Poll: Thought experiment: What if homosexuality COULD be "cured" medically?

[elvor0]

If the drug was announced as being a "Cure for the gay", then yes, a lot of people would be pissed. It would be the same as offering a "Cure for the White" which sounds like medical genocide or a "Cure for the Gamer" which sounds like culture-o-cide. <- Needs revision.

That sounds like the deaf people that don't want children to have their hearing restored.

being deaf is a serious disabilty

Why? You are "born that way", just like you are born gay.

being gay? how is that any worse than say..being turned on by bondage or robots or feet? should we "cure" those people too because god forbid what people get up to in their bedrooms should be of great concerin to us "normal" people

So what's so wrong with being deaf? They have their own languages, cultures, what's intrinsically different about deaf and gay? Deaf people often argue that hearing people calling them disabled is offensive and its no more a medical condition/disability than being gay is.

It's not quite the same at all though is it? That's like saying not being able to walk or being blind isn't a disability, being gay doesn't stop you from doing anything, whereas being deaf disables your ability to hear, hence...disability.

Being born without hearing is a serious disability, think about how your life would be if you stopped being able to hear right now; no music, no verbal conversation, all movies with subtitles, only being able to converse with people who can speak sign language.

Complete and total silence, all the time, the only sound you get to hear is your own voice in your head, and if you were born deaf then I'm not sure what that would sound like as you'd have no concept of sound to begin with.

If your child was born deaf surely you would want it to have their hearing restored? Think of all the wonderful things they would never get to experience because they can't hear? Deaf people not wanting their childrens hearing restored are just bitter and selfish. No one should have the choice to selfishly withold someones ability to hear just because they themselves are deaf.

On a serious note can anyone answer if people born deaf can hear their own voice in their head? They would've never of heard it to begin with so...?

 

[breaddough]

I think it is ultimately up to the individual, but it could be so grossly misused that, personally, I would likely fight it's distribution. I can see a terrible situation in which parents give it to their children "just in case" or if they suspect the child is gay, before the kid can even make the decision for themselves. Despite the difficulties it's given me, I would never change my sexuality, because it has shaped me. Homosexuality, if nothing else, gives a diversity to the population which can do nothing but good overall.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

It's would probably happen like X-Men 3 with the army running about with plastic rifles shooting all the gays.

Well, maybe it wouldn't but it would be a cool film to male afterwards, especially if the xmen appeared...

Yeah... Xmen...

OT: Uh... I think there'd be an uproar from the gay community. Just like how being straight is part of my identity, being gay is part of theirs. I don't think we'd get a whole lot of people taking it.

 

[Thaa'ir]

But the way I look at it that if your homosexual you lose the ability to reproduce, or at least will be unlikely to stay with the ones opposite partner by choice.

Very true...but the question is...

...why does that matter?

I do not understand this nonsense yammering about "reproducing." We already have too many people as it is. Who cares if a small portion of the population is not going to biologically reproduce? We can just adopt the orphaned and abandoned and care for children who already exist and suffer and need parents.

 

[AngloDoom]

It's everyone's personal choice, since to me it makes sense if everyone was just bisexual and we all had a not more chance to find whoever it is we want. That said, I imagine a lot of people we be very much against this idea.

So long as it is a free choice without outside influences, I would support anyone making the decision - whatever that may be. That said, it's doubtful that there would never be any outside influence.

 

[Vault101]

If the drug was announced as being a "Cure for the gay", then yes, a lot of people would be pissed. It would be the same as offering a "Cure for the White" which sounds like medical genocide or a "Cure for the Gamer" which sounds like culture-o-cide. <- Needs revision.

That sounds like the deaf people that don't want children to have their hearing restored.

being deaf is a serious disabilty

Why? You are "born that way", just like you are born gay.

being gay? how is that any worse than say..being turned on by bondage or robots or feet? should we "cure" those people too because god forbid what people get up to in their bedrooms should be of great concerin to us "normal" people

So what's so wrong with being deaf? They have their own languages, cultures, what's intrinsically different about deaf and gay? Deaf people often argue that hearing people calling them disabled is offensive and its no more a medical condition/disability than being gay is.

theres nothing wrong with being deaf, but Im not comfortable with the Idea of parents making such a choice on their childs behalf...

Interesting. Did you know that the only even partial cure available to give hearing only works if the operation happens as a child? (Otherwise the brain has never wired for sound until it is too hard wired to accept the new input). So, either the parent decides, or the child stays deaf for life. Still feel the same way?

what I ment was Im not comforable with the Idea of a parent deciding NOT to give thier child a chance at hearing because of spme moral standing, its thier child not a representation of their belives

like somone already said being gay "shouldnt" affect your life aside from the child rearing thing (which wouldnt be such as in issue if peopel would let them adpot)

it wpuld just be easyer if we were all bi-sexual...where the pill for that?

 

[Vault101]

also this would have the potential to destry alot of the progress the LGBT comunity has made over the years

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

As others have said, just because you can make yourself not gay doesn't mean that being gay is some sort of disorder.

It'd be no different than a pill that makes a shy person outgoing, or an outgoing person shy. Neither is "better" than the other.

So, yeah, let the people decide. Hopefully there'd be a pill that does the reverse, to see if anyone wanted to be gay. Or a pill that makes you bi, that'd be interesting...

wrong, until recently it could be argued that being heterosexual was better because it helped continue the existence of the human population. So no both are not "equal". That doesn't mean that one is "bad" and one is "good" just that they are not equal

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Then radical Christian churches and preachers would have an actual basis for constantly lashing out at gay rights.

 

[Blow_Pop]

I personally wouldn't support it but if someone wanted to take it because they were unhappy for their own personal reasons because they were gay i wouldn't tell them they can't. It would be someone else's choice to take it. Me personally, I like being attracted to both genders. But I understand some people don't like the sex that they are attracted to. Now would we also have one to have straight people turn gay as well? Because I know straight people who would rather be gay but certain body parts aren't into it so....Or maybe they're confused. I'unno I'm not them so I couldn't answer that. I would hope that it didn't wind up like XMen in which they put the drug into tranqs and start shooting all the gays because some ultra conservative has a personal agenda against them. unfortunately with how society is it would only be a matter of time until people did that.

"No real side effects" Except for a complete change in identity. For a lot of people being gay is a huge part of who they are, and for anyone sexuality is a very important aspect of identity.

Not to mention that it would validate everyone out there who hates gays. It's hard enough to get it legal in many countries, there's still places out there that make chemical castration and "rape therapy" the penalty for being gay. This "cure" would just be used in it's place to force gays to fit the norm.

I can see plenty of people on this side of the world who would use this cure on their own family members, against their will. Who would ever come out if they thought they'd be drugged and be completely changed by their own parents.

Also, I think the thread puts a target on homosexuals as if it needs to be cured. I'm not saying that's what you think, but I think if this is a thought experiment why not apply it to everyone? What if everyone was able to choose their sexual orientation?

Also this^^ A Big huge, THIS.

as far as the gay community, A lot of people would be against it in the community. I don't imagine it would go well. And I image people would try and force gays to become straight with it. So as I stated, personally I wouldn't support it. I'd be hugely against it but if it happened would not stop someone from going to do it. I'd just make sure they were fully informed of everything and a hundred percent sure that is what they wanted.

 

[Vault101]

If the drug was announced as being a "Cure for the gay", then yes, a lot of people would be pissed. It would be the same as offering a "Cure for the White" which sounds like medical genocide or a "Cure for the Gamer" which sounds like culture-o-cide. <- Needs revision.

That sounds like the deaf people that don't want children to have their hearing restored.

being deaf is a serious disabilty

Why? You are "born that way", just like you are born gay.

being gay? how is that any worse than say..being turned on by bondage or robots or feet? should we "cure" those people too because god forbid what people get up to in their bedrooms should be of great concerin to us "normal" people

So what's so wrong with being deaf? They have their own languages, cultures, what's intrinsically different about deaf and gay? Deaf people often argue that hearing people calling them disabled is offensive and its no more a medical condition/disability than being gay is.

theres nothing wrong with being deaf, but Im not comfortable with the Idea of parents making such a choice on their childs behalf...

Interesting. Did you know that the only even partial cure available to give hearing only works if the operation happens as a child? (Otherwise the brain has never wired for sound until it is too hard wired to accept the new input). So, either the parent decides, or the child stays deaf for life. Still feel the same way?

what I ment was Im not comforable with the Idea of a parent deciding NOT to give thier child a chance at hearing because of spme moral standing, its thier child not a representation of their belives

like somone already said being gay "shouldnt" affect your life aside from the child rearing thing (which wouldnt be such as in issue if peopel would let them adpot)

it wpuld just be easyer if we were all bi-sexual...where the pill for that?

It doesn't matter if it shouldn't, it DOES. And the fact that you think a child should get medical treatment to be "normal" when it comes to hearing but not "normal" when it comes to sexuality only peaks to you asking on YOUR own biases. Either both are ok to "fix" or neither are.

unless you make it a vital part of your identity and boradcast it to everyone then I dont see why it should, you can still do watever you capable of/set out to do...and if need be its sotmhing you can hide...to me its like aying being into bondage is going to hold you back in life..not if you let it

deafness means adapting to a world made for people who can hear, and sure some do it fine..but the fact is its there...it affects what you can do MORE than being gay

deafness and being gay are not the same thing

 

[Robert Ewing]

If there was a 'cure,' I wouldn't mind it being legal. A lot of my gay friends absolutely hate being gay. But they just can't help it.

So I think it's good if a 'cure' (If it can be called that) is there. I'd call it more... cosmetic mental surgery... Or something...

To be honest, the moral implications of this may be rather startling. This drug or treatment in question will be basically a 'choose your sexual orientation' option. And in countries were homosexuality is more discriminated against, then obviously they are going to change orientation, in order to avoid being discriminated against. It will essentially put all the effort the gay community has put into homosexual tolerance in society, back down to the dark ages... It will be less acceptable to be gay, purely because there is a method in which you can change it.

I dunno. I don't think the world is ready for this. The gay community needs to gain it's place in society still. Homosexuality is still sadly widely opposed, and until there is a real sense that all culture's have a 'gay pride' element to it, i don't think this treatment should be allowed. It needs to be a choice between being gay, or straight... Or bi? A gay man should have a choice to change if he isn't comfortable with it, and same with a straight man. It shouldn't be a matter of, 'oh, finally a cure! I need to make myself straight so my country doesn't hate me!'

 

[chadachada123]

As others have said, just because you can make yourself not gay doesn't mean that being gay is some sort of disorder.

It'd be no different than a pill that makes a shy person outgoing, or an outgoing person shy. Neither is "better" than the other.

So, yeah, let the people decide. Hopefully there'd be a pill that does the reverse, to see if anyone wanted to be gay. Or a pill that makes you bi, that'd be interesting...

wrong, until recently it could be argued that being heterosexual was better because it helped continue the existence of the human population. So no both are not "equal". That doesn't mean that one is "bad" and one is "good" just that they are not equal

Homosexuality DOES help continue the existence of the human population. Women with gay brothers are more fertile and have more successful children. It certainly does serve a use in society/genetics, at least, as far as, for lack of a better term, "design" goes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691850/?tool=pmcentrez

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

If the drug was announced as being a "Cure for the gay", then yes, a lot of people would be pissed. It would be the same as offering a "Cure for the White" which sounds like medical genocide or a "Cure for the Gamer" which sounds like culture-o-cide. <- Needs revision.

That sounds like the deaf people that don't want children to have their hearing restored.

I don't get it.

There are a large number of deaf people who say being deaf is not a disease or defect, its just a way of being born. In they believe any attempts to cure deafness is medical genocide as it would destroy the "deaf culture" and imply that those who were deaf were somehow less when they feel they are perfectly normal and fine.

...what? Please tell me you not serious? Do the blind community have these kinds of feelings as well?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

I'd definitely support its availability, at the least. Considering that the gay community fights so hard for social acceptance of gender-change surgery (it's not happening, because most of us find it to be creepy, but the point is they try), it would be hypocritical of them to deny other people the option to alter their sexual state medically. Would it be abused in some cases? Of course it would, but I can't support withholding that option because it would be abused. Almost everything can be abused under the right (wrong?) circumstances, and I think a fairly large segment of the gay population, especially teenagers and young adults in disapproving families, might well decide that it would be a lot easier on them to become heterosexual. Even outside of that situation, a large number of people might go for it. I'm a psychology student at a top university, and one of the basic studies we cover about cognitive prejudice demonstrates that since the study began in 1970, a consistent 70% of the population associates homosexuality with negative words. It's no longer considered appropriate to openly acknowledge that, but please don't believe that people have become any less uncomfortable with the idea, at least at a subconscious level.

And I've noticed a lot of people objecting to the use of the word "cure". I certainly understand why people would object to that word, but it is an psychological abnormality that impairs someone's ability to reproduce. I think that because we associate the word "cure" with a disease, people react negatively to its use. Intellectually speaking, you can classify it as a disorder because it is out of order with the biological reproductive imperative. That doesn't make it bad or anything, but when people start using euphemisms for everything and stop speaking the same language, discussions can get confusing.

^^this so, so much

 

[WolfThomas]

Is there an opposite version of the drug, so people could see what it's like to be gay and then swap back, hopefully ending some prejudice?

 

[TheGauntman]

WAIT!!! Before you immediately vote "no" because "homosexuality is not a disease, you homophobe!" I just want you to think about it for a minute.

This is just a hypothetical scenario in which say, scientists have discovered homosexuality is caused by some sort of chemical brain chi something or other and they've developed a pill that could make gay people straight. First, would you support it if it were utterly painless with no real side-effects? Second, what do you think the reaction would be from the masses? The gay community? Please try and keep discussion civil.

I think you need to define more clearly what you are asking.

What am I supporting? The science behind the pill? That the pill has been developed and made available? That the pill is being forcefully administered?

If the first two, then yes. Nothing wrong with science, and nothing wrong with making the pill available so people can take if they want.

If, however, we are talking about making people change their sexuality then my answer is an emphatic FUCK NO. It is no business of mine, or anybody else's, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home, and to think you have the authority to dictate that heterosexuality is the 'correct' sexuality is arrogance of the highest order.