The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > What if there was a scientific way to change sexuality?

What if there was a scientific way to change sexuality?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
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?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 26 December 2008 11:28:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 27 December 2008 7:02:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 27 December 2008 8:29:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 27 December 2008 10:48:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 27 December 2008 2:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 27 December 2008 2:28:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Foxy,

I think this is one of those instances where semantics cloud the issue a little.

I read the subject not as meaning that one would be able to change one's gender but rather to change one's proclivity to be sexually attracted by a member of the same sex?

In which case I think about many of the homosexual people I've met have who railed against fate(?), DNA (?) or just plain bad luck in having been born the way they were. When they were coming to terms with their sexuality I think those people would have welcomed being able to control their sexuality.

But I also agree that such an available transformation could inevitably lead to even higher levels of condemnation than currently exists. Especially as some people already firmly believe homosexuality is a matter of choice.

I agree however, with the points you made that very few people would want to change their gender. Most of us are quite happy with the gender we have been assigned: its the gender roles which stuff us up.

Sexuality I consider to be our own personal and seperate business. A loving couple of exemplory parents are not condemned if their sex-life involves wild masochism or sadism - why should a loving couple whose sex-life includes same-sex relations therefore be made to feel that a process which changes their sexual habits be necessary?

I think its one of the (many) tradgedies of life that we have engineered a society where the way we express our love is capable of being legislated against or chemically or surgically changed.

But that's reality, isn't it?
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 27 December 2008 2:33:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear TRTL,

Thanks for explaining what you meant.
I now get it.

Giving people the option of
changing their sexual orientation is
something, as you point out, that
would need to be done after considerable
analysis of each individual case,thorough
counseling, discussion, awareness of all
the facts, et cetera. It's not something
that should be undertaken lightly.

Having said that, however, I do feel that
if this innovation was available, Yes, it
should be made available to all that
needed it.
(Accessed via the referral of a
medical professional).

Dear Romany,

Thanks for clarifying things for me.
My brain's not working properly...

You, as always, get right to the point.

Thanks.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 27 December 2008 3:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear TRTL,

I'm still not fully satisfied with my
answer to you on this topic. As you pointed
out, it's not as straight forward as it first
appears.

I guess my problem stems from the fact that
deep down I feel that most people are happy
with their sexuality.

If a poll was taken today -
most responses would probably surprise
us.

Also, I feel it's wrong to infer (and attach)
the label of 'deviance' to sexual
preferences that differ from what is
considered to be 'normal,' and acceptable in
our society.

What happens between two consenting adults,
to me, is their business.

I guess, the bottom-line here is, that I
find the suggestion of changing someone's
sexuality scientifically, in order to
be 'acceptable' in our society, rather abhorrent.
To me that infers justifying judgements
that I consider not to be right or fair.

Why should someone's sexual preference be
considered to be superior, to someone else's?

Why should our young men and women be forced
to suffer, as a result of their choice or
preference of a sexual partner?

Is that the kind of society we all want to live
in?

Who decides what's right?
And, for whom?

If we're going to have a scientific way to
change someone's sexuality - shouldn't there also
be an injection available to
make straight people gay, if they so chose?

Why only select gays?

That's what I'm having problems with in this
discussion.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 27 December 2008 6:31:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL... it seems you began on the left foot and ended on the right.

You began with how scientists can make rats gay and mentioned playing with their brains. (Link please?) I can only find reference to hormonal influence and gay rats.

Then.. you continued on the right foot with "if a drug could be found to change sexuality" etc.. which is suggestive of an adult treatment.

No matter which way you go... the bottom line seems to be that gay-ness is definitely a malfunction or hormonal or genetic disorder and definitely not normal. Thus in the absense of a treatment which can fix this condition.. it is our social duty to assist homosexual people compassionately in their struggle for acceptable identity on the spiritual and social levels.
Posted by Polycarp, Saturday, 27 December 2008 6:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If such a drug is discovered, I'd vote for it to be given mandatorily to religious fundamentalists in order to turn them gay (if they're not already, albeit in the closet).
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 27 December 2008 7:36:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My initial post wasn't phrased as well as it should have been - it should have been 'sexual orientation'. If there's any moderators watching, feel free to change the title from 'sexuality' to 'sexual orientation'.

Foxy, I agree with what you've said, and yes, I'd agree the treatment should be available to straight people who want to turn gay. The sole reason why I say it would tend to be used by homosexuals, is that there are more societal pressures inducing homosexuals to turn straight than vice versa.

I don't agree or condone these societal pressures, but I acknowledge they exist, and I feel it's up to any homosexual individual to decide how they wish to deal with these pressures, though I would hope that they have the fortitude to accept who they are and move on, and I would also hope that the people around them would be supportive.

However, if they wished to be straight, then should they be given that choice? My answer is yes, though I'd be curious as to what suggestions people would have for dealing with the ramifications of such a drug.

How would we cope with the changed world? I think this is a valuable question to be explored, not only because with advances in science this may become a reality, but also because it might yield a few topic offshoots which might shed light on how as a society, we deal with scientific advancements which challenge tolerance, morality and equality, as well as means by which we support homosexuals.

Polycarp - hormonal influences, brain tinkering, drugs... it doesn't matter. Take your pic.
I'm discussing the 'what if' not the 'how.'
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 28 December 2008 12:14:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRL
I think it should be available. As well as wow what an interesting Movie.
This drug woulde get more publicity than Nicloes Australia but be a much bigger sucess.
Why not make it available for youth wanting to change indeed.
Might be a good weapon for the UN as well instead of sending off billions to world aid.
That ought to get some bites at least.
merry Christmass to all
Posted by People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming, Sunday, 28 December 2008 12:33:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, you’re onto something very interesting there CJ. THAT’S what we really need; a compulsory drug that would cement everyone’s primary sexual orientation and do away with bisexuality, heterosexuals choosing to be gay and homosexuals who feel obligated by religion and society to be straight!

A lot of religious fundamentalists would then turn gay, or I should say, come out of the closet and show their true colours.

Just imagine that! It would lead to a much more liberal outlook on sexuality from the stodgy old Church. Hopefully that greater liberalism would spread to all manner of other things.

Oh yes. Bring it on !! !!

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UUei5-fKXMQ
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 28 December 2008 5:35:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy mentioned plastic surgery which was the first comparable thing which came to mind thinking about this. Plastic surgery is used to fix something that's wrong in some cases, and as an optional accessory in others. Would this imaginary drug be offered as a cure or a lifestyle choice?

Would people have to continue taking it to continue the effect, or would they revert if they stopped taking it?

Take the depressed teenager example. What if they took the drug and ended up even more miserable? Do we seriously think that their social situation would improve? Wouldn't they still be considered a freak?
Posted by chainsmoker, Sunday, 28 December 2008 11:30:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear TRTL,

It would be interesting to conduct a poll
amongst the gay community on this topic.

I agree with you, the drug should be made
available to those that want to change their
sexual orientation. Again, under the usual
conditions that medical procedures such as this
require, such as doctoral referrals, counseling,
et cetera.

I think it is merely a question
of time before scientific innovations will make
this choice a reality.

How will society cope?
I guess as it has done historically with each
new scientific/medical discovery.
Learning to adapt with each change, as it
occurs...
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 28 December 2008 11:45:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’d be against it, basically because it enables shame about being gay… As hard as it could be to be so, specially in a place where it’s unacceptable… I think one should be and accept themselves.

Most people have a few hard tough hurdles in their life and are in someway or another part of a minority…

There would just be *easy way out* to not be bullied for being gay, I would wonder if it might not totally fry a persons mind to have their sexuality adjusted? if not sexually... morally, emotionally or in any other modes of being...

We would also have anti & pro gay groups and beliefs creating *certain sexed communities* either way.

TRTL,

It’s a cool question, Is it possible this might be case of accepting something just because it is possible, Similar to the *tolerance for tolerance* ?

One thing I was thinking of in kinda the same area was should people have the right to dictate who gets their organs if they are organ donors, from personal friends and enemies to people of this lifestyle or that belief can or can’t have my heart or liver etc?

Oddly here I will go the opposite and say yes we should have the right to choose
Posted by meredith, Sunday, 28 December 2008 1:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear TRTL,

I think that we should point out that
it will only be a minority who will want to
change their sexual orientation.
Most people are happy with the orientation
that they have.

A change in our society's attitudes towards
sexual preferences (through education, and support)
would go a long way
towards creating a healthier outlook for everybody.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 28 December 2008 5:18:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,

That is a very interesting hypothetical.

However I think that if there was a hypothetical "treatment" the reaction would be the opposite to the suggestion that people would be forced to take it. Indeed I suspect it would be virtually unknown, rejected and invisible irrespective of how effectual the treatment might be.

In this hypothetical situation I suspect that evidence supporting this hypothetical "treatment" no matter how scientifically robust would not be published in academic journals for fear of backlash or sanctions against discrimination. I suspect that medical professionals with expertise in the "treatment" would be rejected by their peers and would move to a different area of practice unless they had some religious motivation to continue. I suspect that medical professionals with expertise in the "treatment" would be howled down by gay activists if they tried to make their peers aware of their "treatment" or findings at a peer conference. I believe that Meredith correctly discerned that it could be construed as bringing shame for being gay and it would be rejected by gay activists. This would make the issue very political.

CONT.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 29 December 2008 11:46:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect that safeguards such as proper analysis of each individual case, thorough counseling, discussion, awareness of all the facts, and effectual treatment at all sources purporting to offer the treatment would not occur due to its rejection by mainstream establishment. I suspect that most people seeking to change their orientation would be unlikely to know it existed and, if they became aware, it would normally not be until late in life by which time you would think the prognosis however good would be much worse than it would be earlier. I suspect the lack of mainstreamness resulting in a lack of quality control would make it an uphill struggle for prospective patients. More particularly they might have to try more than one "treatment" outlet before finding one that really gives the effective "treatment".

I suspect that those who have successfully undergone the "treatment" would be ignored by mainstream liberal media thus making the treatment effectively invisible and many successfully treated would choose to avoid public attention for fear of reprisal. I suspect that even if an individual who's orientation after treatment became strongly heterosexual displayed any hint of homosexual orientation the glitch/regression would be heralded as proof positive that the treatment doesn't work at all by gay activists for political reasons.

In summary I believe there would be little to fear in relation to forced "treatment". For people who desperately did want to change orientation due to social burden (who Foxy suspects are a minority) the problem would be in the other direction.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 29 December 2008 11:46:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear mjpb,

What an excellent response.

As always, so much food for thought.

Thank You.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 29 December 2008 3:44:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread and the one about marrying oneself …. I wonder where OLO is headed :-)

If such medication existed, would one be allowed to change back if the mood took one or if the experience of “changing” was not to ones liking?

No one should ever be forced to take such treatment.

Personally, I think the issues fit so deeply into the “personal and private” that I would disagree with mjpb suggestion of even a committee of bureaucrats to hold court over allowing possible users.

Each person must follow the path of their choosing, historically we did not have a choice but who knows, I think the danger with selecting an alternate “sexuality” is only one aspect of being male or female and even if the sex ends up “right”, it does not mean the rest of the body, physically, emotionally or intellectually (/ brain wiring) follows.

I remember talking to someone who had been born “between” the sexes but had been brought up, initially as a boy then when he was mature enough changed to a female and was a lot happier and even married a solicitor and became a craft / CAE teacher.

I remember she said her “salvation” had been the Salvation Army who, in those distant days (around 30-40 years ago) had not judged her but encouraged her to go and make the best of the life she had.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 29 December 2008 5:20:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you very much for the thumbs up Foxy.

There is one thing that I would like to add for completion. A successful treatment wouldn't necessarily mean that there wasn't a type of collateral damage and that would be another consideration. If the treatment was a medication the side effects would hopefully be uncovered. If the treatment was behavioural the issue of any harmful effect on the person treated would hopefully be considered. There is a psychological test available that can be administered to investigate the latter issue.

My suspicion is that fortunately these things would be sorted out. The controversial nature of the treatment would most likely lead researchers to investigate the issue.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 8:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<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.>>

But the misery stems from social and religious vilification, not the mere fact of sexuality.

It could be said society would benefit equally from a treatment to stop women wanting autonomy and dignity, or from a pill that would prevent avid stamp collectors from the pain of mockery by turning them into mad sports fans.

It is the mark of a civilised society to learn to tolerate diversity, rather than provding new methods of promoting bland conformity.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 30 December 2008 10:01:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho,

I agree. Anyone seen that movie Gattaca? They did a pretty good job of depicting the soul-less world of bland conformity created by mucking around with natural human variation. It's bad enough watching the cloned bleached blond, fake tanned, hair straightened to within an inch of it's life girls in near identical fashion victim outfits wandering the streets at night. Imagine if these same humans had access to their genes.

Actually with lesbianism so fashionable, maybe the human race would die out. Hell, Paris and Brittany are doing it so it must be the thing to do.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 8:48:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho, I couldn't agree more.

However, from a pragmatic point of view, I don't think our society is going to reach that level of maturity just yet. It's getting better, of course, but there's still a long way to go.

However, the reason why society is becoming more accepting, is that it allows individuals to make their own choices.
As Col points out, this would be an important, personal choice for any individual. I concur with him when he says individuals should be able to make whatever decision they wish (provided they're not harming others), regardless of whether it's a decision I would agree with.

The question is not whether we 'promote' conformity... the question is, do we restrict access to it?

I say no... even though I know such a development could potentially wreak havoc with society's attitudes.
I don't see that we'd have the right to refuse such treatment if people want them.

But yes, Sancho, I agree that the conformist society is not what we want... but I wonder if we can really be said to be opposing a conformist society, if we are doing so by restricting choices.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 31 December 2008 3:33:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho,

"But the misery stems from social and religious vilification, not the mere fact of sexuality."

Sorry I can't resist absolute pronouncements. Even if hypothetically that could change as well are you sure you absolutely guarantee that having a non-normative sexuality would cause noone misery irrespective of vilification?

"It could be said society would benefit equally from a treatment to stop women wanting autonomy and dignity, or from a pill that would prevent avid stamp collectors from the pain of mockery by turning them into mad sports fans."

The women comparison is really hard to relate to. Perhaps you can explain that further. Is it fair to assume that you don't consider heterosexuals to be lacking in autonomy and dignity? The main reason I struggle with it however is that TurnRightThenLeft's hypothetical seems to be about giving people what they want not stopping them from wanting things.

"It is the mark of a civilised society to learn to tolerate diversity, rather than provding new methods of promoting bland conformity."

I'll just focus on conformity. There are different views on whether or not heterosexual sexuality is bland but you are entitled to your opinion. Tolerating diversity is often an admirable quality for a society. However in fairness to the hypothetical it was about reducing the pain of people who already wished to be normative not to promote conformity. At least not promoting it in the sense of pressuring people to conform. The hypothetical was based on an existing 'promotion' that causes problems for the 'non-conformers'.

Sure some have speculated it would increase the promotion of conformity. However, as has also been suggested, it might not have that effect at all.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 1 January 2009 4:18:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb, my experience isn't universal, but each and every tale I've encountered of sexuality-related misery has been specifically due to feelings of isolation and rejection from society. Can you cite a case of a homosexual being made miserable by their sexuality for reasons other than rejection and stigmatisation?

Your statement regarding heterosexual automony and dignity is a trap. If I say that they don't lack those qualities, you will cite some examples unrelated to this discussion as proof to the contrary.

That said, I don't understand why the comparison with women is confusing. It's an example of a demographic which is happier and demonstrably freer because traditional expectations and enforcement of conformity have been overcome. And, yes, homosexuals lack autonomy and dignity when the majority denies their legitimacy, just as women did when they were actively denied full participation in society.

Your statements on conformity ignore the point of my post: the desire for conformity, and the pain of nonconformity, are driven by the majority's unnacceptance of diversity. If a homosexual teenager is driven to depression because he fears rejection by his peers, the civilised response is to advocate acceptance of his natural state, not provide means to change himself artificially so that the rest of us are more comfortable.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 2 January 2009 10:06:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb: "Even if hypothetically that could change as well are you sure you absolutely guarantee that having a non-normative sexuality would cause noone misery irrespective of vilification?"

Non-normative? The norm throughout human history has been that a minority of humans are homosexual. Homosexuality, is, therefore, normative.

Like Sancho, I'd also like to hear what else would cause gay people misery about being gay if not discrimination. Clearly, gay people suffer the same slings and arrows as the rest of us, but in my experience desiring same-sex relationships has never been the problem. What everyone else thinks of that desire often is.

As for your political-correctness-gone-crazy analysis of what would happen if this hypothetical treatment became available, I think society is already a lot more diverse than you imagine. I also think that politics would enter the frame before the "gay activists" arrived on the scene — such research is itself is a political act.

What makes human character? I have many gay friends and it's no accident — I've repeatedly been drawn to the emotional sophistication and hardiness, the spiritual insight, and the sense of humour and fun that is so common in gay culture. (Not a blanket rule, of course, but common.) Being straight or gay encompasses more than just sexual predilections. I have a young nephew who is definitely eccentric and possibly gay — if anyone were to tamper with what makes him uniquely him they would have to do so over my dead body
Posted by Veronika, Saturday, 3 January 2009 2:50:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Another dodgy analogy: I have freckles. These are inconvenient in the Australian climate, and my lack of melanin predisposes me to melanoma. If my parents could have flicked a switch in utero to give me flawless olive skin, would I want that? If you'd have asked me at 16, after years of teasing and torturous summers, I'd have said yes. But the inconvenience and occassional embarrassment have, in their small way, helped form my character. The variety of human experience, good and bad, has given rise to great art and progress, and the wonderful gift of not only learning about ourselves but about other people.

I said it was a dodgy analogy and it is. There are lots of holes in it. Do I think we should keep trying to cure cancer, despite the fact that some people say their lives were enriched by it? Of course! But homosexuality is not an illness or "non-normative" or much of a problem at all, except in the hearts of those who, for their own reasons, can't deal with it.
Posted by Veronika, Saturday, 3 January 2009 2:51:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Veronkia,

It's not a deformity!

It has a sense of over-indulgence when it's just not needed, and much as a new flavor of cream or some other frivolous luxury it may even be unhealthy indulgence.

ex: social moral religious pressures to take or not take the non gay tablet or regret or confusion etc later in life that you did or didn't.
Posted by meredith, Saturday, 3 January 2009 3:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho,

“ mjpb, my experience isn't universal, but each and every tale I've encountered of sexuality-related misery has been specifically due to feelings of isolation and rejection from society. Can you cite a case of a homosexual being made miserable by their sexuality for reasons other than rejection and stigmatisation?”

I’ve read studies of suicides of homosexuals who apparently became miserable when their relationship partner broke up with them but I know that is not what you had in mind. I was alive when some grown adults actually paid money for jeans which had a deliberate hole in the seat. Fitting in means alot to a lot of people. Absolutes are often dangerous assumptions.

“... I don't understand why the comparison with women is confusing. It's an example of a demographic which is happier and demonstrably freer because traditional expectations and enforcement of conformity have been overcome. And, yes, homosexuals lack autonomy and dignity when the majority denies their legitimacy, just as women did when they were actively denied full participation in society.”

That better explains why you mention it in a broader context but I don’t see how it applies here.

“ If a homosexual teenager is driven to depression because he fears rejection by his peers, the civilised response is to advocate acceptance of his natural state, not provide means to change himself artificially so that the rest of us are more comfortable.”

Do homosexuals make you uncomfortable?
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 3 January 2009 9:34:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Veronika,

“Non-normative? The norm throughout human history has been that a minority of humans are homosexual. Homosexuality, is, therefore, normative.“

Doesn’t that make their being in a minority normative rather than homosexuals themselves?

“As for your political-correctness-gone-crazy analysis of what would happen if this hypothetical treatment became available, I think society is already a lot more diverse than you imagine. I also think that politics would enter the frame before the "gay activists" arrived on the scene — such research is itself is a political act.”

You are entitled to your opinion. I've given mine.

“ Being straight or gay encompasses more than just sexual predilections. I have a young nephew who is definitely eccentric and possibly gay — if anyone were to tamper with what makes him uniquely him they would have to do so over my dead body”

Assuming that the possibility came to fruition what if TurnRightThenLeft’s “treatment” targetted appetite or sexual predilections only?

“Another dodgy analogy: ..”

Why it seems perfect for the use you are making of it?

“I said it was a dodgy analogy and it is. There are lots of holes in it. Do I think we should keep trying to cure cancer, despite the fact that some people say their lives were enriched by it? Of course!“

But it makes the point that some people actually benefit from adversity...That is a good point.

“But homosexuality is not an illness or "non-normative" or much of a problem at all, except in the hearts of those who, for their own reasons, can't deal with it.”

An inspiring comment but I believe that TurnRightThenLeft’s idea that some might choose to get "treated" remains an possibility and the hypothetical an interesting intellectual exercise.
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 3 January 2009 9:38:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To me, that's what it comes back to.

Veronika, Sancho, Meredith - I agree with all your points, but I haven't heard the justification you would use to deny people the right to choose such treatment, save perhaps for Veronika's analogy about freckles.

So, Veronika, would you deny people treatment to remove freckles? The situation made you stronger and worked for you.

Would that be the same for everyone?

My view is that I agree, homosexuality should be considered a valid lifestyle. I agree there shouldn't be discrimination or societal pressure. I agree homosexuals shouldn't be treated as second class citizens or made to feel abnormal.

However, I also think that this decision should be entirely up to them, if such a 'treatment' did exist. It should be available for them to use, be it used wisely or unwisely.
Perhaps not easily used, but available all the same.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 4 January 2009 3:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft,

"Would that be the same for everyone?"

Here. Here. A point well made. What if hypothetically some freckled people instead of coping and later feeling good about benefitting from the adversity suicided or something? Could you say that they should have been denied treatment irrespective of what you consider to cause their misery?

"However, I also think that this decision should be entirely up to them, if such a 'treatment' did exist. It should be available for them to use, be it used wisely or unwisely.
Perhaps not easily used, but available all the same."

Unless of course the "treatment" was harmful or heterosexuality was an unhealthy or non-normative subject to discrimination situation. Well we are doing a hypothetical so I figure that should be there for completion.
Posted by mjpb, Sunday, 4 January 2009 4:50:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think it is a bit like the euthanasia debate... ultimately people should have rights to such personal decisions but socially I think it becomes unstable.

ex: I personally don't want the button switched off no matter how much pain I am in or how vegetable like, It is cuz I am an atheist and it is very sincere all I own is this life, bla bla etc.. I have had grief from people over that, as in been called selfish, what if others need your hospital bed etc...

This is the kind of thing I am talking about, we are not the type of animal that will not pressure others we disagree with, and some areas are never going to be agreed on because they are both legitimately right and wrong.

Also it is kind of like, should we, just cuz we can? The fact we can work out how to do stuff doesn't make it instantly right.
Posted by meredith, Sunday, 4 January 2009 5:00:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the actual justification is a bit similar to don't give kids guns...
Posted by meredith, Sunday, 4 January 2009 5:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I think it is a bit like the euthanasia debate... ultimately people should have rights to such personal decisions but socially I think it becomes unstable."

I can't help noting that personally, hypothetically, I'd prefer to be pressured to be straight then pressured to die but not everyone might feel that way.

In earlier posts I expressed a view on the likelihood of pressure on homosexual people to change if a "treatment" was available. That expectation is inconsistent with the existence of a "treatment" necessarily resulting in pressure for homosexuals to change. If the people who predict pressure are correct then it would be an issue. If my prediction is correct there wouldn't be that pressure. Is it the pressure you have in mind as the social issue?
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 5 January 2009 4:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree it'd be less of a hassle to swap sexualities than commit polite suicide... but just cuz it's less doesn't mean it's not massive.

I can't quite make out your para:

**
In earlier posts I expressed a view on the likelihood of pressure on homosexual people to change if a "treatment" was available. That expectation is inconsistent with the existence of a "treatment" necessarily resulting in pressure for homosexuals to change.
**

But my feeling on it is that there would be a lot of pressures, I don't what words are correct, social, emotional, religious, peer pressure.. and many many more...

What I ask is would it cause more problems than it would solve... Is it a problem in the first place... Or just like the freckles analogy...

Like I say I believe in personal freedoms but not just for the sake of claiming another freedom... I don't think gayness is a substantial enough problem I guess...

Murder, rape, abuse etc are problems I'd be happy to see the world cured off with a pill. etc

I hope that answers, like I can't make out your paragraph fully.
Posted by meredith, Monday, 5 January 2009 4:37:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been enjoying this discussion - it's an interesting thought experiment, with quite a lot of angles:

Would humanity benefit from the removal of homosexuality, were it possible? Probably not. If this were the case, evolutionary forces would have done so eons ago.

Should we strive for a situation where no-one will ever feel an urge to change their sexuality? Where sexuality is as neutral as handedness or hair colour? Absolutely. But we've still got a long way to go. The answer to TRTL's thought experiment is that we should be trying to make this hypothetical case completely unnecessary.

That said ...

Should anyone be able to pressure another person to undergo a change of sexuality? No, absolutely not.

Should parents be able to choose their unborn child's sexuality? Yes, why not? The existence of a need/desire to change a child's sexuality is the real problem.

Should adults be able to change their sexuality? Again, yes, but why should they need to?

meredith, mjpb's statement is quite comprehensible when you realise that she labours under the delusion that homosexuals are a privileged group in our society, enjoying higher incomes, special rights, and greater protections than others:

"I know for a group claiming minority status homosexuals are very well resourced and powerful. Apart from having above average earnings they enjoy representatives in Federal Parliament and the High Court bench."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#59733

"I believe homosexuals are smarter. In any event they are in a different ballpark to other groups claiming minority status. This is enormously advantageous for achieving change ... homosexuals have a lot of power ... "

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5025#60153
Posted by jpw2040, Monday, 5 January 2009 5:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi meredith,

"What I ask is would it cause more problems than it would solve... Is it a problem in the first place... Or just like the freckles analogy..."

Personally I don't have a problem with people taking a pill to get olive skin even though freckly skin is not a problem...but the main problem you seem to have with the hypothetical "treatment" seems to be your expectation of pressure.

"I hope that answers, like I can't make out your paragraph fully."

Sorry for the paragraph. I was referring to my earlier prediction. Some people believe that the existence of a cure would mean that homosexuals would be under pressure to take it. I expressed the contrary hypothesis that it wouldn't create that pressure. I was wondering if that is the only problem you see with the treatment. If so, would a treatment that didn't result in pressure be okay? Or would you still disagree with it as you don't consider homosexuality to be a problem no matter what?

jpw2040,

I went to one of those links and it was 2006. Is that where you are at in my posting history right now? Or did you previously call yourself w and are just digging up specific things you remember?

Are you just saying that the views expressed in the quotes mean that I consider such people currently privileged? Are you also saying that the privilege would ensure that there was no pressure resulting from a treatment? My take was that meredith was genuinely struggling with my words rather than baffled that I might make a different prediction regarding the consequences of the treatment.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 5 January 2009 9:49:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh thanks i see what your asking now... yeh, pressures are my big worry, also people not coping themselves personally with such massive changes...or even becoming addicted to flipping between the 2 sexualities bla bla etc.. but if it were free of all that worry...Basically provided it was safe on all levels...

I'm falling into idealism here which i dislike as it is often so unrealistic but I'd think it could be a treatment for people that were deeply troubled by being gay... I'd also see it as a possible party kink drug...

Idealistically I'd day yeh *maybe* on prescription after a year or 2 with the shrink...

Then idealistically I also have said before that meat should be available with Drs prescription only as I am pro animal liberation...

Neither will happen, lol, or in my view are worth investing any hope in as they are so unrealistic.
Posted by meredith, Monday, 5 January 2009 10:22:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
meredith,

Wow! Regarding your first paragraph and the party kink drug comment you are pretty good at generating possibilities. As many one liners as the sexuality change addiction could generate if it happened in real life it could be a serious problem.

"I'm falling into idealism here which i dislike as it is often so unrealistic but I'd think it could be a treatment for people that were deeply troubled by being gay..."

I'm guessing that is where TurnRightThenLeft was pitching and invite him to correct me if necessary. I suspect that there would be some self regulating there as I doubt that many other potential patients would be open to treatment.

"Idealistically I'd day yeh *maybe* on prescription after a year or 2 with the shrink..."

That makes a lot of sense.

"Then idealistically I also have said before that meat should be available with Drs prescription only as I am pro animal liberation..."

Singer who pushes vegetarianism heavily (remember the gore pictures in that chapter of the book?) reportedly believes that meat eating is okay providing that animals are humanely killed. Reportedly he doesn't say it publically because he thinks it would confuse people due to overcomplicating. The former makes sense to me. Would you be open to humane production or are you more polarised?

jpw2040,

Basically you want to out me as a fundy so we might just get that out of the way. You have to admit that it is more relaxing when fundys and activists don't gather in numbers and go in circles debating along party lines as normally occurs. Sorry I remember that you don't like me saying it normally happens even though I can't remember why. I just needed to refer to that to make the point I was trying to make.

Acknowledging the other aspects of your expressed view that adults should be able to change would you consider being deeply troubled a good criteria in current circumstances?
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 10:42:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi MJ,

Idealistically/personally I'd prefer almost no meat production... dare I say none. Realistically though I push for animal-welfare and rights to adopt a more capitalist approach.

I have a post of alternatives to idealism in animal-welfare here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4040&page=0#28438

I'm commenting on PETAs stand against mulseing sheep which they made at the height of our pretty successful and long-term campaign against live export of sheep to the Middle-East.

PETA were on 60 minutes saying they would crush the Aussie wool industry and our campaign took a massive downturn... Mulesing is nowhere near as painful or damaging as the exporting. They killed any good PR we had.

This is where I call idealism as selfish or foolish.

I believe it should be kept mostly kept out of social policy... as an atheist socially idealistic pushes from various groups are often akin to religions banging on my door/privacy/rights etc...

As a conservative, I tend to think it's a lot like kink, don't impose it on the masses, but preserve our rights to the freedom to idealise or kink all we like in consenting and more private situations.

Of course I believe it has saved us too... attempts to end slavery etc... but like I say.. a pill to cure murderers over a pill to toy with sexual preference.

I think it is called Utilitarian thinking too.

So I believe in capitalist sales of animal-welfare approved meat.
Posted by meredith, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 12:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
meredith,

"Realistically though I push for animal-welfare and rights to adopt a more capitalist approach."

I have always believed that a more capitalist approach is much more realistic. However I'm not a vegetarian. I just believe in humane production.

"PETA were on 60 minutes saying they would crush the Aussie wool industry and our campaign took a massive downturn... Mulesing is nowhere near as painful or damaging as the exporting."

Nor as painful as getting fly blown in the bush. Nor as painful as being cruelly treated in some other country and killed in pretty horrible circumstances. We've all seen the videos.

"This is where I call idealism as selfish or foolish."

No argument here.

Thanks for tying it back to the topic occasionally as I was worried that I had derailed the thread.

"Of course I believe it has saved us too... attempts to end slavery etc... but like I say.. a pill to cure murderers over a pill to toy with sexual preference."

But you can guess which one Murphy's law would make more likely to happen.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 6 January 2009 8:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy