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

[Last Hugh Alive]

If we can have operations for those who want to change their gender, I don't see why we can't provide the same thing for those who want to change their orientation assuming we can develop such a thing.

It should NOT, however, be mandatory. It should be the person's choice.

Personally I'd rather not see any gay person sign up for it in the hope that they can be "cured", I think the leap we really need to take in our culture is for gays to be afforded all the rights that everybody else has and we wouldn't need orientation-changing technology at all. But what I do support is the person's RIGHT to choose such an operation if that's what they want.

I'd rather no gay person going through with such a procedure, but who am I to make that decision for them?

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Wait, why would I support forcing someone into changing their sexuality even if it was painless?

Reverse it. What if there was cure to being straight, would you take it? The only option is that you take the cure as you please.

This isn't open for discussion all that much; whether you support it or not, it isn't your choice to make. When will people understand this simple principle?

 

[alwaysrockon]

It would be great for use in prisons, I mean if I were sent to prison I would hope that there was none of that.

 

[Vern5]

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.

 

[2fish]

That would mean people could be infected. I would "infect" all the people who are insanly anti-gay. I mean people are people, you can't lose that quality unless you do some horrible stuff.

Think of the fun though go to a gay hate group put a dose of gay in the drinks and walk out. maybe add something to make them horny too. I am a bad person. gonna go rock out at some kkk party.

Overall people have their sexuality as long as they can take a hint that I am not worth hitting on fine by me.

 

[Torrasque]

*snippage*

I'll change your argument into something else so you can see how silly it is:

"This is just a hypothetical scenario in which say, scientists have discovered liking the colour red is caused by some sort of chemical brain chi something or other and they've developed a pill that could make people who like the colour red, stop liking the colour red. 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 community that likes the colour red? Please try and keep discussion civil."

Am I trivializing a person's sexual preference by comparing it to whether you like the colour red or not? Probably.
Does this thought experiment have any real value? Nope.

The only things that can be "cured" are things that are not meant to be, problems, infections, illnesses, etc.
There is nothing wrong with homosexual people, it is just their own preference. Even suggesting that it is something that could be potentially cured is pretty offensive. Even if you add "I am not a freaky fish guy!" it is still offensive.

 

[DarkRyter]

It doesn't really matter.

In the grander scheme of things, sexuality is pretty trivial compared to, like, Nebulas and shit.

 

[Olas]

I can't believe this hasn't been brought up, but what if you've already developed a close relationship with a partner? Or are even married?

If that was the case wouldn't being forced to become strait basically uproot your whole life?

 

[Akimoto]

Go ahead and advocate it as a possible cure but for Pete's sake DON'T make it mandatory.

 

[Vault101]

two things

1. Im sure some gay people would take it..but some wouldnt..I mean being gay can have alot of other lifestyle factors good and bad (no problems with contraception)

2. however some would REALLY struggle with it..they dont mind being gay but the social preasure would be there...it would become a "choice" and therefore some people would use that Idea as justification for dicrimination "why dont you just be like everyone else you FAG?!"

Heck yes, I'm 100% for this. I think an imperfection, almost like a sickness (anxiety, depression, etc). If it could be fixed, I'd be for making it mandatory.

...?

gayness does not affect anyone negativly,

and FORCING peopel to take drugs to change themselfs? for sotmhing relitivly harmless?? FUCK NO

to me thats like saying shy people are defective and should take drugs to put them in a perminant state of outgoing-ness

 

[CK76]

I'd be curious as to how such a cure would work. To me sexual identity is pretty ingrained in someone once they've come to grips with it. This kind of treatment seems like behavioral modification on a deep level. Imagine using a cure to adjust other aspects of who we are. I think the majority (in this case would be heterosexuals) would pressure the minority to conform to their norms and see this as a solution. I think we should focus more on understanding and respecting others than wishing to mold us all into a singular homogeneous form.

 

[Agayek]

I would support it, insofar as it's up to the individual to make that decision themselves. The only people who's sexual orientation anyone has any business caring about are those they are fucking.

Anyone who says otherwise is demonstrably wrong. It doesn't matter what orientation someone is, it's completely irrelevant in 98% of cases and in the other 2% it's, at worst, a side question.

"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.

Quick question: Why does "being gay" have any impact on self-image or identity? What you like to have sex with has no impact on anything but what you have sex with. The simple fact that you place enough importance on being gay to make it part of your identity is part of the problem to begin with.

Sexual orientation is an utterly meaningless facet of an individual, and we really need to stop making such a big deal out of it.

That said, you did bring up a good point. This thread is kinda silly since it's focused on a "gay" cure. It would be far more sensible to be "if anyone could choose their sexual orientation".

 

[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

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

 

[Vault101]

what if you could cure "being a gamer".....

gaming isnt exactally the most healthy pastime, and people have been ridculed for it, and some have proudly labelled it as part of their identity

what if you could cure your liking for videogames and other nerdy pursuits and become more sociable and active?

 

[Heaven's Guardian]

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.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

In looking at it from a biologist point of view, I may support it. If it were something one could get at any point in their life I would certainly support it. If it was something to be given at birth it may be a bit of an issue for me.

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.

 

[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...