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

In thread after thread, article after article, I hear about "equal rights" for homosexuals. But what I don't hear is people wanting them to achieve true EQUALITY. I propose that we, as a people, strive to make gays equal to the rest of the population IN FACT, not just in fiat.

What most "pro-gay" advocates ask for is not equality, but rather, accomodation. I believe that this is a poor substitute. Take, for example, a crippled man confined to a wheelchair. If you were to ask him, "Would you like to be cured, so that you can walk, or would you rather just have wheelchair ramps for you to use everywhere?" He would say, "Are you stupid? I want to walk!"

So why do we not do for homosexuality the same as we would for any other malady, and seriously research for a cure? Now, I am not talking about the kind of stuff that you would see at one of those Christian "gay camps", with avoidance therapy and whatnot. I don't believe those are effective. I am talking about a real, medical fix. The best theory going now, IMO, is that homosexuality is genetic, and caused when certain markers from an opposite-gender parent are not erased (as they normally are). Medical science is making huge strides, and so a way to erase these markers which were erroneously left behind is surely possible if research is done.

So instead of concentrating on giving apples the same rights as oranges, let's go to the root of the matter. Legal accomodation will not fix the problem; it cannot address issues such as increased suicide rate and STDs. Like any other disorder, we should treat the disease and not the symptoms.

Unfortunately, most of the people who will respond to this will be homosexuals who are outraged to think that there is something wrong with them. Unlike the hypothetical man in a wheelchair, this disorder affects the mind, causing some people to believe that it is "right" and "good", while the man in the wheelchair is under no such illusions. So such people would never seek treatment. Therefore, the best course of action is to screen newborn babies, and cure them before this becomes an issue, allowing them to live lives unencumbered by the ills of homosexuality. And society lived happily ever after.

 

Your premise is based on the faulty assumption that all homosexuals are born that way when that is not true.

 

Are you saying that it is a choice? I never chose to be hetero...just born that way.

 

Not saying that at all, your right, people in Jail are born Homosexual, it has nothing to do with not being able to get sex any other way.

 

with one post to your thread you got to quote me, are you serious, I think we can see who your speaking to

 

I don't think that people in prison ARE homosexual (that they actually prefer sex with the same gender). But that aside, when has a cure needed to be effective against 100% of affected individuals to be worthwhile? If a treatment cured 95% of cancer patients, would you say "what a crappy cure, must be based on a faulty premise"?

 

Sorry, force of habit.

 

The effort is best spent on dealing with paedophiles, we don't yet know how and why they develop their sexual tendencies.

As for equal rights for gays, which is ostensibly what this thread is about, there can be no valid or coherent objection against the concept.

 

Perhaps research into one could shed light on the other. But, since we do have a better idea where the sexual tendencies of homosexuals come from, that puts us closer to achieving modification, so we would expect to see results faster in that case.

No, this thread isn't about "equal rights for gays". It's about EQUALITY.

 

Equality?

You're idea of equality is engineering people to fit in with what you believe to be the "right" way to live?

Good sir....there have been many men with that same idea. We tend to memorialize them in history books as examples of WHAT NOT TO DO.

 

If you build a wheelchair ramp for a man in a wheelchair, have you made him equal? You have accomodated, sure, but left the underlying problem intact. As I said, the man in the wheelchair would be able to recognize that fact, his condition being only physical. But a condition which affects the mind is more insidious. You prove my point.

 

If you think it's possible and worthwhile to research a cure then go ahead and create an organization of like-minded people that can finance such a project. People only want government aid in cases like these because they know people disagree and don't want to spend their money on them, so you go to the government to take their money by force. That's wrong.

If this 'cure' eventuates then individual homosexuals should be able to choose whether they want it or not. For the vast majority of them I'm guessing the answer would be no. Their sexuality forms a crucial part of their identity.

If you're talking about a genetic pre-birth cure then I'll accept it provided parents can also change their kids' genes for the worse: otherwise the government is saying which genes are superior and that's a dangerous path to go down.

 

Actually, we usually tend to call these people psychiatrists and psychologists.

 

curing behaviour, after this one is nipped in the butt who's behaviour do you cure next

 

The man in the wheelchair either once walked or was born with a deformation.

If his condition could be improved by science and his ability to walk restored that would be wonderful.

Since homosexuality is neither an injury nor deformation, you analogy is patently wrong.

Sorry, you don't get to skew the world then tell me I'm the one with the problem.

 

Actually we tend to call those people dictators. Moa, Hitler, Stalin, to name a few.

 

I would not propose that the government mandate any such technology be used on anyone. That goes for ANY genetic disorder, or any other disease. I fully expected, as stated in the OP, that grown homosexuals who have built an identity around their sexuality would not choose to partake in a cure. But I expect that most parents would, given a choice.

 

Well, pedophilia has been suggested...

 

Many years ago I read a short story, I think it was in a pulp-type SF magazine, where in an un-named future heterosexuality was a crime and homosexuality was the norm. The story focused on a man and woman who had fallen in love and who were going through terrible guilt about their feelings for one another. During the story they were investigated by a detective who became sexually suggestive towards the male protagonist (nothing too descriptive of course, this was a while ago). I was struck by that story even though I was fairly young, I thought to myself how wrong it was to treat people who had a sexual attraction which fell outside the prescribed norms of a society, when that relationship did not harm anyone. That was the point of the story of course but it was a lot more subtle than I have described it here. I can't remember the title or I'd recommend it.

In that society would you support "treatment" for that couple?

 

When a person's genes are supposed to do something, and in almost all cases do, but in a few cases do not, it is called a disorder. No, not an "injury", or a "deformation", it is a genetic disorder, like cystic fibrosis or down syndrome. It is you who are skewing this reality because it is unpalatable to you. Very predictable.

 

There would be nothing to treat. The societal norm is not the issue. The proper functioning of genes is. But, as an aside, how were people in this society supposed to reproduce? Artificial insemination, I presume. Which speaks to how artificial the entire situation would be.

 

So is it a disorder when genetics plays a role in the types of food people like? Or how much their normal body weight is? Or how long they'll live? Or how many children they are likely to have? Or how tall they'll be? Or how high they're cholesterol will be?

Face it, what you're suggesting is eugenics and its disgusting.

Please, continue to try to dress it up. It's fun watching you go into contortions.

 

It is you who are doing the contortions with your reductio ad absurdum. Of course there are genetic variations which will determine things such as height, weight, etc. But those occur within the natural, proper functioning of different genes. Some things, however, are a result of a malfunction. Like Down syndrome, for instance. Is it eugenics to research a cure for that? Or sickle-cell disease? Or haemophilia? They are all in the same category: genetic DISORDERS. So, should we just say screw those people, any attempt at helping them is "eugenics"? THAT is disgusting.

 

Yeah, and I'm saying that letting parents change their kids genetics to heterosexuality but not disability is evil. If it's permissible in principle to change your kids' genetics for the better then you have to allow individual measures of what "better" means. Maybe some parents think it's an advantage to have the keen sense of your surroundings that comes with blindness. If it's alright to change the homosexual gene, then it's alright to change the blindness gene.

I'm not sure I'm alright with that. Then again you don't "and quite rightly shouldn't" owe anything to your offspring until they develop sentience so that's a check in its favor. I'll have to give it some more thought, but it seems to be a decent route to go down.

 

Now, what does THAT actually have to do with homosexual people having equal rights? All you're saying (in your own way) is that homosexual people are 'different'. We know that, already.