People, and subgroups of them don’t like to be put under a microscope or be treated as subjects.
They like to be friends, family members, etc, but studied as a curiosity, no.
And just speculation, but they probably don’t like being referred to as lunatics that took over an asylum.
If I were to guess, both.
That’s something worth researching.
The truth hurts sometimes.
I am talking about the APA leadership.
I’ve said before on past threads (but it’s been awhile), that I’m a professor and have been now for 16(!) years. I teach chemistry courses, and feel blessed that it takes politics and subjectivity about world views completely out of the picture. You either had the correct mechanism for a reaction, or you didn’t! I had a colleague who was a staunch republican (rare at Universities, I know) who would plaster has office door and walls with clear indications of his political leanings. I didn’t like, and wouldn’t like it if it were liberal leaning pictures/posters either. It’s unprofessional, and students shouldn’t feel threatened (or, empowered) because their political views are reinforced or challenged by the faculty.
I had a joke I thought would make a good cartoon. Maybe it’s only funny if you’re in academia, but it seems some might be amused.
Frame one: Student comes into faculty office, and the professor asks the student to retrieve a book from his car.
Frame two: “Which car is yours?” the student asks, as the keys are handed to them. “It’s the silver Toyota Prius, with two Hillary Clinton bumper stickers that’s parked in the first row of the faculty parking lot”, answers the professor.
Frame three: student returns to his office after attempting to retrieve the book. “You’ll have to be more specific”, the student says to the professor.
For frame three, how about an illustration of the kid standing at the head of the row of Prius’ with all the “i’m with her” stickers and a look of exasperation on the student’s face…
Well, I have 2 feelings about that. In the name of free speech that professor has the right to express his opinions on his own time. The contrary feeling is he’s a chemistry teacher which is not political. And so long as the college provides a place for political discussions to take place, say like a Political Science class\ major. There is no need for this teacher to decorate his room with republican propaganda.
Then again, it’s school property not his. So I would have to defer on the school policies on how professors are allowed to treat their offices.
I’d rather have a gay kid than a dead kid, any day of the week.
Based on what I do know about the genetic component, there is more than one gene that flips ‘the switch’. If they come together as a pack or not is unknown. Further, having a gene is no guarantee of future behavior. Genes (healthy genes) tend to skew you towards one thing or another. Heavily skewed people will, more likely than not, be gay. But there is some slide to that scale.
It would be helpful to know more. Not to “fix”, but to understand.
In a clinical world, it is an abnormal behavior. That doesn’t mean it’s right, wrong or indifferent. It just skews a couple of standard deviations from the norm.
The average population tends to sustain a 3-5% homosexual rate pretty consistently despite welcoming or hostile conditions.
Understanding the topic better can help a lot of people. Gay people know why their gay without the old “What’s wrong with me” struggle and families have a better understanding of their gay relatives.
This isn’t a pat-atopia. It’s avocation for doing more science.
Why? What is the evil in suggesting that expectant parents should have the option fix it? Something (a defining thing, in fact) living organism do is reproduce. The form of the reproductive organs obviously gives away their function. The law of the land says you can rip a human from the womb so as to kill him/her. So, in that light, who the heck dares suggest it would be wrong to correct attraction, in the womb, to the opposite sex? The evolved reproductive pairing of our species.
The same people who say that abortion is wrong for religious reasons would dare to sat that interfering in how God made a person at conception is also wrong.
The Christianity I know has no issue with correcting health issues (which is vastly different than taking a life). My own denomination run’s hospitals dealing with children’s issues. Including those with a genetic origin. You may want to confront someone from a specific sect that doesn’t believe in medical intervention? Anyone like that present? Don’t know.
I mean, hey, pro-aborts like to say that a person isn’t actually harmed in abortion since…Well, I don’t know, person-hood has yet to descend down from the great person-hood vault of secular-heaven (where person-hood comes from but never returns, I guess). So, no gay persons would ever actually have the treatment performed on them, secularly speaking. Just a “clump of cells.”
And who said anything about Religion? If correcting homosexuality before birth is a possibility, it would be popular among the more secular, too. A child’s sexuality is corrected to align with reproductive realities? The possibility of grandchildren within an intact home, with both biological parents? Oh come on, you think the SJWs, living in their lily-white suburbia, wouldn’t be having this done on the down low? No, I would wager money the procedure would be popular, despite left or right, religious or secular, alignments.
And again, how in the heck are you going to ban the practice in a country where you could choose to outright abort the child? What sort of mental gymnastics would that entail? We’re not talking about re-engineering for 3 arms and a sharp toothed mouth on the belly. Simply re-aligning attraction to what nature has already selected as our species’ reproductive method. In fact, I would say opposing such a medical intervention-- simply realigning attraction to the species wide evolution of reproduction, and the resulting form and function of genitalia and gametes–would be akin to the those religious that do refuse medical intervention for their children. But I guess it would in the name of a progressive morality. And since morality doesn’t exist in reality, it wouldn’t be like they were actually doing anything evil in seeking such medical intervention…
Ok, back to the regularly scheduled topic. Just thought I would add my thoughts to a couple exchanges above, is all.
Homosexuality is a health issue?
Homosexuality is incorrect?
One of the defining features of an organism is its ability to reproduce. The human species’ method is through sexual reproduction. The reproductive organs and the functions of the gametes are rather big clues to this. Say what you will, but attraction to the opposite sex is the norm for our species. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be sitting here today. So, yes, a medical intervention which realigns attraction to the undeniable function of ones reproductive organs would be a correction.
And, in any event, it’s a choice (the correcting) that must be logically left with the expectant parent. If abortion is a health issue, which kills a human, then certainly so is the realigning of sexual orientation to sexual (ie, rerprductive) reality which ends with the birth of a perfectly safe and healthy child some time later…
Edit: And, if you’re pro-abort, believing no ‘person’ is present during that intervention, then you ultimately shouldn’t oppose this intervention as no gay person would actually receive the proposed ‘correction.’ Because, after all, no person is yet present. Just a ‘clump of cells.’
Homosexuality does not mean you are unable to reproduce.
It means ones attraction is misaligned with reproductive realities though.
That isn’t the only reality.
But listen, it’s all moot anyways. No gay person would receive the intervention if it were to be come reality.
Never say never.
In any event, there’s no justification for banning it. Again, not sure why it would be a hold up in a nation where abortion is legal and person-hood is denied.