Debate and Discussion

Homosexuality 'cure and research'
Aussie_kid at 5:52AM, Oct. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 591
joined: 1-1-2006
Okay, over the years I've been seeing a lot of stuff involving homosexuals and science. Research for what causes them and also, possible cures.

And yet, in a world where we are taught to be accepting of all people, we are taught that such research is acceptable.

What the hell, seriously. That's as insulting as you can get.

And before any one gives me the whole ‘You need to be straight to make children and that’s what we're supposed to do' whether it's by proving it scientifically (Our animal instincts causing us to breed with the opposite sex to prolong the species) or religion (Will of God, Allah, etc.) I already know it and it's not the debate topic.

Anyway, what do you guys think about science (Psychiatry and biology) trying to disect a lifestyle choice?
Insanity Complex: We may not be insane, but we like to think we are
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:11AM
crazyninny at 7:08AM, Oct. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,457
joined: 7-20-2006
I belive sciene should cure things that really matter, like diesease, disorders, and viruses.

Homosexuality isn't any of the above. Homosexuality is what you are. It isn't something you can cure. Hell, its like saying that I can be cured from being straight. *Rolls her eyes.* And besids, isn't what the Nazi try to do? Cure people from being gay? From having drak skin, dark hair, and eyes that aren't blue? Is that right to do?

That isn't right, so, why is ‘curing’ homosexuality any righter than curing people without blond hiar and blue eyes?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:48AM
trevoramueller at 7:14AM, Oct. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 9-17-2007
The thing I love about the topic of homosexuality is that people have always tried to quantify it in the craziest ways, first by calling it a mental illness and - most recently - claiming that it could be genetic.

I have a lot of gay friends (even lived with a gay guy for 2 years during college), and I don't see what the big deal is. If it makes someone happy to be together with someone else, then shouldn't we just be happy for them - even if they're both of the same sex? It's not hurting anyone.
My Drunk Duck Comics:


Nominated for numerous web awards, see more news at My Website
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:33PM
StaceyMontgomery at 10:26AM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
i used to do a lot of public speaking on GLBT issues - at community groups, businesses, colleges, that sort of thing. One of the people who gave me training to do that was an older man with a bit of a speech problem.

It was an after-effect of all the electro-shock therapy he had been given in his younger days. You know. To cure his gayness.

So any talk of cures does not go very far for me.




Of course, the truth is, someday soon we'll know a lot more about how the brain works. We might find out exactly what makes people gay or trans - we might find a “cures' for them.

Of course, we will also find out what makes people straight or gender conforming or even religious… and we'll find ”cures" for all of those things too.

It will be a scary world, perhaps. I think we should all shake hands right now and agree not to try to cure each other of being who we are.

—-

It reminds me of when they told me to go on Ritalin to help me with my attention span and productivity problems. Was being easily distracted a symptom - or just part of my personality? And should I try to cure myself of… being me?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Fuzzy Modem at 11:07AM, Oct. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 217
joined: 9-17-2007
A certain percent of the population will always be gay. Trying to fix them is like trying to fix redheads.


I've given up following my dreams. I just asked where they're going and I'm gonna meet them there.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:32PM
Aurora Moon at 12:27PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
In the 70's, the majority of scienicsts almost all agreed that it was an “mental illness”…. and even did tons of massive reserech on how to cure it. But then the more they learned about it….. it's become now the MINORITY of sciencists who still believes in such a thing. While the Majority now have discredited it as being an “mental illness”.

Now we've been finding tons of evidence that being gay actually be somewhat genetic.(looking at the brains of Ewes and Rams, and finding that the Majorty of gay rams were exactly like the Ewe's while the straight rams' brains were different. That's a very good instance.)
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
barking_frog at 12:36PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 61
joined: 8-31-2007
I don't think it IS a lifestyle choice, I think it's a programmed sexual preference. I have no idea whether it's programmed by birth or environment (I've met strong arguments for both), but I certainly don't believe anybody who wasn't bisexual to begin with wakes up one morning and says “I think I'll see what playing with the other team is like”.

That being the case, I see no harm in the curious trying to work out why, either psychologically or biologically, people express whichever sexual preference they express. Declaring that taboo is just as silly as declaring homosexuality taboo, but in the opposite way.

The argument that, if somebody can e.g. isolate a gene that causes sexual orientation, someone else will try to “cure” homosexuality, is probably valid. But making that research forbidden is equivalent to blocking psychological research because it can be used to people's detriment in advertising.

MWWT: Blog / Newsletter
About Me / Contact / DALnet #mwwt
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:15AM
Custard Trout at 12:53PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Like barking_frog and oscilatingmind said, they're probably just curious. I've known a few scientists and that explanation seems to fit the bill to me. Maybe they aren't trying to ‘cure’ homosexuality, but see if it's possible to change sexual orientation and someone misinterpreted it.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:59AM
trevoramueller at 2:01PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 9-17-2007
See, my thing was trying to find a cure for homosexuality then begs the question, “should we find a cure for heterosexuality?” Why do one and not the other? Because homosexuality differs from the norm?

Homosexuality has been around since before recorded time began, first really popularized in history by the Greeks and Romans. Soldiers far away from their wives would engage in acts of homosexuality. Who can say if they were attracted to each other, or if it was just more socially acceptable back then.

I think the only reason that the spotlight it thrown on this topic is because the act of homosexuality varies from the established “socially acceptable” behavior of a male / female pairing. Who created this model of behavior, I'll leave that to everyone else to decide, but the truth of the matter is that I don't see any harm in someone being gay.

Now, if the majority of people became gay, then it may be required to have some male / female pairing (or breeding facilities) for the continuation of the species…but I don't see that happening anytime soon. ;)
My Drunk Duck Comics:


Nominated for numerous web awards, see more news at My Website
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:33PM
Custard Trout at 2:11PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
If they find a ‘cure’ for homosexuality, then they'd work out how to reverse it during the process.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:59AM
Hawk at 2:32PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Curing existing homosexuality is one thing, but would preventing homosexuality be bad? I don't have an answer to that, I'm just curious about what people think.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
Aurora Moon at 3:19PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Hawk
Curing existing homosexuality is one thing, but would preventing homosexuality be bad? I don't have an answer to that, I'm just curious about what people think.

To me that would kinda be like selecting only certain genes you want in your child. to me that would be like preventing your children from looking like too much like their father/mother and instead be more like you.

In other words, something that's completely superficial and has no real point at all.

After all, Homosexuality's not like some disorder that would limit them from functioning well in society.
After all, Being homosexual isn't like being born unable to walk and having to stay in a wheelchair. Or something like that.

So to me it wouldn't be the same as, say, preventing Autism in your fetus before it's even born. or even after it's born.

And plus, you have to look at NATURE. There's so many gay animals out in nature too… What if there's actually a REASON for homosexuality to exist….?
There's been interesting studies where scientists observed that rats in overcrowded areas were more likely to be homosexuals than an less-populated area. So Homosexuality could simply be Nature's way of POPULATION CONTROL, selecting people and animals at random to make them homosexuals.

If we mess around with nature, what will be the cost? an overpopulated planet full of everyone pairing up and having children that would only serve add to the overpopulation problem?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Custard Trout at 3:31PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Aurora Moon
If we mess around with nature, what will be the cost? an overpopulated planet full of everyone pairing up and having children that would only serve add to the overpopulation problem?

We're humans, messing with nature is natural for us. I mean it, we have imagination to see a world different to the one before us, and then we use it again to craft the tools necessary to bring the pictures in our head to reality. Changing what we see before us is not just human nature, it is the very key to our way of life, and to our survival.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:59AM
Aurora Moon at 4:51PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Custard Trout
Aurora Moon
If we mess around with nature, what will be the cost? an overpopulated planet full of everyone pairing up and having children that would only serve add to the overpopulation problem?

We're humans, messing with nature is natural for us. I mean it, we have imagination to see a world different to the one before us, and then we use it again to craft the tools necessary to bring the pictures in our head to reality. Changing what we see before us is not just human nature, it is the very key to our way of life, and to our survival.

Yes. and we also have ways of completely fucking up and ruining things… like the things that we thought were good for us, it screws us royally in the long run.

like that whole Fructose syrup thing in our drinks produced by companies…. a man-made creation, is now causing more people to be diabetic. So thanks to humanity, more and more humans now can only eat certain foods. if they eat anything else, they DIE.

And that's not just the only thing… More and more companies are putting in chemicals into EVERYTHING we use that isn't always good for us.

“Chemicals have replaced bacteria and viruses as the main threat to health. The diseases we are beginning to see as the major causes of death in the latter part of (the 1900's) and into the 21st century are diseases of chemical origin. And those Chemicals will often be found in the foods and the products that we use.”
Dr. Dick Irwin, Toxicologist, Texas A&M University

take DEA, TEA, MEA - Diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA), and monoethanolamine (MEA) for instance. Those chemicals are typically found in personal care products (makeup, soap,etc..).
And you know what those chemicals can do to us?

DEA, TEA, MEA - Diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA), and monoethanolamine (MEA) are hormone disruptors. They are also known to combine with nitrates to form cancer-causing nitrosamines. If a product contains nitrites (used as a preservative or present as a contaminant not listed on labels) a chemical reaction can occur either during manufacturing or after a product is made. There is no way to know which products contain nitrosamines because government does not require manufacturers to disclose this information on the label.

http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=personal#commo

from there.

So you see… while our intellegence can be beneficial to our survival, it can be also be our end. What if the hormones and genetics linked with Homosexuality is also one that affects Straight people too in that sense that it affects all our own sexual drive?
And so some “well-meaning” scientist's blundering attempt to “cure homosexuality for future generations”, they make it so that future generations has NO SEXUAL DRIVE AT ALL, AND THEREFORE HAS NO DESIRE TO HAVE SEX. That's one possibility you'd have to consider. And of course if the future humans have no desire to have sex, then there's no procreating outside of science (tube babies, etc). Which means that Humans just fucked up their own future.

Because even though we humans can be so smart, our downfall is that we tend to act like we know everything and that we all know what's best for each other. When we really don't. We can only know what's best for OURSELVES, not for others, much less our future children.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
kyupol at 5:18PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Science studies everything and researches everything. Homosexuality is included in ‘everything’.

What I find amusing tho… is its the same people who diss religion for being homophobic… then they cling on to science. Then when science tries to explain homosexuality, science is at fault. Science challenges traditional beliefs. That is why science and religion have been at odds.

Science is trying to challenge beliefs about homosexuality by researching about it. If it is indeed a GENE that makes people homosexual… if its something they're born with, then they cannot be held at fault for being a homosexual. I seriously think homosexuality is something inborn. Because I tried wanking off to gay porn and it just wont work and it made me sick to my stomach… because I'm straight and I really dont have that homosexual gene .

If homosexuality is an inborn disease, then it should be treated the same way as other inborn diseases. With compassion and understanding.

Isn't that what scientific method is all about? Research… and trying to explain everything?

Lets say homosexuality gets “cured”.

Its a good thing since less people will be depressed and commiting suicide about it. Since I heard stories of homosexuals feeling the discrimination and they feel bad and they wanna kill themselves and all. Less people will feel pain… and less people will commit the evil of assaulting homosexuals and preaching hate against them.

And you never know what other indirect good may come from the research. Maybe it may lead to other interesting things about the human psychology and biology. New discoveries can happen everyday.



Just my 2 cents on the research. So yes. Let the research go on for the progress of humanity.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
Aurora Moon at 5:33PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I don't mind if sciencists reserech what makes people gay or not.

It's the whole “curing” idea I'm against.

for you see, if there's “cures” made, then the intolerance and hate will grow even more instead of lessening.

more people would be saying: “Ew!!!!!! why the fuck are you still gay?! They do have a CURE for that, you know! You have no excuse being gay!!!!”

And then what next? Say somebody finds a way to alter how you look in the outside… inducing being black, chiense, white, etc.
And then somebody else dedices to see it as an “cure”…. snice how in the bible it clearly states how Blacks and such were seen as lowly people, etc…

So of course then naturally somebody wants to “cure” those poor blacks of being black snice it says so in the bible that the only thing blacks are good for is being SLAVES.
And snice slaves don't exist anymore, those “poor” blacks have no real purpose in life anymore! oh no… better to cure them and make them white then, so that everyone then can be all the same outside in America!

Then of course, Anybody not white has no excuse being what they are, because there's a CURE for being Chiense, Black, Japanese, and so on forth!

See what I mean? Why can't people just accept the fact that people are different from each other, instead of trying to make everyone and thier mother all the same?

“I hate you because you're different than I am!! Being different than I am is like a diease, and I'd like to CURE you of it!!” is basically the whole gist of biogoty and the ideas behind this “cure”.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
barking_frog at 5:39PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 61
joined: 8-31-2007
It's entirely possible that homosexuality is an evolutionary adaptation rather than a “malfunction” as so many (non-scientists) seem to feel. People generally dismiss this idea out of hand because two males or two females can't breed, so it's assumed that there could be no possibility of an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.

(I'm not going to get into a lecture on natural selection, but it IS possible for a trait that prevents reproduction to be carried on within a population as long as the trait only goes active in a minority of specimens each generation.)

But how could homosexuality be to the advantage of the species? One possible explanation that I can think of right off is that it's a trigger for dealing with overpopulation. Maybe at some point when a child is in the womb, before sexual preferance is coded (assuming it's not coded in the DNA), an extended period of stress in the mother results in homosexuality as a way of preserving the group by beginning to cut back population size.

I'm totally pulling this out of my butt, but I believe it's one feasible explanation, and that with some thinking it'd probably be possible to come up with a multitude of other theories where it would be advantageous for 10% of a population to “turn off” for purposes of reproduction.

MWWT: Blog / Newsletter
About Me / Contact / DALnet #mwwt
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:15AM
Custard Trout at 5:47PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Aurora Moon
Custard Trout
Aurora Moon
If we mess around with nature, what will be the cost? an overpopulated planet full of everyone pairing up and having children that would only serve add to the overpopulation problem?

We're humans, messing with nature is natural for us. I mean it, we have imagination to see a world different to the one before us, and then we use it again to craft the tools necessary to bring the pictures in our head to reality. Changing what we see before us is not just human nature, it is the very key to our way of life, and to our survival.

Yes. and we also have ways of completely fucking up and ruining things… like the things that we thought were good for us, it screws us royally in the long run.

like that whole Fructose syrup thing in our drinks produced by companies…. a man-made creation, is now causing more people to be diabetic. So thanks to humanity, more and more humans now can only eat certain foods. if they eat anything else, they DIE.

And that's not just the only thing… More and more companies are putting in chemicals into EVERYTHING we use that isn't always good for us.

“Chemicals have replaced bacteria and viruses as the main threat to health. The diseases we are beginning to see as the major causes of death in the latter part of (the 1900's) and into the 21st century are diseases of chemical origin. And those Chemicals will often be found in the foods and the products that we use.”
Dr. Dick Irwin, Toxicologist, Texas A&M University

take DEA, TEA, MEA - Diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA), and monoethanolamine (MEA) for instance. Those chemicals are typically found in personal care products (makeup, soap,etc..).
And you know what those chemicals can do to us?

DEA, TEA, MEA - Diethanolamine (DEA), triethanolamine (TEA), and monoethanolamine (MEA) are hormone disruptors. They are also known to combine with nitrates to form cancer-causing nitrosamines. If a product contains nitrites (used as a preservative or present as a contaminant not listed on labels) a chemical reaction can occur either during manufacturing or after a product is made. There is no way to know which products contain nitrosamines because government does not require manufacturers to disclose this information on the label.

http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=personal#commo

from there.

So you see… while our intellegence can be beneficial to our survival, it can be also be our end. What if the hormones and genetics linked with Homosexuality is also one that affects Straight people too in that sense that it affects all our own sexual drive?
And so some “well-meaning” scientist's blundering attempt to “cure homosexuality for future generations”, they make it so that future generations has NO SEXUAL DRIVE AT ALL, AND THEREFORE HAS NO DESIRE TO HAVE SEX. That's one possibility you'd have to consider. And of course if the future humans have no desire to have sex, then there's no procreating outside of science (tube babies, etc). Which means that Humans just fucked up their own future.

Because even though we humans can be so smart, our downfall is that we tend to act like we know everything and that we all know what's best for each other. When we really don't. We can only know what's best for OURSELVES, not for others, much less our future children.

You're thinking like a human, to understand me, you need to think as a species.

Yes, one or two (thousand) people are going to suffer, but it's survival of the fittest, and in today's society, money will make you the fittest. So, we are basically designed to acquire money. This will collapse eventually, and then we'll move on to something else.

The species as a whole has to survive, not the individuals.

As for the loss of a sex drive; well, we would understand the importance of sex, everyone on the planet does things the hate on a daily basis, what difference will one more make?
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:59AM
okamimako at 5:59PM, Oct. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 118
joined: 10-10-2007
I wouldn't mind the research; I'm naturally curious (as is everyone else…) and I like to see how things work. That's extended to include all those fun little gradients of homosexuality, extending to transgenderism and why the hell Eddy Izzard runs around with high heels. Not that I'm against homosexuality (if I were far along in my comics enough, I would point at them for proof, but alas…), but I love learning the sexuality of stuff, as in why the Greeks considered sex with another man higher than loving a woman.

Even though it doesn't explain homosexuality in some cultures, I do like the idea as it as a population control. I had that idea for a group of people who lived on an island without access off that island, that they promoted homosexuality for younger people so they wouldn't go make mistakes when they're younger and leave the kiddy raising for the experienced.

And, uh… I can't think of anything else that someone hadn't already said.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:20PM
DAJB at 12:29AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
okamimako
why the hell Eddy Izzard runs around with high heels.
In his own words, because he's a “lesbian trapped in a man's body.” Now that has to be one of the neatest definitions of sexual diversity ever.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
ozoneocean at 3:06AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,002
joined: 1-2-2004
We've had exactly this topic before…

One problem is the automatic assumption that homosexuality is “genetic”. You have to realise that isn't as straight forward an assumption as you think, besides only being a relatively newly accepted (and not universally), way of thinking about Homosexuality. You also have to separate “homosexuality” somewhat from the idea of “gayness”, or “Lesbianism”; i.e. the cultural factors, and things about butch women or boys liking dolls don't necessarily have anything to do with genetic factors and everything to do with social ones.

But on to the “genetics” idea. Genetics has in many ways become the new “it's like that because God did it”, or “It's the natural way”, in the popular mind, even the “programming” idea is quite faulty. What do you even mean when you invoke “genetics”, especially in relation to homosexuality? Are you thinking of it in terms of an aberrant mutation that will occur always with some mathematical regularity to a fixed percentage of the population? A change that happens during gestation due to certain hormones and chemicals (that the mother is genetically predisposed to produce) in the womb affecting the foetus? A genetically inherited disease or problem, like colour blindness perhaps or type 1 diabetes? Perhaps as a beneficial state that occurs within every species as a kind of population control? Maybe a latent trait within both sexes regardless of sexuality, having to do with sexual maturation that fully manifests with the changes that occur during puberty?

Whatever it is, saying something is “genetics” in any serious discussion on a subject and mostly leaving it at that is just ignorant… Not everyone has done that of course but some have.

As to the idea of finding a cure… Clearly there isn't a need for such things. That would be a massive waste of resources and time. Yes, it'd be quite interesting to learn why a percentage of people are homosexual, but it doesn't actually cause any problems that need to be “solved”, apart from social issues, but societies change and they've been adapted to accept homosexuality as normal in the past, just as many do again now. Not even in terms of “propagation of the species” is a “cure” required: We have NO problems in that regard and even if we did, homosexual people have always had children just like everyone else.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:28PM
okamimako at 3:30AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 118
joined: 10-10-2007
I don't know about everyone else here, but, yes, I would agree that it's a bit silly to jump to conclusions about homosexuality being genetic. I for one have seen too many different reasons as to why there's homosexuality, but if it were to be genetic, I think it would go along with why some people are left handed. I don't happen to remember what exactly causes that, but it just strikes me as a natural thing that people are making too big of a deal out of.

Speaking of, why would we want to find a “cure”, as ozoneocean pointed out? I seriously don't get why some people are so anxious about having a bunch of gay people around–I'm mostly talking about those anti-homosexuality activists who condemn homosexuality. The only logical explanation for this that I can see is that the condemners are concerned about their own sexuality and are trying to assert themselves as straight. I don't see why people need to be bothered obsessing over stuff that doesn't personally concern them. Even though I myself don't support the view, the best anti-homosexuality view I've heard was from a friend of mine: “I don't care if you're gay or not; just be aware that you're going to hell.” It's a weird sort of acceptance, but at least she's not going around proclaiming from the highest mountaintops that, if we've ever had a gay thought, we're doomed for eternity.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:20PM
Aurora Moon at 3:34AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Custard Trout
As for the loss of a sex drive; well, we would understand the importance of sex, everyone on the planet does things the hate on a daily basis, what difference will one more make?

HAHAHAHA. obviously you have over-thought this whole thing. You don't realize that if somebody doesn't enjoy sex, then they'll put it off LONG AS THEY CAN until the LAST second. So you'd basically have the majority people in thier 35's to 40's starting to have children and even losing their virginity at that age too.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there's tons of health risks for both parent and child if they have children at that age. espeically the risk of death.

So my point still stands. If you mess around with the sexual drives and mess around with what makes us attracted to other people…. there's that risk of it back-firing on us like that.

Then we'd have to all become so dependant on things like cloning and whatnot just to surive. and that isn't a good thing.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Custard Trout at 7:41AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 4,566
joined: 2-22-2007
Aurora Moon
Custard Trout
As for the loss of a sex drive; well, we would understand the importance of sex, everyone on the planet does things the hate on a daily basis, what difference will one more make?

HAHAHAHA. obviously you have over-thought this whole thing. You don't realize that if somebody doesn't enjoy sex, then they'll put it off LONG AS THEY CAN until the LAST second. So you'd basically have the majority people in thier 35's to 40's starting to have children and even losing their virginity at that age too.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there's tons of health risks for both parent and child if they have children at that age. espeically the risk of death.

So my point still stands. If you mess around with the sexual drives and mess around with what makes us attracted to other people…. there's that risk of it back-firing on us like that.

Then we'd have to all become so dependant on things like cloning and whatnot just to surive. and that isn't a good thing.

Why? We'd still be surviving. Plus cloning has all sorts of advantages over the traditional method.

I disagree with that putting it off thing, I always get to my lectures as early as I can and I hate them more than sticking pins in my leg.
Hey buddy, you should be a Russian Cosmonaut, and here's why.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:59AM
StaceyMontgomery at 8:42AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
Kyupol said

“Its a good thing since less people will be depressed and commiting suicide about it.”

Um, that's a crazy thing to say, and I can honestly say that it is frightening to me.

Obviously, it would make more sense to say that Homosexuals are depressed because so many of the people around them are vicious, stupid homophobes.

Do you suppose that homophobia is a disease and that we will eventually find a cure for it?

I can only paraphrase Rikki Ann Wilchins the famous activist - “I was born with a problem - I was born in a culture where people hate me for no good reason!”


And so we return to my point - the problem with “curing” people of such things is that we do not all agree on what should be “cured.” Shall we cure homophobia? A foolish belief in the supernatural and religion? What if an obsession with webcomics is a disease that should be cured?

I say, tread lightly, lest ye be tread upon.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Priest_Revan at 9:44AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,339
joined: 12-31-2006
To be honest, I don't like the idea of scientists trying to figure out a “cure” for something that really doesn't need cures. It's a bit of an insult.

Now, I'm not gonna say they can't be allowed to do research on such a thing, since it's just basic human nature to try and figure these sort of things out (and it would be interesting to find out how people change to like the same or opposite sex). I'm sure we could find a better use for these scientists (STDs anyone), but they need something to do with their time.
Updates Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday's (depends).

7/0

Offering Project Wonderful Ad space on my website.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:48PM
freefall_drift at 10:47AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 260
joined: 6-19-2007
Hi All,
Check out
'“Curing” Homosexuality using Hormones and Genetics.'
http://www.drunkduck.com/community/view_topic.php?tid=25293&cid=241
it covers a lot of this.

I'm a gay man. I like being gay. But if you ask my parents when I was in the womb
This is what I think will happen.
When we discover the genetic component and the pre natal component, then busy little scientist will invent a test to screen for to see if their son or daughter will likely be gay. I'm imagining fun abortion debates then.
Then those busy little scientists will invent a ‘cure’, changing how the baby develops, making sure that if the baby could one way or the other, it will be straight. There will still be a few “As god made em” kids but they will probably be rather lonely. In the rich societies, where the treatment is affordable, gay ness will fade out. Only medically impoverished communities will have gay people.
I would find that bright sparkly future bleak, but I don't think that the straight community would give it more than a passing thought. I think the generic straight family would feel like they dodge a bullet, as they vaccinate against polio and being gay.

On the flip side, I read a sci fi story, that had a sub element where, the powerful world government, as a form of population control had all but a few kids, induced to be gay, and thus, not many kids were born and the population went down.
Freefall Drift - A sci fi space opera of a starship's mission of stopping the Endless Kings.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
horseboy at 11:25AM, Oct. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 139
joined: 8-27-2006
Aurora Moon
And then somebody else decides to see it as an “cure”…. since how in the bible it clearly states how Blacks and such were seen as lowly people, etc…
Okay, this one I've got to see. What wacky version are you using to come to this? Chapter and verse please.

okamimako
Speaking of, why would we want to find a “cure”, as ozoneocean pointed out? I seriously don't get why some people are so anxious about having a bunch of gay people around–I'm mostly talking about those anti-homosexuality activists who condemn homosexuality. The only logical explanation for this that I can see is that the condemners are concerned about their own sexuality and are trying to assert themselves as straight. I don't see why people need to be bothered obsessing over stuff that doesn't personally concern them. Even though I myself don't support the view, the best anti-homosexuality view I've heard was from a friend of mine: “I don't care if you're gay or not; just be aware that you're going to hell.” It's a weird sort of acceptance, but at least she's not going around proclaiming from the highest mountaintops that, if we've ever had a gay thought, we're doomed for eternity.
From what I've observed, there's been a lot of play lately on Matt 25, particularly 32-46. The current interpretation I've heard is that they think they're going to be held accountable for not only their sins, but for all the sin around them that they didn't try to stop. Kinda like that last episode of Seinfeld where they all went to jail, even though they didn't jack the car.
There is no such word as “alot”. “A lot” is two words.
Voltaire
Never seek for happiness, it will merely allude the seeker. Never strive for knowledge, it is beyond man's scope. Never think, for in though lies all the ills of mankind. The wise man, like the rat, the crocodile, the fly, merely fulfills his natural function.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
kingofsnake at 1:09PM, Oct. 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Thats just silly, every one knows the only cure for homosexuality is prayer
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
spacehamster at 2:04PM, Oct. 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 504
joined: 8-3-2007
I don't see anything wrong with science investigating homosexuality. Actually, I think if you can ask the questions without ideologies getting in the way, it's pretty interesting. Are people just born that way? Do they “turn into” homosexuals around puberty? Are there different possible causes? Unfortunately it's almost impossible to ask these questions in the current climate because the “issue” (homosexuality really shouldn't be an “issue” at all) is so loaded with all kinds of ideological nonsense. It's when people see it as an “illness” that can, or worse, should be cured that I think they go wrong, but investigating the nature of homosexuality without passing judgment one way or the other - I don't see what's wrong with that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:50PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved