Science told: hands off gay sheep

[el adam]

If this happened to humans, it would be one less minority group to make fun of. No me gusta [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how this can NOT make for a good thread!

[/ QUOTE ]Good topic, I can't see how this is any differnet than this.
This link was the best I could do that describes
Balaban, Evan. "Why voles stick together." Nature 429 (2004): 711-712.

[hmkpoker]

Slight hijack: how often does exclusive homosexuality happen in the animal kingdom?

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Slight hijack: how often does exclusive homosexuality happen in the animal kingdom?


[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, but I just read on wikipedia that 45% of all sex of asiatic elephants in captivity is homosexual.

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi vhawk01

[ QUOTE ]

"I don't want this to turn into an abortion debate, so suffice to say that I am unequivocally right, and therefore that we are a nation of hypocrites."



[/ QUOTE ]



Calling us a nation of hypocrites because of this issue is a little strong don't you think? I mean its not like we've banned researching it or made such a "cure" illegal if one was discovered. You do bring up a valid point though. One can not be for legal abortion and at the same time advocate prohibiting researching an in the womb cure for homosexuality without being a hypocrite. That be like saying only gay fetuses have rights.

Stu

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure a lot of gays welcome such research because they know deep down in their hearts homosexuality is a defect. Its a shame the rights of those gays are going to be trampled on for the sake of political correctness.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Homosexuality is a defect, just as being left-handed is a defect. While gay sex may not produce the "natural" outcome that sex is geared towards, having kids, you post leads me to believe you think the defect is in some way wrong, immoral, or makes them less in another way. With adoption, overpopulation, etc., there is no sound basis for this.

(You can try to reply Stu, but I've had about a dozen PM's arguing this "moral" point about homosexuality.)

A natural deviation does not make the deviation "bad" or lessened in any way unless it causes some kind of suffering to others or hurts the species as a whole in some way.

Everybody has deviations of some sort, and a sexual deviation is not special.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
In this country we allow women to have abortions simply because those women do not want a particular person to exist. In that light what is wrong with a country or culture wishing to eliminate a particular demographic before thier born?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu, Stu, Stu... come on man, you are at least smart enough to make a clever, harder to find logical fallacy.

Alright, where to start.

Ok, first, I bet if we took a survey, most women would tell you that they don't have abortions because they "don't want a person to exist" but because, aside from rape and incest, they are not ready/capable of taking care of a child and feel it's the right thing to do to prevent suffering of the (potential) child and the women.

Secondly, at what point does the thing inside the woman become a person (with the right to live?) ??? Certainly before it is born, yes, but that's why we don't do abortions after the first trimester.

Third, eliminating a specific demographic is rarely, if ever, the reason for abortion. Trying to "cure" the world of... let's say left-handed people as an example, is not the same as a left handed woman having an abortion for a variety of reasons.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Homosexuality is a defect, just as being left-handed is a defect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Left-handedness, eye, skin or hair color are traits, not defects.

[ QUOTE ]
A natural deviation does not make the deviation "bad" or lessened in any way unless it causes some kind of suffering to others or hurts the species as a whole in some way.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were to ask any potential parent if given the choice would they voluntarily choose to concieve a gay child they will almost all say they would not. The answer they give will likely be something along the lines that they have no bigatory towards homosexuality but they would not want the child to suffer the bigatory that exist in society. If suffering is the criteria for determining what is and what isn't a defect, well homosexuality clearly falls on the defect side.

The cold hearted truth is humans do not like homosexuality. The cold hearted truth is humans don't like people who look like this either.

Call homosexuality a trait if you want but you have to be blind not see its an undesireable trait. Call it a defect if you want. It doesn't matter. Its all symantics.

Stu

[MaxWeiss]

I have not polled a vast number of gays. If there was a way to poll them, including ones who keep it quiet (and hence would not normally be polled) we would have a basis for the answer, in terms of suffering. Based on my conversations and encounters with people I know are gay, I contend that currently, 50%+1 would reject an immediate "cure" and remain as they are in that fashion. Given the rise of social acceptance of homosexuality, I think that number, even if I am wrong, will rise.

I don't know though. I have not done the appropriate research, and I could be wrong. We should ask them though, either way.

But you do help a vital point of mine--there is nothing inherently immoral or wrong about it; the ethics are derived from suffering and happiness. Again, we'd have to ask them to find out.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

Stu, Stu, Stu... come on man, you are at least smart enough to make a clever, harder to find logical fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it was a ridiculous comparison because as a country will do not compel women to have abortions(i realized that on my drive to work).

I think the point I was trying to make is still valid though. You cannot want to prohibit an in the womb cure for homosexuality while at the same time advocate legal abortions and remain consistant. In one case you are saying the unborn have no rights and in the other you are saying they have rights that need to be protected.

Stu