Papa Bull #homophobia

Papa Bull #homophobia debatepolitics.com

But if it is a biological condition instead of choice, IT MIGHT be something that could be cured even before children are born. Homosexuality isn't a benefit to either parents or the human race, so why not cure it if it's a curable inborn condition? The only people that would think there was anything wrong with that would be homosexuals but there wouldn't be any homosexuals if it could be cured, so there wouldn't BE any complaints about bigotry or angst over homosexuality being a thing of the past. You've got to think past your own experience here.

40 comments

old comment by Thinking Allowed

Hey Papa Bull, here's a little bit of trivia you either 1) don't know or 2) refuse to acknowledge.

*source* http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_mental_health.HTML

In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified.

old comment by Evgir Unslaad

Yup, it doesn't matter if it's inborn or a choice. But "not beneficial" isn't the same as "harmful." Let's look at homosexuality through the lens of the DSM-V's definition of mental illness.

1) A behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual (Homosexuality is indeed a behavioral and psychological pattern that occurs in an individual. Yes.)
2) that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction (This one's a loaded term, but homosexuality does have roots in biology. This one's a maybe.)
3) The consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) (The only distress here is caused by bigotry. No.)
4) Must not be merely an expectable response to common stressors and losses (for example, the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (for example, trance states in religious rituals) (This one fits just fine.)
5) That is not primarily a result of social deviance or conflicts with society. (It's not a result of social deviance, but the suffering definitely is. I'd say it doesn't fit this one, but it's a little blurry.)

So there you have it. Since a pattern must fit all five criteria to be considered a mental disorder, and homosexuality does not fit criterion 3 (and possibly 2 and 5), it is not a mental disorder as defined by the DSM-V. Therefore, it can't be "cured" because there's nothing to cure. Try again next time.

old comment by Passerby

Homosexuality is a naturally occuring safeguard against explosive or unsustainable population growth so yes it actually is of benefit to the human race. Even if it were not what's the big freaking deal? Attempting to remove that limiter serves no purpose whatsoever other than to cater to the irrational and generally forcibly increasing birth rates will not only strain resources but cause the overstressed population to collectively lose their shit in a variety of ways known as behavioral sink. Mankind is already showing late stages of this.

Your argument about "curing" homosexuality is tantamount to saying wiping a group out will definitively end discrimination against them. So tell me, do you think you are discriminated against?

old comment by MockAE

"Homosexuality isn't a benefit to either parents or the human race"

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. There are many things which are directly the result of gay culture which are nothing short of fabulous.

The overwhelming, and continuing, social change in favour of questioning received ideas about normality and the appropriateness of forcing oneself to fit in is one good example. Pollari might be another.

Whether there are more intrinsic benefits is a bit harder to determine, although so many beautiful things have been created by people with such inclinations compared to their number it's hard not to suspect some kind of causative relation.

old comment by Stonespiral

Actually, there is a benefit to having a small number of non-breeding members in a tribe back before the agricultural revolution in particular. When you're hunter/gatherers, as a parent you have to work twice as hard to feed half as many of the rest of the tribe and if a tribe happens to have a lot of children this can make it very difficult to feed them all. But if you have one or two homosexual pairs that can't have children, they are able to do the same amount of work for twice the reward for the tribe as a whole without adding extra mouths to the mix.

It still holds true. By not having a family or children of my own, I'm able to lend a little to my sister of both time and money to help with my niece. When she was born, I was the live in baby sitter for two years. All because I'm not a breeder myself, I've helped give my niece a better start and saved my sister and then B-in-law a lot of extra stress and even saved them a lot of money on child care while they went to work.

See? There is a benefit. No need to go monkeying around with the system if it already works out on its own.

old comment by TheReasonator

Some people seem worried about this attitude. But unless our society degenerates into a totalitarian state I don't think we have anything to worry about.

It would be just like some people purposefully avoid interracial relationships. Some parents would choose to make sure their kids were straight.

And some militant gay parents would do the opposite, particularly as a backlash against reports of straight parents making sure their kids are straight.

But most people would opt not to touch that one.

Some may decide "bisexuality" on the grounds of their kid never having to grow up and find that the best person for them is the wrong sex.

Some may decide "Asexuality" if they want their kid to focus more on careers and studies.

But I bet other facets of sexuality will be more popular as targets for manipulation. If we could make it so people would be more attracted to intelligence and less concerned with appearance for example that would be a big plus.

The government's role should be to guarantee product safety. So if clinical trials show that a modification is safe it should be allowed. If it's to cure a serious illness then gene therapy could be mandatory (when having a child) for some things.

To make neurodiversity advocates happy some mild ADHD or Aspergers Syndrome could be allowed to remain, parents' choice. Some 'illnesses' are more like tradeoffs some negative traits come along with some positive traits (don't want to 'cure' the next Einstein or Bill Gates). Drawing the line in these cases will be tricky, but considering the worst cases a line does need to be drawn. If it can be fixed there's no reason to have people who spend their whole lives unable to speak or take care of themselves.

In time gene therapy (and other therapies as it's more complex than that) would extend to adults so adults who don't like what their parents chose for them could reverse it.

It's a long, long ways off but if it were here and were possible I would choose to have wings.

old comment by Inkwell

Homosexuality is a benefit to the human race. In times where the birth rate/population is too high for food/shelter/water/other basic needs, Homosexuals can still contribute work and be productive without breeding and contributing to the problems that society may face. This may be the reason WHY homosexuals even exist, it may be an evolved tactic for a species or population to slow down it's growth for the sake of it's environment and the rest of the population.

We need to remove the stigma that's been placed upon Homosexuals. This stigma comes from times when infant mortality rates were abysmal, and every single able person needed to be involved in the continuation of the human species. As long as you were producing children back then, nobody cared if you had sex with another man back then. Men having sex with men was actually seen as a sort of virtue in some cultures, as long as they also had sex with women to continue the species. with the advances in medicine, we no longer need to breed as much, and as such, we can start to view homosexuals in a more positive light. The problem with this is that some people don't accept that society can move on and will always try to hold onto the old ways because that's how they were taught and change is difficult. I don't blame the bigots for their views, because that's how they were raised and that's the society they were raised in, and they're scared of change. They can't help it.

Papa Bull #homophobia debatepolitics.com

40 comments

Confused?