Researcher still looking for the "gay cure"

[Riverrick]

Yea, I wonder what the unintended consequence of removing homosexuality from the society would be.

I mean besides people with bad hairdoo's walking around.

 

[TorontoBoi]

What is interesting though is that these experiments prove that being gay is a part of who you are.

Not something you choose to be

very true. And I think it's only a matter of time when science will be able to prove that being gay is innate. That would such a slap in the face to all those anti gay a-holes.

As far as "cure" or whatever, I can see that is quite demeaning. However, i usually support almost any scientific "advancement", as wierd as it is.

 

[Swellegant]

I don't understand gay agression towards people who want to find "gay cure". So much hatred, and because of what? [...] It would be nice if gays, being object of intolerance, would be more open-minded.

I don't think you quite understand what "tolerance" means. Tolerating or even accepting the behaviors and ideas of other people is fine, great, no problem; however, tolerating or accepting people who are attacking you is another thing altogether. That's just self-destructive and therefore unnatural.

I can tolerate people who don't like homosexuals and homosexuality; what I will not tolerate, and can't imagine you tolerating, is people actively trying to destroy our existence. The only possible purpose of "curing" homosexuality is to destroy homosexuality... maybe not to destroy me, in particular, but to destroy that which I am, as if what I am is some horrible thing.

Can't these people turn their attention to something a little more useful? I mean, I can sort of see the commercial use for getting rid of homosexual sheep, but aren't there better things people can eradicate from humanity besides homosexuality? Like maybe AIDS or cancer or the common cold? I mean really.

But I don't think there is such a thing as a single biological factor to human sexuality, so I don't take this reasearch very seriously... it's just so much folderol, and so I treated it lightly in my first post. But the ideal and impetus behind this research is, in short, intolerable.

Many people suffer because they are gay anyway. Mostly because of intolerance of heteros and closeted gays, but also simply because gays are and will be a minority, moreover, an unrecognisable one, so finding love will always be harder this way. So wanting to change your orientation is nothing bad. It is more understandable than strange desire of so many women (and men) in this world to have blond hair.

Mostly because of the intolerance of others? No, my friend, it is entirely the fault of those who would oppress us that we are oppressed. It's not a natural state, it is not endemic.

Sexuality is a hell of a lot more integral to a person's happiness and identity than his or her hair-color. Changing the way you look is on such a different level than changing your sexuality, or your race, or your physical makeup.

And finally, finding love isn't any harder for a minority than for anybody else. Yeah, it's a numbers game... if you believe there are only a specific number of possible matches for you, it will be harder, geographically, to find those mates if you're in a small town than in a big city, but that's true of straights as well.

Say for example that you're a straight guy, and you're in a bar full of women. Statistically, some of those women are not going to be into guys, but the percentage of women in that bar who are into guys but not into you is going to be the majority, and the percentage who are a possible love-match are really really small.

And if you are indeed the only gay in your village, the only gay in the bar, then it will be nigh-on impossible. But unless somebody has sunk your feet in cement and is holding you prisoner in your little town, ain't nobody stopping you from getting out there and looking into gay villages and gay bars for your mate.

Yeah, I can certainly see reasons why people would want to not be gay, but there's simply no healthy reason to change your sexuality.

 

[Nonimus]

So is this guy gay himself or something, Like Dr David Banner trying to find a cure for his 'monster'?

Stay away from Gamar Radiation kids!

 

[TorontoBoi]

This debate is very interesting. i was always under the impression that most gays would prefer to have been born straight. They would have avoided the difficulties of growing up that way (and I wont get into the real stress it causes almost everyone). Yes, things may turn out better in the future after accepting oneself, but being unhappy for so long is really something people should not experience. So if there was a magic button that said 'no more gays will be born in the future', would that be so bad?
(dont get mad at me, I'm just trying to understand this topic!)

 

[Swellegant]

^ It's an issue of cause and effect. Did I suffer because I was gay? NO! I suffered because there are so many people who prefer to hate what they don't understand than to try and understand it. I suffered because I was surrounded by bigots.

If we're talking about magic buttons, I'd wish for a No More Assholes Button.

Yeah, I had a hell of a time growing up gay, I suffered a lot. But it made me a lot stronger as a person, so it wasn't all bad, now was it? People who don't suffer in life are more to be pitied than those who do, because they can't have any idea how good they have it.

 

[DarkNeko]

A patch that could determine a child's sexuality????? The fact that this research is going on makes me sick.

 

[dkonfrost]

robert-marlene, thank you for articulating that in detail.

i'm all for proving the sexuality is genetic, but in the hands of misguided folks, that research can be used to harm our community.

 

[DarkNeko]

Why not spend money on AIDs or Cancer research instead? This article has really upset me.

 

[irydion]

I don't think you quite understand what "tolerance" means. Tolerating or even accepting the behaviors and ideas of other people is fine, great, no problem; however, tolerating or accepting people who are attacking you is another thing altogether. That's just self-destructive and therefore unnatural.

eh...
Having bad, or false, opinion of someone, or just one that that person does not agree with, is not attacking him!

My point is that gays tend to be as biased as the ones who are bashing them - or more.

I can tolerate people who don't like homosexuals and homosexuality; what I will not tolerate, and can't imagine you tolerating, is people actively trying to destroy our existence. The only possible purpose of "curing" homosexuality is to destroy homosexuality... maybe not to destroy me, in particular, but to destroy that which I am, as if what I am is some horrible thing.

First of all, allowing people to change their orientation, or parents to chose if their children shall be gay does not mean complete extinction of gay kind.
Also, being gay is not any plus per se, and has many minuses. Biologically, it is loss of good genetic material. There is nothing I would call gay culture.

I understand that You don't like the idea of removing from someone part You have yourself, because it'd mean to you this part is bad. Otherwise - why would someone remove it. But being gay is a disability, and removing it would mean much less problems for millions of people in the world with no negative results I can think of.

Gays, in their (understandable) fight for self-acceptance have created a myth that homosexuality is as good as heterosexuality, it is on the same level. It is not. Heterosexuality is default, and allows existance and progress of mankind.
Being gay is not wrong in moral sense, for it doesn't hurt anyone, but it doesn't do any good for humanity or for gay people themselves.

Can't these people turn their attention to something a little more useful? I mean, I can sort of see the commercial use for getting rid of homosexual sheep, but aren't there better things people can eradicate from humanity besides homosexuality? Like maybe AIDS or cancer or the common cold? I mean really.

many people are unhappy with their sexuality, so I believe these researches may prove useful. there are many many less important matters.

Mostly because of the intolerance of others? No, my friend, it is entirely the fault of those who would oppress us that we are oppressed. It's not a natural state, it is not endemic.

I disagree. Being 10x or so more likely to end up with broken heart is a reason gays are more likely to be unhappy

Sexuality is a hell of a lot more integral to a person's happiness and identity than his or her hair-color. Changing the way you look is on such a different level than changing your sexuality, or your race, or your physical makeup.

Oh, I agree, but why would change in sexual identity be bad?

Say for example that you're a straight guy, and you're in a bar full of women. Statistically, some of those women are not going to be into guys, but the percentage of women in that bar who are into guys but not into you is going to be the majority, and the percentage who are a possible love-match are really really small.

And if you are indeed the only gay in your village, the only gay in the bar, then it will be nigh-on impossible. But unless somebody has sunk your feet in cement and is holding you prisoner in your little town, ain't nobody stopping you from getting out there and looking into gay villages and gay bars for your mate.

There are places without gay bars and villages, and not all kinds of men attend these.

Numbers are numbers.
Lets say You are in a room with 100 people.
You're a woman:
- 50 of them are women - out of the game
- 5 of men are gay - out
- half You don't like - out
- half doesn't like You - out
11,25 possible matches left

You're a gay:
- 50 are women - out
- 45 are straight - out
- of 5 gays, 2 don't want to be gay or whatever, and pretend to be straight etc
Lets assume You miraculously know who are gay
- half doesn't like You
- half You do not like
0,75 possible matches for You~!


OK. You may go to gay bar, if there is any nearby, but most of men there shall be 1-night ones, and anyway, the sheer need to go to gay places to meet people is annoying.
I don't want to have artificial relationship built through gaydar or in some gay bar, where everyone knows exactly what do they want.
I want a friendship to grow naturally and perhaps turn into love. To discover person step by step etc. it is possible being gay - but much, much, much rarer.
I know a couple of girls who seem to be or have been in love with me, or attracted to me - willing to be my gf, that is. Perhaps there are boys like this as well. But hell, even if they do exist, they are sure to be rarer, and I won't know it anyway.
And even if I created a happy gay "marriage", I won't have children with my bf. I won't be pregnant or see him pregnant.

 

[crazy3]

Why not spend money on AIDs or Cancer research instead? This article has really upset me.

Quite Right!
and while they at at it could we PLEASE find a cure for the rhinovirus (the common cold)?

 

[justsimon]

OK. You may go to gay bar, if there is any nearby, but most of men there shall be 1-night ones, and anyway, the sheer need to go to gay places to meet people is annoying.
I don't want to have artificial relationship built through gaydar or in some gay bar, where everyone knows exactly what do they want.
I want a friendship to grow naturally and perhaps turn into love. To discover person step by step etc. it is possible being gay - but much, much, much rarer.
I know a couple of girls who seem to be or have been in love with me, or attracted to me - willing to be my gf, that is. Perhaps there are boys like this as well. But hell, even if they do exist, they are sure to be rarer, and I won't know it anyway.
And even if I created a happy gay "marriage", I won't have children with my bf. I won't be pregnant or see him pregnant.

So you want to cure gayness so that our future generations will have a better chance of finding a partner?

First of all, allowing people to change their orientation, or parents to chose if their children shall be gay does not mean complete extinction of gay kind.
Also, being gay is not any plus per se, and has many minuses. Biologically, it is loss of good genetic material. There is nothing I would call gay culture.

I understand that You don't like the idea of removing from someone part You have yourself, because it'd mean to you this part is bad. Otherwise - why would someone remove it. But being gay is a disability, and removing it would mean much less problems for millions of people in the world with no negative results I can think of.

First of all, this is not about allowing people to change their orientation, which is an entirely different issue. This is about allowing the medical community (which has only recently discovered the dangers of imposing their opinions of gender on newborns) to change someone else's orientation, purely because it makes them uncomfortable.

Anyone who hasn's seen it, should watch "Twilight of the Golds."

 

[Riverrick]

I know a couple of girls who seem to be or have been in love with me, or attracted to me - willing to be my gf, that is. Perhaps there are boys like this as well. But hell, even if they do exist, they are sure to be rarer, and I won't know it anyway.
And even if I created a happy gay "marriage", I won't have children with my bf. I won't be pregnant or see him pregnant.

I understand your feelings here, irydion. I felt this way at one time also, primarily before I came out.

But even if everything you say should be true, I don't see that you have a choice in who you fall in love with. Sure, there are undoubtably benefits to having a gf and getting married and having kids, etc. but that really isn't an option for you is it? I mean other than pretending that you are in love with her and missing out on really being in love with someone in your life.

I am assuming you are gay since your profile doesn't say any differently. And I do think I understand that some gay men would have wished that there had been a treatment to prevent them from being gay. This is totally understandable given the struggles we face. If I am not mistaken, this is where you are coming from.

Try to understand, however, that for those of us who are out and do not have trouble finding dates and bf's and have good friends we hang out with who are gay and have families that accept us as we are, that we no longer see being gay as a curse but as an inherent and perfectly wonderful part of who we are.

 

[Swellegant]

eh...Having bad, or false, opinion of someone, or just one that that person does not agree with, is not attacking him! My point is that gays tend to be as biased as the ones who are bashing them - or more.

Trying to "cure" homosexuality is not an opinion, it is an action. Opinions I have no problem with; actions I have a problem with.

First of all, allowing people to change their orientation, or parents to chose if their children shall be gay does not mean complete extinction of gay kind.

I never said it did. I said that it was an attempt to eradicate homosexuality. It's pointless and useless and will never work. Nevertheless, it encourages the idea that homosexuality is wrong, and it takes resources away from useful research.

Also, being gay is not any plus per se, and has many minuses. Biologically, it is loss of good genetic material.

How do you know it's "good" material? How do you know it's not a natural safety-valve?

And since when do human beings reproduce solely or even largely by genetic factors? We have always, or at least for the last five thousand years, chosen our mates mostly on sociological principals, and sociology has absolutely nothing to do with biological eugenics.

I mean, I know my father didn't marry my mother because she was of good genetic stock... she and he both are of what I would consider substandard material, with propensities for addiction and insanity and bad teeth all built in. He married her because she got knocked up (with me) and society dictated that he should marry her and continue to reproduce with her.

There is nothing I would call gay culture.

What would you call "culture"? And what has culture to do with biology? Again, society and biology are not the same thing. You must separate both things in your mind if you're going to argue either of them.

I understand that You don't like the idea of removing from someone part You have yourself, because it'd mean to you this part is bad. Otherwise - why would someone remove it.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with me, and I refuse to believe there is. Okay, so I'm a little overweight, I'm bipolar, I have an addictive personality, I'm suffernig the beginnings of rheumatoid arthritis (again thanks to my parents' "good" genetic material) and my gastrointestinal operations leave a lot to be desired. But there's nothing wrong with me: I'm simply human, same as you.

But being gay is a disability, and removing it would mean much less problems for millions of people in the world with no negative results I can think of.

You could say the same thing of a lot of human conditions. Let's get rid of fat people, while we're at it. Fat people are frequently terribly unhappy! And so much of it is genetic. But you know, biologically, fat people are more likely to survive a famine, that's why the gene has survived so long. And then, it's only our current society that deems fat people undesirable: in past times (and hopefully in future times) a bit of girth and mirth was considered attractive.

Moving from biology to society, if we got rid of atheism and different religions, there would be no more religious wars! So lets destroy every religion except, say, Lutheranism, and forbid atheism. Then everyone would be a Luthern and there would be no more religious difficulty. If we got rid of capitalism, there would be no more poverty! Everybody would be equal, and then there would be no more difficulty in the world. Right? Or is diversity actually necessary to us? Seems like it might be, since we're so damned diverse.

Sure the world would continue to turn around, and sure the human race would continue to survive, without homosexuality. Just as it has continued without dodos and carrier-pigeons. It could continue to survive without Jews. And while homosexulity isn't the same as species or ethnicity, it's pretty damned similar when you get right down to it.

Gays, in their (understandable) fight for self-acceptance have created a myth that homosexuality is as good as heterosexuality, it is on the same level. It is not. Heterosexuality is default, and allows existance and progress of mankind.

Again, breeding is not "progress." Our planet is wildly overpopulated, and if we cut reproduction down to ten percent, our species would survive better and longer.

And why does there have to be a default/anomaly paradigm? Why is it even a disability? Homosexuality doesn't stop people from breeding (ask all the gay fathers on this forum alone), it just disinclines them. Again returning to the ethnic simile, which race is the default and which are the anomalies? Or can't we just look at them as natural variations?

Being gay is not wrong in moral sense, for it doesn't hurt anyone, but it doesn't do any good for humanity or for gay people themselves.

If we were going to follow that little bit of reasoning to its end, nothing much outside of the three primary needs and six secondary needs of human beings would be needed. So are we going to eradicate almost all technology that doesn't do some specific eugenic (according to someone's idea of what's good for us) program?

Why should any of us be different from anybody else? I mean, yeah, we need a certain number of chromosomal variation in order to keep the breeding-stock strong, but there's no particular need for short people, or brunets, or green eyes. There's certainly no need for nationalities or religions or different languages... these things hold back our reproduction instead of encouraging it, don't they?

The only reason that people look to homosexuality as a bad thing is because it's rarer than heterosexuality, so it affects fewer people and therefore is easier to point fingers at. We are living in a culture that has been infested with the idea that there is a right way and a wrong way of everything, which is based in two sexophobic religions. Your entire argument falls down flat if you take away the notion that there's anything wrong with nonreproductive sexual expression.

Being 10x or so more likely to end up with broken heart is a reason gays are more likely to be unhappy.

I'm sorry, darling, but could you give me a list of straight people whose hearts have never been broken? Heartbreak is part of life, and gays are no more liable to it than anyone else. Yeah, I bet there's more likelihood of a gay person to end up unmated at the end of his life than a straight person, but I firmly believe that that is society's fault more than the sexuality.

Oh, I agree, but why would change in sexual identity be bad?

I don't know. Why would it be good? Why do we even have to talk about it? Why does it have to be diddled with at all? What purpose is served?

There are places without gay bars and villages, and not all kinds of men attend these.

Like I said: move. If you live in a little Appalachian town where everyone is already your cousin, you can go to the Big City for a little while and find your mate. Straight people do it all the time, otherwise they'd get all inbred.

Numbers are numbers.
Lets say You are in a room with 100 people.
You're a woman:
- 50 of them are women - out of the game
- 5 of men are gay - out
- half You don't like - out
- half doesn't like You - out
11,25 possible matches left

You're a gay:
- 50 are women - out
- 45 are straight - out
- of 5 gays, 2 don't want to be gay or whatever, and pretend to be straight etc
Lets assume You miraculously know who are gay
- half doesn't like You
- half You do not like
0,75 possible matches for You~!

Okay, so don't go there. Go to the bar where everyone is gay, and your chances escalate up to the straights'. Or go to the coffee house where everyone is gay. Or go to the message board! There are thousands of places to meet other gay people, and living in an Appalachian town isn't even an excuse anymore. Open your heart and open your eyes.

OK. You may go to gay bar, if there is any nearby, but most of men there shall be 1-night ones, and anyway, the sheer need to go to gay places to meet people is annoying.

You find it annoying, and so gay bars are useless? You don't want a 1-night stand, so no place that contains a bunch of guys who do want that is of no use to you? Get over your irritation, my dear, and the problem is solved.

And of course straight guys don't go out hunting for a one-nighter, ever, do they? Straight men are all about settling down and mating right away, are they? Who the hell have you been talking to? Without society and the ties imposed by women, and without the social paradigm of lifetime mating, most men would drop their loads and move on. That's biologically more sound, too, impregnating all sorts of different women to get the most genetically diverse offspring. Most large mammals and almost all primates do exactly that.

I don't want to have artificial relationship built through gaydar or in some gay bar, where everyone knows exactly what do they want. I want a friendship to grow naturally and perhaps turn into love. To discover person step by step etc. it is possible being gay - but much, much, much rarer.

You want what you want; that's not necessarily what I want or what everyone else wants. Why do we all have to want what you want?

I know a couple of girls who seem to be or have been in love with me, or attracted to me - willing to be my gf, that is. Perhaps there are boys like this as well. But hell, even if they do exist, they are sure to be rarer, and I won't know it anyway.

Again, the same thing happens to straight people: one person is willing and the other is not. If you think you can overcome your squeamishness, you might even date these girls. I did in high-school, and it wasn't so bad.

And even if I created a happy gay "marriage", I won't have children with my bf. I won't be pregnant or see him pregnant.

Oh, yes, and being pregnant is the most important thing a human being can do. BULLSHIT! Being pregnant sucks balls, ask any pregnant woman. Yes, it's the miracle of birth and all that crap, but science has already shown that a lot of that "miracle" is caused by hormones.

Human beings are so much more than other animals. We don't have to kill to eat, we don't have to be eaten by others; we live in houses and wear clothes and create societies, which no other animal does. We think, we pray to gods, we do all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with, and are in fact counterproductive, to the animal urge to survive and reproduce. I simply do not buy the biological argument, because it's such a minor part of what we are as a species.

Anything else?

 

[DarkNeko]

This would allow parents to choose their children's sexuality. That is dangerous and sickening. We shouldn't play God like that. you should wear patches to quit smoking. Not choose sexuality.

 

[MRMATTX2]

I've read many of the responses here and my head is nearly spinning. Nearly all of you are much more articulate than myself, but I wanted to jot down a few feelings.

The fact that people would be able to avoid having a gay child is troubling. It just seems wrong to mess with nature. Now, when it comes to finding a gene that would cause a child to be born with a horribly crippling disease, that is different. I heard a discussion on NPR recently about such a family. They had one child die from a horrible spinal cord or brain disease, which I don't know the name of. They were able to find out afterward that one of them carries a gene that has a high chance of children being born with that risk. They wanted to have another child, so they did so through a lab where they could actually see the DNA, with the egg and the sperm (forgive me, I don't know the term for these procedures). They actually had frozen embryos (sp) they stored, a large number so they could test each one and look at the DNA for the signs of that horrible disease, and try implanting the ones that are free of it. They said that doing so would mean they would have less than a 1% chance of having another child with that affliction.
I think that is a spectacular thing.
But, that sort of research is going to lead to people wanting to see other things within an embyo, whatever is possible to see. Obviously, if they want a boy or girl specifically, or hair color, and of course sexual orientation. That's why it seems these new scientific advancements are both wonderful....and frightening at the same time.

I believe our entire civilization is going to do itself in, eventually. We've already begun to destroy the planet. Species die out every day. Between global warming, radical lunatics with nuclear abilities and who knows what else on the horizon - research that would eradicate homosexuals - add that to the mix = DOOM. The planet is overpopulated as it is, NO gay people??? People are already starving - even in the richest nations, for God sake.

 

[Kurn]

So is this guy gay himself or something, Like Dr David Banner trying to find a cure for his 'monster'?

Some of his co-researchers are 100% WeHo Gay.
But they're scientists.

 

[Kurn]

I am deeply convinced, speaking for myself, that the whole range of natural sexual expression is primary and essential for human society.
This is to say, among other things:
Homo sapiens will go extinct without gay guys.

 

[SunsetsC]

off topic... but...

X... Men... Rocks...

 

[iatrospy]

I am sorry men for all this conversation....I am really sad of people who want to ''uniform'' everything....this is really immoral....and a waste of time....of course it is everyone's right to experiment and to make research but this should be done within all the acheived contexts that the whole humanity has reached up to date...like freedom, equality, diversity, co-respecting each other, .....etc.....It is a really offence towards all these people who had fought for this rights....

Anyway our society needs also some stupid ones.....in order for the other ones to be highlighted and respected....i do prefer the latter ones....

Maybe this thread should have been categorised into a ''jokes'' list....

Spyros-Greece

PS...why can't all these ''researches'' focus on serious diseases...and find the fucking pills - cure .....why can't they go to poor countries and give their services to the people there who really need them rather that staying in-vitro into their labaratories, protected and clean from the rest of society....and finally why can't they just take a look at the nature and try to imitate it...everything is so diverse there and so beautiful at the same time....