What if there were a cure for being gay?

I'm basing my question on a hypothetical situation. That question is inspired by X 3. What don't you understand?

 

I'd say it's about damn time you stop projecting and come out the closet. Frankly, that space is better used for your fabulous shoe collection

To play along with your stupidity, yes I have no problem with an adult curing himself to become "normal." By the time such a thing exists, the last of the anti gay bigots will be in walkers and no one will think much about being gay one way or the other and it'll be irrelevant.

 

did you read my first reply in this thread?

 

If there was an anti-gay drug then Baptists would just load it up in Holy dart guns and go hunting.

 

Again, none of this has anything to do with what I said. If anyone's confused here, its obviously you. Thanks to new discoveries, the CRISPR method of editing genes is going to get even more capable. We'll easily (and at a cost of around $75 a pop) be able to edit any genes you want. You want a kid with red hair, but lack the necessary genes for it? No problem, for the cost of standard IVF therapy we'll be able to make sure the kid has it. Want a kid with violet eyes? CRISPR will make it happen. Within a generation we will be able to play God in ways you can't even imagine, and most of the people with the kind of money to pay for such things will be the kind of people who don't care if someone is gay, straight, trans, cis, or any of a number of other things which some people today consider to be "problems."

The question isn't if we should "cure" homosexuality, the question is should we allow people to tinker with their genes to the point that they're no longer considered human by today's standards. If you can give a kid the genes to make them smarter, what's to stop you from giving them the genes so that they look like something that escaped from the island of Dr. Moreau?

 

Anyone notice how @Federal Farmer bases all his hypotheses and arguments based on comic books, comic book movies and TV shows?

His parents need to start giving him some more grown up source material.

 

Why should anybody care about another person's decision? My caring regards whether society pressures gay people to take such a pill. But if somebody makes that choice, that's his choice, not mine. But try to understand, most of us care about whether somebody is gay to the same extent we care about somebody's height. There is nothing to correct.

 

lol, they'd use up the supply on themselves first.

 

The issue isn't whether people would be okay if someone else's kid was gay. The issue is whether they'll want their own kid to be gay. and they get to make that decision without any of their friends knowing about it. In almost all cases, except for occasional gay people making a baby, the answer in the US will be "no" The answer everywhere else outside of Scandinavia, France, and Great Britain will be "Hell no." A young couple having a child is reproducing, as in "making reproductions of themselves".

So after the first iteration, the number of gay men drops from perhaps 1% to 0.1%. Then they have real trouble finding partners, and parents who were having gay children, for whatever reason, will worry that the gay people are disappearing, and thus any gay children will be outcasts who can't find life partners, and the number will drop further, until one day it's considered a form of abuse to have a gay child, as if you were trying to make a circus freak.

 

Maybe in whatever shithole corner of the country you inhabit, but decent people don't care.

 

You have to answer that question honestly, as a parent. Do you know how many horror stories gay people have about how their fathers reacted? If a prenatal test came back "gay" and there was a pre-natal cure, they'd think about it for about two seconds.

You people are living in a fantasy world, like horse lovers who rejoiced when automobiles and trucks came out because horses would no longer be hitched to wagons and would gain so much leisure time.

 

Luckily for the human race, people who share your irrational prejudices are a rapidly shrinking minority.

 

It's too bad gturner was born before we discovered the asshole gene. He would have been an obvious abortion candidate if his parents had only had the information.

 

No, we're not. Ask some union guy if he would prefer to have a straight boy who plays baseball, joins the Marines, gets married, and has a family, or a gay hairdresser. Ask his wife the same question.

If you asked them when their gay kid is 20 or 30, you'll find out they love him. If you ask them the question about four months into their pregnancy they'll give you a completely different answer.

And you know who's going to be the most likely to address the problem? Liberal parents. They don't have any qualms about aborting babies, much less curing them of something that can be cured. Sure, a few will think how fun it will be to hang out with their gay kid's friends, but there aren't going to be very many of those anymore. Gay clubs will go the way of leper colonies, extinct and unremembered.

 

What parents prefer and what parents get are always two different things. No child fits into an exact mold of what their parents fantasize about, regardless of the inevitable gene screening that will be available in a few generations.

Being gay is not a debilitating illness because people like you and TLS and FF want to harass people for what they do in private. Down's syndrome, bipolar, schizophrenia, he'll even garden variety anxiety like what I've got....all of that has a far more damaging effect on quality of life than who people choose to stick their dick in.

 

And yet parents, when given the option, will choose not to have gay kids. It's not bigoted, it's that people prefer standard children.

You may be one of those people who hates dwarves, and even most dwarves would prefer normal children. Doctors already have genetic tests for the vast majority of genetic conditions that can cause dwarfism, and they're developing protein therapies to cure the most common form, along with looking into gene therapies. In probably 10 to 15 years we're going to start running thin on new dwarves, who were only 0.0025% of the population to begin with.

Is that hateful? Is it bigoted? Is it backwards religious nonsense?

 

If you take dumbass fucking religion out of it, homophobia is really such a meaningless ridiculous thing.

It's really like getting bent out of shape over ice cream or pizza preference.

I find anchovies revolting, but to my cat, they're like black tar heroin.
You know how often I confuse his Fancy Feast Broth for my food?
Never. Not once.
It doesn't come up.

Japan is a country roughly half the population of the US, that eats mostly things I'd turn down.
And I don't turn down much.
And you CAN turn it down. You can go to Japan, and no one makes you eat squid suckers, you can go to their KFC, or MickyDees.

It's the same for dick.
Dick does nothing for me, but if women and gay men like it, fine, they can go have at it.
No one's shoving dick in my face going "come on, you'll like it!!".
Maybe in prison, but that's a whole different thing.

 

Wait a minute. The answer to this is YES, resoundingly and unambiguously. Most people only assume that that illness exists because they think they have learned that from experts; and most of them again have no idea what actual clinical schizophrenia is, instead using a definition from early psychoanalysis that has long since been debunked and would be roughly more equivalent to what we call multiple personality disorder today. What scientists actually do call schizophrenia today is not well understood either in terms of its causes nor its treatment, and its symptoms are very heterogeneous. So yes, not only would I believe it, but I am pretty sure the day is coming when health professionals will indeed tell us that those cases are now better understood and the term schizophrenia is either redefined yet again or retired altogether.

 

On the original question, removing biased language leaves us with a scenario in which brainwashing and/or physiological manipulation is perfected to the point where sexual orientation can be changed. In an optimistic Star Trek future, I would assume that people would take a responsibly hedonistic track and either stick to however they feel anyway, or opt for pansexuality for maximal pleasure.

 

Schizophrenia is likely caused by rogue glial cells, which have been ignored by scientists that kept focusing on neurons. Glial cells handle the brain's clean up and waste functions, and knowing which neurons to delete is tricky. Yet deleted massive numbers of neurons is part of childhood development and early adulthood, as unused connections are pruned to create efficient networks.

Male homosexuality would be something developmental in the brains wiring. Most lesbianism, it's recently been suggested, might be an evolutionary adaptation to being one of several wives belonging to the same man, who need to bond and get along.

The weird thing about liberals is that they think evolution stopped as soon as man invented fire.

 

Homosexuality is observed in practically all mammals, and several other species as well. So strange use of 'wives' there.

 

Which indicates that the defect is genetic, or it wouldn't keep showing up. Obviously evolution punishes it severely but hasn't corrected the defect, as giraffes don't need hair dressers or interior designers.

 

Evolution knows only one "punishment", and it clearly doesn't apply to homosexuality at all.

 

Gay animals don't produce offspring. They are continually deleted from the gene pool.

Most all species can produce dwarves, too. They make tasty snacks.

 

Not entirely true. Snails, for instance, have the reproductive organs necessary to mate with one another without being of an opposite sex. Other animals, such as certain fish, are essentially transgender and can switch sex in order to reproduce. Hawkfish, for instance, can go from female to male and back again. Certain frogs can do similar.

The stance that homosexuality is unnatural certainly isn't reflected in nature.

 

4 statements, 4 falsehoods. As ever.

 

By that logic, we can kill and eat gay people because they're no more advanced than snails, fish, and frogs. I'm sure the French will come up with a fancy name for gay meat.

This is nothing against gays, who I would only kill and eat in an emergency, but only after I'd killed and eaten lots of less dietarily risky heterosexuals. It's just that purpose of reproduction is to reproduce, and regarding that purpose a gay offspring is about on par with a Down's kid. They can have children but their dating scene isn't quite the mainstream. Having 500 sexual partners doesn't do much to recommend gay men as parents, either. Women, who are a good judge of such things, wouldn't recommend such a man as a life partner, much less a parent. They're like a throwback to male's primitive past, when dominating and ass raping people perhaps conveyed some competitive advantage, back when child prostitution and slavery were widely accepted. Like those dark times, about a third of child molestation is still gay or "pansexual" men molesting children.

You think that's a good thing. You think it's the Utopian future. No, it's the nightmare we're trying to leave behind, along with the people who do it. They won't be normalized, they will be eliminated like people with other curable defects.

 

I didn't realise the e in Volpone was silent.

As for the rest of that post, and frankly that line as well, I don't know whether it's sadder that you might believe any of it, or that you think any of it is worthwhile fun.

 

I'm totally for curing homosexuality. You know what else we should cure? Being a nerd. Like homosexuality, mainstream society doesn't understand and doesn't like nerds. And, while they don't actually harm anyone most of the time, God doesn't approve of them because they summon demons while playing Dungeons and Dragons. Being a nerd is clearly a mental illness that needs curing.