Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Get real, that's a pathetic argument. Name a single medical treatment that's mandatory.

Schizophrenia

Grasping at straws Vic. The few cases of mandatory cases of mandatory treatment for schizophrenia are essentially court ordered when the perp is proven to be violent. They're on the same level as prison, not treating the schizophrenia per se, but getting violent offenders off the streets.

I'll let your nonsensical rants slide a little this time as this has to be a really confusing issue for you. How can your religious hatred of homosexuality and your religious hatred of scientific advancement allow you to come to a reasonable position on either side of this one?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Get real, that's a pathetic argument. Name a single medical treatment that's mandatory.

Schizophrenia

Grasping at straws Vic. The few cases of mandatory cases of mandatory treatment for schizophrenia are essentially court ordered when the perp is proven to be violent. They're on the same level as prison, not treating the schizophrenia per se, but getting violent offenders off the streets.

I'll let your nonsensical rants slide a little this time as this has to be a really confusing issue for you. How can your religious hatred of homosexuality and your religious hatred of scientific advancement allow you to come to a reasonable position on either side of this one?

STFU troll.

Sometimes I can't believe what an idiot you are. I'm arguing in favor of homosexuality, disphit.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Vic
Please don't straw man. Thanks. Both scenarios would be unacceptable in my estimation.
And, it is my opinion that if some type of "cure" exists to treat behaviors that society disapproves of, then society will seek to force that "cure."
As it is also my opinion that the people who are truly clueless about society are those who put the word "modern" in front of it as though that means something or makes some kind of difference.

I'm not arguing that 100 years ago, if this "cure" was discovered, it would become mandatory. Do you really think that "modern" (as in, 2007) society is exactly the same as 1907 society? Do you think that the average person's view on homosexuality hasn't changed in the last 100 years? Hasn't become more...accepting? I mean, c'mon, people openly joke about homosexuality on TV, and having the token gay guy is a staple of every sitcom. Do you think this would have happened back then? I don't.

That makes me clueless?

I believe that your opinion is the result of an irrational persecution complex. </Freud> However, since there's no way to prove the future, let's forgo the inevitable link-posting of fringe groups beating up gays and actors openly living a gay life without anyone caring, claiming that these represent a fair slice of society.

Oooh, that gives me a delicious idea!!! Let's give this drug to those people and turn them all gay!

 

[edro]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: robphelan
it's scary that people are actually experimenting with medication with the aim to turn gay people straight.
this is exactly where this research is going.

And what if they do?

Then the Republicans will start putting the cure in drinking water, along with Flouride.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: edro

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: robphelan
it's scary that people are actually experimenting with medication with the aim to turn gay people straight.
this is exactly where this research is going.

And what if they do?

Then the Republicans will start putting the cure in drinking water, along with Flouride.

Don't think it will be just the R's. Remember it's the D's who say you can tap your foot in the restroom anymore, lest you catch TEH GHEY!

Homophobia is alive and well in mainstream society today, people just like to delude themselves otherwise.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: edro

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: robphelan
it's scary that people are actually experimenting with medication with the aim to turn gay people straight.
this is exactly where this research is going.

And what if they do?

Then the Republicans will start putting the cure in drinking water, along with Flouride.

Don't think it will be just the R's. Remember it's the D's who say you can tap your foot in the restroom anymore, lest you catch TEH GHEY!

Homophobia is alive and well in mainstream society today, people just like to delude themselves otherwise.

Why do they do that? Who really cares if someone is gay? I sure don't. Hell, I'm fine with allowing gay couples to marry.

Who are these people who think they have any right to criticize someone for being gay? :|

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: jagec

You're clueless about modern society. People will treat religion as a "mental illness" and force a "cure" before they'll do so with homosexuality.

yes because clearly a plurality of society believes that religion is a mental illness. Log off and experience real life, you know where peole talk face to face and Ron Paul isn't the second coming of Christ.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker
So how long till we have people demanding the right to marry insects and arachnids?

"My Tarantula gets me and we want to spend the rest of our lives together!"

I've actually heard this as an argument against gay marriage. Not with a tarantula, mind you, but beastiality in general.

 

[oznerol]

So, just out of curiosity - is viewing gay people as simply having a genetic defect considered homophobia? Like, looking at them along the same lines as someone with say, down syndrome?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: DarkThinker
So how long till we have people demanding the right to marry insects and arachnids?

"My Tarantula gets me and we want to spend the rest of our lives together!"

I've actually heard this as an argument against gay marriage. Not with a tarantula, mind you, but beastiality in general.

and its an example of a slippery slope argument that is not legit.

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Get real, that's a pathetic argument. Name a single medical treatment that's mandatory.

Lots of immunizations are required to get into public schools or colleges. How about a "gay" immunization being required for employment? Doesn't sound like it'd be too far-fetched.
The slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy, if there is reasonable evidence from the past to support such a claim.


My view tends not to be exceedingly popular - that homosexuality is simply a birth defect. Note, it's not evil, it's not immoral, it's just a genetic anomaly. Some people are born with blindness in one eye, some are born missing part of a limb. Most people are born and will develop a desire to find a mate who is of the opposite gender. Some are not. Simple as that. problem is, because it is in the realm of involving sex, ooooooh, suddenly it's a big deal. It happens all the time. If a public official lies about sex, it's a big deal, it's a scandal. If a public official taps to get sex in a bathroom, it's a big deal - if he'd be tapping to get a payoff from a lobbyist, it'd never be in the news. Homosexuality - right there in the term is the word "sex." Teehee, teehee, "sex." Now for some reason it's a major concern, a "moral threat."
It's no more a moral threat than someone who was born without a forearm. Either person can lead a normal life, pursuing life, liberty, and happiness, as we are all guaranteed in this country.

Most intelligent and correct post in this thread. :thumbsup:

 

[Wag]

I wonder how the scientists actually thought about doing this? Did they just wake up one day and say to themselves, "Hey, I have an idea, let's make a straight fruit fly gay!!!"

Next thing you know we'll have dogs and cats living together...

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Get real, that's a pathetic argument. Name a single medical treatment that's mandatory.

Lots of immunizations are required to get into public schools or colleges. How about a "gay" immunization being required for employment? Doesn't sound like it'd be too far-fetched.
The slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy, if there is reasonable evidence from the past to support such a claim.


My view tends not to be exceedingly popular - that homosexuality is simply a birth defect. Note, it's not evil, it's not immoral, it's just a genetic anomaly. Some people are born with blindness in one eye, some are born missing part of a limb. Most people are born and will develop a desire to find a mate who is of the opposite gender. Some are not. Simple as that. problem is, because it is in the realm of involving sex, ooooooh, suddenly it's a big deal. It happens all the time. If a public official lies about sex, it's a big deal, it's a scandal. If a public official taps to get sex in a bathroom, it's a big deal - if he'd be tapping to get a payoff from a lobbyist, it'd never be in the news. Homosexuality - right there in the term is the word "sex." Teehee, teehee, "sex." Now for some reason it's a major concern, a "moral threat."
It's no more a moral threat than someone who was born without a forearm. Either person can lead a normal life, pursuing life, liberty, and happiness, as we are all guaranteed in this country.

Most intelligent and correct post in this thread. :thumbsup:

Yes and no. I mean, I agree - but as I asked earlier, I wonder if this is considered "homophobia."

For example, if these things can be "fixed" - be it the kid who is "blind in one eye" or "missing part of a limb" (neither of which are actually genetic, but whatever) - would you do it? Oftentimes we do - with surgery and/or medication, but with homosexuality it's a different beast altogether.

Many believe being gay isn't something which requires a "cure". It's an interesting debate, really.

I dislike the "slippery slope" argument, sorry Vic. To me, "mandatory fixes" are quite impractical and highly unlikely - especially when gay people pose no threat to themselves or society (as someone with a mentally unstable genetic defect may be). Sure people are homophobes - but many of these people also believe that being gay is a choice. If it is genetically linked, I would imagine the anti-gay movement would go from "stop being gay, gay people" to "these people are born with a defect".

There's no push for mandatory down syndrome cures, there won't be one for homosexuality.

 

[Number1]

I agree with you vic, once a cure is available, there would be enormous pressure on gais to get treated . This cure would make homosexuality truly a choice to the delight off all the homophobes out there.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: robphelan
it's scary that people are actually experimenting with medication with the aim to turn gay people straight.

this is exactly where this research is going.

uh, i thought of another use....

yeah, i said it

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: dguy6789

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Get real, that's a pathetic argument. Name a single medical treatment that's mandatory.

Lots of immunizations are required to get into public schools or colleges. How about a "gay" immunization being required for employment? Doesn't sound like it'd be too far-fetched.
The slippery slope argument isn't always a fallacy, if there is reasonable evidence from the past to support such a claim.


My view tends not to be exceedingly popular - that homosexuality is simply a birth defect. Note, it's not evil, it's not immoral, it's just a genetic anomaly. Some people are born with blindness in one eye, some are born missing part of a limb. Most people are born and will develop a desire to find a mate who is of the opposite gender. Some are not. Simple as that. problem is, because it is in the realm of involving sex, ooooooh, suddenly it's a big deal. It happens all the time. If a public official lies about sex, it's a big deal, it's a scandal. If a public official taps to get sex in a bathroom, it's a big deal - if he'd be tapping to get a payoff from a lobbyist, it'd never be in the news. Homosexuality - right there in the term is the word "sex." Teehee, teehee, "sex." Now for some reason it's a major concern, a "moral threat."
It's no more a moral threat than someone who was born without a forearm. Either person can lead a normal life, pursuing life, liberty, and happiness, as we are all guaranteed in this country.

Most intelligent and correct post in this thread. :thumbsup:

Yes and no. I mean, I agree - but as I asked earlier, I wonder if this is considered "homophobia."

For example, if these things can be "fixed" - be it the kid who is "blind in one eye" or "missing part of a limb" (neither of which are actually genetic, but whatever) - would you do it? Oftentimes we do - with surgery and/or medication, but with homosexuality it's a different beast altogether.

Many believe being gay isn't something which requires a "cure". It's an interesting debate, really.

I dislike the "slippery slope" argument, sorry Vic. To me, "mandatory fixes" are quite impractical and highly unlikely - especially when gay people pose no threat to themselves or society (as someone with a mentally unstable genetic defect may be). Sure people are homophobes - but many of these people also believe that being gay is a choice. If it is genetically linked, I would imagine the anti-gay movement would go from "stop being gay, gay people" to "these people are born with a defect".

There's no push for mandatory down syndrome cures, there won't be one for homosexuality.

Slippery slope has many valid uses, but most of them I hear on ATOT are not so valid. I don't however buy your reasoning behind why mandatory fixes are improbable in this instance. Just about every mass-extermination I can think of in history was targeted towards a people who "pose no threat to themselves or society" by today's standards. However, at the time, whatever activity or belief system these people were espousing (jews, intellectuals, homosexuals, etc) were believed to be plenty harmful to society, therefore allowing them to be wiped out or *fixed*.

Armed with an 8th grade world history book, it should be fairly obvious why this issue could be a slippery slope.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Number1
I agree with you vic, once a cure is available, there would be enormous pressure on gais to get treated . This cure would make homosexuality truly a choice to the delight off all the homophobes out there.

I can't imagine how this would change discourse on the matter though. Christians have always vehemently resisted the idea that a person could be born gay, as that would be against what they perceive as God's nature. If all of the sudden there was simultaneously proof that people were born that way and also that a cure is easily provided, would they change course just as quickly and accept that God does in fact make people gay? Can an ATOT Christian explain this to me?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Number1
I agree with you vic, once a cure is available, there would be enormous pressure on gais to get treated . This cure would make homosexuality truly a choice to the delight off all the homophobes out there.

That was all I was saying. Thank you.
But it would be far worse than just a "choice." It would be a "curable disease." I can't even begin to imagine how much the anti-gay crowd would get off on this.

Originally posted by: ducci
There's no push for mandatory down syndrome cures, there won't be one for homosexuality.

Uhh... there is no cure for Downs Syndrome nor can there ever be one. It's a permanent genetic defect caused from having an extra 21st chromosone.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: blurredvision
I'm with everyone else, I don't see a problem with making some kind of drug that would be able to change sexual preferences. I'd imagine lots of gays would take a so-called drug because homosexuality is still socially unaccepted, and if it was available to take voluntarily, what's so wrong with that?

I'm assuming you mind that people fuck themselves up with plastic surgery?

Is there some reason that no one has been able/willing to address my actual argument here?

I'm sorry, but I didn't really see where you were try going with your argument. But reading back through, it seems like you are worried about homosexuality being approached by the government as a disease.

Personally, if such a drug ever came into existance that "cured" homosexuality in both male and female humans, and the government forced it upon the masses, I'm not sure that I'd even think about speaking out against it. I'm not gay nor am I religious, but maybe a completely heterosexual world wouldn't be so bad. That said, I don't care that gays exist or continue to exist...I've known some I couldn't stand, and I've known others that were alright people.....the same mixture of all the straight people I've met .

This is a tough thing to argue, though, because it's a completely hypothetical situation. People on "my side" of the argument can only argue opinions, people on "your side" of the argument can only argue what you consider to be the morals that everyone should have.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Vic
Please don't straw man. Thanks. Both scenarios would be unacceptable in my estimation.
And, it is my opinion that if some type of "cure" exists to treat behaviors that society disapproves of, then society will seek to force that "cure."
As it is also my opinion that the people who are truly clueless about society are those who put the word "modern" in front of it as though that means something or makes some kind of difference.

I'm not arguing that 100 years ago, if this "cure" was discovered, it would become mandatory. Do you really think that "modern" (as in, 2007) society is exactly the same as 1907 society? Do you think that the average person's view on homosexuality hasn't changed in the last 100 years? Hasn't become more...accepting? I mean, c'mon, people openly joke about homosexuality on TV, and having the token gay guy is a staple of every sitcom. Do you think this would have happened back then? I don't.

That makes me clueless?

I believe that your opinion is the result of an irrational persecution complex. </Freud> However, since there's no way to prove the future, let's forgo the inevitable link-posting of fringe groups beating up gays and actors openly living a gay life without anyone caring, claiming that these represent a fair slice of society.

Okay, and now you're just flipping out nonsensically...

My argument is that I don't think homosexuality requires a "cure." Do you have anything relevant to add to that? Or are you just going to keep making up sh!t about me?

I am similarly confused. First you make fun of me for putting "modern" in front of "society" as a way to distinguish between the society of today and the society of 100 years ago--the obvious inference being that today's society is more accepting of homosexuality, and that I don't buy that the vast majority of society sees homosexuality as a disease and would gladly force unwanted "treatment" on gays. Then you claim I'm "flipping out" when I explain why I used the words that I did.

Your argument has nothing to do with the moral justification for this "treatment"--in fact, your posts imply that you think its very existence to be almost immoral. Your argument is that our 2007 society will convert gay people to straight if this "treatment" is available. I disagree. A 1907 society would indeed force the "cure", but our 2007 society doesn't have the necessary majority of hardcore homophobes. Too many people would make too big a stink if they tried to do such a thing today.

 

[glutenberg]

I watched this entire issue play out in XMen 3.

 

[OdiN]

Hmmm....maybe they will come up with a cure for gay people.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Wag
I wonder how the scientists actually thought about doing this? Did they just wake up one day and say to themselves, "Hey, I have an idea, let's make a straight fruit fly gay!!!"

Next thing you know we'll have dogs and cats living together...

Mass hysteria!!!

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Wag
I wonder how the scientists actually thought about doing this? Did they just wake up one day and say to themselves, "Hey, I have an idea, let's make a straight fruit fly gay!!!"

Next thing you know we'll have dogs and cats living together...

Mass hysteria!!!

This man has no dick.

 

[Fritzo]

If you could give the other side a try, would you? And yes, just like the fruit flies, you could go back.

Only if it was Mosh...


...and we could watch :Q