NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wandering around a sight concerned with religion and homosexuality and one interesting theme struck me; The religious community seem to want to categorise homosexuality as a choice, which can be unmade, while the homosexual posters and their supporters claimed that there sexuality was biological or otherwise inevitable based on who they were.

So, heres a totally hypothetical scenario - what if it was found that homosexuality was purely biological in nature but some clever scientists came up with something that could make people heterosexual. The treatment was 100% effective and minor psychological support was included to make the transition simple and easy. It's free as well, charitably supported or available on a national health service.

If you are homosexual, would you make use of such a treatment? If you are straight, would you use it on your children to ensure heterosexuality?

Simply an interesting thought that occured to me.

Disclaimer - I'm not homosexual myself, nor do I belong to any religious community with a homophobic agenda. No need to call in a napalm strike. :cool:

Nah, I'd just as soon keep :fluffle: ing girls.

based on what we understand about human sexuality, the discovery you speak of would most likely go both ways...if we could make people heterosexual, we would also be able to make them homosexual. that adds a neat wrinkle, don't you think?

Kinda mixed. Sure, things would be much easier but I question the wisdom of such treatment for what is largely someone else's comfort.

Such a drug would be extremely useful in treating paraphilias. I wish they did create such a drug.

If you are homosexual, would you make use of such a treatment? If you are straight, would you use it on your children to ensure heterosexuality?
If I were homosexual, then no, but I'm not. And no, I wouldn't use it on my kids. If they were gay, and decided they wanted to change, then that's their choice. Not that I'd support them either way.

I think this gets to the root of a major thing with society these days, not so much the sexuality issue, but the constant behavior of our society to fix every sort of problem we can think of with drugs, be they legal or illegal. Just my two cents.

Such a drug would be extremely useful in treating paraphilias. I wish they did create such a drug.

Assuming paraphila and homosexuality arise from the same circumstances. ;)

Such a drug would be extremely useful in treating paraphilias. I wish they did create such a drug.
Hmm?
The question was about a drug turning people from gay to staight, not for treating paraphilias.
So no, it would not be useful at all in treating paraphilias unless both homosexuality and paraphilias were the same thing, which they aren't.

I guess if they came up with it and people wanted to take it then whatever. However, I have a feeling this stuff would end up getting put in the water or something eqally illumi-nutty.

Nah, I'd just as soon keep :fluffle: ing girls.
Yes, I'd rather you keep doing that as well ;)

I would hate to be heterosexual. Gay is the way.

Hmm?
The question was about a drug turning people from gay to staight, not for treating paraphilias.

Nope, the title said it cured alternate sexualities.

Why in blazes would anyone sane support the abolishing of threesomes?

Nope, the title said it cured alternate sexualities.
but then the post was completely about homosexuality

Nope, the title said it cured alternate sexualities.

So, heres a totally hypothetical scenario - what if it was found that homosexuality was purely biological in nature but some clever scientists came up with something that could make people heterosexual. The treatment was 100% effective and minor psychological support was included to make the transition simple and easy. It's free as well, charitably supported or available on a national health service.
The title isn't always exact in specifications. This being a case of that.

but then the post was completely about homosexuality

No, it clearly said that scientists came up with something that could make people heterosexual. It didnt specify that it only works if you were gay. I say, that while the more interesting question may be should gay people use this? I feel that regardless of the answer to that question, such a discovery would be of great use in other areas.

No, it clearly said that scientists came up with something that could make people heterosexual. It didnt specify that it only works if you were gay. I say, that while the more interesting question may be should gay people use this? I feel that regardless of the answer to that question, such a discovery would be of great use in other areas.
what if it was found that homosexuality was purely biological in nature but some clever scientists came up with something that could make people heterosexual

...

If you are homosexual, would you make use of such a treatment? If you are straight, would you use it on your children to ensure heterosexuality?
there you go, its dealing with homosexuality...not paraphilias

Yeah, sorry about the post title being somewhat misleading - I did actually intend it to mainly address homosexuality, as this was simply the nature of the thought as it arrived. But I thought if I simply put in 'cure for homosexuality' half the thread would turn up asking where to buy it in hypodermic dart form and the other half would weigh in with Dresden style flame wars.

Yeah, sorry about the post title being somewhat misleading - I did actually intend it to mainly address homosexuality, as this was simply the nature of the thought as it arrived. But I thought if I simply put in 'cure for homosexuality' half the thread would turn up asking where to buy it in hypodermic dart form and the other half would weigh in with Dresden style flame wars.

Ok. well, that changes things. if its only useful for turning gay people straight, why would any scientist waste his time searching for this?

i dont see homosexuality as a sickness so i see no need to cure it or to prevent it in my children

Same here. And I think that the people who label Homosexuality as a sickness are the real sick fucks.

I'm gay and I would never want to be straight. Sure, I see how my life could be made easier if I were straight (not being a second class citizen and not having to fight for things straights take for granted, for instance), but if I weren't gay, I wouldn't be me.

Plus, straight sex is just plain old boring. Women just don't know how to fellate.

I'm gay and I would never want to be straight. Sure, I see how my life could be made easier if I were straight (not being a second class citizen and not having to fight for things straights take for granted, for instance), but if I weren't gay, I wouldn't be me.

Plus, straight sex is just plain old boring. Women just don't know how to fellate.

Think about it this way though. If this had been available whe you were growing up. Would you have taken it when you were 12, 13, 14? I bet most gays wouldve because of the pressures involved at that age. The result would be that homosexuality would cease to exist in a few generations.

This is essentially like "Would you want a cure for crackerism?"

The result would be that homosexuality would cease to exist in a few generations.
Assuming it is entirely genetic. if it is partially environmental, or determined by different circumstances in the womb as was the last theory I had heard was en vogue, then homosexuality would still happen.

Assuming it is entirely genetic. if it is partially environmental, or determined by different circumstances in the womb as was the last theory I had heard was en vogue, then homosexuality would still happen.
not to mention that NOT all homosexuals would have chosen to become straight, even at their worst times. i've never had any desire whatsoever to change my sexual orientation, even though i have experienced bigotry from people who believe my orientation is sinful. homosexuality wouldn't "die out" because there would always be people like me who work to build a world where no gay kid ever wishes to make themselves straight :).

Assuming it is entirely genetic. if it is partially environmental, or determined by different circumstances in the womb as was the last theory I had heard was en vogue, then homosexuality would still happen.

This thread began with the assumption that it is entirely biological.

This thread began with the assumption that it is entirely biological.
Biological=/=genetic.

I'll admit I was waaay off with the "environmental" bit there. But if it were caused by subtle differences of situation in utero, it is still biological.

Think about it this way though. If this had been available whe you were growing up. Would you have taken it when you were 12, 13, 14? I bet most gays wouldve because of the pressures involved at that age. The result would be that homosexuality would cease to exist in a few generations.

Oh, I knew I was gay a long time before that and I have never had a wish to be straight. Really. It never entered my consciousness that I would want to be different than I was in that respect. Not all gay people go through self-loathing. And I'm pretty sure that if the causes for the self-loathing were eliminated, very few people would take this hypothetical pill.

Also, I would think it kind of insidious to offer the pill to children and adolescents, who are unable to comprehend the repercussions. Unethical, even.

Also, I would think it kind of insidious to offer the pill to children and adolescents, who are unable to comprehend the repercussions. Unethical, even.
seriously...in America, kids aren't even allowed to buy a porno mag, so why on Earth would they be allowed to take a pill that permanently messes with their sexuality?

Interesting answers. Btw, sorry if I've caused any offence, it's just one of those 'what if' scenarios that bugs me occasionally.

seriously...in America, kids aren't even allowed to buy a porno mag, so why on Earth would they be allowed to take a pill that permanently messes with their sexuality?
Because it would be messing with it to make sure it stays right.

[/devil's advocate]

Interesting answers. Btw, sorry if I've caused any offence, it's just one of those 'what if' scenarios that bugs me occasionally.
hope you will not take offense if i ask: have you ever desired to change your sexual orientation?

Hell no! Could you imagine the drab, uncoordinated, unfabulous world we'd all be living in?!

:confused:

Because it would be messing with it to make sure it stays right.

[/devil's advocate]
that still doesn't answer why we would allow children to make that sort of decision for themselves. children currently cannot make medical decisions for themselves, they need their guardian(s) for that.

hope you will not take offense if i ask: have you ever desired to change your sexual orientation?

Not really. I'll admit, it's probably due to the fact that I've been socialised to view my current sexuality as 'normal' and other forms as 'alternative', but I've never particularly regarded my sexuality as important in defining who I am. Again, though, this is probably largely because my heterosexuality doesn't suffer from the same bigotry as homosexuality.

I myself am bi. But, other than the minor social problems which I don't care much for, but do a little, I love it. I find that I have a partiality to guys more than girls. So no, I wouldn't.

All of the most wonderful people in my life are bi.

Life just wouldn't be as interesting if my female friends didn't occassionally muse about eating each other out, and being happy to inform me of this interest.

Did I mention my artistic brain can produce images in -great- detail?

:D

So, heres a totally hypothetical scenario - what if it was found that homosexuality was purely biological in nature but some clever scientists came up with something that could make people heterosexual. The treatment was 100% effective and minor psychological support was included to make the transition simple and easy. It's free as well, charitably supported or available on a national health service.

If you are homosexual, would you make use of such a treatment? If you are straight, would you use it on your children to ensure heterosexuality?

Simply an interesting thought that occured to me.

Disclaimer - I'm not homosexual myself, nor do I belong to any religious community with a homophobic agenda. No need to call in a napalm strike. :cool:

Hmm, a few thoughts.

First - It'd be better if there were a way to ust turn it on and off completely. I'd get so much more done. Going to the office - off. Going to Hooters - on. Visit the inlaws? - Off. Kids go to the inlaws for a sleepover?-on. You get the picture.

Second - The idea of an opposite effect isnt too bad, really. I mean, I'm about as far from gay as it gets, but imagine the possibilities - You would never have a bad party again - Who cares if no girls show up? Just bring your pills! What, too many girls? No Problem! I got pills that'll fix that!
ta-Daaaa! every party everyone gets laid!

Third - A cure for homo's. Hmmm - that is an interesting concept. My first thought is to wonder if homo behavioar is hereditary - if so then that would dramatically increase the need for the meds in future generations. I could accept it as an option for those affected, but - just as with any medicine - it could not be mandatory. No different than non-smoking meds. Take it if you want it.

Fourth - As for my kids - they are too young to be thinking about sex. They won't be thinking about sex until they get married. :) Until then they will be thinking about happy things like the Muppets. Mmmm. Ms. Piggy.

Whoop - I digress. Yes, if my minor child were to start showing gender confusion I would use the meds. It would mean a far less complicated future for the child.

So, heres a totally hypothetical scenario - what if it was acknowledged that homosexuality was purely biological in nature but some clever scientists came up with something that could make people heterosexual. The treatment was 100% effective and minor psychological support was included to make the transition simple and easy. It's free as well, charitably supported or available on a national health service.

If you are homosexual, would you make use of such a treatment? If you are straight, would you use it on your children to ensure heterosexuality?

Simply an interesting thought that occured to me.

Disclaimer - I'm not homosexual myself, nor do I belong to any religious community with a homophobic agenda. No need to call in a napalm strike. :cool:

I'd try and make myself bi.
It's kind of boring being straight... not that I can't get off on gay sex, I just can't love men... yet.

Wouldn't be great if the pill worked both ways. It would do wonders for overpopulation if everyone was gay. Then there'd be no accidental pregnancies, and women in third world countries wouldn't feel obligated to have 16 children.

If I could use it to make myself a lesbian then I wouldn't have to deal with men being idiots... hmm. But then I do enjoy intercourse...

I wouldn't use it on a hypothetical kid of mine. They are who they are and if they would want to change it, then that would be their choice, not mine.

Wouldn't be great if the pill worked both ways. It would do wonders for overpopulation if everyone was gay. Then there'd be no accidental pregnancies, and women in third world countries wouldn't feel obligated to have 16 children.

Bravo.

And no, I'm not just kissing ass because I idolize your name.

If I could take half a pill and become more evenly bisexual then I would, double the chances of getting laid right off the bat, plus threesomes would work either way. I am more gay than straight, and I want kids, so being a bit straighter would help there. But I wouldn't want to give up my gayness completely...why would anyone choose not to love half the population of the world if you could continue to love everyone?

Bravo.

And no, I'm not just kissing ass because I idolize your name.

Nice asses do not require excuses to kiss. They exist for it.

Well, I've been reading some of the comments regarding pressures early in my teenage years which might have resulted in my caving. My opinion: I doubt it. I fancied a guy in my maths class when I was eight. This is before I knew anything about the label "gay", and before I knew it was "bad" to be gay. So, I cam to terms with myself outside the normal social constructs. By age 14, sure, I'd get the occasional arse calling me a fag or somesuch, but I'd still rather be gay than straight. Gay is me, straight wouldn't be. I'd be a completely different person than I am now if I had "changed" sexuality around that age. I don't think I'd be any happier, and that would be the point, no? I'd rather be natural and happy than irrevocably artificially altered and "happy."

Nice asses do not require excuses to kiss. They exist for it.

Every one form an ordely Que behind me... lol :D

on the point in hand (no pun intended) no i would not want to destroy a part of my self, i would lose who i am (who said good!). as for kids? no they can be who they want to be..

Biological=/=genetic.

I'll admit I was waaay off with the "environmental" bit there. But if it were caused by subtle differences of situation in utero, it is still biological.

I'm confused, then you're calling homosexuality a birth defect? Wouldn't it still be categorized as an illness, seeing as other birth defects such as down-syndrome and klinefelter's syndrome are? :confused:

If I could take half a pill and become more evenly bisexual then I would, double the chances of getting laid right off the bat, plus threesomes would work either way. I am more gay than straight, and I want kids, so being a bit straighter would help there. But I wouldn't want to give up my gayness completely...why would anyone choose not to love half the population of the world if you could continue to love everyone?

Love and sex are not the same thing. I love my male best friend with all most all of my heart, yet I have no sexual feelings for him.

I'm confused, then you're calling homosexuality a birth defect? Wouldn't it still be categorized as an illness, seeing as other birth defects such as down-syndrome and klinefelter's syndrome? :confused:
just because the uterine environment influences a trait does not mean that trait is a birth defect. mental retardation and medical conditions like Klinefelters put an individual at physical disadvantage; homosexuality does not. homosexuality has not been considered an illness for decades.

Love and sex are not the same thing. I love my male best friend with all most all of my heart, yet I have no sexual feelings for him.
i think that's what he meant; there's a difference between being able to love and being IN love, if that makes any sense.

Same here. And I think that the people who label Homosexuality as a sickness are the real sick fucks.

No, I would hypothesize that some probably are, some just want to help, and just don't give a fuck, but happen to think this, anyway.

i think that's what he meant; there's a difference between being able to love and being IN love, if that makes any sense.

This is not waht I got from his post, andthere seem to be an incresing number of people who think that love and sex are the same thing. Just cause you go out and bang 20 chicks/dudes/chickens/apple pies doesn't mean there any love there.

based on what we understand about human sexuality, the discovery you speak of would most likely go both ways...if we could make people heterosexual, we would also be able to make them homosexual. that adds a neat wrinkle, don't you think?

The Ultimate party prank. :)

This is not waht I got from his post, andthere seem to be an incresing number of people who think that love and sex are the same thing. Just cause you go out and bang 20 chicks/dudes/chickens/apple pies doesn't mean there any love there.
meh, difference of opinion, in that case...that's not what i read in his post, but maybe he'll clear it up for us himself.

meh, difference of opinion, in that case...that's not what i read in his post, but maybe he'll clear it up for us himself.

Ah, doesn't matter. "The difference between us is a part of the game." :D

I just had another idea, what if you could use the 'gay- pill' on some inbred gay-bashers. Fillem up then leave them 'alone' for a while....

Nice asses do not require excuses to kiss. They exist for it.
Does that mean I HAVE a nice ass, or that I AM a nice ass? :D

The Ultimate party prank. :)
ROFLMAO
I love it!

I'm confused, then you're calling homosexuality a birth defect? Wouldn't it still be categorized as an illness, seeing as other birth defects such as down-syndrome and klinefelter's syndrome are? :confused:

Downs syndrome (Trisomy 21) and Klinefelter's (XXY) syndrome are not birth defects but are chromosomal disorders. They are in fact, genetic. Further, they (and actual birth defects such as oligohydramnios, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc) actually cause damage, suffering, and decreased physical or mental function to their victims. Homosexuality does not cause any damage to the people who happen to be gay/lesbian. It has not been classified as a disease since the mid-1970s.

The only reason it ever was is that many psychiatrists and psychologists only experience with homosexuality was with their already mentally-ill patients. Since mental illnesses are often associated, its not a bad asumption if you don't have all the facts. However, with the sexual revolution and the increased societal acceptance of open homosexuals, it became quickly obvious that there were PLENTY of gay men and women out there who had no mental disease. In them, it was seen that homosexuality did not affect their functioning or their ability to interact with others (two key criteria in the definition of mental illnesses/personality disorders). Therefore, homosexuality was removed from the DSM and has not been put back.

Currently the APA does not endorse any type of conversion therapy or other therapy to "Treat" homosexuality. They do however encourage their members to provide therapy to aid gays in self- and societal-acceptance (or to refer them if they are unable to do so).

Just to go on record with my two cents:

I would not take the pill for myself. I have gone through a lot of adversity in my life, but it has only made me stronger. To quote one of my professors, I'm "one hell of a formidable person." Also, thanks to the evil I have seen in my life, I have been able to see the good, the love, the kindness, and the enduring nature of the human spirit. I know more about compassion and charity because I am gay. I would not trade that knowledge for anything.

Nor would I trade something that is simply a part of me. As was said before, I like who I am and if I were straight, I simply wouldn't be me.

The question for children is a little more difficult. Would I use it on them? No, probably not because I wouldn't want to deny them the chance to become a stronger person. However, it would be a hard decision because I would also want to shield them from the pain I went through. While I wouldn't trade it, I think it is human nature to want to protect your children from pain and suffering. So it would be a conflict, but ulitimately I think it would probably need to be a decision that they make for themself--just like it would be for me. Should they choose to do so or not to do so, I would always support him or her in their own question for happiness.

Wouldn't be great if the pill worked both ways. It would do wonders for overpopulation if everyone was gay. Then there'd be no accidental pregnancies, and women in third world countries wouldn't feel obligated to have 16 children.
Have you ever read The Forever War by Joe Haldeman?

Does that mean I HAVE a nice ass, or that I AM a nice ass? :D

That depends on what one gets to kiss if not your posterior.... :D