Homosexuality!

[Aruntraveller]

Fanatics?  Oh, look in the mirror.

Again Wiggenhall?!  LOL!  Talk of the subject just once...if you can.

Not really any point is there as you aren't responding to my replies and I am addressing the subject.

[wigginhall]

Fanatics?  Oh, look in the mirror.

Again Wiggenhall?!  LOL!  Talk of the subject just once...if you can.

I am talking about the OP, where you seem to say that being gay is a disease.  You actually wrote those words, and they indicate bigotry, which is foul.

[Udayana]

...
What is unethical about some homosexual wanting to get epigenetic therapy? Should he necessarily believe that its all about 'diversity' and such other stuff and conform with the fanatics?

Of-course not, there is nothing unethical about it and anyone would be free to pursue that path were it medically feasible. What would be unethical would be to coerce people by labeling groups as diseased and abnormal just because they don't conform to predominant behaviour or to "cure" them of such before they are able to decide for themselves.

[Sriram]

Fanatics?  Oh, look in the mirror.

Again Wiggenhall?!  LOL!  Talk of the subject just once...if you can.

I am talking about the OP, where you seem to say that being gay is a disease.  You actually wrote those words, and they indicate bigotry, which is foul.

The Wiki article says that it can be treated similar to diabetes and cancer. Can't you read simple english?!

[Aruntraveller]

I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?

Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.

This does not apply to homosexuality.

That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.


Why are you not answering this?

[Sriram]

...
What is unethical about some homosexual wanting to get epigenetic therapy? Should he necessarily believe that its all about 'diversity' and such other stuff and conform with the fanatics?

Of-course not, there is nothing unethical about it and anyone would be free to pursue that path were it medically feasible. What would be unethical would be to coerce people by labeling groups as diseased and abnormal just because they don't conform to common behaviours or to "cure" them of such before they are able to decide for themselves.

That's not the issue we are discussing here. Its up to the people concerned. The point is that the  biological reason for homosexuality has probably been found.  And its possible that a  treatment can be given. That's all the OP says....and that's all I am talking about

[Sriram]

I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?

Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.

This does not apply to homosexuality.

That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.


Why are you not answering this?

Well...yes. But nobody forces you to get treatment. See my above post to Udayana.

[wigginhall]

I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?

Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.

This does not apply to homosexuality.

That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.


Why are you not answering this?

Because he's a bigot, and bigots find their own statements uncomfortable, and try to deny that they said them.   But they are in black and white.

[Sriram]

I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?

Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.

This does not apply to homosexuality.

That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.


Why are you not answering this?

Because he's a bigot, and bigots find their own statements uncomfortable, and try to deny that they said them.   But they are in black and white.

Here you go again Wiggenhall! You're discussing me again!!  Tut!Tut!

Did you manage to read the OP yet?!

[Udayana]

...
What is unethical about some homosexual wanting to get epigenetic therapy? Should he necessarily believe that its all about 'diversity' and such other stuff and conform with the fanatics?

Of-course not, there is nothing unethical about it and anyone would be free to pursue that path were it medically feasible. What would be unethical would be to coerce people by labeling groups as diseased and abnormal just because they don't conform to common behaviours or to "cure" them of such before they are able to decide for themselves.

That's not the issue we are discussing here. Its up to the people concerned. The point is that the  biological reason for homosexuality has probably been found.  And its possible that a  treatment can be given. That's all the OP says....and that's all I am talking about

In that case you could have presented it as such instead of trolling it by adding:

Here is my favorite subject of epignetics again.  They say that homosexuality could even be cured through epigenetic therapy. 

Alright...some people may feel that homosexuality is not...repeat not... a  disease and does not need to be cured!  But I tend to disagree.   

[Synonym]

Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.

This does not apply to homosexuality.

That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.

Technically wasn't it classed as a mental disorder of some type.

I am not sure I have ever heard of a definition of mental disorder which is divorced from someone's idea of what normal behaviour and mental states is. Some of the symptoms I have seen listed for some personality disorders for instance, seem to have this about them.

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour. Nothing to do with new biological or medical knowledge coming to light, as such.

Necrophilia is still a mental disorder I believe, but then that is just weird and disgusting isn't it.

As for whether adults should be allowed to change their sexual orientation. In theory if there was a safe way to do this I would probably say why not.

[Aruntraveller]

I refer you to my previous post:
Quote
I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?

Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.

This does not apply to homosexuality.

That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.


Why are you not answering this?

Well...yes. But nobody forces you to get treatment. See my above post to Udayana.

Perhaps - except that if words like cure and abnormal are used in connection withg homosexualty don't you think that could affect the way that some vulnerable gay people may react.

It is not that long since we had the aversion therapy used in this country which many gay people were persuaded to undergo because it would cure them of their illness. That didn't work.

It is not an illness.

To put it in the same category as Diabetes and Cancer is both offensive to gay people and I would think pretty fucking annoying to sufferers of those real diseases. The thought that funding could be used for this 'cure' is frankly insane.

Anyway - in words of one syllable - do you think I have a disease?

[Rhiannon]

We have to wonder at the agenda of the 'some people' who propose a 'cure' for homosexuality in same breath as any disease, let alone those as serious as diabetes and cancer.

And the science isn't even proven yet.

[Aruntraveller]

Maybe because if I get schizophrenia or diabete or Cancer I need treatment to stay healthy or indeed alive.

This does not apply to homosexuality.

That is why it is no longer classified as a disease. Duh.

Technically wasn't it classed as a mental disorder of some type.

I am not sure I have ever heard of a definition of mental disorder which is divorced from someone's idea of what normal behaviour and mental states is. Some of the symptoms I have seen listed for some personality disorders for instance, seem to have this about them.

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour. Nothing to do with new biological or medical knowledge coming to light, as such.

Necrophilia is still a mental disorder I believe, but then that is just weird and disgusting isn't it.

As for whether adults should be allowed to change their sexual orientation. In theory if there was a safe way to do this I would probably say why not.

It was listed in the ICD (International Classifications of Diseases) listings  - but it was listed under Mental Disorders there.

[wigginhall]

In fact, various psychological 'cures' have been banned by UK professional organisations, for one thing, they are highly dangerous, encouraging self-loathing and suicide.  I suppose we have to put up with this kind of sick shit in the OP, although it verges on hate speech.

[trippymonkey]

Sriram Bhai
Maybe what might have been better & then altered your later reactions to others' opinions was if you'd just said the 'science' bit & then said 'What do you all think'?

But what you DID do was state you unwavering opinions as 'obvious' fact.
NOT good on these boards.
Then complained when others took umbrage at them.
Methinks a deliberate ploy to be the centre of attention again.
And it worked, for a while but anyway......

There's been way much more said against this idea than pro so there !!!!

[Aruntraveller]

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.

No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved. Unlike paedophilia.

Zietgesit implies something more temporary than the realisation that has occurred within most medical & psychological professional bodies about the topic of homosexuality.

[Nearly Sane]

Let us suppose that there was an 'epigenetic process' where one could pick a sexuality that was entirely safe (note I am not actually sure such a process makes even theoretical sense given the complexity of factors). Then I have no objection to people doing that. I do however have an objection to homosexuality being portrayed as a disease and that is from my viewpoint an ethical rather than a medical objection .

Synonym is correct, I think,  that the move away from regarding homosexuality is a zeitgeist rather than a change in scientific knowledge but that of course means that Sriram' s position of it being a matter of treatment also falls


Incidentally while not the norm, I have no real objection to necrophilia, if there could be a legal statement from someone prior to dying

[Rhiannon]

But (stating the bloody obvious) having sex with someone who is dead means you can't have a relationship with them (even if you did once) and that is mentally unhealthy. Of course there are all sorts of behaviours with living partners that aren't exactly healthy either, but homosexuality in and of itself isn't one of them, any more than heterosexuality is.

[Maeght]

I repeat my earlier post - The science is very interesting. The use of the word 'cure' and saying that if cured people could then lead 'normal' lives is your problem here Sriram - can't you see that?

Yes...but that's what the Wiki article says...."some people[who?] have suggested that it might be possible to alter one's sexual orientation with epigenetic therapy,[11] similarly to treatment of diabetes, cancer or schizophrenia."

I agree that the word 'cure' may not have been used, but homosexuality has been treated on par with diabetes, cancer and schizophrenia. So...what's the difference?

A big difference Sriram. The article says 'alter', you mentioned 'cure' and 'normal'.  Cure suggests restoration of health or correction of something bad or abnormal. You have put a value judgement on being gay by using those words whether you meant to or not.

[Synonym]

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.

No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.

They didn't know that before?

There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.

[Maeght]

That's not the issue we are discussing here. Its up to the people concerned. The point is that the  biological reason for homosexuality has probably been found.  And its possible that a  treatment can be given. That's all the OP says....and that's all I am talking about

That's not all the OP says though is it.

[Synonym]

But (stating the bloody obvious) having sex with someone who is dead means you can't have a relationship with them (even if you did once) and that is mentally unhealthy. Of course there are all sorts of behaviours with living partners that aren't exactly healthy either, but homosexuality in and of itself isn't one of them, any more than heterosexuality is.

What about people who like one night stands, casual sex, no strings attached sex etc?

I really do find it hard to believe that value judgments are not involved somewhere.

[Aruntraveller]

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.

No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.

They didn't know that before?

There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.

Apologies - They might have known it - there was not a recognition that it did no harm to those involved was what I meant. Thus the desire to 'cure' it.

Rather like the original posters intention.

[Rhiannon]

I suspect that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder mainly because the Zeitgeist changed and it was no longer seen as "abnormal" behaviour.

No I think it was declassified because there was a recognition that this was a regularly occurring variation in human sexuality that did no harm to those involved.

They didn't know that before?

There are no intrinsic harms in necrophilia or bestiality (depending on the animal). But since society says they are weird and disgusting and only mentalists and deviants would have such interests...so does the medical profession.

Sex is harmful if one party cannot give informed consent. This includes sex with the dead and with animals, as well as sex with children.

The medical profession sees that the harm works both ways. It isn't only harmful to the victim, it is also harmful to the perpetrator as they cannot form a proper relationship with the object of their sexual attraction.