Researchers Say They Can Prevent Homosexuality in Sheep - Are Humans Next?

www.timesonline.co.uk...

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.

Holy crap!

That's serious stuff, really serious.

What's more, if I understand the research correctly, this could pave the way for pacification treatments - rendering children passive by tweaking hormone levels during gestation.



Can you say designer slaves?

I'm getting ahead of myself here, because the gay issue is big enough on its own. (I can't help it though, because it seems to me that treating violence is the next logical step. I'm not saying homosexuals are violent, or anything of the sort, but clearly there is a link between hormones and homosexuality, and hormones and violent tendencies - or am I wrong about that?)

As a species, it might benefit us to eliminate homosexuality, but let's say we can transfer this research from sheep to humans, would it overpower environmental effects that contribute to someone becoming a homosexual? In nature, it's not just genes that prompt homosexuality, it's also a social behavior that most often comes into play when a young male (or female) can't compete for mates. It's better for them to 'make friends' than it is to breed, in those circumstances.

The same question would apply to violent tendencies, obviously. While I can see a lot of benefits in making a population passive in a couple of generations, I can also see huge risks, and even if one could load the dice, so to speak, would environmental factors still contribute heavily to the behavior of the offspring?

Anyway, this research is fascinating to me, I'll have to see if I can find more on it.

In the meantime, what do y'all think about this? I mean, would you feel right in choosing the sexual preference of your child in advance (assuming the technique would indeed work reasonably well on humans)? Would you tell your child that you had done this?

Taking it one step further, would you pacify your child? Would you remove violent, antisocial tendencies from them, in the hopes of making the world a better place?

What an age we live in...

[edit on 2-1-2007 by WyrdeOne]

The term "cure" implies that homosexuality is an illness.......??

Its a shame scientists don't spend more time trying to weed out the ignorance gene, humankind could definitely benefit from that research.

Point taken - I've changed the wording of the title to be more accurate and more sensitive. Though it's hard to portray this material with sensitivity, after all, they're talking about being able to eradicate homosexuality.

To be honest, I don't know yet where I stand on this...

Part of me says that a species that doesn't breed will die, and part of me says that we have plenty of breeders, and homosexuality is a natural response to crowded living conditions and social structures - not something that can be erased with a simple hormone adjustment.

Anyway, sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent to portray homosexuality as a disease.

I agree with above poster. (well poster before OP, and his follow up statement was well taken and some of the issues brought up are dealt with below)

Is homosexuality an illness?
Or is calling it an illness a potential limited view of life, not this in itself, but the attitude that can come with it of "this is how it is"...could that be an illness to be cured? Of course through knowledge and an open heart it can be. But that is part of evolution, I supposed we all go through stages of predudices.

Nature is full of strange things. Do we need male and female to reproduce.
That is the strongest argument from the "Evangelical" crowd anyway.

Well if certain lizards can reproduce without a male lizard...
also in nature, I have pointed out in other threads, that clown fish can be come male to female...snails have both sexual organs, etc.

My point is things are not as cut and dried as most people think.
Referring back to the first paragraph about curing prejudice...it comes back to opening up beyond the basics of life...as we know it.

Women can get pregnant now without having to have sex. Yes it still uses the male sperm...but the point is with cloning, etc. we may be like the "angels" (as Jesus pointed out that they do not marry, etc.) and not need sex for reproduction.
In the future you may be able to order a "testtube baby"

So cure...lets change that word.
Yes you can probably change a homosexual into a hetrosexual...again life is about perspectives, constant change. We are in an illusion that our thoughts are the way it is.
Sorry, there is no "it is the way it is"...my perspective on anything can change...just like that.

Now this is the scariest part as people want security through control...knowledge that is fixed...constants, etc.
But this is fear driven and it wont last to the next phase of evolution, which gives people, and themselves, the freedom to be who they are and to constantly change.

Its just a short step in the evolution cycle, but Im sure we will come through it.

- the main disease, seems to be the mind, and how we identify with it.
People call themselves "homosexual" "hetrosexual" and then become those thought forms...entranched into a story. So if you can cure that, which you can by acceptance of what is, or being in the present moment, which you only are in that...all thoughts of past and future are always present. If you do that, then there wont even be labels, etc., and people will begin to see the possiblities afforded to them, as well as peace of mind.

Peace

dAlen

edited to note OPs comment of change of word...points are still for others that may benefit from them. (also added last paragraph)

[edit on 2-1-2007 by dAlen]

Originally posted by dAlen
Is homosexuality an illness?

Technically it's a dysfunction.

No. I'm not homophobic. I'm just telling you what Psychology and Biology teach.

They can't prevent all homosexuality. Some people become homosexuals because of biology in gestation and others become homoesexuals from social situations. Homosexuality can be biological but it can also be a learned behavior.

I understand why a sheep breeder would want only straight sheep, however,
In all honesty I think the whole concept of "breeding out homosexuality" is just stupid. There has been homosexuality from the dawn of man and probably even before that. Hell, some cultures had no problem with it what so ever, it's just our culture, which feels the need to repress anything different, that views differences as a problem.

Homosexuality isn't a disease or a problem, it's just who you happen to develop feelings for. Can I not have just as meaningful a relationship as anyone else just because I'm with another man? I think that in many ways a homosexual relationship is more meaningful as another man will understand me in ways a woman could never.

Thats beside the point though, we're talking about "breeding out" differences and breeding in uniformity right? How long until we begin breeding out races we don't like?

You may think it's disgusting to see two men together, but I've met a few people who feel it's disgusting to see a black man with a white woman, does that mean we should put an end to that as well?

Do we start "breeding out" other differences? Maybe we should just euthanize all disabled babies, no more blind or deaf people. We should also breed out developmentally challenged children as well. Premature babies should probably go too since the cost too much money. Violent children should probably just be gassed.

People who're too smart should just be shot because it makes stupid people feel bad.

Over weight people should go too, just to be fair.

Hell, I think we should all start wearing gray jumpsuits, name everyone Joe and Jane, refer to each other as "Citizen", paint all our buildings, cars and products gray, make sure no one makes more money than anyone else and make sure everyone takes their little gray pill three times a day without fail.

I'm tired of "the homosexual debate" being carried out by straight people. Straight people will never ever understand and we should never expect them too. They will always seek first to explain it then to eradicate it.

Stay the hell out of my bedroom.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

...let's say we can transfer this research from sheep to humans, would it overpower environmental effects that contribute to someone becoming a homosexual?

We dump chemical crap into the environment. Said chemical crap affects things like hormones, which in turn affects things like sexuality. So we create more chemicals to treat the chemically-induced effects and changes we created.

What's wrong with this picture?

Good find btw.


I agree:

Homosexuality is not a disease.

Government should stay out of our bedrooms.

Designer babies are a really, really bad idea.

BUT.

If it MUST happen, let's breed out violence and sociopathic CEO's first.


.

I think if we want to breed out undesirable social traits such as lying thieving business people, we can do so with proper social education and never use any chemicals.

As it is right now we pretty much throw out kids to the wolves and expect them to deal since thats what our parents did to us. We tell them to do things they hate, so they can get a job they hate, so they can marry someone they don't like, so they can have ungrateful kids and end up unhappy like us. Why? That's what our parents did.

We need to teach our kids a different way if we want them to grow up and be different. Right now we just teach them how things are, we should teach them how things should, and can, be.

I think these scientists should spend their time trying to cure real diseases.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by dAlen
Is homosexuality an illness?

Technically it's a dysfunction.

No. I'm not homophobic. I'm just telling you what Psychology and Biology teach.

They can't prevent all homosexuality. Some people become homosexuals because of biology in gestation and others become homoesexuals from social situations. Homosexuality can be biological but it can also be a learned behavior.

Sorry, FF, none of that is true. I'm a psychologist, my husband was a high school biology teacher and that isn't what is taught in either field, except by the rare ignoramus that comes along. Homosexuality is NOT caused by any social factors, nor is it learned behavior. I've known and worked with literally hundreds of gay and lesbian folks - when you trace their histories you will see that most say "I've always been this way, as far back as I can remember.

And no it's not a dysfunction. The DSM (diagnostic manual) earlier edition listed homosexuality as a disorder, but it hasn't been listed as such for years, like about 20 years or so. It's not a dysfuntion, homosexuals function just fine, only differently a little bit.

Good points, Shadowflux, thanks for speaking up. And I agree with you, we all need to stay out of each other's bedroom and quit judging others.

As for genetic engineering to eradicate homosexuality, I sure would miss all of the wonderful things that my gay and lesbian friends bring to me - a different point of view, just to name one thing. I, for one, think it's a useless idea, I agree let's take care of the violent offenders first.

Originally posted by Shadowflux
I'm tired of "the homosexual debate" being carried out by straight people. Straight people will never ever understand and we should never expect them too. They will always seek first to explain it then to eradicate it.

Stay the hell out of my bedroom.

Hmmm...read my post, and then research my post on the thread if you like...as I have posted on this subject before.
I say that as you just fell victim of what you basically accuse others of in regards to the homosexcual issue. Stereotyping.

What do I mean? Simply this. If you must put a label, then you could label me as straight, married, with 4 kids, and no homosexual desires. However by my post I have a feeling that probably a lot of people would never know...and rightfully so, as how would it sound if I "defend" against "evangelical" type attacks, but tag it with "Im straight".
shows Im afraid what people think and I subconscioulsy am judging the "homosexual".
The only reason Im making this clear now is that you perhaps will see that "straight" people (people in general) cannot be stereotyped, and this is the very issue that you seem to be facing as it appears your defending yourself against "straight people".

Again, if you do a search on homosexual, or look up my post, you will find my posting habits to be the same as what I posted in this thread.

Instead of labeling, lets stop it...who needs to say Im this or Im that. Do you need to be identified as the homosexual? Do I as the hetrosexual, etc. Break the barriers down by rejecting silly labels, as I believe it was your post (maybe someone elses) hinted at.

Peace

dAlen

Originally posted by forestlady
Homosexuality is NOT caused by any social factors, nor is it learned behavior.

Sociologists and psychologists differ on that. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. According to 'Sociology' - 9th Ed - by John Macionis - ISBN -0-13-097763-2 Sexual orientation is factored by BOTH society and biology.

Product of Society - Anthropologists show that sexual orientation is socially constructed. (Herdt, 1993; Murray & Roscoe, 1998)

Product of Biology - LeVay (1993) links sexual orientation to the structure of the brain. Hypothalamus is involved. Genetics influence sexual orientation - 'gay gene' (Hamer & Copeland, 1994)

BOTH constructed by society and biology - Gladue, Green & Hellman, 1984; Weinrich, 1987; Troiden, 1988; Isay, 1989; Puterbaugh, 1990; Angier, 1992; Gelman, 1992.

And no it's not a dysfunction.

Sociologists say that homosexuality is dysfunctional, NOT in regard to how homosexuals function with others, but in regards to the fact that the human body is geared for reproduction and homosexuality is opposed to that function.

The DSM (diagnostic manual) earlier edition listed homosexuality as a disorder, but it hasn't been listed as such for years, like about 20 years or so.

... and that was about how long ago I went and to school for my psychology degree. (gawd .. i'm old! )

I didn't say ... 'disorder'. I said dysfunctional. Two different things.

Like I said, I'm not homophobic and I dont' care who people choose to have sexual relations with. I'm just reporting what the books say. Some say it's all constructed by society; some say it's all biology; some say both. The behaviorists would love to sink their teeth into this one! I could see Skinner now ....


edited for spelling


[edit on 1/2/2007 by FlyersFan]

DAlen,

Straight people will never understand what it's like to be gay, no matter how hard they try, or how open minded they think they are, it's just impossible. A white person can't know what it's like to be black, a man can't know what it's like to be a woman, a cat can't know what it's like to be a dog. It's just a fact you have to accept.

On average straight people have considered themselves the "normal" ones and have considered homosexuals and bisexuals as "abnormal" hence why they have sought to study and "cure" it for so long.

I'm not labeling anyone anything by saying this, but I am saying that straight people have no right to an opinion on how a gay person should live, not here in America at least. As long as they're not hurting anyone else they should be allowed to live their lives anyways they see fit, just like any other full citizen of the United States. Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of happiness.



As for the debate over it being natural or social, whether you're born gay or not. I feel the same way, straight people should stay out of it. The "science" is skewed, there is no way to get an accurate survey of people because there are so many people who will refuse to admit they are gay, either to themselves or others.

I'm sure many of us would be shocked to find out who in our lives is in fact gay but felt they couldn't tell anyone due to people's natural ignorance. We hear plenty of stories on Oprah about men who're married for years and "realized" they were gay. They didn't just realize it, they didn't just decide to be gay, they were gay their entire lives and were in denial.

Coming to terms with your sexuality is a hard step in life for anyone, gay or straight, but it's much harder when you have people either telling you that your orientation is wrong or wanting to run CAT scans on your brain to find out why you like men.


Answer this question: If being gay is just something you choose when you're younger, then wouldn't heterosexuality be a choice as well? Why did you choose to be straight?

I suppose you will also tell me that bisexuality is not natural, and more over, deserving of even less respect than homosexuality.

One day soon people will just accept it and get on with their lives, just like we think it odd that our parents segregated the black community, so will our children think it odd that their parents saw homosexuality as unnatural.

I think something with such a major impact as sexuality shouldn't be messed with in test tubes. There's a reason nature has produced homosexuality. A response to localized overpopulation, a pacification of mating desire, the need for herds/communities to grow stronger bonds... Whatever the reason, it must be a good one.

When homosexuality is not needed by the species, it will disappear on its own.

In the meantime I think all we have a right to manipulate is the growing image that "Being gay is cool."

Originally posted by ShadowfluxI suppose you will also tell me that bisexuality is not natural, and more over, deserving of even less respect than homosexuality.

They will always seek first to explain it then to eradicate it.

The last sentence was from an earlier post of yours.
My post was pointing out the falicy in your grouping and proving not all "Straight want to eradicate" or are fearful of "gays".

The former sentence of yours shows you havent read my post on this thread or others, or you would not suggest that I would think bisexuals deserve less respect.

Sorry that the communication doesnt appear to be clearer...

As long as you are an identity, (this goes for anyone) there will be trouble and struggles. You are not a label, unless you want to be and we often enjoy our "Stories" even if its stories of suffering.

But I will leave this as it is...as I have said enough, it will be understood however it needs to be understood.

Peace

dAlen

"In nature, it's not just genes that prompt homosexuality, it's also a social behavior that most often comes into play when a young male (or female) can't compete for mates. It's better for them to 'make friends' than it is to breed, in those circumstances."

could you explain this? I dont really understand what you are saying. I can see no difference in gay couples than in straight couples, i (straight) dont have sex with my girlfriend to breed, perhaps one day but certainly for a good decade she is a friend who i have sex with. A gay person's other half is a friend who they have sex with.

how can we hate our own creation?

in more simple and uninhibited times, when the population is lesser, then homosexuality will not be an issue.

with so many depictions of sex in our daily lives, one can hardly tell whether the feelings they're having are coming from themselves or from society.

dAlen,

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say but I guess it doesn't matter. I think you're reading my posts with a black and white filter. What I'm saying is that most straight people think they can understand gay people, when all they really do is subconciously belittle and demean homosexuality. To most people it's something weird, abnormal, something unusual that needs to be researched and understood. A problem to be solved. This doesn't mean that they're afraid of, or hateful of gay people, they could be voting uber left straight down the line. The problem is that they don't know they're doing it.

We will have true acceptance of people with differing orientations when we no longer see anything odd about two men or two women together, when we don't feel like it's somthing that needs to be researched and figured out. When we stop finding "cures" for it.

Homophobia is everywhere, even here in New York. You have no idea how much self control it takes to hold my tongue in church when some ignorant parishioner starts spewing vocal feces saying that the bible says this and the bible says that and gay people are going to hell and everyone else just lets them talk. I could quote the bible to rebut all they say, but I can't, lest I be run out of church.

Oh well, I guess I haven't got much more to say. Straight people should stop trying to form an opinion about homosexuality and homosexuals, or bisexuals, and just learn to accept them.

Love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, judge not lest ye be judged, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, all men are created equal, freedom is an inalienable right granted at birth by the Creator. (lol, I think I could quote relevant slogans all day, it seems to be the best way to communicate with some people)

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
As a species, it might benefit us to eliminate homosexuality, but let's say we can transfer this research from sheep to humans, would it overpower environmental effects that contribute to someone becoming a homosexual? In nature, it's not just genes that prompt homosexuality, it's also a social behavior that most often comes into play when a young male (or female) can't compete for mates. It's better for them to 'make friends' than it is to breed, in those circumstances.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by WyrdeOne]

Other than the type of homosexual behaviour seen where many people of one gender are put together with no chance of interaction with the opposite sex I don't think it has anything to do with competition to find mates. I know too many gay men who from a young age were considered a catch by the females in their communities but who simply did not have the inclination to follow it up unless it was to hide their sexuality. I don't think that theory comes into play in any serious way. It is interesting that the percentage of gay rams ( 1 in 10) seems to mirror the human percentages.

Originally posted by ubermunche
the percentage of gay rams ( 1 in 10) seems to mirror the human percentages.

The human population doesn't have a 10% gay rate. Most serious studies show the gay populations to be between 1-3%.

Of course, thats the people who admit to being gay. I'm sure there are more who are and don't admit to it. But even with those the population is not 10% gay.

FlyersFan: I could not find online the books you listed. I will say this, though, all of the books you listed are pretty out of date. What I mean by that is that, science has made new discoveries and opinions have changed. My original intent was to point out that Biology and Psychology do not, by and large, teach that homosexuality comes from environment, upbringing, etc.

There will always be those that differ, but the majority of mainstream in those 2 branches, especially psychology don't teach the environmental factor as a fact.

When I was a practicing psychologist for 15 years, I never met one person who thought that homosexuality was due to environment at all.

It's not something one would choose, it can be a really sad, lonely and horrible life. Gays are ostracized, murdered, beat up, etc. who the hell would choose to take that on? And as far as I know, there has never been anyone who chose to be heterosexual.