• Is a scientific cure for homosexuality morally wrong?
    117 replies, posted
Surely it would be pointless? It's like trying to invent a 'cure' to stop people liking chocolate icecream, and to only like vanilla.
I wouldn't call it a cure, merely a 'procedure' or something similar, just like a sex change is just 'surgery'. It comes down soley to the choice of the person doing it, they're not fixing their ailments. A sex change is not a 'cure' for being female or male.
Well, I wouldn't define a drug that removes homosexuality as a 'cure' because homosexuality is not a disease or an illness, it's just part of who you are (if you have it). As long as the drug is taken with your express permission and choice then I don't see why not. After all, it's the persons choice and no-one else. If religions and anti-gay groups start using this though and forcing/blackmailing it upon people, or parents give their child it when they're born to prevent them from being homosexual is where I believe it would be morally wrong.
Me personally, I don't really agree with homosexuality. But I will always respect the human being regardless if they are straight or gay. So a cure wouldn't be wrong unless it was forced, if people want it to fit in better or whatever their reasons may be, that is their decision.
[QUOTE=Auto Taco;40947830]Me personally, I don't really agree with homosexuality.[/QUOTE] Out of interest, why not?
The Cure itself - No Forcing it upon people - Yes If gays want to be miserable just like the rest of us then let them, if they want this so called cure then it's their call aswell.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;40946422]I wouldn't call it a cure, merely a 'procedure' or something similar, just like a sex change is just 'surgery'. It comes down soley to the choice of the person doing it, they're not fixing their ailments. A sex change is not a 'cure' for being female or male.[/QUOTE] I'd consider homosexuality to technically be a defect because it does mean the person is much less likely to reproduce, which all animals (that reproduce sexually) have otherwise evolved to prioritize and be effective at. Of course that no longer matters because we have 7 billion people and birth rates are already higher than death rates. I agree most of the others in this thread, the existence and availability of such a procedure/drug is not at all unethical unless it's forced. It'd be almost completely useless though and not worth the funding.
[QUOTE=Altimor;40951420]I'd consider homosexuality to technically be a defect because it does mean the person is much less likely to reproduce, which all animals (that reproduce sexually) have otherwise evolved to prioritize and be effective at. Of course that no longer matters because we have 7 billion people and birth rates are already higher than death rates. I agree most of the others in this thread, the existence and availability of such a procedure/drug is not at all unethical unless it's forced. It'd be almost completely useless though and not worth the funding.[/QUOTE] I agree. While homosexuality is completely normal I would consider it in the eyes of mother nature to be a defect. Being a homosexual drastically lowers your chance of reproducing. Maybe it's mothers nature's way of saying 'We don't need more people, we're full enough. But hey, go enjoy yourself without getting someone pregnant!'.
[QUOTE=Altimor;40951420]I'd consider homosexuality to technically be a defect because it does mean the person is much less likely to reproduce, which all animals (that reproduce sexually) have otherwise evolved to prioritize and be effective at.[/QUOTE] Ants. Hardly any of them can reproduce.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;40949797]"I don't really agree with homosexuality." makes about as much sense as "I don't really agree with gravity."[/QUOTE] Gravity is a necessity first of all, homosexuality is just a sexual preference. There is a big difference. [editline]8th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Tweevle;40950353]Out of interest, why not?[/QUOTE] Personal preference.
[QUOTE=Auto Taco;40953473]Personal preference.[/QUOTE] In what sense? Do you just find it gross or what? Because I find plenty of things gross (e.g. sushi) and I wouldn't say I disagreed with them. It's just not my thing.
[QUOTE=benbb;40951820]I agree. While homosexuality is completely normal I would consider it in the eyes of mother nature to be a defect. Being a homosexual drastically lowers your chance of reproducing. Maybe it's mothers nature's way of saying 'We don't need more people, we're full enough. But hey, go enjoy yourself without getting someone pregnant!'.[/QUOTE] It could be. I think I said before in this thread in some animal models (rats) homosexuality doesn't really appear until overcrowding of the population begins.
[QUOTE=Tweevle;40954293]In what sense? Do you just find it gross or what? Because I find plenty of things gross (e.g. sushi) and I wouldn't say I disagreed with them. It's just not my thing.[/QUOTE] I think you're misinterpreting his use of the word "agree". I [I]think[/I] he means that while homosexuality is okay, it doesn't fall under his ideals. I could be wrong though. Think of it more like "I don't agree with Islam". You're not saying you're for or against it, you're just saying you don't agree with it but you respect it nonetheless.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;40956713]I think you're misinterpreting his use of the word "agree". I [I]think[/I] he means that while homosexuality is okay, it doesn't fall under his ideals. I could be wrong though. Think of it more like "I don't agree with Islam". You're not saying you're for or against it, you're just saying you don't agree with it but you respect it nonetheless.[/QUOTE] Except Islam is a set of ideologies and beliefs and homosexuality is what someone IS.
[QUOTE=geel9;40957351]Except Islam is a set of ideologies and beliefs and homosexuality is what someone IS.[/QUOTE] Whatever. It's an analogy, man.
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;40960230]Whatever. It's an analogy, man.[/QUOTE] A very bad analogy that was logically incorrect.
"Is a scientific cure for homosexuality morally wrong?" It's not a disease.
[QUOTE=geel9;40957351]Except Islam is a set of ideologies and beliefs and homosexuality is what someone IS.[/QUOTE] Exactly, Islam is basically a set of claims that you can agree with or disagree with. Homosexuality isn't making a claim at all, it's just feelings people have, and actions they do based on those feelings. To me, saying you disagree with it either means you don't think they have those feelings (which is pretty obviously not true), or else you think they shouldn't be acting on them, in which case it's not just personal preference but a judgement call on other people, and one that requires some kind of substantiation. Again, with my sushi analogy, I don't like it, so you could say it doesn't fall under my "ideals" of a good meal. But I were to go around saying I don't really agree with sushi, that'd kind of imply I think no one should be eating sushi in an ideal world, when in reality I don't care if other people like it and eat it, and am glad if it brings people happiness, it's just not something I personally enjoy.
The problem I see in this "cure" is that if you are homosexual and you want to become heterosexual it's most likely that your are a victim of schizophrenia and it's a really different problem that you don't cure that easily.
If it truly is an abnormality of some sort caused by our genes or from some sort of organic process gone wrong, then yes it should be cured.
Honestly, I don't think there would be anything wrong with a harmless means of changing one's sexuality, but of course it should be administered on an entirely voluntary basis. So, a "cure" for homosexuality/heterosexuality/etc. itself wouldn't be immoral, actually if anything it would be potentially quite good for people. But of course forcing this cure on anyone would be extremely immoral, so it should not be administered without the consent of the person being "cured". Personally I actually wouldn't mind having my own sexuality adjusted, I love my boyfriend but I'm not really attracted to guys.
[QUOTE=Sableye;40390825]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] It would be the parents decision then.
If it is being forced on homosexual members of the populace, then of course. It's altering the minds and bodies of people without their consent and is a horrible violation of human rights and ethics. However, if it were a readily-available, purchasable treatment that no one was forced to undergo, then I'd say there's nothing wrong with it. Some people might not want to be homosexual, or may just want to change. And if such a treatment is opt-in rather than opt-out/forced, it's entirely the patients' choice on whether or not to remove their homosexuality. If these hypothetical people would have to seek out the treatment and willingly take it, anyone who doesn't want to be cured doesn't have to be and can resume their lives as normal. The biggest moral issue with this in my opinion is the potential of it being forced on homosexual people, not its mere existence.
What about a scientific cure for heterosexuality? It's funny how [I]"it's not a choice"[/I] has had to be used quite often in the past, but if there was a 'gay pill', it actually would be a choice. At that point we could ask, would that be morally wrong? Of course not. So that makes me wonder why the question, whether homosexuality is a choice or not, ever mattered at all.
If it ain't broke, dont fix it. For starters, calling it a cure seems wrong. It's like implying that homosexuality is a disease, and it is not. Whether it's a choice, or a genetic thing I don't think we need a cure for it. Instead we should change society to the better, so that a cure wouldn't even be relevant. Even if it wasn't forced on anyone, it should not be necessary. If nobody found being attracted to the same sex wrong, or gross, then we would't even be talking about a cure, but sadly we are :( Instead, we should make a cure for homophobia. That would be better.
In a way, this is kind of like having the choice to change your gender. Homosexuality is not something one can control. If they want to be straight, but just can't get themselves to be, then they have the right. But it all comes down to choice to determine whether or not it is morally wrong.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.