Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Lightknight]

A cure would imply that these are diseases and therefore contagious on some level, which they aren't.

It's important to get beyond the semantics when the intention of the wording is evident. We're always searching for the cure for baldness for example. Poison can be said to cure an individual of life.

All a cure is, is something that relieves an individual of the symptoms related to a disease or condition. That condition part covers any number of things that aren't necessarily even negative things.

 

[Wyane380]

As long as they also provided a cure for heterosexuality. Everyone should really just be bisexual.

 

[Able Seaman Staines]

If someone feels that they were born in the wrong gender body because of some sort of developmental hiccup why not have the means to alter it ? If people can get gender reassignment surgery, why not also make something that makes them at peace with the body they have ? Knowing how to do things is not the same as insisting they be done. I would definitely strongly oppose forcing treatment on people, but I would certainly support developing this as a stream of knowledge. Science fiction has long adopted the notion of 100% gender reassignment technologies, and I can't see how this technology would harm anyone. Homosexuals may be at peace with their gender and sexuality, but transgender people obviously aren't, and this would be for them.

 

[emeraldrafael]

no. Even if you took your second scenario, there's still nothing wron gwith a person who is. would I want to make people less ignorant, of course. but there's nothing wrong iwth being homo/transsexual in the least and shouldnt be looked at as something that needs cured/fixed.

 

[clayschuldt]

My heart says no...my head...also says no.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Oh dear...
This is sounding dangerously close to the same excuses Southern white plantation owners had for slaves. Their need for freedom was a 'malady', and the only 'cure' was an increase in the number of random beatings...

What? that makes no sense, dont try to bring race into something that does not need to be in it just to start more crap.

I'm not, I'm just surprised that +100 years later there are still people using 'it's a sickness' excuse to explain people that don't conform to their established norms. Really depresses me. I would think by this point we managed to move away from this crap but nope.

"Gay people are sick literally and need a cure~" some folks will do anything to remain in their little bubble...

Well true, i will give you that, but you cant really blame them can you? I mean yes, its a very backwards way of viewing things, but its a whole nature vs nurture thing, there parents raised them to view it as wrong, which in truth goes with your bubble thing. All this makes my thinker box hurt.

 

[Annihilist]

You know, accept for the whole "high suicide rate" thing.

Given enough lead, anyone's brain can adapt to the fact that they'd rather not live on this fucked up planet anymore.

We're going to die anyway, so that's going to happen. Might as well live it out, out of curiosity.

=Don't churches have a thing against vaccines as well? Don't you think that if people needed a vaccine or cure to relieve them of homosexuality, then perhaps religion's stance on it being a "lifestyle choice" no longer holds up?

I think it would confuse the hell out of organised religion, and for that purpose alone I would be curious about their response to such a thing.

But in reality, with the malleability of the mind, we already have a "cure", if you will. It's called conditioning. Given enough mental and behavioural conditioning, our minds can adapt to anything - it is possible to turn gay people straight or straight people gay, because our brain will adapt. It just takes a lot of time and commitment. The obvious follow-up question is "why would anyone want to?". But if people do want to, they already can.

My point is that a "cure" is unnecessary. It can be overcome. It's just not a good thing to do.

Suppression is not likely to be genuine change of sexuality, though. A number of times recently I've posted a huge list of links to expert organisations who state it cannot be changed, and that there is little-to-no validity in conditioning or aversion therapy. If you'd like, I could dig that list out and pass it to you via PM.

You're right, of course, that the main reason to avoid such treatments is that they can cause untold emotional distress, and that there's no valid moral reason to use them. But, it's important that their efficacy has also been repudiated by many, many expert organisations.

I didn't say suppression. Suppression would be lying to yourself and others, in order to hide your true sexuality. But there's subconscious doubt in suppression. What I'm talking about is an active attempt to convert yourself to one sexuality or another. It's a psychological outlook thing - the former is resigned, but the latter is optimistic. And it has everything to do with the way your brain functions.

I would argue that it can be changed, but no one has hitherto been successful. Perhaps there are not enough years in a human life to complete the conversion, because it is so effectively hardwired into our psyche, and it would take so many decades to condition someone into a different sexual orientation, during which they will probably die of old age before success is achieved. But, given enough time, I think it can be done. I'm not saying it should be done, but it's certainly not impossible.

 

[Hieronymusgoa]

The "problem" with homosexuality only comes from people not feeling comfortable with it for one reason of many. It's never something real they fear or "have to" fear, it's just weird convictions, beliefs, ideologies whatever. Homosexual people, if they feel unhappy about it, are also victims of non-tolerant environment/public opinion. A really tolerant society would not make people feel bad about themselves because of their homosexuality. It exists, so it's natural. Deal with it.
There is no need for a cure since it's natural and hopefully no one will ever find a way to "get rid" of it.
So, yes, I would be against it.

My life has been so different and exciting because I am gay and there are so many things I would have missed (I will call this "gay culture" for now) and I somehow always was glad that I'm gay.

 

[JackWestJr]

No way, this planet's got enough goddamn people on it already; it's in all our interests to have a portion of the world not contributing to the overpopulation! Obviously not the only reason I wouldn't support it, but it's what comes to my mind when this is brought up haha.

 

[Monsterfurby]

This "cure", from my perspective, would have to be a mind control drug. As someone quite uninterested in being mind controlled (and slightly more intrigued by mind controlling others, but that's beside the point), I'd say that's a no-no.

 

[Somnambulistic]

I wouldn't. Besides, I've seen people upset that they were circumcised as a baby. Can you imagine the concern some people would have about finding out their mother was given an injection that altered their sexuality, so they may not even be who they really are?

Aside from that, can you also imagine the way people would treat those that didn't get the "cure" injection? It's similar to the vanity customized baby debate. (The one where you pick your baby's features before it's born.) Those altered before birth would look down on those that were natural.

Maybe it's just me, but there are some doors that I think even if we had the ability to open, we should leave them shut because they lead to dystopia xD

 

[Lightknight]

As long as they also provided a cure for heterosexuality. Everyone should really just be bisexual.

Bisexuality would certainly open up individuals to the most options where mates are concerned.

As I stated earlier, the biggest problem with homosexuality is that it limits the individual to less than 3% of the population matching the criteria before even starting to filter out those numbers based on other specifics (for example, the homosexual population is divided into two sexes with the additional option of bisexuals who are likewise divided into two sexes. So the real number would be around half that and then you've got to account for age ranges and basic preferences like physique, race, sense of humor or anything else they may prefer over another). This severely limited compatible mate supply pool would contribute significantly to loneliness and unhappiness regarding the quality of relationships. If everyone was bisexual, then everyone would experience a significantly higher mate pool to choose from and ergo have higher chances of finding a compatible mate.

As a species, this would be considerably maladpative to enforce regarding the survival of the species.

No way, this planet's got enough goddamn people on it already; it's in all our interests to have a portion of the world not contributing to the overpopulation! Obviously not the only reason I wouldn't support it, but it's what comes to my mind when this is brought up haha.

You're talking about less than 3% of the US population. In fact, the most recent and accepted study (2011) has 1.7% (4 million people) of Americans over 18 years old as gay or lesbian. This study excluded individuals who only occasionally had behaved or had homosexual thoughts while not identifying as homosexuals (something that should have been done). I strongly doubt that making them more likely to be able to have kids by being attracted to individuals that can successfully procreate would somehow boom the population when the average American family is already far more likely to have only one child than even two.

 

[Saladfork]

I would support a mandatory "gay" vaccine only if there were a serious problem with population decline and the adding the roughly 5% of gay people back into the breeding pool would make enough of a difference to matter. Otherwise, no.

One for transexuality, though, I would support, because otherwise the person's options are to live in a body they're uncomfortable with or have massively invasive surgery to become a poor approximation of what they want to look like. If the alternative is making them comfortable in their own bodies then it seems to me to be the best choice.

 

[thebakedpotato]

Depends on what the cure would entail.
If it was some kind of painful inversion therapy bullshit, then no.
If it involved a vacation to Venice, then I would be all for it.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

I'm quite certain any research into sexual / gender identity genes would reveal not only that their is no one repressor, co-activator, or protein, that causes a cascade to define an individuals sexuality or gender, but also that the developments made in utero were largely synonymous with that of people of all sexual / gender identity. Which is to say, it would result in a procedure to affect any and all sexual orientation, gender identification and others besides development, or more likely, result in nothing at all.

Would I support research into this? No, it'd attract the wrong sorts of people, be a waste of resources and time to address a non issue, and not accomplish more (or even as much) as the wider spectrum research into neurological (physiological) and psychological cause of human behaviour and identity, already does. Further, it'd send a, maybe unintentional, but powerful message that sexual / gender identity is a choice, and that there are some which we consider undesirable. Work towards sociological change to normalise all sexuality and gender identity, is not only likely to be the most effective change we can make, but also the most beneficial to us all.

Would I like to live in a future where you could decide exactly who you wanted to be, in every facet, and those changes be nothing more than a simple, at home medical procedure away? Sure, that's some crazy cool sci-fi shit, who wouldn't want that? We'd need to get our society to a place of enlightenment before this is really desirable though. The awful things humans would do to each other with this technology now... I shudder to speculate. Humanity's universal sociological philosophies, and broad understanding of ourselves, need to develop substantially.

And yes, "cure" was incredibly insensitive.

 

[Lightknight]

I would support a mandatory "gay" vaccine only if there were a serious problem with population decline and the adding the roughly 5% of gay people back into the breeding pool would make enough of a difference to matter. Otherwise, no.

I seriously doubt that the 1.7% of the US citizens who identify as homosexuals would do practically anything to the population size one way or the other.

I would not support a mandatory vaccine in any event. Not mandatory, just optionally available at the discretion of the parents. The homosexual community would have to rise to huge proportions and the population would have to be dying off to even begin considering that on a macro level.

 

[Azriel637]

There is already a cure for homosexuality and transexualism. Its called Mind your own business and let them be whatever the hell they want to be.

 

[Eggsnham]

Sure. Of course, it would have to be a situation where the person makes the decision for him/herself when they're legally old enough; but otherwise, I see no reason why such a thing shouldn't be supported.

Also, on a side note, being gay or transsexual is a disorder. It's not a bad thing, and it's not something that can be helped, but denying that it's something that occurs when something goes wrong in the body isn't going to help anybody. It's like saying that any given Depressive Disorder or any given disorder on the Autistic spectrum aren't medical issues.

You know that having blue eyes is a mutation? Does this mean that everyone with blue eyes has a disorder? In order to be a disorder it has to have some tangible detriment to the people who have it, other than being scrutinized by society at large for no real reason, that isn't the case with homosexuality.

Biologically speaking, being homosexual is detrimental in that somebody who's gay can't reproduce outside of using 3rd party methods. That has a whole host of negative implications in evolutionary terms.

It is a disorder.

It's not a bad thing, it doesn't make you a bad person, and there is absolutely no reason to dislike anybody simply for the fact that they're gay, but it's still a disorder.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

I don't think its something that can be cured and I don't think its an illness of any kind and if one of my kids(should I ever have any) were to come out to me as gay or tell me that they feel they're having a 'gender crisis' and express a desire to change their sex or to act as the opposite sex I would have have an honest discussion with them about how I feel but still assure them that I would love them no less no matter what they chose to do...I would not however front the money for a gender swap if they were under 18 or were over 18 and needed it.


But if their were a 'cure' that could be given before birth, I would want it for my kids.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

Sure. Of course, it would have to be a situation where the person makes the decision for him/herself when they're legally old enough; but otherwise, I see no reason why such a thing shouldn't be supported.

Also, on a side note, being gay or transsexual is a disorder. It's not a bad thing, and it's not something that can be helped, but denying that it's something that occurs when something goes wrong in the body isn't going to help anybody. It's like saying that any given Depressive Disorder or any given disorder on the Autistic spectrum aren't medical issues.

You know that having blue eyes is a mutation? Does this mean that everyone with blue eyes has a disorder? In order to be a disorder it has to have some tangible detriment to the people who have it, other than being scrutinized by society at large for no real reason, that isn't the case with homosexuality.

Biologically speaking, being homosexual is detrimental in that somebody who's gay can't reproduce outside of using 3rd party methods. That has a whole host of negative implications in evolutionary terms.

It is a disorder.

It's not a bad thing, it doesn't make you a bad person, and there is absolutely no reason to dislike anybody simply for the fact that they're gay, but it's still a disorder.

Yeah, I agree with what Trilligan said to you, but to elaborate on it "not being a disorder."

Now, barring the philosophical discussion of "disorder," I intend to speak on how it is not a disorder to have a different phenotype.

First you need to understand a bit of genetics. When you mate, you will pass on a portion of your genes to your offspring. Now, statistically you share ~50% of your genes with your sibling because you come from the same parents. Thus, from a genetics perspective, it is okay to take risks to help your siblings/their child as they share a non-trivial portion of your genes. Including, potentially, the ones which favor altruistic behavior.

So, in a nutshell, this is the current leading hypothesis of the evolutionary origin of homosexuality. (Note, it's still a hypothesis. There is a fair enough body of research backing it now, but there's still quite a way to go.) But, based off of studies, families with a gay relative will have more children and their children will rate their needs as better cared for. When you consider that the odds of homosexuality increase in younger siblings, the "gay uncle" hypothesis has some validity.

So. Just because it's a different phenotype, it is not a disorder. In fact, in biology, we tend to not like to think of evolution in terms of goals because it's a natural process.

I find that calling it a disorder is a.... fairly dangerous line of thought and fairly stigmatizing, particularly when that doesn't seem to be the case.

If you have any questions, shoot me a message and hopefully I can explain it better.