Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

Recommended Videos

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
K12 said:
Ihateregistering1 said:
Even though the OP did a not particularly good job of wording what they were asking about, I do think this brings up two interesting ideas and questions.

Ok, let's say that they did have a way that a pregnant woman could get an injection and it would 100% guarantee that her kids would not be gay or trans, should she be ALLOWED to get it (note that I didn't say 'forced' or 'required')? I'm sure some people would say that such a procedure shouldn't be allowed at all, but to me, that begs the question: if we let a woman terminate her fetus on the basis of "it's her body so it's her choice", why would that same concept not apply here? If we let the pregnant woman decide whether the fetus lives or dies, how is that so much better than deciding what its sexuality will be?

2nd question, let's say that, instead of being injected into a pregnant woman, they actually did have an injection/procedure/whatever that would literally turn a gay person straight, or a trans person cis (or whatever the term is). Not "psychological reprogramming" or anything like that, but literally something that alters your genes (obviously this is sci-fi, but humor me), should people have the right to get it done if they choose to do so?
I think these are better thought questions than in the original OP but I'd still say no to both.

With the first question there is a big difference between pro-choice and what you suggested. Parents do not own their children; pro-choice is based on the fact that women own their wombs and can choose to not have a fetus growing in it. They don't have the right to do anything to the fetus which will grow into a child later. The difference is basically that pregnancy is a big ask to a woman and (since the child doesn't exist yet) they have the right to refuse to do it.

There is no difference (for the pregnant woman) between being pregnant with a gay kid or a straight kid so the pro-choice justification doesn't hold. The difference comes when the child is born and grown. The parents are carers of their children, their decisions in this stage are for the benefit of the child not themselves or their own prejudices.

It's a "designer baby" issue which some people are against across the board. I'm not, but screening (or whatever tactic you use) for genetic syndromes and diseases is very different to choosing specific characteristics like blue eyes etc.

The second one probably wouldn't be possible to make illegal but I would definitely argue against it. I'd view it the same way as Michael Jackson's plastic surgery. I couldn't legally stop it but I'd definitely consider it a bad thing. I suppose the time to make it illegal would be at the technological development stage, making it illegal for a group to develop that technology in the first place.

Another thing that's important is that it will almost certainly not be as simple as you have described. I know it was a hypothetical or your part but if we have a borderline maybe-it-would-be-ok for an idealised scenario then complications in reality may push it into not-worth-it territory.
I know it wouldn't be as simple as described, hence why I noted that this is all sci-fi and just to humor me for the purpose of having a discussion.

Here's the thing: I don't think abortion is entirely an issue of "well the woman just doesn't want to be pregnant", I think it has a lot to do with the idea of "I'm not ready to raise a kid". We can argue that someone doesn't have the right to change their child long term while it's in the womb, but let's face it: killing the fetus (which, let's be honest, is what abortion is) is a far greater change to the fetus than deciding its sexuality (alos, I'm pro-choice, before that gets lost in translation).

The 'designer baby' idea is a little different than being able to screen for, say, cystic fibrosis, but it does bring up another good point. To use an example, study after study has shown that taller men have a significant advantage over shorter men: they make more money, are more attractive to women, more likely to get hired and get loans, etc., so if a mother can choose to 'design' her male baby so it will grow up to be 6'4 instead of 5'7, should she be allowed to? To me this is similar to the decision over whether to choose the sexuality while it's in the womb: there is absolutely nothing wrong with being short, but there are clear advantages to being tall. Likewise, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay, but there are clear advantages to being straight.
 

LOLITRON

New member
Sep 15, 2012
21
0
0
I have epilepsy and while it certainly has affected who I am, what I do, and kept me away from drugs and alcohol, I would support a cure 100%. While many people will argue that being gay cannot be compared to genetic disorders with adverse effects, if we are to assume it's genetic it would be by definition a scientific abnormality. Personally, I don't think it is; as someone pointed out already, the likelihood that the gay gene would have survived in our DNA this long is fairly small.

On top of that, there are several culture things that suggest otherwise. Am I to assume that all porn stars are gay? Am I to assume that every man in ancient Greek culture were gay? Those are just a few things and I just don't buy it. I loved letting my sisters dress me up like a girl when I was younger, but I'm not transsexual. I admire good-looking men, but I'm not gay for doing so.

I should make it clear that I don't particularly care either way; anybody should be able to do what they want to do and I support the LGBT movement wholeheartedly. Still, I don't understand this desire to prove it's a genetic thing that can't be helped. Who cares? If someone prefers the opposite sex and feels better dressing up like the opposite sex, go for it. They have nothing to prove to anyone.
 

Hugga_Bear

New member
May 13, 2010
532
0
0
Dustin Cakalic said:
How about a "vaccine" to make everyone bisexual?
Now this would be interesting...

"What's there to cure?" aside I wouldn't support it. It makes no sense to me to be frank, curing (I don't think there's a safe PC term for this) homosexuality is an exercise in insane futility. What's the point? Homosexuals are not a problem, you don't cure ginger hair you just live with it. If people are going after people for being homosexual we shouldn't change the homosexual. The horrific parallel is curing white people of their white skin so we can all be a specific shade of black or something (or indeed the inverse, curing black people of their black skin).

Now I want a world of homogeneity, if everyone was roughly brown in skin colour and more or less fully bisexual I think it would be a cool world. We don't live in that world, I'm white and straight as they come. I guess I think it's a shame but it's not like it bothers me, it would just be cool if everyone was everything. I want a world without bias or discrimination more than anything which doesn't necessitate homogenisation at all, I just think it would be kinda fun to live in a world where the distinctions between people are more difficult to divine than tapping into your fear of the unknown or whatever.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Brilliant question. I think it's more likely that in the future there could be a corrective surgery when you approach adulthood though - if you accept a lot of neuroscience, you have to accept the potentially grim reality that all of our character could be "changed".

I'd accept the option. Enforced inoculation shouldn't be permitted - unless there is a threatening health issue at hand, I don't think anyone should be treated against their will.

It's an even bigger question with transgender. Firstly it would weed out all of the people who aren't actually, and leave the people who are genuinely trans. Then it would help realign them. It'd be far less invasive than gender reversal surgery, and could be done on the sly. I can't imagine that there is going to ever be a world where people are fully accepted as transgendered, and as it's a neurological issue, surely it's the best outcome? I know enough trans and queer folk to know that pride will get in the way of their answers here, but the reality is that most of them would take a simple surgery if that's all it took to remove the most negative parts of their lives.
 

Jeffrey Scronce

New member
Jul 13, 2013
7
0
0
BigTuk said:
Biologically Optimal... means simply configurations that lead to and provide advantages towards successful procreation. Homosexuality does not lead to biological procreation hence it is not optimal. Well unless you're one of those hermaphrodite species in which case homosexuality is the norm, you're a hermaphrodite and your partner is hermaphrodite thusly you are the same gender thusly homosexual.

Diversity stems from traits that are neutral (have no effect) or from traits that present some advantage.
Evolution happens on a population and generational level. Just because a trait isn't productive for every given individual's reproductive success it can be successful for a population as a whole. A lot of theories on the evolution of altruism address this (for instance, Dawkin's discusses this in "The Selfish Gene"--it's old and there are solid refutations but the general hypothesis still seems solid).

That's true, neutral traits are passed on. Doesn't invalidate my point unless I'm missing something.
 

miketehmage

New member
Jul 22, 2009
396
0
0
Sure I guess. I have nothing against homosexuals but it'd probably make their life easier if they were straight. If as you say the "cure" was administered before birth then it's not like they are losing a huge part of their identity, because they never had the chance to be homosexual in the first place.

I will say that my original thought when I read the title of this thread was "It isn't some sort of disease." But frankly the only real reason I can see for not actively preventing homosexuality (Again I don't mean I want to ban it, I mean to prevent an individual from becoming homosexual whilst developing in the womb) is that I guess it helps with the overpopulation problems we are having.
 

DSK-

New member
May 13, 2010
2,431
0
0
I wouldn't. Homosexuality and transexualism are things I just can't wrap my head around (because I am neither homosexual or transexual, so thats probably why), but I certainly wouldn't force people who are to conform to be so-called "normal".

If anything, I'd actively oppose it.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
I think they found the gene for it, and honestly could change it 'fairly easily'. Would I support it? Well if the person themselves doesn't want to be that then ...well why not?
I don't think parents should have the right in the least to do anything about it or any other family member, or the government.
I'm asexual and I can tell you right now I have no interest in being gay or straight so that 'cure' would go unused by me.
 

UsefulPlayer 1

New member
Feb 22, 2008
1,776
0
0
I wonder if most gay or transexual people would have preferred to have been born straight or comfortable with their gender. I mean there is always that adage about "Who would choose to be gay when they face all these problems?"

Despite some kinda offensive stuff in the original post, I think that's basically the question that is being asked. Would you support changing nature altogether to give the child a "conventional" sexual orientation instead of being gay?

I don't know really. On one hand it saddens me to think we would be give up on reconciling the inequality society, but on the other hand maybe the child would simply have an easier life.
 

x EvilErmine x

Cake or death?!
Apr 5, 2010
1,022
0
0
Umm, no? Because as far as I am aware it's not a disease. It's just who some people are, it's like trying to cure green eyes or blond hair.
 

Jeffrey Scronce

New member
Jul 13, 2013
7
0
0
UsefulPlayer 1 said:
I wonder if most gay or transexual people would have preferred to have been born straight or comfortable with their gender. I mean there is always that adage about "Who would choose to be gay when they face all these problems?"

Despite some kinda offensive stuff in the original post, I think that's basically the question that is being asked. Would you support changing nature altogether to give the child a "conventional" sexual orientation instead of being gay?

I don't know really. On one hand it saddens me to think we would be give up on reconciling the inequality society, but on the other hand maybe the child would simply have an easier life.
Once upon a time I personally wanted to be straight. It had nothing to do with my actual sexual desires but fear of the repercussions. I grew up in a homophobic southern town and I internalized a lot of the bullshit I was being told as a kid. I hoped it would be something I'd outgrow somehow.
Now I wouldn't change for the world. I think I'm stronger for the things I've been through and I've learned a lot about the world and other cultural minority groups' issues that I never would have become aware of if I had been straight. Plus, I live in a society where it's totally cool for the objects of my sexual desire to go jogging mostly naked. God bless America indeed.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Deshara said:
It took texas two hours to write into effect a law that prevents some 2/3rds of blacks from voting after the supreme court declared that it's allowed.
I would absolutely not be in favor of giving people the ability to change people's race. We're racist enough as it is
Please explain how it would lead to more racism. To me it seems like it would make racism irrelevant, as race would no longer be rooted in a person's background. Any white person could be a former black and vice versa, therefore the idea of discrimination makes no sense.

More importantly though it would give people greater freedom to choose their identity, rather than having it forced onto them by forces completely beyond their control. You have to consider the possibility that not every person wants to be the way they currently are.
 

Seydaman

New member
Nov 21, 2008
2,494
0
0
Calling it a cure is bias in the first place. You've revealed your hand!

Otherwise, isn't it a genetic thing? As in, it was mapped during the Human Genome Project? I thought it wasn't an argument anymore, just people being dumb.

If we're talking genetic manipulation, well...I'm not really sure, because disallowing one kind of genetic manipulation, stops another, or it will/would. The majority of reasons for a desire for such a change would be antique social values anyway, so it would be pointless to even think about it being an issue.

I talked about genetic manipulation with my biology teacher back in highschool, it's a whole bucket of problems you have to consider beyond just "We can make our hair RAINBOW!". Human slavery, forced manipulation, so many problems...