ehBeth wrote:BlueAwesomeness wrote:It says that some scientists are looking for a "cure" for homosexuality.
where are you getting that idea from? I just did a word search on the article - no reference to cure.
~~~
I'm curious that you'd want a cure for different length fingers, hair whorls and the like. Sounds like a Stepford-world you're interested in.
Definitely not what I'd want from my world.
~~~
Eorl, the article references some of the possible benefits of homosexuality to particular societies.
Your comment re a spectrum of sexual orientation is borne out quite well in the scientific research going back many decades.
Well, there were 7 pages. It was around page 3 that I read that.
It's not the cure for those things, though. It's the cure for homosexuality, not the characteristics that some of them have in common. Plus, the Stepford world isn't what we'd be going for. But changing sexual orientation from something that you just are, that you can't change if you want to, to something that's totally up to you, that's what I believe in. Does that make sense?
BlueAwesomeness wrote:It says that some scientists are looking for a "cure" for homosexuality. One person (who was quoted in the article) is against this. What is everyone's opinion?
Personally, I'm for it. I would like to eliminate the genetic component of homosexuality, and leave it as a choice. Why? Because many people, upon realizing that they are gay, attempt suicide. They can also be shunned, ostracized, bullied, etc.
Diseases are cured. Homosexuality is not a disease anymore than being red-headed. (Although I'm not a huge fan of red-heads) The point is that is *isn't* a choice. No one grows up and says "ya know, i think i'm gonna try this homo thing out." Gay kids commit suicide because of comment like that. They feel that society will never accept them. There's nothing wrong with gay people - there's a LOT wrong with society.
BlueAwesomness wrote:People shouldn't be forced to go through that without a choice.
Well how about we cure blackness first? That has long-been a larger target of all of these things you mention. We can let them choose to be black when they're 15 or so.
Lol. I think the point is well taken that homosexuality is not a "disease" that needs to be "cured". My interest in the origins of homosexuality is a scientific one, not a pathophysiologic one.
Obviously the thrust behind a lot of genetic research is in finding cures for diseases. But then we have to define that.
dis·ease n.
1. a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment.
I can already hear somebody out there trying to argue that homosexuality is an "incorrectly functioning" brain (which I think is complete b.s.), but then what's stopping us from extending that ridiculous criteria to the brains of the chronically-unmotivated, pathologic-relationship-seeking, binge-eating, soda-chugging, tobacco-sucking dimwits that make up a large portion of my patient population?
This is a little bit of a tangent, I realize, but I think the point is important. In a stroke of wisdom, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM (their tome of psychiatric diagnostic criteria) just a few short decades ago... but in a nod to the conservatives they kept "ego discongruent" homosexuality as a mental illness.
That is tantamount to telling a black person that it's not a disease to be black... but if you don't like being black so much that it depresses you and you think about killing yourself because you're not white, then you have "ego discongruent african americanism".
Just because you find out that genetic sequence AGTC codes for characteristic WXYZ doesn't mean you found a "cure" to "Disease WXYZ". It means you stumbled upon a genetic piece of the puzzle of who we are.
There are people like myself who want to know what the genetic basis for homosexuality because, well... we like to know things.
There are also those who want to know so they can fantasize about the day that scientists can use restriction endonucleases to excise their desires for man love and replace them with lust for boobies.
Whether or not we could/should/would do such a thing to an individual, even under their orders, is a topic for another decade. But for now... let us just speculate... why does it happen, and how is it reconciled with the theory of evolution?
BlueAwesomeness wrote:It says that some scientists are looking for a "cure" for homosexuality. One person (who was quoted in the article) is against this. What is everyone's opinion?
Personally, I'm for it. I would like to eliminate the genetic component of homosexuality, and leave it as a choice. Why? Because many people, upon realizing that they are gay, attempt suicide. They can also be shunned, ostracized, bullied, etc. People shouldn't be forced to go through that without a choice.
forgive me if I'm wrong as I haven't checked the studies in the past year but I believe there is not hard evidence for any "gay" gene or any genetic component of homosexuality. You're whole statement and mindset here is based on this assumption, and while it may be correct I don't believe there's any evidence to support you.
I didn't read every comment, so I don't know if anyone already alluded to these thoughts, but it's not about the individual, I believe, hetero, or otherwise, it's about whether the species (aka society) survives. I believe societies with homosexuals have survived better than societies without them, since historically homosexuals tended to put more effort into their endeavors, having had no wife and kids to get home to. Especially in wars from centuries past, when armies/navies were away for years.
So, regardless of what the ultimate cause is, their continuance as a group seems to be assured in a societal Darwinian sort of way.
But, as a species, or even as a civilization, don't we have bigger fish to fry than ruminating over one's persuasions? It's like worrying if everyone at the Christmas party will be practicing Christians, and if they're not will it have a negative effect on the festivities. The answer is no. Homosexuality might be like having a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist at a Christmas party. They don't spoil the party.
and in reality, we all know that homos throw the *best* parties.
