Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Cure for homosexuality found

Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2013 6:56:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Phew...

Close one. If the cure or a biological source is found, then the race of the cure would begin and the LGBT movement would lose members to that race!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2013 11:31:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2013 6:56:11 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Phew...

Close one. If the cure or a biological source is found, then the race of the cure would begin and the LGBT movement would lose members to that race!

It reminds me of what one comic said about his school days with ADD - "that was before they knew they could kill it off with drugs". Yeah, they probably will find a pill someday, some hormone replacement kind of thing. they'll name it 'whiskey' after the Dead: "couple more shots of whiskey, those frisco girls start looking good..." Will we lose all our hairdressers when that happens, I wonder?
This space for rent.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2013 1:51:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2013 6:56:11 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Phew...

Close one. If the cure or a biological source is found, then the race of the cure would begin and the LGBT movement would lose members to that race!

There will still be tons of people who will not undergo such therapy, even if it is a one-time treatment with no side effects - people in a committed relationship would not be willing to suddenly not be attracted to their partner anymore.

If such a thing were invented, I would not be against its use. I am sure there are plenty of gays out there who would like to see the world through the eyes of a straight man (or woman). However, I am against it being used as a weapon by the anti-LGBT movement, like you are suggesting. If it turns out that homosexuality is a choice, then people have a RIGHT to that choice. If it turns out to not be under the person's control, then the affected individuals deserve respect for this fact, as opposed to demands that they try to change or suppress their nature. One cannot simply demand that everyone around them conform to their preferences or beliefs, and instead must learn to tolerate the fact that some people are different.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 5:56:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/23/2013 5:20:47 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Unfortunately, it only works on gay Jews...

http://jonahweb.org...

You could always convert!
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 6:03:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/24/2013 1:51:42 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/23/2013 6:56:11 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Phew...

Close one. If the cure or a biological source is found, then the race of the cure would begin and the LGBT movement would lose members to that race!

There will still be tons of people who will not undergo such therapy, even if it is a one-time treatment with no side effects - people in a committed relationship would not be willing to suddenly not be attracted to their partner anymore.

If such a thing were invented, I would not be against its use. I am sure there are plenty of gays out there who would like to see the world through the eyes of a straight man (or woman). However, I am against it being used as a weapon by the anti-LGBT movement, like you are suggesting. If it turns out that homosexuality is a choice, then people have a RIGHT to that choice. If it turns out to not be under the person's control, then the affected individuals deserve respect for this fact, as opposed to demands that they try to change or suppress their nature. One cannot simply demand that everyone around them conform to their preferences or beliefs, and instead must learn to tolerate the fact that some people are different.

Do you think that the LGBT movement want a cure or biological reason for homosexuality to be found? As far as science goes. The "Born this way" is nothing more than a hypothesis.

And you are right. Thoughts and feeling cannot and should not be legalized. But the debate is related to the behavior.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 6:27:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 6:03:02 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 7/24/2013 1:51:42 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/23/2013 6:56:11 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
Phew...

Close one. If the cure or a biological source is found, then the race of the cure would begin and the LGBT movement would lose members to that race!

There will still be tons of people who will not undergo such therapy, even if it is a one-time treatment with no side effects - people in a committed relationship would not be willing to suddenly not be attracted to their partner anymore.

If such a thing were invented, I would not be against its use. I am sure there are plenty of gays out there who would like to see the world through the eyes of a straight man (or woman). However, I am against it being used as a weapon by the anti-LGBT movement, like you are suggesting. If it turns out that homosexuality is a choice, then people have a RIGHT to that choice. If it turns out to not be under the person's control, then the affected individuals deserve respect for this fact, as opposed to demands that they try to change or suppress their nature. One cannot simply demand that everyone around them conform to their preferences or beliefs, and instead must learn to tolerate the fact that some people are different.

Do you think that the LGBT movement want a cure or biological reason for homosexuality to be found? As far as science goes. The "Born this way" is nothing more than a hypothesis.

That's exactly the reason for the search for a biological cause of heterosexuality and homosexuality.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 6:51:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love the way it's worded:
"Unwanted same-sex sexual attractions"
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 5:42:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Every single article that talks about a biological cause for homosexuality only implies a possibility, never annouce that it is found.

Thus, in a sense, they attempt to prove that it is biological without even proving it.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 11:22:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 5:42:16 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Every single article that talks about a biological cause for homosexuality only implies a possibility, never annouce that it is found.

Thus, in a sense, they attempt to prove that it is biological without even proving it.

Just the fact that we don't know for sure raises the issue of who should get benefit of the doubt. It's better to leave the benefit of the doubt with homosexuals (meaning we assume it is outside of their control) while we research the causes so that if we do find a biological cause, we don't pair that discovery with the discovery that we have been engaging in the meaningless persecution of people over a condition they have no control over.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 3:11:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 11:22:05 PM, drhead wrote:
At 7/27/2013 5:42:16 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Every single article that talks about a biological cause for homosexuality only implies a possibility, never annouce that it is found.

Thus, in a sense, they attempt to prove that it is biological without even proving it.

Just the fact that we don't know for sure raises the issue of who should get benefit of the doubt. It's better to leave the benefit of the doubt with homosexuals (meaning we assume it is outside of their control) while we research the causes so that if we do find a biological cause, we don't pair that discovery with the discovery that we have been engaging in the meaningless persecution of people over a condition they have no control over.

That benefit would go on indefinitely. It is impossible to prove that it does not exist.
Even if we travel a hundred years in the future to a prosperous civilization and a biological cause is not found, it may be discovered in the next 200 years, or next weak or in eight months or never.

From a scientific perspective, other than having no data to support it, there is no way to disprove it because there is no data, thus it does not qualify as a theory.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 4:48:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The entire quest of whether it is rooted in genetics, epigenetics, or unconsciously learned is one that ultimately does not matter.

There are many unconscious queues that our bodies/minds pick up on that then activates sexual attraction and desire.

In theory there will be technology to change what cues cause attraction in an individual regardless whether it is due to genetics, unconscious learning, or both.

The question is how hard will society push for individuals who are attracted to "the wrong thing" to readjust what or who they are attracted to.

We might agree to change a pedophile to not be attracted to children. We might even agree to therapy for all men require this therapy to not be sexual attracted to their children or attracted to particularly violent sex. Where do you draw the line? Eliminate all foot fetishes, attraction to watching other people perform sex? Eliminate all attractions with the exception of one's spouse?

I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but either one believes that one has a right to choose (in this case because we in theory have the technology to change) what he is sexually attracted to when it does not violate another person's rights or you believe in a state that can regulate what a person is attracted to purely based upon the states current definition of morality at the time.

How far would you go if it were your choice to determine when someone needs to go through this "therapy" to change what they are sexually attracted to?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:15:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 6:51:54 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
I love the way it's worded:
"Unwanted same-sex sexual attractions"

And you know, EVERYBODY struggles with 'unwanted ... sexual attractions', or at least attractions you better not act on. So the problem, in my view, is not the unwanted attractions but the inability to get juiced by the opposite sex.
This space for rent.
Quan
Posts: 97
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 1:25:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've always been skeptical about the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Logic would dictate that homosexuals do not reproduce, or at least reproduce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. You would think that gene would be bred out of the gene pool rather quickly.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 2:26:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 1:25:52 PM, Quan wrote:
I've always been skeptical about the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Logic would dictate that homosexuals do not reproduce, or at least reproduce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. You would think that gene would be bred out of the gene pool rather quickly.

Lol biology fail
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 2:50:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 1:25:52 PM, Quan wrote:
I've always been skeptical about the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Logic would dictate that homosexuals do not reproduce, or at least reproduce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. You would think that gene would be bred out of the gene pool rather quickly.

Infertility = impossible?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 6:23:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 4:48:04 PM, slo1 wrote:
The entire quest of whether it is rooted in genetics, epigenetics, or unconsciously learned is one that ultimately does not matter.

There are many unconscious queues that our bodies/minds pick up on that then activates sexual attraction and desire.

In theory there will be technology to change what cues cause attraction in an individual regardless whether it is due to genetics, unconscious learning, or both.

The question is how hard will society push for individuals who are attracted to "the wrong thing" to readjust what or who they are attracted to.

We might agree to change a pedophile to not be attracted to children. We might even agree to therapy for all men require this therapy to not be sexual attracted to their children or attracted to particularly violent sex. Where do you draw the line? Eliminate all foot fetishes, attraction to watching other people perform sex? Eliminate all attractions with the exception of one's spouse?

I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but either one believes that one has a right to choose (in this case because we in theory have the technology to change) what he is sexually attracted to when it does not violate another person's rights or you believe in a state that can regulate what a person is attracted to purely based upon the states current definition of morality at the time.

How far would you go if it were your choice to determine when someone needs to go through this "therapy" to change what they are sexually attracted to?

This is a great point. Legalizing gay marriages would be an incredible victory for the acceptance of consensual relations that violate no-ones rights.
Fractals
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 6:43:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 1:25:52 PM, Quan wrote:
I've always been skeptical about the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Logic would dictate that homosexuals do not reproduce, or at least reproduce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. You would think that gene would be bred out of the gene pool rather quickly.

http://chronicle.com...

Worth reading for a decent overview of the current knowledge of genetic factors in homosexuality.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2013 8:13:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 6:43:57 AM, Fractals wrote:
At 7/30/2013 1:25:52 PM, Quan wrote:
I've always been skeptical about the idea that homosexuality is genetic. Logic would dictate that homosexuals do not reproduce, or at least reproduce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. You would think that gene would be bred out of the gene pool rather quickly.

http://chronicle.com...

Worth reading for a decent overview of the current knowledge of genetic factors in homosexuality.

Which is to say: Nobody really has a clue at this point.

So, just to add my guess to the mix, I would note that homosexuality ... shoot how do you say this - it's not a genetic defect but a mixup of valuable features. When a guy is attracted to a guy, it's a normal human feature, it's just usually a female feature. So it can still be a useful feature, it's just misplaced.

So I doubt it's really genetic per se. There are genes that predispose you to it, maybe, like people are pre-disposed to heart disease or OCD, but I doubt they're going to find some simple genetic correlation. I bet it's more of switch that occurs sometime in early development, you end up going down one rail or the other.

I have a close loved one who is gay. There is just no doubt he was different from day one. But was he gay from day one, really? I dunno, just don't know.
This space for rent.