I doubt the procreation line is really the foundation. Especially these days.xPixelatedx said:
I think the foundation is "ew!"
Which is why everyone is more down on MSM than WSW.
Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think the foundation is "ew!"
Which is why everyone is more down on MSM than WSW.
Oh come on! Are you just mining for views and posts. Who in the escapist community (disregarding those extreme anti homosexuality users who pop up from time to time) would ever say yes to this hypothetical question? I mean, not even considering the factor of the amount of backlash they'd probably receive for even saying such a thing, I don't think anyone in this community could ratify in their head accepting such a decision as right and/or logical.
Which basically means this topic has turned into a massive party of "we're open minded and proud!"
Don't we all have better things to do with our time then agree with the many people who have already represented our respective viewpoints over and over again? Not to say that the opinion of each individual doesn't matter, but at this point I think we can all agree that in majority the answer to this hypothetical question is no, no, no and no.
Which basically means this topic has turned into a massive party of "we're open minded and proud!"
Don't we all have better things to do with our time then agree with the many people who have already represented our respective viewpoints over and over again? Not to say that the opinion of each individual doesn't matter, but at this point I think we can all agree that in majority the answer to this hypothetical question is no, no, no and no.
That's a pretty good answer. Can I ask what it is about them you find so disgusting?Lorpo said:
OT: Been thinking about this topic and I honestly don't know if I WOULD support this cure. It's another aspect of the whole designer brat thing and I don't even know if I support that.
If that's true, then you just furthered it.SeldomSeenKid said:
Well, we've had people say yes. We've even had people say worse than yes. even offered qualified support for applying it to transsexuals. Several other transsexuals have.
Have you actually read the thread?
You're already posting on The Escapist. It's not like this diverted you from solving world hunger.
Ah, that I did, but my point still stands. Can we really get a worse result than suicide and murder? Obviously neither option is a good one and eliminating discrimination by eliminating the group we're discriminating against means we don't learn form our mistakes. We'll just find something new to be intolerant of. I agree with your point though. A cure or a vaccine wouldn't be a solution.Silvanus said:
There is nothing to cure.
Well, there is one thing that needs curing.
The repugnant fear of the unknown that people direct toward the LGBT community.
There is also no debate whatsoever as to whether it is a matter of choice, and quite frankly, I'd appreciate if that twaddle was never brought up again, for the sake of my sanity and all the un-kicked puppies of the world.
Well, there is one thing that needs curing.
The repugnant fear of the unknown that people direct toward the LGBT community.
There is also no debate whatsoever as to whether it is a matter of choice, and quite frankly, I'd appreciate if that twaddle was never brought up again, for the sake of my sanity and all the un-kicked puppies of the world.
I've been trying to reconcile it in my mind, and when it comes down to it although I don't like saying "yes its okay" that's pretty much what I must say. I can't figure out how I can reasonably support abortion and not support this.ninjaRiv said:
But do we support abortion just because it's not a boy or whatever? We support abortion when it's needed, right? I'm mostly having trouble seeing where the harm is for the foetus. There is none.EvilRoy said:
But there is harm towards the parent, as they'd be pressured into getting the cure.It's a tricky issue.
I'll give you my blanket default answer when it comes to the development and availability of medicine.Wraith said:
1) People should have both equitable and open access to all forms of medical technology that are developed now and into the future.
2) They should also have the right to refuse treatment.
3) Should a person choose to refuse treatment however then the government then has no further legal obligation to continue providing financial assistance to cover any ongoing medical expenses that might result due to that refusal.
So while I think that it like all medical technology should be readily available, I also don't think we should ever force people into using it, and the third part of my response really isn't applicable in this particular case.
I'd support it about as much as I'd support a cure for blonde hair and blue eyes.
That is... not really at all. Better to develop and improve on treatments that people can choose for themselves. Like sex reassignment surgery. And of course we could try to eliminate bigotry through education.
That is... not really at all. Better to develop and improve on treatments that people can choose for themselves. Like sex reassignment surgery. And of course we could try to eliminate bigotry through education.
Well, from where I stand the instant you can choose an abortion simply because you don't want a kid, then you can choose to do anything to that foetus before birth. By choosing a vaccination to make your kid straight, or a boy or a blonde from my perspective all you are really doing is aborting potential outcomes.ninjaRiv said:
I don't think you can argue peer pressure and the like, as that exists just as readily with abortions as it would with any pre-birth vaccinations.
In some parts of the world, it's punishable by death so yes, I would support a cure. I'm not saying that everyone who is homosexual should take it, I'm saying that in some countries, it might be the best option. At least it's another option. They can choose between: staying and suppressing who they are, staying and not suppressing who they are but then most likely dying, leaving for a more enlightened country and having to say goodbye to all of their friends and family, or taking a cure that will allow them to stay and live a normal life. It's a shitty situation but I would probably take the last option if I was in it.
I wouldn't support it, because these things are not problems. They only cause problems because of other people's intolerance; if left alone, they would be inconsequential. To enforce a hypothetical cure for these alternative orientations would seem to me to be just for the sake of everyone being the same. That's homogenizing to the culture, and bad for the gene pool. I'd say 'no'.
Do we prevent people from terminating a pregnancy based on sex?ninjaRiv said:
So would you also support a "cure" for blackness? There are parts of the world where that can border on a death sentence. Hell, any race can be a death sentence in some part of the world.RedDeadFred said:
If left alone, transsexuals still suffer.DarkenedWolfEye said:
Well... If someone doesn't want to be gay, then sure. A non coerced adult with full rational faculties should be able to make such choices without social stigma because it's not really something that effects anyone other then the person who made the choice. However, I doubt you'd see many people choosing to not be gay, once you see the societal stigma on it disappear. At that point gay or straight will hopefully be on the who the fuck cares list for most people. So, really I don't really see a point when this would be at all relevant to anyone.
Just a weird question. Yeah they have the right to do it, but who's honestly going to rewrite a portion of their personality when they aren't being harassed by society for it.
Just a weird question. Yeah they have the right to do it, but who's honestly going to rewrite a portion of their personality when they aren't being harassed by society for it.
