Avatar image for saintwildcard
#1 Edited by saintwildcard (19474 posts) - - Show Bio

Lets say one day a pill is invented that you take while pregnant. It assures that the baby comes out without deformities, no asthma, no allergies, lower risks in cancer and no std's will affect it while inside. Every pregnant woman takes it. 20 years later we find out that it has an other effect on the children. There are no more straight kids growing up anymore, and it was never their intention it was an accident, How would the world react? Would it get banned?

And yes I edited it.

Avatar image for allstarsuperman
#2 Edited by AllStarSuperman (37705 posts) - - Show Bio

Um. The real question is how long until the lock?

Online
Avatar image for knightrise
#3 Edited by KnightRise (4811 posts) - - Show Bio

Dude, seriously?

Avatar image for wolverine008
#4 Posted by Wolverine008 (50945 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for rulerofthisuniverse
#5 Posted by RulerOfThisUniverse (6518 posts) - - Show Bio

In before the lock.

Avatar image for cuddlebear
#7 Posted by CuddleBear (1397 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

I doubt it would be banned. Most consumers would keep buying it to have healthy babies, and would be unconvinced that it determines sexual orientation. Some might use it because it determines sexual orientation on top of everything else. It would take a while for the pill to get banned anyway, and in the meantime the only ones who would become LGBT are the ones who chose to be. Most people wouldn't have a problem with the pill.

humans making choices? i dont get it i thought either it was god or dna that controlled us???

Avatar image for gor724
#9 Posted by gor724 (895 posts) - - Show Bio

IN BEFORE THE LOCK

Avatar image for cuddlebear
#10 Posted by CuddleBear (1397 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@cuddlebear said:

@mitran said:

I doubt it would be banned. Most consumers would keep buying it to have healthy babies, and would be unconvinced that it determines sexual orientation. Some might use it because it determines sexual orientation on top of everything else. It would take a while for the pill to get banned anyway, and in the meantime the only ones who would become LGBT are the ones who chose to be. Most people wouldn't have a problem with the pill.

humans making choices? i dont get it i thought either it was god or dna that controlled us???

God doesn't control anyone. I'm not sure what everyone's convinced causes sexual orientation, but it's not like that takes away the fact that a person can still choose to change their orientation - it would just be difficult.

is it really thaaaaaat difficult? i mean its all pretty fun

Avatar image for smoothjammin
#11 Posted by SmoothJammin (2642 posts) - - Show Bio

No thanks.. if it's affecting my child's decision making skills I want no part of it. You accept kids for who they are. This thread disturbs me. Maybe it wasn't your intention but it almost comes off as offensive/insulting.

Avatar image for cuddlebear
#13 Posted by CuddleBear (1397 posts) - - Show Bio

@mitran said:

@cuddlebear said:

@mitran said:

@cuddlebear said:

@mitran said:

I doubt it would be banned. Most consumers would keep buying it to have healthy babies, and would be unconvinced that it determines sexual orientation. Some might use it because it determines sexual orientation on top of everything else. It would take a while for the pill to get banned anyway, and in the meantime the only ones who would become LGBT are the ones who chose to be. Most people wouldn't have a problem with the pill.

humans making choices? i dont get it i thought either it was god or dna that controlled us???

God doesn't control anyone. I'm not sure what everyone's convinced causes sexual orientation, but it's not like that takes away the fact that a person can still choose to change their orientation - it would just be difficult.

is it really thaaaaaat difficult? i mean its all pretty fun

I wouldn't know. I've never tried.

if you didn't know. you better caaaaaaaaaaaaall somebody

Avatar image for tifalockhart
#14 Posted by TifaLockhart (18772 posts) - - Show Bio

I kinda wish a pill existed solely for the sake of my family.

I didn't ask to have Gender Identity Disorder, but I do. And I don't want to hurt anyone but I don't want to live a lie either.

:-(

Avatar image for lady_liberty
#15 Posted by Lady_Liberty (10703 posts) - - Show Bio

If it improved the health of the children I'm sure people would continue to take it. Although I can understand its a sensitive issue, were I going to be a mother I would prioritize the health of my child over political correctness.

Moderator
Avatar image for innervenom123
#16 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29887 posts) - - Show Bio

This thread will end well.

Avatar image for dabee
#17 Posted by Dabee (2421 posts) - - Show Bio

IN

BEFORE

LOCK!!!!

Avatar image for sc
#18 Edited by SC (17258 posts) - - Show Bio

LGBT is a banner term to describe, define and cover attitudes, behavior and actions regarding sexuality and gender thats considered alternative to the traditional perceived norms of select societies. Its a bit like the term TSTV, which is a made up term I just made up now, which would encompass tall, skinny, short and voluptuous people. You can't really stop people from being tall, short, skinny or voluptuous, since its sort of relative and an issue of variety. LGBT is a bit the same, so a pill that has the effect of suppressing behavior, activity and attitudes that may fall under the banner of LGBT is going to end either having significantly greater effects for peoples sexuality, gender and ability to think and live or the effect would be overestimated and people who would fall under the LGBT banner would continue to exist.

This would also effect more than the LGBT community. People thankfully have the ability to demonstrate concern and appreciation and worry for peoples that aren't necessarily in the same communities as themselves. The reaction would be much greater from a much bigger community and it wouldn't necessarily be uniform either. The pill would probably be banned because pills that would have unknown side effects to that degree would be sort of scary, liable to massive public backlash and legal problems, and their may be further negative effects and as nice as its positive effects may sound, it could be stripping people of any sexual drive, ability to procreate, their emotional and psychological abilities, ability to be motivated and so on. If a pill like that existed as well then the designers of it would have kind of screwed up, but would be plenty of intelligent people around that could look at it and its properties and create less intense versions of the pills, sprays, vaccines that work on a lower scale for specific things without the associated risks/problems instead.

Moderator
Avatar image for bumpyboo
#19 Edited by BumpyBoo (13392 posts) - - Show Bio

What I find most disturbing here is not any potential outcome for this hypothetical situation, more the amount of passive aggressive homophobia contained within the question. Whether intentional or not, by presupposing that a pill which wiped out human defects and physical flaws would accidentally wipe out the LGBT community, the question is effectively implying that the two are synonymous and that people who live an LGBT lifestyle are in some way flawed. It suggests that, "put right" we would all be happy, disease free, long living heterosexuals. That being gay or trans is the result of a person going wrong, on some fundamental level. It equates genetic flaws and weaknesses with my sexuality, something that makes me happy, hurts no one, and which I have zero desire to change.

It then puts anyone wishing to defend their lifestyle at a contrived disadvantage, because to choose to be gay is to HARM CHILDREN and condemn the rest of the human race to a future of disease and imperfection. Which brings forth arguments about PC answers, potential for accusations of selfishness and insincerity, plus there is always that undertone of homophobia. "You gays are genetically flawed and unnatural! ADMIT IT!"

Well balls to that.

Moderator
Avatar image for silkyballfro94
#20 Posted by silkyballfro94 (7700 posts) - - Show Bio

Why did a lot of people post in b4 lock? It's a pretty legitimate question.

Avatar image for tifalockhart
#21 Posted by TifaLockhart (18772 posts) - - Show Bio

Probably because it's a sensitive subject.

Avatar image for dragonborn_ct
#22 Edited by Dragonborn_CT (26215 posts) - - Show Bio

@allstarsuperman said:

Um. The real question is how long until the lock?

Well, its a rather sensitive subjective, but the posters have handled well so far.

Avatar image for kuonphobos
#23 Posted by kuonphobos (5191 posts) - - Show Bio

@bumpyboo said:

What I find most disturbing here is not any potential outcome for this hypothetical situation, more the amount of passive aggressive homophobia contained within the question. Whether intentional or not, by presupposing that a pill which wiped out human defects and physical flaws would accidentally wipe out the LGBT community, the question is effectively implying that the two are synonymous and that people who live an LGBT lifestyle are in some way flawed. It suggests that, "put right" we would all be happy, disease free, long living heterosexuals. That being gay or trans is the result of a person going wrong, on some fundamental level. It equates genetic flaws and weaknesses with my sexuality, something that makes me happy, hurts no one, and which I have zero desire to change.

It then puts anyone wishing to defend their lifestyle at a contrived disadvantage, because to choose to be gay is to HARM CHILDREN and condemn the rest of the human race to a future of disease and imperfection. Which brings forth arguments about PC answers, potential for accusations of selfishness and insincerity, plus there is always that undertone of homophobia. "You gays are genetically flawed and unnatural! ADMIT IT!"

Well balls to that.

There are still some who do not believe that homosexuality is the result of biology and others who believe that it is biological but is an anomaly. These people are free to hold these positions just as others are free to believe otherwise.

Keeping this in mind and considering that the question clearly presupposes a biological origin to sexual orientation I don't see any nascent homophobia within the question itself.

Now based upon the posting record of the asker of the question and the source of the humor from which they derived the question I can see how one could draw the conclusion of a passive-aggressive homophobia within the motives of the poster. But I don't see it within the question itself.

Also I don't agree that holding the position that homosexuality is a biological anomaly is the same as the concept of homophobia. It means holding a different understanding of homosexuality and it's origins but doesn't necessarily contain any fear or hatred. It is possible to disagree and have a different understanding of how things work and not hold any fear or animosity.

Just my 2 cents for what it is worth.

Avatar image for deathpoolthet1000
#24 Edited by DeathpooltheT1000 (18985 posts) - - Show Bio
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
#25 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (19685 posts) - - Show Bio

@bumpyboo said:

What I find most disturbing here is not any potential outcome for this hypothetical situation, more the amount of passive aggressive homophobia contained within the question. Whether intentional or not, by presupposing that a pill which wiped out human defects and physical flaws would accidentally wipe out the LGBT community, the question is effectively implying that the two are synonymous and that people who live an LGBT lifestyle are in some way flawed. It suggests that, "put right" we would all be happy, disease free, long living heterosexuals. That being gay or trans is the result of a person going wrong, on some fundamental level. It equates genetic flaws and weaknesses with my sexuality, something that makes me happy, hurts no one, and which I have zero desire to change.

It then puts anyone wishing to defend their lifestyle at a contrived disadvantage, because to choose to be gay is to HARM CHILDREN and condemn the rest of the human race to a future of disease and imperfection. Which brings forth arguments about PC answers, potential for accusations of selfishness and insincerity, plus there is always that undertone of homophobia. "You gays are genetically flawed and unnatural! ADMIT IT!"

Well balls to that.

Exactly. Great point.

Avatar image for bumpyboo
#27 Posted by BumpyBoo (13392 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos: Oh of course, people can believe whatever they like, and I wouldn't want to infringe on that. I can see your point, and agree to some extent, but really almost every difference you could name between one person or another (in terms of things you are born with) can be put down to a genetic variation. I see nothing inherently homophobic in the suggestion that homosexuality is biological in nature, but I DO have a problem with the idea that it is good or bad, and not just different. In the same way a slight genetic difference gives you curly hair or straight, different coloured skin, a big or small nose...these are all determined by genetic factors. My aversion is to the idea that sexuality which deviates from some predetermined, narrow minded "normal standard" is a thing which could or should be cured. My reaction would be the same if the pill caused people to have only white offspring, or anything really which would threaten to homogenise humanity by kneading out quirks and variations.

Moderator
Avatar image for thatguywithheadphones
#28 Posted by thatguywithheadphones (19859 posts) - - Show Bio

*Put on HeadPhones*

Nope.

Soft and Wet

ThatGuyWithHeadPhones

Avatar image for misteranderson
#29 Posted by MisterAnderson (517 posts) - - Show Bio

I would have a case of these pills for bad relationships. "I'm sorry, um, whatever your name is... I think I might be gay/straight/bi/trans."

Avatar image for extremis
#30 Posted by Extremis (3742 posts) - - Show Bio

It would have been more interesting to posit that people would no longer be straight. Then reproduction would become an unwanted yet necessary activity.

Would be interesting to see societal effects. Could we just rely on reproduction to take place normally at replacement level if this happened? Probably not. Interestingly, what if the government mandated reproduction years where people had to contribute to population replacement if they were able?

Avatar image for kgb725
#31 Edited by kgb725 (14277 posts) - - Show Bio

In before the lock

Avatar image for sovereign91001
#32 Posted by Sovereign91001 (7139 posts) - - Show Bio

This'll end well...

Avatar image for russellmania77
#33 Posted by russellmania77 (17603 posts) - - Show Bio

Kkk would have their hands full

Avatar image for jimmie_hudson_
#34 Posted by Jimmie_Hudson_ (300 posts) - - Show Bio