New 'cure' for homosexuality?:

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, but then the other argument kicks in. If you impose a negative externality on the already living homosexuals then there is a legitimate argument in not allowing that choice.

Why would this choice increase or decrease the negative externalities that already exist? I'm all for education to decrease those externalities, but I don't see how allowing a choice would contribute to them.

Originally posted by sh76
Of course not. But in this context it has the same effect as one.

Well, I disagree as I think that doesn't follow at all.

Why would homosexuality have the same effect as a paraphilia but not heterosexuality? We're back to square one.

Originally posted by sh76
Why would this choice increase or decrease the negative externalities that already exist? I'm all for education to decrease those externalities, but I don't see how allowing a choice would contribute to them.

I explained this in the first post on the previous page. Please check it out.

Originally posted by Palynka
Well, I disagree as I think that doesn't follow at all.

Why would homosexuality have the same effect as a paraphilia but not heterosexuality? We're back to square one.

Because knowledge of someone else's homosexuality makes a many straight people uncomfortable, insecure and a little disdainful in the same manner that knowledge of someone else's paraphilia does.

Originally posted by Palynka
I explained this in the first post on the previous page. Please check it out.

Ah, okay

A possible argument against such a procedure is that it adds to the stigma of homosexuals who are already living. If newborns are genetically modified not to be homosexuals, then one car argue it can be interpreted in the homophobic view that there is an element of inferiority about it. Since this might worsen the lives of those who are already homosexual, then there is an argument for not allowing this type of choice.

I think that freedom of the individual is more important than protecting the speculative misinterpretations of the existence of the choice by people who seemingly are inclined to search for an excuse to see things that way in any case.

Originally posted by sh76
Because knowledge of someone else's homosexuality makes a many straight people uncomfortable, insecure and a little disdainful in the same manner that knowledge of someone else's paraphilia does.

From wiki:
American Journal of Psychiatry[6] describes paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:
- nonhuman objects, or
- the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or
- children, or
- nonconsenting persons"

I really don't see how this is comparable. The last three are obviously not comparable. They involve harming third parties. The first is perhaps less clear, but I also don't see why being a paraphilia like the first one or not makes any difference to my argument.

Originally posted by sh76
Ah, okay

[b]A possible argument against such a procedure is that it adds to the stigma of homosexuals who are already living. If newborns are genetically modified not to be homosexuals, then one car argue it can be interpreted in the homophobic view that there is an element of inferiority about it. Since this might worsen the lives of those who are already h ...[text shortened]... eople who seemingly are inclined to search for an excuse to see things that way in any case.[/b]

Fair enough. I also personally think a ban is not justifiable, but I'm extremely averse at interpreting it as a "disease" or that choice a "cure" when the malady is in how society treats them and not in the individual. I find it offensive and homophobic and I believe it portrays a misunderstanding of homosexuality which contrasts with other sciences who study sexual behaviour.

Originally posted by Palynka
From wiki:
American Journal of Psychiatry[6] describes paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:
- nonhuman objects, or
- the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or
- children, or
- nonconsenting persons"

I really don't see how this is comparable. The last ...[text shortened]... t see why being a paraphilia like the first one or not makes any difference to my argument.

I'm not up on all the medical definitions, but I'm using the word "paraphilia" to mean a sexual desire that it atypical.

para = as in paranormal

philia


Someone who gets off on, say, watching frogs mate, is not going to broadcast this to the World. Why? Not because there's anything immoral about it or because it displays any kind of character weakness, and not even because anyone is going to judge or discriminate against them but because it freaks people out a little.

Well, in today's day and age, while homosexuality doesn't generally freak people out, it still does subject people to some level of disdain. Should it be that way? Irrelevant. It is that way.

Originally posted by Palynka
Again, the key is whether homosexuality is by itself negative or if it only has negative effects if society is homophobic. I believe it's likely to be the latter and so I don't think any medical definition of disease would fit if it is so.

I generally agree. So now we are back to attributes that are not diseases, but may nevertheless be undesired by the parents (hair color, tomboyism etc).

Genetic diseases that are known to negatively affect intelligence do so irrespective of how society treats those who have them. Then its easy to fit a standard definition of disease to such cases.
Not so fast. Homosexuals are just as homosexual irrespective of how society treats them.
The question then is whether or not low intelligence is bad and who makes that decision.

And, in this case, even if society doesn't discriminate against people who have it, it is still always desirable that newborns do not have them.
Should we similarly not allow parents who have low intelligence to have children? Or is it only when the low intelligence has been labeled a disease?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I generally agree. So now we are back to attributes that are not diseases, but may nevertheless be undesired by the parents (hair color, tomboyism etc).

[b]Genetic diseases that are known to negatively affect intelligence do so irrespective of how society treats those who have them. Then its easy to fit a standard definition of disease to such cases.[/ ...[text shortened]... igence to have children? Or is it only when the low intelligence has been labeled a disease?[/b]

😵 Let me emphasize that for you.
Genetic diseases that are known to negatively affect intelligence do so irrespective of how society treats those who have them. Then its easy to fit a standard definition of disease to such cases.
What you need to ask yourself is: what are the negative consequences and what is responsible for them. In the case of a genetic malformation that affects cognitive ability, the negative consequences come from the effects of the genetic malformation itself. If in the case of homosexuality the negative consequences come from society in general and not from homosexuality itself then it doesn't fit the standard definition of a disease in any way.

As for who decides if "low intelligence" is bad, I'm really not entering a pedantic argument about whether it's good to allow children to develop Down's Syndrome or similar genetic malformations. I think it's painfully obvious. Because that's what we're talking about, not some fuzzy definition of intelligence measured by IQ tests.

Should we similarly not allow parents who have low intelligence to have children? Or is it only when the low intelligence has been labeled a disease?
I'm obviously not arguing for any ban on any type of babies so I don't see how that's even relevant.

So I think we're not really communicating here as I don't see how your points have any relevance.

Originally posted by sh76
I'm not up on all the medical definitions, but I'm using the word "paraphilia" to mean a sexual desire that it atypical.

para = as in paranormal

philia


Someone who gets off on, say, watching frogs mate, is not going to broadcast this to the World. Why? Not because there's anything immoral about it or because it displays any kind of character weaknes bject people to some level of disdain. Should it be that way? Irrelevant. It is that way.

I presented an example of a proper definition. So what if the etymology doesn't fit perfectly?

You think it's irrelevant because you have a static view of society. It is what it is? Nope. Things change.

Originally posted by Palynka
I presented an example of a proper definition. So what if the etymology doesn't fit perfectly?

You think it's irrelevant because you have a static view of society. It is what it is? Nope. Things change.

and so when they change, we can adjust this calculus accordingly

Originally posted by sh76
and so when they change, we can adjust this calculus accordingly

Well, your calculus has been based on the assumption of immutability and universality. At least that was how you justified it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My understanding was that gay marriage was banned in many countries. Can we not take this as evidence that if not most then at least a significant proportion of the worlds population seems to think homosexuality is bad?
What percentage should be acceptable?

[b]Currently it's not an accepted medical practise to "cure" homosexuality so I suppose they wo shed the precedent, should they go ahead?
Are you saying the doctors should decide?[/b]

Well, medical ethical committees are not represented by the electorate, fortunately. I'm sure we would see a lot of nasty experiments on rapists otherwise.

I might not agree with lawmakers and medical ethical committees all the time, but it's the best we have, no? I don't see any value of a total ban on human genetic modification if it can, for example, cure genetic disease.

And the amount of countries with legal gay marriage is on the rise sharply. Ten years ago there were none, now there are seven. It's extraordinary how fast the acceptance of gay marriage has increased in the Netherlands - even most of the right wing has embraced it now with just the fringe christian fundamentalist parties opposing.

Originally posted by sh76
Of course I do. Who doesn't?

My mother's sister, for starters.

Ask her if she would change her sexual orientation in a heart beat if given the chance.

I'll assume that she knows a lot of other homosexuals. Ask her to ask all other homosexuals if they'd change their sexuality in a heart bear if given the chance.

Then fall flat on your face with the answers you'll receive.

Instead of assuming you should talk more with your aunt about this subject you obviously know very little about and have a lot of prejudices.