Amanda
Calm as a Hindu cow
- Nov 28, 2008
- 4,426
- 1,011
- 48
- Thread starter
- #81
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?