Hypothetical question - "Cure" for homosexuality

[Reality]

Okay, this is entirely hypothetical/theoretical and is more about the morality of it, rather than factuality (I really doubt such thing even can be made). If some scientist discovered some special kind of hormone or micro-organism or whatever that could be administered to all homosexuals and bisexuals to turn them straight, and it was 100% effective, should such "cure" be given to them?

If not in the form of a medicine or pill, than in the form of some highly effective training or therapy. Whatever.

Would it be right or wrong? Should it be encouraged, or even forced or not?

[sebbie]

If there was, it would be up to personal choice, just like some people who are terminally ill would refuse to take medication.

[Bougainvillea]

Eh, they need to accept the person for who they really are.

So, no.

[Camazotz]

You'd be alternating nature, but if someone would want the cure, it should be made available. However, it shouldn't be forced on them.

[Bougainvillea]

You'd be alternating nature, but if someone would want the cure, it should be made available. However, it shouldn't be forced on them.

Yeah.
Matt's right.

[quartermaster]

You'd be alternating nature, but if someone would want the cure, it should be made available. However, it shouldn't be forced on them.

If that were truly the case, could it not then be argued that anti-depressants are an example of alternating (altering, I assume is what you meant) nature (that is assuming, of course, that it is some sort of imbalance etc.)? If it is proven that homosexuality can be altered or “cured” and is, in turn, deemed unnatural, would it not be prudent to treat it as any other "disorder?" Of course, not forced upon anyone, but certainly doctor prescribed and treated as depression, or what have you. Should this be so much of a “taboo” or moral issue if it is, indeed, something that could be “cured?” I’m not attacking you, I'm just simply thinking out loud…

The backlash would be great, no doubt, as it would shift our understanding of what sexuality is, and how truly natural homosexuality is, as it were. This issue is actually quite reminiscent of many blind individuals that feel insulted when scientists and doctors speak of curing blindness. Many of the blind felt that blindness was not something that needed to be cured, and were insulted at the “pretense” of it. Of course, most agree that a cure for blindness would also be great, but many blind do not see it as a disorder, because it is so natural to them (which is quite curious within itself). In this case, could homosexuality be such an issue? Who knows? It is all quite fascinating, actually.

[Hyper]

I imagine if there was a cure.. Somehow over a generation or two both sexualities would become fully accepted as choices.....

[Death]

I think that if such a 'cure' were to be invented, it should be something that people may use if they wish. No-one should be forced to use it or be prohibited from using it.

[YourFriend]

Such thing should never exist. Let people be what they are, not what they want to be or what some1 else makes them be.

[wisse2012]

i do not belive it should be forced but if you wanted to be straight well let them

[Sage]

Such thing should never exist. Let people be what they are, not what they want to be or what some1 else makes them be.

Why shouldn't people allowed to be what they want?

[INFERNO]

If such a thing exists, then it should be like other medical procedures: you give your consent to it. Homosexuality isn't a lethal "disorder" in any respect. If you have a disorder due to some homosexual acts, then that's a completely different story.

[Sapphire]

I, for one, would protest and fight against such a thing.
There is nothing wrong with bisexuals or homosexuals and so there is nothing to cure.

I imagine that if such a thing were created then things would pretty much play out like in X-Men: The Last Stand - heterosexuals wanting people to get it so they can be "cured" and the bisexuals and homosexuals would be split with some being offended by the very principle fighting against it and others accepting it as a voluntary measure for those who want it.

[The Joker]

If that were truly the case, could it not then be argued that anti-depressants are an example of alternating (altering, I assume is what you meant) nature (that is assuming, of course, that it is some sort of imbalance etc.)? If it is proven that homosexuality can be altered or “cured” and is, in turn, deemed unnatural, would it not be prudent to treat it as any other "disorder?" Of course, not forced upon anyone, but certainly doctor prescribed and treated as depression, or what have you. Should this be so much of a “taboo” or moral issue if it is, indeed, something that could be “cured?” I’m not attacking you, I'm just simply thinking out loud…

The backlash would be great, no doubt, as it would shift our understanding of what sexuality is, and how truly natural homosexuality is, as it were. This issue is actually quite reminiscent of many blind individuals that feel insulted when scientists and doctors speak of curing blindness. Many of the blind felt that blindness was not something that needed to be cured, and were insulted at the “pretense” of it. Of course, most agree that a cure for blindness would also be great, but many blind do not see it as a disorder, because it is so natural to them (which is quite curious within itself). In this case, could homosexuality be such an issue? Who knows? It is all quite fascinating, actually.

He said that if they want it, then it's OK. If they want the anti-depressants, than it's OK.

[quartermaster]

He said that if they want it, then it's OK. If they want the anti-depressants, than it's OK.
Yes, I acknowledged that within my post, I was addressing the "alternating" (altering) of nature position within his post. Drawing to question of whether it would truly be altering nature, or were we simply finding a "cure" for a defect (similar to the issue of depression).