Headline: Science develops treatment therapy to cure and prevent homosexuality! (moral, choices)

[s2a]

No, not really...

Not yet anyway.

But, some day (maybe sooner than anyone thinks)?

Whether you count yourself amongst those that believe that sexual orientation is primarily genetic (or an expressed trait), or merely a byproduct of environment and personal taste/choice...there's an interesting article that reflects upon an observational study of predominant physical traits in terms of statistical relationships of "straight" vs. "gay" comparisons/correlations (with pictures!).

"The Science of Gaydar --If sexual orientation is biological, are the traits that make people seem gay innate, too? The new research on everything from voice pitch to hair whorl."

[Note: Reading the referenced article above may aid you in lending a more informed perspective in answer to the following caveats and questions below.]

If we might fairly assume (or demonstrably establish) that human sexual orientation is a transferable/inheritable genetic trait, and...

...homosexual sexual orientation requires a specific genetic trigger/mechanism in order to manifest it's expression in sexual preference/behavior...

...then what?

Some initial questions arise regarding some of these offered statistical observations regarding homosexual traits/behaviors.

Does the "nature" of newborn possibly affect the sort of "nurture" they receive from their parents (even subconsciously)?

What effect do hormones (during pregnancy) play in expressed traits/behaviors? There is (presently) no evident inheritable genetic (or specified gene) associated with left-handed vs. right-handed people, but there is some evidence that suggests hormones play a role in prenatal development of such an expressed dominant trait (err...preference?). We already "know" (with high confidence) that certain pharmaceuticals, smoking, alcohol, toxic chemicals --and specified hormone levels--can have a profound effect upon a developing fetus.

So...

...what if "science" managed to develop a "hormone therapy" that would suppress any expression of homosexual traits? Of course such a development would already include a medical screening procedure that would detect/predict likely casual factors of homosexuality "in utero" (not unlike other prenatal tests for genetic traits/dispositions, disease, defects, etc.).

What if sexual orientation was directly identified with a specific inheritable gene? What if available "gene therapy" could "fix/repair" that gene, in order to insure a "straight" baby is delivered?
What if a homosexuality "vaccine" was to be developed, available to every fertile woman?

Instead of examining/debating the moral/religious/social arguments either for/against homosexuality itself, I'd prefer to examine the prospective issues attendant to the ethics/morality/impact of the scientific possibility of either a medically available prevention, or "treatment/cure" for homosexuality.

Some questions that might be relevant for reflection/debate...and all RF members (either "straights" or "gays") are invited to comment/opine:

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

4) If you are GLBT, and presently in no committed relationship with another person...and, medical science offered you a permanent, inexpensive, and low-risk "cure" (ie, making you "straight"); would you want to be "cured"?
Why, or why not?

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?
Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options? Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?
How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

6) If you could establish priorities of federally funded medical research/discovery, how would you prioritize the following "conditions", from highest to lowest (presented alphabetically here)?
AIDS
Albinism
Alcoholism
Allergies
Alzheimer's (disease)
Arthritis
Breast Cancer
Claustrophobia
Colon Cancer
Color blindness
Depression (medical)
Diabetes
Diarrhea
Down Syndrome
Dwarfism
Homosexuality
Left-handed-ism
Lung Cancer
Gigantism
Infant mortality
Malaria
MS (Muscular Dystrophy)
Myopia
Obesity (morbid)
Ovarian Cancer
Parkinson's
Prostate Cancer
Restless Leg Syndrome
Reye's Syndrome
Schizophrenia
SIDS
Tay-Sachs
Vanity
Yellow Fever
Zoophilia

If you like/prefer...just list your "Top Five" or "Top Ten" instead.

[PS. Any other moral/ethical dilemmas of a similar nature to this OP are invited for discussion/debate.]

[s2a]

Oh well...

[Pariah]

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

Conservatives generally abhor abortion in the first place, so destroying a fetus considered potentially homosexual based on genetic fingerprints seems out of the question. The next obvious stage is to remove or alter, through genetic alteration or hormone therapy.

Perhaps, some more Orthodox or fundamentalist parents might pursue such treatment, but it would raise questions for the calm-headed... if God creates the genetics, and there is a definite cause for homosexuality by a particular gene, then wouldn't it have been God's will to have the child be homosexual? Wouldn't it be "playing God" to remove it?

Of course, the link would have to be definite. If there was even a shred of doubt, I have a feeling many would justify their decision through that doubt, as theists generally do with other decisions.

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

Definitely not. It seems extreme to suggest that such a drug might open the pathway for a "race vaccine", but it does open the door for blatant discrimination. To make it mandatory is to assume that differences within people are unacceptable and must be purged.

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

This is difficult. Personally, I would have no qualms in changing my baby's physical traits (if that procedure were available), but homosexuality seems to be on some level wrong. Personally, I wouldn't do it, but it reveals a certain hypocrisy in my personality.

People discriminate based on sexual traits every day for a variety of reasons, most of them subconscious, however, this is absolutely fundamental animal behavior. Discriminating homosexuals does not. Of course, this brings in a largely debatable topic of natural vs. unnatural, by which the results cannot operate under our current societal moral code.

If the current social trend of homosexual discrimination grew in frequency and ferocity, I would, simply for the safety of the child, probably change his or her sexual orientation.

4) If you are GLBT, and presently in no committed relationship with another person...and, medical science offered you a permanent, inexpensive, and low-risk "cure" (ie, making you "straight"); would you want to be "cured"?
Why, or why not?

Since I am not GLBT, I cannot answer this with any reality attached to it. If I were GLBT, though, I would probably not. Another question to ask is, "If you are straight, would you perform surgery to change your body to that of the opposite sex?".

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?

Yes. Why? Because it is process that has more value than a cure for homosexuality.
The process of discovering a genetic pre-disposition/cause for behavior (and disease) in humans could result in other breakthroughs for curing other genetic diseases. The same process might be viable in many situations.

Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options?

I would support research and development into such medical options.

Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?

They correlate positively with my current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

As is well known, science has always been a double-edged sword. The same science that created Penicillin create the sword, the gun, and the atomic bomb. In the spirit of scientific progress and advancement, as well hypothetical cures for many diseases, I would support both.

If this does not answer the question, above, let me know.

[Blindinglight]

I will personally stand against any such treatment when the time comes, as that is nothing more than a way to force conformity upon those who are different.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by s2a

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

A very interesting quandry. On one hand most religious folks are against abortion but if they knew the baby they were bringing into the world was gay and being homosexual is against God's will..so, would they abort? I don't think religious parents would chose to abort. They would probably just feed that kid religious lessons/unending sermons for breakfast, lunch and dinner in hopes of turning him/her around. They might see it as their mission in life.

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

I would definitely not promote such a vaccine and would fervently fight to keep such inoculations from becoming mandatory. Hello Josef Mengele!

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

No, I would not. Why? Because there's nothing wrong with being gay, end of comment.

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?
Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options? Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?
How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

No, I would not support tests/screenings or research and development or ANY medical funding searching for genetic deterrents to a child being born homosexual. I would however vehemently oppose such ridiculous measures.

Stem cell research is a whole other topic morally that I'll chose to not go into at this time.

6) If you could establish priorities of federally funded medical research/discovery, how would you prioritize the following "conditions", from highest to lowest (presented alphabetically here)?

AIDS - high
Albinism - low
Alcoholism - high
Allergies - high
Alzheimer's (disease)-high
Arthritis-high
Breast Cancer-high
Claustrophobia-low
Colon Cancer-high
Color blindness-low
Depression (medical)-high
Diabetes-high
Diarrhea-hahaaaa, eat some cheese!
Down Syndrome-mid range
Dwarfism- mid range
Homosexuality- psssh.
Left-handed-ism- uh, is this a trick question?
Lung Cancer-low to medium. Don't smoke
Gigantism- low
Infant mortality-high
Malaria-high
MS (Muscular Dystrophy)-high
Myopia-low
Obesity (morbid)-mid
Ovarian Cancer-high
Parkinson's-high
Prostate Cancer-high
Restless Leg Syndrome-low
Reye's Syndrome-mid
Schizophrenia-mid
SIDS-high
Tay-Sachs-mid
Vanity-I'm too sexy for my shirt
Yellow Fever-mid
Zoophilia- Baaaaaaaaa!

Top Five from this list:

Prostate Cancer
Diabetes
Arthritis
Colon Cancer
Breast Cancer

[UnTheist]

Why is being left handed a condition?

[MaddLlama]

I really don't think that's an option. They recently (well, more than 10 years ago) took "homosexuality" off of the "mental disability" list, and as far as I know, the psychiatric groups/organizations have stated that there is no proof that sexual orientation can be changed through counseling.

Why would that change? Especially when people are more accepting of it?

[Kungfuzed]

Originally Posted by s2a

1) Would medical screening for "gayness" in developing fetuses significantly alter prospective "conservative" (pro-life, anti-gay) parent's choices in pursuing either "treatment", hormone therapy, or abortion? Would it be unethical/immoral of parents armed with such knowledge to choose to let "nature takes its course"?
If so, how so? If not, why not?

I can't see pro-life/anti-gay parents considering an abortion if they discover the fetus has the gay gene. I think they would leap at the opportunity to treat or cure it though. I would even consider curing my child if I knew it would save him/her the confusion and discrimination that gays have to put up with. I would do it for my child's happiness rather than for religious reasons.

Originally Posted by s2a

2) If a "homosexual vaccine" (acting as a preventative) was as readily available and relatively free of risk as those available for measles, or HPV...would you promote or impede efforts to make such inoculations legally mandatory for all school-age children? Why, or why not?

I would not make it mandatory, but I think it should be available for those parents who want their children inoculated.

Originally Posted by s2a

3) If you were a fertile female, and you could safely (as safely as any birth-control pills) utilize a prescription hormone therapy to prevent/suppress homosexual traits from ever being expressed in a developing fetus, would you?
Why, or why not?

Yes, for reasons stated in #1

Originally Posted by s2a

4) If you are GLBT, and presently in no committed relationship with another person...and, medical science offered you a permanent, inexpensive, and low-risk "cure" (ie, making you "straight"); would you want to be "cured"?
Why, or why not?

I'm not gay but I'll speculate hypothetically. Depends on my age. If I were still a teenager and getting lots of grief in school and home and church about being gay I'd take the cure. If I'm 33 years old and already had several partners there's really no point in switching anymore. By this time I would have learned to deal with it and probably not care so much about what other people think.

Originally Posted by s2a

5) Should medical science even effort to discover any prenatal/genetic tests/screening for potential homosexual traits (for vaccines, or "cures")?
Would you support/oppose federal funding into researching/developing such medical options? Do these hypothetically prospective views align with with your current views regarding federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research?
How are they alike, or how do they fundamentally differ from a societal moral/ethical perspective?

Absolutely. Science has an obligation to discover the truth, even if some may not like what the truth is. The process of finding the cure will teach us all kinds of things about human sexuality. I would support federal funding of it and it does align with my support of embryonic stem-cell research. One is using embryo cells to cure or replace adult cells and the other is curing embryo genes so it won't be a problem later. One is preventative while the other occurs after the damage is done.

Originally Posted by s2a

6) If you could establish priorities of federally funded medical research/discovery, how would you prioritize the following "conditions", from highest to lowest (presented alphabetically here)?
AIDS
Albinism
Alcoholism
Allergies
Alzheimer's (disease)
Arthritis
Breast Cancer
Claustrophobia
Colon Cancer
Color blindness
Depression (medical)
Diabetes
Diarrhea
Down Syndrome
Dwarfism
Homosexuality
Left-handed-ism
Lung Cancer
Gigantism
Infant mortality
Malaria
MS (Muscular Dystrophy)
Myopia
Obesity (morbid)
Ovarian Cancer
Parkinson's
Prostate Cancer
Restless Leg Syndrome
Reye's Syndrome
Schizophrenia
SIDS
Tay-Sachs
Vanity
Yellow Fever
Zoophilia

If you like/prefer...just list your "Top Five" or "Top Ten" instead.

[PS. Any other moral/ethical dilemmas of a similar nature to this OP are invited for discussion/debate.]

Here's my top ten in alphabetical order:
AIDS
Alzheimer's
Breast Cancer
Colon Cancer
Diabetes
Down Syndrome
Lung Cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Parkinson's
Prostate Cancer

For me, cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's are the big ones that run in my family so I'd like the govornment to work on those before finding a cure for gays.

[Buttercup]

I'm really hoping some gay members of RF see this thread and answer.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Evmo

I'm really hoping some gay members of RF see this thread and answer.

Very well. Would you be drawn into a "serious" discussion of the ethics of "curing" blondness or blackness? Only when people place the greatest possible importance on superstition, and grant bigotry the dignity of "religious conviction" is such a discussion even possible. It's not a moral issue worth discussing. The whole idea of "curing" homosexuality is as absurd as "curing" heterosexuality. And if we ever reach the point of being able to "cure" homosexuality, we'll probably be able to "cure" heterosexuality, too.

So, to those who responded: Do your answers apply to heterosexuality, as well? If not, why not?