the actual justification is a bit similar to don't give kids guns...

"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?

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.

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

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.

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.