If Stragiht pill existed?

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.

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

Dude, seriously?

In before the lock.

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

IN BEFORE THE LOCK

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

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.

if you didn't know. you better caaaaaaaaaaaaall somebody

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.

:-(

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.

This thread will end well.

IN

BEFORE

LOCK!!!!

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.

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.

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

Probably because it's a sensitive subject.

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

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.

Exactly. Great point.

@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.

*Put on HeadPhones*

Nope.

Soft and Wet

ThatGuyWithHeadPhones

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."

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?

In before the lock

This'll end well...

Kkk would have their hands full

@russellmania77: hahaha, you are a funny one.