With all the progress being made in gene research and such, and the theories that “gayness” resides in genes (which I don’t completely support), I’d like to present a hypothetical situation for debate.
A major research company discovers a drug that changes your sexual identification. Namely, it makes you heterosexual. They go through the tests and trials. The drug, we’ll call it Gayzium, has about the same incidence of side effects of a Lithium or some sort. Which means that in a small minority it can cause serious health problems, for most people it causes minor side effects, such as constipation, baldness, some joint pain, loss of concentration, dulling of mental facilities to a small degree. It needs to be taken daily for it to continue to work.
Legally, morally, ethically, should it be approved? Legally, morally, ethically, should it be marketed?
Where do I stand on the issue? Although I’d like to say that there’s nothing wrong with such a drug, and on a basic level, there isn’t. If someone wants to change their sexual orientation, they should be able to. In our current climate, it would be extremely dangerous. You would have parents forcing it on their children, you would have people using it as an excuse to further ostracize gays, you would have people using it instead of coming to grips with their sexuality.
I liken it to assisted suicide. Ideally, assisted suicide should be legal and available. Realistically, you see disabled people opposing it because they’re afraid it will be misused. What do ya’ll think?
I would say that it would have to be a perscription drug given by highly qualified psychiatrists. There would obviously be cases of parents trying to get it to ‘fix’ their children, and other misuses. I would kind of liken it to transexual surgery. It should not be given on a whim nor quickly. But if a person is truly unable to come to terms without it, then preventing the person from killing themselves, or wasting their life in self-hatred would be better than the alternative.
Why not? There’s no reason for it not to be approved, no dire medical warning bells going off. As to marketing, I can think of things that are a lot worse that are marketed every day and no one cares.
I wouldn’t be opposed to it… it just gives people even more choice about their personal life. Heck, I can envision gay people who decide to “play it straight” for a weekend, just to get some diversity in their life.
Like “Heavier-than-air” flying machines, right? Or, maybe, computers? Don’t see many of them appearing in the wild… or, hey, clothes! Those’re unnatural…
Face it, in a society where we’ve got plastic surgery, breast implants, medicine, and machines to do our bidding, this little “feel hornier to different people” drug is right at home.
I would agree with such a thing, as long as parents and such could not force people to use it. As long as it worked both ways anywais. I doubt such a thing would be possible though. I also doubt gay people would be the main ones using it.
I am for it, as long as James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, Jesse Helms, Anita Bryant, and Phyllis Schafley are forced to take the gay version at least once.
Many gay people who were unhappy with their sexuality would use it, ostracizing those who didn’t, or, because of serious side effects, couldn’t. It would give bigots more reason to discriminate, at least in their own mind, because sexuality would now be a choice. Eventually, you’d have people choosing between being gay in an even less tolerant world and taking the drug and living with its side effects. Going through life with “constipation, baldness, some joint pain, loss of concentration” is not a small side effect. I would consider it unethical and would rather focus on changing people’s outlooks and opinions.
I can’t see any positive side to the drug.
Asmodean:
Are you trying to say that you honestly think any sizeable portion of the straight population would prefer to be gay? Why?
[quote]
Are you trying to say that you honestly think any sizeable portion of the straight population would prefer to be gay? Why?
[quote]
I doubt any sizable portion of the population would use it all the time. If it were say over the counter I think that a much larger part of the population would try it for kicks or understanding. The main problem would be parents trying to force their kids to take it.
IMO, most medication has some theraputic benefit, whereas an anti-gay drug would not. Drugs are used to “fix” a medical “problem”, alleviate symptoms of disease, etc. I don’t see how something as innate as sexual preference could be allieved with medication. It’s not deadly, it’s not contagious, it doesn’t hurt anyone. Mainstream society however, would tend to advocate an anti-gay pill-not because it has theraputic properties, but because homosexuality is something many folks can’t comprehend and therefore fear. I liken the scenario to trying to medicate creativity or personality. Why, and for whose benefit? I would never choose to support this medication.
Homosexuality is not a disease, so there’s no reason for a cure.
However, as was discussed in two recentthreads, there are a very very small number of gay folk who insist on seeing spurious “therapy” to change their orientation, however impossible it may be. In such extreme and rare cases, where all other avenues of responsible psychiatry have been thoroughly exhausted, I, too, would want to see such a pill likened to sex reassignment surgery - it needs to be something that demonstrates a thorough commitment, a medical/psychological necessity, all other patient’s problems have been sufficiently dealt with, long-term waiting period, etc. The ethical downside to this is that, unlike sex reassignment surgery, it would be easier to “revert” if it were discovered that it was, after all, the wrong therapy for the patient, which would then make it easier to be prescribed without such safeguards against misuse.
If it happened, I would see nothing but problems, and I would see the equality movement revert to pre-Stonewall days. How sad would that be?
So if you were Gay, this drug could change you into a constipated, arthritic, daydreaming idiot (and probably frustrated because few women would be interested). But you’re still only one day away from ‘slipping’ back into homosexuality (if you don’t take the pills).
Great choice!
I doubt many parents would try to force this onto their children, since the side effects could be more traumatic than the mere possibility of their little darling turning out Gay.
However, I’ll bet a drug that curbed ALL sexual desire in teenagers would be welcomed by parents.
