• Is a scientific cure for homosexuality morally wrong?
    117 replies, posted
Was at lunch with a close friend of mine who's gay and their partner and the topic came up on whether or not it was choice or not. I inherently have nothing against homosexuality, I don't, I just like to discuss every topic that comes to mind so I presented the question to them, whether it was choice or genetics, were there some kind of miracle science that could make you strictly heterosexual, would it be morally wrong to take it / create in the first place? His boyfriend said he would be open to taking it which surprised both of us where as my friend said he could only see something like that being made in such an extreme circumstance where a species for whatever reason started popping out strictly homosexual inclined creatures dooming the continuity of said race, if such a thing existed he wouldn't take it simply because he loves the person he's with now, and that's a fair enough argument. [b]NOTE: This is not a thread debating whether or not homosexuality is curable or if it's wrong to be gay, it's a hypothetical question.[/b]
If it's the person's choice to somehow scientifically change their sexuality, then what's the problem? It's [I]their[/I] decision. And that's for changing to either sexuality.
I wouldn't [I]cure[/I] my homosexuality. It makes me feel unique and I think there needs to be people like me to love men :P females get enough attention.
As far as I can see it's the same as a sex-change, it should be the individuals choice. Just as any choice. This kind of thing wouldn't affect anyone but the individual.
I personally see nothing morally or ethically wrong with a "cure" for homosexuality at first glance, so long as it isn't administered in any mandatory sense. Of course, this being real life, that will happen. So we have to ask a really good question, If there were a cure for homosexuality and you knew it would be applied to homosexuals against their will, is it wrong? Our first instinct is to probably say yes. Very infact. You're removing a person's autonomy. However when we look at something like Pedophilia or Alchoholism, we have complex programmes of rehabilitation that aim just to do that. Understandably the argument goes that of course, these afflictions are destructive or hurt others. They SHOULD be cured. That Homosexuality is literally and completely victimless, not to mention not at all deleterious to a person's health, is the counterpoint. Of course the refutation is that homosexuality is indeed dangerous, or at the very least undesirable. A social darwinist (I may be misapplying this label, forgive me) would say that homosexuality serves no real place in society, and is a clear illness that needs to be excised. A religious fundamentalist would likely say that homosexuality is objectively contradictory to the will of the divine property that governs us. So, I suppose I would say it's ethically wrong to develop such a "cure" since it enables and empowers groups who's behavior or beliefs are, to me, not permissible.
Homosexuality is natural, it occurs everywhere, if you treat it as if it's wrong, you had may as well treat heterosexuality, asexuality and bisexuality as if it's wrong... it's senseless. So, if homosexuals have problems because that's what they are, then we have problems because of what we are.
[QUOTE=Angry pepper;40390491]Homosexuality is natural, it occurs everywhere, if you treat it as if it's wrong, you had may as well treat heterosexuality, asexuality and bisexuality as if it's wrong... it's senseless. So, if homosexuals have problems because that's what they are, then we have problems because of what we are.[/QUOTE] Being natural is not an argument for whether it is good/bad/moral/immoral. Those types of questions must be asked purely in the context of how it effects our current society.
A cure would be OH so wrong; not every variance in mental structuring is mental sickness, as there is no objectively superior mindset or mental state in this universe; the universe is ever-changing with countless situations and circumstances in which different mindsets and biologies can thrive or perish. For example, homosexuality is a mind-state that needs to be encouraged in this overpopulated future of ours, so we don't end up with too many mouths to feed with our dwindling resource pool, not to mention it'll mean that man is more able to love their fellow man.
since a cure would involve something akin to a lobotomy.... yes? i mean i dont think we need to be affraid of homosexuals and go around heavily medicating them to make them straight now the real question is, if they discover some sort of genetic marker that would make you more likely to be homosexual, would it be inethical to remove that before the child is born?
[QUOTE=ironman17;40390618]A cure would be OH so wrong; not every variance in mental structuring is mental sickness, as there is no objectively superior mindset or mental state in this universe; the universe is ever-changing with countless situations and circumstances in which different mindsets and biologies can thrive or perish. For example, homosexuality is a mind-state that needs to be encouraged in this overpopulated future of ours, so we don't end up with too many mouths to feed with our dwindling resource pool, not to mention it'll mean that man is more able to love their fellow man.[/QUOTE] Firstly, overpopulation is a myth. Secondly, if there is nothing objective about certain states of mind why would you prevent someone from changing their state of mind if they wanted to? It seems you are saying one's state of mind they were born with is objectively better than any other. Do you have any objective reason to assert that opinion?
it's an individual's choice as to whether or not they'd want to take this cure. i don't think it goes anything beyond that. as long as it's not forced on babies and those who take this cure can make their own decisions properly (18 or 21+), i see no problem with it.
Reminds me of the third X-men movie. That's what that movie was about, wasn't it? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]
I can see it being a real benefit for people who suffer bullying or problems in the home etc as a result of their sexuality
I think a big problem with this would be some parents wanting to give it to their children like a vaccination or something.
It depends on who wants to do it, and who doesn't. I wouldn't do it to me, but if someone else wants to(and isn't forced in to doing so), then why not. It's really their choice. Being forced in to being "cured" isn't right at all, and isn't an individual choice, which is how it should be. But again, if someone chooses to do this, then it's not a real problem, it's their choice really.
Homosexuality is not a disease, so a scientific cure for it sounds like it's morally wrong.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;40397522]Homosexuality is not a disease, so a scientific cure for it sounds like it's morally wrong.[/QUOTE] If a cure for Homosexuality is morally wrong because it is not a disease, does that mean a cure for Pedophillia or Zoophillia are also morally wrong because they are not diseases?
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;40397552]If a cure for Homosexuality is morally wrong because it is not a disease, does that mean a cure for Pedophillia or Zoophillia are also morally wrong because they are not diseases?[/QUOTE] Well, isn't curing someone of something that isn't a disease like brainwashing someone to change their opinion or mind about something?
I refuse to answer the prompt because to call it a "cure' implies that being homosexual is a defect to begin with.
I hate this topic. But its something that must always be noted. As nice as this miracle science would be, the only science that currently exists about this is actually just equal to torture. This is never a positive thing to do to anyone. Ever. But when you speak in terms of being hypothetical, in the end, it [B]massively [/B]depends on the person. For some, you're destroying their identity and lives, you might as well kill them, for others, you are opening a rusted shut gate for them. I would never want anything like that legalized ultimately though. Religious nutters would go haywire. It's bad enough with "Gay repression therapy" which is just torture with Jesus Christ and sunshine gates to heaven written all over it to make it seem "Ok". [QUOTE=Arsonist;40391320]I can see it being a real benefit for people who suffer bullying or problems in the home etc as a result of their sexuality[/QUOTE] "Curing" it sure as hell wont make that stop, you know. in fact, it'll just make it worse probably. "Oh I'm no longer gay" "LOL ONCE A FAGGOT ALWAYS A FAGGOT". Bullies are assholes.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;40397574]Well, isn't curing someone of something that isn't a disease like brainwashing someone to change their opinion or mind about something?[/QUOTE] Not necisarily. It could just be removing their compulsion to be that way, or the reaction they recieve. Imagine the "anti-gay pill" just makes it so you don't get excited by willies and strong washboard abs anymore. It doesn't change personality directly or make someone go "gays are eeeevul" It simply removes homosexual desires. Completely, and painlessly.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;40397636]Not necisarily. It could just be removing their compulsion to be that way, or the reaction they recieve. Imagine the "anti-gay pill" just makes it so you don't get excited by willies and strong washboard abs anymore. It doesn't change personality directly or make someone go "gays are eeeevul" It simply removes homosexual desires. Completely, and painlessly.[/QUOTE] Until the anti gay crowd starts abusing it, its OK. And that WILL happen, and very very swiftly, trust me. Either by force or by lying out right to gays. Gays are confused as it is, just leave them be. Hell, if its a pill, I can very much imagine some people would even try and spike water with it / something like that.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;40397636]Not necisarily. It could just be removing their compulsion to be that way, or the reaction they recieve. Imagine the "anti-gay pill" just makes it so you don't get excited by willies and strong washboard abs anymore. It doesn't change personality directly or make someone go "gays are eeeevul" It simply removes homosexual desires. Completely, and painlessly.[/QUOTE] Well I'm sorry, but a cure for homosexuality is basically implying that there is in fact something wrong that needs to be cured. Homosexuality is not a defect, disease or illness in any form, and there is nothing wrong with being homosexual.
[QUOTE=Flameon;40397584]I refuse to answer the prompt because to call it a "cure' implies that being homosexual is a defect to begin with.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. But to humour the question, let's read past the title and get the actual question, ignoring the whole 'cure' side. [QUOTE=Captain James;40386492]whether it was choice or genetics, were there some kind of miracle science that could make you strictly heterosexual, would it be morally wrong to take it / create in the first place?[/QUOTE] Creating a tool alone has no effect. 'Taking' such a tool implies voluntarily using on oneself. Morals don't come in to play here, so the premise of this thread is malformed.
I think it would be morally fine, theres nothing inherently wrong with it, but isn't something that should be made or invested in until gays are fully accepted in society (or at least the anti-gay voice is much smaller). As is it would easily be abused and even if they did chose it that could easily be pressured by other people, as many would chose it so they would stop getting bullied or such.
As long as you don't treat it as a "cure" but rather a "personal modification" it's fine. Let people choose.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;40413363]As long as you don't treat it as a "cure" but rather a "personal modification" it's fine. Let people choose.[/QUOTE] I would agree with this, people can choose quite a bit to alter about themselves already why not sexual preference?
I would say the "cure" itself is not good or evil. It is how it is used. A gay guy decides he really doesn't want to be gay anymore, and takes it willingly? Good - really no different than a transsexual getting gender reassignment surgery, "correcting" themselves to what they want to be. On the other side, forcing someone to be "cured" would be evil. However, I find it far less likely that someone would want to change their orientation but require medical assistance to do so. So the "cure" has relatively little potential to be used for good, and a lot more potential to be used for evil. So overall, I don't think creating such a "cure" would be a good idea, if it even were possible. And I think, if it were possible, it would not work quite the way it would be expected.
[QUOTE=Black Milano;40413363]As long as you don't treat it as a "cure" but rather a "personal modification" it's fine. Let people choose.[/QUOTE] I only meant cure as a colloquial thing, didn't mean to imply it literally so I apologise for any confusion. :) Tomayto-Tomahto etc, I agree with what you say though, it's all about how it's used. Then again people using it out of peer pressure to be heterosexual is kind of inherently wrong, I just can't really form a reason in my own head as to why someone homosexual would want to personally modify their sexual preference short of peer pressure if they love themselves or someone of the same gender for it.
The only problem I could see with a drug that could change someone's sexuality is parents wanting to decide the sexuality of their children before they're old enough to make that choice themselves.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.