Would you cure gay?

[FA_Q2]

I think a better question might be, would gays opt for a cure?

And, I would change the wording to, " ... opt to be changed ..." because the use of the word "cure" implies illness and/or abnormality.

Gays have been ostracized, beaten, harassed and even killed because they threaten the sexuality of the most insecure among us. I can't imagine that any person would choose to be gay but I can't speak for them.

That is why I asked that question in the op had you read it carefully you would have noted that.

I can’t imagine either. I would think that any gay would definitely be appalled by a ‘cure’ if they had found someone in their lives but that many who had not might find the idea enticing that they could essentially make that ‘choice’ to be gay or straight. As you stated, I can’t think of any reason that someone would choose to be gay though I am sure that there are some out there. For that reason, I would be surprised if many younger gay people would not choose to end that drive. The older you get though, the more you identify with yourself and the less likely that I would thing you would want such a thing being that you are already happy with yourself (at least one would hope that you were).

Of course, if we cure gay, where the hell are we going to get all our interior decorators and fashion designers

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, if we get to the point with genetic science that identifying and altering a "gay gene" were possible, I'd like to see it as a medical option.

I am close to several people who are homosexual. Along a spectrum, there are a few (one in particular I can think of) who would never take the medical "cure". She likes being homosexual and would never want to change. On the other side of the spectrum, I know at least one person who admits that they are homosexual but refuses to "come out" and would rather live the lie. He very much would take the "cure" if it was offered. Then there are several people who, at some point in their life might have wished for a "cure" and may have taken it or might just seriously consider it.

Keep in mind, if there is an option to change from homosexual to heterosexual, then there would be an option to change from heterosexual to homosexual. I know a few people who would probably take that "cure", too.

I would never force someone to make the change. As a matter of fact, I'd like to see laws that prohibits parents from making the choice for their children. Like an abortion, sterilization, tattoos and elective cosmetic surgery this is a life-altering choice that an adult should make for themselves. So, no if the genetic tests came back that said my fetus carried the "gay gene", I wouldn't do anything about it and just let the child have a normal childhood.

I find that interesting. You would not change your child pre-birth but yourself you would. I would lean in the EXACT opposite direction. Had I made it to twenty gay, I don’t think I would have found a reason to change who and what I was. At that point, I would have already established my wants and goals. If my child was going to be gay though, that is when I would do such a thing, pre-birth, so that my child grew up as all other children do. After you get older, that kind of change can have pretty drastic impacts into your life as you are changing something that is very fundamental to yourself.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

If you believe that it is not a choice and is based in genetics somewhere then it will be changeable in the near future. We are learning how to do some scary shit with genetics and the simple truth is that such will happen at one time or another.

The question is relevant as there might very well be a time where such a procedure exists. The fact that you find that as strange or unacceptable is irrelevant to that possibility.

 

[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.

Thankfully, we do have "cures", or at least treatment for genetic errors. They're not perfect but they're getting better and better.

And, of course, we all want equal treatment, marriage equality for all US citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution.

So you support Incestuous marriages? How about multiple partners marrying? AFTER ALL YOU DID SAY WE WANT EQUAL TREATMENT FOR all CITIZENS RIGHT?

 

[jwoodie]

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.

Thankfully, we do have "cures", or at least treatment for genetic errors. They're not perfect but they're getting better and better.

And, of course, we all want equal treatment, marriage equality for all US citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution.

So you support Incestuous marriages? How about multiple partners marrying? AFTER ALL YOU DID SAY WE WANT EQUAL TREATMENT FOR all CITIZENS RIGHT?

Don't hold your breath for an intelligent response.

 

[Luissa]

Thankfully, we do have "cures", or at least treatment for genetic errors. They're not perfect but they're getting better and better.

And, of course, we all want equal treatment, marriage equality for all US citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution.

So you support Incestuous marriages? How about multiple partners marrying? AFTER ALL YOU DID SAY WE WANT EQUAL TREATMENT FOR all CITIZENS RIGHT?

Don't hold your breath for an intelligent response.

It's a dumb argument, and it was a dumb argument the first 500 times him and others made it. It's like the argument one might marry their dog or a child.

It's called two consenting adults. Get over it.

 

[Luissa]

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.

Thankfully, we do have "cures", or at least treatment for genetic errors. They're not perfect but they're getting better and better.

And, of course, we all want equal treatment, marriage equality for all US citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution.

So you support Incestuous marriages? How about multiple partners marrying? AFTER ALL YOU DID SAY WE WANT EQUAL TREATMENT FOR all CITIZENS RIGHT?

Tired argument.


You pretend to be an expert on the Constitution... Where in the constitution does it define marriage?

 

[Katzndogz]

Incestuous relationships occur between consenting adults. Polygamous relationships occur between consenting adults. In Germany there were even consenting adults in a cannibal dinner relationship.
It's really what aberration will be normalized and accepted.

We have gone so far down the road to degredation that it likely won't stop until we have gone to the bottom and some external force comes along and puts a stop to it.

 

[jwoodie]

Thankfully, we do have "cures", or at least treatment for genetic errors. They're not perfect but they're getting better and better.

And, of course, we all want equal treatment, marriage equality for all US citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution.

So you support Incestuous marriages? How about multiple partners marrying? AFTER ALL YOU DID SAY WE WANT EQUAL TREATMENT FOR all CITIZENS RIGHT?

Tired argument.


You pretend to be an expert on the Constitution... Where in the constitution does it define marriage?

Keep trying.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Thankfully, we do have "cures", or at least treatment for genetic errors. They're not perfect but they're getting better and better.

And, of course, we all want equal treatment, marriage equality for all US citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution.

So you support Incestuous marriages? How about multiple partners marrying? AFTER ALL YOU DID SAY WE WANT EQUAL TREATMENT FOR all CITIZENS RIGHT?

This ‘argument’ is a fallacy, you’re comparing two dissimilar issues.

Acknowledging the equal protection rights of same-sex couples has nothing to do with incestuous or plural marriages.

Moreover, marriage can accommodate same-sex couples as the laws exist now, no changes needed – which is not the case with other types of marriage configurations.

For example:

A suburban Philadelphia woman who tied the knot with her longtime partner Sunday with a county marriage license despite the commonwealth's ban on same-sex marriage said it was the day "that every committed couple waits for."

The licenses issued Wednesday in Montgomery County are believed to be the first to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania, the only northeastern state without same-sex marriages or civil unions. State law also says same-sex marriages, even ones entered legally elsewhere, are void in Pennsylvania.

Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Ferman, a Republican, said Wednesday evening that a same-sex marriage license isn't legally valid in Pennsylvania, but she said it's not her place to intervene. Democratic Attorney General Kathleen Kane, though, has said that she will not defend the ban, leaving any defense to Republican Gov. Tom Corbett's office. A spokesman for Corbett said county office-holders are required to uphold the law but did not say if the governor would challenge the marriages.

Same-sex couple marries outside Philly despite ban

Pennsylvania marriage law can currently accommodate same-sex couples, the issue is whether or not the state will recognize those marriages.

 

[eots]

Incestuous relationships occur between consenting adults. Polygamous relationships occur between consenting adults. In Germany there were even consenting adults in a cannibal dinner relationship.
It's really what aberration will be normalized and accepted.

We have gone so far down the road to degredation that it likely won't stop until we have gone to the bottom and some external force comes along and puts a stop to it.

God or the aliens ..who ever gets here first...

 

[flacaltenn]

If there WAS a gene or psych theurapetic "cure" -- it should be openly AVAILABLE for any person to take advantage of..

I've always contended that if being gay was genetic -- you'd have to explain BIsexuality and TRANSsexuality in the same context. After all --- it appears that BIsexuality might be more of a life-style choice since it doesn't come with all the diagnostically useful "symptoms" of gayness.

I would be amazed if a genetically engineered "cure" for gayness does ANYTHING for Bisexuality or cross-dressers..

Just as a bookmark on the OP question.. The DEAF community has a hard-core fraction who HATE the concept of "curing deafness" and have even openly opposed parents choosing to do cochlear implants on their deaf children.. A cure to them --- suggests that they are handicapped..

(Obviously a form of denial that I don't understand) But I will respect their opinion on the matter..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

If I assume people lack free will would I reprogram them? How could I? If I chose to do so would I actually be choosing, or would I be following my programming?

The question appears to be unanswerable unless we assume that the only place we do not have free will is in sexual preferences.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No.

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


.

What would be the point of curing people of cancer, or diabetes? Why do you hate science and progress?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

The assumption here is that it is curable, which eliminates the argument that it is not curable as a reason not to do it.

 

[NLT]

Cure fagism? that is gonna require a big shot in the ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I object to the premise of the OP because it isn't a comprehensive question. Either we have free will, or we don't, there is no way to argue we have free will only part of the time. If we don't have free will we are not capable of choosing to cure anything, if we do we do not need to cure sexual preferences even if science suddenly overturns years of research and proves that there is something we can do to change sexual preference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Thankfully, we do have "cures", or at least treatment for genetic errors. They're not perfect but they're getting better and better.

And, of course, we all want equal treatment, marriage equality for all US citizens as guaranteed by our Constitution.

Why do you keep assuming facts that do not exist? There is no evidence that there is a genetic cause of gender identity delusion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think a better question might be, would gays opt for a cure?

And, I would change the wording to, " ... opt to be changed ..." because the use of the word "cure" implies illness and/or abnormality.

Gays have been ostracized, beaten, harassed and even killed because they threaten the sexuality of the most insecure among us. I can't imagine that any person would choose to be gay but I can't speak for them.

Once again, abnormal does not mean unnatural. It is natural to have cataracts, that does not mean we should not cure them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gay people need to stop saying they were born this way and its not a choice if they do not want people to look for a cure...

They have that freedom to choose and it is in their rights they should just stand on that ground...

This should be the slogan of every LGBT activist in the world.