Assuming that they were allowed to take the pill of their own free will, and it was not forced or coerced, why would you think most LGBT supporters would oppose that?
Actually, there is such a pill, and gay activists have condemned it:
A treatment for a birth disorder has been found to reduce the likelihood that girls will become gay. Activist groups have condemned the ‘anti-gay’ treatment.
August 15, 2010 |
A treatment for a rare birth disorder has been found to have a controversial side-effect: It evidently reduces the likelihood that treated girls will become gay.
Rights groups and medical experts are coming out against the treatment, saying it amounts to “engineering in the womb for sexual orientation.”
The rare condition known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia causes girls to develop ambiguous genitals and facial hair, as well as failure to menstruate. Studies have suggested that “biological and psychological factors” result in individuals with the condition being more likely to be gay.
adaher, that pill is completely different, for reasons already addressed.
Well, it stands to reason that the less rare it is the more of a problem it’s going to be in evolutionary terms.
How can you discuss evolution in one sentence and then forget it exists in the next? The human body isn’t “built to do” anything. It just wound up the way it is.
There was an episode of Star Trek: TNG, Measure of a Man (bear with me), where Data is ordered to submit to disassembly so some comically inept guy from the Daystrom Institute can attempt to replicate him. Picard tries to convince him to do it on a utilitarian basis: “think how much good might be accomplished.” Data then asks him why all Starfleet officers are not required to have their eyes replaced with cybernetic visors like Geordi’s, since the visor is objectively superior to human eyes.
The point is that bodily autonomy will always override utility.
The pill is different, but since it reduces the likelihood of someone being gay, it has been condemned by gay rights groups. Which makes no sense and also would tend to predict that they’d condemn a “choice” pill as well.
Er, not you, your friend. Sorry I missed your post in the middle of the thread.
Bpelta, can you offer any insight as to why your friend expected a different response?
You are assuming that it is a problem. It seems more likely to me that the fact that it’s as common as it is means that it isn’t much of a problem and may well be a benefit.
That was the best way I could think to phrase it while avoiding the word “designed”. The body isn’t designed, but it does have function; it’s not some random glob.
Which is an argument against the pill, the primary use of which is to subvert people’s bodily autonomy to serve the preferences of others.
Did you not read the first page of the thread? The whole issue being debated is the distinction between consenting use of the hypothetical pill by an adult and nonconsenting administration.
The OP posited that the primary use is to control one’s own orientation. I find it impressive that you can read the minds of people who only exist in a hypothetical.
Don’t be silly; I’m simply assuming that the people who exist right now who hate homosexuals will not magically disappear with the introduction of such a pill, and I’m assuming that most people probably won’t want to change their sexual orientation. The primary use of such a pill in the real world will be to change people’s orientation by force; probably quite often outright at gunpoint.
You mean like how gays are forced into “re-education” programs at gunpoint quite often? You’re being silly.
People who would force gay people to take this pill at gunpoint won’t have any compunction about just shooting them if the pill isn’t available.
I kind of agree with Der Trihs that the pill is bound to be used for some nefarious purposes, but I don’t think it really matters- if this pill is invented, it will be out there for people to use no matter what action any government takes. So I would support anyone’s right to use it for themselves if they wish.
I normally vote Democrat, and no, I don’t have a problem with that if it’s non-coercive and based on genuine desire for a person to change. It would have to be a true choice, not one that is coerced. But that could be a problem - you could have churches saying, “We will excommunicate you if you don’t find a way to not be gay. We recommend this new program - it’s not like the old ex-gay therapy, it really works! A study by Johns Hopkins in 2018 shows that 97 out of 100 test subjects successfully converted from gay to really-and-truly-o straight! In fact, it worked so well that one 35 year old gay man walked out of the treatment center and was so overwhelmed by his new hetero feelings that he raped a woman! Now he’s in sex offender treatment trying to be less hetero <laughs>.” The fact that it’s being funded by private money keeps the issue of public funding from coming up at all.
I also agree that the biggest “problem” as it relates to ex-gay treatment/therapy is that it doesn’t have a scientific basis and really doesn’t seem to “work”, and the fact that religious groups are still pushing it and using their weight to convince people to follow them in hopes for a change.
The real question is: Would they still be Gay?
Just to address a line I just noticed in the OP…
It’s worse than just them not being effective. They’re actively harmful, under the guise of trying to help. It’s why so many people still find the idea of an orientation pill distasteful, even if completely voluntary. There’s such a long history of these charlatans and bigots pushing people into misery and, often, suicide because they just couldn’t “do the program right”.
A few years ago there was this:
Military Gay Bomb
I think most agree that such a device is reprehensible. Though that whole war thing muddies the picture.
My problem with such a pill is that we live in a society that discriminates against gay people, which itself would cause (coerce) people into taking it. IF we lived in a society where someone could truly choose to turn straight honestly because that was something he or she wanted, and NOT because it was easier or to avoid discrimination or because of religion, then I would be okay with it. But I also think that IF we lived in such a society, no one would want to take it.
To put it another way, lets say there was a pill to make a black person white. Is that okay? Don’t we think there is something wrong with a person who would try to change their race? What would motivate someone to want such a thing? Do we think it equally likely that someone would want a pill to turn a white person black?
So, I think the hypothetical is flawed. The pursuit of such a pill in and of itself demonstrates a flaw in society that is inherently coercive.
I agree. In theory, I’d be okay with the pill. But in the real world, a lot of people have been hurt by ex-gay therapy. Some people who entered the therapy voluntarily because of self-hatred, and some because they were forced into it by family or pressured into it by their community. I have little confidence that the pill would be any different.
Also I’m afraid it would harm the rights of gay people who want to stay gay. There are a lot of people who are slowly becoming more supportive of gay rights. But if there was an orientation changing pill, I fear that many would think “why do they need gay marriage? They should just take the pill and become straight.”
That’s the other objection I would have to the pill. It seems with what we know today, this pill would be impossible to make and never work. The research money would all be wasted. If the philanthropist really wanted to do good with his money, he should donate to gay rights groups, or to homeless shelters for gay teens, or any number of other things.
Yep. One might bemoan gays being forced to take such a pill in Saudi Arabia, but what they do to gays now is worse.
Edit: Whoops, misread the OP.
I wouldn’t be up for banning any private company researching it, but I would also not be in favour of the government or large general medical research councils funding it - thereare bigger things to be using our money and skills on.
That would be my main concern. And I think that would happen even if the pill were mostly ineffective or had serious side-effects.
I take no position on whether it ought to be possible to change. I don’t think anyone ought to be made to change (however you interpret “made to”) even if it were possible.
The question seems like a setup, like the intent is that any answer I give would be at odds with or inconsistent with my professed beliefs, or at least the professed beliefs of someone who used the same adjective about their politics as I’ve used about mine.