LAT: Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality

[stevenaa]

The old technique of running away from reality you don't like.

Care to come up with a better excuse that "even if it's genetic, it's still a choice (but only with regards to gayness"?

Your statement was that genetic conditions for which a "cure" exists are choices. (And therefore, OK to discriminate against.)

My question stands: If a "cure" is found for a different genetic condition, will you then argue that it's OK to discriminate against them, because after all, they chose not to cure it?

It wasn't an excuse, it was an observation. If it is preventable, it's someones choice. That is a reality you are running away from. Care to offer up a single cogent reason why it should be left untreated if it were found to be a genetic predisposition? I can offer up a few reasonable ones, but I'd like to see you do something other than default to your snarky, condesending discrimination diatribe. Last I checked, race isn't a behavior. So you argument is bunk. A chosen behavior is not subject to the notion of discrimination.

[mardi gras skin]

I don't understand how pro-choice advocates can have a problem with any of this. If the mother has the right to terminate a fetus then she surely has the right to alter the fetus in any way she wishes.

[Special K]

I don't understand how pro-choice advocates can have a problem with any of this. If the mother has the right to terminate a fetus then she surely has the right to alter the fetus in any way she wishes.

This is consistent with how I feel on this topic.

[Larry]

If tomorrow a cure came out for homosexuality, gay populations world wide would shrink dramatically over two-3 generations. Unless the cure only worked on adults I can't imagine that any debate short of horrible side effects would change the minds of parents that would rather have straight kids.

When I started reading your post, I thought that you were going towards a question that I'd thought of, but decided not to post.

What do you think would happen to the number of gays in society, if there were an adult "cure"?

If every gay in the world, right now, could become straight by taking a pill every morning, how many do you think would do it?

(My opinion, which I'll freely admit is coming from complete and total ignorance, is that most of them would.)

[Larry]

It wasn't an excuse, it was an observation. If it is preventable, it's someones choice. That is a reality you are running away from. Care to offer up a single cogent reason why it should be left untreated if it were found to be a genetic predisposition? I can offer up a few reasonable ones, but I'd like to see you do something other than default to your snarky, condesending discrimination diatribe. Last I checked, race isn't a behavior. So you argument is bunk. A chosen behavior is not subject to the notion of discrimination.

1) I'll be happy to respond to your question. Just as soon as you respond to mine. You're still trying to come up with "Well, discriminating against gays is OK, but against blacks, it's not."

2) I'll also point out that if you'd read my posts, (like I'm reading yours), instead of trying to find reasons to hide from your own statements, then you'd notice that I already have pointed out "a single cogent reason why it should be left untreated if it were found to be a genetic predisposition".

[Bang]

Well, I know that this is probably going to be unpopular, but what else do you expect from me?

I have long contended that the meteoric rise in Homosexuality is directly attributable to the rise in chemicals in our food and water. BPA (Biphenosol-A) found in plastics is an estrogen compound. Not only that, but it messes with the endocrine system and causes mental and behavioral changes. Gee, this couldn't cause a rise in Homosexuality, could it?

I realize homosexuality has been around since the stone age, but I believe that the occurrence of it has risen dramatically over the past couple of decade.

BPA is one compound that is in our food and other products, but how about the hormones that our found in our water supplies at varying levels? I have seen numerous articles about how much drugs and hormones are in our water and even read about how male fish become females due to the rise in Estrogen in the water....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6436617/

Just my opinion but I think this is a purposefully caused phenomenon.

I think the more probable reason in the "meteoric rise" in gay people has more to do with

A/ You're not a kid anymore, and now that you know what gays are, there seems to be more of them.

and mostly

B/ They're tired of being shoved around and are demanding their rights, which makes them much more visible and shows you just how many there really are, instead of showing you how many Aquafina created.

and

C/ everything is more open these days. every group has their agenda (and it's not to remain hidden as in the past). There are infinitely more avenues for them to be heard.

I am with the 'it's a defect" crowd. I think they should be treated as equally as everyone else, but in the grand sceme of nature it really doesn't fit at all. Sex has a puspose, and it's procreation, not recreation. In that vein, gay sex won't ever produce offspring, and they use "unorthodox" entries.. to put it mildly to compensate for the fact their partner has the same organs.

It's like down's syndrome or other pre-birth problems. Since we all start off as female anyway, and only the adding of the proper chromasomes in the right order do we change to male, I don't see why it is so hard to see that given the complexity of the human machine and how much exactness goes into making one of us, that somewhere along the lines some of us may have developed some crossed signals. We accept it pretty easily in other forms.

~Bang

[twa]

(My opinion, which I'll freely admit is coming from complete and total ignorance, is that most of them would.)

I hold the opposite opinion...naturally;)

There certainly would be some,but I doubt more than a fourth.

[Larry]

I am with the 'it's a defect" crowd. I think they should be treated as equally as everyone else, but in the grand sceme of nature it really doesn't fit at all. Sex has a puspose, and it's procreation, not recreation. In that vein, gay sex won't ever produce offspring, and they use "unorthodox" entries.. to put it mildly to compensate for the fact their partner has the same organs.

I'm not 100% sure I disagree with you, on the question of "Is it a defect, or is it simply natural variation?"

I'll observe, however, that my attempt to take people's moral judgment about homosexuality out of the question, by asking if people would feel the same way if science invents a pill which will cause the fetus to have blue eyes, has been completely ignored. I'll point out that I suspect the reason for this is because people are basing their opinions on this treatment, based simply on their opinion of the desirability of gays.

But I feel like I have to respond to the traditional "gays can't have kids" with an equally obligatory "would your position be the same if this pill caused people to not enjoy anal or oral sex, and to refuse to use condoms or birth control? Since you're asserting that having sex for any purpose other than as an attempt to conceive a child is a defect, and all?"

Please feel free to treat it as a case of "let's not go down that discussion path, again".

[Forehead]

Are all men w/ small penis's gay if women w/ big (you know what) are lesbians? Come on now...(btw I hear there are some gay guys w/ HUGE ....)

I thought all gay men were size queens.

Anyway, I'm impressed. This thread has questioned the legitimacy of being gay, being black/white, whether God exists, and one or two other things, and it hasn't devloved into violent threats or been locked. Maybe the Tailgate got some sort of medical treatment.

[Larry]

BTW, since I'm certain that all of you, out there, are eagerly waiting, I'll respond to my own question:

How would you feel if the pill we're discussing "cured" something which you haven't already made a moral judgment on? If the treatment, say, "cured" red hair?

Me, I can see some potential problems with the idea of parents imposing medical treatment on their children, simply for the purpose of forcing the child to develop in accordance with the parent's wishes/judgment/opinions.

But the question then becomes "Who else should decide whether the parents are allowed to treat their children for this condition, but not for this other one?"

In a way, I can see some parallels to my opinion on the abortion question. (Which is, while I certainly believe that the father has a voice in the decision, I believe that the mother's vote carries more weight, because the fetus is inside her.)

I think it's absolutely obvious that the claiming "it's a genetic defect" is simply imposing the judge's opinion on the matter. To a lot of people, gay is a defect, but red hair aren't, because the speaker hates gays, but doesn't hate redheads.

But then, is Down's Syndrome a defect? Or is it simply an aspect of a person which the parent doesn't have the right to interfere with?

And if we can all agree (and I suspect that we can) that Down's is a defect, (one which, if a "cure" existed, the parents would have not only the right to cure it, but the obligation), and that red hair is not, (it's something which the parents simply have to live with, whether they want to or not. Luck of the draw.), then who decides which side of the line between "defect" and "condition" homosexuality is on?

And at that point, when we get into the gray areas of morality and things, that's when I think I have to default to Libertarian principals.

I think that, when there's a significant difference of opinion on whether gay is a defect which parents can (and maybe should) cure, or whether it's simply a trait which some people have, and others don't, then the "default condition" is that the government should stay out of it, and let the parents decide on their individual case.

IMO, if a pill comes out which "cures" homosexuality, I don't think the government should ban it. (Simply on the basis of morality. If there's medical reasons why this treatment shouldn't be used for that purpose, if, say, the treatment has risky side effects, then that's another matter.)

[Skin'Em84]

I'm not 100% sure I disagree with you, on the question of "Is it a defect, or is it simply natural variation?"

I'll observe, however, that my attempt to take people's moral judgment about homosexuality out of the question, by asking if people would feel the same way if science invents a pill which will cause the fetus to have blue eyes, has been completely ignored.

[/Quote]

That's because people with blue eyes suck.

I'll point out that I suspect the reason for this is because people are basing their opinions on this treatment, based simply on their opinion of the desirability of gays.

Please feel free to treat it as a case of "let's not go down that discussion path, again".

Let me take one more step down the path; if we are to assume homosexuality is a natural variation, if we were feral, it would be rare and recessive in some form, as all who are exclusively homosexual would not be able to pass their genes down in some form.

:beatdeadhorse:

[zCommander]

I absolutely believe sexual preference is biological. EVERYTHING is biological. Genetic, I am not so sure of. But biological I think is obvious. Especially when you see higher concentrations in certain physical environments.

You lost me there. Building blocks of any being are genes aka life aka biology. Genes sequence determine your sex, color, and so on. Ovaries are developed first and then drop to become testicles when there is more of testosterone hormone present. Again controlled by genes.

Biology (life) is made from genes.

As for the article is says that the fetus is given treatment for the deficiency of hormone that is needed. Not altering what the genes has already determined what the fetus has already become or trying to come. That is what I am getting out of it. It is not about homosexuality unless you or the writer makes it out to be just to get attention.

[Bang]

I'm not 100% sure I disagree with you, on the question of "Is it a defect, or is it simply natural variation?"

I'll observe, however, that my attempt to take people's moral judgment about homosexuality out of the question, by asking if people would feel the same way if science invents a pill which will cause the fetus to have blue eyes, has been completely ignored. I'll point out that I suspect the reason for this is because people are basing their opinions on this treatment, based simply on their opinion of the desirability of gays.

But I feel like I have to respond to the traditional "gays can't have kids" with an equally obligatory "would your position be the same if this pill caused people to not enjoy anal or oral sex, and to refuse to use condoms or birth control? Since you're asserting that having sex for any purpose other than as an attempt to conceive a child is a defect, and all?"

Please feel free to treat it as a case of "let's not go down that discussion path, again".

Well, the natural variation,, I don't necessarily buy it beyond that defects and variations, if you will, are so prevelant among our species that they're somewhat normal. (Make sense? We don't bat an eye at a mentally retarded person or blind-from-birth, we accept that there are things beyond their control that put them in that state, and thus accept them for who they are. But in the past they were treated as monstrosities.)

The word "natural" derives from nature, and everything in nature has a purpose, and there is no natural purpose in homosexuality. Sex has one purpose., to reproduce. It's a lot of fun, but fun isn't it's natural purpose. We alter our physiology with pills, and we use prophylactics and other contraceptive devices to prevent the natural result of sexual intercourse so that we may enjoy it as recreation, but that doesn't change the original natural intent of sexual intercourse.

I don't see homosexuals as much different. Some do make choices, those are hedonists, not necessarily homosexuals. True homosexuals make no more choice of who they are than a heterosexual does.

~Bang

[Ax]

Larry, I find it curious that you equate a living, breathing, human being, with,

hair.

[zCommander]

Sex has one purpose., to reproduce. It's a lot of fun, but fun isn't it's natural purpose.

~Bang

If it wasn't fun we wouldn't be doing it. :evilg:

[Bang]

If it wasn't fun we wouldn't be doing it. :evilg:

Well, that does indeed help species to grow... if it didn't feel good, the inclination to do it wouldn't be so strong.

Folks can attribute that to nature's way of God's hand, however they want to see it. But it is indeed a natural enticement to breed.

~Bang

[Popeman38]

You lost me there. Building blocks of any being are genes aka life aka biology. Genes sequence determine your sex, color, and so on. Ovaries are developed first and then drop to become testicles when there is more of testosterone hormone present. Again controlled by genes.

Biology (life) is made from genes.

As for the article is says that the fetus is given treatment for the deficiency of hormone that is needed. Not altering what the genes has already determined what the fetus has already become or trying to come. That is what I am getting out of it. It is not about homosexuality unless you or the writer makes it out to be just to get attention.

I don't see where we disagree. Unless you claim that every illness is caused by a genetic deformation. If so, we should be able to eliminate all disease. I doubt you believe this. Environment affects biology. The genes may all be normal, but the biological function can be non-normal. I do not know why a person is straight or gay. No one does. But like everything else that affects humans, it is biological.

Reread my post. I never claimed being gay is a biological defect. I simply stated that I believe it is impacted by the environments impact on biology. Hence why we see greater concentrations of gays in certain areas. As to the article, you might notice how I didn't actually respond to anything in the article, and in fact did not mention the article. I responded to another post, so I don't see how I would be seeking attention?

[mardi gras skin]

If there's medical reasons why this treatment shouldn't be used for that purpose, if, say, the treatment has risky side effects, then that's another matter.)

Do you mean risky side effects for the fetus? If so, I don't understand your position. If a woman can abort the fetus, why would she not also have the right to alter the fetus in any way she wishes? I can understand that you wouldn't want the child to be born with birth defects because of a choice the mother made, but I don't see how that should restrict the right of the mother to do what she wishes with her body. By law, she isn't doing anything to hurt another person because the fetus isn't a person.

If its the health of the child after birth, that's exactly the problem pro-life advocates have with abortion rights.

[Larry]

Let me take one more step down the path; if we are to assume homosexuality is a natural variation' date=' if we were feral, it would be rare and recessive in some form, as all who are exclusively homosexual would not be able to pass their genes down in some form.[/quote']

Oh, the fact that it's natural is indisputable.

But then diseases are natural, too.

[Larry]

Larry, I find it curious that you equate a living, breathing, human being, with,

hair.

It certainly would be curious, if I had even remotely come close to doing that.

[greenspandan]

I have long contended that the meteoric rise in Homosexuality is directly attributable to ....[etc]

hold the phone. what "meteoric rise in homosexuality"? what timeframe are you talking about? what evidence are you basing this claim on?

keep in mind that incerased social acceptence leads to a greater number of people willing to identify (both publicly OR anonymously) as gay.

[greenspandan]

bang, i think it's obvious that sex serves far more purpose in human society than simple procreation. it bonds people emotionally, and that is no accidental side effect. groups and pairs are more stable and safe than hermits. likewise, the sexual urge contributes to our motivations to be more social and cooperative. the sexual urge contributes to our motivation to groom and remain clean and free of germs. it contributes to ambition, which fuels the uniquely human progress we have made over the millennia.

our sexuality has a profound impact on the way our species has managed to survive and construct a society. much of this impact is not directly related to procreation, and works just as well independent of gender.

[techboy]

hold the phone.

I encountered this in another thread by another poster, so it wasn't as much of a shock to me this time, but the upshot of it is that "they" are trying to engage in a sinister form of population control, and one of the tools "they" use is to make people gay so they won't reproduce.

[greenspandan]

(as an aside, meteors don't exactly rise)

[Kosher Ham]

Ladies and Gentlemen, can I have your attention for just a moment...

We are on our way to creating perfect males and females.

[/sarcasm]