I am FOR gay people having real equality. Why would anyone not be FOR that?

The definition of 'malady' is 'disease or ailment'. Homosexuality isn't considered a disease, opinions to the contrary that it ought to be notwithstanding. By characterizing it as a disease, we can see that there isn't an actual interest in the science - science which doesn't classify it as a 'disease' in need of a 'cure'.

Citation? This appears to be an oversimplification of the complex science which may play a role in same-sex orientation. We're a long way yet from fully understanding cause, much less 'cure' where orientation is concerned. I think it's fair to ask who would actually benefit from 'curing' homosexuality. I'm not persuaded by the claim that it's about doing something to help homosexuals, especially in light of the fact that science doesn't regard it as a 'disease' in need of a 'cure'. What benefit would there be to society, apart from appeasing anti-gay people who can't tolerate difference?

The fault here is in assuming that there's a cause and effect relationship between homosexuality and suicide rates/STDs; things that correlate strongly with societal intolerance and disapproval; these make the motivation behind seeking a 'cure' very suspect.

People who make outrageous comments should expect a strong response. The allegation that there is "something wrong with them" is not proof that something is 'wrong' with them. Not all differences are indicative of something 'wrong'. And let's not pretend that claiming there is something 'wrong with them' isn't biased moralizing.

Propaganda. Science doesn't regard it as a disorder.

There's that moralizing again, based on the assumption that it is "wrong" and "bad".

That's making a huge assumption. "Newborn" may be far too late.

Oh, there's a whopper. Define for us what the so-called "ills of homosexuality" are.

More like the perpetually unhappy and unsatisfiable bigots found another group to target.

 

Well, let's consider the question of legal marriage. Being homosexual isn't the obstacle to legal marriage; restrictions placed in the law that limit legal marriage to opposite-sex couples is the obstacle. Remove it, and you've made same-sex couples legal equals with regard to marriage. No 'ramp' or accommodation necessary.

The analogy comparing orientation to disability is false. It's like comparing bananas and lizards.

 

And if "grown homosexuals" can't be "cured", what then? Too bad, so sad?

 

No, that's you pretending the science surrounding orientation says something that it doesn't. It isn't characterized as a disorder,

 

You haven't shown that homosexuality is the result of a malfunction.

 

Who else can you cure?

Its a shame so many threads are nothing more than clutter, hiding what important, got to wonder if it is a liberal propagandist tactic, clutter all the political forums with nonsense so that anything important just seems to be more nonsense.

 

Science is just now starting to figure out the cause. Just because some panel of doctors or scientists hasn't put a label on it yet (due to their own lack of knowledge) doesn't mean that it is not a disorder. Your assumption that it is not is nothing more than an appeal to authority, when in fact the authority has yet to decide.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay
Now, since I know what is coming next, I'll just head you off. You're about to say, "see, they say epi-genetics, not genetics, so you're sooo wrong! Checkmate!" But epigenetics deals with how genes express themselves, essentially if they are activated or not. While the actual DNA sequence remains the same, some of the "words" are "muted", changing the meaning of the "sentence" of the genetic code (language). So this should actually make a cure much easier to achieve, while leaving the DNA sequence intact.

You will never understand nor accept the benefit to society. You have a vested interest. If it WAS officially labelled an illness (which it was and would be today if not for political correctness), you would still not accept it. So your point is moot.

That stigma will always exist, regardless of what laws are passed. So your "solution" does nothing to address these issues.

Is it "moralizing" to say that an illness is "bad"? You are confusing the moral "right and wrong" with the pragmatic one. Probably intentionally.

Already addressed. Science needs concrete data about the cause before they will apply such a label.

This is true. They may need to catch it even earlier.

Well, I've already mentioned two, which you pooh-pooh. STD rates and suicide rates.

Not even going to respond to this name-calling.

 

Unfortunately, yes. Sorry, but what is impossible is impossible. I hope that is not the case, though.

 

Medical science is advancing all the time. Ideally, every ill can be cured, from AIDS to schizophrenia to the common cold.

OK, so promoting medical advances is liberal propaganda and clutter? What is more important than health?

 

Homosexuality is not a malady. Your premise is flawed.

 

I have not assumed that it's a disorder; I am going by what the scientific community has already decided on the matter. You are the one making making an assumption here, and one not supported by the scientific community. Your attempt to label it a disorder is nothing more than an appeal to your own, non-existent authority.

Which merely proves that you don't know my mind or how I think. I don't actually need to read the article to know what it says, because it was posted as the basis of another thread weeks ago, and I read it then. The claim I wanted you to support was this one:

...and the article doesn't support that. It's just pure conjecture on your part. The article doesn't even go into the details of how those markers are alleged to cause same-sex orientation, and the devil is in those details. "Erasing the markers" as a cure to reverse same-sex orientation? When you don't even know what it is the markers do to cause it, much less whether those effects are reversable? Laughable. You pulled that one out of your ass.

Still talking out of your ass.

In other words, you can't come up with a benefit to society. Whether or not I personally have a vested interest is immaterial to making the argument, which you clearly can't.

And since you've drunk the kool-aid that declassification of homosexuality as a disorder was due to political correctness (in other words, swallowed the anti-gay propagandizing around that declassification hook, line, and sinker), there's really no point in trying to discuss the science with you. Clearly, you don't trust scientific opinion on the matter. All this talk about the science is just smoke and mirrors. I'm not persuaded that you care about the science one bit.

Strawman. I never said I had a solution to the stigma. I'm perfectly well aware that it will always exist.

No, I'm not. You appear to be the one who can't tell the difference between moralizing and pragmatism, since you were making a moral argument and not a pragmatic one.

Science has decided it already has enough data to conclude that it's not a disorder. No amount of your spouting political talking points or repeating that it's a disorder will alter the stance of scientists on the matter.

So it's your contention that homosexuality causes people to have suicidal tendencies? It's your contention that homosexuality causes people to catch STDs? If not, then they are not "ills of homosexuality". If so, then you're beyond redemption. I'm nearing 50 and my homosexuality has not caused me to have suicidal tendencies or to catch an STD. And I'm hardly the exception in that. But thanks for proving that you've got nothing.

I can give you the shoe, but I can't force you to wear it no matter how well it fits.

 

Not even "accommodation" for their "disability"? Thought so. Pretty much tells us all we need to know about the mindset behind these arguments.

 

No, not my own authority. The authority which trumps the (current) scientific classification system is nature itself. When something works 98% of the time, and its success is what the entire survival of the species depends on, then it is clear what is proper functioning and what is a malfunction. Reproduction through heterosexuality is the single most important thing an organism can do. It determines who goes on to the next round, and who is eliminated. The good news is that you have straight genes within you already, just waiting to be ungagged. These genes have provided your entire evolutionary history, and made you possible.

Wow. So not having all the facts is reason not to do research? That's some crazy logic you have there.

A family, consisting of a biological father, biological mother, and their children, in accordance with nature, is an overwheming benefit to society.

The stigma will not always exist if homosexuality does not.

Wrong.

Your own personal anecdote does not refute the statistics. And yes, it is my contention that homosexuality causes these things, albeit indirectly. The suicide rate is caused by the stigma that you yourself have just admitted will always exist, while the STD rate seems to be linked to the promiscuity of the homosexual community.



Keep in mind that I am not proposing a mandate whereby every homosexual will have to "report immediately to the gene therapy station". This is a process which would not see real effectiveness until the next generation, as most adult homosexuals will be too set in their ways to volunteer, and I do not believe that the good to society justifies a "roundup".

 

Your proposition relies on the premise that homosexuality results from a biological abnormality. This means the burden of proof is on you to show that this is so.

 

Homosexuality was cured by changing its status....maybe we could cure cancer that way too?

 

Exactly!!

 

Why are you promoting idiotic views?

 

Science is not a static process. It changes as new knowledge is discovered, disseminated, confirmed, and agreed upon, in that order. The change in status, therefore, was due to a better understanding of homosexuality. Furthermore, such a change eradicated the question that homosexuality can be cured, namely because it is not a mental disorder, as previous thought in the field of psychoanalysis, and is also not a choice, but the result of alternative biological, psychological, or environmental factors, depending upon under what discipline you frame the concept. See statements on such below:

A 2006 joint statement by the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

A 2007 statement by the Royal College of Psychiatrists:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission to the Church of England.pdf

A 2004 statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/113/6/1827.full

Given this new consensus of knowledge, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

 

While science isn't static(and we wouldn't want it to be) it can be corrupted by ideological and political biases, or even outright corruption.

The peer review process is becoming extremely weak in certain scientific areas, climate research being just one of many. How do we know that homosexuality isn't one of those cases?

 

Science is not perfect; but there is the 'preponderance' of evidence which must be considered. There is also the aspect of peer review, which isn't as given to 'subjectivity' or corruption, as much as some might imagine. After all, if someone can prove/disprove something... then that is what would be done.

Yeah, right. We're supposed to buy that from YOU, here in some relatively obscure internet forum. Okay.

 

Well, science is certainly capable of being corrupted for ideological or political ends, yet a simple statement of reason is insufficient in proving contrary to the most recently developed consensus regarding the understanding of homosexuality or that of global warming. Substantial, authoritative, and empirically rigorous evidence is required to show otherwise. The same goes for proving that the peer review process is weak for the journals of the various sciences.

 

I agree.

Opinions can/do carry weight; but good science is much more objective than people's opinions.

 

I think the burden of "proof" is on you...you provided opinion...no proof.

 

If the overall cause is determined to be almost entirely biological in nature - the result of an extra gene, some kind of mutation, a lack of a gene, or pre-natal womb conditions or hormones, it will mean potentially a "cure" may be possible, if only for those yet to be born.

All very unlikely however given that after decades of research looking at various things, there is as of yet nothing conclusive as to what causes it and why it exists, and the evidence is pointing towards a mix of factors - including nurture - that combine to cause same-sex attraction. And assuming something was pinpointed, and(*)it was biological, and the predominant cause - there's no guarantee that anything could be done to "remedy" it. Even if it could be altered(*)you've then got to get over the moral hurdle and surrounding legal issues - you'd see the inevitable questions such as WHY a parent should have the right to choose whether their child will be gay or straight given that it's not a disease/illness, nor does it prevent them from having children(*)(many gay people do), nor does it cause mental problems (the depression/suicide "link" are because of societal disapproval), or present a significant health risk (the vast majority of gay men will NEVER catch HIV and female homosexuality is significantly safer than heterosexuality). There NO risk of homosexuality threatening population growth currently or at any time in the future - ESPECIALLY if it's determined(*)to be a predominantly(*)biological trend of limited occurrence,(*)so it cannot be argued that eradication would benefit(*)society and survival of the human race given it's highly limited nature (and the notable lack of any existential threat down to underpopulation!).

So what we'd be talking about is in essence designer babies created for selfish reasons. Arguments about wanting them to have a "better life" will not withstand the reality that same-sex couples lead happy, fulfilling lives in spite of a large proportion of society disapproving (which is shrinking by the day), and will say that they do not need "curing" because their love is as wonderful and real as any love between a man and a woman.

The fact that people can't even legally alter the hair colour should be strong evidence that even if a cure were possible, it would be unattainable. It's eugenics pure and simple. Most people would be motivated not by a concern for the well fair of their future offspring, but by their own selfish desires - as in wanting grandchildren and not wanting anything to ruin their "traditional" family image. It would NEVER be permitted, nor should it.

 

I am willing to entertain scientific studies contrary to the norm. Scholarly discourse is not about absolute right and wrong, even in the math-heavy sciences. It is about generating greater understanding, insight, and knowledge on a subject through a conversation.

Nevertheless, there are fundamental standards for all analyses established by the editors of journals, organization reports, etc., and those standards must be met. Are there instances where journals, regardless of standard, have agendas, meaning their biases are not minimized, but are clearly identifiable and blatant. Yes. A great example is the Middle East Affairs Journal. The organization who published the journal, the United Association for Studies and Research, was rather open in its anti-semitic views, and they permeated throughout their scholarly analyses. More often than not, these journals and the organizations who manage them lose reception, funding, and, in many cases, go extinct. That is exactly what happened to the MEAJ and the UASR.