Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Lightknight]

A) No it isn't (they've studied this: demographically speaking the women of a society that has a high number of homosexual men just reproduce more with the straight males. Remember; it only takes one guy. So in the overall scale it all evens out.
And B) Reproducing less is not harmful to a species-- in fact, just about every species has to curb its population growth when they overcome pressures. Maladaptive traits are only negative when a species is underpopulated enough to be in danger. Otherwise it helps

The homosexual men are the ones whose genes fail to get passed on. Ergo, it is maladaptive for the survival of the other genes they carry. I am not referring to it being maladaptive for the entire species. It's just maladaptive for the individual genetic line.

Would you disagree with that? Again, maladaptive doesn't mean that it's bad or should be snuffed out or some such nonsense. Just that you could have the best line of genes the world has ever seen but they won't get passed on if you don't reproduce.

 

[GeneralFungi]

True but they are deviations from the biologically optimal norm, much as dwarfism, gigantism, albinism, myopia, etc. Thus while not technically diseases they could be considered defects.

I'mma stop right here. "Optimal" is circumstantial; human genetic and phenotropic diversity exits to deal with specific environments. "Optimal" is a fallacy because there is no Platonic Ideal human being. If mitochondial Eve was so damn great we wouldn't need variation in the first place. Beyond that, this smacks of eugenics.

Biologically Optimal... means simply configurations that lead to and provide advantages towards successful procreation. Homosexuality does not lead to biological procreation hence it is not optimal. Well unless you're one of those hermaphrodite species in which case homosexuality is the norm, you're a hermaphrodite and your partner is hermaphrodite thusly you are the same gender thusly homosexual.

Diversity stems from traits that are neutral (have no effect) or from traits that present some advantage.

While that is true, you aren't looking at the big picture of humanity when you start saying that the traits of a single individual are less then ideal. Humans are social creatures, and many of the ways our brain developed was to be socially involved and cooperative with other human beings.

I just don't think you're looking at the big picture. Sure, if 90% of people were homosexual and only 10% of people were straight being homosexual would be less then optimal. But if 90% of people are straight and 10% are homosexual, then having 10% of the population gay could be considered optimal. Of course this is all theoretical but I think you're limiting your scope a little bit.

 

[Muphin_Mann]

My first instinct: HELL NO

Then I consider...I have an issue with the deaf community, because couples have chosen to take actions in it before to try and insure giving birth to deaf children. I consider that sick and on par with trying to birth a child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or an Autism Spectrum Disorder.

But, if it could theoretically be proven that a homosexual is born that way as a result of a disease or defect then choosing not to use the cure would likewise fall under the same umbrella of intentionally harming your unborn child. We cant exactly pretend, with all the prejudice against them, that being born gay isnt a form of disadvantage.


All that said, the search for proof that homosexuality is a "disease" and needs a "cure" which, despite the weak disclaimer added later, the OP seems to support with his opening lines (the idea that this area is a real valid pursuit) is an example of that prejudice. Also, I couldnt see half of this post because of an unclosable add that opens in its "small" form over it and gets bigger if I try to interact with it. Nice job Escapist. Put your adds int he right place.

 

[Naleh]

What's there to cure?

Neither homosexuality nor transgenderism is harmful in any way (unlike society's reaction to those things ...). And there is no suggestion that they are biologically abnormal (as if that would even matter) -- indeed, the high frequency of homosexuality in nature seems to suggest it's entirely normal and even evolutionarily beneficial.

If a treatment is developed which can change a person's sexuality (in a non-abusive way), and that person wants to change for some reason, then sure. Why not give people choices over themselves? But that wouldn't be a "cure"; it would be essentially equivalent to cosmetic surgery.

[sub](I am here being generous to the OP and ignoring the fact that such a treatment would open floodgates of bigotry, where people are pressured to change their sexuality to fit in.)[/sub]

And forcing it on a pregnant mother is the epitome of disgusting.

 

[EclipseoftheDarkSun]

I don't think it has any real affect on the viability of replacing our numbers in our society, so no, I'd be against meddling, when the real solution is to destigmatize being gay or TG or whatever one is.

Same principle as this:

"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Homosexuality is as normal as left-handedness, it's in the minority, it doesn't hurt society, it's just something that small-minded bigots like to persecute people for. That desire to enforce conformity on others is the real poison to civil society.

 

[6_Qubed]

Setting aside the initial knee-jerk reaction post I was gonna make until I read the edit, (i.e. "why would I, there is nothing to cure") I would oppose this just on the grounds that it's a step towards making everyone the same, and homogeneity is boring.

 

[wolfyrik]

I would resent any attempt to categorize homosexuality as a disease, actually.

Homosexualty and transexuality aren't diseases.

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.

Why would you pretend such a thing? How is it even relevent? I'm quite offended that you suggest we just "roll with it". Homosexuality isn't akin to a birth defect or a disease. It occurs naturally in nature and has been recored in over 2000 species. What's more, it serves a vital function in social species, providing a natural adoption method which allows the next generation, vital to the progress of the group, to survive.

If someone found a way to prevent it, forcing it on infants would be a massive violation of their civil rights, as well as incredibly immoral. What would worry me more, is that if homosexuality was categorised thusly, it would lead to increase in these dispicable, degenerate movements who want to "cure" adult homosexuals. They'd have exactly the excuse they need, "it's an illness".

No, such an idea is horrific and should never be exused for 'arguments sake'.

 

[CriticalMiss]

I would only support a 'cure' for homosexuality if there was also a 'cure' for religionism or heterosexuality (or being ginger). Actually, maybe I wouldn't. I don't think that the parents really have the right to alter their child just to suit their own tastes without giving the child a voice in the matter.

And a cure does exist; educate the people who have an issue with other people being homosexual because they are the problem.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

OP, I admire you for recognizing your mistake and editing the first post accordingly. <3

Back on topic.. While I wouldn't support the 'cure' inherently, I would support giving those individuals the choice to change themselves if they're truly unhappy with who they are.

But it would have to be just that: a choice, made by them.

 

[wolfyrik]

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.

I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Significantly altering a person's personality because it "might make the parents uncomfortable" is simply ludicrous and blaming the victim. If the parents have a problem, they should get over it, that's what moral, decent, intelligent people do. If a person is unable to deal with their child's homosxuality, it's the parent that needs to be "cured", not the child. Bigotry is not a disease, it's a choice based on fear, failed reasoning, unsubstantiated beliefs or all three. Homosexuality is natural and it's only harmful affects, come from the abuse given by bigots. It's the bigots, who need to be "cured".

 

[A.A.K]

Assuming it's proven 'defect' or whatever your hypothetical scenario is.... Still no.

Only because, the world is populated enough as it is, and is getting ever filled as it is... and for a less evil reason....
More gay people means less competition for me when hitting on women.

...and the whole 'freedom of choice, isn't hurting anybody, isn't self-destructive so why do you care' rah rah thing.

 

[Strazdas]

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.

They are genetic disorders. just like being left handed are genetic disorder. disease is just a label we put on problems we try to "cure" thats all.

I would support a cure for homosexuality as much as i woudl support a cure for being left handed (which i am) - that is to say a completely voulantary thing. If you want to change your sexuality - your choice. no forcing though.
As for transexuality, i may be ignorant here, but dont we already got ways to do that? i mean plastic operations and stuff.