Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know I had this idea for a science fiction story rolling in my head for awhile where this scientist working on an anti-depressant or something discovers it has the side-effect of changing sexual orientation. It looks like actual science has done something like that at least on the womb level.
I think this could lead to some dicey issues for both sides. If you are Pro-Choice than you believe a woman has a right to do whatever she wants to her fetus. If she wants to take a pill that assures it won't have genital anomalies, along with the side-effect of reducing the chance of homosexuality, than isn't that her right? (Reading more of this article the condition, CAH, apparently does have health effects) If you are a Christian type this indicates propensities to homosexuality exists in the womb. And as Christians we generally oppose "designer babies", at least I know I do. Although I suppose you could justify it by saying the purpose is no different than taking pre-natal vitamins, meaning it's about reducing an anomaly not trying to design the baby.
It's an interesting ethical situation, albeit a bit of a speculative one as they use statements like "might" when discussing side effects. As I have a rather anomalous body I'm not very sympathetic to the idea that ending all birth "defects" is even a good idea so I'd probably be against doing this. Still from a religious standpoint if it's a non-abortive way to avoid congenital adrenal hyperplasia than I think it would be licit.
People can choose who they want to be in life. Sexuality is a choice just like everything else in life. I noticed that many people make conflated comparisons of race and sexuality, and they do so using a false premise: That different races of people are inherently different...this is untrue. Race is not an inherent characteristic. Race and subsequently racism is a relatively modern social construct originated by European settlers as a platform for declaring supremacy on the grounds that one group of people with a particular set of PHYSICAL characteristics are somehow inherently different than other groups of people with different physical characteristics.
Before this notion was introduced by European settlers (especially spaniards), people were valued by their nation of origin, not by the color of their skin and other physical characteristics - or what we call "race"..and it was understood that the reason their physical characteristics were different werent due to any inherent difference. But rather it was understood that, those physical features were different due to climate and location from which a peoples originated. Thus what we consider "race" (physical characteristics) is purely a result of genetics and to a lesser degree nowdays, climate/geographical location - any other differences in behavior is entirely contingent on culture..which again, isnt genetic.
Those physical features transformed from place to place due to adaptive genetic mutations to suit whichever particular climate and geography in which a group of people lived. Ironically, due to increased mobility through industrialization, and thus being less restricted to any particular climate or location, our physical features are becoming more uniform and less identifiable by "race" alone. In other words, the genetics which form our physical features are once again transforming and adapting.
This is where sexuality differs imo. Unless one believes that the first two humans were two people of the same sex who spawned children and then proliferated the human species, and today we are all becoming increasingly bisexual, one cant truly say that homosexuality has been around since time immemorial..
Unless of course they mean figuratively, and only in the most abstract
sense (maybe eve was a repressed homosexual?...lol)....Similarly, one would have to believe that a black person and a white person were not only physically different, but inherently different. Personally, I dont buy into this modern construct either.
excellent post!--wish more would subscribe to your train of thought
Really? You are equally attracted to men, women, puppies, watermelons, and dressing up in leather? Makes no difference to you, and you can choose any of the above equally? Abstinence and having regular sex, similarly is as important as a coin flip?
Lets be real. Sexuality is really complicated, and has a huge number of factors, which probably combine both nature and nurture. It is not a choice.
it is unfortunate those who have the capacity to CHOOSE to understand the poster CHOOSE not to----just study developmental growth in humans----all of us at some part of our development are attracted to both sexes---the CHOICE is made
by us as to who we CHOSE to have sexual encounters with and who we CHOOSE--to develop an intimacy with----show me that yet undiscovered GAY gene present at birth
Riiight. So then you could just wake up one day, decide to be gay, find yourself truly attracted to a man and have a meaningful sexual, emotional and possibly spiritual relationship with him as a lover and life partner, correct?
I don't think so.
conceivably, sure I could wake up and become gay or bisexual or straight any day if I decided to..so could you or anyone else..
Why shouldnt I be able to do so if I so choose?...its a free country.
Last edited by solytaire; 08-23-2010 at 07:43 PM..
it is unfortunate those who have the capacity to CHOOSE to understand the poster CHOOSE not to----just study developmental growth in humans----all of us at some part of our development are attracted to both sexes---the CHOICE is made
by us as to who we CHOSE to have sexual encounters with and who we CHOOSE--to develop an intimacy with----show me that yet undiscovered GAY gene present at birth
I hope you are just speaking for yourself...You are certainly not describing me....There was no time in my life that I was sexually attracted to anyone of my sex...If it was that way for you, then I suspect that you may be bi-sexual, or you are just confused.
Really? You are equally attracted to men, women, puppies, watermelons, and dressing up in leather? Makes no difference to you, and you can choose any of the above equally? Abstinence and having regular sex, similarly is as important as a coin flip?
Lets be real. Sexuality is really complicated, and has a huge number of factors, which probably combine both nature and nurture. It is not a choice.
Although i agree that sexuality is an extremely complicated choice. I believe it to be a choice never the less.
Regardless of what people preach, the human mind is capable of being conditioned to like anything...some people call it the pavlovian effect, others just call it brainwashing..The only way someone would be totally incapable of being conditioned to like one thing or another would be if they just decided to be completely closeminded and refuse to consider everything that they can choose to do in life...this isnt just speaking sexually, but this applies to virtually anything. Most people have mental walls that cause phobias and mental blocks etc. When those are removed, the brain can be conditioned to like anything.
I call BS on this, because I sure couldn't...If you really believe that then you must already be bi-sexual.
Call pizza hut and order a pizza for all I care...I really believe that...bisexual, trisexual, straight, gay whatever...those are nothing more than social constructs to describe abstractions - what we choose to label each other is irrelevant...what matters is that we all choose who we want to be attracted to.
If you dont believe that you can control who you are attracted to then you must already be asexual.
I hope you are just speaking for yourself...You are certainly not describing me....There was no time in my life that I was sexually attracted to anyone of my sex...If it was that way for you, then I suspect that you may be bi-sexual, or you are just confused.
sigh!----feeling a little threatened?read up on NORMAL human developmental milestones---btw-----attraction to one's own sex means wanting to spend time with that sex not necessarily in bed(all under the choice guideline))---soly is making sense if you could open your mind to understand what that poster is saying
sigh!----feeling a little threatened?read up on NORMAL human developmental milestones---btw-----attraction to one's own sex means wanting to spend time with that sex not necessarily in bed(all under the choice guideline))---soly is making sense if you could open your mind to understand what that poster is saying
Sigh.....The thread is about homosexual attractions, not friendship. If solytaire makes sense, then one could just as well choose to be sexually attracted to a camel or a bucket of rocks...The idea that who we are attracted to SEXUALLY is a choice is utter nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
---soly is making sense if you could open your mind to understand what that poster is saying
