Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Korolev]

If you could alter someone's sexuality through some form of neurological intervention, then that would have interesting social and ethical consequences.

If such a medical intervention existed, I would not ban it. If someone wants to alter their sexuality or orientation, and the technology to really do it exists, then they should be allowed to, if that is what they want. Of course, you could say that it would be better for them to accept themselves for who they are - but if they want to take the treatment, what arey you going to do? Tackle them to the ground and scream "NO! YOU'VE GOT TO ACCEPT YOU WHO ARE! ACCEPT IT! ACCEEEEPPTTT IIIITTT!"?

If such a medical intervention existed, then no one should be forced from taking it. No one should be prevented either. The treatment should not be given to children - when they become adults then they can decide if they want their sexuality altered.

It's a very hypothetical scenario. We have nothing that comes close to altering human sexuality. We barely understand the neurological components that underlie sexual orientation or gender identity. Until we do, no such intervention will exist.

 

[an annoyed writer]

"Cure"? That's rewiring a person's brain so they lose something that has informed every part of their life until that point. "Cure" in this case refers to the procedure of quite literally brainwashing people to conform to the norms of current society, even though such people are not actually doing anything wrong, in the criminal sense. What you're suggesting is to take innocent people and rewire their neurological map so that they are "normal", in your eyes. Is that not like rewriting a darker race's genetic code so that their skin doesn't produce as much melanin, or rewriting every male's genes to have a second X chromosome instead of a Y chromosome?

I don't know about anyone else here, but I think that's fucked up. That's not a cure, that's a permutation of what some would call ethnic cleansing. And I'm not alright with that. The better, simpler solution is to realize that different types of people exist, and to accept it and move along. This "cure" is an antithesis of that.

To clarify, if you want to change that by your own will, go ahead. But don't ever shove this upon others.

 

[Ecliptica Wolf]

I would support it for the individual, not for the parent. If you want to be straight then you want to be straight, if you want to be gay then you can be gay. Of course peer pressure is always a factor but that's present in everyday life. Smokers get peer pressure about smoking (yes I know it's bad for you but it's still a choice), as do overweight people about losing weight.

I don't think those who want it should be denied anymore than those who didn't want it can say no.

 

[Mr F.]

The most intolerant people I have ever met were white supremacists, racists, Muslim extremists, homophobes and Tories. I am jealous if *inserted quote* "some of" *inserted quote* the most intolerant people you have ever met were in the LGBTQ community.

It means you have lived a charmed life.

if there's one thing i have never had it's "a charmed life."

I am just questioning the point of your post, it seemed designed to declare that the entire LGBTQ community was:
- Not a community
- Full of assholes

You have to pay attention to how you use language. That is what was indicated. That is what you were trying to indicate. If it was not what you were trying to indicate you need to start writing with more clarity.

What, exactly, was your point?

 

[Angie7F]

I would support it because i know that many people have a tough time living their lives as a homosexual.
But at the same time, you would have to have a "cure" for being heterosexual too

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Hey, as long as some bloke or she-male isn't trying to fuck me i could care less that they exist...i'd much rather cure the disease of liking pop music so i don't have to listen to shit music on the radio stations at work

This whole topic is completely crazy. For me to have a valid opinion i would have to be in the group of people who would be affected by the change and then my answer would more than likely be fixed by my sexual identity (whatever that means). Human stupidity is the problem (on both sides) and i don't think that can be fixed in the womb.

 

[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.