Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Norithics]

No. I would not support it. Allow me to elucidate exactly why.

Homo-and-transsexuality, in this scenario, are complications. However, even in this scenario, they are not deleterious to the people who 'contract' them, other than due to completely manufactured social impetus. Therefore, to support the 'cure' for such a thing amounts, to me, to personality control. And that just isn't beneficial to the species, because of how valuable differing worldviews are.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

no, not everyone is happy, you're literally robbing that child of their choice, that is anything but happy, I'd be steaming pissed if someone tried to make such a decision for me, as sexuality/gender is a huge part of life, whether people like it or not.

But homosexuality ( accordingto studies ) isn't a choice . Therefor no choice is lost .

so at age 6, if your parents changed your skin color to white/latino/etc , you wouldn't mind in the slightest and would roll with it?

your robbing the kid of their identity, for incredibly selfish reasons (if one is to assume that a parent can't stand the fact that their child doesn't like what they want them to sexually)

''

Speaking as a half bread ^^ (and damn proud of it)
I think it would be fucking awesome to change at the age of 6.

I think a parent could totally sell that idea. I love both my races, but yeah with
a little guidance at that age it wouldn't be a hard sell.

i think the word is "breed", but I could be wrong...(not that there is anything wrong with mixed)

And I mean it more as a forced decision without the child's consent, as in whether or not the child wants it you are GOING to do it. (which I don't agree with, but that is the scenario I was putting forth as a comparison)

 

[The_Healer]

Oh wow.

It has been a while since I have seen an OP filled with ignorance of this magnitude.

I am unsure where your perception that being Homosexual or Transgender is somehow a defect came from, but I suggest that you rethink your system of values.

 

[sumanoskae]

What makes heterosexuality preferable to homosexuality or transsexuality. I certainly wouldn't support a law that forced this procedure on unborn children.

For the love of god, what would be the benefit of such thing? You phrase the question as if the potential benefits are obvious.

Even ignoring the ethical questions, why waste time and resources on something that doesn't matter?

 

[Demongeneral109]

This thread implies either of these things are diseases.

They aren't. And people should just stop making the comparisons between non-heterosexuality and diseases.

He's using the word cure for lack of a better term, any other word he could use that would fit in a title is equally offensive, read OP's post and come back to the thread

 

[Khrowley]

Sticking a needle into a pregnant woman's womb? Yeah I don't see any problems coming from the needle OR the formula itself. Will it come with a "it work 99.9% of the time" label? My paranoia aside, still wouldn't support it even if it was 100% safe based on the fact that such a "cure" would be dismissing who somebody is in favor of what other's want them to be just so that they themselves can feel happy. Which is complete and utter bullshit.

 

[Signa]

I most certainly would!

I like the given scenario in the OP less, but parents more or less own their kid at that age since there is nothing there resembling free will. It's pretty much the same debate as circumcision, but in this case, the kid would never, ever know that he could have turned out gay. I can't fault any parent wanting to spare their child of the potential pain that could cause them.

As for an OTC anti-gay drug, sure on that too. Just because you're born gay doesn't mean you have to be happy with who you are attracted to. It's certainly an easier way out of that predicament than suicide, or dealing with the constant feeling of not being normal. Now if a drug like this existed, and gays were forced to take it, that's where I draw the line.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Can we haz a "cure" for stupid and religion too?


I never understood the rush and need to change people who think they are different, they will figure things out at their own pace and if they remain different then so what?

 

[RicoADF]

*SNIP*

As long as it was voluntary rather than mandatory then I have no issues with a vaccine for the mother. Forcing it on those that don't agree with the medical procedure would be an instant no no.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

When I read the title I thought this was going to be a more interesting suggestion. No I wouldn't support any kind of mandatory degayening or anything like that.

I would however, if one was discovered, support a cure for homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter) as an optional treatment later on in life that you can get once you're of the legal age on consent. Sure those "BEIN' GAY IS A CHOICE" people would be right but those people are fucking homophobes anyways. It would be great to be able to choose what you're sexually attracted to.

 

[mitchell271]

Cure implies there's something wrong and there isn't in the case of homosexuals and transsexuals. They are who they are and they aren't causing damage to themselves or anyone around them by choosing what gender they're attracted to or what gender they choose to identify as.

Also, debate implies there's merit to both sides. This is why you can have a political debate, differing political parties approach topics differently and try to convince others that their suggestions would work best in the entity's interests. What you're suggesting is going on is like the supposed debate in the scientific community about evolution v. creationism (i.e. non-existent). There's the progressive, often liberal minded people and the bigots who believe that it is immoral for a man to lie with another man.

Now that I've got that out of my system, no, of course I wouldn't support it. In fact, I'd be outraged that pharmacists (and quite possibly politicians) would even propose an idea like that. Seeing how I have many friends that are part of the LGBT community, I'd do everything in my power to stop that kind of pointless and insulting money black hole from ever being created.