Would You?

[roadtripboy]

No. Even if I wanted to and could, people would still assume that I'm gay. Btw, I thought I read that you and your father were actually on 60 Minutes last night. I've had too many antibiotics. *sings* How 'bout getting off of these antibiotics?

No I wouldn't. All the things that make me are are important to me. If I was suddenly not gay I'd be a different person. I like me...I don't want to be some else.

(And yes you have to take ALL the antibiotics for them to work. Sorry...I know it sucks)

 

[Sinestro]

ya you give me a anti-fat injection and I will knock the rest of you bitches out for first in line.


but for a anti-gay shot... no way in hell...


yay for gay

I'm with the phoenix on this one.

 

[BrownBoi89]

No I would never consider taking a drug that would change my sexual orientation.

For those who say that they would NOT do something to change their own sexual orientation, here's a couple of twists on the question:

If you were a parent of a child (who had not yet reached puberty) and the doctors said their tests showed the child had an almost 100% likelihood of growing up to be gay as an adult, and the doctors offered you a treatment (eg gene therapy) that would make the child str8 but only if it were administered at the child's current age, would you have your child treated?

No, because there's nothing wrong with being gay.

Second question:

If you and your partner were expecting a child (eg carried by a surrogate mother who would give you the baby right after the birth) and the doctors told you that their genetic tests performed early during the pregnancy showed that the baby had a close to 100% likelihood of growing up to be gay as an adult, would you want to give up the baby, or to have the pregnancy aborted?




(A version of this question has been explored for a str8 couple in the play and tv movie "Twilight of the Golds" -- I haven't been able to see it though.)

I'd neither give up the baby nor abort the pregnancy. I'd keep the baby because like I said before there's nothing wrong with being gay.

 

[freefall]

Were this question asked to me a year ago, I would answer yes because I'm scared. But now I decline the offer. My sexuality is a part of my self and if even I reject myself, who will accept me for who I am then?

For Unclean's dilemma, 1). Depends on the situation --- like if the child is born on Arabian countries where gays are killed . 2). NO. Not even in a million light year.

 

[Schizosan]

I wouldn't take some shot to change who I am. My orientation is only a small part of me, but it is me.

Also, I don't believe there is a shot that can cure what you are. Deep down, entwined within your soul, you can't deny who you are. Your sexuality is a part of who you are. The fact that doctors waste money focusing on something as small as this baffles me to no belief.

Would I give up the right to sleep with men? Hell no.
Would it be easier to just fit in? Yes, but what would be the point of living if everything was easy?

 

[Titanic]

Actually, with a bit more thought I've decided the complete answer is no.

It's so difficult saying no to Raven.

 

[The_Reaper]

I think this thread idea has popped up once or twice on JUB....

But, that's not important.

My answer, as it was those prior times, is no. However, I would express concern over such a drug existing, given that parents who really have no idea of boundaries or care for their child, could dose their son or daughter against their will with such a drug.

That alone makes it a dangerous thing to think about.

 

[geloge]

This topic was discussed some time ago but I can't find the thread. I'll stick with my answer, not. Most of my problems are not related to sexuality.

 

[Sam Blum]

When they prove that people can be genetically predisposed to becoming interested in their own sex (which they have yet to do), they will still not be able to disprove that socialisation has anything to do with enhancing that prediposition, or even over-riding a genetic predisposition to being interested in the other sex. Certainly I am more than happy being sexually attracted to guys, and so I do not think it is I who needs a 'cure,' rather those with the problem - the homophobes and heterocentrically oriented.

We never know, what if they find bigotry is genetically predetermined? THis is not so unlikely; we are biologically programmed to care more for those closer to our own gene pool, so it's logical that we behave to exclude those we identify as more distantly, less probably related. What if there were a shot to 'cure' people of this exclusionary behaviour, would bigots take it?

 

[asadoyayunta]

Absolutely not. Some of the very best experiences of my life would not have happened, I would not know some amazing people and would have missed visiting some fantastic places had I stayed "straight". (I did try it for a while.)

I just wish I had wholly embraced my sexuality earlier.

 

[3nipples]

There's nothing you can give me to make me straight. You'd have to take away a lot of what I already have to achieve that.

 

[TheFireGod]

I'd rather die than get injected.

I am who I am, anything that would change that is an affront to YOUR God.

If this shit comes, it better come AFTER the cure for cancer or any other disease, or else my hope for humanity is lost.

 

[Deandbn]

No I would not change. I have the most amazing bf and wonderful friends.

I must say however that it does help tremendously now that we have constitutional rights. In other words, it must be very difficult for those arabian and african (e.g. malawi) people who get killed for their sexuality.

btw: very interesting topic OP

 

[gdude30]

Fuck no. I don't wanna deal with straight life. Straights are kinda annoying. And marriage sounds like sexless hell.

Plus life would be boring being straight. Why not add a white picket fence eh?

Being gay is so much better. I just likes men too much. Oh yeah and I ain't giving up the buttsex. Hell no

 

[Jayden]

I still say no!!

 

[operafan]

The only pill or injection I would like to see developed would be to give the homophobic population something that would make them homo-friendly. We are not the problem -- they are.

 

[bankside]

2nd question:
No. Why would a gay parent give up a gay kid for adoption? And why would a gay parent abort his own gay child?

Strangers are no better able to protect a child from homophobia. It makes no sense. It would be like asking Jewish parents if they wanted their kid raised by gentiles or maybe even aborted so it would never experience antisemitism. Or like asking black parents if they wanted their child genetically altered so the child would never experience anti-black racism.

 

[frankfrank]

I also say HELL NO, I'm happy with who and what I am. My answer has changed over the years. When I was 20 I maybe would have said YES, but I was still in the formative stages of my sexuality, I hadn't had very many gay friends yet, my life patteerns hadn't been established yet, etc.

The YES (for earlier in my life) is only a guess, because I'm thinking that the idea of a pregnancy, caused by me, and being co-responsible for raising a kid for a generation, would have been such a paralyzing and horrifying thought that, even when I hadn't accepted my gayness yet, that particular "consequence" of being straight was even far worse.

(Let's just stipulate, for the moment, that there is no proof of the existence of a "gay gene." The research supporting the claim that there is a gay gene(s) is still very weak.
OK )

True, but this entire thread is theoretical and hypothetical. The premise, of course, is that there would be a gene for straightness that could be implanted. In that case, there would likely be a "gayness" gene, and perhaps bisexuals would have both. Though it's science fiction, it is a very interesting question, and a very interesting thread.

Second question:

If you and your partner were expecting a child (eg carried by a surrogate mother who would give you the baby right after the birth) and the doctors told you that their genetic tests performed early during the pregnancy showed that the baby had a close to 100% likelihood of growing up to be gay as an adult, would you want to give up the baby, or to have the pregnancy aborted?

I would still find it interesting to know, from the population of those women or spouses (often Republicans, etc. - and usually religious) who believe that abortion should never be performed even in matters of rape or incest or the health of the mother, WHAT PERCENTAGE of them would have the "gay fetus" aborted? Something tells me the percentage would be very high among that group.

 

[diamondstar]

I wouldn't take a shot to be straight, but I would take one to become 100% Aesexual "The one were U are sexually attracted to nothing". I can never be sexual interested in a women, but if their was a shot I could take to be an aesexual, I would jump at it in a heartbeat.

 

[frankfrank]

The other thing is that you cannot underestimate how drastically life has changed for LGBT people in the past 15-20 years around the world, and especially in the US.

The younguns here have no idea how hard it was in many areas just to get your hands on gay porn. Now that there's easy internet access, everybody takes it for granted.

There were virtually no gay characters on tv or in the movies -- the few that were were very dysfunctional and/or criminal.

Gay sex was illegal, even in the privacy of your own home.

Etc etc

Well, YEAH...that is so entirely true! (I discussed your point in some depth the other day in another thread about How Was Your Life When You Were 18? or whatever it was called...without knowing you were making the point here, LOL.) Thanks for bringing that up, and what you mention certainly has affected us older guys. And you're also right, the younger JUB'bers don't really have much frame of reference for what it used to be like 25, 35, 40 or more years ago.