Some people might not want to be homosexual and want to change. The controversy exists because it used to be that there was therapy for homosexuality when it was considered a mental illness. It was not very successful and very uncomfortable for the patient. Once homosexuality was removed from the DMV then any treatment for homosexuality was considered suspect. But there are some people who want not to accept their homosexuality but to change their sexual orientation.
If a condition is not a disease, then any "cure" is classed as theraputic [sic] (Like breast enhancment or birthmark removal) and therefore cannot be forced upon someone unwillingly.
There's bound to be a very small number of homosexuals who may actually be glad of the option to "fit in" - in much the same way there ARE a small number of AS who wish they could be normal.
There are 2 problems here:
Animal cruelty
Social consequences
With regards to the first point - I am personally of the view that if an experiment is done that harms animals but is of benefit to humans in the long run and is done as humanely as possible, it is justified. How much has medicine been advanced via animal experiments? Cosmetic testing on animals though is a different issue.
With regards to the second point - This should be fairly obvious. Regardless of who the objection comes from, the objection against the idea of a cure for homosexuality is a valid one. PETA may be morons, but they have a valid point here (regardless of whether or not they're using this study to support their own agenda).
I also once became addicted to visiting PETA's site back in June 2005, and I hated it but wanted to keep reading, getting brainwashed by them. I didn't eat meat or eggs, and I hardly had any dairy products, for two months or so, and about a week before school started, I had these AWFUL HORRIBLE STOMACH CRAMPS FROM LACK OF PROTEIN OR SOMETHING. PETA sucks.
Also, have any of you seen PETA's 'Milk Sucks' site and how they called autism a 'scary story' and 'disease' there? Meh, and to think some of you support those eejits.
There are 2 problems here:
Animal cruelty
Social consequences
With regards to the first point - I am personally of the view that if an experiment is done that harms animals but is of benefit to humans in the long run and is done as humanely as possible, it is justified. How much has medicine been advanced via animal experiments? Cosmetic testing on animals though is a different issue.
With regards to the second point - This should be fairly obvious. Regardless of who the objection comes from, the objection against the idea of a cure for homosexuality is a valid one. PETA may be morons, but they have a valid point here (regardless of whether or not they're using this study to support their own agenda).
Yup, I agree that it's cruel to mess with anyone's personality, animal or human, and that the social consequences for this'd be pretty bad. I also agree that testing stuff other than medicine on animals is a bit....vain and not overly good.
Glad you agree that PETA are morons, though.
Lienda Balla
Pardon, but self-change for someone else is self-force for someone else. If they do it to "fit in" and avoid further public abuse, then they are placing themselves below the rest of human kind. Doing that only says "Hey I surrender. Beat me if you want. Curse me if you please."
If they do it simply because they themselves hate it, not because others do, then they really did choose it of their free will. (Though rare that is!) This is just why so many humans wouldn't do it. There is a line between doing it for another and doing it for ourselves, whether choise is given or not.
They oppose all use of animals for any reason (I don't care if they wish to be vegetarian themselves, but when they take action which effects others I care very much)
They spread stupid propaganda such as their "milk sucks" site claiming things such as beer is healthier than milk and that milk causes osteoporosis and other medical conditions (they condone the use of soy - soy actually chelates calcium, iron and zinc out of you very efficiently)
Regarding animal rights in general:
I will always support animal welfare (not harming animals unneccesarily) but I also support eating meat, keeping pets and experiments in the name of advancing the biological sciences for legitimate purposes. If I was to "set free" my pets they would quickly suffer and die due to being domesticated, furthermore I can see how happy they are. (My little bunnies love being held).
PETA are indeed morons, but even a broken clock is right 2 times a day. The experiment being discussed here has obvious ethical and social problems but the fact it's using animals isn't one of them. If you want to become vegetarian please make sure you take the B vitamins and protein in supplement form. Vegetarians often have horrendously deficient diets, the human body needs nutrients from meat and dairy products despite any "ethical" objections. Those who accuse meat eaters of "speciesism" funningly enough are denying humans what other meat-eating animals in nature have freely. We are animals too, don't lie to yourself.