A cure for homosexuality

[Mermaid]

IF indeed, a "vaccine" is available and the technology as well to determine if a child could be in the "throes" of the dreaded infection, it is rather irrelevant if it should be used, it will be. No parent wants a child who is to be born with a "stigma" attached. C'mon.

Homosexuality is a natural occurring percentile of not just humanity but for many animals stemming back to the days a asexuality. But lets be real, if you can change things to your liking, or to enhance the childs life? Oy yeah. We all know that better looking people get better opportunities based on looks alone, so if you could change that many would.

Right. I don't see the difference between a baby being operated for something like Spina Biffida while still in the womb to being able to correct another condition the parents might think of as abnormal. A baby in the womb doesn't have the "right" to be born gay, mongoloid, minus an arm or a leg or anything else. If the parents have the ability to alter the outcome at birth, I do not see a moral problem there.

Um. Spina bifida and Down's Syndrome are both disabilities. Homosexuality is not.
"Curing" homosexuality in utero would be akin to changing the baby's race or eye color or physical beauty to please other people.

[aitm]

Um. Spina bifida and Down's Syndrome are both disabilities. Homosexuality is not.
"Curing" homosexuality in utero would be akin to changing the baby's race or eye color or physical beauty to please other people.

I don't think you can convince most people of that. I also don't think "we" are going to make the transition from gay to "normal" anytime soon. With that, I believe most parents would opt to have children who are straight so if such a procedure were available, I am sure it would get the 6-8% use that it would demand.

[SilentFutility]

Of course, the pursuit of fulfillment is not "low", because that is what makes people get up in the morning. But there is a thing called moderation, and self restraint

Yeah, so why is partaking in the enjoyment of sex when it is appropriate to do so, thus exercising restraint, and not allowing it to consume your life so much that it negatively affects you, thus enjoying it in moderation committing a "lower" act?

I agree, sex is far too overhyped, glamourised and exploited in mainstream society but going the other way and viewing it as inherently bad is no better.

[frosty]

Of course, the pursuit of fulfillment is not "low", because that is what makes people get up in the morning. But there is a thing called moderation, and self restraint

Yeah, so why is partaking in the enjoyment of sex when it is appropriate to do so, thus exercising restraint, and not allowing it to consume your life so much that it negatively affects you, thus enjoying it in moderation committing a "lower" act?

I agree, sex is far too overhyped, glamourised and exploited in mainstream society but going the other way and viewing it as inherently bad is no better.

I was merely, along with the entire rest of the post you did not quote, stating that sex in itself was a hold-over of ancient humans, an act that clouds our thinking and changes us for the time being. I do not see what else there is for me to say, sex is a lower form of behavior and living compared to what else we have been proven to be capable of. I meant lower in a mental way, that's the best way I could put it, but I did not mean lower in a moral way and I don't think I ever said "inherently bad", especially in the context you are claiming I did.

[stromboli]

IF indeed, a "vaccine" is available and the technology as well to determine if a child could be in the "throes" of the dreaded infection, it is rather irrelevant if it should be used, it will be. No parent wants a child who is to be born with a "stigma" attached. C'mon.

Homosexuality is a natural occurring percentile of not just humanity but for many animals stemming back to the days a asexuality. But lets be real, if you can change things to your liking, or to enhance the childs life? Oy yeah. We all know that better looking people get better opportunities based on looks alone, so if you could change that many would.

Right. I don't see the difference between a baby being operated for something like Spina Biffida while still in the womb to being able to correct another condition the parents might think of as abnormal. A baby in the womb doesn't have the "right" to be born gay, mongoloid, minus an arm or a leg or anything else. If the parents have the ability to alter the outcome at birth, I do not see a moral problem there.

Um. Spina bifida and Down's Syndrome are both disabilities. Homosexuality is not.
"Curing" homosexuality in utero would be akin to changing the baby's race or eye color or physical beauty to please other people.

We still don't know the specific causes of homosexuality, so to classify it as a "condition" doesn't necessarily apply. And if our parents want you to have blue eyes and can do so in utero, what would stop them?

[Shol'va]

I'm always interested in hearing how Christians make the distinction, in actual practical terms, between a sinner and the sin? I always hear them saying "love the sinner, hate the sin" but that's a distinction without a difference.

[dgirl1986]

A vaccine tends to indicate that it is a sickness and disease. Since it is not a disease it would be like gentically manipulating your baby to look a certain way. Doesnt seem appropriate.

[aitm]

Even though treatment of gays is becoming better, little by little, I am pretty sure if the docs told me the kid had a 90% chance of being gay unless we did "x", I would do "x". Why add to the burden of an already burdensome world to a young person?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

A vaccine tends to indicate that it is a sickness and disease. Since it is not a disease it would be like gentically manipulating your baby to look a certain way. Doesnt seem appropriate.

Oh, but don't you know? Homosexuality is a disease, and it gives you AIDS! Curing homosexuality prevents AIDS! :Hangman:

[Shiranu]

Even though treatment of gays is becoming better, little by little, I am pretty sure if the docs told me the kid had a 90% chance of being gay unless we did "x", I would do "x". Why add to the burden of an already burdensome world to a young person?

All that does is add credibility to the people who would make it a burden.

You could just as easily say female, black, etc. is burdensome, so why not make sure they are male, white, etc. ? People shouldn't have to change, or be changed, because a certain group of people will harass them. Society is the problem, not them.

[_Xenu_]

Even though treatment of gays is becoming better, little by little, I am pretty sure if the docs told me the kid had a 90% chance of being gay unless we did "x", I would do "x". Why add to the burden of an already burdensome world to a young person?

All that does is add credibility to the people who would make it a burden.

You could just as easily say female, black, etc. is burdensome, so why not make sure they are male, white, etc. ? People shouldn't have to change, or be changed, because a certain group of people will harass them. Society is the problem, not them.

You can make a moral argument, but I think aitm is right. People will always choose whats most practical for their own interests and those of their offspring.

[aitm]

Society is the problem, not them.

Yes Shir, that is indeed the problem, now which is the most easily fixed?

[Shiranu]

Society is the problem, not them.

Yes Shir, that is indeed the problem, now which is the most easily fixed?

I just don't see being treated differently by society as something being wrong with you, so there is nothing there to fix.

Bigotry won't change if everyone else changes to accommodate bigotry.

[stromboli]

A cure for homosexuality made in utero is the choice of the parents. I can see even a gay partner in such a situation not wishing the societal issues of homosexuality on their child. In any case, if the choice is offered, it will be their choice to make. And I don't think any "right or wrong" applies, because ultimately the problem is a societal one, not a biological or medical one.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

If it were 20 years ago and the choice was offered (and I was an adult, ect. It's a hypothetical dammit) I would make my child straight without a blink of an eye.

Today I wouldn't do it. I've seen society become more and more tolerate and accepting in just the last few years than I could've even imagined as a closeted teenager. So yeah, I wouldn't change a child's orientation today.

That being said what if a parent wanted to make their child gay?