Gay Sheep For The Chop?

[Lonan3]

SUNDAY TIMES ARTICLE

 

Scientists are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

 

Followed by a line that can only be described as 'classic'

 

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay.

 

So, if you were a parent-to-be, and such a hormone supplement patch was available, would you approve of it being used?

[Albert Tatlock]

Well, a quick Google says that approximately 10% of the world's population is gay. Another Google says that the population of the planet is currently 6 billion and will be around 10 billion by 2050.

 

Perhaps they'd be better giving pregnant women a 'make em gay' patch. Less people = less use of resources = less global warming etc. etc. This would of course best be applied to males only - making those of us who don't happen to be gay males extremely happy indeed. A bonus would be that there will be more competition for breeding males and thus fat birds would be discouraged and there would be a natural fall in obesity levels. Perhaps, with a fall in population, another bonus would be that future breeding rights could be allocated by high IQ instead of by subsidised low IQ like they are mostly today.

 

There again we could just leave things well alone and stop messing about with nature, and learn to be human beings - something that we are not currently very good at.

 

 

 

 

_

[Amadeus]

Perhaps they'd be better giving pregnant women a 'make em gay' patch. Less people = less use of resources = less global warming etc. etc....

Although your planet saving approach towards the issue is interesting, I have to disagree with it in the strongest possible terms - just think of the consequences this idea could have when it comes to what's on the box

 

 

Any more makeover/gardening/other-nonsense shows on telly would definitely be a breach of my human rights...

 

So, NO to engineered gayness - the same goes for cloning, come to think of it - two Linda Barkers? Doesn't bear thinking about..

[Albert Tatlock]

Perhaps they'd be better giving pregnant women a 'make em gay' patch. Less people = less use of resources = less global warming etc. etc....

Although your planet saving approach towards the issue is interesting, I have to disagree with it in the strongest possible terms - just think of the consequences this idea could have when it comes to what's on the box

 

Any more makeover/gardening/other-nonsense shows on telly would definitely be a breach of my human rights...

 

So, NO to engineered gayness - the same goes for cloning, come to think of it - two Linda Barkers? Doesn't bear thinking about..

They wouldn't be around thanks to my high IQ breeding program Reality TV would be in a museum.

[Juan Kerr]

Just think of the terror in the hearts of all those homophobic fathers who force their spouses to opt for these patches, spend the next 18 years playing footie with their macho alpha males, and then get the "Daddy, I'd like to be called Charlotte from now on" line.

 

Nature is a real bastard, you'll never beat it. It just mutates to something else.

[VinnieK]

I'm not sure that this is going to be as big an issue as the article and campaigners make out. Whereas homosexuality in animals can reasonably be assumed to have a biological origin (the dominant and possible sole influence in the lives of animals being biological), human behaviour is subject to the influence of a whole array of secondary social and cultural factors - being able to alter the sexuality of animals via biochemical methods does not then imply that it's possible to do the same with humans.

 

After all, the "nurture vs. nature (vs. something else)" debate regarding human sexuality is still continuing, and we are by now used to the media drawing dodgy conclusions and blowing research into this area out of all proportion. For instance, its now suggested by this article that homosexuality is determined by pre-natal hormone levels, but whatever happened to the so called "gay gene" that was so famous a few years ago?

 

For the sake of argument, if it were possible to medically alter a child's sexuality before birth, I would largely disagree with such efforts being freely made available to the public via state medical service providers, simply because it consumes valuable resources with little obvious benefit to anyone except the parents, and even that benefit is one of choice or preference over neccessity.

 

I'm less sure where I stand when it comes to a privately administered service, however. On the one hand, parents make choices to try and influence how their children turn out all the time, from consuming all manner of supplements and getting up to all manner of wacky shenanigens during pregnancy to throwing snake...I'm sorry.... fish oil extracts down their childrens' throats to make them more intelligent, stronger, or, in the case of pre-natal activities, even influence the gender of their child (including the fundamental act of, consciously or otherwise, choosing a partner for breeding with based on qualities you'd hope your child to have), so in principle it's not inherently unacceptable for parents to try to condition and mould their children according to their own desires. Also, what harm does a successful application of such techniques do to the child being born? They may lead a different life to the one they would have had the technique not been applied, and may even feel resentment or alienation due to being a product of factors that were out of their control, but all humans, born "naturally" or not are subject to such factors, so I feel it's difficult to make a convincing case that the practice would necessarly cause harm to the specific individual.

 

On the other hand, the argument is much broader than the concerns detailed above. Also to be taken into account is how such a technique would alter the status of homosexual people in society. Some have argued that finding a to medically change the sexuality of a child has the effect of stigmatising homosexuality as a condition, flaw, or disease, lowering the status of homosexuals in society and making it harder for them to enjoy all the rights that all people enjoy. In my opinion, this is not so much an argument against such methods being put into practice as it is one for trying to change existing prejudices (or at least not allowing our politicians to pander and give into them). As such, I'm tentatively inclined to condone the private use of such techniques (and thus also in principle), not really approving or disapproving in either case on the basis that it doesn't really hurt society, or the individual being born, and because the wider social concerns for homosexual people themselves are precisely that: matters of society and culture that should be dealt with anyway, regardless of what medical research says the state of medical technology (which I don't believe can legitimately be used to strengthen homophobic attitudes and arguments).

[John Wright]

Why do we want to decrease human or animal diversity. Diversity brings development and advance, cloning brings a standstill. Elimination must have the same result.

 

I can understand disability movement militants being up in arms about elimination or sometimes cure.

 

What worries me is who gets to decide who is to be the minority of the moment to cure. It has the sound of eugenics.

 

Are we going to allow sex choice, all of china chooses boys, I despair sometimes.

 

How many gay men and lesbians want to change because inspite of the difficulties, still, of coming out, growing up gay etc most are hapy with their sexuality and really aren't interested in why?