Is research into the cause of homosexuality needed?

Question

I am just afraid that the research is largely funded by people looking for a cure.

Answer 1

I think we need research into many things in order to understand ourselves and our world better. The more rigorously conducted research has shown us many things about the fundamental differences between gay people and heterosexuals, ranging from key cognitive differences that account for the greater incidence of creativity amongst gay people to the fact that homosexual orientation is an inherent trait with which people are born and not a ''choice'' as the anti-gay lobby so often like to claim.

This research has been fundamental in shifting attitudes to homosexuality as being some form of ''illness'' and having it removed from the register of treatable psychological illnesses. This has led to a more enlightened understanding what it means to be gay and to a more rigorous investigation of the social, religious and cultural attitudes that continue to stigmatise gay people.

What does concern me, however, is that now we have the ability to manipulate genetic material, that the search for the ''gay gene'' may take the form of researching a way to remove it in the future so people won't have to endure having a gay baby. There, I think, lies a very dark path that, knowing human nature, we will find irresistible. This is the kind of thinking that was so comprehensively attacked by Anthony Burgess in his novel "A Clockwork Orange".

Answer 2

There is some concern that the people who are researching this topic are looking for a cure. The reason for that is that most scientists are satisfied that the cause is genetics and that humans aren't the only species with homosexual behavior. This means it's natural and not harmful, so they have stopped researching the question. It's like researching the cause of curly hair. We already know it and any "cure" would just be a way to cover the truth of the matter.

Answer 3

I totally understand your fear. I hate the fact that so much money is spent looking into the cause of homosexuality - in the 1970's the American Medical Association said that homosexuality is not a disease - so I do not see the point in trying to find the cause.

Even if homosexuality is genetic and could be treated I believe most of us wouldn't want to be changed from whom we are.

Answer 4

Nope, we have been around since the first humans, because we are ... human. No need to research that.
What could use some research is why other cultures didn't bat an eye about it and our present monotheistic culture is absolutely having a cow over it.

Answer 5

How and why do you cure something that isn't a disease? Homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality just as it is a normal part of sexuality in hundreds of different species. Cut out the religious persecution and it will be seen as what it is - perfectly natural.

Answer 6

I think you're correct in your statement. There's an absolutely incredible Canadian show called ReGenesis and this was one of the topics. NORBAC - North American Biotechnology Advisory Commission is a jointly funded American/Canadian/Mexican emergency research facility headquartered in Canada. One of the side story lines in episode 9 of season 2 called "Gene in a Bottle" was about a Canadian scientist who was genetically engineering mice and found the gene responsible for being gay and was in the process of patenting a drug to suppress said gene to "cure" homosexuality. Unfortunately he died before he was able to get the job done. This was work he was doing at home and on the side, away from his official research job at a multi-million dollar research facility. This scientist just happened to be an old friend of David Sandstrom, the Chief Scientist at Norbac. So when he died his wife called David not knowing what her husband was working on but knowing it was big and afraid that the company that her husband worked for was trying to confiscate all of his home research. She wanted David to figure out what it was and get it patented before they could get their hands on it. David has to work incredibly fast to figure the nature of the research and get the drug patented. David was confused at the thought that his friend was thinking about making millions off this drug and was incredibly conflicted in his thoughts on the consequences of such a drug. He manages to get it patented, right before the Company gets a court order demanding that all the research be handed over - in the mean time it gets stolen - by who, we still aren't sure - but it appears it was by someone connected to Washington with ties to the religious right. The consequences of this research becomes a pretty hot topic of discussion between the shows' characters. It was very thoughtfully handled. At the end of season three we have reason to believe that the drug may be about to get used on a Conservative American Senators' gay Son . . . without the Son's consent. We're going to have to wait until season four to find out what happens.

This is a very disturbing story line for me and I'm not gay. I have no idea what a world would look like if parents were allowed to make such decisions for their children, perhaps before they were even born. Gays have made some of my favorite contributions to life on earth. I can't begin to imagine a world without them. I understand that some would make this decision out of pure hatred for the gay lifestyle but others less inclined to hatred would do it just to make their child's life easier and to save them from a perceived life of pain and turmoil. How do you reconcile this? And religious zealots that fear and loathe science would be the first on the bandwagon to use such a drug - I'm sure they would be praising God for sending them a cure while continuing to damn stem cell research cause they know for sure God didn't send them that. I wonder how many people would choose to allow their children to develop naturally? And isn't amazing that before we try to find the gene that causes "personality disorders", "mental illness", "rage issues", "promiscuity", etc. we go for the gay gene? Don't try to rid the world of pedophiles, or abusive parents, or the gene that makes us all want to go to war with one another - go after that all important "Gay Gene".

Answer 7

There is a difference. I think that early research has helped us demonstrate that being gay is as much a inborn trait as hair color. Much research has allowed gay people to better understand themselves and their emotions.
Those who are looking to "change" gays do not use much real science. It would not prove their bias and bigotry.

Answer 8

I don't think so, but people who wish you could "cure" homosexuality might think it is worth it.

Answer 9

read the Croydon by Andre Gide

Answer 10

No.
I think you're right about the funding.