As a bisexual man, I wouldn't have a problem with people using this pill of their own volition, but think that forcing its use on anyone would be a horrific human rights tragedy.
Poll: Thought experiment: What if homosexuality COULD be "cured" medically?
- Thread starter Kolby Jack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Baseless ad-hominem attacks do not change the medical definition nor does it hide the fact that you fail to support your claim about homosexuality being a disease or disability.Skin said:
Name one.Skin said:
Nope what I saw was someone not knowing what a mental disability is and ignoring the actual experts to assert that homosexuality is a (mental) disability.Skin said:
Right, well, I'd oppose this, for a few reasons. Firstly, if they marketed it as a "cure" then that would be utterly outrageous, since being gay isn't some kind of defect or disease.
Secondly, this'll really fuck up a lot of gay-rights campaigns, because opponents would suddenly be able to accurately claim that being gay is a choice (choosing not to take the pill).
Thirdly, a society in which we just say, "If you don't like being gay, just change!" is one that will never actually address gay rights issues, since it has no incentive to (this is similar to my second point), and it's also a society that won't try and help gay people accept themselves.
Fourthly, why is this the only "cure"? Why isn't there a pill to make people asexual, or bisexual, or homosexual? Until those pop up, then this just enforces the idea that gay people aren't normal, and that heterosexuality is the default.
Fifthly, anyone gay person who didn't take this pill would be extra-discriminated against, since now they're literally rejecting heterosexuality. Something tells me that in the eyes of bigots, someone activelly choosing to be gay wouldn't be popular (this again ties in with points 2 and 3)
Yeah, okay, you can say that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their sexuality, but at times we have to put rights of the few below the needs of the many.
Secondly, this'll really fuck up a lot of gay-rights campaigns, because opponents would suddenly be able to accurately claim that being gay is a choice (choosing not to take the pill).
Thirdly, a society in which we just say, "If you don't like being gay, just change!" is one that will never actually address gay rights issues, since it has no incentive to (this is similar to my second point), and it's also a society that won't try and help gay people accept themselves.
Fourthly, why is this the only "cure"? Why isn't there a pill to make people asexual, or bisexual, or homosexual? Until those pop up, then this just enforces the idea that gay people aren't normal, and that heterosexuality is the default.
Fifthly, anyone gay person who didn't take this pill would be extra-discriminated against, since now they're literally rejecting heterosexuality. Something tells me that in the eyes of bigots, someone activelly choosing to be gay wouldn't be popular (this again ties in with points 2 and 3)
Yeah, okay, you can say that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their sexuality, but at times we have to put rights of the few below the needs of the many.
The difference is people who go through transitional surgery feel they are that other gender.Acrisius said:
Gay people are attracted to the same sex, to change that is to actually supress/deny a part of yourself. The exact opposite of what transitional surgery does.
And before you say; people have a predetermined gender, this becomes a matter of debate when you consider that transgender people usually have the brain of the opposite sex.
Well, not really. Couldn't you just see how many thousands of people would take this "cure" of gayness due to preasure from the world around them? Perhaps the world is more accepting than it used to be, but it can still be insanely cruel to those that do not "fit in", in many cases one will still be physically abused and even killed for it, and mocking and verbal abuse of homosexuals is commonplace everywhere.Acrisius said:
Someone being able to be safe in their sexuality allows for personal growth, and I'd say all people's personality is moulded in part on their sexual prefences and atitudes. Sephen Fry is a brilliant and wonderful guy, and I'm sure he'd be awesome had he had this "cure" in his younger days, but he wouldn't be the same, would he? Him growing up during a time of sexual animosity and fear has shaped an unique and special induvidual, who can now use his voice to encourage the diversity and acceptance that we really SHOULD have.
I don't think this "cure" would allow people to live "just like they wanted". There is no mention of a Become Gay "poison"?... Or a Swap Gender injection? (though that is partially possible today with drugs and surgery, not quite the same)
[/quote]
I would argue your trolling efforts are rubbish, but if you really are serious you are one of the most shallow and patethic people I've had the pleasure of being quoted by...Skin said:
Let them choose. The thing with 'curing' the mind is that we are our minds. At least imo, there is no soul, no higher intelligence directing the body, just the chemicals and neurons of the brain. Change them, and you change the person - there is no mentally/physically, because mentally is physically. So perhaps doing so without consent is justifiable if the person is dangerous or of there really is no choice.
But forcing people to conform to an 'ideal' mental template and letting them choose their sexuality from there is wrong because there is no ideal template. There's just seven billion people with different mental setups, some of whom think that theirs is the best one or the 'normal' one.
But forcing people to conform to an 'ideal' mental template and letting them choose their sexuality from there is wrong because there is no ideal template. There's just seven billion people with different mental setups, some of whom think that theirs is the best one or the 'normal' one.
Only in the sense that it irks me when people compare apples and oranges, regardless of the actual things compared. And everyone is biased.Kendarik said:
As I said, I am bothered by the incongruous comparison, not the idea of deafness being the same as homosexuality itself.Kendarik said:
And there is a rational reason for this bias. Homosexuality is the attraction to the same sex. This does not hinder a person in any way. Saying they can't have a wife and kids is flawed, because that's a cultural stereotype forced into our minds.
Especially since gay people can procreate, besides the natural way, through IV etc. They can reproduce even if it is not natural.
quote="Kendarik" post="18.339589.13742092"]I'm sure some people in this thread have decided by now I'm "homophobic" for raising the comparison, but I think that the comparison is EXACTLY the type of thing we will need to think more about as our medical knowledge improves.[/quote]
I'm not. I just think your comparison is flawed and inadequate/counter-productive to the point you are trying to make.
I think such decisions should be left to the individual, under psychological testing.Kendarik said:
Being fat is in itself not a defect, nor is a specific eye colour, physique nor IQ. But if people want to change this, after deliberation, it's up to them imo.
I think we are of like mind on this. In my opinion these changes should only be chosen by the individual them self, it's their life after all.Kendarik said:
Obvious troll is obvious.DeadSp8s said:
OT: I'm glad you asked. I'm bisexual. And if there was a pill to make me straight I would take it. But only if I it was reversable. Because how does one know they truly like something if they haven't experienced the other options. I'd also take a pill that turned me gay as long as it was reversable. It might be better than being bisexual or straight.
In my opinion people should do whatever makes them happy.
A pill that changes any factor of an individual's personality, on the other hand, should never be mandatory or even be marketed/referred to as a cure.
It's like trying to cure somebody of having brown eyes: it's a natural part of their genetics, hardly uncommon and without dangerous consequences.
(This does not mean I'm against a pill for things like Down's syndrome or anything that disables someone.)
I put the word "cure" in quotes because I know that homosexuality is not a disorder or disease and thus can't actually be "cured." The phrase was a jab at how some people assert that it CAN be "cured."
To those saying it would change the person's personality: would it? I'm not gay, but the way I figure it, your sexuality may be something you are, but it's not WHO you are. Maybe that's different for the few who base their entire lives on the fact that they're gay, but most gay people I've met haven't been overt about it, and probably would be more or less the same people if they were straight.
By "support it" I'm not saying "forcefully administer it," and I apologize for the confusion on that. What I meant was would you support having it distributed at all? I mean a pill that alters sexuality would be a big deal, and I would think the aforementioned overt gay people who use their sexuality to define themselves would be aghast at the idea, while the homophobic "gay is an illness" type folks would want it shoved down the throats of every gay person alive. I'm just wondering how such a scenario would play out.
Hope that clears things up a little.
And to those reading WAY too much into this thread and assuming things about me that have no further basis than the single paragraph I wrote, get over yourselves. This is the internet: nothing is serious here. If my hypothetical scenarios are offensive to you, you clearly don't know what the word "hypothetical" means.
To those saying it would change the person's personality: would it? I'm not gay, but the way I figure it, your sexuality may be something you are, but it's not WHO you are. Maybe that's different for the few who base their entire lives on the fact that they're gay, but most gay people I've met haven't been overt about it, and probably would be more or less the same people if they were straight.
By "support it" I'm not saying "forcefully administer it," and I apologize for the confusion on that. What I meant was would you support having it distributed at all? I mean a pill that alters sexuality would be a big deal, and I would think the aforementioned overt gay people who use their sexuality to define themselves would be aghast at the idea, while the homophobic "gay is an illness" type folks would want it shoved down the throats of every gay person alive. I'm just wondering how such a scenario would play out.
Hope that clears things up a little.
And to those reading WAY too much into this thread and assuming things about me that have no further basis than the single paragraph I wrote, get over yourselves. This is the internet: nothing is serious here. If my hypothetical scenarios are offensive to you, you clearly don't know what the word "hypothetical" means.
in a sense...it is, but its more the natural default (hormones, instinct to reproduce, ect.)Thomas Eshuis said:
so kind of yes depending on how you describe it
I imagine that they would try to "cure" everyone.
I am of course opposed to that, being homosexual and very happy being so. So it's their own choice, I suppose.
I am of course opposed to that, being homosexual and very happy being so. So it's their own choice, I suppose.
I think if they wanted to change that's up to them but i don't think they'd want to. I mean i'm straight and all so i don't really have the best angle on this but changing what your attracted to to what your not is like undergoing medical surgery to have somebody like vegimite instead of jelly.
Choice or genetics, it doesn't matter if the behavior is not seen as troublesome.
All the LGBT friends I have only viewed their sexual orientation as a problem based off the treatment received by people who view their lifestyle as wrong. Therefore, I feel that this entire hypothetical statement is flawed because it implies that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore is in need of a cure.
So long story short, no. I would not support it, as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Now if there was a cure for homophobia in people with a simple, painless drug, I'd be all for that
All the LGBT friends I have only viewed their sexual orientation as a problem based off the treatment received by people who view their lifestyle as wrong. Therefore, I feel that this entire hypothetical statement is flawed because it implies that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore is in need of a cure.
So long story short, no. I would not support it, as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Now if there was a cure for homophobia in people with a simple, painless drug, I'd be all for that
Exactly. This is of course much more succinct than my lengthy explanation, but yes. Completely agree.Melanie McGreevey said:
I'm starting to wonder how people would respond if the words were changed to read "straight" instead of "homosexual."
A pill to make everyone bi would be much better... widening your view seems more beneficial then restricting it, why make it so you only find some people sexy when you can find EVERYONE SEXY!
[small][sub][sub] I know bisexual people don't want to fuck everything that moves, was just making a statement... felt the need to say that for some reason [/sub][/sub][/small]
[small][sub][sub] I know bisexual people don't want to fuck everything that moves, was just making a statement... felt the need to say that for some reason [/sub][/sub][/small]