Here's a fascinating article discussing the prospect of curing homosexuality. Scientists are attempting to change the hormonal balance in the brains of "homosexual" sheep, so that they might be more inclined to mate with members of the opposite sex.
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.
According to the article, gay rights groups seem to be up in arms about these tests, which are being conducted at Oregon State University. However, I cannot see why people would be upset at eliminating a defect in humans which precludes propagation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Why can't these scientists work on someting more important like AIDS research or cancer treatments?
That is a very good point. It reminds me a lot of today's media - covering the latest Hollywood drama between Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton - but then no one ever reports the crimes against humanity going on in the Sudan.
About 6,000 people die every DAY in Africa from AIDS, and we're busy trying to reverse homosexuality. Although, if you think about it, curing homosexuality is not a bad angle at dealing with AIDS.
This is my favorite line from the article: "Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay." It's their right. It's like Monty Python's Life of Brian when Stan wants to have babies and be called Loretta because it's his right as a man. Too comical.
Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said that the techniques being developed in sheep could in future allow parents to “play God”. I wonder what he thinks about abortion? I imagine he's pro-choice. Like that's not playing God. Perhaps he's a supporter of stem cell research as well (most of these homosexual advocates are liberal in all facets of political ideology)...would he say that's not playing God? In a similar vein, what about in utero surgery to repair spina bifida? That's a proactive technique designed to alter the outcome of the fetus, much like what he's claiming could happen here. Certainly, he's not opposed to in utero surgery? Liberals are such hippocrates it makes me want to puke.
First of all, Jim, you can't spell. Hippocrates was a person. Have you ever heard of the hippocratic oath that doctors take? Hippocrates is believed by many to be the father of modern medicine. I'm assuming you meant “hypocrites”. Although your point is a very good one indeed, you have done nothing more then make a fool out of yourself by spelling a simple word totally wrong. Additionally, you said, "In this vein..". Again, this is the wrong word. A "vein" is a noun which is part of the cardiovascular system. You wanted the word "Vain" unless you were talking about some sort of IV drug. These two words are homophones. Homophones are words that sound the same but are spelled differently and have different meanings. I won't even mention the fact that your statement also proves that conservatives are hypocrites. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, nazis and fundament muslims are all hypocrites. Your comment is neither novel nor constructive. Even as a Liberal myself, I can admit that many of my views do contradict some of my other views. My only wish is that people like you would do the very same and admit so.
The usage "in this vein" is, in fact, the correct one. It implies that two items are related, by being in the same place, namely a vein. One would not say "in this vain", which would be semantically meaningless, as "vain" is an adjective and hence impossible to be in. You might, however, say something to the effect of "researchers are attempting to treat hormone levels in the vain hope of curing a disease that isn't actually a disease." Although, of course, opinions on that will vary.
this artcile is false and the majority of bloggers have begun removing it from their blogs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25sheep.html?hp&ex=1169787600&en=9768bd40a991ddee&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Simply because the NY Times claims something to be false, certainly does not make it so. Anything coming out of the so called Gray Lady needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
However, I do appreciate the article. It does appear the scientist's work was misrepresented in the Sunday Times. The NYT article asserts that the study is not to "cure" the homosexuality in sheep, but simply to identify "physiological factors" which cause this homosexual behavior.
I am not going to remove this article, but I do recognize that it did mischaracterize the nature of the study.
Post a Comment