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

[Yopaz]

Well if they wanted to I could hardly deny them, so their choice. But I don't think it should be encouraged at all. And hopefully no one would really want to.

I imagine the LGBT community would not be pleased at all. It would definitely have negative social effects for them I think.

I imagine that this would make those who discriminate the gay community today would discriminate them even more. Right now the best defense they got is that they were born that way and they can't control it. If it's actually in their control and they still don't do anything about it then they are wide open.
It might not matter though, I hardly think evidence or facts affect the anti-gay community one way or the other...

That's what I meant by negative social effects. People might harp on the fact that they can change, which might convince some people discrimination is more okay against them.

Yeah, we clearly think the same way here, I just thought I'd quote your post because it reflected my own thoughts. So on the one hand I don't have anything against homosexuals, nor am I a homosexual so I think it should be their choice if they want a medicine that can set them straight(... sorry for the bad slightly offensive pun...) on the other hand the opportunity being there might be bad for those who don't feel they need to change. It's really a tough question to answer...

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

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?

Absolutely behind this. Would be great for folks who, for one reason or another, have a sexual orientation that's more inconvenient for them than important to them. Folks who are asexual, for example, who aren't aroused by anybody, but want to experience that aspect of life.

 

[The Heik]

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.

There is no such thing as no side effects when you're talking about something that's genetic. Homosexuality, whether a person likes it or not, is a natural part of them. It defines them both biologically and personally. Ripping it out would mean rewriting themselves, destroying the person they once were, which is effectively suicide.

Moreso, being able to remove the gay gene would set a very dangerous precedent. If there are other qualities or characteristics that people don't like about themselves, who to say they won't try and remove those too? We could unintentionally strip away our identity or worse, our capability, in the name of trying to better ourselves. Say for example you wanted to stop being afraid of things, which objectively speaking isn't that bad a goal. The most basic way of doing that however, is by suppressing your fight or flight instinct. Sure you wouldn't be afraid of things anymore, but that also means that you won't be able to deal with danger as well because your body no longer knows what to do in those situations. The human brain is carefully balanced system, and if you tamper with it too much you may end up removing more than you can afford to lose

So in answer to your question, I pose a question to you: Are you willing to risk your identity, or even your life, simply to change a tiny part of either?

 

[Glass Joe]

Well if they wanted to I could hardly deny them, so their choice. But I don't think it should be encouraged at all. And hopefully no one would really want to.

I imagine the LGBT community would not be pleased at all. It would definitely have negative social effects for them I think.

I imagine that this would make those who discriminate the gay community today would discriminate them even more. Right now the best defense they got is that they were born that way and they can't control it. If it's actually in their control and they still don't do anything about it then they are wide open.
It might not matter though, I hardly think evidence or facts affect the anti-gay community one way or the other...

That's what I meant by negative social effects. People might harp on the fact that they can change, which might convince some people discrimination is more okay against them.

The LBGT community doesn't defend themselves by saying they're born that way and can't change. They say we're here we're queer get used to it. As in, why should we change who we are?

I don't think they're so unified. But regardless of whether they defend themselves that way, I'm pretty sure some people do use the fact that they cannot change it in their reasoning.

Haha, they probably aren't that unified. I'm not gay I don't mean to speak for all of LBGT. If anyone is part of that community, I'm sorry! Really though, shouldn't we expect all genders and races of people to be proud of who they are? My philosophy is that men and women should try to become better. Sometimes that means overcoming their weaknesses, other times it's accepting that being unique doesn't make you weak, just different.

Homosexuality is not a weakness, but fear and self loathing are. Better to take a pill which gives you higher self esteem.

 

[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'm serious, and no, I haven't heard it from the blind community. I have heard the same thing from people with Asperger, including people right on these forums. They think they are fine too, even though they are also born with an ability missing.

t mean to be rude, but do you have any sources to back this up?
I don'

 

[Joccaren]

It should be their choice.
Dependent on how its presented, it could be accepted either very poorly, or without a lot of backlash. There would of course be many who would still be like 'THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING HOMOSEXUAL BLABLABLA THIS PILL SHOULDN'T EXIST AS IT GIVES CHOICE TO US!', and religious people with the whole 'Homosexual is unholy, everyone should take this pill and not where condoms and not take medecines and do a bunch of other stupid things because the Pope said so'. Then there'd be the Homophobes who would come with the whole 'Told you Homosexuality was a disease' sort of thing, and then there'd be the scholars with the 'Does this mean Homosexuality is a disease, or more akin to evolution?' and a bunch of other people. Overall, there'll be a shitstorm of sorts, but just how bad it is will depend on how the 'cure' is presented. Something that could help would be having a reverse pill that can turn a straight person gay, though you'd still get homophobes and religious people going nuts about it.

 

[salinv]

I'm likely going to mimic by saying what many others have been saying, that if such a thing did suddenly become available, it would be up to the person to make that choice. I want to change one major thing though: this would not be given by pill, it would be given by shot, and it must be administered by a practicing doctor that is unrelated to the person receiving it. Also, the recipient must be of legal age and make that decision themselves (if it must, put this in writing, which is why I say they must be of legal age), and not their parents.

I say that it must be a shot so that it is harder to slip someone, and more difficult to force onto someone. The whole deal about the doctor and the recipient being of legal age is so that person receiving it knows what is happening and isn't forced this by parents that are "doing it for their own good." Changing anything in a persons identity, whether they mind, now or later, or not, is not a trivial matter.

Also, what about shots to make someone gay, or bi, emotionless, emotional, apathetic, religious, atheist, intelligent, limited, extroverted, introverted, enjoy video games, despise Nascar, like soaps, enjoy sitcoms, like Betty White, etc...?

The existence of a chemical that could change a person's innate desires and identity could have far reaching impacts and likely wouldn't necessarily be limited to sexual orientation.

 

[Jimmybobjr]

Would i support it? Yes. The reaction of the masses? Well, what masses - I presume that you mean American masses. I would think that The majority of the masses would Support it. The Gay Community? Well, it depends on the person, but generaly they would be against it.. but there are those who would support it willingly; those who were bullied, closeted or feel that they are wrong or Diseased.

Hope i kept Discussion Civil.

 

[Glass Joe]

Well if they wanted to I could hardly deny them, so their choice. But I don't think it should be encouraged at all. And hopefully no one would really want to.

I imagine the LGBT community would not be pleased at all. It would definitely have negative social effects for them I think.

I imagine that this would make those who discriminate the gay community today would discriminate them even more. Right now the best defense they got is that they were born that way and they can't control it. If it's actually in their control and they still don't do anything about it then they are wide open.
It might not matter though, I hardly think evidence or facts affect the anti-gay community one way or the other...

That's what I meant by negative social effects. People might harp on the fact that they can change, which might convince some people discrimination is more okay against them.

The LBGT community doesn't defend themselves by saying they're born that way and can't change. They say we're here we're queer get used to it. As in, why should we change who we are?

I don't think they're so unified. But regardless of whether they defend themselves that way, I'm pretty sure some people do use the fact that they cannot change it in their reasoning.

Haha, they probably aren't that unified. I'm not gay I don't mean to speak for all of LBGT. If anyone is part of that community, I'm sorry! Really though, shouldn't we expect all genders and races of people to be proud of who they are? My philosophy is that men and women should try to become better. Sometimes that means overcoming their weaknesses, other times it's accepting that being unique doesn't make you weak, just different.

Homosexuality is not a weakness, but fear and self loathing are. Better to take a pill which gives you higher self esteem.

I never said otherwise. Though I'd disagree that people should be proud of such things, just accept them. I don't care for those things being pushed as important things, simply things that are just acceptable.

All I was talking about was outside reactions that would be unfortunate.

I didn't mean to accuse you of calling homosexuality a weakness. People will definitely turn ugly in this hypothetical scenario. I guess I'm just trying to make the point that for gays it would be a good fight. I think we can agree on that.

Stretching this hypothetical scenario, the whole world would be going crazy over the ethics involved in changing our genes. The production of such a pill would hang on our society's reaction to that kind of thing. It wouldn't be a gay or straight issue as much as "What is essential to who we are?" and "Is it okay to change into someone else?".

 

[Dejawesp]

Support what? The scientists choice to develop it? The homosexuals choice to use it? Choices are good. The more the better.

 

[TehCookie]

I'm not gay, it's up to them. I'd support the science and their choice to choice of whether or not to take it.

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be in support of this sort of thing, since it would imply that homosexuality is something that would be in need of a cure. Even if that isn't the point of such a medication/procedure/etc., the simple implication of such a thing is not a thought I could ever support. Plus it would generate a crapton of fuel for those who are opposed to homosexuality and could end up being more hurtful than helpful towards homosexuals...

So yeah. I know it would be a choice, but the implications plus the anti-gay fuel such a "cure" would provide can only lead me to not support such a thing at all.

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

Sorry, but I wouldn't cure autism or aspergers either. Because unfortunately, you're taking something out of that person's personality, to be replaced with...what? What fills the void? Do they become boring and dull? Depressed because something's missing? Replaced with something worse? You start messing around with the brain chemistry, pretty soon you'll be saying that you can improve humanity itself, and then the slippery slope suddenly becomes a bob sled course and you're Jamaican!

The point I'm trying to make is that once you go down that path, you start getting people trying to nip 'undesirables' in the bud. No thank you.

 

[WaffleCopters]

Since homosexuality isnt a sickness or disease, if they made it compulsory theyd get a mass outrage. why fix what aint broke?

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

"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?

This entire statement, to the letter. If this poll asked "What if your sexual orientation was caused by some magical brain Chi and could be changed thus, would you support it" it would be slightly less offensive, but still a horrifying thought to say the least. Why stop there? Why not change the colors I like? How about the flavors of ice cream I enjoy? The notion is ludicrously offensive in and of itself, regardless of the target.

 

[Pearwood]

I think the reaction from the gay community would be absolutely furious and they'd be justified. I can see it having use for a very small number of people who can't come to terms with their sexuality but other than that there's no need for it. Just imagine the kind of pressure perfectly happy gay people might get put under from their family to get this procedure against their will. Then think of places like Uganda where this would probably be forced by law.