• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Should this be illegal or allowed?

J

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
7,833
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
I got this idea watching a Simpsons re-run. You might remember this episode, it took place in the future with a grown-up Bart.

Suppose, while researching something different in the area of sexuality, a drug company discovers drugs that will alter peoples sexual orientation. It makes the user more heterosexual, how much more depending on the starting point of the individual and on the size of the dose. It has no negative side effects, but does have the side effect of enhancing performance (the original research subject). It works on both genders, assume it is two drugs if you wish.

Should the company be allowed to market this drug for this surprise effect?

By the way, I do recognize that sexual orientation is largely a result of being born that way, not choice the way the fundies say. That's why I think this question is theoretically possible, if unlikely, because chemicals can impact biochemistry.
 
So long as they make it clear what the drug does I don't have a problem with it.

However, I would restrict it to those who are under their own insurance--and no getting around this with self pay, but I would allow a psychiatrist to permit it if they are satisfied the person is not being pressured into taking it.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Isn't it heteronormative? Doesn't the existence of a 'cure' for homosexuality imply that it is a disorder?
Click to expand...

It doesn't imply shit. Lots of brunets like to dye their hair blond. Transsexuals take hormones and have operations to change their gender. Ideally there would be no social pressure to change your sexual orientation, but we don't live in utopia.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Should the company be allowed to market this drug for this surprise effect?
Click to expand...

Yes, why shouldn't they be? Just so long the other effects are clearly stated.

For that matter, I don't necessarily see what the difference is between them marketing the drug for either effect; while the existence of such a drug would likely fuel all sorts of homophobic bigotry, so long as the drug itself isn't harmful to people's health then I don't see why people should be legally prevented from taking a drug that alters their sexuality if they make an informed decision to take them and aren't pressured into doing so.
 
Who knows, maybe straight guys would take the drug to be gay, just for the experience.
 
NobleSavage said:
Who knows, maybe straight guys would take the drug to be gay, just for the experience.
Click to expand...

The description was that it made them more heterosexual--thus it turns them straighter.

Was that supposed to be more bisexual perhaps?
 
How do you discover the side-effects? What does it do to psychology? How free of "pressure" is the society in general, and how can you be sure it's not being applied in any given case? Is there an age limit?
Most importantly, how do you prevent religious groups from getting control of it - or exemption from the legal safeguards?
Before messing with something so basic to people's lives, I would want a lot more information.
 
I had not thought about how the side effect was discovered, as I thought it irrelevant to the hypothetical. It was discovered and the question is what to do with it. The rest of your questions are part of what I wanted to investigate in this hypothetical.

I can see a strong potential for abuse by those same religious groups you mention, as they might want to impose it on people. That is why Loren said that it should be prescribed by a psychiatrist who will work to verify the person is taking it of their own free will.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
NobleSavage said:
Who knows, maybe straight guys would take the drug to be gay, just for the experience.
Click to expand...

The description was that it made them more heterosexual--thus it turns them straighter.

Was that supposed to be more bisexual perhaps?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking of class of drugs that could change your sexuality in any direction.
 
NobleSavage said:
Loren Pechtel said:
The description was that it made them more heterosexual--thus it turns them straighter.

Was that supposed to be more bisexual perhaps?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking of class of drugs that could change your sexuality in any direction.
Click to expand...

If it could turn a heterosexual homosexual, then most conservatives would oppose it. I'd support its legality for adults either way. However, there is the issue of parents using it on their kids. Should that be allowed? It should be treated the same as a surgical sex change operation, so should parents be allowed to force a sex change on their kids? Should such treatment be allowed even if the kid wants it? At what age? Parents are already being allowed to give kids as young as 10 years old, sex hormone treatments for kids who "volunteer" for it, but if a kid cannot consent to sex, they sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to consent to a sex change. The only way kids should be allowed would be to call it a treatment for a medical disorder, in which case parents should be able to "force" it on their kids as they do treatment for other diseases. OTOH, if we don't call it a disorder, then its essentially a voluntary cosmetic treatment they arguably should not be covered by tax dollars and insurance companies should be free to refuse it.

Pretty messy.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
I got this idea watching a Simpsons re-run. You might remember this episode, it took place in the future with a grown-up Bart.

Suppose, while researching something different in the area of sexuality, a drug company discovers drugs that will alter peoples sexual orientation. It makes the user more heterosexual, how much more depending on the starting point of the individual and on the size of the dose. It has no negative side effects, but does have the side effect of enhancing performance (the original research subject). It works on both genders, assume it is two drugs if you wish.

Should the company be allowed to market this drug for this surprise effect?

By the way, I do recognize that sexual orientation is largely a result of being born that way, not choice the way the fundies say. That's why I think this question is theoretically possible, if unlikely, because chemicals can impact biochemistry.
Click to expand...

Big turn around: What is the problem?

I agree sexual orientation is not a choice but what if it was? How am I (or you) invested in on whom people want to run their bits?

I see no problem with a person deciding to want to try another section of the sexual spectrum. Give it a go, see of you like it. I am not Irish but I like to go there occasionally and have a pint, why can't another person visit heterosexuality and have a vagina?
 
It is not in the government's position to tell us what we can, and cannot put in our bodies.
So NO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom