Would you cure gay?

[FA_Q2]

NOTE: we are in the CDZ

My question is simple. Let’s say that (because this question is meaningless if not true) being a homosexual is not a choice and is either a circumstance of either genes and/or environment. If that is true then it should be completely possible (even if not with today’s technology) to essentially ‘cure’ gay by adjusting the underlying genetic codes. I am not here to be inflammatory (hence this being in the CDZ) or derogatory to gays but I am interested, particularly if you are gay, in peoples opinion here if they would take such a cure for themselves or for their children. Would you, if you had went through the process to become pregnant and have a child, agree to a simple procedure pre-birth to test your child’s sexuality and change it? Post birth?

I expect mostly no from gays and yes from many others but am interested in people’s perspective in this. I think that had I that type of pre warning/procedure, I would likely take it.

 

[Katzndogz]

No.

 

[FA_Q2]

No.

I am somewhat surprised to see that coming from you. Care to explain?

 

[PredFan]

NOTE: we are in the CDZ

My question is simple. Let’s say that (because this question is meaningless if not true) being a homosexual is not a choice and is either a circumstance of either genes and/or environment. If that is true then it should be completely possible (even if not with today’s technology) to essentially ‘cure’ gay by adjusting the underlying genetic codes. I am not here to be inflammatory (hence this being in the CDZ) or derogatory to gays but I am interested, particularly if you are gay, in peoples opinion here if they would take such a cure for themselves or for their children. Would you, if you had went through the process to become pregnant and have a child, agree to a simple procedure pre-birth to test your child’s sexuality and change it? Post birth?

I expect mostly no from gays and yes from many others but am interested in people’s perspective in this. I think that had I that type of pre warning/procedure, I would likely take it.

Yes.

 

[Katzndogz]

No.

I am somewhat surprised to see that coming from you. Care to explain?

No cure is necessary. There's nothing wrong with them. Homosexuality has existed among human beings in roughly the same percentage for as long as there have been human beings. Homosexuality is benign. It doesn't help or harm.

The harm doesn't come from homosexuality, but from the larger culture accepting homosexuality as a form of normalcy. It is an aberration, a benign aberration but an aberration nonetheless. Once the aberration becomes normalized it becomes toxic. In any given historical culture homosexuality has existed, but once that culture accepts it as normal, the people, the culture, the nation degrades until it is overcome by a more robust culture that does not normalize homosexuality, but, in reality has just as many homosexuals as the culture that embraced it.

By the time a culture gets to the point where homosexuality is normal, it is already very sick. It has to accept a lot of degredation before it gets to that point. The breakdown of the family has to happen, rampant divorce, abandonment of children, falling away from the values of a shared morality. All of that has to happen first, then homosexuality isn't so bad. But, the degredation continues long after homosexuality has been normalized. Until that people, that culture just rots away and is replaced by a better people and a better culture.

If you are a student of history you know how many cultures accepted the normalcy of same sex relationships. Yet, that value has never been passed on. It has always been rejected by the conquering people and the whole process starts all over again. If homosexuality were beneficial, it, like all other beneficial values would have been passed on. The wedding ring, as trivial as that is, was a value that comes from the dynastic Egyptians. That was passed on, but not homosexuality. Because each conquering people recognized how the normalization of that aberration affected the people they just overran.

 

[PredFan]

No.

I am somewhat surprised to see that coming from you. Care to explain?

No cure is necessary. There's nothing wrong with them. Homosexuality has existed among human beings in roughly the same percentage for as long as there have been human beings. Homosexuality is benign. It doesn't help or harm.

The harm doesn't come from homosexuality, but from the larger culture accepting homosexuality as a form of normalcy. It is an aberration, a benign aberration but an aberration nonetheless. Once the aberration becomes normalized it becomes toxic. In any given historical culture homosexuality has existed, but once that culture accepts it as normal, the people, the culture, the nation degrades until it is overcome by a more robust culture that does not normalize homosexuality, but, in reality has just as many homosexuals as the culture that embraced it.

By the time a culture gets to the point where homosexuality is normal, it is already very sick. It has to accept a lot of degredation before it gets to that point. The breakdown of the family has to happen, rampant divorce, abandonment of children, falling away from the values of a shared morality. All of that has to happen first, then homosexuality isn't so bad. But, the degredation continues long after homosexuality has been normalized. Until that people, that culture just rots away and is replaced by a better people and a better culture.

If you are a student of history you know how many cultures accepted the normalcy of same sex relationships. Yet, that value has never been passed on. It has always been rejected by the conquering people and the whole process starts all over again. If homosexuality were beneficial, it, like all other beneficial values would have been passed on. The wedding ring, as trivial as that is, was a value that comes from the dynastic Egyptians. That was passed on, but not homosexuality. Because each conquering people recognized how the normalization of that aberration affected the people they just overran.

You are missing the hypothetical point of the OP. He's saying "IF it was found that being gay was a defect of some kind and there was a cure, would you want to cure it?"

I would answer yes. I don't have anything against gays and have fully supported gay marriage for many many years. But if it was a defect and could be cured, I would. Just to put an end to this bickering that has gripped the country for so long, if for no other reason.

 

[FA_Q2]

No.

I am somewhat surprised to see that coming from you. Care to explain?

No cure is necessary. There's nothing wrong with them. Homosexuality has existed among human beings in roughly the same percentage for as long as there have been human beings. Homosexuality is benign. It doesn't help or harm.

The harm doesn't come from homosexuality, but from the larger culture accepting homosexuality as a form of normalcy. It is an aberration, a benign aberration but an aberration nonetheless. Once the aberration becomes normalized it becomes toxic. In any given historical culture homosexuality has existed, but once that culture accepts it as normal, the people, the culture, the nation degrades until it is overcome by a more robust culture that does not normalize homosexuality, but, in reality has just as many homosexuals as the culture that embraced it.

By the time a culture gets to the point where homosexuality is normal, it is already very sick. It has to accept a lot of degredation before it gets to that point. The breakdown of the family has to happen, rampant divorce, abandonment of children, falling away from the values of a shared morality. All of that has to happen first, then homosexuality isn't so bad. But, the degredation continues long after homosexuality has been normalized. Until that people, that culture just rots away and is replaced by a better people and a better culture.

If you are a student of history you know how many cultures accepted the normalcy of same sex relationships. Yet, that value has never been passed on. It has always been rejected by the conquering people and the whole process starts all over again. If homosexuality were beneficial, it, like all other beneficial values would have been passed on. The wedding ring, as trivial as that is, was a value that comes from the dynastic Egyptians. That was passed on, but not homosexuality. Because each conquering people recognized how the normalization of that aberration affected the people they just overran.

That’s an interesting take on why homosexuality is not something that you would want being recognized in society but not why you would not prevent yourself from having a gay child. For me it all boils down to the simple fact that a gay child and adult has a lot of hurdles and bigotry that they are going to face let alone the fact that they will never experience the joy of having their own children. Those 2 reasons are why I would ‘change’ my child from gay to straight were the options available and the procedure simple/without major side effects.

Just because there is nothing ‘wrong’ with being gay does not mean that I would avoid changing it. There is nothing wrong with being uncircumcised but as I am circumcised, both my children are also.

EDIT: Predfan gets it also. No rep for you atm Pred but I owe you
Why would you not cure it? It would end the bigotry as well.

 

[Katzndogz]

I am somewhat surprised to see that coming from you. Care to explain?

No cure is necessary. There's nothing wrong with them. Homosexuality has existed among human beings in roughly the same percentage for as long as there have been human beings. Homosexuality is benign. It doesn't help or harm.

The harm doesn't come from homosexuality, but from the larger culture accepting homosexuality as a form of normalcy. It is an aberration, a benign aberration but an aberration nonetheless. Once the aberration becomes normalized it becomes toxic. In any given historical culture homosexuality has existed, but once that culture accepts it as normal, the people, the culture, the nation degrades until it is overcome by a more robust culture that does not normalize homosexuality, but, in reality has just as many homosexuals as the culture that embraced it.

By the time a culture gets to the point where homosexuality is normal, it is already very sick. It has to accept a lot of degredation before it gets to that point. The breakdown of the family has to happen, rampant divorce, abandonment of children, falling away from the values of a shared morality. All of that has to happen first, then homosexuality isn't so bad. But, the degredation continues long after homosexuality has been normalized. Until that people, that culture just rots away and is replaced by a better people and a better culture.

If you are a student of history you know how many cultures accepted the normalcy of same sex relationships. Yet, that value has never been passed on. It has always been rejected by the conquering people and the whole process starts all over again. If homosexuality were beneficial, it, like all other beneficial values would have been passed on. The wedding ring, as trivial as that is, was a value that comes from the dynastic Egyptians. That was passed on, but not homosexuality. Because each conquering people recognized how the normalization of that aberration affected the people they just overran.

You are missing the hypothetical point of the OP. He's saying "IF it was found that being gay was a defect of some kind and there was a cure, would you want to cure it?"

I would answer yes. I don't have anything against gays and have fully supported gay marriage for many many years. But if it was a defect and could be cured, I would. Just to put an end to this bickering that has gripped the country for so long, if for no other reason.

Being gay is not a defect and doesn't need to be cured. It is a state of being. There are many sexual aberrations that we don't consider defects, but don't accept as normal.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

No.

I can't imagine why anyone would say yes. Really. What would be the point?


.

 

[Katzndogz]

Vancouver can do what it likes, and pay for the maintenance too. After the colorful crossings get too expensive to keep up, they will be gone.

 

[hjmick]

Plenty of other thing to cure before we need to be worrying about who loves who and who sleeps with who.

Or is it "whom..."

 

[Luissa]

No! I am more worried about curing something that is curable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No! I am more worried about curing something that is curable.

In other words you will ignore the premise of his suggestion and react to the idea it is an attack of some kind.

I would cure it if it were learned, not if it were genetic. In other words since we are pretty damn sure it is not learned I would not opt for a cure for a genetic mutation that causes no actual harm to the body.

I would "cure" transsexuals or those with both genitalia.

Don't get me wrong I am opposed to the State recognizing Gay unions as marriages and would oppose civil unions as well if the times were not what they are. Civil Unions though are what we should be accepting for gays.

 

[Tuatara]

I'd rather cure homophobia

 

[Luissa]

No! I am more worried about curing something that is curable.

In other words you will ignore the premise of his suggestion and react to the idea it is an attack of some kind.

I would cure it if it were learned, not if it were genetic. In other words since we are pretty damn sure it is not learned I would not opt for a cure for a genetic mutation that causes no actual harm to the body.

I would "cure" transsexuals or those with both genitalia.

Don't get me wrong I am opposed to the State recognizing Gay unions as marriages and would oppose civil unions as well if the times were not what they are. Civil Unions though are what we should be accepting for gays.

I answered exactly how I wanted to.
No I wouldn't cure homosexuality. I am more worried about something curable.

 

[TNHarley]

if there was a cure, yes
you guys know them little prancy smartmouth pricks walking around talking like a chick with their arms folded? BUT in school they were normal? I would like to cure them for sure... wtf is up with that shit? I have no problem with gays and thwir lifestyle but those pwople deserve to get dealt with.. saq an old dude that was like that last night at the store.. sorry for my rant lol

 

[Luissa]

if there was a cure, yes
you guys know them little prancy smartmouth pricks walking around talking like a chick with their arms folded? BUT in school they were normal? I would like to cure them for sure... wtf is up with that shit? I have no problem with gays and thwir lifestyle but those pwople deserve to get dealt with.. saq an old dude that was like that last night at the store.. sorry for my rant lol

Gee I wonder why they pretended to be someone else in high school.

 

[TNHarley]

if there was a cure, yes
you guys know them little prancy smartmouth pricks walking around talking like a chick with their arms folded? BUT in school they were normal? I would like to cure them for sure... wtf is up with that shit? I have no problem with gays and thwir lifestyle but those pwople deserve to get dealt with.. saq an old dude that was like that last night at the store.. sorry for my rant lol

Gee I wonder why they pretended to be someone else in high school.

u mean to tell me that loser was normal in high school with male vocals and a strait arm vut the way he really is is talking like a xhick with a limp wrist? BS total BS. that shit aint genes, that is a fucked up mind

 

[PredFan]

No cure is necessary. There's nothing wrong with them. Homosexuality has existed among human beings in roughly the same percentage for as long as there have been human beings. Homosexuality is benign. It doesn't help or harm.

The harm doesn't come from homosexuality, but from the larger culture accepting homosexuality as a form of normalcy. It is an aberration, a benign aberration but an aberration nonetheless. Once the aberration becomes normalized it becomes toxic. In any given historical culture homosexuality has existed, but once that culture accepts it as normal, the people, the culture, the nation degrades until it is overcome by a more robust culture that does not normalize homosexuality, but, in reality has just as many homosexuals as the culture that embraced it.

By the time a culture gets to the point where homosexuality is normal, it is already very sick. It has to accept a lot of degredation before it gets to that point. The breakdown of the family has to happen, rampant divorce, abandonment of children, falling away from the values of a shared morality. All of that has to happen first, then homosexuality isn't so bad. But, the degredation continues long after homosexuality has been normalized. Until that people, that culture just rots away and is replaced by a better people and a better culture.

If you are a student of history you know how many cultures accepted the normalcy of same sex relationships. Yet, that value has never been passed on. It has always been rejected by the conquering people and the whole process starts all over again. If homosexuality were beneficial, it, like all other beneficial values would have been passed on. The wedding ring, as trivial as that is, was a value that comes from the dynastic Egyptians. That was passed on, but not homosexuality. Because each conquering people recognized how the normalization of that aberration affected the people they just overran.

You are missing the hypothetical point of the OP. He's saying "IF it was found that being gay was a defect of some kind and there was a cure, would you want to cure it?"

I would answer yes. I don't have anything against gays and have fully supported gay marriage for many many years. But if it was a defect and could be cured, I would. Just to put an end to this bickering that has gripped the country for so long, if for no other reason.

Being gay is not a defect and doesn't need to be cured. It is a state of being. There are many sexual aberrations that we don't consider defects, but don't accept as normal.

Dude, with all due respect to a fellow conservative, it's a hypothetical scenario. We all know it isn't a defect.

 

[PredFan]

No! I am more worried about curing something that is curable.

In other words you will ignore the premise of his suggestion and react to the idea it is an attack of some kind.

I would cure it if it were learned, not if it were genetic. In other words since we are pretty damn sure it is not learned I would not opt for a cure for a genetic mutation that causes no actual harm to the body.

I would "cure" transsexuals or those with both genitalia.

Don't get me wrong I am opposed to the State recognizing Gay unions as marriages and would oppose civil unions as well if the times were not what they are. Civil Unions though are what we should be accepting for gays.

I'm amazed that so many people don't understand the premise of the OP.