My family on my Mom’s side comes from the midwest. Stable they are not. My aunt talked to ghosts and aliens as she drifted into full blown schizophrenia. My mom is the opposite of stable, thick and boring. She’s very intelligent but very moody.
I’m not offended, mind you. I just wanted to counter a common stereotype.
Sorry about the hijack.
Don’t apologise, my previous comment was actually a bit below the belt so I’m glad someone picked me up on it. 
Still, my point about unintentional maluses of making the world a better place still stands.
If they can cure it they can cause it. It would be a way to cure overpopulation.
If only - the nations that have the highest birth rates are the ones least accepting of homosexuality (namely China, India and the Middle East), so good luck trying to market that one. I think it would be best if we continue stick to condoms for the time being (assuming the Catholic Church ever switches its collective brain on in this particular area of doctrine).
Strikes me as similar to plastic surgery - nothing wrong with having a big nose either, but nobody thinks rhinoplasty is morally wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan: I think I’m on the same page as you in that sense.
But the question that I’m interested in is more along the lines of what if rhinoplasty becomes very popular in concert with lots of talk about how Jews have big noses and are disgusting and vile?
That’s sort of what I meant by the idea that while I can’t really fault people for making choices on their own behalf, writ large, I can see some real problems in society with thinking that something is wrong and pushing and encouraging people to eradicate it. Again, if its just speech, it’s hard to have anything to say against it then more speech. But it still certainly seems to be like a major social issue.
If cures like this come out, I don’t think it’s unlikely that many theocratic countries in Africa and the ME start eugenically curing and preventing the existence of homosexuality. And here in the US, many groups advocating that gay people and potential parents of gay children work to eradicate gayness from the population.
Yet another reason why we should be diverting research money and resources to more important things, like - oh, I don’t know - curing cancer or AIDS. But of course logic isn’t the primary force governing the distribution of research grants, politics is.
Shudders
Ill, let’s be fair to the article: PETA’s point is silly. There IS a value to the research, clearly stated: gay rams are worth less to farmers and so they want less of them in order to increase industrial efficiency.
You make a good point Apos, I graciously concede.
It’s the gay ewes I feel sorry for - standing there waiting for, well… actually what would two lesbian ewes do together? Not-mount each other?
Testing for homosexuality, by medical means, rather than “curing”, would have very different results.
If a pre-natal test was developed, the number of abortions would jump!
If post-natal, an unprecedented number of abandoned children would result.
What would be the response? Orphan camps? Unlimited numbers of “street kids”?
And there would be an epidemic of Exploding Head Syndrome amongst the Religious Right.
Huge numbers of gay street kids? My God, it would be like West Side Story, but real! 
SteveMB - if it weren’t for the unfortunate deaths of lots of innocent gay fetuses that would be reason enoguh to do it, in my mind. I’d love to watch the televangelists try and argue with the politicians whether God hates fags or abortions more, it would be truly popcorn-worthy.
I guess addict isn’t the right word. But glasses and most medical treatments are designed to fix or treat a problem. Sexual preference isn’t a problem, in that sense.
Nah. If gays are as little as 4% of the usual population, and those having access to pre-natal genetic screenings is also a small percent of the population, we wouldn’t see a huge upsurge in abortions.
What would suck though, is if gayness is a combination of a genetic predisposition mixed with unknown other environmental & developmental factors which resulted in say, 50% of fetuses “potentially” being gay. I mean, if there were a 50/50 shot your kid’s gay gene would express itself would people just abort them all, just to be sure?
Nah, again. I just don’t see that. How many times have you seen a really ugly baby but the parents are cooing over it like it’s the prettiest little baby in the world, and the rest of us with our poker faces are thinking, “wow, that’s the ugliest baby I’ve ever seen?” It’s kinda like you were secretly hoping for a boy, but you got a girl. Most parents fall in love with it anyway, and don’t abandon it. At least in civilized countries. What if there was a test which could tell you what occupation you kid is likely to go for? You were hoping he’d be a lawyer, but it turns out he’s probably going to be a drummer in a band. Do you abandon it?
Yah!
Anyway, if straights started selecting for straight kids, who’s to say gay parents wouldn’t start selecting for gay kids?
This is an interesting question, and reminds me of a debate I had with a co-worker who has two toddlers. As expected, we agreed that regardless of their sexual orientation, he will be loving them no more or less whether they turn out to be straight or gay. But then I asked him if he had a preference. He admitted that due to society’s perception of gays, he thought life would be eaiser/better for them if they were straight. Then I asked the hypothetical: “If there was no societal stigma associated with being gay, would you have a preference how your kids turned out or not?” This is where we disagreed. He maintained that he would have no preference whatsoever. I was of the mind that—all things remaining equal—that I would prefer that a child of mine be straight for the reason that he/she would be aqble to experience the full range of human sexaulity, procreation, and parenthood. We disagreed vehemently. To me, it’s akin to hoping that any straight child you have find a mate and experience those things.
Anyway, this seemed to explore what might be at the heart of the questions posede in the OP, so I thought I’d share it. My apologies if it’s more of a highjack.
magellan01 - you raise an interesting point, and I personally am inclined to agree with you that your colleague would probably actually prefer it if his children turned out to be straight because 1) they’d be like him and 2) he’s grown up in a culture that largely says gay is wrong. Saying that in some hypothetical universe where there was no difference in perception between gay and straight he’d have no preference is not the same as actually not having a preference (he probably just doesn’t feel it very cool to say so).
As someone who is gay I wouldn’t fault him for his preference, it’s only natural after all (and is, again) the same motivating factor for deaf parents to want deaf children, although I’ve already said above why I don’t think that’s right. I want to have children and I genuinely have no preference for them turning out gay or straight, because for me neither is a “least preferred” option as a straight couple’s child being gay usually is. With a gay father a gay child is likely to be far better set for life than a gay child with a straight father, but statistically it’s more likely that any child I have would be straight so that’s what I’m expecting based on the law of averages.
I had an entirely different conversation with my colleagues recently about whether being able to select the birth of your child was ethical or not (there are quite a lot of products on sale that allow you do do it at the pre-conception stage by making the woman’s body chemistry more conducive to one sex or another and they attest to be about 99% effective or your money back). One of my colleagues (who is also gay, not sure if that’s relevant) was adamant that it was wrong and likened it to assault, saying parents who do this should be sent to prison etc. Personally I’m undecided - I’d quite like a boy if I have kids but I’m not sure I’d got to the trouble of trying to convince the mother that she should take drugs to make it happen - but his view seemed to be disproportionately vehement. Surely it’s better to choose the sex of your child chemically than abort or abandon a child that wasn’t the “right” sex (as STILL happens in India and China).
Anyone else have thoughts on this? Apologies for another hijack.
Ah, but what fabulous camps those would be!
Shouldn’t you then hope for them to be bisexual then ? That’s the orientation that can enjoy the wideest range of sexuality and relationships, after all. When you get right down to it, it’s the bisexuals who come closest to experiencing “the full range of human sexuality”; not straights or gays.
Also, I think that if a treatment that worked on adults existed, the long term result would be the near-extinction of heterosexuality. Each gender could get a mate that thought and acted more like them, and not have to put up with the things that irritate them about the oppostite sex.
I’m a heck of a lot more irritated with people of my own sex than of the opposite sex.
I’ve got a book of short stories called Bending the Landscape, which is a collection of gay and lesbian-themed science fiction stories. It’s been years since I read it, but I recall two stories that dealt with the ideas raised in the OP. One was about a kid from the local high school newspaper interviewing the last living homosexual: a post-natal “cure” for homosexuality had been found, which led directly to a major backlash against gay rights, forcing most gays to take the cure just to avoid the constant harrassment. The interviewee (now a very old man on his death bed) had forgone the cure because it would have meant ending his very loving marriage to his husband.
I don’t recall all of the details from the other story, except that it took place in a society where it was possible to screen for homosexuality in utero. This led directly to every single major Christian denomination in the world to reverse their stances against abortion… except for the Catholics. As a result, within a couple generations, the gay community was almost entirely Catholic. Gays who were out cruising would wear a lot of Catholic paraphenilia to signal that they were looking. I always thought the story should have taken it further, and proposed a whole “hanky code” for this stuff. Wearing a rosary means you’re a top, wearing a St. Christopher medallion means you’re into bondage, a t-shirt of the pope means fisting, and so forth.
What I find disturbing is that such “tweaks” to the fetus would lead to other alterations. Before long, every newborn would be custom-built to whichever trend was popular. Not to mention the possibility that homosexuality is a built-in population control among our species.
I wonder about the possibility of having the procedure done on someone who has committed a hate crime against gays. Of course, that implies “turning gay” as punishment, which also somewhat implies gay = bad (but moreso that gay = difficult).
What about things like fetishes? Could transvestites be “fixed”? Maybe they could make heterosexual men more attracted to intelligence in women. I, for one, would love it if I suddenly started seeing late night ads for “Girls Gone Smart.”
The research could serve useful if they could find ways to change other things. The tendency toward violence, for example. If everyone could take an “anti-anger” pill each morning, the world would be a better place.
Miller, those sound like fascinating stories. I especially like the notion of Catholic symbols being used as way to display one’s homosexuality.