Political Crossfire Forums

[toddytodd]

Just curious - a question to all the gay people on here:

If there was a non-evasive medical procedure (gene therapy for example) that was 100% guaranteed to make a gay person straight, would you take it?

Why or why not?

[F'losrix]

I answered 'no'. If it had been offered to me in my early teens, my answer might have been different. But at age 43-1/2, I have an established, stable relationship & commitment with a partner who makes me happier than I've ever been. Why would I want to disrupt that, have to go through the business of re-educating family members, etc.?

Life just isn't that simple. Being gay has shaped my life both directly and indirectly in ways it would not have been if I had grown up as a heterosexual. I can't say my life has been all peaches and cream, but it's the life I know and have grown comfortable with. No point in changing it now just to fit in with hateful, intolerant people.

[sparsely]

What type of surgery would end someone choosing to step outside the bounds of what they're "normally" attracted to and having a physical relationship with whoever they choose?
I'm not saying that a propensity toward homosexuality isn't necessarily carried genetically or whatever, I'm just saying it doesn't matter much.
Apparantly there's an "alcoholic" gene, however there are a large number of people who enjoy alcohol that do not carry the gene, and some that do carry the gene who never drink at all.
You can't stop choice, especially when it comes to love.

[toddytodd]

Thanks to those who have thus far answered!

[LostSoul3412]

I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

[toddytodd]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

True
I was also wondering if being gay has been such an issue for people that they would consider 'changing back'.

[StrangerWitCandy]

No.

If I was single I almost certainly would. Only because it is hard to find gay men that I'm actually interested in. I don't like guys who are all about being gay or are heavily active in the gay community (i.e. going to gay clubs nonstop) or just the slutty, shallow, superficial types which seem to be so easy to find.

The kind of guys I like are really hard to find because they aren't out at gay events all the time or really obviously gay somehow. They're just laid back, normal looking/acting folks.

Since I'm not into the super flaming obvious type, or the gay clubbing ass grabbing type, or the gay-this gay-that everything in life is gay type, its always been hard to actually take an interest in someone to another level. Usually I'm attracted to either guys who are straight or guys who are probably straight but I would never know because its so difficult to simply ask them. If you go up to most guys and ask them about their sexuality, you're just asking for trouble. Therefore, its always been very difficult to make any kind of move on anyone I actually like in any way. I've always sort of envied the ability to just go up to someone and spark a conversation without looking like some kind of freak like "OMG WHY THE F*CK IS THAT DUDE TALKING TO ME? I'M NOT GAY!" And since I've never really been the extraverted type anyways, I just never could make that kind of approach to anyone.

If I was straight I would be expected to talk to girls I didn't know very well. It would be normal. No one would think of me as some kind of gay freak. Hell I've gotten more attention from girls my whole life than from any guys, but thats to be expected I guess since most people are straight and its kind of the assumed orientation. Only if I were straight that attention could have actually meant something to me more than just flattering.

But since I found a man I'm extremely happy with and love very much there's no way I'd have that procedure.

And just for clarity, I would never ever change my sexuality to appease intolerance. It would be strictly for the personal reasons I stated above.

[Enoch]

There was a time in my life where I would have answered "yes" without a moment's hesitation. However, after years of struggling with coming to terms with who I am, what it means to be gay, and how my life is going to be different than the life my parents, and indeed myself, had evisioned, I can say that I wouldn't take the opportunity now to be straight.

I am stronger now for what I have had to deal with, and continue to deal with. Being gay is only a small part of who I am, but it is a part nonetheless. To change that would be to change who I am, and that is not something I want to do. I am happy with who I am, and I don't want to change anything about myself. Sure, being gay isn't easy. But, it is the struggles that define us, strengthen us, and make us the people we are.

[sparsely]

UrielsFyre wrote: But, it is the struggles that define us, strengthen us, and make us the people we are.

you can say that again, we are defined by defiance.

[John Galt]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.
Apparently latency isn't in your vocabulary.

I never will understand where people get this ridiculous notion that homosexual = sterile. Homosexuals are capable of reproduction, and they've been doing it for years - just not with each other. (unless you count gay men reproducing with lesbians, of course)

[toddytodd]

John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

Quote: Homosexuals cannot reproduce... Your statements have crossed the border of ignorance, edging into stupidity. But I don't think anyone is actually surprised. Homosexuals as I am sure you know (even though it might not be to your liking) can most certainly reproduce, just as some heterosexual couples can't reproduce. Do you even remember biology? Good grief...
Quote: Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential... As usual, you like to glaze over a point to find something that you can twist and use to your (assumed) advantage. With X-MEN< the whole issue was about being 'different' than the status quo, not blue skin, adamantium skeleton, phasing, etc. There is a bigger picture here John that you are purposefully over looking to try to make one of your 'points'. It isn't even a valid point which we all know. Do you just like to hear yourself talk, is that what it is?
Quote: The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Stupid statement #2. Are you really this dense? Seriously. You have absolutely no understanding of modern society and family. You are assuming that gay people can't and never have reproduced. Wrong...
Quote: If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race Of course it will if people like you have their way. It won't happen, so don't get you hopes up. Human beings as evolving mentally, socially and religiously and your 'back-water' views will soon fall to the way side as they have throughout all of human history.

[toddytodd]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.
Apparently latency isn't in your vocabulary.

I never will understand where people get this ridiculous notion that homosexual = sterile. Homosexuals are capable of reproduction, and they've been doing it for years - just not with each other. (unless you count gay men reproducing with lesbians, of course)

They know they are wrong, but they are hoping that somehow, 'miraculously', their wishes will come true.

[toddytodd]

LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

You are correct. What or who someone is attracted to is not a 'disease' and therefore, does not need a 'cure', contrary to the views or wishful thinking of others.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children. Yeah, and heterosexuals produce gay children.

[Lumina]

UrielsFyre wrote: Yeah, and heterosexuals produce gay children.

LOL, they certainly do!

[connermt]

John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard to date! :lol:
Looks like someone has out done themselves yet again

[Mare Tranquillity]

If I'm not mistaken the point John Galt was making was that IF a fix for genetic homosexuality is found, that probably ALL parents will avail themselves of it to change their gay children into straight children, thus genetic homosexuality as we know it will die out.

His reference to religious people was an acknowledgement that some fundamentalist religious types are so opposed to genetic manipulation that only they will continue to raise homosexual children.

I doubt that such a fix is possible either but it's an interesting question to ponder, thanks toddytodd. As a transgender person I would definitely have taken a "fix" to make my brain and body match when I was younger, but now I've taken the long, painful, expensive medical route to that end and I wouldn't care much to have to undo it and start over again.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children.
Apparently latency isn't in your vocabulary.

I never will understand where people get this ridiculous notion that homosexual = sterile. Homosexuals are capable of reproduction, and they've been doing it for years - just not with each other. (unless you count gay men reproducing with lesbians, of course)

Using this line of thought...

GAY PEOPLE CAN LEGALLY GET MARRIED.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: I didn't vote because I'm heterosexual, but this runs along the same lines as curing mutants in X-Men.

It's not a disease, it doesn't need a cure.

Actually mutations that turn your skin blue ARE determential to your health. If you say, "well in the comic book it's not" remember, it's a fanciful comic book.

The question, however, is not for homosexuals to even answer. Homosexuals cannot reproduce, only heterosexuals can. If said procedure is found, genetic homosexuality will be removed nearly completely from the human race (athough homosexuality of choice will remain). The homosexuals above that answered no will one day die with no one to replace them. Sure, a few may have adopted kids or have kids through unnatural means, but the numbers are against them. The only hope of having gentic homosexuals around is religious fanatics who refuse genetic alterations for their children. Yeah, and heterosexuals produce gay children.

I know. The original poster was asking if gay people would cure themselves. I said it doesn't matter has heterosexuals will cure the homosexual children.

"OK Mr. and Mrs. Smith, it looks like your child will be an althetic superstar, get straight As, have a Mensa IQ, and will be a homosexual. Anything you'd like to change about that? Anyhing at all? Cuz we can change anything you don't like. Anything. Name it. Go ahead."