Michael-5 said:
fordy said:
Michael-5 said:
fordy said:
The difference is (in your albinoism example earlier), that Albinos would probably choose based on medical conditions. If an albino chose to become "normal" because he was being outcast by society, then I see that as society's fault. Same with homosexuality. Unfortuntely, the majority of homosexuals who want to be hetero do it because of outside influence, or opression from society, since there really is little to no medical reason to change from becoming homosexual. It's generally a push from society into forcing people into a narrow view, and that only has a negative impact on diversity. I'd love to hear your thoughts on my suffrage example, since we are in similar times with homosexuality. If there were something to turn women into men at the times when suffrage was being debated, would it have affected the rights of women? The difference is, something would be enacted to keep women as women (because no women = no new generation), but I wouldn't see anything smiliar occuring if homosexuals gave up their fight for equal power and became heterosexual.
Unfortunately you cannot draw a line in this situation. Forcibly administering treatment goes against personal liberties, but if the individual is a danger to those around them, it is negligent to let said person make the first move and possibly murder somebody before treatment is administered. then there's other possibilities such as lifestyle changes that could help control conditions. I wouldn't go as far as making any treatment mandatory, but something would need to be devised on when treatment should be administered against individual consent (and not be abused, like giving a legitimate reason to administer treatment for homosexuality).
|
Well, you're right, comparing homosexuality to albinoism isn't fair because most Albino's probably want to be "cured" where only a fraction (won't even debate the size) of homosexuals want to be....normalized (be a part of the heterosexual normal, the average). However your sufferage example would be hard to explain to people, and most people would just ignore it and say " He's Anit-Gay."
Aside: Heck, people have been turning what I have to say around all though this debate because they don;t understand, or don;t both to read my comments. For example, I don't believe there is a Gay Gene, but in the other thread, almost every response (especially from this one guy Tom3K) started off with "There is no Gay Gene!" and then an arguement was presented. Who are they arguing with?
On Topic: With your suffrage example....I don't think people should be able to change their genders, but in this day and age, we're letting a lot of freaks do whatever they want and accepting it. Regardless, this is different from being a homosexual because in the sufforage example, those women who became gay are doing it for voting rights. Remaining homosexual, or conterting to be a heterosexual gains you no marriage rights (In Canada), no voting rights, no diability rights, no tax breaks, nothing.
As for your coments on forced treatment for homosexuality, well....what can you say? When is homosexuality ever dangerous? If a homosexual is being abused, I think the problem is the abuser, not the homosexual. I don't see any condition where we should force an individual to live a heterosexual life.
|
I think the gender changing is yet another condition. I actually have a niece who always identified herself as a boy, and is planning gender reassignment in the near future. Would I consider it freaky? No, I'd consider it another state of mind, just like homosexuality. It's not hard to imagine, however, considering at one stage of conception, we are all a "single gender" and changed into our gender stages by genetic and hormonal influences. Anything is possible there. Check out hormonal influences and the effects it has on Spotted Hyenas.
Back to topic, places where homosexuality is accepted I don't see any problem with. However, places where homosexuality is still shunned upon in society, the society should learn to accept before they are allowed any treatment to be administered in such places.
When is homosexuality ever dangerous? It never is. Will some individuals of society try to justify it is in order to turn people hetero? Absolutely! Whether it's by seperate means, all in the name of administering such a drug...
|
I dunno about your sister, wouldn't altering that state of mind be a simpler solution then a sex change operation? What about all the people your future Brother shares an intimate encounter with. Don't they deserve to know the person they are sleeping with/dating used to be a woman?
I'll hold judgement on your sister, and transexuals in general, but I don't know if sex change is the best course of action.
However transexuals who are some hybrid of male/female (like shemales), I think this is an abomination. What are your thoughts?
As for treatment, I agree, and it would be scary if we devisted a cure tomorrow and the Middle East forces people to take it. I'm not sure if this is a bad thing if we can identify and change who is a homosexual before puberty (Does it have any effect at all?), but the people who have already lived a life of homosexuality.
Whatever happens, the world will be an interesting place. Isn't Diversity good? I know I have no plans to go to the Middle East.
|
Currently Online 
