So I just read this, and thought it was interesting enough to post it here. Im probably putting it in the wrong place but oh well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2193841/

An interesting article, though I didn't see anything new in it. However, given the potential free ranging scope of debate, I've moved this to The Soapbox.

The Rev. Joseph Fessio, editor of the press that publishes the pope's work, agreed: "Same-sex activity is considered disordered. If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb … that respected the dignity of the child and mother, it would be a wonderful advancement of science."


I consider a church that encourages people who are in denial about their sexuality to be celibate and put on a collar severely disordered and borderline criminal.

Physician heal thyself.

Gays are a disease Ugh. Can people please quit breeding the stupid.

There's a discuss fourm part for this subject on it

I read one woman bitching about birth rates (and saying gay is disease, and would fix there kid if there's a cure) falling since the 70's cause of gays. and SO? is the human race going to disappear because of homosexuality no. the world is over populated as it is, not every family wants to have 5 freaking kids.

It's true, we're over-populated so why should the parents get rid of the fetuses that have "wrong" sex? we have 7 billion people in the world, so is the end of the world has come? No. The human race will live as long as we can till the world rots...

I find the fact that it did not work in sheep to be encouraging. I wouldn't trade my sexuality for anything. For the first time in my life, I can say that I'm actually embracing. F**k with the Christian bigots want. When all is said and done, they're the ones who are going to burn in hell if there is one.

As bad as it may seem, I think it might be good to cure it in babies... Because that person won't know the inner and outer turmoils that come with being gay in this age...

I disagree, I think it's getting better and better, yes in some countries even in the most tolerant places it will still happen kids in families or in school will still be picked on or bullied and their turmoil. But I see it like changing someone's future, I wouldn't want to change a young kid, if we cure it in all children, then no more gay people. Plus it will give these bigots more power.

Other thing, once these groups start with one thing, they will not stop.

I regret the fact that it would indeed give power to those bigots, and I know that it is getting better, but that doesn't mean it's simple..

Of course, gay persons have attributed a lot to this world already, sometimes without people knowing they were...

I have always believed that homosexuality is a natural thing which is not only found in humans, since there is enough scientific evidence showing that it is also found in other organisms. I too am sick and tired of hearing about these articles. For one thing, they make it seem that it is so simple to change an aspect of an individual. It is as my biology professor said (I’m taking a very liberal sense of what he said) that there is no such thing as a “gay gene”; it’s more a series of them that work in conjunction for the manifestation of the phenotype. Plus, we have no idea what the implications and ramifications would be by manipulating the genetic code in such a fashion.

-Jules

I have to disagree as well; it leads toward a slippery slope. Once they can "Cure" gay kids, then what about those gays and lesbian that remained? For atleast two to three gnerations, there will still be gay people, but if it becomes a disease to be cured; then, are we talking about genocide being the next move?
_____________________________________________________________________________
(This idea is merely my worst fears of what they may ultimately want):

They start off small with kids and preach the idea that it would be better for society to "fix" gay kids at birth and it would allow more "harmony" in society. Then, they see gay people around and it grows into the thought, since we have already eliminated it from the last generation why not take it out of our population all together. No one will get hurt by it and people are happy to see a new separate but equal arrangement created. Relocation and resettlement into camps or reservation, where the remaining population would be collected. Eventually, they see it as a "waste of space" to keep them in those areas and pulbic sentiment has waned over time at the thought of gay rights or people in general; then, we have the "Final Solution". All it took was apathy and silent public and poof. In a century, gay people will be a memory, In another century, they will be scoured from history; all records of homosexuality from Greco-roman times to present are destroyed. It will be as if none of us really ever existed.

___________________________________________________________________________

Scary story right, it could easily happen with the wrong moves and the right public opinion. You know it only took Hitler about 10 years time to get enough of a majoirty around the idea of anti-semitism and jewish removal in Germany. It took him about twenty to thirty officials to come up with the plans for the "final solution". If you thinki I am pessimistic, mankind has shown that it is capable of monstrous evils and allowing anything, these guys want, could lead to horrible consequences.

I agree


I completely disagree!!


I really think I'd better stay out of this discussion for now. This article pisses me off alot and I'd probably have to put myself on post moderation if I said what I really thought.

**grabs his rainbow flag and looks menacingly for a homophobic backside to shove it up**

Fire in the hole!!! Oh, I mean... I think that the reorientation debate is very good and very controversial but I think if they did what the bogts want to say, they feel that they will try to do more and bigger things than ever before...

If it was thirty, twenty, even ten years ago... and I was having a kid... and this was available to "fix" gay kids...

I'd do it in a heartbeat. ~cringes and waits for the attack~

Why would I let my kid hurt and cry and be in anguish that much if I could avoid it? There's no reason, and it would be MY kid, MINE, no one else's, and I'M the person responsible for making their life have the best possible start... and face it, life is easier if you're straight.

~sigh~ I guess what I'm saying is that I can definitely understand the motivation. Now, in about ten years when I might be thinking about kids more seriously, I don't think I'd go for it because hopefully I'd be living in a good place and the social climate will have shifted a good bit more, like it already has.

How could you let your child face something that huge, that much of a stumbling block in life, if you could avoid it? It would be like seeing your kid without an arm in the womb, and the ability to fix it, and saying "Nah, he's cool the way he is". Why? ~sigh~

I won't be making a martyr out of my child, and I damn well won't let them do it to themselves if I can stop it.

Look, the mind is a series of nerves and chemicals. Your body naturally produces certain chemicals in reaction to certain stimuli. Artificially add the chemicals and your body will react to them the same as if it had produced the stuff all on its own. When you are attracted to someone, certain chemicals are released. You can artificially duplicate this process by adding the chemicals through a shot, but that still only simulates the attraction - adding the chemical soup you would normally produce when attracted to something may cause you to undergo the same chemical processes as if you were actually attracted to the thing, but that doesn't change your attraction to it.

To alter your natural chemistry requires altering the glands that produce the chemicals your body responds to by causing them to produce the desired chemicals at the desired time.

These psychos think that by subjecting a fetus to a certain chemical soup, they'll successfully set the individual to be chemically straight and thus "cure" them. However, they're much more likely to damage to the individual as they test out their various theories about which chemical soup they need to subject the babies to to make them grow up straight rather than gay.

Of course, they don't know for sure they would have been gay or straight to start with. They're just playing with **** they don't know enough about and experimenting on human lives because it amuses them to exterminate homosexuality by preventing any more of us from being born never mind the harm they cause. Sure, they claim they have the best interests of everyone at heart, but their best intentions are the kind which result in our kind getting assaulted simply for existing.

How about if they find a reverse? A way to make normal kids gay, hehe!

I wonder what everyone's opinion in that case would be? I would be against it too, since it is wrong to force a artificial change in a society; no matter, what the ends would be.

I can understand your point of view. As a responsible parent, you have to try to do what's best by your kids.

Moving to an area where you know your children will be treated with respect is definitely an alternative. It is like the parents who move to be closer to educational institutions where they want their kids to be taught, or the parents who move so their kids can get the training they desperately want (be it sporting or artistic). Parents have been known to do these things, and if you live in a homophobic area and you know your child is going to be a homosexual, then why not move to a friendly place for their sake?

As to what I would do... I honestly can't answer the question. Emotionally, I want what's best for my kids. Intellectually, straights tend to have things easier than gays (though there are a lot of exceptions to that statement). But, my kids are who they are -- changing something fundamental in them because of what might be... that's not something to be done lightly, if at all.

I think I would probably come down on the side of not doing it, but I recognise that this is not a trivial matter to resolve.

I personally wouldn't want a doctor injecting hormones into my child, I'm pretty skeptical of science's ability to fix something as complicated as sexuality. They can't even figure what makes some people left handed and some people right-handed, so why would I think a doctor can make someone "straight"?

To "fix" someone who might be gay seems like taking a risk to change something that causes no physical problems at all. Basically it seems like a waste of time.

.........This is unbelievable!! They quote all these "good Reverands" (Are they the same ones who were running those torture camps to straighten teens out??) How hypocritical, "OH it is a disorder, caused by brain chemical imbalance, but we can fix it in the womb, Hooray" F_CKYOU!!! a week ago it was our sinful choice!!!!!!!! And we are going to roast in hell!

I very much agree with Graeme.

I understand the impulse to protect ones children too, but sometimes protecting them in obvious ways may not be the right thing to do. If there were a way to intervene during gestation to prevent the manifestation of some disability then in most cases I think it unproblematic to approve of intervention. But there are cases that would be disputed. I can easily imagine that some deaf parents would reject intervention to ensure that a baby was born hearing rather than deaf. I might or might not agree, but I can see that some parents would go down that road. I think most of us are sensitive the parents' position in that case even if we are not in agreement. There are clearer cases, suppose we could prevent the expression of CP? Most of us would say "go ahead!"

Those are cases where there's usually agreement that some condition is disabling. Does anyone believe that being black is disabling? Would anyone sanction "fixing" it in the womb? Maybe, to make it less shocking, we could consider children of mixed ethnicity parentage - how about ensuring that the child was quite definitely in appearance, eg, either black or white, so as to avoid the confusion and distress of not belonging anywhere? I hope most of us would say no. The difference to me is that these conditions - being gay, being "mixed race" (quotes simply because I don't believe in "races") - are not in themselves disabilities. I would argue that it's not gay individuals that need changing - it's the world that needs changing. It might seem simpler to change the individual but aside from the question of tinkering with their character and destiny medically, it also seems to me that it sets back the task of changing the world and I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Yak

...........Reminds me of an old movie, can't remember the name of it, where everybody was grey in color.

The movie may either be "Pleasantville" or to the book/movie "The Giver" by Lowry. "Gattacca" also shared similar themes on the idea of genetic manipulation in order to make perfect babies.

In addition, I do not think we should "purge" our genetic make up of disabled people; I am disabled too due to being blind in one eye. I can tell you that I have been teased before in elementary school for being blind in one eye and there are many things that are harder for me due to it, but if given the choice to change it by fixing the disease at birth, I cannot condone it. Genetic diversity is part of what makes life and the manipulation of genetics is basically on many levels wrong. Evolution occurs due to random variations among species and it allows adaptation with physical and mental growth as time goes on. When a species become stagnant and it can no longer adapt, there is a word for it, EXTINCTION.

I can understand parents wanting to give their kids a leg up by eliminating their diseases, but I ask those same parents the question: Does eliminating something that was inherent in your child make them better or worse in reality versus what you believe? That idea should be the fundamental question behind genetic science; whether doing it will bring results that are good for the child?

A perfect society, where everyone is a genetic, mental, and physical clone of one another; does that really sound appealing to the parents on this board?

Now, I know the counter argument would be: how about those children suffering from horrible conditions that make them mentally handicapped, physically frail, or shorten their lifespan? I can not lie and say that I do not want them to have some treatment for their conditions, but I know that makes me hypocritical as well. I will admit that duality; I guess I can not deny innocent lives, but I do not want the inevitable extinction of mankind due to the same process that could help them.

Nuclear scientist Oppenheimer once said that his weapon had too great potential for destruction, but it also possessed powers that could enrich mankind. We must be wary of the research that these guys may uncover for there are always double edged swords to scientific discovery.

The issue with a sword is not in the swordsmith who crafted it, but with the person who wields it with the intent to do good or harm. Knowledge in and of itself is neither "good" nor "bad". What we, as humans, choose to do with it is another story.

As to the topic at hand. Many women take daily hormone doses to suppress (birth control) or mimic (HRT) the normal functions of a child bearing aged woman. Have you used hydrocortisone cream for a rash, or prednisone because of some illness? Steroids are hormones. We use them all the time. Women take pre-natal vitamins to help insure the healthy growth of a "normal" child. These vitamin supplements are most critical during the first trimester of development. There are very few things that pregnant women can injest or be exposed to that have absolutely no effect on the developing fetus.

For the most part, hormones do not cause genetic alteration, they do not change the basic genetic structure of the person who ingests them. Furthermore, from what I read at the link, the theory is not one of "genetic error", but rather, the "environment" of the woman's uterus is such that certain genes get switched on/off that are off/on in a heterosexual offspring. Much like if you are developing photographs and you have the developer at the wrong temperature, you will get a picture because the paper has been exposed to light, but it will "look wrong".

To me, a parent who wishes to use a treatment that is proven safe and effective for preventing their child from being homosexual is no different than in utero surgery to repair a defective heart valve. Particularly since the portion of the brain they are talking about develops very early in the fetal growth. This is a VERY DIFFERENT story than trying to reassign sexuality or genetically modify babies. So what if parents don't want their children to be homosexual and given the option would choose it that way. What difference does it make to US? I understand the fear that should this hypothesis prove true, it will be just another tool that bigots use to oppress us. However, if homosexuality is proven to be a preventable "birth abnormality", then all issues of morality used by the religious bigots go away in a puff of smoke. While it wouldn't prevent them from spouting them, it would vastly decrease the number of people who listen. I'm sure there are religious nuts who still think epileptics are possessed by the devil.

What I think that most people are reacting to is the gut level feeling of "this means that I am not normal". This is an issue that basically all of us have had to deal with at times in our life. Some of us deal with it on a daily basis. Others hide from it, not wanting to deal with it now. There are some who have gotten past is and accepted some concept of "normalcy" and their place in the world. To have some scientific result that shows that our sexual orientation is some kind of "error" or "mistake" that "could" have been prevented takes us out of the realm of "acceptable within the wide range of normal" and places us into "abnormal." That can be extremely anxiety inducing.

Bottom line for me is that the combination of a fear of technology and scientific knowledge, with the belief that one's personal view are the correct view and what would be best for society -- the latter being a common trait of most all politicians, results in behaviors that are fundamentally antithetical to freedom in it's broadest and most enlightened meaning. (note that I include my opinions in this.)


Edit: oops, forgot to add that if this hypothesis is true, then it really is your mom's fault that you are homosexual .

Dr. Mr. Snow :snowy: Dog

I agree Benji. How difficult is it for religious nuts to admit that they were just plain wrong? Impossible- because it would mean that their God makes mistakes which they simply can not do.


BTW- I don't think that we need to worry about an in vitro cure for homosexuality for a very long time. In fact we aren't even sure that is hormonal irregularities in the womb is even the one, single cause.

Why worry bout a cure. If they can detect it in the womb just kill the baby like folk do if it the wrong sex or it less than perfect

.........Maybe their G_d, didn't make a mistake, maybe this is what was meant to be.

Ah, scientific curiousity and knowledge is not something to be feared alone; it is scientific irresponsibility that mankind seems to border on.

I agree with you that on some level that it is still up to the parents own choices, when it comes down to that point. However, I must disagree with the assessment on the basis of existence-based normalcy versus relavistic normalcy. Existing as we are may not be perfect or the best, but if we simply deny existence as the normalcy demands conformity then it may perhaps seem simpler, but it also builds into a dangerous precedent.

I also ask the parents around here a very simple question: If you had a choice either pre-birth or post-birth natal development to adjust your child's sexuality: Are you doing it for them or yourself?

If we cut down to the basic level of questioning and go to the point, who is really making this decision and why, Is there a certain level of selfish desire in a decision such as this?

Now Snow, I take your gut reaction back to its premise "What if I am not normal" statement, then does that give the parent the right to choose their child's development due to a societal belief in conformity because they want their child to be normal versus what they have endured. A very simple and complicated question at its heart is a psychological question on whether the fear from abnormalcy translate to this fix.

We have seen our society go through a phase right now, where something that is not normal should be reduced or eliminated with plastic surgery or drugs. It is a testament to how far mankind wants to feel like everyone else and be simply another face in the crowd. Does that mean your child must live in your shadow in order to fulfill your own hopes for absolute conformity?

On certain levels, I agree with you, but on the question at hand it seems that there are far too many variables to make a rational decision.

I think this link shows that homosexuality is more complicated than people assume.


The best line of the article:

EUGHH! This whole thread just pisses me off beyond reason. Indeed these sorts of topics are definitely the only ones around here I've had this violent a reaction to.

So visceral and heated that I don't think I can even try to argue my point without giving myself an aneurysm.

So I'll just say that I oppose 'fixing' babies with every fiber of my being. That it pisses me off so much that I even get quite extremist and reactionary and might began advocating turning straight babies gay if I think on this too much longer.

I'll also once again say that I actively want gay kids. I'll love them and accept them if they're straight, but I have a very strong preference that they be gay.

Beyond that I'd better just shut up and go think about something else.

O.K.....I hope I am not going to upset anyone as it's not my intention to.

I am a straight woman who is mum to a girl and a boy. If I was told pre or post birth that one of my kids was gay, and I had the choice to make them straight, there is no way I would do it. As a parent, you often have to make lots of decisions on your child's behalf and hope you are doing right by them. I appreciate that as a straight woman, I have no experience of what it is like to suffer hatred and discrimination because of who I find attractive. For that reason, I hope I don't upset any of you as I cannot speak from experience. However, I just wanted to explain from a parent's view point that I believe that to want to change your child's sexuality, is as good as saying you are rejecting a part of them.

Sarah

Sarah, I understand what you are saying. In the wider sense, I don't completely agree, though I do in this particular case. In the wider case, I wouldn't just accept that a child of mine has a learning disability, but would try to correct it if I could.

The difference is whether the matter in question is considered to be a characteristic or a disability. Some people consider homosexuality to be a disability, and hence would want to correct it. We see homosexuality as a characteristic and hence not something that needs to be changed.

..........So this topic came back up?, "Doctor, the genetics test reveal that our blue eyed son may be left-handed, isn't there anything you can do?" ask the soon to be mom. The Doctor relies, "Yes, we can try and re-engineer his DNA and come up with him being right-handed". "Oh Thank-you, I couldn't imagine him being left-handed". "But" the doctor interjects, "There may be complications, he may be blue-eyed but blind as well, and he may pickup a genetic disorder, and have gay tendencies" "I don't care wails the mother to be, I don't want my son to have to live the life as a lefty".

Hi Graeme,

I completely agree with what you have said. Yes, if the baby had a disability, and that could be changed without any harm to the child, then I would go ahead and change it. However, as you have said, being gay isn't a disablitlity, it's part of a person's character. In my opinion, a disability can hide a person's true character. I know that isn't so in all cases. I am thinking in terms of severe disability.

This is an interesting subject though, and brings up the whole debate as to 'how far should science be allowed to go?'. I would hope that good sense and compassion would dictate that.

Sarah x

**reminds himself that he needs to careful when posting in this thread**






Beautifully said, Sarah! I completely agree







I really don't care for that comparison one bit

Indeed I find it very offensive, but I'll shut up now





Great point!

hia! But what about mental conditions. some people would argue that it's society that misunderstands. and often it's that which is disabling.
or what about the 'disability' being a part of their true character. Im thinking of several people that I know.

being abit of a devils advocate, but I do believe in it partly.

Celia

Hi Celia, as I said in my post, I was thinking of severe abnormalities. I would consider a procedure that would prevent/reverse a severe abnormality where the child would have no quality of life or would not make it to adulthood. It's a very tricky subject because some conditions like Down's Syndrome,for instance can be so severe that the baby is born with hearts defects and will never be able to have a good quality of life. On the other hand I have known people with Down's Syndrome who have been able to read, write,hold down a job and go to a mainstream school. So, some conditions can affect a person in different ways. Having said that, a person with Down's Syndrome usually won't have a long life expectancy. I think that when considering taking steps to remove a disability from a baby, it has to be the parent's decision.
However, being gay is not a disability. I would also take exception to a person who wanted to use medical intervention to produce a gay child instead of a straight one. In my opinion, neither of these should be grounds for interfering with a baby's life.

Sarah