Would you support a cure for homosexuality and transexualism?

[Lightknight]

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've read this as well. For all intents and purposes, changing the orientation of an adult via pyschology is a pipe dream. No matter how much the individual or their family may want it.

If we find out exactly what causes it then perhaps we can suppress the gene or prevent the occurance but twin studies also point to homosexuality being a combination of genes and environmental causes. If that's the case, then the relating gene may not be a problem at all and only makes the individual prone to it and suppressing it may do something awful. It should be important to note that we are every bit a product of our environment and who we are now is mostly no more choice when caused by the environment around us than were it genetic. So please don't mistake this as a choice/born with it scenario. But this explains why identical twins don't both express homosexuality if one is homosexual but do express at a higher rate (something like 25%) than non-twin siblings (9%). Interestingly enough, paternal twins also express at a higher rate than non-twin siblings but significantly lower than identical twins. The exact reason for the increase could be anything from womb conditions to similar childhood environments at the same age whereas the identical twin scenario could be the result of them always being the same sex and sharing almost identical genes (copy errors of genetic code can impact identical twins differently, the extent of which is unknown. This makes it impossible to say that things are not genetic at all though does allow for the statement that something is genetic).

I've stated multiple times that I think whatever genetic development encourages homosexuality is likely a gene that benefits mankind for it to continue existing as any individual expressing the gene would be at a disadvantage where passing it on is concerned. This could be anything from the ability to make deep and meaningful same-sex friendships to something completely unforeseen that's more akin to transexualism than currently believed. If something like the former then there may never be a cure for it at all whereas if the second category then potentially.

 

[FLSH_BNG]

A cure would imply that these are diseases and therefore contagious on some level, which they aren't.
And the notion that it isn't natural is, to be blunt, a load of hogwash. Humans and other animals have been involved in such activities since as far back as reputable records go.

I've seen arguments stating that this "cure" isn't even for those who are "sick" but for the parents who wouldn't be able to cope. Are we really obligated to help other people cope with their sociological problems by forcing questionable practices upon the people who cause them anguish?

I'm not the best person to ask to deal with other people's problems. Because I figure that people are, in the main, intelligent enough to be able to deal with things themselves.

This isn't a medical issue, there is no cure that can be applied. And rashly jumping into action just to achieve results will be at great cost, as much to ourselves as well as to the people that the "cure" is supposed to help. By taking the attitude that it's for their own good, we're no better than the overbearing parent who is unwilling or unable to see that our children are growing up. We still treat them like children, even when they are clearly old enough to be making their own decisions. Whether or not we agree is entirely beside the point, because it is not our decision to make.

We can voice our own opinions on the matter, but we need to keep in mind that, just because your voice agrees with the majority doesn't mean you are right. And likewise, just because the minority is dissenting in its views, doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong and don't have any valid points or grievances.

Pushing this onto children when they are at too young an age to be able to understand or make an informed decision is no different than brain washing or indoctrination. We force upon them a way of life that may not agree with them and they can easily grow to resent it. Things only get worse when, instead of explaining why certain things were done and reason is provided, anger is used to punish them for being curious, rebellious, and for generally behaving in a manner that isn't desired.

I could not in good conscience support such a "cure." I would not be able to consider myself human if I did. In my opinion, such treatment towards humans implies that we think of ourselves as nothing more than the "lesser animals" that we use to make our lives easier and more convenient; when you can simply use tools and chemicals to "fix" people who do not fit into your world the way you want them to. When you cling to the idea that you can make people "better." I do not hold to that.

 

[MXRom]

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...

 

[A-D.]

Actually there is way too many factors that go into that to find a cure or drug that could change it. You'd have to account for so many variables that even if it were possible in theory, you'd need it to be just right for every single gay person, or transsexual to be effective and thats just not worth the cost in any shape or form.

Three big factors play into this actually. Genetics, Hormones and Choice. From my understanding and i am not a biology major or anything, you can not choose to be just gay, so a straight guy or gal cant just up and decide to not be straight anymore one day and it actually "works". They can pretend to be gay, or bisexual, but they are still pretending, so choice is not the only factor. So when it comes to sexual orientation, part of it is made up by genetics, you have to be "pre-disposed" to be likely to turn gay, or straight, meaning you can go into either direction, regardless of which is the socially acceptable variant. And everyone already is, our sexuality doesnt really manifest until we reach the later teen years, so doing ballet or whatever when you are little has no effect on you turning gay later, its a activity and nothing more.

So with that said, genetically we are basicly pre-programmed to swing either way. When we grow up and reach the age of sexual awakening of sorts, thats when choice partially comes into play, as well as hormones. All those chemicals that make us individuals? You know, how some people are basicly pre-disposed to be really great at math, others at sports etc? Same thing there really. So from a base 50:50 chance of being straight or gay, we drift into one or the other direction. Choice comes into play whether we accept it or not. As said, if you are the straightest guy ever, or the most flamboyant gay ever, you can pretend to be gay or straight, but deep down you are stuck with your sexuality, no matter what you do.

The problem with the solution of a cure is, everything that makes us who we are, as a person, is defined by those same genetics and hormones. So if you forcibly change one thing, is it not possible to change the rest? And even just by accident, if you took that "cure", you might not be gay anymore, but you also wouldnt be the same person you were before, because everything would have to change. So sexuality is part of who you are as a person and the concept of "fixing" part of it is effectively the same as changing you entirely, on the most basic level.


Now transsexuality comes in two forms though, one is actually a sort of "birth defect" in that during those 9 delightful months, something doesnt go quite according to plan. Basicly everyone initially starts out female from what i recall from biology class, so somewhere in that timeframe, you go from female to male and you grow a cock and all that. But something goes wrong and you suddenly end up with both. Its not life-threatening usually i think, well it might be but i got no idea if or how, but it is a accident. However it is not something that requires to be fixed, since eventually when the whole sexuality comes into play, its a 50:50 chance of having made the right decision. So again genetics are at play there, little jimmy just didnt go all the way in the womb as it were.

Now if say you are totally normal, you come out as a boy, all fine and dandy, and once you grow up you suddenly grow breasts? Thats hormones, or "hormonal imbalance" which already can be fixed to a degree and is voluntary, i.e. you do not have to get it fixed if you dont want. All it is is that you produce too much estrogen, or not enough testosterone, or vice versa depending on gender, since both genders produce estrogen and testosterone to a certain degree, women usually have more estrogen, men more testosterone. Simple really.

TL;DR:

Sexuality cant be fixed because you run risk of fucking up everything.
Transsexuality (intersexuals) can be fixed by a plastic surgery if you want to.
Hormonal Imbalance can be fixed by a life-long taking of estrogen/testosterone supplyments to balance it out.

All things have choice in one form of another, and i would argue against taking away that choice from anyone. In fact i would argue that even offering that choice, especially in the case of sexuality can do more harm than good on the biological level, not to mention the social aspect.

 

[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.