Ah, OK. No harm done then 
FWIW, no, I wouldn’t take the chemical.
Coldy; Good, I didn’t want to have to come over there and pop you one, or something.
But most folks in wheelchairs WOULD want to change. Its too bad there isn’t a drug that would heal them.
Gay and overweight people aren’t sick or disabled.
At the risk of looking like I’m following Vanilla around the message board, I’d just like to say one thing to the OP:
YES, YES, YES!!!
Okay, that was three things.
sigh
Anyway, speaking of disabled people… Deaf people had to face this exact kind of situation when they invented cochlear implants. Suddenly, people were given a chance not to be Deaf. They stayed away in droves. Why? Because to Deaf people, deafness isn’t a handicap; it’s a phenomenon which connects them to a unique culture. They weren’t interested in cochlear implants for the same reason that Queer people wouldn’t be interested in straight pills - or for the same reason that Black people wouldn’t be interested in having their skin bleached.
Then how do you explain Michael Jackson?
–Tim
If a straight person took the straight shot, would he or she then be ramrod straight? And if a gay person took the gay shot, would he or she then burst into flames?
handy said:
This is definately for another thread, but I can certainly say “YES!” you bet your ass I would. I spend more time and energy seeking relief then you can imagine. I would do almost anything to be fully able again. I don’t think that physical handicaps and homosexuality are even remotely related in the comparison you’re making.
matt, apparently there are many people who Would want to stop being gay.
Does this bother you so much?
SHould we Force them to be gay? Would that be the healthiest for them, psychologically?
Uh-oh
Yeah, if the chemical that was invented would make the fundamentalist Christians…well…more like Christ!
If you mean that I go back to the hetrosexual, white male, Anglo-Saxon, machismo world just so I wouldn’t have to deal with narrowminded Laura “Schlushinger” clones, no I would not.
That would mean I would loose my “heart’s twin” who has made me happier that I’ve ever been! 
I’d hire a whole fleet of crop dusters and start in the most intolerant enclaves, such as my sorry assed neck of the woods! :mad:
Cochlear implants are extremely crude devices (relative to normal hearing ability, anyway) which may explain the non-stampede towards using them. It’s my understanding they can actually be very uncomfortable.
If you could invent a hearing aid that actually fully restored hearing, I would imagine the deaf would be lining up to get it. I realize a lot of people feel very strongly about this, but IMO the opposition to technologies that can reverse disabilities is a bit obsessive; we have here people who have taken “deaf people are people too with rights just like you and I” to a ridiculous extreme that’s logically equivalent to saying paraplegics shouldn’t use wheelchairs. Deafness IS a handicap; it is a condition which prevents a human being from using a fundamental sense.
Someone said, “Let me try to rephrase this question to make it less insulting and more interesting: If there were a chemical to make gay people straight and a different one to make straight people gay, would you try either one of them?”
And a later poster said, “A flamethrower has distinct possibilities in that arena.”
This was so funny to me as it seemed completely unintentional. A flamethrower could be a device that would make straight people gay. hhaahhhahahahhhahahah
Would I use it? Only on Ed Asner never on myself or others. YUM!
HUGS!
Sqrl
SqrlCub - From now on when someone charges up their “flamethrower” over in the pit, it will have a whole new meaning to me. Should make the flame wars much more interesting.
What I don’t understand is, how does your sexual orientation shape your personality? I think that if you fall in love with a person, you should fall in love with their personality, not their genitals. If I fell in love with my friand Mandi, I would be considered gay because I want to spend the rest of my life with her.
I like a certain type of person. If I found a female with the personality I like, the sex of that person shouldn’t affect my decision of wether she/he is the person for me.
I think this is a hijack and I’ll start another thread about this.
sorry
Yeah, let’s find that chemical that makes Christians more Christlike, and spike the water at Liberty, Regent, and Bob Jones Universities, not to mention the 700 Club, the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition!
Hell, I could use a dose myself, most days.
Responding to the OP, my thought is that if Snooopy’s hypothetical chemical were available anytime in life, there are gays that would take it. Why?
For one thing, being gay is clearly difficult, especially in the early going. And others never finish fighting a war between their sexual desires and the demands of their religion or culture - and I’m not just talking about you, Snark; I’m thinking of a young man my wife knows who was raised Southern Baptist, and if that chemical existed, he’d be getting in line for it.
But I think Ashtar made an excellent point:
When you’ve had to struggle to gain self-knowledge of any sort, you’re not going to just toss your hard-won knowledge aside. And shouldn’t: “What does it profit a man to gain the entire world, if it comes at the cost of his true self? Where can he buy that self back?” (Matt. 16:26)
Responding to MaxTheVool’s excellent question, my answer would be no, I wouldn’t give my child that chemical.
This is hardly a knee-jerk liberal sort of response: I may be a more enlightened Christian than some, but I admit to believing that if homosexuality had been part of God’s original plan, He would have made men’s or women’s bodies fit together in a manner more analogous to the way men’s bodies fit together with women’s. I believe that you should be who you are, whether that’s gay or straight, but I honestly believe that being straight is better, everything else being equal. (It doesn’t bother me in the least if you feel otherwise. Just humor this geezer in his biases, ok?)
But I would not step in and play God to make a child of mine, even a child in my wife’s womb, straight. It is not for me (or her) to determine who and what that child may be, and this is most surely a matter of identity. I can’t deprive a child of mine of what may potentially be a part of its being, even if that part of its identity means it may have a tough row to hoe. That child will have to become what s/he becomes, as best as she can, with all the love, and all the help in working through the confusion of growing up, that her parents can give her. But we aren’t going to make her choices for her.
I think it was just for curiosity’s sake.
But I’m happy being straight. I can’t imagine being gay, because, well, I’m NOT. IF I were gay, I have no doubt I would feel that I would not want to be straight, because I was not.
Guinastasia, after all the wordiness of my response, I have to bow to the Zen of your elegant post. 
So youre saying that if it weren’t for religion, people would be able to accept the fact that they are gay and there’s no changing it?
Certainly not all religion.
How exactly, do they come to accept themselves for what they are?
If you were straight, and you could take a chemical to make you gay, would you take it?
“What causes heterosexuality?”
–bumper sticker