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

[Buttercup]

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



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).

My response was in regard to how s2a worded his question:

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?

I can't imagine my answers were far off.

:biglaugh:

Best comedy all day! Good answers!

Hey, what good is life unless you can laugh a few times a day?

 

[Booko]

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.

Thank you, Terry! This is a perspective that has never occurred to me.

I am uneasy about the idea of being able to "eliminate the gay gene" if we could do that, but could not pin it on anything particular.

And then your post made me connect it to some other instances of messing with Mother Nature that don't turn out so well.

Some things it's just better we leave alone.

As an aside, I find it telling that we might have a better ability to reduce, say, human violence, if we chose to prevent people from being born with extra Y chromosomes.

And yet...no one ever brings up that little possibility in eugenics. :sarcastic

Seriously, what does that say about us?

And like I said earlier, *someone* is gonna find a way to abuse any discovery like this, if there ever were one. You know it'll happen, all in the name of "for their own good" of course.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

One recent hypothesis is that the mothers and sisters of gay men have more offspring than other women, so the genes that promote male homosexuality are reproduced, just not by the males themselves.

I also have a long complicated hypothesis that accounts for female homosexuality within an evolutionary framework. But, as I say, it's long, so won't bore you all unless I hear clamoring.

 

[jonny]

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?

Interesting question. This is a moral/ethical question so there is really no right answer. I would let the parent choose for themselves. People do a lot of things to prevent 'problems' with their children while pregnant. I guess the question is really whether or not homosexuality can be defined as a 'problem.'

I would tend to say that it is immoral for a parent to try to alter their children in these ways.

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?

No. Homosexuality doesn't threaten the health of the general population.

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?

I don't think they should try to discover prenatel screening for homosexual traits. I wouldn't support the funding. This is getting awfully close to a line that I think we should stay far away from, and that is picking and choosing our children like we do fruit in a supermarket.

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)?

I'd prioritize them by the number of people affected by the disease.

 

[lilithu]

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?

This is exactly why I would prefer NOT to debate whether or not homosexuality is "natural"/biologically determined/innate, and actually prefer to debate the morality.

Proving that there are biological determinants to sexual orientation only shifts the same question back one level. So now, instead of saying that people can choose whether to be gay or straight behaviorally, we now (theoretically) can say that people can choose whether to be gay or straight biologically/medicinally. It can be "cured."

The bottom line is still moral/ethical, not biological. Who gets to decide what is normative? Why should homosexuality be looked at as a genetic illness, like hemophilia, rather than as a genetic variant, like eye-color?

The bottom line still is accept people for who they are.

 

[s2a]

Hi lilithu,

I posed:
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?

You said:

This is exactly why I would prefer NOT to debate whether or not homosexuality is "natural"/biologically determined/innate, and actually prefer to debate the morality.

OK. Those of us that do not consider sexual orientation to be a matter of, or subject to, measures or standards of morality; shall leave you to debate such issues amongst those that almost always do.

Proving that there are biological determinants to sexual orientation only shifts the same question back one level. So now, instead of saying that people can choose whether to be gay or straight behaviorally, we now (theoretically) can say that people can choose whether to be gay or straight biologically/medicinally. It can be "cured."

That's the premised concept...yes.

The bottom line is still moral/ethical, not biological.

Umm, contradiction?

Would it be immoral to genetically select for eye color, height, or physical size in seeking a companion/mate? People do that everyday, from dating, to marriage, to (eventual) procreation (not necessarily in that order).

Do inordinately tall women typically seek out inordinately short men in lasting relationships? Why not? Is such a chosen behavior inherently unethical or immoral? Is there some unidentified biological imperative at work that transcends any prospective moral/ethical human preference/choice?

I'm "straight". When I was six years old, I longed for the affections of a particularly pretty gal in my first grade class. This was not a conscious, nor moral/ethical deliberation of any social consequence/impact on my part. I simply liked girls. A lot. No apologies. No doubts. One might fairly observe that I was "born that way". My orientation pangs struck me as no more "right" than "wrong".

Who gets to decide what is normative?

Realistically? Within contemporary established societal/cultural "norms?. Whom shall be excluded from such deliberations? Whom is least qualified to render any sort of decision of what constitutes "normalcy"?

Why should homosexuality be looked at as a genetic illness, like hemophilia, rather than as a genetic variant, like eye-color?

Why not?

I personally do not hold to any such delineations or distinctions. But to pretend that millions of other people do not consider (or "believe") homosexuality to be; "unnatural", "sinful", or an "abomination" (ie., a discordant "ethical/moral" issue of contemporary societal mores)...is to qualify any sense of "natural" sexual orientation as no more than a personalized ethical proclivity, or another failing peccadillo of some wanting moral character.

I invite you...
...You tell me.

Is it "normative" to be born without limbs?
Is it "normative" to be delivered blind, or deaf?
Is it "normative" to generally express genetic traits of dwarfism, hemophilia, Down's syndrome, or harelip?
Are any such children to be deemed as morally/ethically deficient? Or can we fairly identify such genetically expressed conditions as--at very least--undesirable as comparison with statistical norms?

Cancer and AIDS are "natural"; but such afflictions (being 'natural" in origin) doesn't preclude their undesirability in any eventual gestation/realization, nor should any parent suffer angst in availing any available efforts/procedures to spare their progeny from such diseases.

Statistically speaking, short people live longer than [exceptionally] tall people (Really). Would it be unethical/immoral to selectively choose a procreating mate that would enhance the possibility of producing children with exceptional height? Why, or why not?

The bottom line still is accept people for who they are.

As an individually expressed sentiment of personalized idealism, rationalism, and equality...you have my voting support.

Realistically, as study after study both suggests and confirms...tall, attractive, and physically trim people enjoy the societal confirmations of selective bias and opportunity that otherwise short, ugly, and fat people do not...but it could be worse. You could be short, ugly, fat, and gay.

Our culture and society do not express any focused moral/ethical prejudices against folks of diminished height, looks, or breadth/width...but many folks do harbor inculcated fears/prejudices regarding same-sex sexual orientation. There are no proposed constitutional amendments pending to prevent ugly, fat, or short (or blue-eyed) people from enjoying the civil/legal entitlements of state-sanctioned marriage...unless you're a homosexual.

Even if (or when) sexual orientation is fairly determined (or scientifically confirmed) to be "natural" in origin, a large-standing majority (within the US culture) will still earnestly and sincerely consider homosexuality to be a moral/ethical failing of rebellion against dogmatic principles of acceptable behavior/piety.

C'mon. If you could take a "safe" hormone pill that would insure that your next child would be genetically predisposed to be tall, handsome/pretty, thin, and "straight" (not to mention cancer and AIDS resistant)--you would completely abstain from such a readily available option on moral/ethical grounds alone?

Would that even be the proper moral/ethical course to follow as a prospective parent?

 

[Buttercup]

Our culture and society do not express any focused moral/ethical prejudices against folks of diminished height, looks, or breadth/width...but many folks do harbor inculcated fears/prejudices regarding same-sex sexual orientation.

And that's exactly why ideas regarding hypothetical research or fantasy inoculations preventing homosexuality should be smacked down immediately. Those fears are based on religious prejudice. We can't keep on tolerating religious prejudice in our Christian majority but Constitutionally protected nation. Separation of church and state remember? Why allow the state government to inoculate against something that's based on religious discrimination?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Has anyone read The Forever War by Joe Haldeman? In it, the Earth decided the cure for overpopulation was homosexuality so they cured Heterosexuality and everyone became gay. A very interesting concept and considering it was written and published in the mid seventies, very cutting edge.

 

[Smoke]

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.

Having experienced all the crap gay people have to put up with, I wouldn't choose Abrahamic religion for anyone. The problem isn't being gay, the problem is dealing with ignorant and hateful people. If you "cured" homosexuality, they'd find someone else to hate, because it's in the nature of their religion. They can't be the Children of God unless others are the Children of Perdition; they can't be the Elect unless others are the Damned.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Having experienced all the crap gay people have to put up with, I wouldn't choose Abrahamic religion for anyone. The problem isn't being gay, the problem is dealing with ignorant and hateful people. If you "cured" homosexuality, they'd find someone else to hate, because it's in the nature of their religion. They can't be the Children of God unless others are the Children of Perdition; they can't be the Elect unless others are the Damned.

Ouch! I understand what you're saying but I disagree that it is the nature of the religion. I think it is the nature of the people practicing that religion and a pretty good dose of societal conditioning. While Unitarian Universalists are not really considered Abrahamic as a whole anymore, there are still a large number of Christians and even Muslims who are within our ranks because they do not fit the mold you described. That doesn't make them non-Abrahamic.

Hateful people will always find something or someone to hate. Also, a great many people seem to need a sense of superiority over something. They need to be able to say I'm better than those people. I've always found this to be the strangest thing. Why should one person have to be better than another? (But that is probably a different thread. )

 

[rocka21]

what makes you homosexual is jumping in the sack with a person of the same sex and having SEX with them.

its the sex act, not a gene.

 

[rocka21]

Having experienced all the crap gay people have to put up with, I wouldn't choose Abrahamic religion for anyone. The problem isn't being gay, the problem is dealing with ignorant and hateful people. If you "cured" homosexuality, they'd find someone else to hate, because it's in the nature of their religion. They can't be the Children of God unless others are the Children of Perdition; they can't be the Elect unless others are the Damned.

if someone "hates" the SIN of a male sticking his ______ in another mans _______, why is that ignorant and hateful?

i also hate murder, lying, and stealing.

but i LOVE all people

 

[Smoke]

if someone "hates" the SIN of a male sticking his ______ in another mans _______, why is that ignorant and hateful?

Because there's no rational reason for hating it, or for thinking it's a "sin."

i also hate murder, lying, and stealing.

Those things hurt other people, as does homophobia.

but i LOVE all people

That's what they all say.

 

[rocka21]

Because there's no rational reason for hating it, or for thinking it's a "sin."


those who belive in the bible do.


Those things hurt other people, as does homophobia.
Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear", literally "fear of the equal")
i am in no FEAR, so i am this does not apply to me.
That's what they all say.

i can't speak for others, but i do Love people.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

what makes you homosexual is jumping in the sack with a person of the same sex and having SEX with them.

its the sex act, not a gene.

Oh hell, here we go. First of all, it isn't the sex. Being Homosexual is about the relationship. If you prefer to have a relationship with a person of the same sex then you are a homosexual. A relationship is the partnership of two people on a physical, mental and emotional level. Sex is just one third of the equasion.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

but i LOVE all people

I seriously doubt that. :no:

 

[rasor]

what makes you homosexual is jumping in the sack with a person of the same sex and having SEX with them.

its the sex act, not a gene.

Wrong,Its the faulty genetic message that tells you that you'd prefer to jump in the sack with someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex.

 

[rocka21]

Oh hell, here we go. First of all, it isn't the sex. Being Homosexual is about the relationship. If you prefer to have a relationship with a person of the same sex then you are a homosexual. A relationship is the partnership of two people on a physical, mental and emotional level. Sex is just one third of the equasion.

well, the one third part is the problem. it is the sex.

 

[Smoke]

Wrong,Its the faulty genetic message that tells you that you'd prefer to jump in the sack with someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex.

Why do you assume it's faulty?

 

[rasor]

Oh hell, here we go. First of all, it isn't the sex. Being Homosexual is about the relationship. If you prefer to have a relationship with a person of the same sex then you are a homosexual. A relationship is the partnership of two people on a physical, mental and emotional level. Sex is just one third of the equasion.

Hmm, I had a mental and emotional relationship with my Father.However thats as far as it went ie no sex. Am I 2/3 rds Homosexual ? I think not.So it must be the sex that makes one a homosexual.