The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Gay Sheep Story Exposes Inconsistencies in Gay Community

Update: Sadly this post has gotten the most hits of any post I have ever written. Since most come directly to this post, they will not know I have a retraction of sorts on a different post that can be read here. PETA is the original source of disinformation about this and it made its way into the TimesOnline. The sheep story I retract. The question of what would the reaction be if there was a way to prevent homosexuality stays.

The battle over whether homosexuality is a choice has been raging for some time now. During every single television or radio discourse I have heard, those representing the gay side have boldly made two claims:

1) They did not choose to be gay, they were gay from birth
2) The idea that nobody would choose to be gay as a supporting argument

Some conservatives have speculated a war among liberal groups when they identify the "gay gene" and are able to produce a prenatal test for the gene. The idea is that the gay community would go ballistic if parents had the option to identify if their child was gay and choose to abort it. What fun to see the gay community and abortion advocates go toe to toe.

New research may remove the need for an abortion, but gay advocates are ballistic anyway. According to the Timesonline:

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.


Navratilova went on to claim that the sheep have a right to be gay and that it was wrong to take that right away from them (major eye roll on my part). Obviously from a livestock point of view, more reproduction means more profit. Livestock returns the investment of feeding and care by providing offspring and meat upon slaughter. To politicize research aimed at increasing livestock offspring is ludicrous.

Of course the real fear is that the same research will next be used in humans to prevent children from being gay. This goes against the two items listed above. First, you would think the gay community would welcome research that would prove that homosexuality is caused by factors other than choice. This research would do just that. Second, since we so often hear the line that being gay would not be the preferred choice; preventing it with some hormone therapy before birth would be fully consistent. If the gay community cannot be consistent with their statements, then perhaps they should stop saying them.

The Christian right community is often accused of fearing science. References to the "earth being flat" are often tossed at them. Now it is the gay community who is fearing science. Will they be called on it by anybody but me?

Labels: , , ,

17 Comments:

  • At 1:30 PM, Blogger Jim Newman said…

    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:

    http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/09/peta_crosses_th.html

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Jim,

    Thanks for visiting and your information. I will check it out. PETA has a history of behavior ranging from unorthodox at best to unethical at worst.

    AICS

     
  • At 3:25 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    I love this stuff, because it's so much fun to watch the Left go ballistic.

    This is just one more in the long line of reasons to abort children. Abortion rights activists appear to approve of aborting handicapped babies--contrary to the Disabled Rights groups' position on that. If the Left thinks it's OK to abort handicapped babies or inconvenient babies, then aborting gay babies should be just as OK.

    Two-faced doesn't begin to describe the opponents of "treatment" for gays.

    Great post!

     
  • At 6:37 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    skyepuppy, it's actually AICS and the fact-challenged Reich-wing blogosphere who are the ones who have gone ballistic here - it was you who decided to jump way off the deep end and start talking about aborting handicapped babies after all. If that's not ballistic and overblown, I don't know what is.

    This episode is much like Malkin and the Jamil Hussein/AP issue that has landed much egg on her face and the face of anyone who would ever decide to cite her as a credible source for anything.

    The information Jim Newman was posting about is linked at my name.

    AICS wants to make hay about PETA's behavior being unorthodox or unethical, yet here he is once again jumping into a tirade without bothering to do some proper fact-checking first.

    As Charles Roselli, the scientist responsible for the research points out:

    "What is so frustrating is that articles like this [the Sunday Times of London/Timesonline article] pit the scientist against the activist and then pretend to present a "balanced" account. They also don't understand the science and perpetrate a lot of misinformation and outright lies, like the line that we have had "considerable success" in altering rams' sexuality - where did this come from? I never claimed this and never published anything to suggest it."

    Hopefully one day facts will be important to you people.

     
  • At 6:40 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Will the link at my name work this time? The preview seems to show that it will, but it looked that way last time too.

    If not, hopefully this will work.

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Foiled again.

    AICS, looks like your name link function is acting up.

     
  • At 1:51 AM, Blogger Jacob said…

    Is this some sort of concession that homosexuality is not a choice?

    Who's being inconsistent now?

     
  • At 1:51 AM, Blogger Jacob said…

    Is this some sort of concession that homosexuality is not a choice?

    Who's being inconsistent now?

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patriot said:

    Hopefully one day facts will be important to you people.

    What facts that I wrote as facts are you referring to? My post focused on the research and possible ramifications, not on any success. Yet you go off on a tirade about some alleged misquote in the original story that I did not quote nor refer to.

    The fact is that this research did occur. My post is accurate that the research did occur. Your comments even say:

    As Charles Roselli, the scientist responsible for the research points out:

    He did the research. It either succeeded or failed.

    Please brush up on your reading skills and fact checking before you criticize mine. The fact is that everybody including you and me will make mistakes in our reading and interpretation of what we read. The big guys can hire fact checkers and proof readers; but even so they are often wrong.

    The reason I suggest you get a blog of your own is that you have a naive concept of how easy perfection comes in writing. When you have a blog of your own that posts with any regularity that breaks from a "safe zone", you will be cured of this naivete.

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Jacob,

    My post says:
    First, you would think the gay community would welcome research that would prove that homosexuality is caused by factors other than choice. This research would do just that.

    My belief is that actions are always preceded by choice. Inclinations may not be. This does not have to be sexual in nature. A man may have an inclination to anger in certain situations. He can choose to yield to that inclination or not with violent actions or abusive language. Treatment to take away the inclination would certainly make it easier for him to make the right choice in his reactions to situations.

    No inconsistency here on my part. But why is the gay community not looking to this research to prove that homosexuality can be other than choice? Are they not being inconsistent?

     
  • At 7:36 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    The FACT is that this Timesonline piece is chock full of outright lies and fabrications according to the scientist whose work is the focus of the article. To anyone truly concerned with meaningful debate, that would immediately render this piece completely useless.

    You most certainly DID quote this:

    "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 research abstract begins thus:

    "This study tested the hypothesis that aromatization of testosterone to estradiol is necessary for sexual differentiation of the sheep brain."

    The intent of the research is to UNDERSTAND if there is a biological basis for behavior, not about CHANGING behavior.

    The fact is that this research did occur. My post is accurate that the research did occur. - AICS

    Since (a) you are citing the Timesonline piece as your source of what "this research" is (trying to change sheep sexuality), and since (b) the Timesonline article is completely wrong on that point, then (c) your post is therefore entirely inaccurate that "this research" (trying to change sheep sexuality) did occur.

    Simple logic. You should know how that works given your blog name.

    Facts. Not made-up facts. REAL facts. They're important.

    But instead of correcting your factual errors, it's looking like you will just move along to another post like you always do.

    And really, your repeated scolds about reading and comprehension skills only highlight your own weakness in this area.

    Following up on your reply to Jacob, I don't think the gay community is avoiding looking to this research to prove that homosexuality may have a biological basis. I'm sure that if one day there becomes "proof" that sexual preference is biologically determined, many gay advocates will be vindicated and rejoice, throwing huge fabulous parties all over the world. But as with all scientific research of this nature, there are just obviously going to be those who will express concern that people would consider treading into the realm of eugenics-style management of fetuses. As is quoted in the Timesonline article : "Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, who has written to the researchers pressing them to stop, said: 'I don’t believe the motives of the study are homophobic, but their work brings the terrible possibility of exploitation by homophobic societies. Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example.'" As with the stories of the Chinese drowning or otherwise killing their female offspring, people get very uncomfortable at the notion of fetal intervention, even if it would cure terrible disease. This whole sentiment is part of the fuel for the abortion debate as well.

     
  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    I find it interesting that Martina Navratilova became angry at research changing sexual behavior BEFORE the TIMESONLINE piece was written since the piece itself writes about her anger.

    So what fact-challenged source did Martina read to inspire her anger?

    I think it is more likely the scientist is reacting to the public heat about his research and is backing away from it.

    The argument of studying to understanding it is weak. Once they do understand it, what do they want to do with such understanding? Research takes money and money takes justification. Are you telling me that when requesting funds to do this research that they stood before the approvers and said they just want to study it to understand it? Nothing else?

    Very lame.

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    As was pointed out in the very first comment by Jim Newman, it was PETA that was the fact-challenged source for the outcry.

    God, grant me patience.....

    As for the science in question, why don't you get a clue by actually READING the abstract as to what the research really IS about instead of just blowing hot air around as to what you THINK it's about.

     
  • At 11:20 AM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    Patriot,

    Sorry to be so long getting a response to you. My comment about the Left going ballistic was in reference to AICS's statement:

    The idea is that the gay community would go ballistic if parents had the option to identify if their child was gay and choose to abort it. What fun to see the gay community and abortion advocates go toe to toe.

    I've blogged about abortion policies--particularly in the UK, where aborting handicapped babies seems to be even more common than here in the US--so that was on my mind.

    I didn't feel ballistic. Sometimes it's fun just to be able to sit back and watch the other side eat its own, so to speak. I leave the dealing with facts on the sheep issue to you and AICS to duke out, and it looks like you've got that taken care of now.

     
  • At 12:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Good day! 

    Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but here is the story of my dog called Shandy.
    He was my favourite pet and he was very lively, lots of fun and very obedient. His main
    passion in life was to be taken for a long walk, culminating with a big run out in his favourite
    park. I would try to take him on this walk everyday, weather permitting. The park itself
    was about three miles away from our house. What do you think?

    By the way, I love that too!  Where did you get that at?  

    Bye, bye - Wendy! 




    how I make money with paid surveys

     
  • At 3:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Good day! 

    How do you change the size of your monitor?

    By the way, I love that too!  Where did you get that at?  

    Bye, - MyGirl! 


    how I make money with paid surveys

     
  • At 6:28 AM, Anonymous Brita said…

    Thanks for writing this.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home