Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Griffolion]

Well, considering neither are diseases, it would be impossible to support a cure, since there's no theoretical way for it to exist.

Captcha: captcha in the rye - seriously, the sentience has gained humour now.

 

[Jux]

I'd support a cure for homophobia and transphobia. I suppose we can add a cure for religiosity in there too.

 

[Kennetic]

Eh, I wouldn't exactly support it but it's a free country so do what you want. I would, however, make it where you would have to be at least 18 so that way YOU are the one giving consent and not your parents or someone else.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Pretty simple answer. No.

The powers that be, namely religious nuts and their peons will run this agenda that being gay is some kind of disease. That's not the case. Like when they said the earth was flat, just because they are legion, doesn't make them right about it. Not all religion is a bad thing, but some twist it with selective memory, bs and quotes.

If a person is gay, trans or whatever and wants to personally change themselves via operations, drugs etc, for their own reasons, that's cool and that's their choice, and no one should tell them otherwise.

There have always been gay, lesbian, bi people on this planet so long as man has walked it, some of them famous. Trans I can't say as that's a fairly recent thing (correct me if I'm wrong). We all should learn to accept people for who they are, not what we want them to be, based on ancient religious books, warped scaremongering minds etc. What's also sad is the many people out there, who are forced by society expectations to live a lie, because that 2.4 children family is the norm.

I was raised Christian but later rebelled to freer thinking. As a result, I've had the privilege to meet some cool gay and lesbian people who I class as friends still. Sure, the unknown can be scary, but they are just people, just like you.

 

[Jadak]

Yep, I'm all for being accepting of people being gay and whatnot in the current world, accepting the argument that people are born that way and there is nothing they cab do about it. But I've always viewed it as a an error, a bug in the genetic software causing some sexual wires to get crossed.

I could see some arguments being made for omni-sexuality (or whatever the word is), being attracted to anything/everything is reasonable as it simply involves a stronger foundation in the pleasure side of things rather than reproduction in origin, and may be strongly based in culture.

But pure homosexuality? Anything that flat out does not include male-female attraction? Makes no sense, it's a mistake that I have no probems seeing fixed.

 

[Silverbeard]

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".

Yes, I would support a voluntary vaccination that sorts out the factors leading to homosexuality. Naturally, this means first finding a sure way to detect said factors before delivery, which is never a given when it comes to pre-birth conditions. Making it an absolute law is rather beyond the pale for the same reason that no other vaccination is required by law. We all agree that polio is a bad thing, right? And we can all agree that preventing polio is a good thing, right? Yet there is still no law I know of that requires newborns to receive the vaccinations. Parents ought to have the ultimate right in these situations.
And yes, maybe it is not entirely wise to let parents thrash homosexuality out of their yet-to-be-borns, but that happens all the times anyway. Parents routinely make decisions about their mongrels without the consent of said mongrels. I did not get to choose where I lived out my formative years, or what schools I went to, or what movies I watched, or what relatives I associated with. My parents made all those choices for me. Why not let them make this choice as well? Surely the gay rights movement, whatever they call themselves today, can see the hypocrisy in demanding that parents be robbed of the choice to assure what direction their mongrels swing in?

 

[spartan231490]

This thread is gonna end great.

I don't really care, I would probably oppose this if it was used on adults as a cure, but the way you describe it as a vaccine, I would probably support it. Here's why, being homosexual/trans causes a lot of unnecessary pain and confusion for people as they try to sort out there identity and get attacked by narrow-minded individuals(whether emotionally or physically) if I could save a person all that at the measly cost of a vaccine, then yes I would. So in a vaccine form I do support it, in a more "cure" form, like given when a person "comes out" to "turn them normal" no I wouldn't support it. It's just going to cause even more confusion and pain when these people are trying to find themselves.

 

[5ilver]

Should have been a poll, the results would have been hilarious to see. Imagine if it was 70-30 in favor or something similarly ridiculous.

 

[PsychoticHamster]

The only way I'd support "curing"(for lack of a better word) is if human population dropped so drastically low that we couldn't afford to have anyone be a homosexual. But since the human population looks like its only going to keep rising, then no I wouldn't.

 

[optimusjamie]

No. 'Cure' implies that homosexuality/transsexuality are diseases. They are obviously not diseases.
Better solution: Create a society where they are accepted.

 

[thehorror2]

I wouldn't support a "cure" for homosexuality. At the most clinical, all that means is that every successful relationship has a chance for direct reproduction, making an already precarious overpopulation problem that much worse. From a strictly moral point of view, I still can't support it, because there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality to begin with; it just creeps some people out when two guys are together and rather than admitting that outright they dragged religion into it.

 

[KillMeOnceMore]

Can we not just cure homophobia instead? I think that would solve a lot more problems.

 

[Davey Woo]

Even if there was a cure. Why bother? Being a homosexual doesn't DO anything to anyone else, it's just a thing that some people are. It's like asking to support a cure for left-handedness. What's the point? It doesn't mean anything.

 

[chinangel]

no. absolutely not. Mostly because we are who we are and if my child was born trans i'd help him or her through it. if he/she was gay, I'd do the same.

 

[Something Amyss]

The only way I'd support "curing"(for lack of a better word) is if human population dropped so drastically low that we couldn't afford to have anyone be a homosexual. But since the human population looks like its only going to keep rising, then no I wouldn't.

You know, homosexuals can have kids and even do so through performing heterosexual acts with members of the opposite sex.

If the population dropped, you could more readily solve the problem by mandating breeding. Homosexuals have been breeding for as long as we've been able to track.

No. 'Cure' implies that homosexuality/transsexuality are diseases. They are obviously not diseases.
Better solution: Create a society where they are accepted.

"Transsexuality" is identified as a disorder and we already attempt to cure it. No matter how "accepting" people are, transsexuals still suffer, and this is why we have treatments for GID.

I'm a transsexual. I would never want this for my kids, even in a world where they'd be accepted. I'd be horrified. I wouldn't reject, resent, or hate them, but why would anyone want other people to suffer? correcting this in the womb seems ideal, really.

on the flip-side, if my kids were gay? Eh. Let them be what they are. It's not like homosexuality in itself is going to cause mental or emotional issues (homophobia does that) or require a lifetime of treatment/surgery.

Just consider what transsexuals are by nature.

And don't tell me there's nothing wrong with it unless you were actually born in the wrong body.

I wouldn't support a "cure" for homosexuality. At the most clinical, all that means is that every successful relationship has a chance for direct reproduction, making an already precarious overpopulation problem that much worse. From a strictly moral point of view, I still can't support it, because there's nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality to begin with; it just creeps some people out when two guys are together and rather than admitting that outright they dragged religion into it.

The other side of that last part is also true. As religion is a sanctuary for homophobia, people end up being encouraged to hate where there wouldn't otherwise be because it would be considered unacceptable.

Can we not just cure homophobia instead? I think that would solve a lot more problems.

Prejudice in general is a larger issue that would probably be much harder to actually do.

However, if we ever find a vaccine for prejudice, I would support it.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Speaking purely from a biological perspective, homosexuality is a mutation of something that is supposed to procreate the species. It does not do this, so it's easy to see why many would like it "cured". Hell, that entire first sentence of my post the foundation of it's opposition.

That said, NO, I would not support a cure, because our species needs to breed a LOT LESS!! Almost every single terrible thing about the quality of our current lives, from crime to health concerns, can be contributed to the sheer amount of people there are. If anything, Homosexuality is an evolutionary response: the species trying to save itself. It does not need a cure, and if anything we need a lot more homosexuals! Yes, "gayness" might be what saves our species down the line. That's just what happens when you don't have any natural predators left and you breed for recreation. So unless people start cloning dinosaurs like in the movies, I don't see this having any other happy ending.

 

[Silvanus]

You act as if there's not any social pressure on homosexuals now. Homosexuality is actually a crime in a lot of countries and even in our so called tolerant world we're quite intolerant towards homosexuals.

You misunderstood me. That was my entire point-- that the social pressure is so damn prevalent and pervasive, and that a vaccine or anything of that kind would only exacerbate that problem.

 

[Weaver]

I'd support the existence of it, but not the legal mandate of having to get injected with it.
I'd rather a child be straight in a bigoted home than have to go through hell and back just do their sexuality, as bad as that is.

 

[Heaven's Guardian]

Well, to some degree, we know that there will be one. The "camp gay" archetype seems largely to be caused by an in-utero antibody reaction to testosterone that is strongly influenced by the mother's antibodies (the chance of male homosexuality rises greatly from about 2% to 3 1/2% from the first to third son, and that includes all other causes as well, as women develop more anti-testosterone antibodies the more they are exposed, and having a son creates a lot of exposure). Eventually, there will be a treatment to prevent this, and while I don't necessarily support it being mandatory, the distinction is largely academic; most parents, I think, would like grandchildren, gay people have more difficult lives in a lot of ways (and will continue to do so; look at IAT statistics for evidence), and there won't be any genetic alterations. The more interesting question is related to what sort of treatment would be required to change all homosexuals and transsexuals and how that impacts decision making. Regardless, I do support the existence of any such opportunity, so long as it is dependent on the subject being a fetus or infant; as long as individual identities are not modified after they have been formed, I see little to no harm in the concept.

 

[Something Amyss]

no. absolutely not. Mostly because we are who we are and if my child was born trans i'd help him or her through it. if he/she was gay, I'd do the same.

While it's nice you'd help your child through being trans, wouldn't it be nicer if they didn't have to suffer in the first place?

Even if you wipe out transphobia entirely, you're still talking about a condition absolutely nobody actually wants to have.