Again I’ll ask, if there was a homosexual gene, and it could be taken out to make a homosexuals hetrosexual, would homosexuals want it to be taken out? Of course there are other issues, but I’d like to leave them out, so I’ll say the operation is free, painless, 100% success with no side effects.
Svt4Him, if you had offered me, back in 1992 when I first figured out that I was transsexual, a drug or a surgical procedure or a magic wand to wave, that would have made me a happy, well-adjusted man, I would have said no. That would have been changing who I am too much; I might have been happy but I would not have been me. I would prefer to die than be subjected to that.
Nor would I now voluntarily consent to treatment that would make me not a lesbian. You can’t do it. It’s too much a part of who I am. You can’t take that away without “side effects.” What about my life partner, who I’d no longer be sexually attracted to? I’ve built my life around that relationship, and you want me to throw it away just so I can be normal?
No, this is a no-brainer. You can take your operation and stuff it in the orifice of your choice.
Svt4Him, indeed, I’d feel sorry for anyone that would take you up on that offer.
Let’s suppose, contrariwise, that I could offer you a drug that removed your sexuality entirely from you. No more sexual thoughts, desires, impulses, or sensation. No other effects at all. Would you take it?
What if I offered you a drug that removed your ability to gain pleasure from eating delicious foods? Would you take that?
Please explain your answer, and how it relates to your answer to the anti-homosexuality drug you suggest other people ought to take.
Daniel
25% of homeless teens are gay identified; 50% of THOSE have been KICKED OUT INTO THE STREETS by their family.
33% of teen suicides are gay identified.
Daniel, when I hear how hard it is to be a homosexual, and no one would ever choose to be, it conflicts with your answer, as it would most others. Your own words are "that removed your ability to gain pleasure from " which is a choice. I am diabetic, this is not by choice. I gain no pleasure in it, and if I was given the same option, I would choose health. If I didn’t, then I would be diabetic by choice, which is relevant to the OP.
What if such an operation were available to cut off all sexual attraction? Would that ne a good idea for people who don’t want to have children? Would it be wrong or immoral? I find the concept repugnant in either form. Such a change is too fundamental. Who we love is basic to who we are. Love and sexual attraction is often not convenient, but does that mean Christians can just choose to stop either through some outside agency? The only methods believed to curb sexual attraction, castration and the like, were forbidden to Christians nearly from the beginning. Are you sure this operation would be so very different?
Also, how could anyone who claims to be a servant to Him, think that changing something built in presumably by the very creator you are in servitude to is a good idea? How would that be the act of a faithful servant? I have been told by Christians that those who are dying painful deaths should not kill themselves because everyone must submit to God’s will and purpose. To kill oneself is to despair of His purpose.
Now, if God can have a purpose in letting children suffer painful deaths from cancer, (which could be because of a gene as well) who is to say that He does not have a purpose in building people to be gay? Isn’t that what a true gay gene would mean? How is choosing such an operation submitting to his will? How is that an act of someone who claims to be a servant of the very creator who built them to be gay? I find it far easier to see the hand of God in a way for people to love one another, than I do in children’s suffering.
Svt4Him, why do you believe that nobody would ever choose to be homosexual? I don’t think this is at all true. I think some people would, if given a (hypothetical) free choice between being straight and being gay, would choose to be gay – if you took away all the artificial social stigma of being gay.
Most of the difficulty in being gay is the result of antigay attitudes in society and not something that is inherent in being gay. And most of the people who wish they weren’t gay are making that wish not because they inherently are unable to cope with being gay but because they want to avoid the social penalty (be that externally imposed by society, or internally imposed by religious belief) of being gay.
Do not use the fact that gay men and lesbians are tired of being dumped on for being gay as justification for dumping on them. It’s hard to be gay because some people, most of whom are not gay, insist on making it hard for those who are.
Huh? How is homosexuality like diabetes? That’s utter silliness. And your talk about choices doesn’t make any sense either.
Your post isn’t scoring high on my comprehensibilitiometer. How about instead of dodging the questions, you answer them? Would you take the drug that removed your sexuality?
Lemme ask you something else: if you could take a drug that would remove your disapproval of homosexuals, would you do it?
Daniel
Actually, that’s basically how many pedophiles are treated: they’re often given drugs that stunt their sex drives.
There were also some attempts to “correct” it with brain surgery, back in the day. It was found that there’s no way to alter a person’s sexual responses without destroying their sexual response systems completely – and with deficits in non-sexual functioning as well.
Instead of thinking of it like that try thinking of it as like being straight, except preferring the same sex.
While I’m not qualified to speak for them, I’d hazard a guess that there is nothing hard about being a homosexual. Put a homosexual on a desert island with a mate of his/her choosing and I’d guess their life would be no easier nor harder than a heterosexual in the same position. What I think is difficult is being a homesexual in a society in which a large portion of the population treats them like shit. If you want to fix the problem, maybe you should start by fixing the latter, not the homosexuality.
What if it were found that there’s a gene for homophobia?
Just asking…