Is a scientific cure for homosexuality morally wrong?
117 replies, posted
Wouldn't such a treatment end up turning homosexuality into a choice?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40417630]Wouldn't such a treatment end up turning homosexuality into a choice?[/QUOTE]
Not exactly. If it was that scientists found that it could be cured with a vaccine I'd assume it was something you could not choose.
[QUOTE=Scoooooby;40386641]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.[/QUOTE]
I have never heard it put quite like that lol... fair enough though.
So we know you wouldn't "cure" your homosexuality. I imagine a lot of Facepunch's other gay folks wouldn't either. Would you guys object to other people "curing" themselves?
[QUOTE=sgman91;40391045]Firstly, overpopulation is a myth.[/QUOTE]
I would love to see how you came to this conclusion.
Morally speaking, making a "cure" available does not seem wrong, as long as it is strictly optional.
Let's reverse the question for the sake of argument: what if there was a way to make heterosexuals gay? It doesn't seem to be morally wrong either, but let's be honest, who do you think would actually use it? I can't imagine people of sound mind would, because in our society, what advantage is there in being gay? Going back to homosexuals wanting to change: if gays had a completely equal footing in society, would they want to be straight? Why would they bother changing then?
Morally I see no problem with this, but logically if society were a roughly equal place, there would be little to no reason for hetero/homo people to change to the other orientation. And considering our society is still far from equal for homosexuals, all this does is create a scenario where peer pressure will have most of them turn to the "cure" and become straight. Those that do not would be chastised even more than they are now, because staying gay would seem like a choice to those who are against it (because they choose not to accept the "cure").
Might be viable in a few generations. I wouldn't make it available now, even if I had it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40417630]Wouldn't such a treatment end up turning homosexuality into a choice?[/QUOTE]
If the same treatment applied to heterosexuals, wouldn't that make heterosexuality a choice?
[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]
Technically it is a mutation. Homosexuality really provides no advantage in nature, what with the lack of wanting to produce offspring with the opposite sex. It could even harm animals in the wild, because genes are not being spread out, so it is a mutation. However, I am not saying it is a bad thing in humans.
I think it should be the person's own choice on whether they should be 'cured' or not. A person's sexuality is a large part of their personality and should be taken to note on what repercussions it would have on the persons' lives.
Something like this should only be attempted if it is isn't torture and in the end won't hurt or change the person more than they wanted.
Whatever they're comfortable with. Everyone can come to terms with their identity in their own way, whether that involves accepting yourself as-is or going through changes (medical or otherwise). So no, it's not morally wrong. What would be morally wrong however is forcing such a medicine on people.
The question of homosexuality being a choice or not doesn't really matter either in my opinion, everyone should just learn to accept the presence of homosexuals in society irregardless of said people chose to be or not. It's like making a debate over whether personal preference of Pepsi or Coke comes down to choice or acquired taste from birth. Everyone is different, deal with it.
[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]
So someone should change their sexual preferences just because they're getting bullied because of it? How about taking care of the real problem (the bullying) instead of changing something that you shouldn't even be getting picked on for in the first place (homosexuality)
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40418111]What would be morally wrong however is forcing such a medicine on people.[/QUOTE]
Basically any problems would come from the "cure" being forced on people. I would argue that in order for humanity to be ready to properly handle such a medical process they would need to first have total acceptance of homosexuality. Otherwise no one can properly make a truly informed decision about whether or not the "cure" is what they want.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;40418425]Basically any problems would come from the "cure" being forced on people. I would argue that in order for humanity to be ready to properly handle such a medical process they would need to first have total acceptance of homosexuality. Otherwise no one can properly make a truly informed decision about whether or not the "cure" is what they want.[/QUOTE]
We have vaccines against common nasty stuff like Tetanus and Polio that we know empirically are bad, yet taking those vaccines is non-compulsory. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't force people to take any sort of medicine currently or in the future.
I actually think there would be all sorts of depression issues involved with it as well. Thoughts of what could have been. Additionally straight people have gay thoughts sometimes, right? Imagine if you got the cure but still thought you were gay. Super confusion abounds.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;40418485]I actually think there would be all sorts of depression issues involved with it as well. Thoughts of what could have been. Additionally straight people have gay thoughts sometimes, right? Imagine if you got the cure but still thought you were gay. Super confusion abounds.[/QUOTE]
Again, the choice of the individual. Including bad choices. Freedom, yo.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40418482]We have vaccines against common nasty stuff like Tetanus and Polio that we know empirically are bad, yet taking those vaccines is non-compulsory. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't force people to take any sort of medicine currently or in the future.[/QUOTE]
Except homosexuality is illegal in some countries. Some families would be able to scare their children into it as well.
[editline]26th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40418502]Again, the choice of the individual. Including bad choices. Freedom, yo.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but those issues can be removed if first there is total acceptance of homosexuality.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;40418505]Except homosexuality is illegal in some countries. Some families would be able to scare their children into it as well.
[editline]26th April 2013[/editline]
Yeah but those issues can be removed if first there is total acceptance of homosexuality.[/QUOTE]
I don't think government of any first-world nation is so uniformly and passionately against same-sex relations that they'd end up spending massive amounts of federal resources developing nation-wide no-homo vaccination plans for their populations. Completely authoritarian regimes, perhaps.
But sure, in theory the risk is there. It's still not a problem with the vaccine or science though, just the people it ends up in the hands of. The weak link is always the people.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40418559]I don't think government of any first-world nation is so uniformly and passionately against same-sex relations that they'd end up spending massive amounts of federal resources developing nation-wide no-homo vaccination plans for their populations.
But sure, in theory the risk is there.[/QUOTE]
No they definitely wouldn't. But other countries might not object to the forceful application of the medical process. Eg. my father finds out I'm gay in a country with questionable human rights records and decides that that isn't right, takes me to a doctor (who is sympathetic with the father) and says "fix him." I say no and they just anesthesia the hell out of me. I know it is a hypothetical example but to be quite honest it really isn't that ludicrous compared to what some people go through in their households when they come out to their parents.
Additionally, though it is possible to take legal action against those who force you to do it, in the USA people force their kids into [URL="rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy"]reparation camps[/URL] (though that source is both a wiki and clearly a little bias). They exist. And not everyone who attends wants to be there, whether they know it or not. Of course, some do.
The consequences of such a cure would be rather weird as far as I can tell.
It's mere existence would show that homosexuality, fundamentally, isn't a choice.
But it would also, by it's existence, make it a choice.
And I'm pretty sure that once that cure is out there, a homosexual person will be less happy regardless of whether he/she takes it or not. It would also be an implied suggestion that homosexuality should be cured. I'm sure some people would want to take it, and if it exists, that is their choice to make. I just don't know if the benefits outweigh the cost.
In a world where everyone accepts homosexuals, I would be pro, but as it is now, the added problems it would lead to in countries where gays aren't accepted make me lean the other way.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;40413833]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..[/QUOTE]
Technically transgender folk have been the gender they've always been, such as a mtf person has always had a female brain, it's just that the surgery shapes their body to be more congruent with their mind.
It tends to appear that they've switched genders, but all they've really done is start acting and presenting how they'd normally do so if they were cisgendered.
Then again, there indeed are folks that say they've switched genders, and I don't mean to demean their own struggles.
Don't mind me, I'm just being nitpicky.
A "Cure" is made to "fix" something. The instant you have a solidly working product that can literally make someone no longer gay and you call it a "cure", you put across that being gay is "broken" or "something that needs to be fixed" or a disease or an illness.
[I]IF[/I] there was a product or procedure that could change someones sexual orientation, never ever EVER call it a cure, classify it something akin to a sex-change procedure.
Having a 'cure' for it would not be wrong.
But somehow, it will be abused, no doubt about it.
Some fanatic(s) will end up pushing for mandatory 'cures' for gays, which would obviously be bad.
I don't really see the point of having a 'cure' anyway.
It's kind of like asking hypothetically is it ok to cure black people lol. Gay isn't a disease, it can't be "cured".
[QUOTE=gerbe1;40418485]I actually think there would be all sorts of depression issues involved with it as well. Thoughts of what could have been. Additionally straight people have gay thoughts sometimes, right? Imagine if you got the cure but still thought you were gay. Super confusion abounds.[/QUOTE]
Well I consider myself strictly heterosexual so I can't relate to "sometimes" thinking about it. Also said miracle drug/injection/genetic fix whatever it may be would probably be permanent unless another form of science reversed it as well, giving you homosexual inclination. I think the biggest issue here is adding human compassion into the factor. It's hard to look at it simply as "it serves no benefit for nature" as over population is a myth without adding in our empathy and self awareness because these traits make us.. well human.
So I don't think it would be possible to take this cure and still question your sexuality, it would be like... I can't even think of something to compare it to, it would be akin to thinking you're from Mars when you were born on Earth. Dumb analogy, but it's the best I can come across with right now.
I wouldn't call homosexuality a mental sickness because a sickness implies that something is wrong with the person.
We have to be aware however that it isn't the normal way our brains are hardwired (and by that I mean it makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view because males with males and females with females produce no offspring).
Homosexuality can come from two things, something different in a person's brain, something different in a person's genetic code or it can be a socially driven choice (I'm not saying homosexuality is a choice in every case, but in some cases past experiences may drive a person towards a certain sexual orientation).
The point being, homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone and therefore a "cure" for it would be purely a choice of wanting to change your sexuality or not, it would be up to each individual to decide for themselves knowing that they may not come back with the same mindset should they change their mind later. It would only be morally wrong if it was imposed on everyone, or if it was administered to people as they were born.
Technically speaking, it would be the same as asking if something allowed you to change your eye color at the genetic level, would it be morally wrong? It's a choice each person should be able to make for themselves and it is only considered immoral from a religious point of view, but what isn't immoral in the eyes of religion?
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;40426071]I wouldn't call homosexuality a mental sickness because a sickness implies that something is wrong with the person.
We have to be aware however that it isn't the normal way our brains are hardwired (and by that I mean it makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view because males with males and females with females produce no offspring).
Homosexuality can come from two things, something different in a person's brain, something different in a person's genetic code or it can be a socially driven choice (I'm not saying homosexuality is a choice in every case, but in some cases past experiences may drive a person towards a certain sexual orientation).
The point being, homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone and therefore a "cure" for it would be purely a choice of wanting to change your sexuality or not, it would be up to each individual to decide for themselves knowing that they may not come back with the same mindset should they change their mind later. It would only be morally wrong if it was imposed on everyone, or if it was administered to people as they were born.
Technically speaking, it would be the same as asking if something allowed you to change your eye color at the genetic level, would it be morally wrong? It's a choice each person should be able to make for themselves and it is only considered immoral from a religious point of view, but what isn't immoral in the eyes of religion?[/QUOTE]
I like your reasoning a lot, and I agree with most of it for the better part. But riddle me this, using the above example with genetic eye colour, would it be morally wrong to change ethnicity if given the choice?
That's the only issue. We as people have socially accepted norms, some with their origins in religion and others that have just developed next to our species evolution through the ages and while it would be absolutely brilliant if we lived in a cosmopolitan society that accepted all, unfortunately in today's age peer pressure and social constructs would bully someone into considering changing themselves on a genetic level.
[QUOTE=Captain James;40426324]would it be morally wrong to change ethnicity if given the choice?[/QUOTE]
Stop, and think about what you're asking. Where do morals fit in to these questions?
[QUOTE=sgman91;40391045]Firstly, overpopulation is a myth.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm source ?
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;40426071]I wouldn't call homosexuality a mental sickness because a sickness implies that something is wrong with the person.[/QUOTE]
By what standard do we decide what is "wrong"? It's wrong from an evolutionary standpoint because it stops reproduction.
[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;40456781]By what standard do we decide what is "wrong"? It's wrong from an evolutionary standpoint because it stops reproduction.[/QUOTE]
But it's not wrong from an actuarial stand point as nothing in nature punishes homosexual behaviour, even in animals. It hasn't killed a species out to my knowledge
Nope.
Seems like population control if anything.
There's something I'd like to make clear: is this a cure to homosexuality (e.g. You're heterosexual now) or is this a sex change?
In a case of a cure to homosexuality, I think it's a choice to see if you'd like to change. I don't think this is very immoral unless it is forced upon them.
[QUOTE=Captain James;40425948]Well I consider myself strictly heterosexual so I can't relate to "sometimes" thinking about it. Also said miracle drug/injection/genetic fix whatever it may be would probably be permanent unless another form of science reversed it as well, giving you homosexual inclination. I think the biggest issue here is adding human compassion into the factor. It's hard to look at it simply as "it serves no benefit for nature" as over population is a myth without adding in our empathy and self awareness because these traits make us.. well human.
So I don't think it would be possible to take this cure and still question your sexuality, it would be like... I can't even think of something to compare it to, it would be akin to thinking you're from Mars when you were born on Earth. Dumb analogy, but it's the best I can come across with right now.[/QUOTE]
Would you believe me if I told you that about 50% of people who identify as heterosexual have had homosexual thoughts and roughly 30% of people who identify as heterosexual have had sexual relations with a member of the same sex to the point of orgasm? These numbers have a slightly higher margin of error than modern surveys because they're decades old but they have since been confirmed to be relatively accurate and additionally to be applicable to the present moment (roughly).
So I think maybe we need to make an important distinction: What do you consider to be a homosexual person? Because there are straight people who have enjoyed or had homosexual thoughts. Which is what can create confusion about your sexuality.
If the cure removes any and all homosexual tendanciesI think you are seriously messing with a person at that point, because it is like you're removing some of their freedoms. So if the cure makes you 100% straight then yes it is morally wrong in all situations because you're removing someone's freedom.
Straight people enjoy gay sex too.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;40426071]We have to be aware however that it isn't the normal way our brains are hardwired (and by that I mean it makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view because males with males and females with females produce no offspring).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;40456781]By what standard do we decide what is "wrong"? It's wrong from an evolutionary standpoint because it stops reproduction.[/QUOTE]
Except we have the ability for homosexual couples to produce offspring, theoretically from the exact same blood line as husband and wife if you take your sister's egg and partners sperm or partner's egg and brother's sperm. Therefore homosexuality does not stop reproduction. Further homosexuality not only can be explained through evolution, it has benefits as well. In an accepting society homosexual couples are beneficial to social cohesion (this comes from Samoa which has homosexual acts as illegal but is highly accepting of lgbt culture, that [I]country[/I] is confused about sexuality...), there are also unconfirmed but also not unproven theories that homosexuality promotes fertility and health.
From an evolutionary standpoint it is definitely not wrong.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;40426071]Homosexuality can come from two things, something different in a person's brain, something different in a person's genetic code or it can be a socially driven choice (I'm not saying homosexuality is a choice in every case, but in some cases past experiences may drive a person towards a certain sexual orientation).
The point being, homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone and therefore a "cure" for it would be purely a choice of wanting to change your sexuality or not, it would be up to each individual to decide for themselves knowing that they may not come back with the same mindset should they change their mind later. It would only be morally wrong if it was imposed on everyone, or if it was administered to people as they were born.
Technically speaking, it would be the same as asking if something allowed you to change your eye color at the genetic level, would it be morally wrong? It's a choice each person should be able to make for themselves and it is only considered immoral from a religious point of view, but what isn't immoral in the eyes of religion?[/QUOTE]
I agree with this part. However, if the cure removes [I]all[/I] homosexual tendencies you are actually removing certain freedoms of choice by choosing to take the cure, that is the choice some heterosexuals have to enjoy homosexual relations.
My original point still stands, it should be your choice where [I]you[/I] are the one making the choice, but since we do not live in a society where that is possible across the board it would be immoral to make this available to the general public, someone will have been convinced by society to take it, if just to stop the bullying at school and the yelling when they go home. They're caving to the small society they live in, changing where they don't necessarily want to, but it is just easier to do so. That I don't believe is morally correct.
I wasn't sure whether or not it was moral or immoral when I started engaging here, but I think I have found my position.
It may be easiest to consider this: would a heterosexual individual accept a 'cure' to their heterosexuality to become homosexual? The only reason I think someone would take this is if they had little time to live or had some strenuous mental circumstance placed on them.
People who are homosexual and are capable of freely making their own choice on the matter would never actually take the cure. Those who are influenced negatively by society and are not mentally comfortable with themselves may want it however.
Therefore the cure (for the person who wants to take the thing) would actually be a therapist helping them be more comfortable with themselves.
The [I]other[/I] angle is that the cure works both ways and it is a recreational thing and then the morals really come down to what you believe as a person, assuming there are no massively negative side affects. It'd be like a form of cosmetic surgery but mental. Just for a brief thrill.
My final conclusion: where irreversible, it is immoral. Where reversible I don't think that's any more immoral than plastic surgery.
I do not think it would be wrong. As long as it would be the individuals choice of taking this drug. If people arent happy with who they are they should get help changing what troubles them about themselves. It's morally right in the sense that many can benefit happiness if they feel that their lives would improve and those who were comfortable about their homosexuality wouldn't have to take it because they are happy with themselves already.
In case you didn't think that the cure wouldn't be forced on people [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1267065&p=40472980&viewfull=1#post40472980"]if this can happen[/URL], this cure most definitely will be forced on people.
It is morally wrong to create the cure in the first place. A scientist who makes such a cure is seriously messed up. There are no benefits to it, it is purely a cosmetic change and the damage it will do is severe.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.