"Cure" for Homosexuality found?

I have long argued, and often been pilloried for doing so, that Homosexuality is not "hardwired". In other words one is not born gay, so much as born with a predisposition to homosexuality, which can then be influenced by experiences, environment, and other factors. Mainly this has been because of the lack of a 1-1 correlation between homosexuality among twins. By that I mean that if you have an identical twin who is gay, you are more likely to be gay yourself, though its not guaranteed, despite the fact that the two of you carry the exact same genes. Given the increased incidence of homosexuality among identical twins, coupled with the lack of a 1-1 correlation, it seemed reasonable to me that while there may be a genetic basis for homosexuality, it was certainly not as simple as being born gay.

There is now some evidence that this is in fact the case. Granted, a fruit fly is not a human, and fruit fly sexuality is different in many ways from human sexuality, however given that these are early trials this new research is very interesting. Whats most interesting, at least to me though, is the possibilities inherent in this research. Namely that it is, at least theoretically, possible that researchers could one day create a "cure" for homosexuality. Naturally this would be a huge issue regardless of your own personal views on homosexuality. But it also brings back a point, or at least has the potential to, that many had already felt was settled. Although it took the WHO until 1992 to officially declassify homosexuality as a disease, the APA had done so back in 1973, based on the assumption that homosexuality was an innate trait, and thus did not qualify as a sexual deviancy. But if a "cure" were developed that could, within hours, turn a gay man straight, (and to be fair vice-versa) would that still be the case?

In other words would the very existence of a "cure" imply that homosexuality is in fact a disease? And if so, what would the implications be? Would forcing a patient to take this "treatment" be a violation of their rights? If so would insurance companies be precluded from paying for this "treatment" for those who did want to take it?

Assuming DADT has not been repealed by the time this hypothetical treatment were made available, would the US army begin placing this drug in the food or water of its soldiers in an effort to ensure no one violates the policy? If so, what would happen to those soldiers once they were discharged? Would they be given the option of "returning"? Would a gay man who wishes to enlist be willing to be "made straight" for the duration of his service in exchange for being allowed to serve despite having been openly gay?

What about the possibilities of using this "cure" as a type of date rape drug? For example slipping it into a lesbians drink in the hope that after the "switch" she would find you more to her liking? Or Perhaps a gay man in an area with a low population of homosexuals might be tempted to slip the "drug" into other men's drinks as a way of quickly increasing the gay population?

And what about this drugs utility as a recreational drug? Would there be those who would pay to temporarily "switch" their sexuality in an attempt to "broaden their experiences" as Grant Morrison suggested in "The Invisible's"?

Furthermore if the suppression of glutamatergic synapses can "switch" a man from straight to gay, is it possible there are environmental factors that do the same? Could there be something in the air/food/water in certain areas that suppresses glutamatergic synapses? Is it possible that some given percentage of the current homosexual population has already unknowingly been switched? if so should that be reversed? Would they want it to be? Even if it could be proven and individual had unknowingly imbibed a substance capable of doing such as a child, and as such had grown up gay even though they were not "supposed to be" what would be the right course of action? Should the medical community treat such cases, if they could be established with a high degree of confidence, as diseases? Where does the choice of the individual come in, and in fact, given how fundamental this change is, would someone in this situation even be capable of making a choice?

Then there are questions relating to parenting. If this "treatment" were to exist, would it be proper for parents who suspect their child may be gay to force their child to be "treated" if they so chose? Where would the line between human rights and religious freedom be drawn for example? If your parents are Muslims, or Christians who believe that homosexuality is immoral, should they be allowed to use that as a rationale for changing your preferences?

What if this treatment were to require a regular medical regime such as the management of Bi-polar disorder requires? Would "I forgot my pills" become a new accepted "excuse" for homosexual behavior by politicians and married men? Would the same hold true for men "medicating" themselves into homosexuality who are in long term relationships? If this "treatment" did in fact make sexuality a choice, in that one could choose to be what one has been or make a change, would that then offer those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals the ability to do so, based on he fact that unlike race, homosexuality or heterosexuality would be a choice available to everyone?

What about population control uses? Would say, the Chinese government require unmarried men and women to take this treatment to "develop" homosexuality as a way of reducing pregnancies? Or perhaps require that all those in the armed services take it due to the Male/female imbalance in china?


A lot of questions, and very few answers. But we need to start asking them now, before this "treatment" is brought to market, even before its been verified such a treatment were possible. Because I have a feeling that none of these questions will be easy to answer, and I know that once others start thinking about it, they will come up with many, many more, and probably better ones.