Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[BarkBarker]

Their are tendencies genetically engraved upon the mind at the early weeks of conception, one of these is the depth of being either mostly male minded, as in what we usually associate with men due to their Neanderthal lives and requirements, and the female side, doing exactly the same for the women. Within this is a mid zone, of those who can succeed well at both areas of gender dominance, and when one of a opposing gender starts leaning towards the other too much, they have been noticed to have a stronger and stronger tendency to homosexuality, because their mind is so leant into being that gender, that they begin to perceive their own as if from the opposing gender, you don't CHOOSE to be gay any more than you get to choose to be straight, personally a penis does nothing for me, I love me a vagina if I am to say so in a less than classy manner, and just in case you didn't catch on I AM a guy. The point of all that I'm saying is, there is no problem with them being that way, they don't have to be romantically or sexually involved with a woman to have a child, sperm banks aren't imaginary, let the lesbians leave their eggs for others to have, let the gays sprinkle their sperm for others to use, what POSSIBLE reasonable rationality would you have to changing something that has no effect on any part of them being a man or a woman, apart from their ability to perceive sexual and romantic relationships differently on a biological level.

ALSO, how about ever letting someone know that you CHOSE their orientation by fiddling with the natural random throwing togethers of nature? Gay isn't a CRIME against nature, but it certainly does seem counter productive to the goals of all life that has existed and will exist ever, to continue to exist and procreate, but I feel the bigger concern would be helping the people, however few they may be in the world, who are born body parts they aren't supposed to have, and give them the "correction" for lack of a better word, males in our species aren't supposed to have female parts, women aren't supposed to have male parts, there is no argument in that, and the fact of the matter is I could see more reasonable cause for a "dual wielder" to be outcast and tagged a mutant than a homosexual.

 

[t00bz]

I know people. Friends. Family. Their life isn't a "fucking nightmare". They're not tormented.

My mother, several family friends and one of my best friends are all gay. At one point or another their homosexuality has been a great source of stress and anxiety for them. My mother in particular has said if she had a choice, she would rather have been born straight as that would have made things easier for her. That would appear to denote some sort of torment or nightmare to me.

Their life isn't bullshit. They're not waiting to be "saved" from anything.

You'll have to forgive my slip of the tongue. You are correct. Their lives are not bullshit, but the treatment they receive in life is.

 

[Teoes]

Spoiler: rodent snip

Hey Escapist, what's going on in this thr-

Oh...

I think you all need bunny pictures

Spoiler: Oh you lucky bastards

Err, yeah. I petted my chinchillas for a while. Much better!

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

Where did I say that it wasn't abnormal?

Pretty much the instant you said it wasn't a defect.

Any deviation from the norm is, by definition, a defect. Ergo, if something isn't a defect, it fits the norm, and therefore can't be abnormal.

I was just pointing out that since homosexuality is abnormal, it therefore must be a defect, just like albinism, red hair, certain eye colors, various genetic throwbacks, and pretty much any feature of a person that is a significant outlier in defining their phenotype.

You can play semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't make it any less of a defect.

Now, the intent behind my original post, and this one for that matter, was to make a point. Specifically, that you appear to automatically be making the cognitive leap that "not normal" must be a perjorative and an insult. Don't do that. Not only is it idiotic and small minded, it also actively hurts your cause. Mostly because you turn rather hostile at the perceived slight, and hostility never engenders reasoned discourse.

Let's get something out of the way first. Defect does not equal abnormal. Defective means malfunctioning. It's a flaw. It's a weakness. It's an error. Abnormal means unusual. Not normal. Atypical. Irregular. Rare. Homosexuality is unusual, atypical, irregular, rare, and not normal. Homosexuality is not a flaw or an error or a weakness or a malfunction. We're going to have to play semantics because you started playing semantics first. You made this about semantics.

Second, albinism, red hair, certain eye colors, and various other genetics are irrelevant in regards to homosexuality because, as I've already stated, homosexuality is not solely dependent on genetics, meaning your comparison falls far short. Also, red hair's defective? Different eye colors are defective? There's all kinds of various things that is wrong with those statements.

If you want to view something that's not normal as a malfunction or an error when they're not one and the same, that's fine and dandy, but if that's the case, then I have nothing further to say to you.

 

[Hecatomb]

I would definitely support my government introducing a mandatory vaccine program for this if one was available. I find homosexualty and transexuality disgusting and would welcome a way to wipe it from the face of the earth.

Well, thank you for sharing your opinion Dr. Mangela. I wasn't aware "your" government existed solely for the purpose of removing anything from the world that offends you personally. Is there anything else that disgusts you? Any other personality traits that you feel need to be genetically "fixed?" I enjoy horror movies and violent video games, is that something I should be "cured" of? In fact, perhaps we should go a step further and just start genetically programming our children to think, behave, and look exactly the way we want them to.

Homosexuality is not a disease, nor is it a choice. It is simply a characteristic of a given individual. Everyone has a gender identity, but sometimes that differs from the actual gender. Again, not a disease or mental illness, just a case of being born with the wrong chromosone. These are integral personality traits of the people who have them, and trying to "fix" this sort of thing is simply manipulation of free will. And state-mandated eugenics is as frightening and terrible as anything I can imagine.

 

[thethird0611]

snip cus its to long

You do know that disagreeing with it because it is Eugenics is a perfect way to reply to this thread?

It is a very relevant topic though because of the raise in population of both homosexuals and transexuals, and it dives into actual current topics of changing the biology of a fetus before its born to give it certain traits(even though we dont know this is the cause, but its a hypothetical).

I will actually rephrase the question to show you how its relevant. Some scientist currently are searching for ways to change the traits of an unborn fetus (i.e., eye color, hair, increasing intelligence, ect.). If it was found that homosexuality is caused by a biological trait, would you support the ability to change it, and further more, would you support the ability to change a fetus'es qualities before its born to something the parents want?

 

[SadisticFire]

Cure is definitely the wrong word to use. Hell, there might not be a proper word to use. But anyways for my opinions.
I would say homosexuality doesn't really need a 'cure'. It's abnormal, but it isn't really doing any harm as is. Maintaining the population. But transexuality could use a cure(Not that it's wrong to be a transexual). If you could make some one comfortable with their gender with a cheaper, safer method than transex operation, I wouldn't really see a reason not to. Transexuals are aiming for comfort(from what I understand).
Do I really think it's wroth pursuing either at the moment? Not really.
Excuse any typos. Only got a couple hours of sleep. Damn kids coming to school when they're sick, infecting us all. Selfish bastards.

 

[VaporWare]

Where did I say that it wasn't abnormal?

Pretty much the instant you said it wasn't a defect.

Any deviation from the norm is, by definition, a defect. Ergo, if something isn't a defect, it fits the norm, and therefore can't be abnormal.

This language is problematic, setting aside the social connotations of defect/abnormal as possible pejoratives. There are a bevy of apparent defects in the human schematic that have unintuitive but undeniable benefits from the perspective of the whole organism or the species as a whole. Homosexuality seems to fit into the latter category.

As a specific example, sickle cell anemia is a defect in blood cell production that nevertheless produces the beneficial and desirable effect of immunizing one to malaria.

Homosexuality is still being investigated, but it may not be a defect or abnormal at all. The fact that the actual population of homosexuals remains consistent on average suggests that it is a normal feature of our species and confers some selective benefit, if not on the individual then on the social groups the individual interacts with.

Just because something is uncommon doesn't make it abnormal or defective. Homosexuality is certainly less negatively impactful to the individual than sickle cell anemia...homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing, so actual physical function is not impaired.

On the flip side, we have plenty of perfectly common, normal features that are clearly defective. Wisdom teeth, the appendix, and so on. So just because something is normal doesn't obviate it of being defective.

We might think of things as common or uncommon then, separately from determining whether or not they are effective or defective.

 

[DarthSka]

Well, it's not really appropriate to classify homosexuality as a disease, or really any other medical term because we still do not know what causes it. Transexuality is considered a disorder, but I don't know if a cure is a scientifically accurate term for something that would stop it.

Now for example, if we figure out homosexuality is caused by a change that's not supposed to occur during gestation or a process NOT occurring that's supposed to, then we could probably classify it. Then again, even if we found out it did fit the definition of, for example, a defect, it would probably still be considered wrong to call it such in most people's opinion. Then again, science doesn't care about feelings or political correctness. If something fits the definition, then that's what it is.

Now in the case of a "cure", I'd say leave that decision to the person themselves, and not until the person is old enough to make that decision for themselves. Probably the best age would be the legal age of adulthood depending on where you live. It should not be at the behest of parents or others who want to change someone else's sexual orientation or perception of their gender.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

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.

Transexuality is classified as a disorder. Gender Dysphoria Disorder/Gender Identity Disorder. Seems fairly accurate to me.

 

[SayHelloToMrBullet]

Oh boy. Well there's only one thing I can say for a thread like this:

Spoiler: this will all end in tears I just know it.

But basically no. No I wouldn't support a 'cure.'

 

[Agayek]

This language is problematic, setting aside the social connotations of defect/abnormal as possible pejoratives. There are a bevy of apparent defects in the human schematic that have unintuitive but undeniable benefits from the perspective of the whole organism or the species as a whole. Homosexuality seems to fit into the latter category.

As a specific example, sickle cell anemia is a defect in blood cell production that nevertheless produces the beneficial and desirable effect of immunizing one to malaria.

Homosexuality is still being investigated, but it may not be a defect or abnormal at all. The fact that the actual population of homosexuals remains consistent on average suggests that it is a normal feature of our species and confers some selective benefit, if not on the individual then on the social groups the individual interacts with.

Oh absolutely. Defects are the backbone of evolution. I never said, and tried rather hard not to imply, that it was inherently a bad (or good for that matter) thing. Just that it was a thing.

If we want to get anywhere, we shouldn't ignore that.

Just because something is uncommon doesn't make it abnormal or defective. Homosexuality is certainly less negatively impactful to the individual than sickle cell anemia...homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing, so actual physical function is not impaired.

On the flip side, we have plenty of perfectly common, normal features that are clearly defective. Wisdom teeth, the appendix, and so on. So just because something is normal doesn't obviate it of being defective.

We might think of things as common or uncommon then, separately from determining whether or not they are effective or defective.

Yes and no. In spirit, I absolutely agree. Different is not inherently bad, and normal is not inherently good (though the opposite is also true). That was part of what I said.

Anything past that is getting down to arguing semantics, and while I could, it's generally unproductive and I'm too tired to bother with it right now.

 

[Proto Taco]

I see a lot of people defending transsexualism as if it's an awesome thing here. Like it's something you're born with and should be/are proud of. I can tell you from experience that it most certainly is NOT fun, nor is it a source of pride for many. Most transsexuals I know, myself included, would be thrilled off our socks if a legit natal 'cure' was found. Because one thing many people don't realize is that when transsexuals pursue transition it's not because we're fetishizing our bodies, it's because we're trying to 'cure' ourselves and hormone replacement therapy is literally the ONLY thing that works. Most of us just want the nightmare to be over.

Now how would this 'cure' work? I don't know, but if it was administered in the womb, before conscious memories start to take form it wouldn't matter. Whether it tweaked the body or brain chemistry would really be immaterial because the child wouldn't know one way or the other.

So while there's no way I could support a 'vaccine' for being gay; I would totally support a vaccine to help prevent transsexualism. It's a miserable condition and the earlier in life we can treat it the better.

 

[Jenvas1306]

in a better world gender or sexuality wouldnt matter so much and we could shape our bodies, the vessels we inhabit freely after or likes.
then nothing would need a cure and we would all be free.

 

[Madman123456]

If there was a cure, i would support it. If a homosexual person doesn't want to be homosexual for whatever reason (except being pressured of course) i would have no right to stand in his or her way.
I may not be able to understand that reason but that doesn't mean that i have any right to stand in the way of another individual's decision to no longer be gay.

One might argue that there being a cure might lead to people being pressured into taking it and one might argue that it doesn't work like that since gay people merely find people of their own gender attractive and want to fuck around with one of them and we don't even know how "attractiveness" really works.

But if there was something that would make a gay person find random people of the opposite gender attractive in the same as of now unexplainable way that i find some of the ladies attractive and if a gay person has the desire to no longer be gay then i have no right to suppress that desire or the rights of that soon-to-be straight person.

 

[Olas]

This thread implies either of these things are diseases.

They aren't. And people should just stop making the comparisons between non-heterosexuality and diseases.

I don't see how this thread is implying that it's a disease, OP uses the term "cure" but only for lack of a better one. The question is would you support giving soon to be parents the option to ensure that their child is born strait? And considering the amount of discrimination, ridicule, and downright vitriol gays have received, and will likely continue to receive for many generations, I couldn't possibly see denying a parent the option to avoid that.

I can't honestly see why anyone would be against this. We're talking about giving people an option to do this; whereas not creating this cure is essentially forcing their hand in the matter.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

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.)

I want to be pedantic for a second. Gravity is a theory. 'Gay genes' are a hypothesis at most. I do agree with you, it's just that using the word 'theory' to mean 'an untested idea' is a particular bugbear of mine. It opens the door to dumbass creationists spewing 'but evolution is only a theory' at every opportunity.

What were we talking about?

Oh, right.
Nope, I wouldn't support it.

 

[Silvanus]

SNIPPITY

Every dictionary I have to hand (Oxford, Collins, new Websters, Dictionary.com) all have the concept of "fault" or "shortcoming" in their definitions of "defect".