Headline: Science develops treatment therapy to cure and prevent homosexuality!

[s2a]

No, not really...

Not yet anyway.

But, some day (maybe sooner than anyone thinks)?

Whether you count yourself amongst those that believe that sexual orientation is primarily genetic (or an expressed trait), or merely a byproduct of environment and personal taste/choice...there's an interesting article that reflects upon an observational study of predominant physical traits in terms of statistical relationships of "straight" vs. "gay" comparisons/correlations (with pictures!).

"The Science of Gaydar --If sexual orientation is biological, are the traits that make people seem gay innate, too? The new research on everything from voice pitch to hair whorl."

[Note: Reading the referenced article above may aid you in lending a more informed perspective in answer to the following caveats and questions below.]

If we might fairly assume (or demonstrably establish) that human sexual orientation is a transferable/inheritable genetic trait, and...

...homosexual sexual orientation requires a specific genetic trigger/mechanism in order to manifest it's expression in sexual preference/behavior...

...then what?

Some initial questions arise regarding some of these offered statistical observations regarding homosexual traits/behaviors.

Does the "nature" of newborn possibly affect the sort of "nurture" they receive from their parents (even subconsciously)?

What effect do hormones (during pregnancy) play in expressed traits/behaviors? There is (presently) no evident inheritable genetic (or specified gene) associated with left-handed vs. right-handed people, but there is some evidence that suggests hormones play a role in prenatal development of such an expressed dominant trait (err...preference?). We already "know" (with high confidence) that certain pharmaceuticals, smoking, alcohol, toxic chemicals --and specified hormone levels--can have a profound effect upon a developing fetus.

So...

...what if "science" managed to develop a "hormone therapy" that would suppress any expression of homosexual traits? Of course such a development would already include a medical screening procedure that would detect/predict likely casual factors of homosexuality "in utero" (not unlike other prenatal tests for genetic traits/dispositions, disease, defects, etc.).

What if sexual orientation was directly identified with a specific inheritable gene? What if available "gene therapy" could "fix/repair" that gene, in order to insure a "straight" baby is delivered?
What if a homosexuality "vaccine" was to be developed, available to every fertile woman?

Instead of examining/debating the moral/religious/social arguments either for/against homosexuality itself, I'd prefer to examine the prospective issues attendant to the ethics/morality/impact of the scientific possibility of either a medically available prevention, or "treatment/cure" for homosexuality.

Some questions that might be relevant for reflection/debate...and all RF members (either "straights" or "gays") are invited to comment/opine:

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

4) If you are GLBT, and presently in no committed relationship with another person...and, medical science offered you a permanent, inexpensive, and low-risk "cure" (ie, making you "straight"); would you want to be "cured"?
Why, or why not?

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?
Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options? Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?
How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

6) If you could establish priorities of federally funded medical research/discovery, how would you prioritize the following "conditions", from highest to lowest (presented alphabetically here)?
AIDS
Albinism
Alcoholism
Allergies
Alzheimer's (disease)
Arthritis
Breast Cancer
Claustrophobia
Colon Cancer
Color blindness
Depression (medical)
Diabetes
Diarrhea
Down Syndrome
Dwarfism
Homosexuality
Left-handed-ism
Lung Cancer
Gigantism
Infant mortality
Malaria
MS (Muscular Dystrophy)
Myopia
Obesity (morbid)
Ovarian Cancer
Parkinson's
Prostate Cancer
Restless Leg Syndrome
Reye's Syndrome
Schizophrenia
SIDS
Tay-Sachs
Vanity
Yellow Fever
Zoophilia

If you like/prefer...just list your "Top Five" or "Top Ten" instead.

[PS. Any other moral/ethical dilemmas of a similar nature to this OP are invited for discussion/debate.]

 

[s2a]

Oh well...

 

[Pariah]

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

Conservatives generally abhor abortion in the first place, so destroying a fetus considered potentially homosexual based on genetic fingerprints seems out of the question. The next obvious stage is to remove or alter, through genetic alteration or hormone therapy.

Perhaps, some more Orthodox or fundamentalist parents might pursue such treatment, but it would raise questions for the calm-headed... if God creates the genetics, and there is a definite cause for homosexuality by a particular gene, then wouldn't it have been God's will to have the child be homosexual? Wouldn't it be "playing God" to remove it?

Of course, the link would have to be definite. If there was even a shred of doubt, I have a feeling many would justify their decision through that doubt, as theists generally do with other decisions.

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

Definitely not. It seems extreme to suggest that such a drug might open the pathway for a "race vaccine", but it does open the door for blatant discrimination. To make it mandatory is to assume that differences within people are unacceptable and must be purged.

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

This is difficult. Personally, I would have no qualms in changing my baby's physical traits (if that procedure were available), but homosexuality seems to be on some level wrong. Personally, I wouldn't do it, but it reveals a certain hypocrisy in my personality.

People discriminate based on sexual traits every day for a variety of reasons, most of them subconscious, however, this is absolutely fundamental animal behavior. Discriminating homosexuals does not. Of course, this brings in a largely debatable topic of natural vs. unnatural, by which the results cannot operate under our current societal moral code.

If the current social trend of homosexual discrimination grew in frequency and ferocity, I would, simply for the safety of the child, probably change his or her sexual orientation.

4) If you are GLBT, and presently in no committed relationship with another person...and, medical science offered you a permanent, inexpensive, and low-risk "cure" (ie, making you "straight"); would you want to be "cured"?
Why, or why not?

Since I am not GLBT, I cannot answer this with any reality attached to it. If I were GLBT, though, I would probably not. Another question to ask is, "If you are straight, would you perform surgery to change your body to that of the opposite sex?".

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?

Yes. Why? Because it is process that has more value than a cure for homosexuality.
The process of discovering a genetic pre-disposition/cause for behavior (and disease) in humans could result in other breakthroughs for curing other genetic diseases. The same process might be viable in many situations.

Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options?

I would support research and development into such medical options.

Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?

They correlate positively with my current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

As is well known, science has always been a double-edged sword. The same science that created Penicillin create the sword, the gun, and the atomic bomb. In the spirit of scientific progress and advancement, as well hypothetical cures for many diseases, I would support both.

If this does not answer the question, above, let me know.

 

[Blindinglight]

I will personally stand against any such treatment when the time comes, as that is nothing more than a way to force conformity upon those who are different.

 

[Buttercup]

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

A very interesting quandry. On one hand most religious folks are against abortion but if they knew the baby they were bringing into the world was gay and being homosexual is against God's will..so, would they abort? I don't think religious parents would chose to abort. They would probably just feed that kid religious lessons/unending sermons for breakfast, lunch and dinner in hopes of turning him/her around. They might see it as their mission in life.

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

I would definitely not promote such a vaccine and would fervently fight to keep such inoculations from becoming mandatory. Hello Josef Mengele!

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

No, I would not. Why? Because there's nothing wrong with being gay, end of comment.

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?
Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options? Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?
How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

No, I would not support tests/screenings or research and development or ANY medical funding searching for genetic deterrents to a child being born homosexual. I would however vehemently oppose such ridiculous measures.

Stem cell research is a whole other topic morally that I'll chose to not go into at this time.

6) If you could establish priorities of federally funded medical research/discovery, how would you prioritize the following "conditions", from highest to lowest (presented alphabetically here)?

AIDS - high
Albinism - low
Alcoholism - high
Allergies - high
Alzheimer's (disease)-high
Arthritis-high
Breast Cancer-high
Claustrophobia-low
Colon Cancer-high
Color blindness-low
Depression (medical)-high
Diabetes-high
Diarrhea-hahaaaa, eat some cheese!
Down Syndrome-mid range
Dwarfism- mid range
Homosexuality- psssh.
Left-handed-ism- uh, is this a trick question?
Lung Cancer-low to medium. Don't smoke
Gigantism- low
Infant mortality-high
Malaria-high
MS (Muscular Dystrophy)-high
Myopia-low
Obesity (morbid)-mid
Ovarian Cancer-high
Parkinson's-high
Prostate Cancer-high
Restless Leg Syndrome-low
Reye's Syndrome-mid
Schizophrenia-mid
SIDS-high
Tay-Sachs-mid
Vanity-I'm too sexy for my shirt
Yellow Fever-mid
Zoophilia- Baaaaaaaaa!

Top Five from this list:

Prostate Cancer
Diabetes
Arthritis
Colon Cancer
Breast Cancer

 

[UnTheist]

Why is being left handed a condition?

 

[MaddLlama]

I really don't think that's an option. They recently (well, more than 10 years ago) took "homosexuality" off of the "mental disability" list, and as far as I know, the psychiatric groups/organizations have stated that there is no proof that sexual orientation can be changed through counseling.

Why would that change? Especially when people are more accepting of it?

 

[Kungfuzed]

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

I can't see pro-life/anti-gay parents considering an abortion if they discover the fetus has the gay gene. I think they would leap at the opportunity to treat or cure it though. I would even consider curing my child if I knew it would save him/her the confusion and discrimination that gays have to put up with. I would do it for my child's happiness rather than for religious reasons.

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

I would not make it mandatory, but I think it should be available for those parents who want their children inoculated.

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

Yes, for reasons stated in #1

4) If you are GLBT, and presently in no committed relationship with another person...and, medical science offered you a permanent, inexpensive, and low-risk "cure" (ie, making you "straight"); would you want to be "cured"?
Why, or why not?

I'm not gay but I'll speculate hypothetically. Depends on my age. If I were still a teenager and getting lots of grief in school and home and church about being gay I'd take the cure. If I'm 33 years old and already had several partners there's really no point in switching anymore. By this time I would have learned to deal with it and probably not care so much about what other people think.

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?
Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options? Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?
How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

Absolutely. Science has an obligation to discover the truth, even if some may not like what the truth is. The process of finding the cure will teach us all kinds of things about human sexuality. I would support federal funding of it and it does align with my support of embryonic stem-cell research. One is using embryo cells to cure or replace adult cells and the other is curing embryo genes so it won't be a problem later. One is preventative while the other occurs after the damage is done.

6) If you could establish priorities of federally funded medical research/discovery, how would you prioritize the following "conditions", from highest to lowest (presented alphabetically here)?
AIDS
Albinism
Alcoholism
Allergies
Alzheimer's (disease)
Arthritis
Breast Cancer
Claustrophobia
Colon Cancer
Color blindness
Depression (medical)
Diabetes
Diarrhea
Down Syndrome
Dwarfism
Homosexuality
Left-handed-ism
Lung Cancer
Gigantism
Infant mortality
Malaria
MS (Muscular Dystrophy)
Myopia
Obesity (morbid)
Ovarian Cancer
Parkinson's
Prostate Cancer
Restless Leg Syndrome
Reye's Syndrome
Schizophrenia
SIDS
Tay-Sachs
Vanity
Yellow Fever
Zoophilia

If you like/prefer...just list your "Top Five" or "Top Ten" instead.

[PS. Any other moral/ethical dilemmas of a similar nature to this OP are invited for discussion/debate.]

Here's my top ten in alphabetical order:
AIDS
Alzheimer's
Breast Cancer
Colon Cancer
Diabetes
Down Syndrome
Lung Cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Parkinson's
Prostate Cancer

For me, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's are the big ones that run in my family so I'd like the govornment to work on those before finding a cure for gays.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm really hoping some gay members of RF see this thread and answer.

 

[Smoke]

I'm really hoping some gay members of RF see this thread and answer.

Very well. Would you be drawn into a "serious" discussion of the ethics of "curing" blondness or blackness? Only when people place the greatest possible importance on superstition, and grant bigotry the dignity of "religious conviction" is such a discussion even possible. It's not a moral issue worth discussing. The whole idea of "curing" homosexuality is as absurd as "curing" heterosexuality. And if we ever reach the point of being able to "cure" homosexuality, we'll probably be able to "cure" heterosexuality, too.

So, to those who responded: Do your answers apply to heterosexuality, as well? If not, why not?

 

[Buttercup]

Very well. Would you be drawn into a "serious" discussion of the ethics of "curing" blondness or blackness? Only when people place the greatest possible importance on superstition, and grant bigotry the dignity of "religious conviction" is such a discussion even possible. It's not a moral issue worth discussing. The whole idea of "curing" homosexuality is as absurd as "curing" heterosexuality. And if we ever reach the point of being able to "cure" homosexuality, we'll probably be able to "cure" heterosexuality, too.

So, to those who responded: Do your answers apply to heterosexuality, as well? If not, why not?

I agree completely with you as you can tell from my answers above. I'm happy you're not a coward as many straights would be. I anticipated the response you gave and yours is the correct one morally imo.

 

[Kungfuzed]

Very well. Would you be drawn into a "serious" discussion of the ethics of "curing" blondness or blackness? Only when people place the greatest possible importance on superstition, and grant bigotry the dignity of "religious conviction" is such a discussion even possible. It's not a moral issue worth discussing. The whole idea of "curing" homosexuality is as absurd as "curing" heterosexuality. And if we ever reach the point of being able to "cure" homosexuality, we'll probably be able to "cure" heterosexuality, too.

So, to those who responded: Do your answers apply to heterosexuality, as well? If not, why not?

I'm glad to see you back MidnightBlue.

For question 1 I'd say no, it doesn't apply. No one would consider aborting their pregnancy based on a positive test for heterosexuality. I doubt very much that anyone, if given the choice to have a gay or straight child, would choose gay over straight. Just hearing about all the crap gays have to put up with, I wouldn't choose that for anyone.

For question 2 it's also a no. If a heterosexual vaccine were made mandatory for all school age children we would end up with an entire generation of people that would only reproduce through in vitro fertilization or adoption. Seems pretty silly to me.

For question 3 If I were a fertile female I don't see any reason for using a prescription hormone therapy to suppress heterosexuality in a developing fetus, simply because I have no desire to. It would just be cruel.

For question 4 I am already a heterosexual and I see no reason to change that. I am not persecuted for being straight. I have no feelings of guilt, nor do I have to sneak around and try to hide who I am. I am happy with my gender and sexuality. If the situation were reversed and it was straight people who were mocked and stereotyped and can't reproduce naturally I might consider taking the cure early on in life, like in my early teens. I'm sure my parents would have made that choice for me already.

For number 5 my answer doesn't change. Science is all about discovery. In either case the federal funding for this project would not be high on the priority list. There are much more constructive things the government should be doing.

Number 6 doesn't change at all. A heterosexual or homosexual cure would not even be in my top twenty.


As the creators of their offspring, I think parents should have the right to choose whatever traits they want when they're making a baby, whatever science is capable of. Once the child becomes an adult they should also have the right and freedom to change whatever they want about themselves. If they want to stay gay, fine. If they want to go straight, then give them that option. Perhaps once the embryo is conceived you might not want to mess with it. But what if you're at the fertility clinic and a genetic engineer hands you a form to fill out to design your child from scratch? Which box will you check, gay or straight?

By the way, What's wrong with curing blondness or blackness if that's what people want? Perhaps it's just the word cure that's getting on everyone's nerves. People color their hair and lay out in the sun and in the Philippines they even have soap that bleaches the skin to make them whiter. People get plastic surgury and botox and liposuction and stomach staples, so why not cure the fat gene too? I see no problem with any of it as long as it's left up to choice and not made mandatory for anyone.

 

[Autodidact]

4) If you are GLBT, and presently in no committed relationship with another person...and, medical science offered you a permanent, inexpensive, and low-risk "cure" (ie, making you "straight"); would you want to be "cured"?
Why, or why not?

I am a happy, middle-aged lesbian. I am at this time in a very happy and fulfilling relationship, but even were I not, I would never choose to be heterosexual. I have had a happy life, with love, children, family, friendship and interpersonal values a person could want. I like myself pretty much as I am, and will choose to continue making my own weird little contribution to the planet, such as it is.

Also, for women, there are distinct advantages to living as a lesbian. Personally, I think if a woman were exactly bi-sexual, she would probably be happier if she just goes with the lesbian option, although this may depend on how sensitive she is to social disapproval. There are just practical advantages to living as a lesbian. Starting with comfortable shoes.

 

[Kungfuzed]

There are just practical advantages to living as a lesbian. Starting with comfortable shoes.

Straight men aren't looking at your shoes.

 

[Ori]

I don't see homosexuality as something that needs to be cured.

 

[rasor]

The whole idea of "curing" homosexuality is as absurd as "curing" heterosexuality. And if we ever reach the point of being able to "cure" homosexuality, we'll probably be able to "cure" heterosexuality, too.

So, to those who responded: Do your answers apply to heterosexuality, as well? If not, why not?

Why not ? Because heterosexuality is the norm.Homosexuality is not ,Its just the genetic message getting distorted in the brain.About the only thing normal about it is the number of times it happens.

 

[Booko]

We already "know" (with high confidence) that certain pharmaceuticals, smoking, alcohol, toxic chemicals --and specified hormone levels--can have a profound effect upon a developing fetus.

And nutritional deficiencies as well. Low folic acid levels are associated with spina bifida, for example.

You raise many excellent matters for reflection, S2A. Some require a bit more than others, so I'd rather have some time to chew on them before proceeding with those, but a few of the somewhat easier things.

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

There's a fascinating question. Honestly I'm not able to put myself sufficiently those shoes to make any guess as to the result. Hopefully someone of this view will chime in.

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

I don't even advocate mandatory vaccines for actual diseases that are actually dangerous. So the idea of advocating a mandatory vaccine for gayness is just absurd.

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

I'm not big on prescription drugs either. If solely by means of, say, meditation and careful diet I might choose to make those changes though. It's not because I would love a gay child less (honestly, I'm not really sure about my son's orientation -- at 18 he's an awful late bloomer. Maybe he just likes computers more), but having seen the crap homosexuals in this society have to put up with, I might well choose to avoid having my child be put through that.

On the other hand, multiracial kids get put through crap of their own sort, and that wouldn't have stopped me for a moment.

I don't think I could tell you what I'd do until I was in the situation myself. It could go either way.

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?

That's putting the cart way before the horse. We haven't even done the basics of understanding human sexuality yet. Let's begin there. We have so much to learn.

Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options?

No. I can't see why it should be a priority. Honestly, unless the GLBT was clamoring for it, I see no reason to make it a priority. That would be as silly as making a funding priority for blue-eyedness when no one who was blue-eyed was interested in changing to brown. :areyoucra

Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?

How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

I don't even think they're related to each other. I don't see why embryos already slated for destruction should not be redirected to some research that may provide some relief for those who are unquestionably human. We're talking about embryos that have never left a dish -- not even fetuses.

How would eliminating GLBT babies be of tangible and great benefit to our society, compared to, say the serious diseases that stem cell research hopes to cure?

6) If you could establish priorities of federally funded medical research/discovery, how would you prioritize the following "conditions", from highest to lowest (presented alphabetically here)?

Did you omit cardiovascular disease intentionally? That would be high on my list.

As would (not necessarily in order, but sorta):

Diabetes
Cancer (var. types)
STDs generally (incl. AIDS, though it is not solely an STD.)
Depression and alcoholism and drug abuse (often substance abuse is a method of self-medication)
Infant mortality
Malaria and yellow fever (kills so many worldwide)
MS
Tay-Sachs -- if there are genetic markers, it's a terrible disease. I could see parents wanting to know, and genetic counseling isn't always enough.

Arthritis

There is already plenty prevention to be had here. Consult complementary medical practitioners. Now if only Big pharma would butt out, as they just want to sell more of their meds to you for the rest of your life. They aren't interested in prevention or cures.

Restless Leg Syndrome

I doubt this is even a real syndrome that requires medication, sorry. EIbhlin would've been dianosed with RLS -- our kinesiologist balanced out her nervous system in 30 minutes work. Totally non-invasive. No problems since. Eibhlin is not the only person I know who's had this experience.

Allergies

I considered including this on this list, particularly considering the rising levels of those with food allergies these days. The thing is, I have no confidence in allopathic medicine's abilities to deal with this subject. I say let the naturopathic professions take it on, because they've been doing it for years now and making steady progress. And they won't be getting funding from the gov't. They don't have lobbyists.

 

[Booko]

I will personally stand against any such treatment when the time comes, as that is nothing more than a way to force conformity upon those who are different.

My greatest fear is that should such a treatment surface, GLBT people would be forced, pressured or bamboozled into being given that treatment, and that is just plain unacceptable.

But you know it will happen somewhere.

 

[Booko]

A very interesting quandry. On one hand most religious folks are against abortion but if they knew the baby they were bringing into the world was gay and being homosexual is against God's will..so, would they abort? I don't think religious parents would chose to abort.

Is that actually true, that most religious folks are against abortion? Or is that just your impression?

They would probably just feed that kid religious lessons/unending sermons for breakfast, lunch and dinner in hopes of turning him/her around. They might see it as their mission in life.

News flash, Evmo. Not everyone who's a theist does sermons or thinks they have to have missions to turn *others* around. (Man oh man if only lunamoth were on right now....another thread, though).

Diarrhea-hahaaaa, eat some cheese!
Vanity-I'm too sexy for my shirt
Zoophilia- Baaaaaaaaa!

:biglaugh:

Best comedy all day! Good answers!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

That homosexuals exist suggests to me there is something there that may some day be important in human development.
The gene that causes sickle cell anaemia also protects against malaria.
The gene that results in a person being gay may have other effects that are important and that we have not yet discovered.
It may have reached a dead end in a gay, but the same gene must also be present in many who are not, and have a beneficial effect.