I know people. Friends. Family. Their life isn't a "fucking nightmare". They're not tormented.t00bz said:
Their life isn't bullshit. They're not waiting to be "saved" from anything.
Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A person can no more be 'cured' of homosexuality than a person can be cured of being born with blue eyes or ten fingers. As technology advanced, everything can eventually be altered by the parents to suit their demands. But, that doesn't make it a 'cure'. It merely means the parents will be able to decide upon it.
If we are going to grow intellectually and emotionally as a species, we need to learn to accept differences, we need to learn to have empathy for people for example from a different country, with a different belief system, with a different skin color, and yes, a different sexuality. We can take the 'easy' way out, by altering people, making them more 'socially acceptable', or through bigotry, deciding that those who are different must be punished. If we take the easy way, we will essentially never grow up.
Therefore, I oppose the idea of altering people to be more socially acceptable. It ultimately means catering to the worst aspects of humanity and will only hold humanity back, and we're held back enough as it is.
If we are going to grow intellectually and emotionally as a species, we need to learn to accept differences, we need to learn to have empathy for people for example from a different country, with a different belief system, with a different skin color, and yes, a different sexuality. We can take the 'easy' way out, by altering people, making them more 'socially acceptable', or through bigotry, deciding that those who are different must be punished. If we take the easy way, we will essentially never grow up.
Therefore, I oppose the idea of altering people to be more socially acceptable. It ultimately means catering to the worst aspects of humanity and will only hold humanity back, and we're held back enough as it is.
Seriously? You're seriously doing this, OP? Homosexuality is not something that can just be cured. Hell, it's not something that SHOULD be cured. Being born gay is NOT the same as being born with a genetic condition. Homosexuality may not be the norm, but that does NOT make it a sign of inferiority. You might as well try to cure yourself of your race or your hair colour. If anybody's lives are worse for being born gay, it's because of the society that treats any deviation from the norm as something to be 'cured'. I'm sure you didn't mean to come of as so offensive when you started this thread, but you really should think twice before saying shit like this.
If this were a hypothetical situation, I would support making it available, but not forcing it under law.
At the end of the day, the unborn child belongs to the mother/father, and it's their decision.
If we support parents having the right to abort the child, then they would also have the right to do something like this.
At the end of the day, the unborn child belongs to the mother/father, and it's their decision.
If we support parents having the right to abort the child, then they would also have the right to do something like this.
Both are sexual orientations outside the "normal" bounds. If attraction to your own sex isn't a disease, then logically, neither is attraction to children. They're both abnormal sexual orientations, presumably created due to some unusual circumstances during fetal development.Johnny Novgorod said:
And really, neither one is a "disease" so much as a "defect" (and before you jump down my throat, I mean that in the purely scientific form of the word). Both homosexuality and pedophilia are caused by fundamental divergences from the human norm in mentality or hormones that, as far as we know, most likely originated during fetal development. This is the literal definition of a birth defect. It's no different than being born with six fingers or whatever.
Now, one could argue all day over the societal merit of the defect or how much it deserves to continue to exist, and I'm not going to bother. All I'm doing is pointing out that homosexuality is a defect, by definition (much like most cases of albinism, some gingers, most strange hair/eye/skin colors, and anything else that is not average for their phenotype of Homo Sapiens Sapiens).
I would support it as a valid choice if it was an entirely voluntary post-birth thing, but pre-birth as you are suggesting would be too controlling for me.
Also, I love the amount of people who are just reading the thread title and not the OP.
Also, I love the amount of people who are just reading the thread title and not the OP.
No, I refuse to pretend it's akin to a birth defect because even just pretending gives an inch to sickos out there and as a psych major about to get his BS in psych, I abhor the very idea of eugenics. My glorious self loving other men who can consent to sexual relationships is no more defective than someone else's love of the opposite sex who can consent to sexual relationships. You don't make a hypothetical of something that real people are suffering from just for some 'what if?' because there's no what if. It's not a birth defect. It's not a disease. It's not a disorder. Playing this pretend merely makes a mockery of real suffering. And don't you even dare say that you were pretending it wasn't a disease because that means you also lack scientific knowledge of what a vaccine is. There's no 'gay virus' out there that you can weaken or kill and then inject into someone so that they'll be immune from catching the 'gay virus' later on in their life.Wraith said:
So, I will not roll with it. In the situation you provide, with ignoring the god-awful mandatory government vaccine question, you ensure that there will be plenty of mothers who will be blackmailed and coerced into it by their churches, their friends, or their family. It would add more stress on top of pregnancy, which is stressful enough as it is, and even worse, a child would be changed just because they might have a trait that some deem undesirable, never minding the fact that this trait doesn't do anyone any harm whatsoever.
Just going to turn this question around a moment while it occurs to me to do so. In this hypothetical scenario in which a 'cure' for alphabet soup sexuality exists, would there not also implicitly exist a 'cure' for heterosexuality for those interested?
All things being equal, as I've suggested before, I support the idea of people being able to control themselves. As long as that knife cuts both ways, and so long as harmless choices are not arbitrarily demonized on unsupportable premises, I have no objection to the existence of a given tool.
A lot of things like this can be framed as questions of freedom and the responsibilities of having that freedom. For some, the ability to simply and directly re-define their desires would come as a relief. For others, it might present an opportunity to grow and learn.
For all, it must be a choice they can make in and of themselves. As a society we can inform that choice, but we must not dictate it. Down that road lies tyranny and self destruction, both of the individual and society.
Sadly, we do continue to exist in a world where choices are dictated more than informed, and frequently demonized on unsupportable premises.
I would submit that before we can meaningfully address anything else, we need a cure for oppression.
All things being equal, as I've suggested before, I support the idea of people being able to control themselves. As long as that knife cuts both ways, and so long as harmless choices are not arbitrarily demonized on unsupportable premises, I have no objection to the existence of a given tool.
A lot of things like this can be framed as questions of freedom and the responsibilities of having that freedom. For some, the ability to simply and directly re-define their desires would come as a relief. For others, it might present an opportunity to grow and learn.
For all, it must be a choice they can make in and of themselves. As a society we can inform that choice, but we must not dictate it. Down that road lies tyranny and self destruction, both of the individual and society.
Sadly, we do continue to exist in a world where choices are dictated more than informed, and frequently demonized on unsupportable premises.
I would submit that before we can meaningfully address anything else, we need a cure for oppression.
No, I would not.
I would not support such a cure, and I would not want such a thing to exist, save for a few who actually wish to be hetero, and are not simply doing so because of pressure from friends/family/church/etc.
I have nothing against homosexuality, and it affects me in no way what-so-ever.
By the way, to all the people complaining about what is wrong with the Original Poster, I believe he meant for this to be purely hypothetical, and simply worded it wrong, like I usually do.
I would not support such a cure, and I would not want such a thing to exist, save for a few who actually wish to be hetero, and are not simply doing so because of pressure from friends/family/church/etc.
I have nothing against homosexuality, and it affects me in no way what-so-ever.
By the way, to all the people complaining about what is wrong with the Original Poster, I believe he meant for this to be purely hypothetical, and simply worded it wrong, like I usually do.
Support is a strong word, but if there was a medication that would change your sexual orientation or gender identity I would not be against the existence of such medication, but there's the other issue of the great potential of misuse of said medications.
Now the idea of forcing a parent to take a medication that would forcefully alter the sexual orientation of their unborn baby I find horrendous, this would be a classic misuse.
But yeah, if this "medication" exists there most likely would be a counter medication, would it mean someone could become a lesbian transgendered person?
Now the idea of forcing a parent to take a medication that would forcefully alter the sexual orientation of their unborn baby I find horrendous, this would be a classic misuse.
But yeah, if this "medication" exists there most likely would be a counter medication, would it mean someone could become a lesbian transgendered person?
Well, considering how the OP said that it would be something administered while in the womb, the fetus would not have been subjected to peer pressure.NerAnima said:
Interestingly enough there is a gay festival on in my home city Cardiff tomorrow. But I wont be going because I'm not gay and CardiffComicon is on the same day.
No I wouldnt get involved in a cure for gayness. It would be for gays to decide not me.
No I wouldnt get involved in a cure for gayness. It would be for gays to decide not me.