If anyone saw the play Twilight of the Golds by Jonathon Tolins, they saw a play about what would happen if parents had an in utero test to determine if a child were gay. In the play, it was just a supposition. A new study puts this choice potentially in the tangible world:
…the techniques could one day be adapted for human use, with doctors perhaps being able to offer parents pre-natal tests to determine the likely sexuality of offspring or a hormonal treatment to change the orientation of a child.
That excerpt is from an article in Britain’s The Sunday Times. The article, entitled Science told: hands off gay sheep; Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger opened as follows:
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 is being accomplished here in the United States at Oregon State University.
The article highlights that Martina Navratilova and gay rights campaigners in Britain want the program to be discontinued.
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.
The social implications…What would the world look like if your parents knew everything about *you* before *you* were born?
If, as the article suggests, one could possibly be “cured” of homosexuality with a hormone shot in utero, would *you* have wanted your parents to give *you* that shot? You wouldn’t have had a choice. And, in the present most ex-gay and ex-gay affirming organizations argue against a biological connection to being gay — if there were an in utero “cure,” how would their tune change?
Perhaps an even more disturbing thought would be what would happen if scientists develop a test but can’t develop a “cure?” J. Michael Bailey, Ph.D. (with Aaron Greenberg) argued that screening for and aborting gay fetuses is “morally acceptable” and a matter of parental rights.
So on a personal level if your parents had this test available to them and knew *you* were going to be going to grow up gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or intersexed, would *LGBTI you* even be here?
These are all interesting questions that may be real choices for parents and real issues for ex-gay/ex-gay affirming organizations in the relatively near future.
And by the way, in the play Twilight of the Golds, the fictional parents aborted the gay child. Whether via in utero hormone shots or by abortion — I think the writers of the play got it right. I believe there’ll be fewer LGBTI folk in the future if parents were able to find out we were coming before we were born. I may live to see the day that belief is tested.
*****January 9, 2006 Update*****
Holy cow Batman! This story, in how it was reported in the Sunday Times, has taken a b(l)eating! Commenter Kendall pointed out that Andrew Sullivan (on his popular blog) has posted communication from the Oregon research team which refutes the points made in the Sunday Times.
It’s so interesting — the implications on this as reported by the Sunday Times article are extremely significant, but the problem with the conclusions drawn in the article may be may be found in apparently flawed Sunday Times reporting of the basic facts. So much for mainstream journalism on this story!
Hmmm… would my parents have chosen to ‘cure’ me (and my gay and bi brothers) through drug therapy? Very possibly. Do I wish they could have done so? No Way. This is very scary stuff.
Interestingly, if enough rams are born gay for it to pose a financial loss does this not quite obviously demonstrate that being gay is, well, natural?
This one is a tough one. If (and I suspect it’s a huge IF), the research was to turn up a “prevention”, the ethics around the use of that preventative are very complex indeed. (And it may well be considered unethical to use at all)
However, on the other side of the coin, I do not want to see research into sexuality and gender identity squashed flat based on a fear that the knowledge could be misused.
It’s a tough balance for sure.
I find this whole possiblity disgusting. These scientists are playing God. I’m against human cloning on moral grounds just as much as the future possiblity of making an unborn gay fetus into a straight one. This is just morally wrong. I’ve never been a vocal activist before but this would be one issue that would make me go out and protest.
As for the ex-gay and ex-gay affirming organizations I believe most of them would welcome some sort of cure. Of course they would have to finally admit that there is some biological connection to being gay. But that can be easily remedied by admitting their mistake and then making the cure available to expecting parents if need be.
It will be interesting how many anti-abortionists would accept aborting a gay fetus as the lesser of two evils. The Catholic Church would be against it. They hold the belief in respecting life from conception to death. They are at least consistent in protecting life.
The question is equally poignant, it seems to me, in the context of parents who want a gay child. Should research dollars go to identifying and/or forcing a person’s characteristics before they are born?
It strikes me as short-sighted for the anyone to assume that orientation is binary, or that it has a unitary cause which can be switched on or off.
I was foreordained in my pre-existence to being gay in this mortal life. Do not mess with God’s plan!
(Benjamin will know what I mean…it’s a Mormon thing.)
This isn’t quite the Twilight of the Golds scenario. After all…this is being done on rams for agra-business. They’re not going to want to spend money to test every ram fetus. They’re going to develop something that farmers can just give to all their pregnant ewes on a routine basis so they have no more “dud studs”.
So what I’m reading about the sheep experiments, is that they’re leading to a future where there might be a treatment…call it a preventive treatment…that women can take to preclude the possibility that their children might be homosexual.
That’s an important distinction. It isn’t that they have a test to show that an unborn child may be gay. It isn’t that they can cure that child in the womb once they know (or abort it). It’s that the mother is taking something akin to a vaccine, to prevent something she regards as a disease. They don’t have to test the kid. Mothers just take this treatment and they won’t have any gay babies. Period.
If it comes to that, then the point is no one can ever know one way or the other whether any individual kid was changed by it. All anyone can say is that none of the children of mothers who take this treatment ever show signs of homosexuality.
Call it, eradication without guilt. If they don’t know that they actually changed their kid, then the parents can feel they’re not responsible, at least in their own minds, for tampering with their kid’s sexual orientation. They don’t know for sure that they did. Uncertainty is absolution. Or absolution enough.
But all technology is a double-edged sword. There may be…side effects. I wonder how many kids will grow up to be hyper-aggressive and violent because of such a treatment. But then, perhaps a violent culture might regard that as a net plus too…
For whom is this trait, being gay…undesirable?
That is THE key issue here.
And to what ends, other than no more gay people, is such an eradication to do?
Improve our lives as a human race?
Unlike Downs Syndrome, sickle cell or dwarfism…homosexuality has no physical defects, painful disorders or mental incompetence to foreshadow a child’s quality of life.
The quality of life is also determined by that individual child’s physical aspects, and nothing more.
Where is the burden of physical or mental incompetence associated with other disorders?
Where is the financial and other attendant responsibilities that occur with youngsters who are retarded, or plagued with disease?
The necessity to eradicate such problems is evident and crucial.
There is no social prejudice attached so much to these issues, as there are with being gay.
Gay and lesbian children have the POTENTIAL of brilliance, physical dexterity and prowess as well as any other creative or mental intelligence to accomplish a great deal…but for social prejudice that restricts open access to everything a straight child would have.
When the prejudice is the restricting factor, HOW would this improve the understanding or information about gay people required gainful to everyone?
The ex gay or anti gay movement cannot make up it’s mind about the origins of homosexuality.
Nor does the prevailing evidence make a dent in their objective: which is to maintain whatever fiction about the merits of heterosexuality, without the proof or evidence that heterosexuality is an improvement on anything.
It only creates a shield from social prejudice, but no other emotional or mental improvements.
Straight people and ex gays are not called on the efficacy or NECESSITY of their efforts.
Straight people suffer no ill effects from gay people.
And gay people WOULDN’T but not for prejudice.
So…why should prejudice and misunderstanding drive biological experiment like this?
Ex gays and the anti gay balk at the social experiments like school supportive clubs, marriage and parenting and full integration into the professions of choice for gay people.
The social experiment BY FAR, is the most important for reaching a conclusion, a fair and complete understanding.
Experimenting in the biomedical way, before the social impact is fully exercised is exactly why such a thing WOULD smack of eugenics.
The social good of gay people isn’t a theory.
And I think that’s what affronts the anti gay most of all.
That success and overcoming prejudice, however in small increments-must prompt what will happen with the sheep.
THAT is how one can measure how evil that purpose is.
There is no reason to hate gay people.
None at all.
But to hate the potentially unborn gay person and eradicate this feature of them, is truly shameful and beyond tragic for the gift diversity of human lives we have.
PETA’s big lie:
Just so you know. The false suggestion that the research is aimed at curing homosexuality was made by PETA. Yes, the animal rights group.
Of course PETA has their own motives for receiving press on this story. In fact, PETA heavily edited quotes by the researchers and even fabricated information to generate press coverage. Many weeks ago, a writer in the states looked into PETA false claims. Here’s what he found:
https://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/peta_crosses_th.html
Unlike many gay people, I don’t have an issue about the “moral” aspect of eliminating homosexuality from existence. While I don’t view homosexuality as undesireable, I also don’t think that it would be unethical to take a hormone that would ensure the heterosexuality of your children. Frankly, I think that morals and ethics are in relation to how you treat those around you and are not relevant to involuntary orientation.
That having been said, however, I question the wisdom of such a program. It seems that homosexuality has been in existence for as long as there has been recorded history and in every culture. It seems to me that this suggests some necessity which was filled – either by God’s divine plan or by the intricasies of long-term evolution – and which would be lacking should gay people no longer exist.
I agree that Bruce’s warning about a hyper-aggresive and violent society might be a result of hormonal tampering.
But I would go further. Even if there were no change in aggression, would the world be a better place without gay people – or perhaps a lesser one?
I think that if one looks historically at the contributions of people that are believed to be homosexual (as best one can tell), it would appear that contributions have been made by gay people far in excess of that which could be expected by the law of averages.
If one were to make a listing of the people in history who “mattered” – those who made such a world-changing contribution to science, politics, theology, culture or other such things – far more than 3-5% of them can be identified as gay.
Is it the fact that they were same-sex attracted that in some way made them more receptive to original thought? Is it the physical brain differences that also result in homosexuality that made the difference? We cannot know. But there is an undeniable correlation. It is fairly safe to claim that the world would not be better off without the contributions of certain same-sex attracted people.
Would there be a “Western Society” without Socrates, Aristotle or Alexander the Great? Would our understanding of the world around us be the same without the observations of Da Vinci or Isaac Newton? Would our sense of beauty, structure and form be the same without Michealangelo? Would I even be typing on a computer without Alan Turing? And the list from politics, literature, art, music, dance, and theater is so vast ranging from Shakespear to Haring that it is fair to say without question that our culture would not be the same without the contributions of those who were exclusively, primarily, or at least somewhat attracted to the same sex.
It can be claimed that those on the list cannot be confirmed and that it’s just wishful thinking on the part of “militant homosexual activists”. No one can “prove” at this point that Isaac Newton or Abraham Lincoln were homosexually inclined. But enough people on the list can be shown to have had same-sex partners that the removal of a name or two hardly diminishes the contributions that have been made by people who would today be called “gay”.
It can be argued that this is just coincidental. Or that the discoveries and thoughts would eventually be made by others. Perhaps without Da Vinci some other painter would have begun the systematic study of the body, resulting in today’s medical knowledge. Perhaps someone else would have hypothesized gravity as a pull of mass and the Socratic Method would go by another name. Perhaps without same-sex attracted people the world would be just the same – or better.
But as we approach global warming, over-population, spacial expansion, the challenges of religious extremism, despots with nuclear weapons, and a host of other risks we cannot predict, is that a risk we want to take? Do we really want – for the sake of conformity – to eliminate that segment of society with a proven record of overacheivement and original thought?
The problem with worrying about that, in my experience, the most anti-gay-ers believe homosexuality is a choice, and that, because of their vast moral superiority to us, their kids would never turn out gay.
I don’t see any HMO covering any medication or testing for homosexuality, so it will be something only the rich could indulge on.
I would never change me. And my parents, being who they are, would not have such a test done if available. That said, there are so many gay people who hate themselves. Although it may make things harder on the rest of us, I have to say that if you can change your kids and feel you need to do so, go for it.
My problem is that too often things happen, side effects, long term problems, etc. that helpful minded people didn’t expect. Some conspiracy theory people think that AIDS was a “Cure” gone wrong. Possible? Yes. Probable? No. But still…
The thing is, your child is your child. I have three. I wouldn’t want them to be gay, simply because of what I went through as a teen. If I had the option to stop them, in utero from being gay…I just don’t know.
I’ve done some hunting on the web after reading newmanj’s comment. Apparently, the identical comment is inserted in any blog that mentions the “gay sheep” study — The commenter used the Oregon Health And Science University domain to make the posts, and Oregon Health and Science University is one of the two universities involved in the “gay sheep” study. The commenter is using the Google Blog Search keywords of gay sheep to find the blogs mentioning the study. [Thank you sitemeter on The View From (Ab)Normal Heights!]
The article newmanj’s comment links to is a blog commentary, and is entitled: PETA crosses the line.
PETA crosses the line has a three-paragraph quote by Charles Roselli, a biologist at Oregon Health & Science University.
Now, with this all said, the fact that PETA may have pointed out the study in a manner that fits their agenda, it doesn’t take away from the human possibilities for this research. Roselli in the above mentioned article was quoted as saying:
It may be that newmanj thinks LGBTI people are overreacting to the Oregon study, but the reality is that this study has if nothing else some significant eugenics implications.
I could see this “experiment” being used for the purpose of producing sheep that will mate because of the loss of production to farmers (a healthy ram who will not mate with a ewe) but not for any other reason. I think it is totally wrong to even think that such an experiment should be used on humans. Can you imagine some sort of experiment to see if black people could have white babies, etc? Nature is about diversity. You see it in Wilderness and in all places untouched by the hand of humans. It seems that all humans do in these cases is screw things up (as usual) and the long term implications sometimes are devastating. Take a look at global warming and how we have botched up the environment. We also are so overpopulated as a human species that this planet can hardly handle the stress. Now they want to make all of us more apt to breed and have more and more kids.
“The thing is, your child is your child. I have three. I wouldn’t want them to be gay, simply because of what I went through as a teen. If I had the option to stop them, in utero from being gay…I just don’t know.”
I think this is part of the problem with this whole debate. Many people say they don’t want their child to be gay because they know gay people suffer, or they themselves are gay and they suffered. If that’s the case, then why even fight for gay rights? Why not just say, “Things were bad for me, and they’ll never get any better, so why bother”? Can you imagine where gays would be right now in America if previous generations of GLBT people had chosen that way of thinking?
I knew straight kids who were still tormented day in and day out. Being straight doesn’t mean you have an easier life. Should we interfere in such a huge way in our child’s life, solely because of what we think might make them feel better? This wouldn’t be like reminding them not to cross the street without looking both ways. This would be genetic manipulation that could have devastating side effects. Let’s say I had a child, and I decided to make that child straight. Then my child lives in crippling pain, if he lives at all, because of what I did to him with these hormone shots. Or even if that doesn’t happen, if my child grows up to be a failure, then I would always ask myself if my need to “help” him by giving him these hormones was one of the reasons why.
We have worked so hard to convince people that homosexuality is not a disorder or a sickness. We can’t backslide on that now. I’m not sick. My life is not worse because I’m gay. There’s a reason why so many people who think that their life will be great if they just stop being gay end up having major problems with eating, or substance abuse. The problems go far beyond homosexuality. They are from self-hatred. The self-hatred caused by society. That will always be there, even if homosexuals all cease to exist.
“It may be that newmanj thinks LGBTI people are overreacting to the Oregon study, but the reality is that this study has if nothing else some significant eugenics implications.”
I think what he’s saying is not that there are no implications, but that the implications are being wildly overplayed and have little to do with the study. I think that is true, to a degree. Reading the London Times article, the actual researchers on the study have little to say. The part about how this will work on humans soon is just assumed by the people who wrote the article. Then they included that quote from Michael Bailey, to try to make it seem like this is a widespread view in the scientific community, but they don’t bother to mention just how far out there Bailey is in his views, how he has worked doggedly to push stereotypes against gays, trans, and bi people, and his support for eugenics. The article goes out of its way to make as much as possible out of as little as possible. It’s sensationalistic crap.
It’s sensationalistic crap.
I quite agree.
“scientists are”
“critics say”
“experts fear”
The article is not much more than an anti-American, anti-science diatribe of fear.
But the subject matter is worth discussing.
Mike Ensly has commented on initial story in the Exodus Live Out Loud blog. Excerpt:
It appears that the true distillation of the gay activist’s platform is this
It’s becoming more common to hear activists say
these extremists react so strongly
the absolute hypocrisy of these activists
Honestly, Ensley writes like a child. In that one small snippet we have four references to sources which don’t exist or at least are not referenced so we can verify what he says “they” are saying. It’s easy to make your point when you are the one on both sides of the debate.
One wonders if Exodus has even the most rudimentary protections against false information being given to youth in their sphere of influence. It’s beginning to look like the ends justify the means for them, any means.
Mike Ensley wrote:
Whether there is a path to freedom from homosexuality through relational growth and counseling or even medical/hormonal treatment, they’re against it. Why can’t they accept the possibility of a choice?
The same can be said for the reverse possiblity. What if a couple wanted their child to be gay? What if they took medical treatments to make positively sure that their child was going to be gay once it was born? Would Mike Ensley, Exodus, and ex-gay affirming organizations be so welcoming for a medical choice for that expecting couple or any expecting couple that was offered that choice? I think not.
Mike Ensley says “The fact is, nobody wants to be gay.”.
That’s absurd. At one time I didn’t want to be attracted to men, but I’ve fallen in love with the most wonderful man. I wouldn’t want anything to change that for the world, and I’m sure all gays in love feel exactly the same way.
Ensley also says “Another point this brings up is the absolute hypocrisy of these activists who, while condemning any remote possibility of “treating” homosexuality medically or psychologically, support and celebrate drug treatments and even surgery aimed at changing the gender of confused adolescents and children.”
The difference is that if it weren’t for the stigmatization, rejection, and prejudice of society one can be perfectly happy being gay and there is no one desire to change that for oneself but only a desire to change it merely to please others. Contrary to that being stuck in the wrong body is an internal impediment to one’s happiness and this is a change that one does to please oneself and not others.
Ken R wrote: “It will be interesting how many anti-abortionists would accept aborting a gay fetus as the lesser of two evils.”
If you mean pro-LIFE Christian activists, then I know that the answer would be that they would choose life…no matter if the baby would be born and grow up to be homosexual.
In fact, during the “gay gene” craze (despite science negating such a thing) there was an article (trying to find it) that I read where pro-life activists and homosexuals literally joined forces in the future protection of fetuses, regardless if a so-called “gay gene” was found. Both parties were geared up to protest any abortion done to a child in the womb for this purpose.
See? There ARE some issues that Biblical Christians and homosexual activists can agree on. Admittedly, they are few and far between. But this is a big one. It is only when more people (of any persuasion) finally realize the immense ethical importance of choosing life over the current holocaust-like law of destroying and killing pre-born chldren in the womb; that such a gruesome and despicable “death for babies” law will be overturned. I pray it happens soon!
Christine
“Choose Life! Your mother did!”
This isn’t the exact article, but it’s one that is related:
The “gay gene” bill
Another interesting Newspaper commentary on this topic, that also briefly mentions ex-gay ministries, can be found in the Independent
The article seems to be talking about treating adult rams. I can’t find a reference to it, but I’ve read that in WWII the army tried treating a group of effeminate gay men with testosterone injections, and all that happened was they got more effeminate. Messing around with a pregnant woman’s hormone balance in her uterus is likely to cause serious problems.
I’m not terribly concerned about this. It’s quite likely that ethics councils will not permit such procedures and I believe performing unnecessary medical procedures is a breach of human rights.
But, even if the moral high-ground doesn’t win the day, what medico is going to run the danger of the adjusted foetus developing a gay identity or, indeed, a psychotic condition that might be attributed to his/her meddling? Just one such case being brought against them succeeding would ruin them financially and professionally.
The sex drive is one of the most powerful and creative of the drives. Only simpletons assume that sexual orientation is determined by a single switch.
Re: I can’t find a reference to it, but I’ve read that in WWII the army tried treating a group of effeminate gay men with testosterone injections, and all that happened was they got more effeminate.
Actually, they didn’t become more effeminate, but the experiment was a failure.
In 1940 a report appeared in Psychiatric Quarterly that described seven schizophrenic patients at a New York mental hospital who engaged in homosexual activities. They were injected with testosterone to try to “cure” them of their homosexuality. Instead, all seven patients simply became more homosexually active.
Barahal, Hyman S. “Testosterone in psychotic male homosexuals.” Psychiatric Quarterly 14, no. 2 (June 1940): 319-330. Abstract.
Geek out.
The prospect doesn’t phase us at all. Much.
Or rather, the purely medical side of things don’t. (What groups like Exodus et al would make of it — socially and politically — is another matter).
As Steve has already pointed out, an underlying problem is the assumption that sexuality is binary. An on-off switch that is flipped to either gay or straight. (bisexuals apparently don’t exist in this World). And heaven only knows what other things the genes involved also influence.
Those who would think they could simply fiddle with a few genes and alter just that one aspect of the person deserve fair warning… for all we know “the sexuality genes” could be firmly linked to highly desireable traits such as the ability to love or empathy or altruism. (All, afterall, important aspects of successful sexuality and successful relationships).
The warning lesson: Great… your son now won’t be gay but by-the-way you also realise this also means he will grow up to be a cold-blooded sociopath who abuses his wife and children?! Congratulations — wise choice.
While it may be possible — some day — to give an estimate of how likely it is that a feotus (or even the child) sits somewhere along the Kinsey scale or whatever… this presents a very different set of decisions for expectant parents when compared to, say, a test for severe disabilities.
For one, it’s better seen as a test for some characteristic — like being red haired, or left-handed — than a test for a profound disability that has the potential to radically influence the life of not only the child themself but also the lives of the parents and any other siblings.
As example, we already can test for Down’s syndrome. In this case it is an “on-off switch” as far as chromosome 21 is concerned (but the cause itself is again ‘annoyingly’ not singular). This can be tested to near certainty with amniocentesis.
However, what this all means — for the child, or for the parents, or for the family more widely — is NOT so simple. Cognitive ability is lower than would otherwise have been the case, but ranges quite widely. The bundle of physical characteristics typically associated with Down’s also varies. What the level of support required for the child will be (and that for the later adult) is consequently wide ranging — as is the ability or the resouces available to give this support.
Prospective parents are therefore faced with a decision based on one certainty, but different possible outcomes and very different implications for their own futures. The decision isn’t made in a vacuum. At the risk of not leaving an outside reference, sorry but accept we are well versed on this figure … something over 90% of pregancies diagnosed as postive for Down’s are terminated by abortion, and those who do not terminate are as often as not swayed by a hope of a mild disability rather than a religious etc objection to abortion per se.
(And yes, note the figure is far higher than surveys about opposition to abortion would otherwise suggest. Apparently even anti-abortion people are not-so-anti-abortion when it is themselves faced with such a decision. Ah yes… the old “when push comes to shove” scenario.)
Having a “Kinsey scale diagnosis” presents something very different.
A “Kinsey scale diagnosis” is basically utterly meaningless in terms of cognitive ability, adult potential for happiness and self-sufficiency, decisions about how the child will live as an adult, support needs during childhood, the skewing of attention and resources away from other siblings etc etc etc. Increasingly, particulalrly for lesbians, it’s not even meaningful in terms of providing for grandchildren. The prospect of a negative social status for the child — as gay — is also a steadily decreasing issue.
What is the most fascinating about all this is that those most set against abortion are also those most set against homosexuality (if we do a simple intersect of opinions about either). Ditto “stem cell research” or “gene therapy” etc.
As a mirror to these people, those most open to a decision to terminate a pregancy are also those most open to — and OK about — the possibility that their child is gay. So they’d possibly be less likely to terminate on that basis in any case.
Overall, we’re more concerned about the possibility of “anti-gay plus anti-abortion” parents forcing their children into damaging “pre-homosexual ex-gay” gulags to bridge their dilemna than we are about terminations based on a Kinsey scale diagnosis.
And, glad to note, we’ve had no gay sheep jokes about Australians. We all know those are more reliably told about New Zealanders 😛
It is interesting to note that the same Oregan State research program before this latest spate of articles concerning “ewegenics,” was reporting similar brain structures in the hypothalamii of homosexual rams as LeVay found in the 1990s in gay men. The OSU research showed that these areas were analogous to ewes and had to do with the amount of expressed aromatase, a catalyzing hormone needed to alter testosterone in to androgens, which in turn worked to masculine features in the brain relating to opposite-sex orientation.
A lot of people were lauding the study then, some of the same who ended up deriding it.
It’s an unfortunate fact of human nature that research which supports ones presuppositions is always lauded and that which does not is derided. This is especially so in a highly politicized area like issues surrounding homosexuality.
I tend to believe that knowledge and understanding is generally a good thing. If we hinder our further understanding of the world around us because we fear that this understanding may challenge our cherished beliefs or values, we are no different than the anti-gays who try to block funding for any research that might be beneficial to gay persons.
Joe.My.God has assembled numerous links debunking the “gay cure” hysteria that has been spread about this research by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
In a quoted passage, Mike Ensley avers, “The fact is, nobody wants to be gay.”
Fact? Fact? Man…these folks sure play fast and loose with that word “fact” don’t they?
I’m fine with my sexual orientation, and always have been since I figured it out when I was 17. I just don’t want to have opportunities denied to me because of it. I just don’t want to be bashed because of it.
Suppose there was a chemical treatment for fundamentalism. I’m not saying it’s likely, or even possible. But just suppose. How alarmed would Ensley and all the folks at Exodus be at the prospect of such a treatment? I think they’d be very alarmed. I think they’d be angry at the suggestion that their religious passions were something that needed curing.
Human beings are much more complicated creatures than sheep. Any cure for homosexual rams would have probably have no application to people at all.
Bingo David C. I’d just like to say that the authors of the gay sheep study are now saying the Time’s article had many “flaws. an example of this is: The Times article repeatedly states that the research is being done to cure homosexuality in either animals or humans. This is not true. The universities have never tried to turn a “gay” sheep straight. The researchers were interested in learning whether hormones played a role in the development of partner preference. They blocked hormone action (testosterone) in pregnant sheep to test this hypothesis. However the research was inconclusive. However the research was inconclusive. If it had provided conclusive results, the sheep would have preferred a same-sex partner, not an opposite sex partner as stated by the Times. NOTE: Also, human sexuality is much more complex than that of rams so we don’t refer to the animals as gay. That reference was created by the press.
so it seems that this was not bad research necessarily, merely sloppy reporting in the popular press.
sorry, I don’t know why but for some reason part of the link I was trying to post along with my comment got cut off. I was trying to add (where there is a somewhat obvious break or pause in my first paragraph the word “had many flaws” and
this link
I think everyone out there is asking the wrong question. It seems that homosexuality occurs naturally in hundreds of species. In human beings there is a certain percentage of men and women who are born homosexual and a wide range of bi-sexual behavior. I think the question should be this. Nature does not do something like this for no reason. Homosexual behavior must play some important role in social behavior among mammals and birds. What is that role and how can we understand it. And would eliminating it damage our society, even our species?
Scientists who believe that this is a defect without studying the reason behind the prevalence of homosexual behavior are not being very scientific. They are starting from a conclusion and then making their observations fit their opinions. That is the opposite of the scientific method. It is like starting with the “fact” that the sun revolves around the earth and then making all your observations fit the facts instead of making observations and drawing conclusions from them.
All mainstream gay organizations support the rights of men and women to choose brutal, irreversible sex-reassignment procedures. You cannot say that Mother Nature is always right or people need to accept themselves for who they are and then support sex-reassignment surgery. You cannot support sex-reassignment surgery yet condemn research to create a hormone based sex preference/identity treatment. These positions are intellectually untenable.
As for Roselli’s research, it is about what you’d expect. The Hypothalamus has long been thought to hold the core of our sexual identity and preference. His ability to cure gay, male sheep would have gone largely unnoticed if PETA and Martina Navratilova hadn’t launched him into Internet superstardom. Funding from governments and the super-rich with gay kids or grandkids is going to pour into labs so they can replicate his findings and then expand testing to humans. The protesting and controversy around this issue only created more interest from those interested in a cure.
Drowesap says “You cannot support sex-reassignment surgery yet condemn research to create a hormone based sex preference/identity treatment. These positions are intellectually untenable.”.
Wrong. If it weren’t for the external stigmatization, rejection, and prejudice of society one can be perfectly happy being gay. No one desires to change that for themselves but only to please others. In contrast to that, being stuck in the wrong body is an internal impediment to one’s happiness and this is a change that one does to please oneself and not others.
The Guardian also comments on the controversy over this news story in their “Bad Science” column Gay Sheep? Let’s get the facts straight
The Sunday Times piece now seems to be poorly written, on many levels. The goals of the researchers doesn’t appear to be what the Times said it was, and that’s pretty unfortunate that their research goals were misrepresented.
My ancillary comment to the news of the misrepresented research goal on curing gay humans though is that we don’t use aspirin for headaches alone anymore, but also use it as a tool to reduce the potential for heart attacks in at-risk populations. Sometimes follow-on researchers find uses for basic research or medications that weren’t envisioned in the initial research.
In other words, the point that future researchers may use the research in ways the current researchers aren’t intending is a valid possibility. The Sunday Times significantly errorred in reporting that it was the goal of the current researchers.
The research into a biological cause for homosexuality or transsexuality, in and of itself, is thought provoking for LGBT people. If researchers in the future narrow down one or more biological components to what makes some animals and/or humans potentially LGBT — as they are trying now to do with “gay sheep” — will someone try to find a “cure” for the biological causes? I would say that at least for the human component, it’s likely some researcher would, given how many in the general population feel homosexuality and/or transsexuality are wrong and/or sinful.
What would happen if definitive, biological components were identified that caused a propensity for homosexual attraction or cross-gender identity is just plain thought provoking because of the follow-up potential for developing “cures.” That’s what made the sheep story XGW material, whether or not the intent of the current researchers is to use their basic research to “cure” the “gay sheep” or the gay/transgender human population.
Anticipation of a cure has the right-wing calling homosexuality a defect and the left calling it perfectly healthy but both sides are missing the point. Being gay is roughly comparable to being a man who is only 5’ tall. Everything works fine but life is difficult and people are cruel to your face and behind your back. If there was a safe cure or preventive measure every loving parent would want it for his/her child.
If there was a safe cure or preventive measure every loving parent would want it for his/her child.
If there were a “safe cure” for being black, would you think the same thing? Do we work to improve society and it’s prejudices or do we cater to them by genetically mutilating our children? I think you might want to reconsider that solution, it’s already been tried by a few societies with ghastly results.
David you make a good and valid point.
However no mom or dad has the power to solve societies problems. I would only want the best for my child.
From a purely biological/evolutionary standpoint it also makes sense to want your children to also nurture and raise their own children. No volume of public service announcements will drive that from our genes.
I would have to disagree with your reasoning as parochial. While some parent’s desire to maintain the family line may be strong, it should hardly dictate changing who the child is. Not everyone’s life revolves around raising a family, and considering the population of the earth that’s probably a very good thing. For those who are gay and do want a family, there are always going to be large numbers of children waiting to be adopted by those who will love and care for them.
Modification of a person’s traits before birth is a first step to a really bad place, as I mentioned before. A person’s sexual orientation is only partly about sex. I can tell you first hand that gay people often have a unique perspective that I would not like to see vanish, nor should society wish it.
It boils down to this; it is unethical to modify individuals to suit society. It would remove one of our greatest strengths, the vast array of diversity in our lives. We just have to continue to work to eliminate the prejudice against people who are different.
I think Drowssap makes a good point.
It is not necessarily unethical to want your children to be heterosexual. Or tall. Or beautiful. Or smart. Or any of many other attributes that you may think would make your child happier.
Nor is it necessarily unethical to modify individuals to suit society. All societies do just that. We mandate education, we encourage civic awareness, we push for health mandates, we floridate our water, all in the hopes that these steps will create people that are in conformity with society’s goals.
While I think there are a good many reasons why society needs gay people (and God or natural selection figured that out a long time ago) I don’t want to dismiss the idea of “preventing” homosexuality as though it had some inherent evil associated with it.
I think the attempt is foolish and impractical. And I think that by the time it would be possible (should that ever happen) it will be seen as socially backward.
But if a “cure” were discovered tomorrow which had no negative side-consequences, I don’t think I could fault a parent for making that decision.
It’s just not a decision I would make. I think gay people make amazing contributions to society. It’s like a parent trying to prevent Asperger’s Syndrome. Yeah, your kid will be less socially adept with Asperger’s, but he’s also much more likely to be a billionairre.
I can agree with your first paragraph, but I couldn’t disagree more with the rest. I don’t think any of those examples apply at all. Education and fluoridation? I’m just not with you on this one.
Whichever way the science takes us I hope it creates greater human understanding and brings more peace and compassion to all our lives.
With that, we can all agree 😉
It doesn’t matter in the long run, the human population is simply too massive for a wide-scale use of any “gay cure”. The next generation of gays growing up would have a fit over the abortion and laws would be passed to prevent wide scale abortions etc. On top of that it is unlikely that it could even happen, if theres a differnce in the brain structure that can be seen physically there must be many different factors involved and no amount of reaserch could find a way to change all those factors while still allowing a person undergoing these changes to continue functioning.