Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

141 | 142 | 143

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 8

Next

Colin_ORegan

Colin_ORegan

Brooklyn, NY
May 2006

DEC 31, 2006 05:31 PM

As scientists edge closer and closer to understanding the chemistry behind sexual orientation, human rights organizations and politicians are once again faced with difficult questions concerning the social ramifications. Here is an excerpt from the Times Online.

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 developed at Oregon State University, Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes. 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.

Gay activists are up in arms. Their fears are very real, as people speculate science may soon be able to preemptively eliminate homosexuality in newborns during the mother's pregnancy. This could mean nations across the globe which criminalize homosexuality, could breed out the issue rather than address it, or learn toleration.

Martina Navratilova is pissed.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

But the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the “broad question” of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at “curing” homosexuality.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

But the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the “broad question” of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at “curing” homosexuality.

In my opinion, it is unwise to ask scientific research to stop while we flesh out the ethical questions. No one, not even those doing the research themselves, always know where the study will lead, what the results will show. Often times great discoveries are made while researchers are chasing a different goal. When science is making progress asking it to stop because we aren't socially confident enough to address its discoveries robs the world of potential medical breakthroughs and humanitarian miracles.

Here's a crazy hypothetical. What if continuing research helps researchers determine a way to make sterile parents have children?

Obviously the human race is responsible for whatever it discovers, but should we stop looking because we don't think we're grown up enough to deal with what we've found? If doctors discover a way to make homosexuals heterosexual, we are responsible to not use this drug on anyone who does not want to experience its effect. What right does Martina Navratilova have to deny a man who does not want to be gay the choice to decide for himself.

It's scary, but not clear cut. In fact, Professor Roselli believes this research will lead to a society more aware of the causes of sexual orientation and thereby become more sexually tolerant as a whole.

Professor Charles Roselli, the Health and Science University biologist leading the research, defended the project.

He said: “In general, sexuality has been under-studied because of political concerns. People don’t want science looking into what determines sexuality.

“It’s a touchy issue. In fact, several studies have shown that people who believe homosexuality is biologically based are less homophobic than people who think that this orientation is acquired.”


*** Pete_Noir provided the Times source link.

xokatyxo

xokatyxo

United Kingdom
December 2004

DEC 31, 2006 06:16 PM

I hope, while they're searching for the way to straighten sheep, they find a way to breed out bigotry, cruelty, stupidity, political affiliation and religious conviction.

Fingers crossed for those things have a biological basis and scientific cure.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

DEC 31, 2006 06:29 PM

y'know, if you can 'cure' homosexuality, you can probably cause it. if this works, i bet the social implications will be even more extreme--and less draconic--than people think. you'll be able to pop a pill and have gay weekend. or a straight weekend. or a sheep weekend. who knows?

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

DEC 31, 2006 06:29 PM

Does this all still fall under a woman's right to choose? It is after all something growing in her body shouldn't she have the right to determine not only if it survives but other possible outcomes.

noctem

noctem

I'm lost
October 2004

DEC 31, 2006 06:31 PM

I can't help but be completely reminded of X-Men 3. Watch out gay community. Pretty soon the government will be arming soldiers with plastic guns and darts filled with anti-gay serum and they'll wage a war on you.

But Wolverine's got your back wink

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

DEC 31, 2006 06:39 PM

i'd just like to point out that the gay activists who are protesting this research sound a hell of a lot like the fundamentalists who protest non-Christian research.

Pekoe

Pekoe

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

DEC 31, 2006 06:42 PM

I am soooo sick of bigots being able to hide behind the word: Science. I wonder if the author would judge scientific tests that are outright sexist or racist the right to be carried out with no ethical considerations.

This sadden's me greatly! What purpose does this serve? AND how much money is being spent that could be spent on more important causes. mad

PatrickY

PatrickY

Vancouver, WA
December 2003

DEC 31, 2006 06:50 PM

Pekoe said:
I am soooo sick of bigots being able to hide behind the word: Science. I wonder if the author would judge scientific tests that are outright sexist or racist the right to be carried out with no ethical considerations.

This sadden's me greatly! What purpose does this serve? AND how much money is being spent that could be spent on more important causes. mad



I would imagine the purpose is to determine the extent to which hormones and/or other chemicals in our biological soup have a role in determining sexuality.

Given the disagreement over whether homosexuality is a choice or not still influences public policy, it seems shortsighted to condemn this particular bit of research as pointless, and/or homophobic.

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

DEC 31, 2006 06:50 PM

Pekoe said:
I am soooo sick of bigots being able to hide behind the word: Science. I wonder if the author would judge scientific tests that are outright sexist or racist the right to be carried out with no ethical considerations.

This sadden's me greatly! What purpose does this serve? AND how much money is being spent that could be spent on more important causes. mad


The same purpose all science serves which is knowing why things are the way they are. To claim this study is wrong because you don't like the possible future implications is just as outrageous as opposing stem cell or cloning research.

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

DEC 31, 2006 06:57 PM

i don't think anyone is 'hiding behind' science. i think that if you read what the actual researchers say, rather than what all the activists are blathering about, you'll find that the experiments are an exploration of sexuality rather than an attempt to eradicate homosexuality.

hadees said:
To claim this study is wrong because you don't like the possible future implications is just as outrageous as opposing stem cell or cloning research.


or as outrageous as trying to teach Creationism in public schools, or trying to keep books that state that the Grand Canyon was created during the flood of Noah, rather than by natural forces. i guess Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on unreasoning zealotry.

quagmirething

quagmirething

I'm lost
June 2005

DEC 31, 2006 07:05 PM

It seems to me that there's an interesting parallel with the deaf community. The more militant branch there feels threatened by medical science, some arguing for children to be left deaf 'til they reach the age of 18 and can make their own decisions. It seems to me that leaving a child to grow up deaf is crossing the line of doing harm, although some wouldn't.

I would hope that making a child straight, or gay, wouldn't be seen as doing harm, because being either is fine. The ideal would be to have a society where these options are available but rarely used. Although not easily available in the west, gender selection isn't a problem as people are mostly happy whatever. Things get ugly when people want more than happy and healthy children.

Maddigan

Maddigan

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

DEC 31, 2006 07:07 PM

Wait; you cited the Times article as saying that pregnant mothers could "reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual." Then you say that this would only conceivably be used on people who sign up for it.

Fetuses consent?

Edited to say that I don't say this with any regard to the abortion debate, and a woman's right to choose what's going on down there; I mean that if she's hypothetically taking these hormones, she intends the fetus to be born and it is this fetus which will, again, hypothetically, live out its life as orientationally altered...

I'm still leaving this open to way too many arguments, aren't I?

Or maybe I'm just being argumentative again?

Or maybe I should stop using the question mark symbol?

euphoric_hell

euphoric_hell

Twin Falls, ID
December 2004

DEC 31, 2006 07:10 PM

hadees said:
Does this all still fall under a woman's right to choose? It is after all something growing in her body shouldn't she have the right to determine not only if it survives but other possible outcomes.



I was kinda thinking the same thing. I don't really see the reason why people are afraid of this. In countries where being gay is a "crime" it offers an alternative to at least stay alive. I know it could then be deemed torture by changing someone's sexuality but I would rather someone turn me gay then kill me for it. Does that make sense? :S

IMO I hope they continue the research in all areas even if it cures me of being straight, gay, male, or from being hairy.

Dragonflye

Dragonflye

Australia
January 2005

DEC 31, 2006 07:20 PM

It doesnt say the sheep goes straight, it says it becomes more inclined to have sex with the opposite gender where it was inclined to have sex with the same gender.....It doesnt claim to STOP the ram wanting some same sex action wink
SOOOO typical of you binary thinkers to leap into the two camps of gay and straight across the divide and forget about us bisexuals....
If this proves to be a cure for monosexuality then im all for dosing everyone at birth, make the whole world bi and stop all the argument dead in its tracks.....tongue


seriously tho, as a dairy farmer I see fantastic applications for being able to switch on and off a bulls hetrosexual urges......We often come across highly bred "gay" bulls who simply end up going to macdonalds.
I might mention here tho, that in my experience, I have never encountered an entirely gay bull, nor heard of one. for a farmer a "gay" bull would be simply a poor performing one who more than half the time prefers other bulls over cows, they still , even occasionally get some hetro nookie tongue

tadkil

tadkil

Duluth, GA
September 2004

DEC 31, 2006 07:25 PM

Bloody freaking hell.

Why bother?

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

DEC 31, 2006 07:32 PM

Maddigan said:
Then you say that this would only conceivably be used on people who sign up for it.

Fetuses consent?


see, that's the sharp flipside of a woman's right to choose. i know there are people who will say that a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion, but not the right to determine her child's sexual orientation. i think these people are basically stupid.

i'm not disparaging a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. i'm pro-choice. but i think anyone who says that it's okay to kill your unborn kid, but that it's not okay to make him straight (or gay), is incredibly delusional.

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

DEC 31, 2006 07:47 PM

motorfirebox said:

Maddigan said:
Then you say that this would only conceivably be used on people who sign up for it.

Fetuses consent?


see, that's the sharp backside of a woman's right to choose. i know there are people who will say that a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion, but not the right to determine her child's sexual orientation. i think these people are basically stupid.

i'm not disparaging a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. i'm pro-choice. but i think anyone who says that it's okay to kill your unborn kid, but that it's not okay to make him straight (or gay), is incredibly delusional.


I would even take it a step further. I think anyone who says a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion but are against other personal choices about what a person can do with your body like prostitution or drugs have two conflicting views on essentially the same issue.

zgrat

zgrat

Los Angeles, CA
September 2003

DEC 31, 2006 08:16 PM

gay sheep? are they fucking serious? surreal

KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Qatar
January 2005

DEC 31, 2006 08:19 PM

I'm more worried about the gay Llamas.

Necia

Necia

San Francisco, CA
August 2005

DEC 31, 2006 08:22 PM

Pekoe said:
What purpose does this serve? AND how much money is being spent that could be spent on more important causes. mad



That's kind of my thought. Like, really, Science? Are you done with AIDS and cancer and just haven't told us yet or something?

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

DEC 31, 2006 08:28 PM

and what was your most recent contribution to the global unification of scientific enterprise towards solving Earth's most pressing problems? i think it's hypocritical to criticize someone for not doing something you're not willing to do yourself.

Pekoe

Pekoe

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

DEC 31, 2006 08:29 PM

Just a few more thought's after reading responces to my post:

-If it's a choice or not (or something in between) should not influence public policy.

-I'm not saying the research should be stoped (By the way I'm not into banning and I never said that should be done, so don't put words in my mouth, thank you very much). However I believe doing research like this without addressing future ramifications is unethical. AND I question why they did this research (therefore, I will read more about it, outside of the above article).

-Why don't we spend lot's of money doing research on the gene that makes some people prefer apples and others oranges. I must know. It will teach us a lot about fruits.

-Sorry that having the potential to erradicate (or bend) certain parts of the population(that I am apart of) scares me. Guess I should take a chill pill, but science without ethics and philosphy, again, scares me.



kiss

motorfirebox

motorfirebox

Pittsburgh, PA
March 2004

DEC 31, 2006 08:42 PM

reasonable enough, Pekoe.

Necia

Necia

San Francisco, CA
August 2005

DEC 31, 2006 08:43 PM

motorfirebox said:
and what was your most recent contribution to the global unification of scientific enterprise towards solving Earth's most pressing problems? if you yourself aren't helping science advance in important areas, i think it's hypocritical to criticize scientists for not doing the same.



What was my last contribution to modern science? Nothing, really. I'm not a fucking scientist. Do you limit your opinions solely to the areas in which you've made notable changes and advanced a global cause?

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

DEC 31, 2006 09:02 PM

motorfirebox said:
i'd just like to point out that the gay activists who are protesting this research sound a hell of a lot like the fundamentalists who protest non-Christian research.


Why? Because they are happy with who they are and don't agree with a chemically-induced sexual orientation that is essentially unnatural for the victim...er.....baby?

motorfirebox said:
and what was your most recent contribution to the global unification of scientific enterprise towards solving Earth's most pressing problems?


If you think homosexuality is one of the Earth's most pressing problems, you are quite delusional.

Fuck, you'd think they'd work on breeding out racism, stupidity, and intolerance first.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 8

Next