Is a scientific cure for homosexuality morally wrong?
117 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;40460417]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[/QUOTE]
Nature does punish homosexual behavior, a homosexual animal does not pass it genes on. It's genes are weeded out of selection. It hasn't wiped a species out because homosexual behavior is never widespread for obvious reasons.
Its interesting to note that homosexual behavior in a lot of animal models doesn't appear until overpopulation/crowding begins.
And we need to be clear, homosexual means homosexual. Not bisexual which its essentially theorized all humans are to varying degrees.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40490425]
Its interesting to note that homosexual behavior in a lot of animal models doesn't appear until overpopulation/crowding begins.
.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't really appear to be true actually.
Nothing in the human body or psyche that we've detected yet (apart from the somewhat strong theory of hormonal imbalances/chromosonal configurations) that would cause overpopulation or crowding to 'flip' a gay switch in an actor.
The correlation is more likely a result of the fact that it's easier to observe homosexuality in a population when that population is large enough to house enough gay members of a large enough quantity that they are observable. It is after all a non-reproducing trait ostensibly, and therefor has some rarity.
If not, then there are a lot of Ancient Greek homosexuals, Rennaisance Homosexuals, and Modern Midwestern Homosexuals who are likely somewhat of a sticky issue for your claim.
Every word of this title and concept is both wrong and makes no sense, not exactly easy to debate about a premise that isn't grounded the slightest in reality.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;40397681]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]
and even if it is geneticly a mutation... so is billions of things. like Heterochromia, liking bacon, red hair, etc.
Liking bacon is genetic(Scientists actually have found a gene that marked this!), and so is sucking cock.
if sucking cock is wrong, so is eating bacon.
Well, in my opinion, everyone should have the right to decide what to do with their body. If this includes a sexuality-change-operation/drug (if that's what you'd call it) then there's no problem. The real problem with this is that some people may be pressured or forced into it.
[QUOTE=MyBumBum;40462207]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?[/QUOTE]You do realise the difference between transgender and homosexual right? Why would a gay person want a sex change?
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;40490425]Nature does punish homosexual behavior, a homosexual animal does not pass it genes on. It's genes are weeded out of selection. It hasn't wiped a species out because homosexual behavior is never widespread for obvious reasons.
Its interesting to note that homosexual behavior in a lot of animal models doesn't appear until overpopulation/crowding begins.
And we need to be clear, homosexual means homosexual. Not bisexual which its essentially theorized all humans are to varying degrees.[/QUOTE]
That's not a punishment to the creature itself though
if homosexuality is bad, it's bad immediately as well as in the long run, but it does not seem to be either of those
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;40491893]This doesn't really appear to be true actually.
Nothing in the human body or psyche that we've detected yet (apart from the somewhat strong theory of hormonal imbalances/chromosonal configurations) that would cause overpopulation or crowding to 'flip' a gay switch in an actor.
The correlation is more likely a result of the fact that it's easier to observe homosexuality in a population when that population is large enough to house enough gay members of a large enough quantity that they are observable. It is after all a non-reproducing trait ostensibly, and therefor has some rarity.
If not, then there are a lot of Ancient Greek homosexuals, Rennaisance Homosexuals, and Modern Midwestern Homosexuals who are likely somewhat of a sticky issue for your claim.[/QUOTE]
You really need to read properly before you start jumping at a chance to say your piece
I specifically said "[B]animal models[/B]" you even quoted that exact sentence. Then your reply is about humans?
[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]
Got to disagree with this. If it were wrong from an evolutionary standpoint it wouldn't be as common as it is. Also, having certain individuals not able to reproduce isn't necessarily evolutionarily disadvantageous - that's simplistic thinking. Look at ants - they're one of the most successful animals on the planet, and barely any of them reproduce.
Say if certain animals are gay that means they won't have kids, which means spend their time helping to look after their family's kids, which means those kids are more likely to survive. Since they share a good bit of their dna with those kids, the likelihood is that more surviving animals are going to have the propensity for being gay in their genetics, even if it isn't always expressed. Just one idea for how it might be good from an evolutionary standpoint.
The simplest "answer" to this would be that no, it is in no way justifiable or moral. As everyone and thing in this universe exists only as we perceive it, it stands to reason that everything is biased - subjective, if you will. Henceforth we can surmise that not one of us has a purely objective understanding of how homosexuality works and/or even affects whatever is in question in relation to what is considered "natural". In short, there is no [I][B]perfect[/B][/I] (merely reliable isn't enough) explanation for whether homosexuality is a problem with the mind or anything negative [B]at all[/B]. Thus there is no justification for treating it as such and attempting to "cure" it.
To the people saying "it's the person's decision", let's analyze why a person would ever want to cure themselves of homosexuality, or any desire for that matter.
There were some references to people who get sex changes; that is in no way the same thing. People who get sex changes are people who want to be the opposite sex. This desire is akin to homosexuality. They are changing their body, not their minds.
On the other hand, wanting to "cure" oneself of wants/thoughts/desires, especially if those feelings don't cause you to bring yourself or others suffering, is entirely motivated by outside pressure. Why else would you want to rid yourself of something that when thought about, creates a positive feeling?
That's sick.
No, if a "cure" was made, it would be a tragedy for mankind, because parents would be administering it to their children, and sad lonely lost people would be administering it to themselves. And most likely certain criminals would have it administered to them.
Humans aren't meant to have control over their desires (and by control, I mean the power to change them artificially, not "self control"). It's what makes us human, that we have to deal with who we are and what we feel.
Otherwise what's the goddamn point? We are driven by our desires, if we start choosing our desires, where is the intent coming from? Other desires. But what's judging the merit of those desires?
There are legitimate reasons that a person might want to switch over from being gay, for example: There are more straight women than gay men in the world. This means a man attracted to women has MANY more possibilities than a gay man in a future spouse/significant other.
not necessarily. if you force it on people, yeah. if it's voluntary, nope.
[QUOTE=sgman91;40544780]There are legitimate reasons that a person might want to switch over from being gay, for example: There are more straight women than gay men in the world. This means a man attracted to women has MANY more possibilities than a gay man in a future spouse/significant other.[/QUOTE]
How is that a benefit? That makes the haystack much bigger and the needle just feels smaller. I would argue that because of the smaller population of homosexuals and their knowledge of that fact, they group together and are looking harder, you'll meet a higher percentage of people with a compatible sexuality who are more likely to be interested in you. You stick with them long enough to truly know who they are and therefore more likely to make the right choice.
You'd be making a big mistake if you thought being straight would make it easier to meet a future spouse. Then from there once you've made the choice (assuming there is no going back) only the strongest of individuals wouldn't suffer some sort of emotional struggle from knowing that they may have made it harder. Maybe "the one" was the same sex as them.
Being straight you meet so many other straight people you would be overwhelmed, making it more difficult to find "the one" because there are so many other people out there, so you are more picky, quick to rule people out and not get to know them as well as you could have.
I think Ryandaniels is 100% right here.
He isn't right about artificially removing [i]any[/i] desire, though.
Desire is the root of almost all evil, objective or otherwise. Greed, things revolving around dishonesty like infidelity or fraud, and a whole bunch of other entirely negative stuff.
Humans should have control over their thoughts and desires, even if that control must be implemented through a hypothetical drug. A perfect merit could be eliminating flaws and things that have undeniably negative effects on everyone.
If being human means having limited control over yourself without aid or a tailored skill in self control and letting urges and things take control, even if they will end in harm, then maybe it isn't the best thing to be human, maybe we can do better than being human.
It's like giving someone a cure to try and fix who they are. I don't think it's right; it's like trying to eliminate a part of someone's personality and sense of uniqueness.
I really enjoy being gay, and I wouldn't want to try and get a cure for my homosexuality.
This is implying that Homosexuality is something that is a disease, since it's being cured.
No, giving people more choices is never wrong. If somebody wants to change they show be free to. The problem with a "cure" existing is that many people will probably force this cure on others which is immoral.
[QUOTE=Captain James;40386492]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][/QUOTE]
It might not be wrong, but calling it a "cure" certainly is.
[QUOTE=TH89;40580050]It might not be wrong, but calling it a "cure" certainly is.[/QUOTE]
Once again, colloquial. I could use grandiloquent wording and terminology to be politically correct all I want, I just wanted to get the concept of the question out to the common lurker.
I feel like people are straying from the thread question. Just 'cos it's an ugly question doesn't mean it isn't warranted, pure curiosity to see the public opinion/answer was all I had intended. :(
It would be more of a waste of time than an actual immoral thing in my opinion. The whole morality part really comes down to whether you are forcing this upon people or not.
Even though when it comes down to the essence of a cure for homosexuality it would really a waste of resources more than anything. It would very likely be simpler and healthier to work on building tolerance through generations than actually create and distribute a cure for homosexuality.
The question though is really applicable to a lot of things. In a way the same debate still exists about deaf children. Some people think it's a better idea to teach them the language of signs and others think using technology to bring back their lost sense would be better, though the latter is a debated solution because forcing a child to be dependent on a device to hear is seen by a lot of people as immoral, though from an outsider point of view being able to give audition to someone who has never been able to hear before sounds like an all-around good idea.
[QUOTE=Captain James;40592646]Once again, colloquial. I could use grandiloquent wording and terminology to be politically correct all I want, I just wanted to get the concept of the question out to the common lurker.[/QUOTE]
Well, do you want to discuss this seriously or don't you? "Cure" is an extremely loaded word that implies approaching the subject with a certain attitude (that homosexuality is an affliction). Would you call skin-whitening and plastic surgery a "cure for blackness?" Or sex-change operations a "cure for being a woman?" Most people would say "of course not, there's nothing wrong with those things!" They might even be shocked. But if you propose a "cure for homosexuality" and nobody, not even people who are pro-gay rights, sees a problem with it, then that says something right there.
It would not be wrong to create it, but it would be wrong to force it upon anyone, or to provide it without proper education. It'd need to be strictly regulated and controlled. The world isn't yet ready for it; fundamentalists would abuse it horribly.
There should be a cure for straightness -- I want something that will make a person able to be attracted to others regardless of gender.
[QUOTE=AaronTAB;40637814]It would not be wrong to create it, but it would be wrong to force it upon anyone, or to provide it without proper education. It'd need to be strictly regulated and controlled. The world isn't yet ready for it; fundamentalists would abuse it horribly.[/QUOTE]
I think it would be useful for people who want to be in "normal" terms of society. If you were to have a cure for it and someone doesn't want to be a homosexual due to prejudice or some other reason, I think it would be an alright reason to have a cure.
I believe in a kind of objective morality. In a sense I believe morality is a tool inherently found with sapience to guide us towards progression. By this, I truly believe morality is simply a facet of love. I also believe that the confucius morality of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is incomplete. Has not everyone lived the day where they doubted themselves? Has not everyone lived the day where they hated themselves? Society's progression is based on an extremely existential model, in my opinion. The individual must thrive. But one can not simply live for one individual but rather every individual. One must live FOR the individual. One must live for the idea that is the individual. If this is the case, then morality can not simply be the confucius maxim as it is not efficient as a tool for the individual. This leads me to believe that love is the key to this problem. If one seeks to not only not harm another, but rather seek out the best interest for that person - than the most efficient victory for the individual arises. This done at large scale is inevitable to watch a society thrive and grow.
From here we need to ask is this cure really love for someone? We need to ask why that person feels a necessity for it to begin with. I really do not believe that if a person of homosexual orientation grew up in a open minded and loving society that he would EVER want to debauch his natural self.
Now, going back to what I said in another thread: Love is one of the most natural humanly interactions. If love can find itself from this simple sexual orientation - than the orientation itself has to be natural. The only reasoning I can see that someone would want to change their natural being is if they feel society has pressured them to do so or have felt alienated from said society.
As of my current understanding, I would say - yes. It is morally wrong.
I just think it to be impossible for someone to grow up to hate their natural being. I do not think that is an inherent human quality. (Now in cases of gender, I would have to say yes, as there are people who are uncomfortable with their natural body. But I believe that to be more of a vessel - the entity that houses the consciousness- to conciousness problem while sexual orientation I see as a more consciousness/ontological situation. You can't despise something you naturally crave. That's just silly. )
I don't think it's really wrong to want to "cure" homosexuality if it were possible. Unfortunately, the world is still very closed minded about homosexuality, mostly because it's not something physical, so most people think it's somehow a choice, simply because it's not something you can see with your eyes. So, if there was some way to change to heterosexuality, I don't really see the issue with it.
The only issue is that while most people struggle with their sexuality for a portion of their life, it's a part of them, and the thought of changing something you've eventually come to terms with, it's just not worth it. As a gay man I've struggled my entire life with learning to accept myself, and dealing with the pressures of "normality". I wouldn't choose to be straight now, simply because I am comfortable with myself now and, even though I don't like to admit it, it's a huge part of who I am as a person...and I like who I am.
I think it should be allowed but not enforced. I believe it is innevitable that such an invention will come though.
Although such an invention will also bring about the 'cure' to sexuality. And so lobbyists for this should understand that if 'homosexuality can be ridded of' then it means Heterosexuality can as well, as well as any of the less mainstream paraphilias and such.
If it isn't forced then of course it isn't wrong
Creating it, No, I see nothing wrong with that.
However, forcing it upon someone who is happy with their situation would be.
Which is why separation of church and state exists.
The way I see it, developing one in the first place would be an unworthy cause, and using it on those who aren't given a choice in the procedure yet (infants, children, ect) would be even more unethical. The thing is, religious and social motivations aside, homosexuality shouldn't, and commonly isn't, something people WANT to be cured of. Even if there was one, it would be unlikely that members of the LGBT community would support, and even less likely utilize it. If sexual orientation isn't a choice, it shouldn't become one.
Nothing wrong with creating a cure, but forcing upon people I see as being morally wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.