|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Apr 19, 2011 9:55:45 GMT -5
Hypothetical news article:
Leaving aside the invented science, what do you think the public reaction would be, especially if the treatment was easily available?
Obviously, many opponents of homosexuality would seek to use the treatment to cure all the gays. I think that many, if not most of those seeking to take it would be religious gays wanting to eradicate their immoral impulses. We could also see some people being forced to take the treatment against their will, like at "gay camps". I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to make it mandatory. In some countries, they might succeed.
However, there would be an upside. You might see a downtick in anti-gay violence, especially in the case of parents harming their children. Countries with laws forbidding homosexuality might use this as an alternative. And while I would view the forcible alteration of a person's sexuality as a human rights violation, would it be better than being killed? I certainly would change my sexuality if my life was on the line. And with the treatment being reversible, those who were changed against their will could later change back.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 19, 2011 10:53:56 GMT -5
Something that's mildly controversial among the deaf population is the use of cochlear implants, which can partially restore hearing and allow those thusly implanted to live relatively more normal lives than they might otherwise be able to do. The benefits of said implant seem obvious to those of us with typical hearing, but there is a certain "deaf identity" to which some deaf people ascribe, and they argue that getting the implant compromises this. It would be like a black person voluntarily getting white skin somehow, for comparison, or more provocatively (to illustrate the strength of feeling sometimes shown) like a raped woman suddenly agreeing that she shouldn't have worn that sexy skirt if she didn't want to get raped. It would be like admitting that who you are is wrong and needs to change.
I think that a medicine that could change a person's sexuality would lead to a profound divide. There would probably be a strong negative reaction among the gay community who have essentially made their sexuality a core part of their identities. There isn't anything objectively wrong about being gay - so why should we change it? And in the extreme cases, you might see violence against those who took such a cure. Meanwhile, that fundies would demand its use to extirpate homosexuality seems incredibly obvious, and quite frankly I'd think there might be an increase in violence against those who took a strong stand along the lines of "I won't ever take that cure."
Ultimately, I'm not sure whether it's better to yield on an issue like this rather than be killed. For somebody like me, whose sexuality is virtually orthogonal to his identity (admittedly I am straight, but supposing I were gay but otherwise the same), it might be; but I don't think I could live with my conscience for letting the mob tell me or anyone else what we can or can't do when that behavior is totally harmless. It might be better to take a principled stand, if only to score the moral victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Apr 19, 2011 12:34:05 GMT -5
I once read a story (...porn) where the opposite of what MaybeNever suggested actually happened - to cut down on the overpopulation of people, men and women would voluntarily become gay, especially since the government gave them monetary bonuses for that.
Long story short, homophobic male lead ends up being forced to take a "gay pill", gets raped, believes he's been made gay now, seeks out best friend who underwent gay conversion because he actually did love him and was a jerk to him because of homophobia, and then finds out that there is no such thing as a gay pill.
|
|
|
|
Post by foolishwisdom on Apr 19, 2011 13:14:16 GMT -5
If the fundies find out there's a "gay cure", and it's from science, not god...is that their way of admitting sexual orientation is NOT a choice?
If they admit being a homosexual isn't a choice, but still insist that homosexuality is still "evil" (even though it's not a matter of opposite-sex/same-sex but attraction to female/attraction to male) I will cry.
|
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Apr 19, 2011 14:53:06 GMT -5
Something that's mildly controversial among the deaf population is the use of cochlear implants, which can partially restore hearing and allow those thusly implanted to live relatively more normal lives than they might otherwise be able to do. The benefits of said implant seem obvious to those of us with typical hearing, but there is a certain "deaf identity" to which some deaf people ascribe, and they argue that getting the implant compromises this. It would be like a black person voluntarily getting white skin somehow, for comparison, or more provocatively (to illustrate the strength of feeling sometimes shown) like a raped woman suddenly agreeing that she shouldn't have worn that sexy skirt if she didn't want to get raped. It would be like admitting that who you are is wrong and needs to change. It should probably be noted that the surgery is not without pain, can have bad complications and leave bad marks, and restores hearing to like 16-bit quality. So it's not entirely unreasonable to not want the surgery performed. |
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Apr 19, 2011 15:00:47 GMT -5
This is coming (heh I said coming . . .) from a straight person. Homosexuality is neither a choice nor a disease. If they want to treat something, start with ignorance. That's the real cause of all of this crap!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 19, 2011 18:49:54 GMT -5
I ain't fucking with my hormones without very good cause, it gets very risky very fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Apr 19, 2011 19:14:46 GMT -5
So...gay people can be 'cured', but so can straight people.
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 19, 2011 19:40:09 GMT -5
Something that's mildly controversial among the deaf population is the use of cochlear implants, which can partially restore hearing and allow those thusly implanted to live relatively more normal lives than they might otherwise be able to do. The benefits of said implant seem obvious to those of us with typical hearing, but there is a certain "deaf identity" to which some deaf people ascribe, and they argue that getting the implant compromises this. It would be like a black person voluntarily getting white skin somehow, for comparison, or more provocatively (to illustrate the strength of feeling sometimes shown) like a raped woman suddenly agreeing that she shouldn't have worn that sexy skirt if she didn't want to get raped. It would be like admitting that who you are is wrong and needs to change. It should probably be noted that the surgery is not without pain, can have bad complications and leave bad marks, and restores hearing to like 16-bit quality. So it's not entirely unreasonable to not want the surgery performed. Sure, but I wasn't talking about objections on grounds of pragmatism. |
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Apr 19, 2011 23:15:18 GMT -5
Timing is important. If this hypothetical cure were developed now, where there are large segments of the population that realise a cure is unnecessary, the effects would be drastically different than if it had happened, say, at the very beginning of the gay rights movement. It'd have basically neutered the entire idea of gay equality, since there'd be far less motivation to fight for it. Which in turn would have fucked over the remaining letters in LGBTIQ, removing the greatest source of numbers. The general views on sexuality could be set back by decades or centuries.
But, were it to happen now, it seems more likely that the long term effects of people being able to change sexuality at will would have the opposite effect. Short term, sure, there'd be a sharp divide between those that would want to be cured and those who wouldn't, conflict, etc. But, twenty years later, we'd have a world far more open to non-traditional sexuality, considering almost anyone could actually experience it in the flesh (so to speak).
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Apr 19, 2011 23:22:44 GMT -5
But, were it to happen now, it seems more likely that the long term effects of people being able to change sexuality at will would have the opposite effect. Short term, sure, there'd be a sharp divide between those that would want to be cured and those who wouldn't, conflict, etc. But, twenty years later, we'd have a world far more open to non-traditional sexuality, considering almost anyone could actually experience it in the flesh (so to speak). Were you playing around with that antique lamp at the pawn shop, by any chance? |
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Apr 19, 2011 23:50:04 GMT -5
Remember though that sexuality is controlled through multiple factors (I remember reading somewhere that there is a positive selection for it). Even if you could "cure" the hormonal part, there will still be other parts.
Beside, that sounds a hell lot like eugenics.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on Apr 20, 2011 0:02:10 GMT -5
"They say they have a cure. But I say we are the cure." -- Magneto |
|
|
|
Post by Iosa the Invincible on Apr 20, 2011 0:08:38 GMT -5
This might lead to a paradox:
"We'll play God to fix God's mistake, because God is all knowing and all powerful and says gays are bad."
If you want a current example of this, Iran has the second highest rate of sex change operations. They're actually partially funded by the government because they see it as curing homosexuality. So according to this logic, homosexuality is so unnatural that it's okay to unnaturally change one's physical body, the body God himself made, in order to avoid it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Apr 20, 2011 1:14:34 GMT -5
This might lead to a paradox: "We'll play God to fix God's mistake, because God is all knowing and all powerful and says gays are bad." If you want a current example of this, Iran has the second highest rate of sex change operations. They're actually partially funded by the government because they see it as curing homosexuality. So according to this logic, homosexuality is so unnatural that it's okay to unnaturally change one's physical body, the body God himself made, in order to avoid it. The concept of something being "unnatural" is truly baffling. |
|
