Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Would you support this cure?

Would you accept a law your government made so that every woman who became pregnant would need to get this vaccination?

Sure, why not? So long as it's up to Mom whether or not she takes the treatment.

No, no law mandating it. Anyone who disagrees with either of these positions had better be a pro-lifer, since "her body, her choice" and all.

I kept thinking this, all the way through reading this thread. I kinda didn't want to say it because the resulting slew of snarky comments and the compulsion to reply is bad for my mental health.

I'm sure a lot of these firm "no"'s are coming from people who strongly support abortion. It's not OK to change one aspect of a budding life, but it's OK to erase it entirely, eh?

It's made me laugh a bit how often the "no" camp has insisted that it would be "completely selfish of parents to do this" whilst also giving anecdotal evidence of how shitty being homosexual has been for themselves at times. There's your non-selfish reason, right there.

And did you pay attention to how many of the firm no's were to denying parents the ability as opposed saying no to a forced vaccination scenario like in the OP? I have a feeling you didn't because you also failed to tell the difference between the 'budding life' crap when referring to something that will never be born to feel consequences as opposed to a scenario where the kid will be born with consequences due to the vaccination.

The OP asked 2 questions. There were plenty who qualified what they were saying carefully, but there were also plenty of knee-jerk responses to the notion that there could be any possible benefit to the "cure".

What would the consequences of the vaccination be, other than heterosexuality?

 

[BlackJimmy]

If it was optional, I wouldn't care.
If it was mandatory? I may go against it. Being Gay or Transgendered, doesn't cause harm in any way, so there's no NEED to "cure" it. Whereas, the "cure" is man made, so could cause some nasty side effect.
If they had a vaccine for homophobia on the other hand, then I'd get behind THAT.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Would you support this cure?

Would you accept a law your government made so that every woman who became pregnant would need to get this vaccination?

Sure, why not? So long as it's up to Mom whether or not she takes the treatment.

No, no law mandating it. Anyone who disagrees with either of these positions had better be a pro-lifer, since "her body, her choice" and all.

I kept thinking this, all the way through reading this thread. I kinda didn't want to say it because the resulting slew of snarky comments and the compulsion to reply is bad for my mental health.

I'm sure a lot of these firm "no"'s are coming from people who strongly support abortion. It's not OK to change one aspect of a budding life, but it's OK to erase it entirely, eh?

It's made me laugh a bit how often the "no" camp has insisted that it would be "completely selfish of parents to do this" whilst also giving anecdotal evidence of how shitty being homosexual has been for themselves at times. There's your non-selfish reason, right there.

And did you pay attention to how many of the firm no's were to denying parents the ability as opposed saying no to a forced vaccination scenario like in the OP? I have a feeling you didn't because you also failed to tell the difference between the 'budding life' crap when referring to something that will never be born to feel consequences as opposed to a scenario where the kid will be born with consequences due to the vaccination.

The OP asked 2 questions. There were plenty who qualified what they were saying carefully, but there were also plenty of knee-jerk responses to the notion that there could be any possible benefit to the "cure".

Oh so if you're going to classify them all as opposing the 'cure' without clarifying, then I suppose I'll classify yuor response as only against the people against forced vaccination. And the 'knee-jerk' response was to seeking 'solutions' to problems that only exist because of other people that simply make things easier for those bigots who make it an issue at all.

What would the consequences of the vaccination be, other than heterosexuality?

Does it need other consequences? It will have an effect on the child. Abortion will not because guess what? There's not going to be a birth. Rather poor comparison.

I read your first paragraph 3 times and I still don't understand it. Not trying to be a dick, it's just fairly convoluted. I get the impression that it's not worth re-writing though, it doesn't seem like it would aid anything. So maybe don't bother.

I don't think it is a poor comparison. A pre-natal injection that alters one element of the child is less invasive or destructive than an abortion. The "consequence" of it is completely unknown to the child who wouldn't be missing the other sexual identity that it never had. I think that part of the disparity in how people are seeing the 2 things is down to how long we've all had to get used to the idea of abortion. We've grown up with it, a lot of us have accepted it... that doesn't make it not troubling to be involved in.

 

[DarkenedWolfEye]

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'.

If left alone, transsexuals still suffer.

How so? As I'm transgender myself, please tell me why you think someone who alters their body to be more like the opposite gender is suffering.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Would you support this cure?

Would you accept a law your government made so that every woman who became pregnant would need to get this vaccination?

Sure, why not? So long as it's up to Mom whether or not she takes the treatment.

No, no law mandating it. Anyone who disagrees with either of these positions had better be a pro-lifer, since "her body, her choice" and all.

I kept thinking this, all the way through reading this thread. I kinda didn't want to say it because the resulting slew of snarky comments and the compulsion to reply is bad for my mental health.

I'm sure a lot of these firm "no"'s are coming from people who strongly support abortion. It's not OK to change one aspect of a budding life, but it's OK to erase it entirely, eh?

It's made me laugh a bit how often the "no" camp has insisted that it would be "completely selfish of parents to do this" whilst also giving anecdotal evidence of how shitty being homosexual has been for themselves at times. There's your non-selfish reason, right there.

And did you pay attention to how many of the firm no's were to denying parents the ability as opposed saying no to a forced vaccination scenario like in the OP? I have a feeling you didn't because you also failed to tell the difference between the 'budding life' crap when referring to something that will never be born to feel consequences as opposed to a scenario where the kid will be born with consequences due to the vaccination.

The OP asked 2 questions. There were plenty who qualified what they were saying carefully, but there were also plenty of knee-jerk responses to the notion that there could be any possible benefit to the "cure".

Oh so if you're going to classify them all as opposing the 'cure' without clarifying, then I suppose I'll classify yuor response as only against the people against forced vaccination. And the 'knee-jerk' response was to seeking 'solutions' to problems that only exist because of other people that simply make things easier for those bigots who make it an issue at all.

What would the consequences of the vaccination be, other than heterosexuality?

Does it need other consequences? It will have an effect on the child. Abortion will not because guess what? There's not going to be a birth. Rather poor comparison.

I read your first paragraph 3 times and I still don't understand it. Not trying to be a dick, it's just fairly convoluted. I get the impression that it's not worth re-writing though, it doesn't seem like it would aid anything. So maybe don't bother.

I don't think it is a poor comparison. A pre-natal injection that alters one element of the child is less invasive or destructive than an abortion. The "consequence" of it is completely unknown to the child who wouldn't be missing the other sexual identity that it never had. I think that part of the disparity in how people are seeing the 2 things is down to how long we've all had to get used to the idea of abortion. We've grown up with it, a lot of us have accepted it... that doesn't make it not troubling to be involved in.

That would be relevant... if the invasiveness or destructiveness of the procedure itself is relevant, which it is not. What is relevant is the effect it has on people. Let's see... no person for it to have an effect on besides the mother in the case of an abortion. Oh look, in the case of the vaccination it has an effect on the child later on! Almost as if they're completely different in nature.

I think the problem is you're projecting your view of abortion on everyone else and you seem to think the fetus is an actor in this and should be considered a person or something.

What have you deduced that my views on abortion are at this point? 'Cause I ain't shared 'em! Hell, I'm not sure entirely how I feel about it. I've not really shared my opinion on the topic at hand either, only acknowledged what I believe are logical contradictions amongst those who oppose. "I've suffered as a homosexual amongst bigots", "parents would be completely selfish to do this"...

Let the record show that Panda pointed out that abortion has an affect on the would-be father too. Abortion isn't a cut-and-dry issue. I have 2 friends, they're a couple, they are both pro-abortion, they both work in scientific fields... it didn't stop them feeling uneasy and "weird" about the whole thing when they experienced it first hand. Which is not to say that it was the wrong choice for them, or even ethically "wrong". It's to say it's a little bit messy.

I understand the distinction between an entity that has to live with a change and one that doesn't. In this case the entity doesn't have to even know that it's been altered (we are talking about amazing hypothetical science here), which raises the question as to whether that nullifies the ethical questions, especially when you're keeping in mind that the consensus opinion is that homosexuality and trans-sexuality are harder to live with.

 

[Something Amyss]

How so? As I'm transgender myself, please tell me why you think someone who alters their body to be more like the opposite gender is suffering.

Why are you altering your body in the first place if you aren't suffering?

 

[Calibanbutcher]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.828060-The-glorious-return-of-the-sexy-cast-Now-with-all-new-LGBT-content#20140747

It seems that all you fine gentleman and gentleladies enjoy debating about the issues of transsexualism and LGBT in general.
Might I interest some of you in partaking in an adventure? Namely, the next SexyCast, which will focus on LGB and T issues respectively, so if you feel the need to share insights with others in a civilized manner and have a nice chat with knowledgeable people, hit me up.

On the topic at hand:
damn, I wanna steal this question for the cast, but here goes my opinion:
If there was a cure for it to be used later in life, then I can see this being incredibly problematic, what with the possibility of it being abused by hate-groups. A pre-natal vaccination or somethin is something I could get behind, especially seeing as transsexuals often DO require a "cure", aka, SRS and HRT, so if instead it was possible to rectify this in the womb, I could see this being incredibly useful, though the question remains, if the brain is modified to suit the body or if the body is changed in accordance with the brain's physiology.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Would you support this cure?

Would you accept a law your government made so that every woman who became pregnant would need to get this vaccination?

Sure, why not? So long as it's up to Mom whether or not she takes the treatment.

No, no law mandating it. Anyone who disagrees with either of these positions had better be a pro-lifer, since "her body, her choice" and all.

I kept thinking this, all the way through reading this thread. I kinda didn't want to say it because the resulting slew of snarky comments and the compulsion to reply is bad for my mental health.

I'm sure a lot of these firm "no"'s are coming from people who strongly support abortion. It's not OK to change one aspect of a budding life, but it's OK to erase it entirely, eh?

It's made me laugh a bit how often the "no" camp has insisted that it would be "completely selfish of parents to do this" whilst also giving anecdotal evidence of how shitty being homosexual has been for themselves at times. There's your non-selfish reason, right there.

And did you pay attention to how many of the firm no's were to denying parents the ability as opposed saying no to a forced vaccination scenario like in the OP? I have a feeling you didn't because you also failed to tell the difference between the 'budding life' crap when referring to something that will never be born to feel consequences as opposed to a scenario where the kid will be born with consequences due to the vaccination.

The OP asked 2 questions. There were plenty who qualified what they were saying carefully, but there were also plenty of knee-jerk responses to the notion that there could be any possible benefit to the "cure".

Oh so if you're going to classify them all as opposing the 'cure' without clarifying, then I suppose I'll classify yuor response as only against the people against forced vaccination. And the 'knee-jerk' response was to seeking 'solutions' to problems that only exist because of other people that simply make things easier for those bigots who make it an issue at all.

What would the consequences of the vaccination be, other than heterosexuality?

Does it need other consequences? It will have an effect on the child. Abortion will not because guess what? There's not going to be a birth. Rather poor comparison.

I read your first paragraph 3 times and I still don't understand it. Not trying to be a dick, it's just fairly convoluted. I get the impression that it's not worth re-writing though, it doesn't seem like it would aid anything. So maybe don't bother.

I don't think it is a poor comparison. A pre-natal injection that alters one element of the child is less invasive or destructive than an abortion. The "consequence" of it is completely unknown to the child who wouldn't be missing the other sexual identity that it never had. I think that part of the disparity in how people are seeing the 2 things is down to how long we've all had to get used to the idea of abortion. We've grown up with it, a lot of us have accepted it... that doesn't make it not troubling to be involved in.

That would be relevant... if the invasiveness or destructiveness of the procedure itself is relevant, which it is not. What is relevant is the effect it has on people. Let's see... no person for it to have an effect on besides the mother in the case of an abortion. Oh look, in the case of the vaccination it has an effect on the child later on! Almost as if they're completely different in nature.

I think the problem is you're projecting your view of abortion on everyone else and you seem to think the fetus is an actor in this and should be considered a person or something.

What have you deduced that my views on abortion are at this point? 'Cause I ain't shared 'em!

No, you just keep putting emphasis on the fetus in an abortion and compare it to a born child. That's not anything at all.

Hell, I'm not sure entirely how I feel about it.

Great, and that's going to erase some of the rather telling things you insist upon... how exactly?

I've not really shared my opinion on the topic at hand either, only acknowledged what I believe are logical contradictions amongst those who oppose. "I've suffered as a homosexual amongst bigots", "parents would be completely selfish to do this"...

Lovely, did I talk about those bits or about the abortion comparison part? Give this rather brief conversation a good long read, because it seems to missed something the first time.

Let the record show that Panda pointed out that abortion has an affect on the would-be father too. Abortion isn't a cut-and-dry issue. I have 2 friends, they're a couple, they are both pro-abortion, they both work in scientific fields... it didn't stop them feeling uneasy and "weird" about the whole thing when they experienced it first hand. Which is not to say that it was the wrong choice for them, or even ethically "wrong". It's to say it's a little bit messy.

I think it is a rather cut-and-dry issue in some respects. Somehow you just declaring it wasn't and sharing the feelings of your friends, who you included some irrelevant information about, isn't particularly compelling when it comes to changing any views. Almost as if the fact a couple people felt uneasy and weird is not in fact a particularly logical argument for anything. How very weird.

I understand the distinction between an entity that has to live with a change and one that doesn't. In this case the entity doesn't have to even know that it's been altered (we are talking about amazing hypothetical science here), which raises the question as to whether that nullifies the ethical questions, especially when you're keeping in mind that the consensus opinion is that homosexuality and trans-sexuality are harder to live with.

Yes, it doesn't have to know. Great. That does not mean that it wasn't altered. I won't speak on transexuality, rather different issue, but homosexuality itself has no particular downsides that have been shown. Depending on area it can be harder for them socially. But guess what won't help? Making there be less gay people. Small things add up. Also rather doubt that most people would actually do this to help their kid avoid bullying. But hey I'm sure you'll promote the 'white shot' next. Why let them suffer racism?

My snark-meter is reading off the scale. Can you reign in your need to be unbearable? I know this is par-for-the-course around here, but for fucks sake... it's really the least likely thing to ever win someone over. You're a terrible ambassador for whatever point you might have.

I'm actually comparing a fetus to a fetus. One will be a child, yes, but any complications you're attributing to that child are being imposed by you, the question doesn't ask you to consider any. It's a moral and ethical question, we're not here to work out whether the preposterous science is actually any good. OP has essentially outlined a miracle drug here.

You're still acting like you know my values... You don't. I'm not anti-abortion. I'm willing to see the shades of grey here. My anecdotal nonsense is there because it speaks to the idea that having a strong opinion on what you haven't experienced isn't always advisory. Two of my very-strongly pro-choice friends found themselves conflicted by the issue when they had first hand experience. It's interesting, and I don't think it's simple.

Also, I'm not desperate to change your views. We're just talking here... I didn't know there was an end goal to this. If you like, you can consider yourself the "winner" and go masturbate in front of the mirror, or whatever you do when you're proud of yourself.

Oh wow, racial parallels... that's a reach, matey. The crazy-train is arriving at the station on time, as always ( you see how annoying this snarky shit is?). You know that I haven't said that this is a fantastic idea at any point, right? I just didn't dismiss it out of hand. So... obviously I'm every flavour of bigot that you care to name.

Being young and homosexual in certain areas is apparently enough to drive people to suicide. Would be awesome if that wasn't the case, but that's also a worthless statement... since it is the case. Given that I haven't yet shared my opinion, allow me to answer OP's 2 questions. Yes, I would support the "cure" (this would be an amazingly useful line of scientific inquiry). No, I definitely would not support the idea of it being mandatory... That's crazy sauce.

The idea that parents are "selfish" is what got me to post. I can only assume that it's suggestive of the average age of the posters around here.

 

[aattss]

If such a cure existed, I would support the right to take the cure. However, I would not in any way, shape, or form prejudice people who decide not to take the cure. There is nothing wrong with someone not being heterosexual.

 

[xmbts]

I've refined my opinion, why not put the time and resources into fixing a real problem?

 

[Shadowstar38]

I've refined my opinion, why not put the time and resources into fixing a real problem?

Because we live in a world where plastic surgery exists?

 

[sparkyk24]

If I found a cure for homosexuality, like drink this and you'll be straight, then I'd go public with it. I mean, if a homosexual doesn't want to be homosexual, them me telling him that he has to be homosexual is the same as me telling him that he ought to be heterosexual. I think whether or not someone wants to seek help (for anything, including heterosexuality) is entirely up to them and none of our business unless we stumble upon something by accident.

When you ask me if I "support," however, well, I certainly wouldn't provide funding for it and the government shouldn't either.

 

[xmbts]

I've refined my opinion, why not put the time and resources into fixing a real problem?

Because we live in a world where plastic surgery exists?

I'm not sure I understand your implication.

 

[sparkyk24]

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.

No one said it was a disease . I do agree "cure" is not the right word to use . However , it's an interesting thought , since homosexuality is apparently not a choice but people are born attracted to men . I think the question the OP was asking was more of a moral question . Kind of like in how in sci-fi movies you can change a determine a childs characteristics such as eye color and hair color .

OT: I would support it , not because i don't like gay people, but for the parents who wouldn't be able to cope with a homosexual child. Whether or not those parents are terrible people is subjective , but if it doesn't negatively affect the child i don't see why i wouldn't support it . Parents that want to have homosexual children can , those that don't want to won't .

Everyone is happy.

how about the child its forced upon, is he happy. parents have no right to make that choice. also keep in mind that parents are usually the last people to find out if their child is gay (im 18 and my parents don't know). if the decision to turn me straight was forced upon me i would be furious. being gay i find the notion of being cured really offensive, im happy about who i am so i wouldn't support it. if this "cure" did exist people like me who would decide to stay gay would be ridiculed even more than we are now. ps. you don't usually find out that your gay until your a teenager, so turning them straight at that point would have a huge impact on their life and not likely in a good way

I can't really agree with your reasoning. That is, I agree that it shouldn't be forced upon a child, but I don't think it's fair to take away other adults' choices (assuming that some gay people would want to become straight) because you don't want to be ridiculed more. I think if such a chemical or program were to be found, then it should be public knowledge and should be up to each individual to make their choice. This should be true of any (legal) sexual preference.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I've refined my opinion, why not put the time and resources into fixing a real problem?

Because we live in a world where plastic surgery exists?

I'm not sure I understand your implication.

We can give women breasts the size of cannonballs. We've long since pasted the point where resources are used responsibly.

 

[xmbts]

I've refined my opinion, why not put the time and resources into fixing a real problem?

Because we live in a world where plastic surgery exists?

I'm not sure I understand your implication.

We can give women breasts the size of cannonballs. We've long since pasted the point where resources are used responsibly.

Well that hardly encompasses all of plastic surgery. Plus cosmetic stuff like that is paid for out of pocket so it's none of my concern.