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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.