Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[loa]

Nah, I don't think lobotomy should be brought back from the dark ages.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Fuck no.

Doing that is letting the terrorist win.

(That joke is still classy, right guys?)

(Guys...?)

 

[Totenkreuz]

If the parents had a choice to alter their child in any way, shape or form, I wouldn't object to it. If there are no law against it then they can do whatever they want with their child, I do not however enjoy parents making their childs childhood "less enjoyable" as in naming it with rather weird and stupid names etc, but thats another story.

Now, if I take this question on as straight (not a pun or wordplay) as possible I would not agree, advertise or uphold such a medicine as something to fund in any way shape or form, on a personal level that is, but I know that I have no right to implement my insight on others who does not accept them and I don't want to either.


Another thing I seem to have read here is that most people seem to think that some (or any) sort of sexuality is natural/unatural/genetic or not, be it homosexuality, heterosexuality or any other form of sexuality for that matter, But from the studies I've found so far it seems to indicate that no form of sexuality has any valid scientifical data behind it to call it the "right one". At best we get some social, religious, political or one half science half 'hypothesis' statement from some scientists, but so far none of these have been able to validate their assertion on that topic on anything but their own personal view on it.

There is alot of it to read but I think this link gives a small insight upon it for those who might be interested in it.
http://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/

But even this one cannot show the whole picture I'm afraid so please don't take it word for word. And do not take my word on it either, I don't have the qualification to make such a statement either. I just wanted to show another point on this, now sexuality driven discussion.

 

[3aqua]

I'd allow mothers to use it if they wanted to use it but forced injections would be a big 'no no'

 

[Something Amyss]

Kind of a moot point to prevent that regardless. You can't allow abortion in general (ie: don't want a kid) and deny it over certain reasons, as all you accomplish is to force people into lying about those reasons.

This entire thread is moot, so I'm not sure what you're on about. The point still does remain that we don't discriminate in the first place. Also, the effectiveness wouldn't stop us from doing it. See also: gays in the military, barred blood donations, Most taxes.

The fact that that people could lie doesn't change the base fact that we don't discriminate.

 

[m19]

Honestly I kinda think for a would be transendered they would be happier if who they feel like aligned with who they physically are. People should have that choice, so, yes.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Hell to the no. If all the gay people suddenly became straight, us straight men wouldn't be able to compete.

 

[Adultism]

Nah, and I just think its stupid to have bias towards homosexuality, I can love whoever I want this is my life not yours.

 

[CJ1145]

I wouldn't support it because I don't believe such a thing could possibly exist. It like saying there's a "cure" for heterosexuality. Or hey, just sexuality in general. It's implying that it's some kind of condition with for the benefit of the body must be relieved. It's just an indicator of whether you like your fellow man a little bit more than the other guys do. You can't "cure" someone of being able to walk, so you can't really cure them of their sexuality either.

 

[chinangel]

no. absolutely not. Mostly because we are who we are and if my child was born trans i'd help him or her through it. if he/she was gay, I'd do the same.

While it's nice you'd help your child through being trans, wouldn't it be nicer if they didn't have to suffer in the first place?

Even if you wipe out transphobia entirely, you're still talking about a condition absolutely nobody actually wants to have.

speak for yourself. I am who I am, and even if there was a cure or equivalent thereof, I woulnd't want it. If I did have that cure, I wouldn't have met the people I love and care about, and I would be a different person: I wouldn't be me.

 

[Xdeser2]

Ummm....

This is assuming that Homosexuality or Transexualism are things that need to be cured -_-

So, no, thats just the definition of fucked up.

 

[GryffinDarkBreed]

There is GREAT debate between certain groups on whether homosexuality could be the result of a complication during pregnancy, if it is just a natural occurrence or-- the most scrutinized of arguments-- it's a conscious choice. The same arguments have been applied when discussing transexuality and its effects on the person (though, most agree it is a complication during pregnancy).

Now with all this arguing going on, it seems to me no one is really asking a really big question. Let's say both homosexuality and transexuality were proven to be created through certain developments in the womb and let's say both of these could be cured with a needle injection given to the mother within the first few months of pregnancy.

Would you support this cure?

Would you accept a law your government made so that every woman who became pregnant would need to get this vaccination?

I don't think homosexuality is the result of any "one" thing - I think it's probably combinations of many things. I don't think they could ever come up with a "cure" for it. (The hormones-in-the-fetus theory is just that, too: A theory. The gay gene theory is just that: A theory.)

So... it's not something I worry about one way or the other. I would resent any attempt to categorize homosexuality as a disease, actually.

Gay Gene Theory is also pretty silly since it doesn't make much sense that a gay gene would survive long enough in our genome to manifest in today's genome...



On topic, There are only ONE type of in-vitro cure I will ever support, and that is curing of diseases that have actual negative effects on a child. Stuff like Tay-Sach's disease. Down Syndrome supression therapies that have revently been discovered. Stuff like that.

If it genuinely effects health, life and limb of a child, I am all for curing it. Something as minor as "What makes Billy's willy feel silly" is not a disease. Is it a disorder? I'm not sure. One could argue that it is, simply by definition. Homosexuality does involve brain chemistry that differs from what is considered 'regular'. The degree to which it disrupts normal life, however, is completely minimal. Attention Deficit Disorder has a larger effect on someone's life, and the most effective management system for that is usually discipline.

 

[Mad World]

Yes - I would definitely support a cure. I would also support a law requiring women to get the vaccination.

 

[mojoismydog77]

I would. Just give the people the choice. Which is worse giving the option or being the tyrant that takes it away. Note I don't think you guys are tyrants it's just if you have the choice to be gay why not have the choice of being strait? It should not be forced though.

 

[Wraith]

..I am unsure where your perception that being Homosexual or Transgender is somehow a defect came from...

I do not think that. Read the edit in the OP. This was all a hypothetical, a rather horrible and roughly worded one, but a hypothetical none the less. That does not make me ignorant.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

When your doctor says "You have X but I can cure it", he isn't insulting you, and there is not reason to get angry. It's like a doctor telling someone he can remove that mole from their chin and they fly into a tirade, screaming at the doctor, calling him an ignorant bigot, and telling him that their mole gives them strength and doesn't make them a sub-human.

The logic gets too freaky for me. It would make sense to say "All way to be are equally valid, with no right or wrong answer", but these nut-jobs believe that whatever way you are is right and whatever way you are not is wrong. If you are X than X > Y and its bigoted consider switching, but if you are Y then Y > X and its still bigoted to consider switching. If you are Y but then become X, say as the result of an accident, then X is now better and its bigoted to consider switching.

 

[VoidWanderer]

...

This, to me, is a gross oversimplification of this issue. And I mean gross in both senses of the word. Since I do not view homo or transexuality as a flaw, I would never support a cure.

I need to take a long shower after reading this thread...

 

[oZode]

I wouldn't support it because I don't believe such a thing could possibly exist. It like saying there's a "cure" for heterosexuality.

Curing hetrosexuality is already possible though, all you need is a really sharp knife.

 

[Something Amyss]

speak for yourself.

That would be great if I were alone in this, or a minority. It's nice that you like hating being the skin you're in (which is sort of included in the definition), but you would be, by nature, the outlier there.

If your child had a heart condition, however, would you remedy it or just say "we are who we are?" Because honestly, this sounds like the whole "Dick Cheney complaining about playing God while being kept alive by a pacemaker" sort of thing.

We are who we are in this very narrow field where I have come to accept and maybe even make excuses for a condition that hurts me, but I would not be so fatalistic in other fields might be a better response.