucking red herrings about the place.

 

Oh my, that's no red herring, that's the heart of the issue. If you say that treating a medical condition should not be suggested, then you are obviously placing a value judgement on that condition just as much as not suggesting it. You have decided, for them, that homosexuality is not an issue, and therefore should not be suggested to treat.

 

I was saying that because of that obvious bias, instead just be consistent. If you're going to suggest treatment for medical condition A, then you suggest treatment for medical condition B - assuming, of course, there is parity in treatment safety / outcome.

 

The thing is, however, that we should make sure a person choses to change whatever he wants to change because this is what he *wants* and not because this is what society declares - arbitrarily - as a non-accepted issue.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. No one should have an obligation to anyone else about why they want to change anything about themselves. It's none of your business why. And really, how do we change anything about our physical appearance without it being a reverance to society's expectations?

 

On the other hand, if you're trying to say that "society" shouldn't be allowed to force what changes a person makes, well then yeah, of course. There are few that would argue in favor of Hitler's great white, blond haired, blue eyed society. Again, freedom is the theme here.

 

You want to change your skin color? Go right ahead, but if you do that because society says black people are sick, diseased, or "lower" socially and mentally than "whites" then that decision is coming from the wrong reason, regardless what it is you want to change.

 

I agree entirely. I would never do it.

 

We try to make sure we do not bear genetically flawed children that will suffer in their life during pregnancies. If we declare something as a genetic PROBLEM, we need to be prepared for the possibility our society nips the bud before birth. Would you be prepared for that? Is it ETHICAL to do that?

 

I don't know, depends on how we define "problem". Sounds like another juicy moral discussion...

 

There's a difference between someone making a PERSONAL decision about himself, and society just decides to eliminate certain types of genetic conditions.

 

No kidding. It could get really ugly. Just goes to show that no matter how advanced we get, we will probably always be playing tug-a-war with morality and ethics. That's one of the reasons I like humans...

[Sayonara]

Wow. You have decided since you're really smart that you should be able to decide what other's value judgements should be??

Clearly not. You asked me to provide my "credentials" and I did so. I have already made the distinction between judgement and observation, and I cannot help it if you have no rational response.

 

No, I don't see any civil manners present in that attitude.

Ad hom me again, and I will ban you from this site for a month.

 

Oh my, that's no red herring, that's the heart of the issue. If you say that treating a medical condition should not be suggested, then you are obviously placing a value judgement on that condition just as much as not suggesting it.

"Suggest" is not the same as "recommend". Stop moving the goalposts and deal with the issues that have been raised.

 

You have decided, for them, that homosexuality is not an issue, and therefore should not be suggested to treat.

Quite clearly I have "decided" no such thing.

 

Incidentally, that "for them" in there is symptomatic of the reason you are not reading me correctly.

 

I was saying that because of that obvious bias, instead just be consistent. If you're going to suggest treatment for medical condition A, then you suggest treatment for medical condition B - assuming, of course, there is parity in treatment safety / outcome.

I am all in favour of a consistent approach in medical treatment, but since I am not the one proposing the public delivery of a new medical treatment my arguments are not required to accommodate that as an issue.

 

For all this yelling, the current problem remains the same: other than labelling homosexuality a "medical condition", how do we justify the perceived necessity (if you like) of any given hypothetical cure?

 

I would appreciate it if we could move this thread on towards answering that question in a positive fashion.

[mooeypoo]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. No one should have an obligation to anyone else about why they want to change anything about themselves. It's none of your business why. And really, how do we change anything about our physical appearance without it being a reverance to society's expectations?

 

I'm saying that we have an obligation to make sure society is TOLERANT to accept everything that is not harming anyone. A personal right to change a PERSONAL attribute is one thing. A social taboo over arbitrary issues is unethical and wrong, and we should learn that from history.

 

I'm not saying that we should interrogate someone's reasons for change. I'm saying that we should make sure society is tolerant so that a person changes himself because that's what he really WANTS, and not to avoid social racism or taboo.

 

It's our RESPONSIBILITY as a society to create tolerant society. Think about it this way: If a black person wants to become white, I see no problem with the individual himself, or his decision, regardless of WHY he wants to change himself.

I do see a problem with SOCIETY, however, if that person decides to "become white" because in that society black people are considered sub-race, or lesser individuals, or a social taboo. The person himself has a right. Society SHOULDN'T.

 

You want to change your skin color? Go right ahead' date=' but if you do that because society says black people are sick, diseased, or "lower" socially and mentally than "whites" then that decision is coming from the wrong reason, regardless what it is you want to change.[/quote']

 

I agree entirely. I would never do it.

I don't believe it's about the "I".. it's about the "us". Society. We're talking about decisions to declare something or decide something SOCIALLY. Not individually.. social decisions are a whole different subject than just what YOU would or wouldn't do. That's my point.

 

I don't know, depends on how we define "problem". Sounds like another juicy moral discussion...

I agree, it would be a very interesting discussion.

 

I also think we should consider evolutionary process. If homosexuality IS genetic, and it exists for such a long time, then perhaps it isn't such a "problem" at all. The only reason we consider genetic conditions as a problem is when they HURT people.

 

Homosexuality HURTS no one, other than their preset dogmas. And if we go by preset dogmas, then let's eliminate science altogether, since it rejects the idea of the biggest preset dogma ever: creationism.

 

No kidding. It could get really ugly. Just goes to show that no matter how advanced we get, we will probably always be playing tug-a-war with morality and ethics. That's one of the reasons I like humans...

Yes, I agree, and I also think that the mere DISCUSSION about ethics is the most important thing to keep humanity attempting to remain/improve ethics.

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

Sayonara

 

Clearly not. You asked me to provide my "credentials" and I did so. I have already made the distinction between judgement and observation, and I cannot help it if you have no rational response.

 

Ok, we're misunderstanding each other. Yes, I used "credentials", but the point is about what you DO with those credentials - I said, "so where do you receive the credentials to decide which perspective they should adopt?"

 

Ie..where do you get the authority to decide they shouldn't consider homosexuality a "problem"? It's a weird question, I know, but it's logically valid. By not suggesting, you are also passing a value judgement on whether or not this person should consider homosexuality a "problem".

 

Quite clearly I have "decided" no such thing.

 

But you have though if you are arguing in favor of not suggesting treatment for a medical condition. Just because that medical condition has controversial implications is no reason to bow to society and make exception for biased reasons - we don't care what society thinks. Right?

 

Anyway, it can't be a medical condition really, or else heterosexuality is a medical condition and so we're actually closer to a logical agreement. We've already moved past this. I'm sorry you took it personally, seriously, I didn't mean to offend anyone.

 

Incidentally, this thread is on Gay Marriage, which I fully support. I don't think anyone should be spared the miserable shackles and trials of marriage. I don't see how government has any power to say a single thing about the marriage of anyone to anyone, nor to any beast, or object for that matter.

[Sayonara]

You are right, we are misunderstanding each other. You have just highlighted that very well with "if you are arguing in favor of not suggesting treatment for a medical condition...".

 

I am not arguing against suggesting/recommending such a treatment. I am opposing your arguments for it because I am not convinced they are terribly good as they stand.

 

This 'drawing out' of more sophisticated explanations happens a lot on SFN, you must have noticed?

 

Also, I am not arguing that nobody will find their sexual preference to be a problem, but I am sounding the note of caution that you may have severely overestimated the numbers of people who find it problematic (in their own words, not those of their family, ministers, etc), and this could lead to recommendations blowing up in your face.

 

Again, I have no problem with this hypothetical cure being available for anyone who wants to use it. After all, a society that treasures diversity by necessity must respect the right of the individual to make their own choices. The one question I have had throughout this whole discussion is "why is any such recommendation necessary?", and iirc there has been no attempt to supply an answer.

 

I will split this off to a new thread I think, because it is way off topic but also jolly interesting.

[Dak]

"so where do you receive the credentials to decide which perspective they should adopt?"

 

Ie..where do you get the authority to decide they shouldn't consider homosexuality a "problem"? It's a weird question, I know, but it's logically valid. By not suggesting, you are also passing a value judgement on whether or not this person should consider homosexuality a "problem".

 

'should not reccomend a treatment' != 'should reccomend no treatment'. your argument above actually supports sayo's stance; rather than implying that gays should/should not get treated, you should abstain from reccomendations and let them make up their own mind.

 

Anyway, it can't be a medical condition really, or else heterosexuality is a medical condition and so we're actually closer to a logical agreement.

 

just to stir up the hornets nest -- if that's the case, then what about paedo, besiality, incest etc? are they not medical conditions, otherwize heterosexuality would be too? does that mean they can't/shouldn't be cured?

[Realitycheck]

The one most significant issue I have is its effect on kids. While there might not be anything wrong with homosexuality in a physical sense, it should be pretty much of a given that, in the mainstream, it is still an extreme deviation from the norm for acceptable behavior, which is part of life, adhering to society's customs and norms.

 

For a while, I would pass by this billboard for a gay chat line which stated, "Be Gay!", and all I could think about were the little kids riding in the cars that would drive by that sign every single day and see that sign, "Be Gay!" In a different time and era, not long ago, such a scenario would be unthinkable. But now, in this day and age, especially in a big city, with all of today's new social dynamics and relaxed rules of society, this is more capable of happening. But it really deteriorates the standard of living for the majority, because homosexuality is not supposed to be an acceptable norm of behavior, yet it has worked its way this far into the mainstream that a child, who would not even be exposed to the idea that homosexuality even exists, except for in the hidden chambers of peoples' closets, is bombarded by material which, not only promotes acceptance of such a grand deviation, but also imposes that the child could, in fact, be gay if he wanted to, characterizing the deviation in his mind as being completely healthy and on par with mainstream behavior. And all of this is taken in at such a young age, that acceptance of it is almost guaranteed, self-perpetuating itself.

[Dak]

The one most significant issue I have is its effect on kids. While there might not be anything wrong with homosexuality in a physical sense, it should be pretty much of a given that, in the mainstream, it is still an extreme deviation from the norm for acceptable behavior, which is part of life, adhering to society's customs and norms.

 

baaa!

 

people should not be required to follow arbritrary decisions about what is/isn't acceptable. that's encluded in most 'fundamental human rights' declarations, iirc (EU, world, african, etc)

 

But it really deteriorates the standard of living for the majority, because homosexuality is not supposed to be an acceptable norm of behavior

 

this is closesly related to paranoia's argument that people aren't 'supposed' to be gay; which is essentially a natralistic fallicy, whilst ignoring the fact that homosexuality is completely natural.

 

it's doubly invalid: things aren't 'ok' becuase they're natural and 'bad' because they arent, and even if they were, this argument would be imply that homosexuality is ok as it's natural; or did you mean something else by implying we're all 'supposed' to be strait?

 

yet it has worked its way this far into the mainstream that a child, who would not even be exposed to the idea that homosexuality even exists, except for in the hidden chambers of peoples' closets, is bombarded by material which, not only promotes acceptance of such a grand deviation, but also imposes that the child could, in fact, be gay if he wanted to, characterizing the deviation in his mind as being completely healthy and on par with mainstream behavior. And all of this is taken in at such a young age, that acceptance of it is almost guaranteed, self-perpetuating itself.

 

umm... good?

[Realitycheck]

umm... good?

 

 

That requires no rebuttal.

[john5746]

The one most significant issue I have is its effect on kids. .... part of life, adhering to society's customs and norms.

 

And all of this is taken in at such a young age, that acceptance of it is almost guaranteed, self-perpetuating itself.

 

You could replace this with interracial couples and would have the same conclusion. I agree that exposure of sex to a young child in this manner might be a problem, but that holds true for all sex, not just homosexual sex. So, the question is: if it becomes acceptable, like being left-handed, would it bother you if your child becomes left-handed? Or if he tries to be left-handed for awhile and figures out that he is right-handed? Would there be any perceived "damage" if society is tolerant?

[ParanoiA]

this is closesly related to paranoia's argument that people aren't 'supposed' to be gay; which is essentially a natralistic fallicy, whilst ignoring the fact that homosexuality is completely natural.

 

Absolutely NOT!! Not even in the same ball park. I'm not passing a judgement at all - that's the whole point. I don't care if homosexuality is the next latest craze and all scientists believe we should be gay - my only remaining point is that you shouldn't pass a value judgement. You either advocate treatment for medical conditions or don't - you don't pick and choose which ones based on your ideas, or society's ideas of what's right or wrong.

 

I'm arguing in favor of not having an opinion.

 

What you all are missing is that doctor's DO pick and choose what should be treated and what shouldn't, some of which is based on their personal bias. Ie...suggesting pimple treatment, mole removal, and etc.. - these are personal biases that pimples or moles are unattractive and should therefore be removed - societal pressure to be attractive. It just so happens that those are personal biases that 99% of us happen to agree with, so there's no issues.

 

Suddenly, though, with the theoretical homosexuality disease, doctor's should have nothing to say?? Because of the way society is wrestling around with it?

 

just to stir up the hornets nest -- if that's the case, then what about paedo, besiality, incest etc? are they not medical conditions, otherwize heterosexuality would be too? does that mean they can't/shouldn't be cured?

 

Hey buddy, this is your doing. You're the one that convinced me that heterosexuality was a medical condition, thereby chucking my supposition into the abyss.

 

it's doubly invalid: things aren't 'ok' becuase they're natural and 'bad' because they arent, and even if they were, this argument would be imply that homosexuality is ok as it's natural; or did you mean something else by implying we're all 'supposed' to be strait?

 

Ok, let me stir up the hornet's nest as well...

 

If homosexuality doesn't perpetuate the species then how is it good? Heterosexuality compliments the cycle of reproduction and continuation of the species. Unless you can make a case that homosexuality can too, given enough time and evolution, then I don't see why we would see it as good.

 

If someone loses a hand, we don't call that good. We also don't shun the person and judge them, but we don't perpetuate other's to lose their hand too because there's a political movement going on about how people without hands have rights too.

 

Of course, you could always make the case that homosexuality is nature's built in population control. Perhaps societies that have mastered survival to the ridiculous, lazy extent that we have, also have the time, resources, and progressive culture to allow those kinds of thoughts to worm their way into the mainstream.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Evolution isn't just "what makes you have more kids." It's also about "what keeps you alive," and even "what makes your group beat the other groups" (group selection). And perhaps homosexuality evolved as a way to establish bonding between members of a group, therefore providing an advantage over other groups by giving the group members a motivation be more altruistic.

 

Just look at bonobos.

[Severian]

The interesting thing about this thread is that the possible existance of a 'cure' for homosexuality is regarded by many as a bad thing in and of itself. I would have thought that the existance of the option to change your preferences would be a good thing. In fact, I would contend that it is never a bad thing unless you force people to take the 'cure'.

 

Look at it this way, imagine a pill (or perhaps a CD that you play at night or something) which would allow you to change your sexual preference one day to the next. Wouldn't that be really handy? Can't get a girl, take the pill and go look for a boy instead! You discover your wife is into bondage but you don't get it - play the CD that night and you will have great kinky bondage sessions tomorrow!

 

After all, if there is (in principle) a cure for homosexuality, then there is also (in principle) a cure for hetrosexuality. If you are going to legislate that people don't have the right to make that decision themselves, aren't you restricting their rights?

[Wormwood]

Again.. it all depends who makes the decision and how far it goes. Obviously we're discussing something htat's FAR from being realistic, and I'm quite happy about that, to be honest, but regardless, for the sake of the argument, I do believe this opens a lot more troubles than good; parents have a right over their MINOR children; would you support parents taking their gay son to a clinic to have gene therapy and change him? how 'bout changing their black adopted son to a white son?

 

Sure why not? Parents get to decide if you are circumcized, immunized, educated (to some extent), beaten every day, or any number of other choices about your personal development and well being; why should this be different?

 

Having the RIGHT to does not mean we should consider it ethical, OR that we should accept it and do nothing. We could state that since it's racism and homophobia, and that they're both wrong, we would like to eliminate them using education.

 

Why? Why don't you respect their rights to individuality? Why must we as a society have acceptance forced down our throats? Wouldn't the actual support of diversity involve supporting views with which you might not agree?

 

We did it (well.. mostly.. and still trying to) with racism (african americans and minorities) and with women acceptance into workplace. Parents have a RIGHT to, but is it ethical to do it?

 

Yes. Ethics and morality are based around what is generally good for the group. They are social constructs with floating definitions. Homosexuals don't procreate and thus aren't good for the group. They also have higher instances of STD's, which is bad for the group.

 

Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis,

anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their

sexual practices. Medical Institute for Sexual Health.

· Homosexual behavior accounts for a disproportionate number of sexually

transmitted diseases. Mireya Navarro, “Federal Officials See Sharp Rise of

Hepatitis Among Gay Men,” The New York Times, March 6, 1992.

· 65 percent of all reported AIDS cases among males since 1981 have been men

engaged in homosexual behavior. Center for Disease Control, HIV/AIDS

Surveillance Report, Vol. 9, No. 2, May 1998.

· The 2002 update reported by the Center for Disease Control indicates that

62% of known HIV cases involve men who have had sex with other men, and

an additional 8% of those cases involve men who have had sex with other men

and use intravenous drugs. Thus, 70% of known HIV cases involve

homosexual men. And, another alarming finding is reported: only ¼ of

homosexual men with HIV get tested or discovered before the disease

progresses into full blown AIDS. Therefore, the number of homosexual men

who have HIV is potentially staggeringly high.

 

The list goes on...

 

http://www.godhatesfags.com/fags/Homosexual_Lifestyle.pdf

 

Shouldn't we change these social opinions?

Why? Tolerance opened the door for the aids epidemic in America. I am not saying that we should be hateful; I am just stating the facts. Disease rates soar, and we are supposed to be indifferent to avoid hurting someone's feelings? Certainly if there were a safe way to change it, the behavoir should be changed, if for no other reason than to protect medical and insurance rates for the rest of us (the same line of reasoning used to demonize smoking).