Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?
- Thread starter Wraith
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I could support a 'cure' for people who are already adults and can make their own decisions, but not on a pregnant woman. However, I do find it funny how most people here are talking about how putrid of an idea it is but if the mother just aborted the child its OK. Not to go of on a tangent, just kind of ironic.
Reading this after your edit the gist I get is this:
A forced vaccination that would turn any potentially gay or trans offspring to hetero and cis during pregnancy. Nothing wrong with people taking this fantasy drug if they wanted, but I would consider a REQUIRED vaccination law a gross violation of basic human rights.
If a mother doesn't care what her child's orientation or gender identity is (as she shouldn't), then she should not be required to do such a thing to her body for a purpose she doesn't believe in.
Suffice to say, were I a woman, I wouldn't go near such a vaccine.
A forced vaccination that would turn any potentially gay or trans offspring to hetero and cis during pregnancy. Nothing wrong with people taking this fantasy drug if they wanted, but I would consider a REQUIRED vaccination law a gross violation of basic human rights.
If a mother doesn't care what her child's orientation or gender identity is (as she shouldn't), then she should not be required to do such a thing to her body for a purpose she doesn't believe in.
Suffice to say, were I a woman, I wouldn't go near such a vaccine.
Is it wrong for me to think that, in a sense, homosexuality IS a disease? I mean from a purely biological standpoint, human beings are designed to be heterosexual (i.e. our parts match up). So for a person to go against that and be gay is, literally, against nature. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, just logical.
With that in mind, I'd actually say I would support the cure. I mean, if it actually IS a birth defect, wouldn't you want it fixed?
Purely hypothetical though. Even if a single root cause could be found (as it could be a whole series of biological, personal, and/or societal issues) I seriously doubt you'd be able to cure it with one injection.
With that in mind, I'd actually say I would support the cure. I mean, if it actually IS a birth defect, wouldn't you want it fixed?
Purely hypothetical though. Even if a single root cause could be found (as it could be a whole series of biological, personal, and/or societal issues) I seriously doubt you'd be able to cure it with one injection.
If there was a sure fire way to allow people to pick if they wanted to be attracted to females or males or feel male or female I would support it 100%.
The more choice we have when it comes to how we want to live our lives the better.
The more choice we have when it comes to how we want to live our lives the better.
A cure implies there's a condition or disease. Homosexuality and transsexuality are neither of those.
But if you mean "What if a way was invented to alter a homosexual/transsexual's brain to make it think what society deems normal", then my answer would be: Yes, but with a catch.
Let me explain. If there was a 100% guarantee that this alteration will not be forced on anyone in any way. That it will entirely be their own choice if they want it. Then I'd support it. Sadly, we don't live in a perfect world. And some, or maybe a lot of, people would try to force it on homo/transsexuals. So I'm against such a thing.
But if you mean "What if a way was invented to alter a homosexual/transsexual's brain to make it think what society deems normal", then my answer would be: Yes, but with a catch.
Let me explain. If there was a 100% guarantee that this alteration will not be forced on anyone in any way. That it will entirely be their own choice if they want it. Then I'd support it. Sadly, we don't live in a perfect world. And some, or maybe a lot of, people would try to force it on homo/transsexuals. So I'm against such a thing.
I'm not offended by the implication that homosexuality is an unintended side effect. But I feel that saying "Homosexuality is unnatural because penis + vaginas = babies" is vastly oversimplifying how evolution works. Every country where we've recorded the population homosexuals have pretty consistently been in the same percentages, and homosexuality has existed for as long as humanity has without being phased out. I'm not trying to say that I know more about evolution then you. I'm saying that I believe none of us understand it well enough to make bold declarations like that.Ninjafire72 said:
There's also the fact that the human population is the largest it has ever been and is growing. Homosexuality doesn't actively cause problems, and it also curbs the population somewhat. Our resources would be better put into fixing other things that fit our current definition of birth defects. Things like autism.
I don't even understand that last sentence, in light of genetics. Each individual alive has a different phenotype.Agayek said:
Phenotypes are not defects. Phenotypes are variations of a trait. These variations may be beneficial, detrimental, or neutral. But evolution doesn't claim any of them as "defects," just variations. This isn't arguing semantics so much as asking you to use the accepted terminology of the science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
And please, if you have any questions, just PM me. I'm willing to offer some tutoring in genetics.
On-Topic: No. I wouldn't. Why should I?
Zachary Amaranth said:
One of the scenarios I had in mind when I wrote my response was one in which an individual felt a close bond with another, but lacked the sexual attraction, because they were gay. It came to mind due to a friend of mine telling me once that he felt sorry he couldn't reciprocate my feelings for him (essentially, the inverse of the scenario above).
That would be one value of the sexuality-change treatment. Better still if it worked both ways.
I can certainly understand that; I guess even if being gay was a defect, it doesn't necessarily NEED to be cured since it's causing no inherent issues (besides societal ones, anyway). Here's another theory though: it's interesting to think that, based on your statements, homosexuality is actually an evolutionary trait that allows the human population to be kept in check.GeneralFungi said:
BUT:
GeneralFungi said:
On these points I'd have to disagree.Master of the Skies said:
Nature in and of itself, at least among living organisms, is governed by set goals. In fact, 'rules' are just man-made definitions for processes that already existed in nature. And these processes all work towards a specific goal. Plants will always develop/release seeds; that's a rule we discovered. It's also a natural process with a clearly existing goal of plant reproduction. It's not a goal made conscientiously by the plants, mind, but a goal nonetheless. Plants don't say they 'should', they just do.
As such, there is a reproductive system and process designed for humans to do just that, reproduce. Now how this design came about is up for debate (evolution or intelligent design), but it is still clearly designed to achieve a particular goal. The system itself doesn't say we *should* reproduce, it just is; but if we decide to it certainly functions as designed; and if we are to survive as a race, then we really should. Same story with plants, only difference being conscientious choice.
So, with that in mind, my point still stands: our biological systems are, in fact, 'designed' to be heterosexual. And for a person to go against this clearly designed system and be gay is against nature. Not to say it's wrong or bad; it's just not how nature intended.
I know the guy has been suspended for later posts, and the topic has moved on, but I feel the need to respond.Magog1 said:
I accept that perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Yes, everybody experiences highs and lows. However it is not normal to experience truly delusional highs, as in full on hallucinations, and such depths of lows, where people want to actively end their own existence. Without any other factors. Triggers perhaps, but many bipolar sufferers will fairly suddenly slide into depression, without anything bad happening. They could be the happiest person on the planet, and then without any reason, hate themselves. That is not the simple up and downs of life, bipolar is beyond debilitating. It feels almost painful to say, coming from university where proper referencing is almost a deity, but look at Wikipedia. It explains the true extent in better words than I can muster.
Also, I wasn't saying Love was a mental defect, you prick. Do not manipulate my own words against me. That is the lowest argument of the vaguely cognitive. Using that form of argument is barely a step up from a shit flinging monkey. Debating a topic is fine, but do not twist my words to fit a position that I am against.
No, I wouldn't. Because there is nothing wrong with being gay or transgender, irregardless of whether it's a choice or not.
Though I do agree that gender dysphoria can be harmful, and if the parents and not the government get to choose whether or not to vaccinate, then yes.
Your question reveals some profound misunderstandings, I think.
Even though you apologize, your basic premises still says "what if homosexuality were caused through an abnormal change during pregnancy?"
Which is rather like asking "what if having red hair were caused through an abnormal change during pregnancy?"
If it doesn't harm the child, then in what way is it an "abnormal change"?
My knowledge on the subject of sexuality and gender identity is limited to Norman Doidge's book about neuroplasticity "The Brain That Changes Itself" (an excellent book, in my opinion) and a few articles and Youtube videos I read/watched online.
Anyway, as I understand it, the research is still not conclusive, but studies so far indicate that sexuality is determined by a mix of genes and, more importantly, early childhood experiences and it remains plastic throughout life.
Some couples remain sexually attracted to each other for decades, even after they look nothing like they did when they first met.
And human sexuality doesn't fit neatly into boxes of straight, gay, bi, asexual either.
Though I do agree that gender dysphoria can be harmful, and if the parents and not the government get to choose whether or not to vaccinate, then yes.
Your question reveals some profound misunderstandings, I think.
Even though you apologize, your basic premises still says "what if homosexuality were caused through an abnormal change during pregnancy?"
Which is rather like asking "what if having red hair were caused through an abnormal change during pregnancy?"
If it doesn't harm the child, then in what way is it an "abnormal change"?
My knowledge on the subject of sexuality and gender identity is limited to Norman Doidge's book about neuroplasticity "The Brain That Changes Itself" (an excellent book, in my opinion) and a few articles and Youtube videos I read/watched online.
Anyway, as I understand it, the research is still not conclusive, but studies so far indicate that sexuality is determined by a mix of genes and, more importantly, early childhood experiences and it remains plastic throughout life.
Some couples remain sexually attracted to each other for decades, even after they look nothing like they did when they first met.
And human sexuality doesn't fit neatly into boxes of straight, gay, bi, asexual either.
Would you accept a law your government made so that every woman who became pregnant would need to get this vaccination?
Yes.
It's a simple answer because this is an issue I don't feel strongly enough to take personal action against. If it came to a vote I'd vote in favour of gay rights without a second thought. I don't view this as a disease or a problem. It's entirely normal and is frankly, insulting that society hasn't accepted it entirely yet. Knowing someone who is against rights is as strange to me today as meeting someone who is against freeing the slaves.
When it comes down to it though...I don't have enough personal investment in this particular issue to take time out of my day to fight against the government. It would just be another societal thing that I disagree with but live with just the same.
Yes.
It's a simple answer because this is an issue I don't feel strongly enough to take personal action against. If it came to a vote I'd vote in favour of gay rights without a second thought. I don't view this as a disease or a problem. It's entirely normal and is frankly, insulting that society hasn't accepted it entirely yet. Knowing someone who is against rights is as strange to me today as meeting someone who is against freeing the slaves.
When it comes down to it though...I don't have enough personal investment in this particular issue to take time out of my day to fight against the government. It would just be another societal thing that I disagree with but live with just the same.
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?
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 those would be more interesting questions.Ihateregistering1 said:
However it is not what the OP asked. The OP made it clear that it's a government law and only applies to pregnant women's fetuses.
For your first question, no I would not "support" it, for much the same reason I don't agree with eugenics in general. Being gay is not inherently good or bad, it's just a trait, just as being blonde or red-headed, or blue-eyed or brown-eyed. It wouldn't be something like trying to "cure" autism or cystic fibrosis where it is acting to prevent an actual deficiency which affects quality of life and rate of survival. I would see that as going down the road of Gattaca [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattica] and tailor-made babies, and I do not support that idea in the least. It's one thing to cure a disease or disorder which greatly affects quality of life and independence, it's another thing to make what amounts to cosmetic changes or improving average traits beyond what is average.Wraith said:
As for your second question, hell to the no. Again, this is essentially the government making cosmetic changes to babies, and what's worse it's the government deciding that only certain sexualities are acceptable and literally taking action to eradicate the ones that are not.
I get what you're asking, but no matter how you word it it's getting into the dark side of eugenics.
Yes, because you can choose to stop the treatment, you'd have both perspectives and would be able to make a more informed decision, something that seemed fine when you were a homosexual might seem disgusting as a straight person, and vice versa, you'd have more time to think about which sexuality you'd really want.Zachary Amaranth said:
I'm not one to talk about HRT because I haven't looked up long term studies of people on HRT and how their personality changes throughout it, if you have anything of that nature though, I'd be interested in reading it.
Then how is she the cure for lesbians? And if she's not, then why did you write that she was?
It's different because by itself it doesn't have negative effects on you the same way depression does, oh sure, other people can treat you horribly because of it, but that's due to their inability to accept you. You aren't changing yourself to help yourself, you're changing yourself to make everyone else happy because they didn't want to have to deal with something about you, and to me, that intolerance is unacceptable.