Welcome to Gaia! ::

In the link below it basically talks about "1 in 10 male rams" being homosexual. Researchers at a college or somewhere have more or less figured out what causes the male rams to be homosexual.

They think this could pave the way to mothers being able to take treatment some day that would prevent their children from being homosexual.

It's a touchy issue I suppose.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408,00.html

Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

Really?

Evolutionarily speaking, and scientifically speaking, homosexuality is a dead end and at the very least a mutation. A harmful one to the species. Creatures that do not reproduce do not pass their genes on to the next generation.

As I understand the article they were originally studying rams to see why some were homosexual, since their homosexuality reduced their value to farmers and insured that the affected rams would not reproduce if they were in the wild.

We're not talking about choice here which is entirely different. We're talking about a mutation that causes a hormone imbalance.

Certainly I wouldn't condone giving living homosexuals this treatment to 'straighten' them out. That would be cruel and unethical. But that scientists have discovered what is causing it and think they can stop it is neither horrifying nor an abuse of science.

It is, in point of fact, what science does. Find an anomaly, and homosexuality is an anomaly, and discover why it happens.

That's a very good point Genica and I don't think anyone is arguing with you.

Humans have the right to choose and they shouldn't be forced to choose a so called 'cure' (Am I the only one who is having major flashbacks to X-Men III here?).

I think, from what I read, in the article the scientists themselves thought it'd be unethical to use this on a human. They were just trying to find out why things happened and help farmers with their livestock.

Yes they speculated that it might be possible for a mother to get some kind of 'patch' but I feel pretty safe in saying that even if there were a few who did it, the side effects would outweigh the potential percieved gain from it. Because everything has side effects. Nothing is as simple as it seems.

I remember a few years ago when there was a huge uproar about how mothers would be able to choose the sex of their babys using genetic engineering and that hasn't come to be all the rage it was supposed to have been either.

I also understand, and science is bearing this out, that being a homosexual isn't really a choice in the same way that people like to make it out to be.

Assuming they did find a "cure," why would that be a misuse of science? I don't think anyone is talking about rounding up groups of homosexuals and mass innoculating them or whatever. It would, presumably, be available for people who wanted it--which would be increasing choice, would it not? At least, the current treatments for sheep are for adults.

Mothers--would have one more weighty choice to make on behalf of their children. It's not a new phenomenon.

And--I'm with Sapphi--there is nothing "simple" about a hormonal patch! Such things always have side-effects.

I live in the south as well and it is a pretty prejiduce place toward homosexuals or anything that is "small" or "different". I don't think it's unnatural however.

Eh, I have this theorey where if "Something happens, it must be natural." In some way, no matter how different it seems.

Genecia, I don't think you have anything to apologize for. It's ok to feel strongly about things. You clearly have strong feelings but you still listen to what others have to say and don't just dismiss people who have different view points. That's, sadly, almost unheard of.

Also, parents often have to make agonizing choices for their children that in an ideal world they shouldn't have to make, but they do. Hermaphrodite children used to be made into one sex or the other and probably still are for the most part. The parents are asked whether or not they'd rather have a boy or a girl and the child is made such, usually through hormone therapy. It was considered a kindness to the child to be allowed to grow up normally and it was what loving parents did.

Times are changing and now some parents are choosing to let their children decide but the decision is made so late in life that it can be a major trauma. Unfortunately it's too soon to know how these different approaches affect the individual in the long term.

We know that in the first approach at least the child gets to grow up like everyone else, something that a lot of people feel is very important.

I bring that up to point out that parents are often called to make decisions they don't want to have to make and they do the best they can with what they know.

I also agree with Sapphy and Bookwyrme. A hormone patch is such a bad idea for so many reasons that I can't ever see it catching on. Firstly I have a real hard time believing that hormones alone are the cause and therefore a likely 'cure'. Most likely there are many factors that are involved and we'll be unable to control all of them. Beyond that, yeah, side effects. The last thing anyone want's to see is the Thalidomide babies all over again.

I was raised in the south too. lol As soon as I realized I was free to go, I left.


I agree. If it happens in the natural world and is a part of the natural world then it is by definition natural. If it seems different then maybe it's rare or just something we haven't noticed yet but that does not make it 'unnatural'.

No more artificial than a twin. Deliberately worked for (so are IVF babies), and harder to guarantee, but still human.

I get queasy at the steps it would take to produce a human clone. What happens to the mistakes along the way? The ones who are born but who end up living much shorter lives (as with Dolly) because we haven't figured everything out yet? The ones who have to live with other mistakes? Is having a human clone really so important? It's not like we're short of people, after all.



Wouldn't it be nice if discoveries came with little black or white tags?

Well, maybe it'd be nice razz



See Geeky Guidline #4: "Don’t fret if a thread goes off-topic. Conversations, after all, take many twists and turns. If you feel something needs further discussion, you can always answer the earlier question—or start a new thread. "

****

Back to the previous topic: I wonder how much of the article reflects actual, current possibility and how much is the desire for drama? I mean, the possibility of being able to affect human sexual orientation may have been briefly raised, but I'd be very surprised if any of the scientists involved presented it as something that would happen any time in the near future or if they said it would be something "simple" like a hormonal patch; they'd know better than to call something like that "simple." So, I supsect that some of the resulting article comes from a desire for dramatic impact: "We can make male rams decide they want to mate with ewes" is not likely to raise much interest, after all.