What if there was a "cure"? Part 2

[alan1]

Does that just come naturally for you?

No.....normally I'm a dick on purpose....without even trying. All natural cockus-dikus.

How can you pass up an opportunity to make a comment around the phrase 'come naturally'?

Especially when "dick" was in the comment to begin with.
Yer pretty quick on the uptake there.

 

[Amanda]

a solution implies a problem.
i disagree that it's a problem.

Some people have said that if they had a choice they would not have choose to be gay. So, from their perspective they would consider it a problem or at least a condition they would like to change.

 

[Amanda]

Amanda ,

I am beginning to think you may be fighting some very deep Lesbian urges.

I'm not trying to be a dick or a perv or anything....but I do truly believe this.

Believe away.

 

[Amanda]

Logical Fallacies, from wikipedia….

”Loaded question”: (definition), also known as complex question, presupposition, or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda

It’s a completely hypothetical question, about something that doesn’t exist, and is likely to never exist.

If our medical scientists were ever allowed to used research money to “cure” gays, they should be fired and laughed out of their professions.

Medical research is supposed to be about finding cures to things that harm people. Being gay doesn’t harm anyone.

If you need an answer to this fantasy question, which has zero basis in reality, I think any human being has the right to take any pill they want to.

You may be right, you may be wrong. The more science learns about how we work the more they are able to do. Xsited1 posted about some interesting research that is being done, and I believe there will be something that can be done within a generation.

I don't think you or I can say what medical research is supposed to be about. If someone wants to fund an idea, whether for humanitarian reasons or just because they think they can make a profit I think the decision is theirs. Some would say that if being gay is causing a person to suffer that harm is being done, and I'm all about being compassionate toward those that suffer.

I don't need an answer, I just thought it would be interesting to talk about. You must have too or you wouldn't have posted.

 

[Amanda]

Is there any precedent for modifying your fetus so that it comes out the way you want it (barring medical problems)?

Women modify fetuses every day....thousands of em.

I meant modifying one you intend to keep and you knew that.

How would you feel about technology that would let you choose your baby's eye color or hair color?

See? That's excellent. You're thinking about this as the bioethics question that it really is.

 

[necritan]

I meant modifying one you intend to keep and you knew that.

How would you feel about technology that would let you choose your baby's eye color or hair color?

I want my next kid to have Adamantium claws like Wolverine.

In all seriousness......I believe there should be no modifications of ANY sort performed on a fetus unless it is to help them live a medically healthier and fuller life.

One can make the argument that a heterosexual life is medically healthier and fuller than a homosexual life.

The arguement has been made....but it doesnt make it so.

 

[Amanda]

What if the same "cure" allowed parents to change prenatal heterosexuals to homosexuals? If that would be morally acceptable, then alterations of sexual orientation seem roughly equivalent to prenatal alterations (or designations, more accurately), to male or female sex. But if you think that unacceptable, then it seems as though there's some unique bias against homosexuals that exists.

Your comment seems to imply that having a bias is bad. I don't think so. We make decisions based on what we think is "better" or "worse" all the time. Sometimes these decisions are medical in nature. I don't think anyone would argue (oh, I'll prolly regret this...) that being fat is a better state to be in than being a healthy weight, so if the same sort of procedure could be found to make becoming overweight impossible would you ask if I had a bias against fat people? I don't think it would be a happier, better, or how ever you want to measure it, kind of life to be fat. The same could be said of homosexuality... some homosexuals have said that they wouldn't chose it, this implies they have judged it a less desirable condition. I would be in favor of trying to help them have a happier, better, or how ever you want to measure it, kind of life.

So, this isn't about my bias, though I would probably opt for the treatment too, it's about my compassion for the suffering of others. The question then becomes one of bioethics. That, IMO, is where this discussion belongs, not whether or not anyone thinks homosexuality is morally wrong or not.

 

[KittenKoder]

The funny thing, if they ever found a way to discover this there is a perfectly safe way for them to do it (no safe or right in my opinion just that it's been done and some still do) ... they could change the gender of the fetus ...

It's a more valid and easier solution, also the one which scientists can do without any serious physical risks to the offspring, but would you accept this as a "cure"?

 

[alan1]

I want my next kid to have Adamantium claws like Wolverine.

In all seriousness......I believe there should be no modifications of ANY sort performed on a fetus unless it is to help them live a medically healthier and fuller life.

One can make the argument that a heterosexual life is medically healthier and fuller than a homosexual life.

The arguement has been made....but it doesnt make it so.

See here, Homosexual Behavior
snip,

# Results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases.21

# Shortens the life span of homosexuals, probably by eight to twenty years (see note 22 for data on homosexual life span studies, some of which are controversial).22 Smoking, on average, reduces life span by seven years. Since we discourage smoking, why are we thinking of endorsing homosexuality?

Yes, it's a biased source.

 

[Agnapostate]

Your comment seems to imply that having a bias is bad. I don't think so. We make decisions based on what we think is "better" or "worse" all the time. Sometimes these decisions are medical in nature. I don't think anyone would argue (oh, I'll prolly regret this...) that being fat is a better state to be in than being a healthy weight, so if the same sort of procedure could be found to make becoming overweight impossible would you ask if I had a bias against fat people? I don't think it would be a happier, better, or how ever you want to measure it, kind of life to be fat. The same could be said of homosexuality... some homosexuals have said that they wouldn't chose it, this implies they have judged it a less desirable condition. I would be in favor of trying to help them have a happier, better, or how ever you want to measure it, kind of life.

Any sound ethical analysis will necessarily differentiate between the static and the dynamic, in a sense. In specific regards to the neonatal "cure," you could alter the sexual orientation of those affected by it, but you would thereby establish that homosexuality is a negative condition, thus compromising the gains made by adult homosexuals since so dark a period as Stonewall. Hence, while this "cure" may ensure short-term gains (or losses), it may achieve the precisely opposite result with long-term losses (or gains). It's also important to note that a desire to not be homosexual is largely prompted by societal disapproval of or discrimination against homosexuality to complement this argument, since it would undoubtedly not be lessened by claims that homosexuality was something that necessitated a "cure."

So, this isn't about my bias, though I would probably opt for the treatment too, it's about my compassion for the suffering of others. The question then becomes one of bioethics. That, IMO, is where this discussion belongs, not whether or not anyone thinks homosexuality is morally wrong or not.

It's necessarily related.

 

[jillian]

a solution implies a problem.
i disagree that it's a problem.

unless one feels like trolling so the people who do think there's a problem chime in.

funny how that works.

 

[alan1]

a solution implies a problem.
i disagree that it's a problem.

unless one feels like trolling so the people who do think there's a problem chime in.

funny how that works.

Was the internet invented as a solution to instant communication because telephones were a problem?

 

[jillian]

a solution implies a problem.
i disagree that it's a problem.

unless one feels like trolling so the people who do think there's a problem chime in.

funny how that works.

Was the internet invented as a solution to instant communication because telephones were a problem?

perhaps i'm slow on the uptake tonight. i'm afraid i'm missing the analogy.

 

[KittenKoder]

One can make the argument that a heterosexual life is medically healthier and fuller than a homosexual life.

The arguement has been made....but it doesnt make it so.

See here, Homosexual Behavior
snip,

# Results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, including increases in AIDS, other STDs, colon and rectal cancer, and hepatitis. According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases.21

# Shortens the life span of homosexuals, probably by eight to twenty years (see note 22 for data on homosexual life span studies, some of which are controversial).22 Smoking, on average, reduces life span by seven years. Since we discourage smoking, why are we thinking of endorsing homosexuality?

Yes, it's a biased source.

This is the problem, almost all sources online are biased, have yet to see one that isn't one way or the other. But the hard data shows almost no medical statistics which could enforce that contention. AIDs can spread just was easily through any sub culture, and is actually most common in the IV drug users if you look at the percentage of each sub culture who have contracted it. The cancer one has no connection at all (not even sure how they were able to justify that myth). As for the life span, again there is no definitive connection either way. It's the same technique they have used to justify attacks on smokers really, circumstantial evidence without any hard science or medical connections.

But as I said, it's almost impossible to find non-biased sources online so unless you just happen to be nosy like me IRL you won't find much hard data anywhere.

 

[JohnStOnge]

What if there were a medical solution for homosexuality? This could take many forms. Maybe it could cure an adult, or maybe it could be done pre-natally. Maybe it would only a short term fix and required ongoing therapy to make "stick". In any case what I'm talking about would be voluntary for an adult or at the discretion of a parent for a child.

So... would you be in favor of any or all of these methods and why or why not?

Discuss.

I would absolutely favor an intervention that would "cure" homosexuality. It is especially the case that, as a parent, I would do anything I could to keep a child of mine from being a homosexual.

And the reason is that homosexuality is an abnormal condition bearing upon a critical biological function.

 

[jillian]

one can make the argument that a man of 6 feet tall has a more successful and fuller life than a man who is 5'5. except height, and sexuality, being a function of both nurture and nature, one doesn't have a choice about either their height or their sexuality.

somehow i think both robert redford (who's probably about 5'5") and David Geffin (who is both short AND gay) are not very much troubled by who they are.

more to the point, where are the threads on the choice to be short... i haven't seen a single one.

 

[neurosport]

there is nothing to discuss here!

if there was a cure those who consider themselves sick would take it.

end of story.

 

[Bullypulpit]

From my conversations with the big guy (Gunny ), i think I'm ok to start this up again. I think this is proof that the moderation on this board is fair and if you just talk with them before going nuts you can sometimes get things fixed without the drama.

So... can we please try to have this discussion again, but keep the focus on the possibilities and ethics of it and not your personal opinions about me and my motivation for starting the discussion? I would be very appreciative.

That said...

What if there were a medical solution for homosexuality? This could take many forms. Maybe it could cure an adult, or maybe it could be done pre-natally. Maybe it would only a short term fix and required ongoing therapy to make "stick". In any case what I'm talking about would be voluntary for an adult or at the discretion of a parent for a child.

So... would you be in favor of any or all of these methods and why or why not?

Discuss.

You are working from a false assumption. That being that homosexuality is a disease in need of a "cure". Claiming that African-Americans, Chinese, Hispanics or any other racial/cultural group needs a "cure" for their "condition" is an equally flawed assumption.

 

[del]

One can make the argument that a heterosexual life is medically healthier and fuller than a homosexual life.

not successfully.

 

[alan1]

unless one feels like trolling so the people who do think there's a problem chime in.

funny how that works.

Was the internet invented as a solution to instant communication because telephones were a problem?

perhaps i'm slow on the uptake tonight. i'm afraid i'm missing the analogy.

My comment was more directed at del, he said,
"a solution implies a problem.
i disagree that it's a problem."

I disagree with the first part of that statement. My analogy was to point out that there was no problem with instant communication, yet the internet (as a tool for communication) was still a solution to a problem that didn't exist.
The fact that he disagrees that it is a problem is irrelevant. If a homosexual thinks their sexuality is a problem for them personally, then it is a problem. If they don't, then it's not.