Reading through the 'gay concerns' thread, I found myself pondering a very difficult hypothetical and I couldn't resolve it one way or the other. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Yabby mentioned that hormonal changes during the womb govern sexuality, and that scientists have found a way to make rats 'gay' as it were, by fiddling with their brains.

I think this vindicates the theory that it's not a 'choice' but that's not what I'm raising here. My question is this:

If scientists were able to find a way to alter people's sexuality, then should it be made available to the public?

Imagine it. A drug, or operation, that could alter sexuality.

Now wait a moment - before you answer, there's a few other things which require a little contemplation. This isn't as straightforward as you might think.

My first instinct was that it's too dangerous and inevitably those with a religious mandate would push for it to become compulsory, or in lieu of that, would put pressure on people to undergo such procedures regardless of whether they wanted to.
I say it would be religious people driving this, because from all I've seen, that's the only logical motivating force to justify interfering in the lives of consenting adults who are harming no one.

However, my second thought was about the misery that many homosexuals endure. Reading through the other thread, it's easy to see how harrowing this experience could be.
Perhaps some might embrace such a treatment. Picture a teenager who desperately wanted to change - do we have the right to tell them 'no' you can't? On what basis do we deny them?

If we say yes, it's allowed, then how to we prevent powerful movements from arising, which would seek to force people to take this treatment? Would we force people back into hiding their sexuality?

Thoughts?

I reckon you are right TRTL. Such a drug would open this can of worms right up. While it would no doubt help some people, it would probably be a negative thing for a much larger number, who would feel a lot of pressure to take it, not only from religious nutters but from their whole society.

Even many of those that didn’t get any significant pressure from other people could become highly unsettled, if their sexuality which was fixed in stone so to speak was to be brought into question.

Even if they could change, and desperately wanted to, would their lives be better for it? I think it is highly likely that for most ‘ínnate’ homosexuals, they would have a higher quality of life staying as homosexuals than entering the heterosexual world when they lack the necessary experience.

Those that chose not to change would then be likely to cop a considerably increased level of homophobia from people who would not be able to tolerate those who they felt had clearly demonstrated that their homosexuality was a matter of choice.

Given that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality per se, I think that a drug like this could do a lot more harm than good.

Imagine the belief such a drug would bring to homophobes stuck between their own denied sexuality and a faith/socialisation that condems it. It may be that homophobia would be reduced as those who protest the most were able to side step their own internal conflicts. But then most probably would not be able to do the necessary self examination to see what drives their obsessive focus on gay sex.

On the other hand I cringe at the kind of pressure homophobic parents could bring to any of their children who showed any unwanted tendancies in sexuality. At the moment the more realistic might harbour at the back of their minds an acceptance that it's something that can't be changed. The availability of a drug which could change sexuality could make matters much worse as pressure was brought on children to express how much they wanted to change.

R0bert

mate they allready are
read about gmo growing breasts

or read about the polution in water from aestrogen
[femail hormoans in our waters]
#
they all ready do and are

without our informed concent

no response needed
no further comment will be entered into

Dear TRTL,

I don't quite understand your question.
I'm not sure at whom it's directed.

Are you talking about transvestism?
In which certain men take on the social and
sexual roles of women?

A scientific way to
change their sexuality may appeal to some, I guess.
Although, sex-change operations have been available
for some time.

Why would male homosexuals
want to scientifically change their
sexuality? They are adult men who play
other wise conventional masculine roles.
I didn't think gender-role reversals play
a major part in these relationships.
.
Lesbianism generally appears to take the
homophilic form: relations between adult
women and girls. Relations involving gender-role
reversals are usually rare.

To answer your question - what if there was a
scientific way to change sexuality? I guess
as with all innovations - once it becomes freely
available, it will have appeal to select members
of our community. Just look at the appeal of
cosmetic surgery...

I rather think this could be the subject of a fascinating film.

Foxy, essentially I mean what would we do about the societal pressures that would arise, if it were possible to make homosexuals or lesbians 'straight'. What would we do if this Pandora's box were opened.

Ludwig, R0bert, I agree wholeheartedly that it would create all of these problems and more - but imagine this scenario:

The drug/operation has already been researched and created. Imagine it already exists.

Now imagine, a tormented young homosexual individual has given up on the idea of living a normal life and wants the drug.

Do we deny them? What do we say?

The easiest answer is that we try to counsel them through this difficult time and hope they come out stronger on the other side. This happens in many cases, as evidenced by the 'gay concerns' thread.

However, I suspect the suicide rate among homosexual youths is rather high, though I don't have statistics on hand. So they don't all have the strength to make it through.

So, we come back to the question... do we deny its release?

In denying it, do we become the new oppressors, refusing to allow people who want to change, the means to do so?