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

[Skin]

Except the definition of disability is that it has to hinder a persons life.
I fail to see how homosexuality in any way hinders a person.

Oh, I see. Your one of those stoic white knights who defends political correctness to a tee. Well m'Lord, like I said, if you looked at the DSM, you would see that there are many, many, many "diseases" that do not hinder a persons life. But nay, you place faith in the experts and move on.

My point in my original post was there is little to no consistency when it comes to mental health disorders. What you saw it as was "this guy hates gays. Better remind him that he is not an expert!"

Have a seat small son.

 

[Vampire cat]

Sexuality is a big part of your idenity, I wouldn't want to lose mine to some pill or injection, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see many of my friends change due to it...

What if nobody cared? What if everyone could just be what they wanted to be X3.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Psychotherapists have already had results "curing" homosexuality...

 

[Skin]

Sexuality is a big part of your idenity, I wouldn't want to lose mine to some pill or injection, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to see many of my friends change due to it...

What if nobody cared? What if everyone could just be what they wanted to be X3.

I would argue that sexuality is as big a part to your identity as defecating is.

 

[Areani]

I don't really understand the difference between "no" and "It's their choice" in this context, but I'm voting no, I wouldn't support it. I have a peculiar fondness of gay people that I can't exactly explain. But whatever. Also, I think the LGBT community would be absolutely outraged.

 

[FatalFox]

You mean hypnotically?
I'm against it in a way, as in -you are who you are-, but supporting it if what you're thinking of would let people who really don't want to be sexually attracted to the same sex, change it through medical means.
I'm bisexual myself so I cried out loud on the title, but reading your explanation of it, I guess it would just be a mental extension of sex change, which I am supportive of.
However I would see a lot of homophobes taking it to their advantage of "curing" their children or assaulting homosexuals with whatever drug was invented on the street to erase their homosexuality.
or something..idk I'm split on the subject so I won't answer the poll, so many factors play into it that there's a blurry balance between right and wrong.

 

[FatalFox]

What if nobody cared? What if everyone could just be what they wanted to be X3.

Now this is something I agree with, science might find a way for people to change or even erase their sexual attraction, but why bother? the conservatives will eventually see reason or die off, and we'll all be accepting of it, and of ourselves!

 

[Sporky111]

"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".

That sure would be nice, if it was just a meaningless facet. But it's not. I can't really go into it all since it's a different experience for everyone, but just because it's not important to you doesn't mean it's not hugely important for other people. It's a culture, it's a social condition. People judge you for it, it's always assumed you're straight and you have ot make it clear when you're not.

I'll just link you a page I found really interesting. It's about "straight privelege": things that straight people never have to think about or worry about because of their sexual orientation. http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm

 

[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...

Yeah, the pressure is certainly bad. But I couldn't really deny someone something like that if they wanted it. It bothers me that they'd choose it, but if someone wants to change themselves I don't feel I can tell them they cannot. It is tough.

Yeah, there's clearly an ethical dilemma here. However there are those out there who wish they could change because they want to fit in, I agree with you that I wouldn't deny them a choice to change. It's sad how hard it is for a modern society to accept and respect differences.

 

[The Funslinger]

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 make afterwards, especially if the xmen appeared...

I can just imagine that equivalent running around in hot pink uniforms. Professor X would have a really jazzed up wheelchair, and Wolverine would get chest waxes.

OT: I don't think anyone in their right mind would do anything with it. I mean more people going around and breeding is the last thing we need on this planet.

 

[Skin]

Do we rejig the genes of people who will be fat? Die of heart attacks early? How about going bald? Eye colour? Strength potential? IQ potential? Asperger? Which things is it "ok" for us to change because we think they are a "disability" or a "defect" and which are not ok because "its how you were born" or "you can still function that way"? How do we draw that line? We know that if this was 50 years ago, 90% of the medical doctors and the population would have thought being gay was a mental defect of some kind. That's now changed, but how do we differentiate with other things?

If the treatment is to be given as an adult, it troubles me less. But if the treatment has to be given young, or even inutero, then it becomes a real ethical challenge. Do we want to end up with a Gattaca type world? And yet, if we don't allow these changes, do we leave people at a disadvantage naturally and create harm that way?

You have pointed out the ethical dilemma that has hindered molecular science so. Bravo sir.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

As always, it should be the individuals choice.

 

[faspxina]

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 make afterwards, especially if the xmen appeared...

They would be called the G-Men. xD

OT: I wouldn't support it as we live in a society who still has some prejudice about homosexuality, meaning that coming up with a pill that would make it disappear, would be pressuring homosexuals to change.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

The Republicans would immediately try to make the "cure" mandatory and start rounding up people in camps.

 

[Daverson]

It's their choice. Forcing someone to change their sexuality is the act of a fascist, and withholding such a procedure from those who might desire it, while not as bad, is still pretty reprehensible.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Hmmm...

My first thought on this... If being gay is a disease, could we infect more people to make them gay? Interesting.
Oh, and I wouldn't support people changing themselves do drastically... Especially if they just felt pressured into it.

 

[The Last Nomad]

I'd support it because of the amazing breakthrough made by science (Which it would be) but I wouldn't support the forcing of anybody to take the pill.

But it depends what kinds of things they figured out about homosexuality.
If it was a contagious disease then I would see it very differently to what it is, a personal choice, in which case scientists would have basically made mind control pills, which I wouldn't support.