Scientists May Cure Gay Sheep: Controversy Erupts
The latest news is that scientists may be able to cure or at least treat gay sheep. Right now they are just conducting experiments. But, unsurprising gay activists are not amused. It’s an interesting question though. Surely most would agree that there is a big distinction between trying to increase yields of mating sheep by eliminating that 10% of gay sheep and humans. For instance even those who might oppose cloning or stem cell research probably wouldn’t mind it in cattle. But I don’t typically hear slipperly slope fears. Further there is this chilling aspect that suggests just because knowledge might be misused that we ought to censor science. What are your thoughts?
I should note that even if they could find a treatment for sheep it doesn’t follow that it would work in humans.
According to the article:
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.
I’m curious what people think about this. If a woman is pregnant and she could absolutely pre-determine that her baby (boy or girl) would be heterosexual in orientation, should she do it?
Comment by danithew — January 8, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Actually while I know many disagree, I think if the day comes when parents can affect their babies mental development without abortion then I think that’s a good thing.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 8, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
By the way, I’ll answer my own question. I think, if a mother is given a scientific option to assure her baby will grow up heterosexual, she should take it.
Comment by danithew — January 8, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Clark, do you mean to tell me that 10% of the wool we’ve been using all these years has actually been … gay wool?
Comment by Dave — January 8, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Only pansies give birth to gay sons. Any guy who needs his wife to wear a patch to prevent his son from liking the laddies is not a *real* man.
On a less offensive note, these scientists are basically claiming that homosexuality is a result of a different mix of chemicals right? So the sheep are just as happy and satisfied when the cocktail is changed to a heterosexual balance? It seems to me like a wash.
Ex: Sheep love eating hay because the chemical sin their brain tell them to. Scientists decide to alter the chemicals so that the sheep now love eating an equally nutritious/beneficial form of cheez-its. Cheez-its/hay homo/hetero… who cares as long as the sheep is chemically happy?
Comment by General Nonsense — January 8, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Now if they could just invent a patch for stupidity….
LOL!
)
Comment by cew-smoke — January 8, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Happy sheep? What is that…?
Comment by al_miller — January 8, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
C’mon, guys. How can you joke around about something that Martina Navratilova takes this seriously.
Comment by danithew — January 8, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Regarding pregnant mothers taking a “pill” to make sure their babies are heterosexual…..
What other traits would you want to extend this to? How about testosterone-influenced aggression? Should all male fetuses be “treated” to eliminate this behavior that some find undesireable? Perhaps PETA would like to have fetuses “treated” so they find the taste of meat repulsive? Just how much engineering does society want to engage in, and if a person believes humans were created by deity, why couldn’t deity get it right on his own?
For that matter, what other traits might “accidentally” be affected by “treating” homosexual tendencies? Are some of those traits that we stereotypically associate with homosexuality actually desireable in society?
I know gay men who would eagerly take a chemical “treatment” that altered their natural gender attraction. I know gay men (myself included) who embrace their own sexuality, and would absolutely refuse. If it were available, would a gay man who refused to take such a “treatment” be sinning? Would conservative lawmakers want to make such a refusal illegal? The questions go on and on. In the end, I would hope that no matter what direction the research takes, it isn’t allowed to infringe on individual choice.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 8, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
This scenario reminds me a little bit of the X-Men III movie, that dealt with the topic of a cure. Some mutants are lining up for the cure and some are saying “I don’t need a cure.”
I also can’t help but think of the pattern of argument/discussion that typically starts with someone claiming that being gay is a choice. A gay person then follows up by saying: “Are you kidding? You think I chose to live with all these difficulties?”
I think that having this option would push the discussion in a whole new direction, with many gay people changing from saying “I would never choose this, I didn’t have a choice” to now saying “I don’t want a choice. This is how I want to be. This is how I was meant to be.”
Comment by danithew — January 8, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Nick, I’ll agree prenatal treatment sounds like a b-a-a-a-a-a-d idea that raises troubling questions.
Comment by Dave — January 8, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
Certainly it raises questions, but I’m not at all convinced that it is any worse than most of the kinds of questions modern medicine raises.
I think simply discounting it out of hand is unwise.
To answer Nick’s question. If you could do a test that perhaps could stop people from developing high aggressive personalities related to criminality that wouldn’t be a problem. The assumption that underlies a lot of the objections is that there are societal benefits that we’d be losing. However it’s unlikely that all society would elect to do these things. So I think these issues are overstated.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 8, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
danithew,
The X-Men movies, like it or not, have been a clear metaphor for homosexuality. In the second film, a young man informs his parents that he is a mutant. His mother plaintively responds, “Have you ever tried NOT being a mutant?”
As for the choice that such a “treatment” would present, I have to admit, I’m biased. Several years ago, I would have rushed to accept it, in order to fulfill the “righteousness” that I had prayed, fasted, cried, and longed for. Now, there’s simply no way that I would accept it—I’d go to jail first if it was made a legal requirement. I’d feel that it was interfering with an integral part of who I am–a part of me that frankly took a lot of struggle to accept and embrace. Does that mean I choose to be gay? Well, in such a scenario, I suppose you could say that. To me, it would be choosing to be the man I was created to be.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 8, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
What’s interesing about this to me is that if homosexuality is caused or uncaused by a chemical reaction, then homosexuality is not genetic, it would seem. Afterall, there is no patch for downs syndrome.
I don’t want to be a skeptic, but I believe this will fail. People are not just another animal.
Comment by Matt W. — January 8, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Clark, you point out the kind of aggressive tendencies I meant to convey. What if those same aggressive tendencies are also related to *desireable* achievements? Would losing the positive aspects of a trait be a worthwhile price, in order to eliminate aspects that society disapproved of (or were actually harmful to society)?
Comment by Nick Literski — January 8, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Matt, I’m not sure your logic follows. The availability of so-called “chemical castration” would not seem to “disprove” that libido is genetically determined. Therefore, the availability of a chemical “treatment” or alteration of homosexuality wouldn’t seem to “disprove” a genetic basis there, either.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 8, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
I would think that having the _option_ to scientifically determine sexual orientation would be far different from legally requiring that sexually mature adults undergo a treatment. I have to admit the second possibility hadn’t even occurred to me.
Comment by danithew — January 8, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
The problem, Nick, is that kind of adaptation by humans has been going on for millennia. And, as I pointed out, you’d never completely eliminate the trait.
If we’re going to appeal ultimately to the benefits of natural evolution then we really ought stop helping those who wouldn’t normally survive. One could easily argue that their genes may well be hurting our society. But no one would suggest that.
Put an other way, why should parental decisions be based upon some eugenetics view of what is or isn’t good for society?
Comment by Clark Goble — January 8, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Nick: If Chemicals in the uterus have the capacity to determine sexual orientation one way or another, Homosexuality is not in the genes, it would appear. Maybe I am mistakenly connecting this with research from about a year ago which showed when a woman had multiple male children, each child had an increased likelihood of homosexuality due to chemical changes in the woman’s body after each birth.
Comment by Matt W. — January 8, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
Matt: Okay, I see your point. Isn’t it also possible, however, that a genetic trait could be influenced by chemical exposure? It seems to me that if a sheep is genetically homosexual, it could be “unnaturally” altered by the kind of chemical exposure these experiments represent. Or am I missing something?
Comment by Nick Literski — January 8, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
What’s interesing about this to me is that if homosexuality is caused or uncaused by a chemical reaction, then homosexuality is not genetic, it would seem. Afterall, there is no patch for downs syndrome.
The argument is that homosexuals are “born that way.” Whether it is due to genetics or the in utero environment is not particularly important when it comes to questions of morality.
Either way, a “treatment” for humans is inevitable eventually. Certainly making it mandatory would be unacceptable, but making it available for prospective parents and willing adults seems like a legitimate option. For a gay adult to refuse the treatment would not be a sin per se. One could still remain celibate, although that doesn’t sound like what Nick has in mind.
Comment by Last Lemming — January 8, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
danithew: Maybe I’m paranoid, but I truly believe there are people, including politicians, out there who would feel it their religious duty to require such a “treatment.” Maybe they couldn’t get enough backing, but I could see them trying to do it.
clark: I’m not saying that parental decisions *should* be based upon eugenics. The idea has certainly enjoyed some favor, however. I’ve done research in the university files of John A. Widtsoe, and I can tell you he was definitely interested (favorably) in human eugenics.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 8, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Nick, I don’t think that fear is unjustified. However, I would expect that a majority rule common-sense would find that kind of aggressive legal policy unnecessary.
One of the frustrations with past attempts to treat homosexuality has been that there really hasn’t been a successful treatment. I think this has left church leaders in a situation where they put the homosexual man/woman in a quandary (“super-chastity” as one blogger put it) where he/she is advised not to marry.
Frankly, I would think that an option for successful treatment would be a real blessing for those who wanted it. Obviously we aren’t there … it just seems like these experiments with animals (if they are valid and applicable, they might not be) could potentially lead to a treatment that would work.
Comment by danithew — January 8, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Nick you may be right. It could mean the end of male hair stylists, interior designers, fashion designers, danseurs, and boy choir directors.
Comment by al_miller — January 8, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Nick, it was a popular view back in that era. So it’s not surprising many supported it. Arguably the reason eugenics is no longer popular is because of WWII.
It seems to me though that any state intervention in parental decisions is much more problematic.
If we move from homosexuality which has all the political and religious overtones to say something a tad less loaded I think we see the issue better. Consider autism, especially mild autism. Now that can be shown to have tons of societal benefits: far more than even people promoting homosexual benefits can show. But are the benefits to society of mildly autistic people worth the human cost? Shouldn’t parents in those cases cure the children?
I should add that there are associations for autistic rights who demand that autism be treated as just an other manifestation of the range of humanity. Much like some deaf people do. Both groups oppose any attempts to cure deafness or autism. Does it follow that parents should be banned from being able to do this?
I think when we consider those cases rather than the more loaded topic of homosexuality then things become a bit easier to understand.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 8, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Al Miller (#24) I think the articles I’ve seen written demonstrate the issue far more. Look at what percentage of artists in general were homosexual. The claim is that there might be some cognitive association between the homosexuality and these creative skills. I’m dubious myself. But it definitely is possible. Would we lose those benefits if we eliminated homosexuality?
As I said though I just don’t think we ought get into such eugenics discussions. It’s a camel attempting to get its nose in the door.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 8, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Just as long as they don’t let them get married . . .
Comment by Guy Murray — January 8, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Bah, the odds are that this would never come to be human useable anyway. Think about all the vast side-effects from medicine that does so much less alteration to the body.
Well, the good news is that your son will definitely not be gay. However, there is a 10% chance he’ll be sexually attracted to chickens and a 5% chance that he’ll be born with leprosy. A small number of people suffer from both.
“Mom, I have something to tell you. I’m a Leperous Fowlaphile.”
“Well have you tried NOT being a Leperous Fowlaphile?”
Comment by cew-smoke — January 8, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
We have to ask ourselves, ” do most gays and lesbians want to be cured of something that they’ve come to live with and have sacrificed much for?” I think we know the answer to that. After they’ve fought so hard to find acceptance and legitimacy we now wan to take the debate into the scientific arena where we offer pie in the sky hope? We have much bigger fish to fry in the form of disease and cancer eradication.
Comment by David L. — January 8, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
But David, couldn’t one say that of deaf people as well?
Comment by Clark Goble — January 8, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Clark, your examples show that the whole concept here is “shades of gray,” rather than “black and white.” It raises questions of what is “normal” and what is a “disorder.” To me, being gay is like being left-handed, not a disorder, just a less common manifestation of the “normal” range of human variation. To some religionists (recent comments by Dallin Oaks come to mind), it is seen as a disorder or handicap.
I’ll admit, I am loathe to see the government determine what parents may or may not do as they seek what they feel as the best interest of their children (truly abusive/neglectful situations aside). On the other hand, suppose I was born in a time when an in-utero “treatment” was available, and my parents, learning that I was genetically likely to be gay, chose to seek that “treatment” on my behalf. If I learned of their choice, would I grow up thankful that I didn’t face the challenges that being gay would otherwise have presented in my life—or would I grow up feeling like my “true self” had been tampered with? I don’t know.
I know this much. Through all the years that I tried so hard to be “straight,” in my very honest moments, there was a small part of me that cried out in opposition. That small part of me recognized that my being gay was part of “me,” and didn’t WANT to be changed. Was that some sinful, wicked part of me that lustfully sought to be what my religion declared to be perversion? I suppose some would say so, but I sure didn’t *feel* any desire to rebel or be “evil.” Maybe it was a certain wisdom on the part of my own psyche?
Comment by Nick Literski — January 8, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
David & Clark,
Suppose I was deaf and had cancer. If I had to choose, I’m betting I’d rather be “cured” of the cancer than deafness. Being deaf requires adaptation to challenges. Cancer kills.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 8, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
I can just picture this:
A young man finally gets up the guts to tell his parent that he is gay. He knows it will be very difficult for his family as well as himself. Naturally, his mom cries when he tells them. In her sobbing she wonders out loud why the anti-homo-mones didn’t work? The question is, did they work or not?
The two points I draw from this are:
1) I can’t think of anything more hurtful for the gay son to hear at that moment.
2) I would rather have somebody be sure about their homosexuality over being confused about their sexual orientation any day.
Comment by Jeff G — January 8, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
This reminds me of many of the debates about being deaf.
Interesting stuff. and interesting to see people see that connection here.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — January 8, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
26 I don’t think artistic tendencies have any innate link to homosexuality since I don’t think that there is anything innate about homosexuality.
PC warning. The rest of this is not PC. It is anecdotal based on my experience only.
I believe that a relationship with a male/female relationship is much more difficult to initiate than a male/male relationship. Consequently heterosexual males have got to focus on their economic prospects a bit more intently than homosexual males because it is going to take economic capacity to attract a woman and provide for her children. Heterosexuals consequently take less career risk than homosexuals. They forgo opportunities to cultivate their artistic abilities especially in second and third tier artistic endeavors such as interior design etc. because of the long low paid apprenticeships and the huge income disparity between top performers and wannabes.
Homosexuals with less economic pressure and perhaps a sense of alienation from hetero-track careers may be disproportianatly attracted to certain of these quasi-artistic careers. (But I know quite a few homosexual men in accounting, information technology and law) so this may be a slightly not grossly disproportianate tendency.
As I said at the outset being homosexual doesn’t endow anyone with artistic capabilities.
Comment by al_miller — January 8, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
I think that modern research (and I haven’t bothered to look it up) has shot Kinsey’s 10% number full of holes. Only the most strident still hang onto it.
As for sheep, I don’t know who’s doing the polling, and haven’t seen any data.
Comment by Mark B. — January 8, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
Whether 1% of the population is declared gay or 50%, it is a social reality we all just better get used to dealing with. There is a saying that, “we fear that which we don’t understand.” The sooner we face our demons and realize not everyone can be like us, the better off we’ll be.
Life is not easy or fair. I think it is disingenuous and unfair to say a gay or lesbian person suffers along the lines of the blind, deaf or wheel chaired individual. Gays populate all levels of power in our society. Some are billionaires. What gay billionaire suffers the way a deaf or blind or wheel chaired individual does?
I think the only people who need to be cured are the one’s who are uncomfortable and don’t have the ability to accept that people have a moral and free right to strive for their own pursuit of happiness.
Comment by David L. — January 9, 2007 @ 3:50 am
Have you read “A Clockwork Orange”? Or perhaps saw the movie? Perhaps people are just born the way they are. Attempts by science to control biology are problematical at best. Remember Dr. Ian Malcolm in “Jurassic Park” – “Life finds a way”
Comment by Phouchg — January 9, 2007 @ 10:39 am
Making a claim about science based upon movies by writers and directors who don’t really grasp the science isn’t a terribly good argument.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 9, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
And my guess is that even if there were some pre-natal treatment for homosexuality, gay would find a way as well.
Comment by Chris Williams — January 9, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Interesting theory, al_miller. The reality is that gay men are just as diverse in their careers and circumstances as heterosexuals. They also vary widely in their economic goals and career motivation. My best friend pulls six figures as a specialized recruiter. In dating, he refuses to become involved with anyone who doesn’t make at least half what he does, both for economic and personality/goal issues.
I’m not sure what your basis is for your belief that “a relationship with a male/female relationship is much more difficult to initiate than a male/male relationship.” Could it be that you are motivated to see gay relationships as inferior, and one way of doing so is to deride such as taking less effort?
Since we’re being anecdotal here, let me say that I have first-hand experience with BOTH opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. I was married for 18 years. I came out of the closet one year ago, as of tomorrow. I have dated several men, and am in a relationship at this time. I think it’s fair to say that I know whereof I speak, having actually experienced both kinds of relationships. Based on that experience, I would say that gay relationships are MORE difficult to initiate than heterosexual relationships.
In a heterosexual relationship, the couple begins with certain societal expectations about each partner’s respective roles. They may vary, but the basic ground work is there. In a homosexual relationship (more especially for men), the partner’s roles are much more varied and nuanced. They take time to develop and work out in a way that is comfortable for both partners. (No, it’s not a matter of a “masculine” and a “feminine” role in the relationship, and only the most naive and uninformed would make that assumption in modern times.) As two men, gay partners also must come to an equilibrium between individualism and “couplehood” that is quite different from heterosexual relationships. It’s nice to have the freedom to make those individual decisions as a couple, less bound by traditional roles, but it’s also a challenge that can’t be taken lightly.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 9, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Nick, as a personal aside to this discussion, I was married for 10+ years and came out about 18 months ago. Happy outiversary.
Comment by Chris Williams — January 9, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Chris,
Oddly enough, a pre-natal “treatment” for homosexuality would likely have a long-range economic impact on gays and lesbians. Such a “treatment” would only be available to those pregnant women who could afford medical care. Mothers-to-be who have no insurance, but make too much money to receive state medical aid, would not be likely to receive such a treatment. Therefore, they would have a higher rate of children who turned out to be homosexual. Those homosexual children would be raised in the same economic conditions, and many (or most) would likely remain in that lower socio-economic bracket as adults. While it’s impossible to be certain, I think there’s a high likelihood that such a “treatment” would eventually relegate homosexuality to the lower economic classes.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 9, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
One thing to keep in mind Nick is that the current body of homosexuals, who often are slightly wealthier than average, will have incentives to have homosexual children. Further one could argue that if you could figure out how to “turn off” homosexuality one could “turn it on” as well.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 9, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Interestingly there was a New Scientist story on this back in November 2002. (HT: Omnibrain)
Comment by Clark Goble — January 9, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
For what it’s worth, I don’t seem to see gay fathers “hoping Junior turns out to be gay.” Having gone through a struggle to accept themselves as they are, gay men are more prone to just want their children to be HAPPY (kind of like straight parents—gosh, who’d have thought?). In fact, given that same background experience, I think gay parents would be much less likely to use chemistry to influence their children’s sexual orientation, than would heterosexual parents. In my college sociology classes, I was taught (didn’t read the studies myself) that children raised by homosexuals are no more or less likely to be gay than children raised by heterosexuals.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 9, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
I agree with Nick. I’d leave the decision about my child’s sexual orientation to God/nature and then do whatever I could to help my child be happy. I have two children who are still pre-pubescent and as their sexualities emerge I hope them nothing more than happiness and success, gay or straight.
Comment by Chris Williams — January 9, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Despite having a gay acquaintance of mine who is very interested in my field (bioengineering) in the interest of finding such a cure for his homosexuality, I don’t really think it needs “curing”, nor should we authorize this form of tampering with the unborn. I expect–I hope–the church will remain neutral on this, and that individuals within the church will avoid suggesting that homosexuality is a disease to be “cured”. Certainly there will be gays and lesbians who opt for that way out, and so long as that is their (unforced) choice, that’s fine.
Now, my reasoning for this does not arise from the same idea of preservation of human diversity–or even the belief that homosexuality is a trait that needs preservation–, more than concerns about a slippery-slope argument dealing with genetic alteration of humans. At this very early date, I really don’t think we should be authorizing gene therapy for anything, let alone social-function-related traits like homosexuality. I do however agree with the church’s stance regarding same-sex relationships of a sexual nature. (I myself am bisexual by inclination, though not sexually active and not very interested.) On the other hand, I also realize it is not my place to enforce this on others who do not ascribe to the same ethical system. (Though there are a number of other things which I do believe there should be laws concerning, but this is not one of them by a long shot.)
Granted, a lot of my disagreement with the “lifestyle” is also founded in my intense dislike of the sophistry and illogic that advocates and activists use in their rhetoric. But as that is not a discussion for this thread, I will end on that note.
Comment by Kim K. — January 9, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Harder to have a gay relationship? the statistics say otherwise but it all depends on what you mean by a relationship. The statistics say that gay men have hugely more sexual relationships that hetero-men.
I am willing to bet you good money that even promiscuous heterosexuals rarely have sex on the first date but that ordinary homosexuals have some sort of sex on first date 95% of the time. Harder to have a gay relationship. Yeah maybe.
But if you claim that creating a a quasi-marriage commitment is harder for homosexual relationships then i would say you must certainly be right. Counterfeits are much more costly to produce than the real thing and they have no value.
Comment by al_miller — January 9, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Someday, some of you holier than thou folks, are going to have a son, a brother, a daughter, a sister whom you love with all your might, tell you they are gay. When that happens, you will not tolerate anyone restricting their civil liberties, their freedom to do anything you can do. It will become anathema to you that anyone would treat them differently or disrespect them in any way. I mean,,,in any way. Until that happens, you go right on belittling them, despising them, and abhoring them. Your day will come. Believe me. It will come.
Comment by Katonah — January 9, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
This discussion is starting to make my head hurt a little. All of this is nothing more than wildly inane conjecture. We are discussing something that is not even on the horizon of the horizon. Let me be frank, the kind of medical “intervention” of humans on this level is nothing more than a glimmer in the eye of a medical company who is dreaming of making a fortune on the insecurities of parents. A pretty scummy way to make a living in my opinion.
Now, the comments will most likely devolve into arguments and pettiness (or perhaps that is already starting). So, instead let’s all go back to the #28 post and have a really good laugh and start posting about how disarmingly funny that witty commenter is. I wonder who it could be?
Comment by cew-smoke — January 9, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Apparently the Times article was filled with many errors. One of the researchers’ comments are posted on Andrew Sullivan’s blog.
Comment by Steven B — January 10, 2007 @ 4:05 am
49–Counterfeits are much more costly to produce than the real thing and they have no value.
What a mean spirited and demeaning comment.
Comment by Chris Williams — January 10, 2007 @ 8:13 am
al_miller,
It never entered my mind that you might actually think that an individual sexual encounter is a “relationship.” Of course, I don’t think it entered your mind either, until a little common sense and experience brought your earlier opinion into question.
I don’t question that gay men, on average, have more sexual partners (i.e. persons with whom they have engaged in some sort of sexual activitiy) than the average heterosexual male. (If you find this disturbing, I suggest you fight to promote same-sex marriage, as an influence for monogamy.) The difficulty, of course, comes in drawing sweeping conclusions from that statistic. I have gay friends who definitely do not represent that trend. I have gay friends who are irresponsible risk takers. Most fall somewhere in between.
As for your “counterfeits” comment, I can only assume that you have never had the pleasure of knowing any long-term, committed gay couples. I have, and I have really marvelled at some of them. Despite the challenges I mentioned earlier, many of these couples have amazed me. I know several who are actually much more giving, considerate, and caring toward one another than the heterosexual couples I have known. If that makes them “counterfeit,” then I’ll take that “counterfeit” any day.
Comment by Nick Literski — January 10, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Wow a ram reparative therapy.
Please remember even a few homosexual men were able to desire women for a while after they had the “appropriate” reward/punishment to gay/straight stimuli. How long did those last?
This could be a temporary “fix” just like reparative therapy for men.
On another note:
If you stimulate certain parts of our brains (limbic system) we can be induced into alot of strange behavior (including hypersexuality and inappropriate impulse control). I am sure this is the case with other mammals as well.
Just because the rams mount the sheep, does not mean they are now straight.
Comment by chas_b — January 10, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Note that there isn’t a fix.
The issue here isn’t homosexuality nor the nature of homosexual realtionships. Rather, as I see it, the issue is whether research like this should be going on. I’d be the first to point out that arguing about the problems in a particular “cure” when there isn’t even a cure is silly. The issue is more whether the research should be allowed.
Some clearly think it shouldn’t be. Personally I’m very uncomfortable with any political effort to shut down scientific inquiry.
Comment by Clark Goble — January 10, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
“Personally I’m very uncomfortable with any political effort to shut down scientific inquiry.”
Agreed
Comment by chas_b — January 10, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Scientists may be able to cure gay sheep
Not sure if the treatment would work in people
Before we get in too deep
Suggest we first test a cure for intolerance in sheeple
Comment by Chino Blanco — January 10, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
That was cute, white china man.
Comment by Sherpa — January 11, 2007 @ 9:55 am
54 You seem to think that I have never known gay men. My closest and dearest friend is a homosexual, now celibate, who speaks very strongly about the gay culture. He dies laughing at the mention of homosexual monogamy. He claims not to know any monogamous homosexual men.
In fact many homosexuals in favor of SSM deny monogamy as a reason for it. Andrew Sullivan, one of its most vocal proponents, is famously non-monogamous. He even uses heterosexual infidelity as a reason to divorce monogamy from marriage altogether. Another colleague and his long-term partner travelled to Amsterdam to sample the red light district. One of my business partners and his wife visited my colleague and his partner in their home and were shown pictures of their cross dressing parties etc.
I suppose there are some committed relationships.When I was first married my wife and I home taught an inactive older man who lived with his “roommate” in what appeared to be a committed relationship. They were in their sixties so I presume that it was monogamous if it was sexual at all. But I’ll bet that is as rare as couples staying married for sixty years.
Nick I don’t have any real statistics but I haven’t been cloistered.
Comment by al_miller — January 12, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Life sucks, or its just ones stupid idea?
Comment by Lopka Xmass — January 15, 2007 @ 4:00 am