Curing Homosexuality?

[sixtyandaquarter]

Yeah, I just posted another symposium topic but there isn't a limit so...

I've seen this a lot, it's on the TV right now actually.  Someone claiming to be able to cure homosexuality, either threw a regiment of "reeducation", pills, therapy, prayer - and any combination of the aforementioned really.

Right now I've got some guy, holding a mini bible, going around what looks like the East Village in a sound stage, talking to "healed heterosexuals", about their experiences.  So, I was just curious if truly people can wake up and *snap* not gay, is it a cure - or a mass brainwashing?  Pun intended.

Can you pray and have your "illness" disappear?
Can you take a pill, and be attracted to Dave not Eve?
If you talk about your fillings, will be attracted to the opposite sex?
I find this kind of hard to believe, honestly.  The only thing I can look at other than 100% false statements is that the only system that could work would be "reeducation" - obviously repetative brainwashing to forcefully remold someone into the preset defaults we want.  Thoughts?

/end overly weak opening post for a debate.

 

[Faeroe]

don't they have pills for curing homosexuality?

just kidding, of course.


In high school, half the homosexuals I see weren't even gay at all; they just haven't been with a woman- they were confused.

But of course, real homosexuality cannot really be cured.  That's horrid; trying to change a person.  Sure you can cover it up, but you would be still attracted to men, would you not? 

 

[Mittens2317]

They have pills to correct someone's existance and gender, so why no their sexuality?


BTW, just to ease you all in, I'll say now that this was a sarcastic comment. Expect a lot. The people who endorse these pills are obviously calling it 'curing' instead of 'brain-washing'. They should stop caring so much about how everyone else lives their lives, and analyse their own. Aren't these the same people who worship a flying spaghetti monster?

 

[Alpharoth]

Homosexuality is not a disease.
I repeat.
Homosexuality is not a disease.

What is wrong with these ignorant people? There is nothing to be cured. Homosexuality is as normal as metro sexuality. Is metro sexuality a disease as well?

 

[silver wind]

several points the above poster should consider:
1. homosexual couple can't have kids. if everyone were gay, humanity would extinct.
  does that sound "normal"?
2. what is "love"? do you believe in 'love at first sight'?
  I believe we can control who we love. meaning, people choose to be gay.
  No,it is not a disease - gay people claim they can't control it, cause they don't
  want to. they don't think it's a bad thing.
most of the time, people fall in love AFTER they know each other some time-  first they  'test' their partner- his looks, his beliefs, his character, his religion, prob. his sex too - and  if they like them all, they allow them self to fall in love. so what about gay people- this process doesn't exist for them? why do they let them self love their own sex? .. unless they want to.
yeah, sometimes 'love is blind', like with women loving the husband that beats them.
however, they have sub-conscious reason to love that kind of people, and it can be "cured". same goes for homosexuality.

 

[Volrath]

1. homosexual couple can't have kids. if everyone were gay, humanity would extinct.
  does that sound "normal"?

I'm not sure how to reconcile that argument with the reports of gay animal activity that pop up every so often in the news. But not only that, if fears about the extinction of humanity are the best reasons people can come up with to say homosexuality is something that needs to be "cured," then the argument might as well just end. There will never be a day when everyone is gay, just like there will never be a day when everyone is blond. That's a pathetic argument, right up there with protecting the "sanctity of marriage."

2. what is "love"? do you believe in 'love at first sight'?
  I believe we can control who we love. meaning, people choose to be gay.
  No,it is not a disease - gay people claim they can't control it, cause they don't
  want to. they don't think it's a bad thing.

Okay, now you're just talking out of your ass. There's no other way to describe it. The only people who would categorically say that all gay people have no problem with their sexual orientation are the ones who have never seen a gay person outside of some TLC show about fashion sense. There certainly are gay people who are proud of their lifestyle, but there are millions who are deeply conflicted about it. Take the Reverend Ted Haggard, a leader of some far-right Christian group who was revealed to be a closet homosexual (not to mention a meth addict). He said he was going away to be "cured," and just a few days ago, it came out in the news that it didn't even work. He left the group in charge of this, and officials of this group said that his "restoration" was "incomplete."

Being gay may be trendy in some urban socialite circles, but it also invites someone to a life of persecution at the hands of closed-minded bigots who can't mind their own business and politicians looking for a few extra points in the Middle America polls. Love isn't so simple regarding any sexuality. Married men who are perfectly happy with their wives can find themselves in love with another woman...and in the middle of a very difficult situation they never wanted.

As to the question at hand, I don't think it can really be "cured," because it's not a disease. If people don't want to be gay, they can only try to ignore it, and will have varying degrees of success depending on their discipline. But if we didn't have a society with its head up its ass, they wouldn't have to even try.

 

[Justice]

Didn't William Burroughs believe that writing Naked Lunch cured him of his homosexuality?

Silver Wind, you saying that "if everyone were gay we'd be extinct so it's not normal" is beyond ridiculous - I understand it's meant to be hypothetical but as it stands only a portion of society is homosexual and can't procreate, and so there's obviously no risk of that happening. 'Hypothetically' it'd be the same if every heterosexual person were to find themselves rendered infertile - it's not going to happen any time soon so it's not really a very valid point.
edit - Volrath said everything I was trying to say here before me, it seems..

For your second point you suggest that being homosexual is an active decision, saying that you judge a partner on looks (amongst other things) before you fall in love - if you were homosexual you wouldn't be interested in someone of the other sex in the first place due to a lack of physical attraction to their gender, surely, and so wouldn't ever fall in love with them? This would contradict your belief that it's all a choice...unless you're saying everyone is bisexual to begin with and you choose your sexuality based on a partner you consider ideal?
(and yes, I realise that I'm twisting your words to an extent..)

Saying it should be "cured" is...upsetting, to say the least...

 

[Ellie]

It can be cured by death, preferably at a stake, with flames at the bottom. Death to the heretics! They are against all faith and must be purged!

I mean man, these gay's are almost as bad as those damned Witches.



--

On the whole "gay = extinct" argument...

Maybe the world would actually be better if that happened. Maybe not a total extinction, but if say... 50% of the male world's population became sexually oriented towards other men, then that'd be 1/4 less children being born, which would sure solve our overpopulation problems.

Also, even if everyone in the world became homosexual, including women, then... there's many other ways it can be done. The world wouldn't end for humans, because we'd be urged to try artificial insemination, men would be encouraged to donate their love juice fap much like we're encouraged to donate blood today.


In my opinon, everybody is born pansexual anyway, it's just that certain events in our lives, or the way we are brought up, affect who we're more likely to go for. It'd certainly be a lot easier if everyone was pansexual, anyway.

 

[e]

I think you're asking the wrong question. Before trying to "cure" something, we should first decide if it needs curing.

And, anyhow, as far as I know, it's not entirely biological, so it's extremely improbable that a simple pill would suffice to somehow change your whole sexuality (for an unlimited period of time, that is).

Furthermore...since when is it a disease? It's not a virus. It's not bacteria. It's not a parasite. It's a matter of taste (literally, I s'pose :tongue. You don't "cure" someone for liking ONLY 80's fashion now, do you (even if they should be...)?

 

[silver wind]

I know I might sound 'square', but I'm a religious person.
I don't think one should date someone because of physical attraction ALONE.
Let's put it this way( boy, am I gonna get stoned for this), how many white and 'colorful' couples are there? virtually none, right? don't black men find white women attractive..? their body is similar to the 'colorful' girls, ain't it? yet they don't DO anything about it.
a stigma prevents this kind of relationship. (and the world goes on just fine. NOTE- I do not mean mixed couples are bad, just the the world won't collapse if they won't exist. that my opinion about gay couples too. instead of gay couple, we'll have a NORMAL FAMILY- is it a bad thing these days??)
in a similar way, stigma against Gay people should stop homosexuality almost completely. that is, if goody-good people wouldn't keep protecting them like they're the society's pride and joy.

 

[Ellie]

No a "normal" family isn't a bad thing. The point is, a male-male family isn't a bad thing either.

And stigmas aren't good things. Just because they exist doesn't make them right. (For the record, I know many couples of different races.)

Society "protects" gay people because it isn't right that they are prejudiced against. In a similar way, if the majority of people were atheist and decided to gang up on the Christian community, society would protect the Christians because they are being prejudiced against.

 

[mawk]

So you'd rather force people into an unhappy union for the rest of their lives? There are gay people and there are bisexual people; gay people are simply not interested in the opposite sex. Forcing a gay man to do the horizontal mambo with a woman would make him feel much the same way that you would if you were being forced to sleep with another man. Homosexuality goes farther than just physical attraction; gay couples aren't just "friends with benefits," they're partners who feel genuine love for each other. If homosexuals just cared about sex, they wouldn't be lobbying for the right to marriage.

The world won't collapse if we don't have gay couples, true, but it won't collapse if we do. It's one of those mind-your-own-business matters. What's a family? Two parents who love each other very much. If those parents are homosexual and thus can't have children of their own, they might choose to adopt -- in which case a former orphan gets a home as well.

My personal belief is that homosexuality is not a choice. Generally, if you ask a gay person about their experiences, they'll say they knew from an early age (generally puberty, I'd think,) that their preferences differed. The stigma against homosexuals will not "stop homosexuality;" it's not as if they woke one spring morn and decided to be gay. If it were a simple matter of choice, homosexuals wouldn't have to go through what they do just to defend their human rights.

Is it good that some people dislike interracial couples? Likewise, is it good that homosexuals are prosecuted? It's not Darwinism, it's just the product of ignorance and hatred. If it is those forces shaping our world today, I fear for humanity.

 

[silver wind]

"And stigmas aren't good things."
  no, but they prevent people from doing bad things sometimes.

"sleep with another man"
funny people think I'm male. anyway, gay couples won't collapse the world. however, they dig under the foundations of society, namely family.
and if they adopt a child, are they helping or creating additional problems? you know kids learn how to pick a wife/husband from their parents. what example will this kid get? and this is by no means a normal family to grow in, say what you will. I repeat, it is not healthy, it is not normal.
about 'waking up and deciding to be gay'- beaten women don't do it either, but their choices have sub-concious reason, and they can be taught to fight it.
last thing- about 'forcing the poor gay to have a normal family'. I refuse to believe a family can cause someone to "suffer". for the very least, their parents won't be disappointed of them, they won't fear society's reaction, and they'll have kids. I'm not too sure it's better than having gay partner. for the society, it is better. we may as well allow pedophiles to have our kids, and people walk naked in the street- why stop them? it's their 'personal' issue, right? society has the right to make rules, dammit.
we don't have to 'understand' everyone's weird desires.

Edit: if a gay person reads this, I wanna say I do not hate gay people, nor look down on them. like the saying: there are no bad people, there are bad actions.
and I deeply believe we control our actions.

 

[mawk]

Why do you assume that gay people will destroy society? Do we really depend that much on the assumption that only men and women can love each other? Every time I hear that "gays are destroying x," my first reaction is to shout "bullshit," and my second is to throw whatever I'm carrying at the speaker. Be glad it's not "bring your hatchet to work day." Is our society so weak that we'll have mass hysteria and pandemonium if we stop antagonizing people based on sexual preference? Sure, society has the right to make rules, but that doesn't automatically mean those rules are just. In many middle-eastern societies, women have very few rights, and can be seriously prosecuted for even small misdemeanours. I'd call that a "rule of society," no?

I repeat, it is not healthy, it is not normal.

This is an opinion that can be neither validated nor falsified, and it carries with it some measure of homophobia. What's so wrong about a child being raised by gay parents? One's views on society aren't gained exclusively from one's parents, anyway. Whatever the kid turns out to be, he or she wouldn't be "forced" into it like you're implying.

You know, a couple centuries ago white people decided that native americans needed to be assimilated into society -- they needed to stop being native americans. It's almost universally accepted that this was short-sighted, ignorant, and hateful. How is the issue with homosexuality any different?

What's so important about making people heterosexual, anyway? Please, state a reason why gay people need to become straight -- extra points if that reason isn't obviously steeped in opinion.

 

[Crystalgate]

I believe in the homosexuality "curing" pill when they perform a duplicatable double blind test. I'm even less inclined to believe in prayers doing the same, but I guess a double blind test would a start here as well. Seriously, if there really was a way to change homosexuals into hetrosexuals, I have a hard time believing that the church or some other religious organisation would possess that knowledge while the scientists know nothing about it.

I think the first problem is identifying what causes homosexuality (and hetrosexuality for that sake.) As far as I know, there haven't really been any successful "cure" of homosexuality. There are people who claim to have "cured" homosexuality, but then there are people who claim they can bend a spon with their mind. If sexuality was a choise, then we'd expect people to be able to change, nevermind one can wonder why there are homosexuals that don't want to be homosexuals. On the other hand, I haven't heard about any studies showing that children of homosexual parents have an increased chance of becoming homosexuals themselves. If homosexuality is caused by genes, then we'd expect a larger chance for a child with homosexual parents to also become homosexual.

If someone knows more about this, I'd really like to hear it. In any case, we're more likely to make a qualified guess of what, if anything, could change a person's sexual orientation if we know more about what determined one's sexual orientation in the first place.

 

[silver wind]

I don't mean to offend, but nothing of what you say convinced me or contradicted what I said.
must I explain why homosexuality isn't normal? ask disappointed parents of gay people. they'll have plenty reasons. and again, kids- your own kids. family. normality.
Crystalgate- I believe someone will find a reason, eventually.
"I haven't heard about any studies showing that children of homosexual parents have an increased chance of becoming homosexuals themselves."
with gay couples adopting, and closet gays, it may be harder to test.

about pills.. aren't they supposed to heal mental problems? I find even that hard to believe, yet sometimes pills alone cure people's depression, etc.
maybe it affects attraction too? sometimes chemical materials affect people more than we think.

 

[mawk]

I can't contradict an opinion, because there is no foundation of fact anywhere.

In addition...

What's so important about making people heterosexual, anyway? Please, state a reason why gay people need to become straight -- extra points if that reason isn't obviously steeped in opinion.

And don't use the word "normal" either. Normal is subjective and ultimately means nothing.

 

[___]

I learn toward believing that homosexuality is a learned behavior, based on the supposition that if homosexuality were hardwired it would naturally have bred itself almost completely out of any given species due to natural selection.  Furthermore studies of homosexuals who chose to raise their own genetic offspring, the evidence tends to suggest that the children do not become gay - which is variously used as an argument in support of gay marriage and gay childrearing and against the idea of a "gay gene."  Of course it could be a rare recessive trait, hard to say since we've only been able to study it for one generation.

On the subject of gay animals, the only animals I've ever known to be gay were dogs, and in every circumstance one gay dog was introduced to a heterosexual dog who had normal sexual interests and over time (basically doggy rape) converted the other dog.  I'm not saying this is the only way it has ever happened, but it leads me to tend toward a learned behavior explanation.

That said, I don't personally believe that homosexuality is any different than any other sexual deviance, and I'd say the majority of people with a healthy sexual attitude have at least a few kinks, who are we to judge if some people's kink is that they like same-sex partners?  I don't give a damn, personally, and I wish people didn't make such a big thing out of it.  What happens in the bedroom should stay out of the courtroom

On the subject of pills, pills don't "cure" anything, in fact it's actually illegal to prescribe a pill as a "cure" according to the FDA.  Sounds strange, I know, but the object and intent of any drug is to treat symptoms and ease the suffering of disease as well as accelerate the healing process.  If there's no natural healing process available for homosexuality, a drug isn't going to change that.

 

[___]

(erg double post, for some reason it reposted under my original post when I edited that post after the post below me was submitted, fucking yucky)

 

[mawk]

I can't contradict an opinion, because there is no foundation of fact in yours, Silver. I never asked you why homosexuality isn't normal -- I want to know what's so wrong about being abnormal.

I repeat...

What's so important about making people heterosexual, anyway? Please, state a reason why gay people need to become straight -- extra points if that reason isn't obviously steeped in opinion.

And don't use the word "normal" either. Normality is subjective and ultimately means nothing.