Is "Conversion Therapy" Child Abuse?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Mutations are natural unless you mean genetic engineering.

True but not all mutations are "desirable." Certainly a mutation leading to homosexuality is unlikely to be reproductively advantageous. Of course ultimately we don't determine morality based on natural selection.

It depends on what you mean "reproductively advantageous".

Not all mutations are, or should be, for the sole purpose of having more offspring. Many times, said mutations shape the reproductive pool of a population.

[Llamalandia]

True but not all mutations are "desirable." Certainly a mutation leading to homosexuality is unlikely to be reproductively advantageous. Of course ultimately we don't determine morality based on natural selection.

Homosexuals have been around for a while and it doesn't seem like they're destroying the species or dying off.

True, though they have also been oppressed and often forced to live in sham marriages, so who knows, perhaps it is more artificial selection that is keeping the "gay gene" in or play, or genes have far less impact and it is more a matter of environment, in which case it would seem like some kind of conversion therapy or at least raising kids a certain way would indeed prevent homosexuality. Again whether that is desirable is debateable of course.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Homosexuals have been around for a while and it doesn't seem like they're destroying the species or dying off.

True, though they have also been oppressed and often forced to live in sham marriages, so who knows, perhaps it is more artificial selection that is keeping the "gay gene" in or play, or genes have far less impact and it is more a matter of environment, in which case it would seem like some kind of conversion therapy or at least raising kids a certain way would indeed prevent homosexuality. Again whether that is desirable is debateable of course.

It's less the case that kids being raised a certain way would prevent homosexuality.

There's gay people in the most liberal and most conservative of families alike, so upbringing doesn't have much to do with it either.

[Llamalandia]

True but not all mutations are "desirable." Certainly a mutation leading to homosexuality is unlikely to be reproductively advantageous. Of course ultimately we don't determine morality based on natural selection.

It depends on what you mean "reproductively advantageous".

Not all mutations are, or should be, for the sole purpose of having more offspring. Many times, said mutations shape the reproductive pool of a population.

Well I'm largely sticking close to a definition of natural selection, so essentially those genes which help an individual survive and reproduce naturally are advantageous whereas those that don't aren't.

[Llamalandia]

True, though they have also been oppressed and often forced to live in sham marriages, so who knows, perhaps it is more artificial selection that is keeping the "gay gene" in or play, or genes have far less impact and it is more a matter of environment, in which case it would seem like some kind of conversion therapy or at least raising kids a certain way would indeed prevent homosexuality. Again whether that is desirable is debateable of course.

It's less the case that kids being raised a certain way would prevent homosexuality.

There's gay people in the most liberal and most conservative of families alike, so upbringing doesn't have much to do with it either.

Or we just don't understand the environmental factors well enough yet.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Homosexuals have been around for a while and it doesn't seem like they're destroying the species or dying off.

True, though they have also been oppressed and often forced to live in sham marriages, so who knows, perhaps it is more artificial selection that is keeping the "gay gene" in or play, or genes have far less impact and it is more a matter of environment, in which case it would seem like some kind of conversion therapy or at least raising kids a certain way would indeed prevent homosexuality. Again whether that is desirable is debateable of course.

I can't speak to homosexuality, but I can say that in my family I wasn't even told that being transgender was a 'thing' until later in life and I still arrived at the conclusion that I was a transgender female, and most certainly viewed myself as female before I was able to apply a label to it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It depends on what you mean "reproductively advantageous".

Not all mutations are, or should be, for the sole purpose of having more offspring. Many times, said mutations shape the reproductive pool of a population.

Well I'm largely sticking close to a definition of natural selection, so essentially those genes which help an individual survive and reproduce naturally are advantageous whereas those that don't aren't.

This still largely depends on what you mean by "advantage" though.

Also, evolution is not so much the study of individuals, although a mutation starts with one individual carrier or two. But rather evolution studies populations and their adaptation to new genes/mutations over time.

So like I said, it heavily depends on what you mean by "advantage".

[Quokkastan]

It depends on what you mean "reproductively advantageous".

Not all mutations are, or should be, for the sole purpose of having more offspring. Many times, said mutations shape the reproductive pool of a population.

Well I'm largely sticking close to a definition of natural selection, so essentially those genes which help an individual survive and reproduce naturally are advantageous whereas those that don't aren't.

At some point evolution selected in favor of the vast majority of ants being sterile.

It seems to have worked out for them.

[USS Monitor]

True, though they have also been oppressed and often forced to live in sham marriages, so who knows, perhaps it is more artificial selection that is keeping the "gay gene" in or play, or genes have far less impact and it is more a matter of environment, in which case it would seem like some kind of conversion therapy or at least raising kids a certain way would indeed prevent homosexuality. Again whether that is desirable is debateable of course.

I can't speak to homosexuality, but I can say that in my family I wasn't even told that being transgender was a 'thing' until later in life and I still arrived at the conclusion that I was a transgender female, and most certainly viewed myself as female before I was able to apply a label to it.

Environment can mean things like diet, exposure to chemicals, etc. that have nothing to do with what your parents are teaching you. We still don't know what causes people to be trans or homosexual, though. And we do know that conversion therapy is ineffective and it can mess people up psychologically.

[Fritolaytopia]

I believe it's possible to suppress sexuality through psychological means in certain individuals, but not to replace their regular sexuality with a "healthy and normal" heterosexual through any means without breaking the individual. Furthermore permanent sexual suppression should only be an option for adults to make for themselves. The practice, if not permanently harmful, is at least unethical since your taking the option to choose away from the individual, in doing so you also take the merit of life experience from making the decision for themselves away. Don't even see how the religious get anything good out of this, God doesn't want your ready-made followers.

[Individual Concerns]

Well I'm largely sticking close to a definition of natural selection, so essentially those genes which help an individual survive and reproduce naturally are advantageous whereas those that don't aren't.

At some point evolution selected in favor of the vast majority of ants being sterile.

It seems to have worked out for them.

Correlation is not cause for disambiguation.

[Noraika]

True but not all mutations are "desirable." Certainly a mutation leading to homosexuality is unlikely to be reproductively advantageous. Of course ultimately we don't determine morality based on natural selection.

It depends on what you mean "reproductively advantageous".

Not all mutations are, or should be, for the sole purpose of having more offspring. Many times, said mutations shape the reproductive pool of a population.

A fun fact is that having biological males at all is due to retroviral circumstances that led to the circumstances which allowed the male sex to come into being among the natural population. In that sense, if we're to discount homosexuality as being unnatural, if it were to come from retroviral sources, ultimately, if we go back far enough in our evolutionary tree, we have to say the same for the entire male population.

Kind of ruins that argument in my opinion.

[Individual Concerns]

A fun fact is that having biological males at all is due to retroviral circumstances that led to the circumstances which allowed the male sex to come into being among the natural population. In that sense, if we're to discount homosexuality as being unnatural, if it were to come from retroviral sources, ultimately, if we go back far enough in our evolutionary tree, we have to say the same for the entire male population.

Kind of ruins that argument in my opinion.

At least in the mammalian sense, guys are just girls sans a chromosome anyway right?
If you want to super simplify (and make a little fun of) the situation.

[Noraika]

A fun fact is that having biological males at all is due to retroviral circumstances that led to the circumstances which allowed the male sex to come into being among the natural population. In that sense, if we're to discount homosexuality as being unnatural, if it were to come from retroviral sources, ultimately, if we go back far enough in our evolutionary tree, we have to say the same for the entire male population.

Kind of ruins that argument in my opinion.

At least in the mammalian sense, guys are just girls sans a chromosome anyway right?
If you want to super simplify (and make a little fun of) the situation.

Well let's look at it even more basically. Not only is the difference between male and female one chromosome (with several biological and psychological exception), but also just about all the physical qualities and functions we prescribe to either sex is determined by one chemical, and its dominence in the body, which may or may not correlate to one's sex. The line is much much finer than we like to imagine.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It depends on what you mean "reproductively advantageous".

Not all mutations are, or should be, for the sole purpose of having more offspring. Many times, said mutations shape the reproductive pool of a population.

A fun fact is that having biological males at all is due to retroviral circumstances that led to the circumstances which allowed the male sex to come into being among the natural population. In that sense, if we're to discount homosexuality as being unnatural, if it were to come from retroviral sources, ultimately, if we go back far enough in our evolutionary tree, we have to say the same for the entire male population.

Kind of ruins that argument in my opinion.

Welp, now I know that when someone tells me "you're a God damned virus upon us all" they're not entirely wrong, although it'd make for a rather amusing insult.

[Dushan]

The President should rather care to do something about those Camps than Transgender Bathrooms.

[Quokkastan]

At some point evolution selected in favor of the vast majority of ants being sterile.

It seems to have worked out for them.

Correlation is not cause for disambiguation.

To be clear: evolution does not select for "those genes which help an individual survive and reproduce." Evolution selects for those genes which best propagate themselves.

That may include individual survival and reproduction, but often doesn't. As with ants.

Now the "Gay Uncle Hypothesis" provides a perfectly valid framework for why homosexuality in men might be selected for. And there is some evidence implying that genes or epigenetic factors which contribute to female homosexuality might also enhance fertility.


So we shouldn't just take it as wrote that homosexuality is selected against. Evolution is weird.

[-Ebola-]

A fun fact is that having biological males at all is due to retroviral circumstances that led to the circumstances which allowed the male sex to come into being among the natural population. In that sense, if we're to discount homosexuality as being unnatural, if it were to come from retroviral sources, ultimately, if we go back far enough in our evolutionary tree, we have to say the same for the entire male population.

Kind of ruins that argument in my opinion.

Welp, now I know that when someone tells me "you're a God damned virus upon us all" they're not entirely wrong, although it'd make for a rather amusing insult.

There's nothing wrong with being a virus.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

The President should rather care to do something about those Camps than Transgender Bathrooms.

He cant do shit about the camps because the GOP controls both houses and he would need to pass a bill to shut them down. Considering the GOP rabidly anti-LGBT platform this year, I seriously doubt they would be open to such bills.

Fighting bathroom discrimination against Transgender People, however, is something Obama has more than enough authority to do on his own.

[Individual Concerns]

Well let's look at it even more basically. Not only is the difference between male and female one chromosome (with several biological and psychological exception), but also just about all the physical qualities and functions we prescribe to either sex is determined by one chemical, and its dominence in the body, which may or may not correlate to one's sex. The line is much much finer than we like to imagine.

Like coins, the faces are entirely autonomous, but still interconnected as a greater whole.
This goes wholly unappreciated by all sides of sex and gender issues.

[Ghuraba Al-Khorusani]

some of their tactics are useless and pointless creating animosity wont end homosexuality nor will torture you're just creating a bigger issue and give the gay agenda more ammunition and I've heard some of these places force children to watch pornography.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

some of their tactics are useless and pointless creating animosity wont end homosexuality nor will torture you're just creating a bigger issue and give the gay agenda more ammunition and I've heard some of these places force children to watch pornography.

Gay agenda? May I ask why you aren't wearing your tinfoil hat yet sir?

[Central European Commonwealth]

some of their tactics are useless and pointless creating animosity wont end homosexuality nor will torture you're just creating a bigger issue and give the gay agenda more ammunition and I've heard some of these places force children to watch pornography.

You, my dear, are an idiot.

I'm off to sleep. Sweet dreams.

[Ghuraba Al-Khorusani]

some of their tactics are useless and pointless creating animosity wont end homosexuality nor will torture you're just creating a bigger issue and give the gay agenda more ammunition and I've heard some of these places force children to watch pornography.

Gay agenda? May I ask why you aren't wearing your tinfoil hat yet sir?

yh there is a gay agenda it's the LGBT political movement to legalise gay marriage and allow women to use men's restrooms and tell people it's okay to be gay and proud.

[Godular]

Gay agenda? May I ask why you aren't wearing your tinfoil hat yet sir?

yh there is a gay agenda it's the LGBT political movement to legalise gay marriage and allow women to use men's restrooms and tell people it's okay to be gay and proud.

Which is all fine in my book.

It doesn't impose on you, so why should you care?