Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

Wraith

New member
Oct 11, 2011
356
0
0
There is GREAT debate between certain groups on whether homosexuality could be the result of a complication during pregnancy, if it is just a natural occurrence or-- the most scrutinized of arguments-- it's a conscious choice. The same arguments have been applied when discussing transexuality and its effects on the person (though, most agree it is a complication during pregnancy).

Now with all this arguing going on, it seems to me no one is really asking a really big question. Let's say both homosexuality and transexuality were proven to be created through certain developments in the womb and let's say both of these could be cured with a needle injection given to the mother within the first few months of pregnancy.

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?

EDIT: Admittedly, I fucked up when I used "cure". I did not consider the implications it could have, which is a bad habit of mine. So please, if I offended you-- which by looking at the comments I obviously did-- I am sorry.

I wanted it to come across as a 'what if scientists discovered homo and transsexuality was caused through an abnormal change during pregnancy and could be stopped before the child was born?' type of scenario. I did not mean for it to imply that I think homosexuals and transsexuals should be "cured" of their "disease".
 

The Gnome King

New member
Mar 27, 2011
685
0
0
Wraith said:
There is GREAT debate between certain groups on whether homosexuality could be the result of a complication during pregnancy, if it is just a natural occurrence or-- the most scrutinized of arguments-- it's a conscious choice. The same arguments have been applied when discussing transexuality and its effects on the person (though, most agree it is a complication during pregnancy).

Now with all this arguing going on, it seems to me no one is really asking a really big question. Let's say both homosexuality and transexuality were proven to be created through certain developments in the womb and let's say both of these could be cured with a needle injection given to the mother within the first few months of pregnancy.

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?
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.)

So... it's not something I worry about one way or the other. I would resent any attempt to categorize homosexuality as a disease, actually.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,467
3,006
118
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.
 

Tribalism

New member
Mar 15, 2010
87
0
0
There's only one scenario I'd wholeheartedly get behind this cure and that's if it was a "vaccination" that could be taken past puberty by the homo/trans person in question. In this sense, it'd be possible for some people to deal with the societal pressures of not being Cis/straight by giving them a way out that isn't a hole in a noose. However, just like male circumcision in America, I don't feel it's right to change someone's life so drastically before they have a say in it.

That said, if it was being developed, I wouldn't be against the idea. If it wasn't mandatory, the kid need never know s/he could have been potentially gay/trans and parents could opt into it if they decided they wanted to (similar to adoption). I would be against it being made law.
 

AngelOfBlueRoses

The Cerulean Prince
Nov 5, 2008
418
0
0
What an absolutely horrible idea. This isn't the 1950's anymore where we consider homosexuality a disease or disorder. On top of that, what's wrong with letting someone love who they want to love or be who they want to be when neither of those harms anyone else?
 

Wraith

New member
Oct 11, 2011
356
0
0
The Gnome King said:
I would resent any attempt to categorize homosexuality as a disease, actually.
Johnny Novgorod said:
Homosexualty and transexuality aren't diseases.
AngelOfBlueRoses said:
On top of that, what's wrong with letting someone love who they want to love or be who they want to be when neither of those harms anyone else?
Agreed, luckily this is hypothetical. For this question, however, let's just go ahead and pretend it was akin to a birth defect. I know how horrendous that sounds, but let's just try to roll with it.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,467
3,006
118
Wraith said:
Luckily this is hypothetical. For this question, however, let's just go ahead and pretend it was akin to a birth defect. I know how horrendous that sounds, but let's just try to roll with it.
I wouldn't mind that people get a vaccine for it, just as I wouldn't mind if they didn't, out of their own free will and once they're of age to choose, though I would never classify it as a disease either, let alone make the vaccine mandatory. I think it's borderline monstruous and hope nobody agrees to it.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
If a "cure" were introduced now, even a voluntary one, we'd see a huge number of people under immense social pressure to get it. It wouldn't be a free choice for many. Their parents, their peers, their Churches would make them, or make them feel guilty. Hell, even some of those without those social pressures bearing down on them may get it in a bout of depression, and deeply regret it.

Then, those who didn't want it would be ostracised even further.


...I can imagine, however, a distant future in which such social pressures were minimal/ nonexistant. In such a future, I could see the benefits in this being available, but only voluntarily, and only with requisite counselling to prevent rash decisionmaking. In that future, I'd be equally in favour of a voluntary injection to make somebody gay, and with the same restrictions. But social attitudes need to be unrecognisable before I'd see that situation as morally viable.
 

BathorysGraveland2

New member
Feb 9, 2013
1,387
0
0
No, you know why? Homosexuality and transsexualism isn't a problem. It isn't a problem, it isn't immoral (unless you have cuntish morals) and there's nothing wrong with it. So no, I wouldn't support it.

Now, if we could get a cure for paedophilia, that is something I would support, as that IS a problem that actually causes destruction, negativity and victims (victims being not only the children who may be molested, but the paedophiles themselves as well - a lose/lose problem). But not homosexuality or transsexualism, no.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Eh, I guess you could, but it would be like offering a "cure" for blue eyes or something.

Also this is a eugenics topic, so beware the fallout.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
Well, I'd support it as long as it's not forced on anyone. Having the option to spontaneously change your sexuality sounds pretty cool.
 

Genocidicles

New member
Sep 13, 2012
1,747
0
0
A lot of people aren't happy with their sexuality, so I don't see the problem in letting them change.

It'd have to be their choice though. No parents changing it or whatever, maybe give them a psych evaluation to see if they aren't taking it under duress.
 

Teoes

Poof, poof, sparkles!
Jun 1, 2010
5,174
0
0
What a horrific thought. The only such "cure" I'd even consider supporting is a cure for the related phobias.

I must go, my planet needs me.
 

xmbts

Still Approved by Shock
Legacy
May 30, 2010
20,800
37
53
Country
United States
Well the big thing here is using the word 'cure' which implies that it's an illness or something inherently wrong.

Unfortunate wording aside they have cultures around them where people experience things directly because of them. Many people wouldn't want to give that up even if it was to make life easier.

Case in point a lot of deaf people were offended by a treatment that could restore their hearing because they viewed it at detrimental to the culture they built around their condition.
 

Lucem712

*Chirp*
Jul 14, 2011
1,472
0
0
I wouldn't support it as I wouldn't support a situation where mothers could get an injection to "cure" being left handed. There's nothing wrong with it. It isn't something to be cured and not something on the most basic level that makes you less.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
If I was to support such a "cure", I would first need to be shown that homosexuality/transsexualism are "diseases".

Lucem712 said:
I wouldn't support it as I wouldn't support a situation where mothers could get an injection to "cure" being left handed. There's nothing wrong with it. It isn't something to be cured and not something on the most basic level that makes you less.
Oh hey, good one. I'd have used "ginger hair", but this works better.
 

Private Custard

New member
Dec 30, 2007
1,920
0
0
No cure is required.

I would, however, support a cure for people being fucking idiots. There seems to be a lot of those people nowadays, it seems to be becoming an epidemic.
 

krazykidd

New member
Mar 22, 2008
6,099
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
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.