What if there was a "cure"? Part 2

[Anguille]

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).

LOL!
Honestly, I would choose to be bisexual if I had the option. Double the opportunities!

 

[Amanda]

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.

That is a really, really interesting point.

Is it possible to maintain all of your other ideological stances without contradiction in respect to this 1? I think midcan is right, this IS a thought experiment.. And perhaps some of the reaction that we're seeing is a byproduct of people trying to reconcile concepts that just don't sit comfortably with each other.

Personally, I don't feel this discomfort because I'm pro-choice (1 of my few lib stances) and I think a parent should be able to make choices for their child. It makes sense that if you're pro-choice and aren't in favor of a "cure" that you would have to do some mental gymnastics to not have a glaring contradiction.

 

[sitarro]

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?

Every homosexual(male) that I have known has said that as an explanation for why they were obviously born that way. "Nobody would purposely choose a life like this", that was the standard line before the Hollywood propaganda machine made homosexuality the "cool" fad that it is today. Again, what a predictable joke...... in a matter of 2 generations, you have been programed to forget the ravages of HIV that was exclusively in the homosexual community until homosexual men brought it home to their wives. I lived through that time, I remember how it totally screwed up the sexual atmosphere in the 80s........ it also brought on the use of those lousy condoms........ hate those things. Rent "Philadelphia" or "And the Band Played On", if the homosexual lobby hasn't taken those off of the shelves. There were radical homosexuals that threatened to spread it to the Heterosexual(normal) world because they didn't feel their disease wasn't getting enough attention. Pretend ignorance all you want, for those of us that lived through that time, facts are facts.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I must say, you're consistent, Amanda.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

That isn't an ethical argument since it begs the question to some extent...it relies on a currently existing legal reality without analyzing that legal reality itself, thus not drawing a sufficient distinction between "is" and "ought."

 

[Father Time]

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.

Where have I ever indicated I was pro-choice on this board? I don't remember doing it.

I tend to avoid debates online about abortion because I think they're a colossal waste of time since everyone who would bother showing up to one is all ready adamant about their side and convinced that the other side is nothing but baby killers or women haters blah blah blah. They tend to become shouting matches in record time, it's like Godwin's law on crack.

That's why I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Is being homosexual a mental illness? Who does it harm? What about the people that have condititions like lack of anger control, sociopaths, ect.? Shouldn't we worry about them first? How about genetic tendencies toward addiction? Seems that your question is addressing something rather minor when we have major problems to address.

 

[Amanda]

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.

Is being homosexual a mental illness? Who does it harm? What about the people that have condititions like lack of anger control, sociopaths, ect.? Shouldn't we worry about them first? How about genetic tendencies toward addiction? Seems that your question is addressing something rather minor when we have major problems to address.

I don't know if homosexuality is a mental illness. It was classified that way for years. I don't know the reasoning that was behind changing it.

Some people that are gay have said they wouldn't have chose it. I'm guessing THEY would say it's hurting themselves.

What about other people? Have a concern or interest, start a thread. That's what I did.

If it's so minor as to not warrant attention what are you doing here responding?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Where have I ever indicated I was pro-choice on this board? I don't remember doing it.

Where did I ever say a single thing about your personal position on the subject? I don't remember doing it. I'll never understand why some people insist on thinking everything is all about them.

I tend to avoid debates online about abortion because I think they're a colossal waste of time since everyone who would bother showing up to one is all ready adamant about their side and convinced that the other side is nothing but baby killers or women haters blah blah blah. They tend to become shouting matches in record time, it's like Godwin's law on crack.

That's why I don't want to derail the thread.

Still don't recall asking you anything about your personal opinion on abortion, and definitely don't remember caring. Just because you, personally, have decided that you don't like the subject doesn't automatically make it off-limits, a "thread derailer", or utterly unrelated to every other subject under the sun. My suggestion in the future is that if someone points out a logical thought connection to something that you don't personally feel is worth discussing, you should simply refrain from addressing it at all, rather than leaping n and admonishing people that NO ONE should talk draw parallels to a topic you don't like.

Again, everything isn't always about you personally.

 

[midcan5]

Followup. So far it is fifty fifty, half would change young due to societal pressures, the other half are content and see it as part of them and only a problem for those who don't accept them. I have not heard from any women yet, but I know a few and motherhood enters that picture, some have babies through artificial insemination.

While a bit off topic, I remember reading "Sexual Signatures" by Money many years ago and its argument over nature versus nurture. Money believed strongly in nurture but was proven wrong. One reason gay is no longer considered abnormal is sexuality is now considered innate, even sexual identity, by most specialists. Check out the story below it is fascinating stuff.

NASSPE: Research > David Reimer: the boy who was raised as a girl

John Money - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Father Time]

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.

Where have I ever indicated I was pro-choice on this board? I don't remember doing it.

Where did I ever say a single thing about your personal position on the subject? I don't remember doing it. I'll never understand why some people insist on thinking everything is all about them.

"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?" If that wasn't meant as something about my personal opinion on the subject, I apologize

I tend to avoid debates online about abortion because I think they're a colossal waste of time since everyone who would bother showing up to one is all ready adamant about their side and convinced that the other side is nothing but baby killers or women haters blah blah blah. They tend to become shouting matches in record time, it's like Godwin's law on crack.

That's why I don't want to derail the thread.

Still don't recall asking you anything about your personal opinion on abortion, and definitely don't remember caring. Just because you, personally, have decided that you don't like the subject doesn't automatically make it off-limits, a "thread derailer", or utterly unrelated to every other subject under the sun. My suggestion in the future is that if someone points out a logical thought connection to something that you don't personally feel is worth discussing, you should simply refrain from addressing it at all, rather than leaping n and admonishing people that NO ONE should talk draw parallels to a topic you don't like.

Again, everything isn't always about you personally.

Going from this to abortion would certainly derail the thread but mine was merely a suggestion, but if you wish to debate it with someone else fine, don't expect me to get involved with anything other than wise-guy comments at the expense of both sides.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know if homosexuality is a mental illness. It was classified that way for years. I don't know the reasoning that was behind changing it.

As I understand it, the basic rationale from removing it from the list of psychiatric disorders was that it does not in itself cause an inability to function in society. A seminal study associated with that outlook is at hooker.htm .

 

[Amanda]

I don't know if homosexuality is a mental illness. It was classified that way for years. I don't know the reasoning that was behind changing it.

As I understand it, the basic rationale from removing it from the list of psychiatric disorders was that it does not in itself cause an inability to function in society. A seminal study associated with that outlook is at hooker.htm .

I don't have time right now to read the link, but my gut on the subject is that is was removed to make people feel better about themselves, which is in line with a lot of lib initiatives.

 

[jillian]

I don't know if homosexuality is a mental illness. It was classified that way for years. I don't know the reasoning that was behind changing it.

It was removed because it isn't a mental illness and the old prejudice-based catagorization was removed after the Kinsey Report was released.

sorry it no longer exists for you.

The DSM IV does still list gender dysphasia, though.

 

[Amanda]

I don't know if homosexuality is a mental illness. It was classified that way for years. I don't know the reasoning that was behind changing it.

It was removed because it isn't a mental illness and the old prejudice-based catagorization was removed after the Kinsey Report was released.

sorry it no longer exists for you.

The DSM IV does still list gender dysphasia, though.

I still just boggle at your responses to me. You seem angry and I don't understand why. I just want to understand things, and I know I have my own internal biases but I really am open to learning a new perspective. I used to be really different from how I am now, I've become much, MUCH liberal on some issues, but it's surely not from interacting with libs, because so many of them treat me the way you do, it's from having an open heart and wanting to love. I really wish I knew how to make things right between us Jillian, I don't think we need to be adversarial.

 

[JohnStOnge]

I don't have time right now to read the link, but my gut on the subject is that is was removed to make people feel better about themselves, which is in line with a lot of lib initiatives.

My opinion is that it was removed for political/philosophical rather than scientific reasons. I think you can get a pretty good idea as to the rationale from this line out of the paper I linked:

"But what is difficult to accept (for most clinicians) is that some homosexuals may be very ordinary individuals, indistinguishable, except in sexual pattern, from ordinary individuals who are heterosexual. Or - and I do not know whether this would be more or less difficult to accept - that some may be quite superior individuals, not only devoid of pathology (unless one insists that homosexuality itself is a sign of pathology) but also functioning at a superior level."

Underline added for emphasis. I think that's the idea. The fact that some homosexual individuals can be otherwise well adjusted and function at a high level means it's not a disorder...unless you consider it a disorder in itself.

I also think the editorial note of the article is consistent with my belief that egalitarian philosophy contaminated "science" with respect to this issue. If you read nothing else, just read the editorial note at the beginning. It appeared with the article when it was published. Me, I don't see the content and tone of that editorial note as indicative of dispassionate, objective scientific inquiry.

If you are interested in seeing the argument for "politics over science" in the area of homosexuality, see The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber . Know ahead of time that you will see ad hominem attacks against the source. But I think that it pretty well summarizes the argument of those, like me, who believe that egalitarian philosophy rather than science ruled the day.

Here's the bottom line set of contentions by the author of the article at that link:

"The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:

"1. Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.

2. A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act.

3. There was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."

 

[JohnStOnge]

It was removed because it isn't a mental illness and the old prejudice-based catagorization was removed after the Kinsey Report was released.

Kinsey's stuff is junk. Like the estimate you hear thrown around all the time about 10% being homosexual. No way that's a reliable estimate. If you go to Kinsey Reports: Encyclopedia II - Kinsey Reports - Criticism you can see what statistcians thought of his methodology. A quote:

"In 1948, the same year as the original publication, a committee of the American Statistical Association, including notable statisticians such as John Tukey condemned the sampling procedure. Tukey was perhaps the most vocal critic, saying "A random selection of three people would have been better than a group of 300 chosen by Mr. Kinsey" [1]. Criticism principally revolved around the perceived over-representation of some groups in the sample: 25% were, or had been, prison inmates, and 5% were male prostitutes. A related criticism, by some of the leading psychologists of the day, notably Abraham Maslow was that he did not consider the bias created by the data representing only those who were willing to participate."

There's some discussion of how others claimed to have "cleaned up" Kinsey's sample. But you can't do that. You have to have a legitimate probability sample to make estimates like Kinsey made to begin with.

 

[JohnStOnge]

Since we're on this, I want to comment on this quote from the page I linked on criticism and support of the Kinsey report:

"And as for the call for a 'random sample,' a team of independent statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had been 'extraordinarily skillful.' They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental endeavor."

The fact that getting a "true random sample" might be difficult or impossible does not change the fact that a probability sample is necessary for deriving a legitimate estimate of a population percentage (like 10% being homosexual). The fact that you can't get a random sample doesn't somehow render an estimate based on a haphazard sample (which is what Kinsey got) reliable. And, actually, we do have probability samples that at least strongly hint at how large the percentage of homosexuals is. For instance, during exit polling for the 2008 Presidential election, 4% of voters identified themselves as "Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual." Yes, you can say some people didn't tell the truth about themselves. But the same can be said for Kinsey's stuff. At least exit polling involves probability sampling and it provides some pretty strong evidence that Kinsey dramatically over estimated the proportion.

Another thing: Employing an "extraordinarily skillfull interviewing technique" doesn't matter. That's like dismissing the sampling problems associated with a survey of the average length of a fish population by saying that the measurement of each fish was really accurate. Doesn't matter how accurate the measurements are. If you don't have a valid sample of the population, you don't have a reliable estimate of the parameter; no matter how "monumental" your effort is.

To me, the fact that Kinsey's stuff gets the respect it does and gets quoted as though it represents anything reliable all the time is one of the biggest examples of how people will hear something they want to hear and run with it. It's an example of how philosophy contaminated science in the area of assessment of human sexual behavior.

 

[Ravi]

You're pretty tightly wound on the subject of gays, eh John?

Why is that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where have I ever indicated I was pro-choice on this board? I don't remember doing it.

Where did I ever say a single thing about your personal position on the subject? I don't remember doing it. I'll never understand why some people insist on thinking everything is all about them.

"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?" If that wasn't meant as something about my personal opinion on the subject, I apologize.

I am SO sorry that I did not phrase that grammatically enough to bypass your colossal me-monkey ego. How does ONE say a woman has a right . . . ? Is that better?

Now get the hell over yourself.

I tend to avoid debates online about abortion because I think they're a colossal waste of time since everyone who would bother showing up to one is all ready adamant about their side and convinced that the other side is nothing but baby killers or women haters blah blah blah. They tend to become shouting matches in record time, it's like Godwin's law on crack.

That's why I don't want to derail the thread.

Still don't recall asking you anything about your personal opinion on abortion, and definitely don't remember caring. Just because you, personally, have decided that you don't like the subject doesn't automatically make it off-limits, a "thread derailer", or utterly unrelated to every other subject under the sun. My suggestion in the future is that if someone points out a logical thought connection to something that you don't personally feel is worth discussing, you should simply refrain from addressing it at all, rather than leaping n and admonishing people that NO ONE should talk draw parallels to a topic you don't like.

Again, everything isn't always about you personally.

Going from this to abortion would certainly derail the thread but mine was merely a suggestion, but if you wish to debate it with someone else fine, don't expect me to get involved with anything other than wise-guy comments at the expense of both sides.

Sorry, but no. Again, drawing an obvious parallel between one procedure involving fetuses and another is not "derailing the thread", even if one of them IS a topic you don't ever want discussed.

Don't worry. I don't expect you to ever have the stones to do anything but hide and snipe like a snotty little girl.