Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[TomWiley]

I've never heard of homosexuality being due to "complications during pregnancy", unless you refer to fraternal birth order. I think most theories points to there being a genetic factor, which would also explain why it's so common in the animal kingdom.

Keep in mind that even species birds (who sort of comes from eggs you know) often display homosexual behavior.

Anyway, I wouldn't support of a anti-gay vaccine or anything of the like. Who in the right mind would? I mean, even if you see it as a way for certain individuals to avoid homophobia, just imagine how strange that arguments become when you apply it to racism, for example.

 

[Mr.BadExample]

We clearly haven't read the same thing since you compare homosexuality to pedophila, something that's been discussed earlier in this thread.

No, I've compared a theoretical situation in which a parent could choose to alter her still unborn child to make it attracted to the opposite sex and a theoretical situation in which a parent could choose to alter her still unborn child to make it attracted to mature women.
If you're going to argue that parents should not change the sexual preference of their children and should instead

step up and stand up as parents and love & support their child no matter what

, then the parents of pedophiles should do the same, no matter how uncomfortable they are or how likely their child is to commit a crime.

it's to eradicate the irrational/bullshit hatred others have for them and to get them to become more open-minded and at the very least UNDERSTANDING of alternative lifestyles you aren't a part of.

That's a damned laugh. You recoil at the very mention of pedophilia because it hasn't become acceptable to society yet. Today's progressives are tomorrow's bigoted fossils.

Ethnic groups and women also have to deal with a bunch of bullshit for being ethnic/female. What should we do about them? Tell people to go "Hey, stop treating ethnic groups and women like shit and give them the same basic human decency as everyone else", or come up with a similar style "cure" to alter a person's gender or race or sexuality or whatever biological trait you want to pick from in the womb to make sure that their child would have an "easier" life? I mean, if they weren't women, they'd have a MUCH easier time not worrying about getting raped by heterosexual rapists, right? If those black people from the 60's and beyond had this cure, they wouldn't have had to deal with slavery and lynchings and Jim Crow if we were all just one grand homogeneous blob of samey "normals", right?

I'm sure if the option were open many parents would love to have a boy instead of a girl. As it stands now it's completely legal for a couple to find out they have the "wrong" gender, abort, and start again. I'd find it much more compassionate to simply allow a doctor to reform the fetus than to tear it apart and suck it out with a vacuum. Of course it's absurd to assume that every parent will choose such an option.

There were white slaves, but blacks came into favor because they were resistant to disease and could readily be identified by their skin color. I'm not even sure why you're opposed to the idea of a big, homogenous human race. That's what most people are suggesting should happen through race mixing anyways. Why do you care if we're all white or some shade of brown?

Because the type of people you want to get rid of, that's who you REALLLLY care for, right?

We're not talking about rounding people up and burying them in mass graves. If the parents choose to change their child in the womb, it's their choice. It's a woman's body first, same as abortion. Show me where I've said we shouldn't prosecute people who attack minorities or that we shouldn't be tolerant to others. I'm not even sure where you get off calling others bigots, when you seem to place all value a person has in the color of their skin or sexual preference.

 

[nsqared]

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.)

Hold on... let's get our definitions straight here. Do you mean a scientific theory or a layman's theory? Because i think you mean a non scientific theory, as neither of these have been backed by enough data to become scientific hypotheses.

 

[Virgilthepagan]

I...where do we start with this one? Just taking the mere examples set by "pray the gay away" treatment centers, tampering with a person's sexuality has a host of mental consequences behind it. Even if a child under 18 was more or less ok with who they were, their parents could then force this on them without their consent, or at the very least relentlessly shame them into taking it. Also just personally, not everyone is just "gay" or "straight", what would you do with people in the middle, what would this wonder drug do to someone like me or my sister who have been attracted to both at points?

And how would a person feel afterwards? Somehow I don't imagine a drastic change in desire would feel like waking up from a dream, that would mess with just about anyone, it's akin to changing any fundamental trait that a person defines themself by.

 

[GestaltEsper]

I wouldn't, but I'm not gonna lie and say the scientific implications don't intrigue me.

 

[Annihilist]

If a "cure" were introduced now, even a voluntary one, we'd see a huge number of people under immense social pressure to get it. It wouldn't be a free choice for many. Their parents, their peers, their Churches would make them, or make them feel guilty. Hell, even some of those without those social pressures bearing down on them may get it in a bout of depression, and deeply regret it.

Then, those who didn't want it would be ostracised even further.


...I can imagine, however, a distant future in which such social pressures were minimal/ nonexistant. In such a future, I could see the benefits in this being available, but only voluntarily, and only with requisite counselling to prevent rash decisionmaking. In that future, I'd be equally in favour of a voluntary injection to make somebody gay, and with the same restrictions. But social attitudes need to be unrecognisable before I'd see that situation as morally viable.

Don't churches have a thing against vaccines as well? Don't you think that if people needed a vaccine or cure to relieve them of homosexuality, then perhaps religion's stance on it being a "lifestyle choice" no longer holds up?

I think it would confuse the hell out of organised religion, and for that purpose alone I would be curious about their response to such a thing.

But in reality, with the malleability of the mind, we already have a "cure", if you will. It's called conditioning. Given enough mental and behavioural conditioning, our minds can adapt to anything - it is possible to turn gay people straight or straight people gay, because our brain will adapt. It just takes a lot of time and commitment. The obvious follow-up question is "why would anyone want to?". But if people do want to, they already can.

My point is that a "cure" is unnecessary. It can be overcome. It's just not a good thing to do.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

As a voluntary choice i don't see any issues with having a "sexuality alteration pill". I doubt it'd be wise to call it a cure though; the ensuing shitstorm would probably kill this product in its crib. If someone wasn't happy with their sexuality then i don't see a problem with giving them the option to change it.

Could they make pills that make people gay/lesbian though? What if straight people wants to change it up a bit every now and then? If sexuality was as easy as that we could have a wonderful world indeed.

 

[MXRom]

Oh dear...
This is sounding dangerously close to the same excuses Southern white plantation owners had for slaves. Their need for freedom was a 'malady', and the only 'cure' was an increase in the number of random beatings...

 

[Strazdas]

Oh boy.
Homosexualty and transexuality aren't diseases.
Even as a sci-fi scenario, I can't buy it. I think it's horrid.
And no, I wouldn't support it.

They are genetic disorders. just like being left handed are genetic disorder. disease is just a label we put on problems we try to "cure" thats all.

I would support a cure for homosexuality as much as i woudl support a cure for being left handed (which i am) - that is to say a completely voulantary thing. If you want to change your sexuality - your choice. no forcing though.
As for transexuality, i may be ignorant here, but dont we already got ways to do that? i mean plastic operations and stuff.

Sadly, I don't think many, if any, transsexuals are ever content with their body as you and I would be. At least none I've known about. It's such a shit position to be in. I knew one girl that was so sweet and kind and nice and friendly to everyone she'd ever meet. It wasn't fake, but you could always tell just under the surface, and sometimes above, she wasn't really... content. Like she was always not sure of herself. It's hard to put your finger on, but it was evident.

Anyway, no. We can't yet "cure" transsexuals. We can help, like we can help people with depression, but it's more of something you learn to live with in your own way.

Since i know no transexuals in real life i cant really argue with you there, so fair enough. In which case my last sentence is not needed.

I think we should work to find a cure for bigotry, consumerism, and conformity. We should also force feed people "diversity" vitamins. So that people can accept that other people like and do different things.

That is until people learn to mind there OWN fucking business about harmless things that other adults are doing.

I think we should try to cure stupidly before. might be easier too as at least it isnt rewarded in our society unlike bigotry consumerism and conformity.

 

[Brad Shepard]

*Sigh* i come back to the escapist in like, 3 weeks and I see this? hell, the top 3 out of the top 4 most viewed topics are of this nature, why? Why does a GAMING SITE feel the need to talk about this shit? go back to tumblr or something if you want to talk about this.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Oh dear...
This is sounding dangerously close to the same excuses Southern white plantation owners had for slaves. Their need for freedom was a 'malady', and the only 'cure' was an increase in the number of random beatings...

What? that makes no sense, dont try to bring race into something that does not need to be in it just to start more crap.

 

[likalaruku]

As a bisexual woman & a yaoi fangirl, I would go out of my way to destroy such a "cure."

 

[kabahaly]

Once again, the moderators warn me for doing absolutely nothing, the OP asked a yes/no question, I answered yes and added a bit of details. What's so wrong with that?

 

[IceForce]

Once again, the moderators warn me for doing absolutely nothing, the OP asked a yes/no question, I answered yes and added a bit of details. What's so wrong with that?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.826985.20105651

uhh, you called all homosexuals "ill people", and said they're "sick and twisted".

As a general rule, the mods here don't like people peppering their posts with insults like that.

 

[Angie7F]

As a bisexual woman & a yaoi fangirl, I would go out of my way to destroy such a "cure."

I am straight but totally appreciate the genre of yuri and yaoi so, me too.
If straight epople need a "cure" for homosexualty, we need a "cure" for straight people

 

[Lightknight]

Imagine if geekiness was a gene you could erase from your unborn child's personality. That particular personality trait is certainly something many parents also find "hard to cope with."

Is that something you would sanction?

A personality trait is not the same as a biological trait. Unless you believe that some people are born geeky. Personality traits are typically nurture based whereas orientation is considered to have biological ties.

And this is relevant how? Yes, you have pointed out a difference. You can point out many differences in comparisons. The question is whether they are differences that actually hurt the comparison.

I am not seeing how the origin of the particular trait makes a difference here. Magic vaccination makes them go bye bye.

There is a difference between personality trait and biological trait. Biological traits might as well be changing your hair color. If my parents made me blonde I don't think I'd be sitting here wishing I was brown haired or something. If they decided I wouldn't have a sense of humor or something like that then it'd be an issue.

Gay people don't have a stable set of personality traits. To claim that would be stereotyping. Altering the orientation doesn't necessarily impact who they are as a person any more than changing hair or eye color would. If they're a jerk gay they'll be a jerk straight and anything in between.

So yes, there is a significant difference between the two. You associate homosexuality with multiple personality traits/behaviors because there is a gay culture/community. The communities we are a part of do alter our personalities. That's true of anyone. So semantics or not, there's a significant difference in something that is a gene vs a developed personality trait.

I think the biggest downside to homosexuality is that you are essentially limited to a partner pool of less than 3% of the population. Surely this contributes to unhappiness and lonliness to an extreme degree. It's hard enough for straight people to find a good match and it's only dumb luck or the sheer number of options that eventually works out.

 

[Silvanus]

=Don't churches have a thing against vaccines as well? Don't you think that if people needed a vaccine or cure to relieve them of homosexuality, then perhaps religion's stance on it being a "lifestyle choice" no longer holds up?

I think it would confuse the hell out of organised religion, and for that purpose alone I would be curious about their response to such a thing.

But in reality, with the malleability of the mind, we already have a "cure", if you will. It's called conditioning. Given enough mental and behavioural conditioning, our minds can adapt to anything - it is possible to turn gay people straight or straight people gay, because our brain will adapt. It just takes a lot of time and commitment. The obvious follow-up question is "why would anyone want to?". But if people do want to, they already can.

My point is that a "cure" is unnecessary. It can be overcome. It's just not a good thing to do.

Suppression is not likely to be genuine change of sexuality, though. A number of times recently I've posted a huge list of links to expert organisations who state it cannot be changed, and that there is little-to-no validity in conditioning or aversion therapy. If you'd like, I could dig that list out and pass it to you via PM.

You're right, of course, that the main reason to avoid such treatments is that they can cause untold emotional distress, and that there's no valid moral reason to use them. But, it's important that their efficacy has also been repudiated by many, many expert organisations.