A Hypothetical "Gay" Cure

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So? So is throwing feces (which also sometimes manifests with mental illness). What does this demonstrate?

How did it emerge in bonobos if it could not emerge due to evolution?

 

Then how was the trait passed on? Either there is no such thing as homosexuality' date=' or it is a social construct if what you say is true. Or perhaps there was some mass horizontal gene transfer?

 

Logically, it seems it could only be a malfunctioning mechanism, or a social construct.[/quote']

Social practices can be passed on too, just not necessarily through genes. They change over time, too.

 

The implications are meaningless. "Good" or "bad" or "warm and fuzzy" are irrelevant. We are a species that reproduces sexually, thus the mechanism is malfunctioning. If homosexuality produced offspring, then you could say it was an equally viable option. As it stands, it is just a deviation from a pretty set standard.

But is that deviation something worthy of correction?

[Dak]

So? So is throwing feces (which also sometimes manifests with mental illness). What does this demonstrate?

 

are you using the naturalistic fallicy or not? is wether or not homosexuality is natural relevent or not?

 

don't forget, nature is non-sentient: it doesn't 'intend' to do anything.

 

Then how was the trait passed on? Either there is no such thing as homosexuality, or it is a social construct if what you say is true. Or perhaps there was some mass horizontal gene transfer?

 

could allways be complex gene interactions (as opposed to strait-foward mendilian), or otherwize could be agenetic (random chance, perhaps, or environmental cues)

 

if it were simple genetics, it could allways be recessive and multi-gene, tho i'm not aware of any evidence for this.

 

Logically, it seems it could only be a malfunctioning mechanism, or a social construct.

 

as you touched upon earlyer, not throwing faceis is a social construct. our lack of tail and body hair, and, when you get right down to it, our brains, all started out as 'malfunctioning mechanisms' that were 'intended' to do somthing else. and our adaptability relies on repeated malfunctions.

 

 

The implications are meaningless. "Good" or "bad" or "warm and fuzzy" are irrelevant. We are a species that reproduces sexually, thus the mechanism is malfunctioning. If homosexuality produced offspring, then you could say it was an equally viable option. As it stands, it is just a deviation from a pretty set standard.

 

as i said earlyer, homosexuality is only bad if enough people are gay (which is overlooking the fact that some gays descide to reproduce anyway, just refrain from recreational sex with the opposite sex).

 

as has allready been said, it's possible homosexuality is a natural population controll mechanism. iirc, certain social cues can alter the frequency of male/female births to maintain the ratio at roughly 1:1, stress can cause miscarrages, and the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. they could, arguably, all be population regulation mechanism.

 

none of this relates to wether we should reccomend a cure or not, barring the unlikely event that we start to approach such a level of gayness that we stopp breading en-mass (which isn't neccesarily bad per se, over a short period).

[Sayonara]

So? So is throwing feces (which also sometimes manifests with mental illness). What does this demonstrate?

It certainly doesn't demonstrate that all bonobos are mentally ill or that homosexuality is a disease. Although I have to admit, I am not sure where we can go with it from there

 

Then how was the trait passed on? Either there is no such thing as homosexuality, or it is a social construct if what you say is true. Or perhaps there was some mass horizontal gene transfer?

Logically, it seems it could only be a malfunctioning mechanism, or a social construct.

There are two problems with this:

 

1) Firstly, it requires that gay people are incapable of breeding, rather than just that on the whole they don't fancy it so much, which is not the case.

 

2) Secondly, if genetic inheritance worked in any way that would make homosexuality impossible, we would not expect to see any inheritable conditions which confer sterility, and yet we do.

[Wormwood]

I wrote a long response to an earlier post, but the last few posts have some really good points to consider. I want to do some reading and get back to you guys tomorrow.

 

I will just say that I think Dak is on to something about the environmental cues. I would go a step further and suggest it's probably a social cue mixed with a genetic predisposition. I will do some reading and get back to you guys.

 

 

I did want to respond to this as well:

In short, consensual damage that might possibly happen and which is deemed acceptable by the person receiving the damage is no basis on which to label someone's entire being as "bad".

 

No one is trying to label anyone's entire being as anything. Terms like "good" or "bad" are largely meaningless and vary from person to person.

 

I am simply saying that if this is a medical condition, then people should seek treatment. There is no need to be ostracized or have higher chances of getting cancer just because someone with this disorder thinks it's what's best. Obviously if they have a condition which effects their judgement, that has to be considered.

This isn't about my personal judgment of homosexuals. I think you guys know that, but I can't tell.

[Ice_Phoenix87]

There are so many more important things to focus on rather than 'curing' homosexuality.

Do any of you have any direct objections to homosexuality and if so...why?

and does it justify 'curing' someone.

Much of this debate is caused by religious interference and a hate for something that is 'different'.

What would you say if homosexuals considered heterosexuals as something that needed 'curing'?

 

Just some things I thought are relevant on a more social context, I have discussed it in lectures at university.

[ParanoiA]

There are so many more important things to focus on rather than 'curing' homosexuality.

 

We know. This is purely entertainment, I think, at this point.

 

Do any of you have any direct objections to homosexuality and if so...why?

 

I don't have any. Just gives me better odds with females, and some of us need all the help we can get.

 

Much of this debate is caused by religious interference and a hate for something that is 'different'.

 

I agree with you to a certain extent. But religion is currently on the chopping block here in America, and being different is "in".

 

What would you say if homosexuals considered heterosexuals as something that needed 'curing'?

 

Then I would reply asking about how the species is to continue if our primary reproduction method is rejected.

[ParanoiA]

This isn't about my personal judgment of homosexuals. I think you guys know that, but I can't tell.

 

I can't speak for others, but I thought you were making objective arguments - or at least logical ones. I wouldn't guess you to be homophobic though, you seem comfortable with the subject matter. Personally, I'm quite curious where this discussion will go. I've never heard a successful logical reasoning opposing homosexuality.

 

My gut tells me something is wrong with this blanket acceptance of alternative lifestyles. I don't mean from a legal perspective, because the government, per our constitution, should have nothing to say on the matter.

 

But from a societal perspective I can't help but wonder if we are, yet again, swinging the proverbial pendulum all the way the other way with the concept of tolerance. I can't point at any particular example, it's just a rumbling in my head at the moment, that we're overcompensating.

 

Not that I want to back down the intolerance road - I'm happy about the progress of social tolerance. Just seems like we always go from one extreme to the other before we settle in the middle. Where's the middle on this one?

[alan2here]

Refering to a "cure" to being gay is like refering to a "cure" for supporting a cirtain sports team or a "cure" for liking marmite or any host of other personal prefrances. Im not even slightly gay still find the stupidity of the title of this thread offensive. Maybe we should "cure" democrats in america? Thread should be locked.

[ParanoiA]

Refering to a "cure" to being gay is like refering to a "cure" for supporting a cirtain sports team or a "cure" for liking marmite or any host of other personal prefrances. Im not even slightly gay still find the stupidity of the title of this thread offensive. Maybe we should "cure" democrats in america? Thread should be locked.

 

Why should the free exchange of ideas be locked? Isn't that intolerant?

 

And I would welcome a "cure" for people who like the Philadelphia Eagles...

[Sayonara]

I am simply saying that if this is a medical condition, then people should seek treatment. There is no need to be ostracized or have higher chances of getting cancer just because someone with this disorder thinks it's what's best. Obviously if they have a condition which effects their judgement, that has to be considered.

 

I see. It's just that you are going over something that has already pretty much been agreed on in this thread, which was a bit confusing.

 

To summarise it quickly for you, it was pointed out earlier that something does not need curing because it is labelled a medical condition; it's the other way around: something becomes a medical condition because it needs curing.

 

In the absence of any compelling reason to "cure" homosexuality, for the purposes of this thread we have nudged it into the "something that could be altered at will" box.

 

This isn't about my personal judgment of homosexuals. I think you guys know that, but I can't tell.

There was a moment where you had me wondering

 

 

Refering to a "cure" to being gay is like refering to a "cure" for supporting a cirtain sports team or a "cure" for liking marmite or any host of other personal prefrances. Im not even slightly gay still find the stupidity of the title of this thread offensive. Maybe we should "cure" democrats in america? Thread should be locked.

There is a reason why the word hypothetical appears in the thread title, and there is a reason why the word gay in the title appears in quotes.

 

This thread will stay open as long as it remains within the site rules. There is no rule against threads with titles that you find offensive.

[alan2here]

sorry, I should find a way of stopping me posting stuff when Im annoyed.

[Wormwood]

I can't speak for others, but I thought you were making objective arguments - or at least logical ones. I wouldn't guess you to be homophobic though, you seem comfortable with the subject matter. Personally, I'm quite curious where this discussion will go. I've never heard a successful logical reasoning opposing homosexuality.

 

My gut tells me something is wrong with this blanket acceptance of alternative lifestyles. I don't mean from a legal perspective, because the government, per our constitution, should have nothing to say on the matter.

 

This is really a great point. In fact I get called all sorts of hateful names for that very reason; I don't condone forced acceptance of people or liking people or giving special treatment just because they belong to a group. Tolerance is one thing, but total acceptance is another. People should be allowed to like whomever they wish, but that also means they should be free to dislike who they wish. Telling people what to think is what kings and emperors do, not presidents of a democracy.

 

But from a societal perspective I can't help but wonder if we are' date=' yet again, swinging the proverbial pendulum all the way the other way with the concept of tolerance. I can't point at any particular example, it's just a rumbling in my head at the moment, that we're overcompensating.

 

Not that I want to back down the intolerance road - I'm happy about the progress of social tolerance. Just seems like we always go from one extreme to the other before we settle in the middle. Where's the middle on this one?[/quote']

 

Another great point. We are a nation of extremes for whatever reason. Society has historically been mean to group X, thus we must now all over compensate by pretending to love them and pandering to them legally and socially. If we are all equal, then let's act like it and not pretend anyone is above criticism or questioning, because they're not. Again, good thoughts.

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Refering to a "cure" to being gay is like refering to a "cure" for supporting a cirtain sports team or a "cure" for liking marmite or any host of other personal prefrances. Im not even slightly gay still find the stupidity of the title of this thread offensive. Maybe we should "cure" democrats in america? Thread should be locked.

 

What you are doing is drawing a bad comparrison to make the question look silly and therefore beneath discussion. Let's use your example of democrats. Is there a natural tendancy toward being a republican that will allow our species to procreate and survive? By that I mean, is republican the obvious standard with the obvious result of continued existence as a species? This isn't like choosing Coke over Pepsi, this is a function defined by biology. Sex is for reproduction. On top of this, this harmless choice of homosexuality has opened the door for the AIDS epidemic in America (don't read into this, I meant only what I said). You can trivialize this if you wish, but it seems like a social issue which is at the very least worth addressing.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

I see. It's just that you are going over something that has already pretty much been agreed on in this thread' date=' which was a bit confusing.

 

To summarise it quickly for you, it was pointed out earlier that something does not need curing because it is labelled a medical condition; it's the other way around: something becomes a medical condition because it needs curing.

 

In the absence of any compelling reason to "cure" homosexuality, for the purposes of this thread we have nudged it into the "something that could be altered at will" box.[/quote']

 

Yes, but as ParanoiA and I have mentioned it would depend on the mechanism. If it is just a faulty attraction mechanism or something to that effect, then homosexuals have a condition which alters their judgement, and that has to be taken into account. That's why I brought up depression as a comparrison; because depression alters people's perceptions on just about everything. Does it hurt anyone (other than themselves) if we let them be depressed? No, but all I am saying is that they might not be the best people, or in the best position to make that call since the very nature of their illness is skewed judgement.

 

 

There was a moment where you had me wondering

 

I thought I detected some hostility. I am just very blunt; I try to address just the facts, with little consideration for emotions, and I don't usually believe in mixing words to spare feelings. I don't think people should be hated or discriminated against unfairly, but I also believe people shouldn't be liked or promoted unfairly. If someone is doing something that is messed up, destructive, weird, whatever; I'm going to call them on it so hopefully we can talk about it and either clear up my misconceptions, or address the problem properly. I was operating under the premise that a "cure" was possible, which means that we have to address what it is that we are curing and what the implications are. I think that's how we got into the hazy peripheral stuff.It is an interesting topic no doubt, but unless we define what it is we are curing, I think we will continue to get lost in side discussions that try to narrow down what we are talking about.

[Sayonara]

sorry, I should find a way of stopping me posting stuff when Im annoyed.

At one point I seriously considered building a peripheral that would shut down my PC when it detected high levels of alcohol, but it turned out I couldn't be bothered.

 

 

Yes, but as ParanoiA and I have mentioned it would depend on the mechanism. If it is just a faulty attraction mechanism or something to that effect, then homosexuals have a condition which alters their judgement, and that has to be taken into account.

That is certainly true when taken in the appropriate clinical context, yes.

 

What's interesting though is that even though we don't have much of an idea about what the problem is with this hypothetical mechanism, some people seem pretty sure that if it's perceived to be broken it ought to be fixed.

 

So far the only point I have seen that lends any weight to that suggestion is the "if your brain is mis-firing, then you are not really being you" argument (which would of course be consistent with your 'mental health' approach), and even that was disputed.

 

Anybody have any other suggestions?

 

I thought I detected some hostility...

Well not really hostility. More like incredulity, and aimed at what you said rather than you yourself.

[lucaspa]

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.

 

One of the most powerful arguments that sexual orientation is NOT a consciuos choice comes from taking to gays. Every gay person I know has said: Why would I want to choose a lifestyle where I am reviled, threatened, physically assaulted, discriminated against, etc? Just look at how many gays try their best to pretend to be heterosexual.

 

So, IF sexual orientation can be chemically/genetically adjusted (and I am not convinced it can be), then I suspect a lot of gays are going to volunteer for treatment. Not those who have already found love and happiness with a same sex partner (and I wouldn't either if I were them; if they already have happiness, then don't throw it away), but those who feel attracted to the same sex but have never engaged in homosexual activity.

 

However, echoing your later statements about "expect", this is just a prediction in the scientific sense: "I expect this to happen because it is a logical deduction from data and theory." I personally do not "expect" gays to be treated as in "they should get treated". It's completely their choice and no harm done if they keep their sexual orientation.

 

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 agree. Comparing treatment of homosexuality to getting vaccinated for the flu is invalid. If there is gene therapy for achondroplasia (dwarfism), would we "expect" and require every person to get that treatment? No. It would be their choice.

 

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.

 

Yes, we do reject this approach. And you have hit upon the very emotional rejection by the gay community of the possibility of a "cure" for homosexuality. They are very explicit about saying they look upon the issue as diminishing them as people. I can understand why they would take this position.

[Daecon]

What about if there was a cure for being black?

 

After all, THAT'S a "Genetic condition" too.

[Severian]

What about if there was a cure for being black?

 

After all, THAT'S a "Genetic condition" too.

 

If you could undergo a simply gene therapy to change your skin colour, would you make it illegal claiming it was racist? Are you going to ban self-tan too?

[Glider]

What about if there was a cure for being black?

 

After all, THAT'S a "Genetic condition" too.

 

Unfortunately, there are many such 'cures' available and people will pay high prices for them (and not just financial). They are particularly popular in (but not restricted to) East Africa, India and South America.

 

(see here, and here and this bit on colonial mentality).

[MangoChutney]

What about if there was a cure for being black?

 

After all, THAT'S a "Genetic condition" too.

 

If black skin colour in humans was the original colour, wouldn't the "cure" need to be for white / red / yellow / blue with pink dots skin? We are the ones that have changed the colour of our skin.

[Daecon]

Well that's what fake tans and sunbeds are for...

[lucaspa]

What about if there was a cure for being black?

 

After all, THAT'S a "Genetic condition" too.

 

Good point. This is what makes the discussion so difficult, because it gets to what society accepts. Let's face it, Michael Jackson has done everything possible to be "white". And this argument is a powerful one for my personal opinion: the treatment may be available but the person should not be treated differently if they choose not to take it. Homosexuality is not a "disease", but a possible combination of alleles. Skin color is also a possible combination of alleles.

 

I don't think there is a definitive answer. I would only note that homosexuality does forbid one of life's basic drives and pleasures: having biological offspring. And yes, before you say it, there are other possible routes to that end and there may be more in the future. However, it remains a limitation of homosexuality not shared by ethnicity.

 

If black skin colour in humans was the original colour, wouldn't the "cure" need to be for white / red / yellow / blue with pink dots skin? We are the ones that have changed the colour of our skin.

 

High melanin content is just as much an adaptation as low pigment (white), so it's not clear if there was any "original" color. High melanin content evolved to protect folic acid from degradation by UV radiation. No folic acid and low sperm count and no viable fetuses (neural tube defects). Less melanin content evolved, as people migrated from the tropics, to allow more UV radiation so that cholesterol could be converted to vitamin D in skin by UV radiation. No vitamin D and non-functional bones due to decreased ability to absorb calcium from the GI tract. The result is rickets.

[MangoChutney]

High melanin content is just as much an adaptation as low pigment (white), so it's not clear if there was any "original" color......

 

.....Less melanin content evolved, as people migrated from the tropics, to allow more UV radiation so that cholesterol could be converted to vitamin D in skin by UV radiation. No vitamin D and non-functional bones due to decreased ability to absorb calcium from the GI tract. The result is rickets.

 

By accepting people migrated from the tropics, "Out of Africa", are you not accepting a high melanin content is the original colour of all our skins and that white people have merely adapted to their surroundings?

[Sayonara]

I don't think there is a definitive answer. I would only note that homosexuality does forbid one of life's basic drives and pleasures: having biological offspring. And yes, before you say it, there are other possible routes to that end and there may be more in the future.

"Forbid" in what sense?

 

Homosexual males are not sterile, and I don't see how a homosexual male fathering a child and a heterosexual male fathering a child are different ways of creating biological offspring. They seem very much the same.

 

Similarly, I don't see where impregnation or pregnancy in heterosexual and homosexual females is going to be different. There might be a different spread of insemination methods, but that is only influenced by sexuality - it is NOT determined by it.

 

The things that are different are the personal experiences that the individuals undergo during the act itself, and (probably) the domestic and legal situations afterwards. Those have nothing to do with biological limitations.

 

You can of course make the argument that two gay males or two gay females cannot reproduce as a couple without assistance, but again this is not determined by sexuality. It is determined by gender: two straight males or two straight females cannot reproduce either.

 

Nowhere else in biology do we limit the description of populations by what a specified combination of two individuals 'cannot do'.

 

I am surprised that you would make that statement. It only holds true under conditions that are artificially applied, and implies a universal 'cost' for homosexuality.

[ParanoiA]

If it requires a third person, then isn't their offspring's genetics not the product of just the two of them in the relationship? Is this the condition you're talking about being artificially applied?

[Sayonara]

A restriction is being artificially applied because if a straight man or woman has a child by any means they are said to be producing offspring, but when this "the gays can't reproduce" argument comes up, all of a sudden the production of offspring is impossible unless it takes place between two people in particular.

 

In case anyone is confused, I might point out that while people may differ in their sexuality, they are actually generally considered to be members of the same species. I.e. not reproductively isolated.