Hypo: You Are Gay

[Lilllabettt]

this scenario has already played out re: deafness.

most people given the choice choose to hear, but a minority prefer to preserve the unique language and culture of the Deaf.

[Clare Brigid]

I'll give a serious answer.

 

I believe that any good Catholic should take the drug, especially if all other aspects of the person would be preserved.  Man and woman are complementary.  Two men or two women -- not so much, although I'll grant a certain degree of complementarity with respect to temperament and even certain aspects of gender.

[Seven77]

If a drug could cure somebody of a physical difficulty having to do with the human condition--and if that is a good thing, then a drug that cures a non-physical difficulty having to do with the human condition would be a good thing too, no?

 

The way that the original poster described the drug, no other personality traits would be affected. If there were a drug for mutants, the drug would ideally heal things like blue skin while retaining the ability to teleport, etc.

[John Ryan]

this scenario has already played out re: deafness.

most people given the choice choose to hear, but a minority prefer to preserve the unique language and culture of the Deaf.

 

The two are incommensurable. Deafness is a lack of a natural sense. Homosexuality is not a lack. 

[John Ryan]

I'll give a serious answer.

 

I believe that any good Catholic should take the drug, especially if all other aspects of the person would be preserved.  Man and woman are complementary.  Two men or two women -- not so much, although I'll grant a certain degree of complementarity with respect to temperament and even certain aspects of gender.

 

Somebody is going to create a drug that makes people bisexual, and then the liberals are going to make sure that all children are made into bisexuals, so that no prejudice prevails. There are no longer gender distinctions and we all become identical as human beings.

[Nihil Obstat]

I imagine things would go down a lot like in X-men The Last Stand... probably because that was clearly a veiled reference to this exact scenario... though probably with less of the fighting and such, just the protests and outrage and the mixed responses of those who choose to take it and those who choose not to.  Likely younger homosexuals would be more likely to go in for the drug.. both through family pressure, and because it is common for them to go through some phase of wishing they could be 'normal' or whatever around that time, at least in our society.  older ones who already made peace with themselves would likely be outraged by this trend and be among most of the protesters against the drug.  I'm sure the fundamentalist churches would embrace the drug without reservation and even push it as a moral obligation for people... given the numbers they can already corral into dubious change-therapy camps and such, it's likely there'd be quite a lot of people getting corralled into doing this. the Catholic Church would likely be more cautious about it, but I imagine individual bishops might start endorsing the idea... the USCCB bio-ethics committee would almost certainly have a quite heated debate over it...

 

would I take it?  very interesting question.  at certain points in my life i'd have said yes, at certain points I'd have said definitely not.   I really don't imagine such a drug that was so clear-cut as described in the hypothetical could ever exist... what would it do to someone who is bi, anyway?  I assume the hypothetical assumes it would make such a person straight as well.  I guess I'd redirect the hypothetical to this: if there was a drug to make a man not be attracted to any other woman on the planet except his wife, should he take that?  should we start bio-engineering attraction in this manner, even if it is to bio-engineer it along the lines of our moral system?  

 

personally, the idea makes me uncomfortable, that is, the idea of bio-engineering attraction based upon our moral systems.  I think it gets dangerous.  I realize that for those who think of homosexuality as a psychological disorder, a medicinal approach to it might make sense to them...but I'm not so sure about that kind of thing.  it's tough to say whether someone should or shouldn't do it if it were available as the hypothetical describes though... assuming that a person was not coerced, then perhaps they should have the right to take that pill... but you know freedom of choice in that regard would be a politically heated issue at least when it first came out.... 

I share your misgivings, and frankly this post leaves me nearly convinced that you are correct.

But at the same time, I wonder if we are considering homosexuality as a neutral state, rather than as an objective disorder. I really have no opinion on whether or not it is a psychological disorder, whether there is a genetic or psychological basis, or something completely different, but I agree with the Catechism's characterization of homosexual attraction to be objectively disordered (2358), i.e. ordered towards something which is inherently wrong and/or impossible.

For that reason, I do wonder if we need to treat the issue of homosexuality in a somewhat more unique way. Some analogies seem to fail based on this difference.

Linking it back to the OP, for me personally it makes me wonder not whether or not the treatment should or should not be taken for identity reasons, but in a broader sense whether the presence of a particular, even especially burdensome temptation might be a particular call to holiness - to fasting and self-denial only for the sake of God. Would 'artificially' overcoming a temptation be 'cheating' in some sense? Or perhaps, would it be moral to use the artificial method, but especially virtuous to forego it in order to 'naturally' overcome the temptation? I am not sure. But that is where I am going with the question.

[franciscanheart]

Seriously: this is what Catholics spend their time discussing? On a public forum? No wonder the world hates us.

[Nihil Obstat]

Seriously: this is what Catholics spend their time discussing? On a public forum? No wonder the world hates us.

Is it not pretty important that we as Catholics discuss our Church's doctrines regarding homosexuality - as with any doctrinal and moral subject - such that when we are called on to present the Truth we are able to do so lucidly and without mistakes or ambiguity? How is a Catholic supposed to be an authentic witness to Truth if we are reamed for discussing difficult and delicate subjects?
 
 
Edit to add:
John: 15
[18] If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. [19] If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. [20] Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[superblue]

 You all are forgetting the Church has already ruled on Homosexuality so,,, woooooooooah to thee .

 

how about a hypothetical pill that helps us forget anything we want, for ever.

[God the Father]

Seriously: this is what Catholics spend their time discussing? On a public forum? No wonder the world hates us.

 

 

Edited by Moderator: Personal Attack

Edited September 7, 2014 by Deus te Amat

[IcePrincessKRS]

Edited by Moderator: Personal Attack

 

I didn't answer your question because I thought it was kinda jacked up. And you reminded me of dairygirl.

[Ash Wednesday]

Okay. I'm back because I decided I would comment.

I had to give this considerable thought before coming up with an answer. 

 

Medication is not the ultimate answer in getting someone to make morally upright decisions. Someone who is gay (or has SSA, however you want to word it) is capable of making correct moral decisions and living a virtuous life without it.

 

Even one was able to realign their sexual orientation, they would still be susceptible to temptations to sin, because that affects everybody. One does not take a pill or an injection in order to form a correct conscience. 

 

Also, not knowing the long term consequences of this medication would merit concern.

 

P.S.

 

BOSWORTH

 

[Clare Brigid]

1. Content I Follow.

2. Change.

3. Stop Following.

4. Update Selected. Edited September 6, 2014 by Clare Brigid

[Seven77]

Thankfully grace does exist so that we can cooperate with it to *freely* align our wills to his. Any drug (not talking about the original poster's hypothetical drug here) that *forces* an alignment of wills (ours with God) would be immoral because it would take away our free will.

 

[God the Father]

I didn't answer your question because I thought it was kinda jacked up. And you reminded me of dairygirl.

 

I am not that annoyed with you because you did not waltz into my thread with a supercilious tone and your first post could be construed as an attempt at humor which I will always support.  That said, if there is something that disturbs you about the (not absurd, very conceivable in this century) hypothetical situation (which is not truly accurately described as a "question") you retain the option to abstain entirely from the discussion. hth