What if there was a "cure"? Part 2

[Amanda]

I really don't care whether homosexuality is a consequence of nature or nurture. All I know is that it doesn't hurt anyone and it's much better expressed than kept locked deep inside.

When it comes to the 'cure'... How can you 'cure' or 'change' who you fall in love with?

I think you're missing the point. Some homosexuals have said that if they had a choice they wouldn't choose to be gay. They have expressed dissatisfaction. Would you deny them the chance to change that and be happier? I wouldn't.

This isn't about whether or not homosexuality is bad for society, it's about individual happiness.

Some women get harrassed for having sex out of wedlock. I think in some countries, women who have sex out of wedlock can be executed in honor killings by the father and brothers.

In this country, the bible and the relgious rightwing frown on sex out of wedlock. I'm sure there's a fair bit of harrassment of young women in some of those fundamentalist communities.

Should we invent a better chastity belt, or a pill that keeps young women from wanting sex until their wedding night?

of course not. That would be ridiculous. The people with the problems, are the ones who are bigoted or the ones doing the harrassing. The gays, and the young women having sex out of wedlock are not the problem. The bigots and the control freaks are the problem. THEY are the ones who shoud change, not the gays or the young women.

That's fine, but it doesn't matter. The premise I'm working from is that some homosexuals have said they wouldn't have chose to be gay. So, the question is one of bioethics. Many people want to change things about themselves, if it were medically possible for homosexuals to change do you think they should be allowed to do so?

 

[Amanda]

No, I didn't feel like the discussion had run it's course yet. I guess not everyone agreed. But Gunny didn't seem to have a problem with it so I started it again.

Perhaps, but the world is still a harder place for homosexuals so I think that if there were a way to make life easier for them they should have access to it. I don't think people should have to suffer.

The last part made me laugh. You don't think I haven't caught my fair share of shit for being who I am? Not everyone is the same, some people can't take adversity, some can. If I were gay I would probably do the pride parades (tho not mostly naked) because I'm perfectly willing to take abuse for what I believe in. If nothing else in my life I feel like I've proven (at least to myself) I can take a beating for my principles.

I'm not talking about whether it was correct that you be allowed to re-post yet another thred on this subject.

I'm talking about your getting the same responses this issue ALWAYS gets. But like anyone else obsessed with a particular issue, whether it be the color of people's skins (and what exactly that means or doesn't mean) ... or homosexuality ... or reproductive choice... they are issues where no one changes their mind. You get the same back and forth...

ultimately, like i said, for someone who wants her own sexuality to be embraced, you spend a lot of time trying to marginalize others. so i'm not sure how that's representative of "principles". more like bigotry, sounds like.

But I'm not familiar with the typical responses. I want to know what people think. I want to know why they think it. I want to understand this issue from all sides. I know some think my interest is obsessive, but it's interesting to me, so I continue to ask. I don't think this is all that bad.

I don't know why you think I want I want my sexuality embraced... I don't even know what my own sexuality IS. And I don't know why you think I want anyone marginalized, I don't think I've ever said anything that would make anyone think that. I've asked you both publicly and privately to tell me why you don't like me or what your problem is with me, but you won't tell me. I really don't understand what the problem is or why we can't be friends.

 

[Agnapostate]

Homosexuals aren't currently prohibited from changing their sexual orientation or some facet of their gender if they make an informed choice to do so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wouldn't demand it banned if that's what you mean.
The research to make the cure should not be funded by taxpayer money and people should not be forced to take the cure.

Pre-natal though is where it gets complicated.

Should the mother get to make decisions like that for the child? What kind of road would this lead down? Is there any precedent for modifying your fetus so that it comes out the way you want it (barring medical problems)?

Although I doubt we'd have this miracle cure anytime soon.

If anything we'll have a cure for pedophilia first.

Think about the controversy that would arise if a private company announced development of a cure for gayness. Now think about the same company making a cure for pedophilia and the good press they'd get and what they'd be able to brag about.

'We're helping to eliminate the threat of grown adults coming to molest your children'. I'd be surprised if they haven't considered this yet.

How do you say a woman has a right to kill a child in utero, but not to custom tailor him if she so desires? That's a mighty big contradiction in the law if we try to go there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think you're missing the point. Some homosexuals have said that if they had a choice they wouldn't choose to be gay. They have expressed dissatisfaction. Would you deny them the chance to change that and be happier? I wouldn't.

This isn't about whether or not homosexuality is bad for society, it's about individual happiness.

Some women get harrassed for having sex out of wedlock. I think in some countries, women who have sex out of wedlock can be executed in honor killings by the father and brothers.

In this country, the bible and the relgious rightwing frown on sex out of wedlock. I'm sure there's a fair bit of harrassment of young women in some of those fundamentalist communities.

Should we invent a better chastity belt, or a pill that keeps young women from wanting sex until their wedding night?

of course not. That would be ridiculous. The people with the problems, are the ones who are bigoted or the ones doing the harrassing. The gays, and the young women having sex out of wedlock are not the problem. The bigots and the control freaks are the problem. THEY are the ones who shoud change, not the gays or the young women.

That's fine, but it doesn't matter. The premise I'm working from is that some homosexuals have said they wouldn't have chose to be gay. So, the question is one of bioethics. Many people want to change things about themselves, if it were medically possible for homosexuals to change do you think they should be allowed to do so?

Some of them would choose to be homosexual and make an in-your-face badge of honor out of it. Some would choose not to be, for a variety of reasons.

How do I know? Well, look at the deaf community. Most people would consider the lack of one of the five senses to be a defect. There is, however, a very strong movement among the deaf community toward deaf pride and an almost-segregationist attitude toward the hearing. When cochlear implants became widely available, many deaf people who would have been helped by it refused to get them and were even quite hostile toward the doctors and the technology because they felt it stigmatized deafness. Other deaf people who did get the surgery and gain their hearing were actually shunned by others in the deaf community as traitors.

You can't say "No one would choose that" anymore about anything, because people wear the victim label too proudly in 21st century America.

 

[Agnapostate]

How do you say a woman has a right to kill a child in utero, but not to custom tailor him if she so desires? That's a mighty big contradiction in the law if we try to go there.

From a utilitarian perspective, we could consider the existence and presence of suffering in such an equation. Since it is not aware of its own existence, a fetus is not capable of suffering from its own death in the same manner as a human. Conversely, "custom tailoring" may have any manner of negative consequences later in life, thereby potentially causing suffering depending on the circumstances.

 

[midcan5]

Amanda is presenting a thought experiment, once we enter that question we should stick to its parameters.

My answer is the gay person if given the choice early enough would select to be heterosexual. Why, because life is tough enough and being different in any way adds to the complexity. And almost all families would select what is societally considered normal. I know parents who wish their children would just act out the accepted norm. We thought of this too as we had boys, but our second took a while and both are hetero.

FD - My brother is gay, second in our household of 11 boys (3 girls), none of the others are gay. Often it is the second child that is gay. There is a theory that something in woman body changes after the first, the body says who's this. I have a niece, no blood relative who is second and gay too. I will ask this TE of gays and reply back.

 

[Neser Boha]

Amanda is presenting a thought experiment, once we enter that question we should stick to its parameters.

My answer is the gay person if given the choice early enough would select to be heterosexual.

Early enough? I don't think I'm getting this...

Why, because life is tough enough and being different in any way adds to the complexity.

Exactly, because of fucktards that MAKE it tough to be a homosexual.

-------------
This brings me to...

I might not be getting this... but isn't this an American discussion forum? Aren't you guys about 'individuality' and protecting individuals' rights? Or are we in a Soviet forum speaking of 'dangers to society' where INDIVIDUALS have to be assimilated, 'cured', or otherwise done away with???

 

[Father Time]

I wouldn't demand it banned if that's what you mean.
The research to make the cure should not be funded by taxpayer money and people should not be forced to take the cure.

Pre-natal though is where it gets complicated.

Should the mother get to make decisions like that for the child? What kind of road would this lead down? Is there any precedent for modifying your fetus so that it comes out the way you want it (barring medical problems)?

Although I doubt we'd have this miracle cure anytime soon.

If anything we'll have a cure for pedophilia first.

Think about the controversy that would arise if a private company announced development of a cure for gayness. Now think about the same company making a cure for pedophilia and the good press they'd get and what they'd be able to brag about.

'We're helping to eliminate the threat of grown adults coming to molest your children'. I'd be surprised if they haven't considered this yet.

How do you say a woman has a right to kill a child in utero, but not to custom tailor him if she so desires? That's a mighty big contradiction in the law if we try to go there.

Because dead fetus can be used for a variety of household chores. I just have to find some.

Now please don't try to derail the thread

 

[Father Time]

Some women get harrassed for having sex out of wedlock. I think in some countries, women who have sex out of wedlock can be executed in honor killings by the father and brothers.

In this country, the bible and the relgious rightwing frown on sex out of wedlock. I'm sure there's a fair bit of harrassment of young women in some of those fundamentalist communities.

Should we invent a better chastity belt, or a pill that keeps young women from wanting sex until their wedding night?

of course not. That would be ridiculous. The people with the problems, are the ones who are bigoted or the ones doing the harrassing. The gays, and the young women having sex out of wedlock are not the problem. The bigots and the control freaks are the problem. THEY are the ones who shoud change, not the gays or the young women.

That's fine, but it doesn't matter. The premise I'm working from is that some homosexuals have said they wouldn't have chose to be gay. So, the question is one of bioethics. Many people want to change things about themselves, if it were medically possible for homosexuals to change do you think they should be allowed to do so?

Some of them would choose to be homosexual and make an in-your-face badge of honor out of it. Some would choose not to be, for a variety of reasons.

How do I know? Well, look at the deaf community. Most people would consider the lack of one of the five senses to be a defect. There is, however, a very strong movement among the deaf community toward deaf pride and an almost-segregationist attitude toward the hearing. When cochlear implants became widely available, many deaf people who would have been helped by it refused to get them and were even quite hostile toward the doctors and the technology because they felt it stigmatized deafness. Other deaf people who did get the surgery and gain their hearing were actually shunned by others in the deaf community as traitors.

You can't say "No one would choose that" anymore about anything, because people wear the victim label too proudly in 21st century America.

"We choose to live with our crippling feature instead of choosing to get it fixed. We take pride in limiting our potential."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Amanda is presenting a thought experiment, once we enter that question we should stick to its parameters.

My answer is the gay person if given the choice early enough would select to be heterosexual. Why, because life is tough enough and being different in any way adds to the complexity. And almost all families would select what is societally considered normal. I know parents who wish their children would just act out the accepted norm. We thought of this too as we had boys, but our second took a while and both are hetero.

FD - My brother is gay, second in our household of 11 boys (3 girls), none of the others are gay. Often it is the second child that is gay. There is a theory that something in woman body changes after the first, the body says who's this. I have a niece, no blood relative who is second and gay too. I will ask this TE of gays and reply back.

I think you're forgetting to factor in the sheer, bloodyminded contrariness of some people. Most parents would probably choose for their children to be heterosexual if they could, but I don't think all of them would, and I KNOW that not all homosexuals would choose to be straight.

I'm always amazed by this position of "being a homosexual is such a burden, no one would choose it". Really, do these people act like they feel burdened and put upon, other than when they're playing the victim card to get their way?

 

[Red Dawn]

I know a lot of "heterosexuals" that would choose to be gay, if they weren't afraid of societal bias!

Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Charlie Bass, and a fair number of rightwing male message board posters here, just to name a few! (especially the dudes that are always googling for, and posting pics of naked men here).

 

[Cecilie1200]

I wouldn't demand it banned if that's what you mean.
The research to make the cure should not be funded by taxpayer money and people should not be forced to take the cure.

Pre-natal though is where it gets complicated.

Should the mother get to make decisions like that for the child? What kind of road would this lead down? Is there any precedent for modifying your fetus so that it comes out the way you want it (barring medical problems)?

Although I doubt we'd have this miracle cure anytime soon.

If anything we'll have a cure for pedophilia first.

Think about the controversy that would arise if a private company announced development of a cure for gayness. Now think about the same company making a cure for pedophilia and the good press they'd get and what they'd be able to brag about.

'We're helping to eliminate the threat of grown adults coming to molest your children'. I'd be surprised if they haven't considered this yet.

How do you say a woman has a right to kill a child in utero, but not to custom tailor him if she so desires? That's a mighty big contradiction in the law if we try to go there.

Because dead fetus can be used for a variety of household chores. I just have to find some.

Now please don't try to derail the thread

I'm not trying to derail anything. I am pointing out a basic logical contradiction here that I can assure you would be one of the first things to come up should medical science actually find a way to detect and change sexual orientation in the womb. Or, for that matter, to change anything genetic in the womb.

We have made a societal mantra out of "a woman's right to choose" an d the idea that abortion is about "what a woman does with her own body" until people parrot it without even thinking any more. The fact that a fetus is not in any sense a part of the mother's body rarely impinges on people's consciousness when their eyes glaze over and they start spouting PCisms on the subject. So for anyone who supports that position to now suggest that when it comes to sexual orientation, that fetus is a separate person with a right to future self-determination that the mother should not infringe upon, that essentially the mother has the right to choose to kill him but not the right to choose to make him heterosexual, is ludicrous and hypocritical. Killing him is okay, but we're going to balk at customizing him?

Pro-lifers have a leg to stand on if they want to object to "designer babies", because they've taken the position that fetuses are living beings possessing basic human dignity. Pro-choicers are pretty well locked into the idea that the mother has the right to do anything she wants to that "unviable tissue mass", including treating his genetic homosexuality as a disease to be cured.

 

[xsited1]

How do you say a woman has a right to kill a child in utero, but not to custom tailor him if she so desires? That's a mighty big contradiction in the law if we try to go there.

Because dead fetus can be used for a variety of household chores. I just have to find some.

Now please don't try to derail the thread

I'm not trying to derail anything. I am pointing out a basic logical contradiction here that I can assure you would be one of the first things to come up should medical science actually find a way to detect and change sexual orientation in the womb. Or, for that matter, to change anything genetic in the womb.

We have made a societal mantra out of "a woman's right to choose" an d the idea that abortion is about "what a woman does with her own body" until people parrot it without even thinking any more. The fact that a fetus is not in any sense a part of the mother's body rarely impinges on people's consciousness when their eyes glaze over and they start spouting PCisms on the subject. So for anyone who supports that position to now suggest that when it comes to sexual orientation, that fetus is a separate person with a right to future self-determination that the mother should not infringe upon, that essentially the mother has the right to choose to kill him but not the right to choose to make him heterosexual, is ludicrous and hypocritical. Killing him is okay, but we're going to balk at customizing him?

Pro-lifers have a leg to stand on if they want to object to "designer babies", because they've taken the position that fetuses are living beings possessing basic human dignity. Pro-choicers are pretty well locked into the idea that the mother has the right to do anything she wants to that "unviable tissue mass", including treating his genetic homosexuality as a disease to be cured.

I hadn't thought of that.

That changes everything.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's fine, but it doesn't matter. The premise I'm working from is that some homosexuals have said they wouldn't have chose to be gay. So, the question is one of bioethics. Many people want to change things about themselves, if it were medically possible for homosexuals to change do you think they should be allowed to do so?

Some of them would choose to be homosexual and make an in-your-face badge of honor out of it. Some would choose not to be, for a variety of reasons.

How do I know? Well, look at the deaf community. Most people would consider the lack of one of the five senses to be a defect. There is, however, a very strong movement among the deaf community toward deaf pride and an almost-segregationist attitude toward the hearing. When cochlear implants became widely available, many deaf people who would have been helped by it refused to get them and were even quite hostile toward the doctors and the technology because they felt it stigmatized deafness. Other deaf people who did get the surgery and gain their hearing were actually shunned by others in the deaf community as traitors.

You can't say "No one would choose that" anymore about anything, because people wear the victim label too proudly in 21st century America.

"We choose to live with our crippling feature instead of choosing to get it fixed. We take pride in limiting our potential."

We are committed to having self-esteem about every aspect of ourselves, regardless of whether it's warranted. Yup, that's basically it.

In all fairness to the deaf community, many of those who rejected the idea of cochlear implants did so because they found the idea of hearing after a lifetime of deafness frightening, rather than from a misguided sense of activism and "deaf pride".

 

[sitarro]

No, I didn't feel like the discussion had run it's course yet. I guess not everyone agreed. But Gunny didn't seem to have a problem with it so I started it again.

Perhaps, but the world is still a harder place for homosexuals so I think that if there were a way to make life easier for them they should have access to it. I don't think people should have to suffer.

The last part made me laugh. You don't think I haven't caught my fair share of shit for being who I am? Not everyone is the same, some people can't take adversity, some can. If I were gay I would probably do the pride parades (tho not mostly naked) because I'm perfectly willing to take abuse for what I believe in. If nothing else in my life I feel like I've proven (at least to myself) I can take a beating for my principles.

I'm not talking about whether it was correct that you be allowed to re-post yet another thred on this subject.

I'm talking about your getting the same responses this issue ALWAYS gets. But like anyone else obsessed with a particular issue, whether it be the color of people's skins (and what exactly that means or doesn't mean) ... or homosexuality ... or reproductive choice... they are issues where no one changes their mind. You get the same back and forth...

ultimately, like i said, for someone who wants her own sexuality to be embraced, you spend a lot of time trying to marginalize others. so i'm not sure how that's representative of "principles". more like bigotry, sounds like.

Why bother with a message board, what is the point of posting anything? I find it hilarious how the women on the board get so bent out of shape when their favorite little pets are discussed. Having a fag pet is so very now for you girls isn't it? You get to go to fag clubs and dance with guys that act like girls, you're in heaven with your fag pets, after all, that's what Karen had with Jack on your favorite TV show. What a joke.

 

[jillian]

No, I didn't feel like the discussion had run it's course yet. I guess not everyone agreed. But Gunny didn't seem to have a problem with it so I started it again.

Perhaps, but the world is still a harder place for homosexuals so I think that if there were a way to make life easier for them they should have access to it. I don't think people should have to suffer.

The last part made me laugh. You don't think I haven't caught my fair share of shit for being who I am? Not everyone is the same, some people can't take adversity, some can. If I were gay I would probably do the pride parades (tho not mostly naked) because I'm perfectly willing to take abuse for what I believe in. If nothing else in my life I feel like I've proven (at least to myself) I can take a beating for my principles.

I'm not talking about whether it was correct that you be allowed to re-post yet another thred on this subject.

I'm talking about your getting the same responses this issue ALWAYS gets. But like anyone else obsessed with a particular issue, whether it be the color of people's skins (and what exactly that means or doesn't mean) ... or homosexuality ... or reproductive choice... they are issues where no one changes their mind. You get the same back and forth...

ultimately, like i said, for someone who wants her own sexuality to be embraced, you spend a lot of time trying to marginalize others. so i'm not sure how that's representative of "principles". more like bigotry, sounds like.

Why bother with a message board, what is the point of posting anything? I find it hilarious how the women on the board get so bent out of shape when their favorite little pets are discussed. Having a fag pet is so very now for you girls isn't it? You get to go to fag clubs and dance with guys that act like girls, you're in heaven with your fag pets, after all, that's what Karen had with Jack on your favorite TV show. What a joke.

s'matter? they wouldn't let you go with them?

for real, what you're probably trying to say under all the rant is "if you know people, you're less likely to be a jerk who's bigoted against them".

ok... prolly true.

 

[midcan5]

Early enough? I don't think I'm getting this...

-------------
This brings me to...

I might not be getting this... but isn't this an American discussion forum? Aren't you guys about 'individuality' and protecting individuals' rights? Or are we in a Soviet forum speaking of 'dangers to society' where INDIVIDUALS have to be assimilated, 'cured', or otherwise done away with???

It is a thought experiment not policy, lol. By early enough I mean before one is set in their ways, my brother and partner (?) have been together over twenty years. Would they change? I have to ask that as we are open in our family. Wayback machines are only on TV.

Individual freedom is a complicated concept, how far do any of us go, surely as Kierkegaard wrote, we share only a tidbit of our inner thoughts for fear we would be considered ???

OT - Another thing I find impossible is bi-sexuality, a sort of directly in the middle point of that sexual orientation scale. Sex (the act) though is powerful, and as prisoners prove, more malleable.

 

[Anguille]

How do you say a woman has a right to kill a child in utero, but not to custom tailor him if she so desires? That's a mighty big contradiction in the law if we try to go there.

From a utilitarian perspective, we could consider the existence and presence of suffering in such an equation. Since it is not aware of its own existence, a fetus is not capable of suffering from its own death in the same manner as a human. Conversely, "custom tailoring" may have any manner of negative consequences later in life, thereby potentially causing suffering depending on the circumstances.

Still that does not negate a woman's right to do whatever she wants to her body, of which a fetus is part. A pregnant woman has the right to drink alcohol, smoke and consume any number of legal substances which have been shown to be risk factors affecting the health of the future child. She has the right to alter a fetus while it is part of her body for whatever reason.

 

[Anguille]

Amanda is presenting a thought experiment, once we enter that question we should stick to its parameters.

I agree. It's an interesting question and the thread need not be side tracked into yet another repeat pro/anti gay rights debate.

My answer is the gay person if given the choice early enough would select to be heterosexual. Why, because life is tough enough and being different in any way adds to the complexity. And almost all families would select what is societally considered normal. I know parents who wish their children would just act out the accepted norm. We thought of this too as we had boys, but our second took a while and both are hetero.

FD - My brother is gay, second in our household of 11 boys (3 girls), none of the others are gay. Often it is the second child that is gay. There is a theory that something in woman body changes after the first, the body says who's this. I have a niece, no blood relative who is second and gay too. I will ask this TE of gays and reply back.

And now to go off topic... ...
I disagree that gay people if given the choice early enough would choose to be straight particularly if they felt that their sexuality was a fundmental to who they are. Society is changing, gays are accepted more and more. Due to common sense and a non conformist streak in just enough people to keep society evolving.