Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
AngelOfBlueRoses said:
It's not a birth defect.
I'm just going to point out that by definition [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/birth+defect], homosexuality is a birth defect (assuming that, as the OP says, it is caused by a hormonal or chemical state during fetal development).

It's not a bad defect, nor is it one that is detrimental to anything, but pretending that homosexuality isn't abnormal doesn't help your cause. It comes across as a poor attempt to twist words to suit your own purposes and, intentionally or not, comes across as hostile.

Now, I absolutely agree with you in spirit; the bullshit both groups have to put up with is inexcusable. But that doesn't suddenly make them normal. At the end of the day, they're people who are different from the normal.

The normal folks just need to get the fuck over themselves and start treating everyone else like people.
 

Resetti's_Replicas

New member
Jan 18, 2010
138
0
0
You're forgetting one important thing - who's going to pay for it? You'd be hard pressed to convince finad a healthcare provider who puts this on the same pedestal as polio or smallpox. Very few will be able to afford it, but just the existence of this cure will cause gay people to become even more stigmatized than they already are.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
I'd support the existence of such a cure, but I wouldn't support it being forced on people. Kinda like how in the X-Men movie where there's a cure for being a mutant, there could be some homosexuals/transexuals that don't like what they are and would want to become straight or whatever. On the other hand, I'm certain that there's plenty of them that are quite happy with the way they are and wouldn't want to change a thing.

As for a mother being vaccinated during birth with it, I'd say that if it's the mother's right to choose whether the fetus gets to live or die it's her right to choose whether it comes out gay or straight.

Oh look, I've opened up a can of worms here...
 

dvd_72

New member
Jun 7, 2010
581
0
0
As a choice that can be made during someones adult life? Sure, a cure (or something to cause) for homosexuality would be something I could support. It would be a choice that an experienced reasoning adult could make.

As a choice the mother makes while the child is in the womb? No, that I cannot support.
 

AngelOfBlueRoses

The Cerulean Prince
Nov 5, 2008
418
0
0
Agayek said:
AngelOfBlueRoses said:
It's not a birth defect.
I'm just going to point out that by definition [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/birth+defect], homosexuality is a birth defect (assuming that, as the OP says, it is caused by a hormonal or chemical state during fetal development).

It's not a bad defect, nor is it one that is detrimental to anything, but pretending that homosexuality isn't abnormal doesn't help your cause. It comes across as a poor attempt to twist words to suit your own purposes and, intentionally or not, comes across as hostile.

Now, I absolutely agree with you in spirit; the bullshit both groups have to put up with is inexcusable. But that doesn't suddenly make them normal. At the end of the day, they're people who are different from the normal.

The normal folks just need to get the fuck over themselves and start treating everyone else like people.
Where did I say that it wasn't abnormal? Please, point to me the exact moment that I said that homosexuality is not abnormal. Because I know it's not normal. I know it isn't, so please don't be putting words into my mouth. My exact words were "It's not a birth defect. It's not a disease. It's not a disorder." I don't see "It's not abnormal" anywhere in there. I also said that I wasn't going to roll with his hypothetical. I said that I wasn't going to play his pretend. Whatever the OP says about it doesn't matter, even if by their definition it would technically be a birth defect. Except both psychologists and scientists, most of them, agree that it isn't something strictly from birth. The debate rages on just how much of an effect it does have, but the consensus is that it comes from a wide variety of factors. In terms of nature versus nature, it's as my psych professor once said, "It's fucking both, idiots."

So no. It's not that by actual definition, and for the umpteenth time, I repeat that I refuse to play the OP's little pretend.
 
Feb 22, 2009
715
0
0
t00bz said:
No, they are not diseases, but many experts suspect that homosexuality might be caused by something known as epimarkers that mark the sexuality of the fetus as the same as the opposite sex parent. Also, it is suspected that trans-persons are created by the body and the mind going in two separate directions during the gestation process(the body of a man and the mind of a woman and viceversa).

If it was possible to prevent these things from happening during pregnancy, I would be all for it as living as a homosexual or transperson is a fucking nightmare and if we could spare even just one person that torment, I find it would be worth it.

I see nothing horrid about trying to save someone from a life of bullshit if we could fix the problem before they were even born.
If it's a fucking nightmare it's because of the prejudice people have towards them. That's what need to be 'cured'.
 

prpshrt

New member
Jun 18, 2012
260
0
0
I feel like this topic kinda goes along with abortion debate. The choice of the parents versus what's being forced upon an unborn child. I'd support it only to leave it as an option for some parents. I'm not homophobic at all btw. I have gay friends whose parents completely support them and everything. And as far the choice being forced upon the unborn child... They haven't even achieved consciousness yet. I doubt they'd be too disappointed that their parents meddled with their sexuality cause as far as they know, they never felt the other way. If they did feel bad, the so called "cure" didn't work to begin with :/
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
It's completely unethical. Why support the rights of human beings to be complete and utter monsters and treat other humans like shit for differences that are none of their businesses?

Silvanus said:
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.
And, to be honest, I'd take the coward's route.

...Man, this is a cheery topic.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Resetti said:
You're forgetting one important thing - who's going to pay for it? You'd be hard pressed to convince finad a healthcare provider who puts this on the same pedestal as polio or smallpox. Very few will be able to afford it, but just the existence of this cure will cause gay people to become even more stigmatized than they already are.
Are you kidding? I bet you'd see religious "insurances" rising up to cover this. They'll already pay for gay camp, and whatever other bullshit is out there....
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
I think promoting a cure for hetero sexuality would have a more positive effect on the world.

I mean we're spiraling towards over population, and if there was some sort of a pill a person could take to cure them of their heterosexual urges, that would go a long way towards decreasing the amount of babies in the world.


If anyone with a BRAIN was discussing hypothetical fetal immunizations why isn't the discussion about alzheimer's or cancer instead of their bullshit paranoid homophobic right-wing nonsense?
 

ninjaRiv

New member
Aug 25, 2010
986
0
0
... Let's forget the whole "It's not a disease" thing.

No, I wouldn't. I'd prefer it if we look for a cure to stupidity.
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
AngelOfBlueRoses said:
Wraith said:
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.
No, I refuse to pretend it's akin to a birth defect because even just pretending gives an inch to sickos out there and as a psych major about to get his BS in psych, I abhor the very idea of eugenics. My glorious self loving other men who can consent to sexual relationships is no more defective than someone else's love of the opposite sex who can consent to sexual relationships. You don't make a hypothetical of something that real people are suffering from just for some 'what if?' because there's no what if. It's not a birth defect. It's not a disease. It's not a disorder. Playing this pretend merely makes a mockery of real suffering. And don't you even dare say that you were pretending it wasn't a disease because that means you also lack scientific knowledge of what a vaccine is. There's no 'gay virus' out there that you can weaken or kill and then inject into someone so that they'll be immune from catching the 'gay virus' later on in their life.

So, I will not roll with it. In the situation you provide, with ignoring the god-awful mandatory government vaccine question, you ensure that there will be plenty of mothers who will be blackmailed and coerced into it by their churches, their friends, or their family. It would add more stress on top of pregnancy, which is stressful enough as it is, and even worse, a child would be changed just because they might have a trait that some deem undesirable, never minding the fact that this trait doesn't do anyone any harm whatsoever.
Ummmm, yeah. I will give you the exact opposite of what you said.

I have my BS in Psych.

I think this question is a great question, and it being purely hypothetical is what makes it a great question to discuss. Another great quality of it is that we dont know exactly the cause. There are theories, evidence toward socialization, but we dont know the cause, so its an interesting question. Part of understanding Psychology is having some understanding of Philosophy.

You need to take a deep breath and step back from the thread honestly. This was a question about 'what if', not 'lets give all the homo's a vaccine because they are diseased.'

Another thing, your second paragraph... if you would of taken a deep breath and wrote just that out in a neutral tone, it would of answered the OP. We want to know -why- you dont support it, because its fun to think about these things and about what others think about.

So please, take a deep breath and relax man.
 

Kristian Fischer

New member
Aug 15, 2011
179
0
0
No, I would not support it. I would also not support euthanizing people who believe homosexuality is something that can be "cured".
 

Genocidicles

New member
Sep 13, 2012
1,747
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
If anyone with a BRAIN was discussing hypothetical fetal immunizations why isn't the discussion about alzheimer's or cancer instead of their bullshit paranoid homophobic right-wing nonsense?
Well Alzheimer's and cancer are seen as universally bad. There's no discussion to be had, because who wouldn't want them to be cured apart from loonies like the WBC that no one listens to?
 

jamail77

New member
May 21, 2011
683
0
0
Teoes said:
What a horrific thought. The only such "cure" I'd even consider supporting is a cure for the related phobias.
Seriously.

BathorysGraveland2 said:
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.
That would most certainly be nice, wouldn't it. If only the world worked like that. :/

Magog1 said:
Homosexuality use to be on the books as a medical Defect. It was. It got taken off based on a popular movement.
Not on anything based in science.

It's why Bisexuality is still on the books as a mental defect. Why? there is no bisexual movement.
Personally I'm a religious person and science telling you your a bent is someone else's problem than mine.

I personally don't have a problem with even if being gay was a mental defect.
I honestly consider Bi polar dis order is something the medical community made up
as a means to builk patients out of money.
Ummmmm, I don't think this post is based in science. How is it a defect exactly? Homosexuality may be caused by imbalances and things happening in birth but that doesn't fit the criteria of a defect. The reason it was listed at all was because of bigotry not actual science. Bigotry and politics can enter science too, you know. The story of Henrietta Lacks and her "immortal cells" is one example that comes to mind.

As the son of two doctors I can tell you bipolar disorder is real though it probably is over/mis-diagnosed and not handled as well as it could be.

sageoftruth said:
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.
I guess? Seems strange to me. Nothing wrong with it in and of itself but personally it seems strange nonetheless.
 

Caiphus

Social Office Corridor
Mar 31, 2010
1,181
0
0
Hey Escapist, what's going on in this thr-

Oh...

I think you all need bunny pictures





 

AngelOfBlueRoses

The Cerulean Prince
Nov 5, 2008
418
0
0
thethird0611 said:
AngelOfBlueRoses said:
Wraith said:
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.
No, I refuse to pretend it's akin to a birth defect because even just pretending gives an inch to sickos out there and as a psych major about to get his BS in psych, I abhor the very idea of eugenics. My glorious self loving other men who can consent to sexual relationships is no more defective than someone else's love of the opposite sex who can consent to sexual relationships. You don't make a hypothetical of something that real people are suffering from just for some 'what if?' because there's no what if. It's not a birth defect. It's not a disease. It's not a disorder. Playing this pretend merely makes a mockery of real suffering. And don't you even dare say that you were pretending it wasn't a disease because that means you also lack scientific knowledge of what a vaccine is. There's no 'gay virus' out there that you can weaken or kill and then inject into someone so that they'll be immune from catching the 'gay virus' later on in their life.

So, I will not roll with it. In the situation you provide, with ignoring the god-awful mandatory government vaccine question, you ensure that there will be plenty of mothers who will be blackmailed and coerced into it by their churches, their friends, or their family. It would add more stress on top of pregnancy, which is stressful enough as it is, and even worse, a child would be changed just because they might have a trait that some deem undesirable, never minding the fact that this trait doesn't do anyone any harm whatsoever.
Ummmm, yeah. I will give you the exact opposite of what you said.

I have my BS in Psych.

I think this question is a great question, and it being purely hypothetical is what makes it a great question to discuss. Another great quality of it is that we dont know exactly the cause. There are theories, evidence toward socialization, but we dont know the cause, so its an interesting question. Part of understanding Psychology is having some understanding of Philosophy.

You need to take a deep breath and step back from the thread honestly. This was a question about 'what if', not 'lets give all the homo's a vaccine because they are diseased.'

Another thing, your second paragraph... if you would of taken a deep breath and wrote just that out in a neutral tone, it would of answered the OP. We want to know -why- you dont support it, because its fun to think about these things and about what others think about.

So please, take a deep breath and relax man.
Feel free to disagree with me all you want, but I don't think it a great thing to discuss. This isn't the psychology of the early twentieth century, thethird0611. We got over eugenics a long time ago. It's time to catch up.

If you want to debate causes, I'd be more than happy to debate causes, but I won't debate eugenics. Never. Ever.
 

nathan-dts

New member
Jun 18, 2008
1,538
0
0
Homesexuality is natural; happens in animals. No I wouldn't support 'curing' it.

Transsexualism is something I can skew off of the original question in that I wouldn't support a 'cure' for the mentality of identifying as another gender, but I'd support a cure that corrects the person's gender to the one they feel they are.
 

EvilRoy

The face I make when I see unguarded pie.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,675
345
88
On a basis where the mother has the option to use it, then I really have no choice, I have to support it because of other beliefs I hold.

On the basis of the government mandating it then I would say no without a doubt. I can't see why that level of intrusion should be allowed regardless of whatever positive effects it might result in. After all, the government lets you not immunize your babies against a whole host of things that can kill or disable in a wide range of ways.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
AngelOfBlueRoses said:
Where did I say that it wasn't abnormal?
Pretty much the instant you said it wasn't a defect.

Any deviation from the norm is, by definition, a defect. Ergo, if something isn't a defect, it fits the norm, and therefore can't be abnormal.

I was just pointing out that since homosexuality is abnormal, it therefore must be a defect, just like albinism, red hair, certain eye colors, various genetic throwbacks, and pretty much any feature of a person that is a significant outlier in defining their phenotype.

You can play semantics all you want, but at the end of the day, it won't make it any less of a defect.

Now, the intent behind my original post, and this one for that matter, was to make a point. Specifically, that you appear to automatically be making the cognitive leap that "not normal" must be a perjorative and an insult. Don't do that. Not only is it idiotic and small minded, it also actively hurts your cause. Mostly because you turn rather hostile at the perceived slight, and hostility never engenders reasoned discourse.