Debate and Discussion

"Curing" Homosexuality using Hormones and Genetics.
mykill at 1:19AM, Jan. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
The antagonism towards homosexuality owes itself to stereotypes as well. But stereotypes cut both ways. The thing about stereotypes is that they are generalizations, not lies. Artistic fields do attract a large percentage of homosexuals, men make more money than women generally so gay male couples are advantaged economically (plus no accidental babies), Gay people are regualrly more available (childless) to take care of aging family members.Living in a hostile environment as minorities gives gay people something to think about, makes us seem smarter than folks that have nothing to think about.

Of course homosexuality can only be ‘cured’ if you consider it a disease or something ‘wrong’ in some way. It may be possible in the future to choose a sexual orientation for a child, which is what a ‘cure’ REALLY suggests.

Imagine if you could change your own sexual orientation at will? Think of all the folks that might ‘turn gay’ or ‘turn straight’ following a hurtful break-up? Would homosexuality be popular with young people, as a way to avoid possible unwanted babies and abortions?

Now I'm not commenting on the science. My feelings are that sexuality isn't simple enough to yield 100% true physical basis. I mean, can such a thing as, say, a fetish for leather or high heels , intrincisic to the arousal of the fetishist - be something that's also genetically hard wired? I doubt it and prefer the working of the mind and emotions to remain mysterious.

The kneejerk religious types are more likely to be averse to tinkering with God's decisions than they are with gayness, especially if gayness can be squarely be established as a genetic trait rather than ‘choice’.

I'm pretty sure that homosexuality exists for the best interests of the species, and that without homophobia, homosexuality could become a popular and desireable trait - especially in a over populous areas of the world.

last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Aurora Moon at 2:04AM, Jan. 7, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Man, I'm glad you're back and posting, Mykill. your posts are always intersting to read.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
ccs1989 at 9:48AM, Jan. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
lothar
ccs1989
Between 200 and 1200 CE, Islamic writers actually advised homosexuality because women were so sequestered. Islam has always frowned on homosexuality, but tolerated it during that time. These days…not happening.

Islam wasn't even around in 200 AD

True, I should rephrase that. I was grouping the rise of Islam together with the factors that affected the creation of it (like Zoroastrianism). But the timeline should be something more like 650-1200 CE. Thanks for pointing that out.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Disgruntledrm at 9:46PM, Jan. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 298
joined: 6-24-2006
The idea is utterly ridiculous, but I've got a question…what the HELL could Iran do with this kind of technology? I really don't understand how it could be a major threat to the rest of the world if Iran could make their ram population more inclined towards heterosexuality; or even their male population. Mind you, I'm referring to something posted in the article.

It seems pretty illogical to me that people would get defensive about it anyway, if homosexuality really is genetic disorder.

And if in fact homosexuality is from a genetic mutation, why would we want to know? That would just lead us down a path of a darker reality where we in fact find out that we are all creatures with no unique qualities, but simply a bunch of chemicals with programmed reactions depending upon the infinite combinations of such that our system is made up of. We'd then realize that the idea of possessing what the religious refer to as a soul (mind you, I'm religious;so believe I have one,) and there would be no point in living.

Personally, if that's true, I don't want to know.


But why don't the farmers just have their ewes artificially inseminated if it's really costing them that much to have homosexual rams?

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:12PM
ozoneocean at 9:51PM, Jan. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,006
joined: 1-2-2004
Out of everyone, only Vindibudd seems to be thinking of preference in those terms Ian_feverdream. But the problem with the “gay” gene idea is that it denies all the rest of what makes you human. Besides, simple, straightforward, unambiguous genetic imperatives, you have all the myriad other incidental related secondary or direct biological factors; like how much of this or that particular hormone you were exposed to in the womb etc. Then there are the psychological influences on growing minds and bodies, as well as the environment and all that entails. (ie. compounds in the water, air, or food can drastically alter body development).

But I suppose people are naturally predisposed to the idea that we are all created whole and perfect: we are how we are because this is the way god “made” us, so to speak (for some that “god” is in the form of genetics) Just like Adam. :)

The rationale I propose is actually quite similar to the more childish solely genetic imperative idea in that the way your sexuality evolves is just as much out of your hands and does not involve any conscious decision making on your part: the way you turn out did not involve choice. The difference is I don't ascribe it to some simple godly genetic blueprint (although it probably does involve some genetic predisposition).
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Ronson at 11:12PM, Jan. 7, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Not to mention that it sidesteps the argument completely. The door has been opened. A ram's sexuality might be changeable. The implication is that there may be a day that science figures out how to do that to people on a genetic level. It's not by any means a reality or even a liklihood, but it's a possibility. And that's what people are talking about.

The elephant in the room seems to me to be “is homosexuality a defect?”

That is, is it something that is akin to bad eyesight? Something that someone should need to fix or avoid?

I don't think it is. I think it's just a preference. Probably based within the genes and within the environment some people prefer different things from others.

If you accept that homosexuality is just a difference in someone's sexual preference, and not a problem or a handicap or an aberration … then the question becomes whether or not a mother has the right to alter the child based on preferences SHE thinks her child should have.

That's a toughie, I would think. Remove homosexuality from the equation. Say they isolate the gene that causes someone to be disobedient toward authority figures (hypothetically, please!). Should a mother be allowed to have that altered? What about a preference for healthy food over unhealthy food?

They've been talking about designer babies for years. But the list of choices could be nearly endless.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
mapaghimagsik at 11:57AM, Jan. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
On a side note, I for one have chosen shellfish as my way to hell. Some people choose gay sex, some people choose shellfish.

Leviticus 11 talks much about how eating shellfish is an abomination, *just like* being gay. Clearly, Leviticus didn't know how to party.

So, I got to hell with butter sauce.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
mlai at 4:27PM, Jan. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Parents have been bossing their kids around since the dawn of time. But, as soon as SCIENCE is involved, it's OMGtehEVIL!!

Even if we go on the premise that homosexuality is normal, why can't a parent decide what his/her kid should grow up to be turned on by? It doesn't hurt the kid! It's the same feelings!

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Aurora Moon at 6:51PM, Jan. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
mlai
Parents have been bossing their kids around since the dawn of time. But, as soon as SCIENCE is involved, it's OMGtehEVIL!!

you don't understand. it's one thing for an parent to raise and boss an kid how she/he wants to, but it's another thing to ALTER their child for ridiculous reasons like wanting their kid to be beautiful, the strongest, etc.
it's just like giving an 4-year-old girl breast implants….that kind of altering is not only pointless and stupid, it's immoral. you want to know why it's so immoral? because they're doing it on an kid that's too young or even barely conscious enough to know if they even wants big, honking fake breasts for the rest of her life. Breasts that has very little to do with how they are raised and how much of an impact on society.

one might argue that breast surgery isn't the same as using hormones and genetics to ensure how the parents wants their child to turn out… but imagine if an mother who was so obsessed with the media telling her how women should look like ended up telling the doctors to give her an patch where it would make her unborn baby develop HUGE, honking breasts when her daughter was old enough. That ends up pretty much the same thing… altering her child for superficial purposes.

the same goes for the possibility of the sexual orientation thing. to me Homosexuality has no serious impact on how people are as human beings. Homosexual people are just like everyone else. the only difference is that there's a lot of close-minded, shallow people out there who focuses too much on the trivial things.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
Ronson at 7:13PM, Jan. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Let's go beyond what we've discussed so far.

If genetic manipulation allows for a parent's view of “perfection”, it could extend to skin color, IQ, strength, height … everything.

Should a parent be allowed to choose skin color for their child? What about Lavendar?

I have to tell you that this tears me in half. The part of me that thinks people should be able to choose whatever they want for their child is in a battle with the part of me that thinks it will lead to having the “right” kind of babies or the “wrong” kind. Since it would be centered around financial status, the rich would have their ubermensch, and everyone else would be considered less in all areas.

But do we have the right to deny it to parents? I have constantly stated that there should be no limits to science, even when it makes some people uncomfortable. This darn well makes me uncomfortable, but that isn't a rational arguement to stop it.

Is there a rational argument against it?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Black_Kitty at 8:10PM, Jan. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,481
joined: 1-1-2006
Ronson
But do we have the right to deny it to parents? I have constantly stated that there should be no limits to science, even when it makes some people uncomfortable. This darn well makes me uncomfortable, but that isn't a rational arguement to stop it.

Is there a rational argument against it?

I don't understand why there shouldn't be limits to science. We have them already don't we? The Nazis did plenty of scientific studies at the expense of other people. Yet nobody would dream of repeating their science experiments and I'm sure they're experiments that would make plenty of people uncomfortable.

True, that's an extreme example…but the point is, there's always a line drawn in the sand. It's just a matter of where you draw it.

I think there's a difference between pressuring your son to go marry a nice girl (even though he has his eyes on the boy next door) and injecting hormones into your son so that all he thinks about are girls. Forget for a moment about whether or not a fetus is a person (not because I don't want to listen but because that's not the point here…if you're already considering the use of hormones, you are already thinking of that thing in your womb as your child.) You are injecting hormones to affect how a person behaves. You are using your standards and your expectations and making sure that the other person matches up to them.

“My future child may have different feelings and ideas of his or her own sexual identity. I simply cannot let that happen. Let us inject some hormones into my child so that I can make sure it will never happens.”

Let's be honest here. We all have people we don't like or disagree with. Wouldn't the world be a better place if we could just find those people, club them over the head, and brainwash them so that they could finally come to their senses and stop being so difficult?

It's not that I have anything against science. I don't have anything against rams or farmers either. And to be honest, I don't have much against this study because I don't think it will go as far as it's speculated. But if we're talking about genetic manipulation in general…well…

My parents can boss me all they like but I'm not going to grow a penis. :P I'm not going to have blue skin either or have a perference to math. Mind you, their face could turn blue from all that bossing around but it still doesn't change who I am.

But if I'm genetically manipulated, then I don't really have much say in that matter. I wouldn't have any say actually since I wouldn't have been born yet when they made their decision.

To genetically manipulate your child so that they would have a specific hair colour, IQ, sexual orientation, whatever, seem to be the first and final act of superiority. Before you know who that person will become, you already feel that you know better than him/her. You don't know who that person is, you don't know if they'll agree or disagree with you even! But you're not going to take that chance because you know what's best.
  
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:24AM
mlai at 8:12PM, Jan. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Instead of talking about juvenile breast implants, why don't we talk about circumcision? Isn't that the same thing? What gives the parents the right to circumcise the child before the child has any understanding of what is involved?

Circumcision decreases risks of penile cancer, may protect against AIDS, and may make the penis bigger. But hey, what if the child thinks having foreskin is more important!? Just like what if the child thinks that belonging to a marginalized and persecuted social group is more important than being more socially accepted!?

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Phantom Penguin at 8:14PM, Jan. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
mlai
Parents have been bossing their kids around since the dawn of time. But, as soon as SCIENCE is involved, it's OMGtehEVIL!!

Even if we go on the premise that homosexuality is normal, why can't a parent decide what his/her kid should grow up to be turned on by? It doesn't hurt the kid! It's the same feelings!

That means your parents could have made you their “chosen gay kid”. And you would be getting a butt full of rod.

But it violates a childs rights,taking away free will to alter a child's orentation? Thats simply wrong. Theres no need to go further into it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Phantom Penguin at 8:17PM, Jan. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
mlai
Instead of talking about juvenile breast implants, why don't we talk about circumcision? Isn't that the same thing? What gives the parents the right to circumcise the child before the child has any understanding of what is involved?

Circumcision decreases risks of penile cancer, may protect against AIDS, and may make the penis bigger. But hey, what if the child thinks having foreskin is more important!? Just like what if the child thinks that belonging to a marginalized and persecuted social group is more important than being more socially accepted!?

then he could choose it himself when he grows up if its what he wants.
Did i really need to say that?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
mlai at 4:42AM, Jan. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Did you really need to reply to only 1/2 of my point?

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
exalted1 at 9:35AM, Jan. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 5
joined: 11-17-2006
A similar issue was discussed in the play and subsequent indy movie “the Twilight of the Golds” (starring brendan frasier). based on the hypothetical situation “what if there was a genetic screening available for homosexuality?” and what would an expectant mother do when told that there was a 99% certainty that her child would be gay just like her older brother.

The resulting drama shows how the family deals with a variety of issues, including wether or not to abort the fetus (definitely not a fav plan of the older brother).

Incidently, the family is Jewish, so when the matter of the genetic research comes up, the family patriarch bemoans that the scientists who are testing out this new screening (which was also for a variety of other genetic differences) makes them very close to the Nazis that he barely survived.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:24PM
mlai at 10:11AM, Jan. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
No, the scientists are not close to the Nazis. Your ****ing daughter is a ****ing Nazi for considering the idea of aborting the baby because it'll be gay.

****ing lay off the ****ing scientists.

(Directed at the ****ing hypothetical patriarch SOB, not at the poster. **********ing ******* thinks he's got a lifetime free membership to the victims complex club which allows him to lay the blame on whoever he wishes.)

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Aurora Moon at 12:18PM, Jan. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Ronson
But do we have the right to deny it to parents? I have constantly stated that there should be no limits to science, even when it makes some people uncomfortable. This darn well makes me uncomfortable, but that isn't a rational arguement to stop it.

Is there a rational argument against it?

I think there should be an limit. Mainly because as much as we humans think that we know everything about what's best for our children, we don't.

Some parents out there has a lot of issues that they have in life, and sometimes with those issues of theirs they make their choices with their own children… only to make it worse.
It reminds me of that one Sliders episode where those people slid into an world where genetics were the rage.

Anybody too different from the norm in terms of skin color, hair color, race, etc– was seen as diseased, abnormal, etc. when all they were really, was just human beings.
and the children actually turned against their parents if it was discovered that their parents even had DNA that didn't turn up “pure”. by “pure” I mean having like %10 of black genes, %20 of polish genes, and 70% of white genes…. even though they appeared to be “perfect” white people.

interesting enough, all that started off with one parent who had an dream of an white supremacists America and used genetics and hormones to make sure that his son grew up to be a completely straight, pure white man without any “flaws” in his DNA.. raised him up on that whole “supremacist America” nonsense. And in the end, that Son killed his father when he discovered that his father wasn't as “perfect” as that ideal that his father had preached. His father had some genes which came from some ancestor being black, and that was enough for his son to kill him. That same Son got away with murder, and then grew up to be president of the United states in that alternate reality. Where he made it so that it was truly an white supremacist America, by using that genetics deal to have parents turn their unborn children white, with the parents agreeing to it!
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
ozoneocean at 12:48PM, Jan. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,006
joined: 1-2-2004
Aurora Moon
by “pure” I mean having like %10 of black genes, %20 of polish genes, and 70% of white genes…
That kind of thing, (tv shows like that) are exactly what genetics are all about to people: pure rubbish. Genetics became a buzzword, caught up by the mass media and turned into some magical thing where you can have “black genes”! I mean, the very idea is so unsound it's insane . lol!

-i.e. the genetic make-up of dark skinned people is the same as that of light skinned ones, the differences between one individual person and another are many times greater than the differences between the so called “races” of people. The traits that make someone part of a particular ethic “look” are extremely so minor that they're almost impossible to find.

I appreciate the point both you and the TV show where trying to make of course; about the dangers, the ethics and even the definitions of “genetic purity” and genetic tampering, but it still doesn't absolve the makers of that show from the crime of contributing to the mythology surrounding the subject. Our genes don't make us what we are, they're just a basic framework… It's like trying to analyse your house by looking at what the bricks are made of: It'll give you some of the basic story, but not much.
Doctors could alter and regulate the genetic make-up of children all they liked, but it wouldn't produce perfect people; just like if they developed the most perfect version of HTML, that wouldn't make all websites the same, or even any good. ;)

What we're discussing here is primarily an ethical, philosophical, and moral argument, not really a scientific one.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Ronson at 2:07PM, Jan. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
What we're discussing here is primarily an ethical, philosophical, and moral argument, not really a scientific one.

I hope that isn't a problem. Otherwise I think only the geneticist cartoonists and comic fans should be sharing their views. :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 2:24PM, Jan. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,006
joined: 1-2-2004
Ronson
I hope that isn't a problem. Otherwise I think only the geneticist cartoonists and comic fans should be sharing their views. :)
Wha? Of course it isn't a problem! :) I'm just saying that's how we should approach the debate, since it's far more applicable and not many people know enough about genetics… i.e. most of the ‘scientific’ contributions are either purely speculative, socially constructed, or fantasy, -even parts of my own! You do not have to be a geneticist to talk about the science of genetics, but you should know some of the science you're talking about.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:25PM
Aurora Moon at 5:00PM, Jan. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I knew that show was pretty much nonsense and not really reflecting actual science..
but I could see how some people could buy into that kind of hype so that's why I used it as an example.

at least I hope it was entertaining enough to read and also to reflect upon on from an ethical and moral viewpoint even though that kind of possibility is really WAY out there in the realms of implausibility. ;)
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
mlai at 5:12PM, Jan. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Swearing aside, I still can't believe the nerve of that Holocaust-survivor Jewish grandfather.

His daughter is standing there right in front of him, telling him “I'm considering the pros and cons of killing my baby because he's different. Cuz I want my progeny to be, like, perfect.” Instead of giving her a big fat meaty slap to the face, he's whining about how *the scientists* are like Nazis.

I'd jump into the TV and beat both their asses. He doesn't deserve to tote around the tag of “Holocaust Survivor.”

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Tundra at 7:20PM, Jan. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 198
joined: 6-29-2006
I'm straight, right? And… say that my parents had *made* me straight before I was born. Sure, I *could* go and have lesbian sex. But the thing is, it's *not* my choice, because I just am completely not interested in it. The idea doesn't turn me on.
http://www.notebookinhand.com Forum for artists, writers, and other creative types.
http://www.drunkduck.com/Notebook
http://www.notnegativenews.com Get positive news here! Improve your day. Share your links.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:35PM
Aurora Moon at 11:59PM, Jan. 15, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Tundra
I'm straight, right? And… say that my parents had *made* me straight before I was born. Sure, I *could* go and have lesbian sex. But the thing is, it's *not* my choice, because I just am completely not interested in it. The idea doesn't turn me on.

hmm. so you're saying you CHOOSE to be straight? so you believe that ALL sexual attention, inducing being asexual chooses to be what they are even as young kids before they even know what sexual orientation is?

Because there's been cases of very young kids who have shown and also felt signs of being attracted to the same sex, and the different sex (for the straight ones). all before they even knew there was even a word for such things… and before they were even aware of the implications of their being attracted to certain things/persons.
so can one choose from a young age to be something if they don't even know completely what they are? I doubt it.

something else I thought of…

I have to laugh at the people who claims that being straight is an default sexual prefference… that straight people don't choose to be straight, they just are that way from birth because of the “default setting”. those same people then turn around and say homosexuality is an choice, not something in the genes or in the hormones that they got from birth. well, buddy, I say that's a two-way street you know. if people can choose to be gay then they can choose to be straight. but if you keep on insisting that you were BORN straight and that you always knew you were straight your whole life due to liking the girlies (or the boys if you're a girl) ever since you were young…
then I can say that homosexuality was something they were born with too. may not be in the genes, but hormones in the womb can do a lot to an baby.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
Tundra at 12:49AM, Jan. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 198
joined: 6-29-2006
No no, I'm saying that I do not choose to be straight. But someone in this thread was saying that if the parents just made them straight, if they really wanted to be gay, they could be. And i'm saying that if my parents had made me straight… sure, right now I *could* kiss a girl. But… I wouldn't want to. Because that's not how i'm wired.
http://www.notebookinhand.com Forum for artists, writers, and other creative types.
http://www.drunkduck.com/Notebook
http://www.notnegativenews.com Get positive news here! Improve your day. Share your links.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:35PM
Aurora Moon at 10:00AM, Jan. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Tundra
No no, I'm saying that I do not choose to be straight. But someone in this thread was saying that if the parents just made them straight, if they really wanted to be gay, they could be. And i'm saying that if my parents had made me straight… sure, right now I *could* kiss a girl. But… I wouldn't want to. Because that's not how i'm wired.

aH, thanks for making that more clear. ;)
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:09AM
bloodstaindstoat at 8:17PM, Jan. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 33
joined: 1-5-2007
Woahhey. This same discious for this same article was goin' on on the facebook debate group. I haven't read through the thread all the way yet but through a little research of my own I popped this up. That Times article is a bunch of bullshit.

There was no ‘cure’ found. (The Times article says that there was “considerable success” in converting the hormones to influence the rams. A direct quote from Roselli (one of the chief scientists involved with the research) refutes it. “What is so frustrating is that articles like this pit the scientist against the activist and then pretend to present a ”balanced“ account. They also don't understand the science and perpetrate a lot of misinformation and outright lies, like the line that we have had ”considerable success“ in altering rams' sexuality - where did this come from? I never claimed this and never published anything to suggest it.”-article cited above).

Antihomosexuality research was not the basis of this experimentation. The point was to try to turn gay rams into something more profitable to farmers. Obviously, a non-producing member of a heard isn't doing much for them. This “cure” the time article talks about was not conclusive. However, it was conclusive that the brain of gay rams are distinctive from straight rams. In particular, hypothalamus of gay rams is smaller, more closely resembling the straight ewes' in size, (in comparison to the straight rams' hypothalamus which are nearly twice as large). That was it. The hormonal testing didn't show very effective scale results. But the end all be all of this experiment is was that homosexuality is definitely biologically observable. These facts are compatible with Simon LeVay's findings in the early 90's.

The article also suggested that it was possibly PETA promulgations behind that bullshittery on the London Times. PETA, of course being pissed that there are experiments being performed on fluffy-wuffy lambs so they promulgated all these anti-gay rumors about the research at it's initial release (around August 2006). This makes me dislike PETA even more than I already did for their soap-box of a 404 page.

*note, when I say “the article” I refer to the blog-article I supplied. If I'm refering to the London Times article, I'll say “the times article”.
One, Two, Three and…

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:27AM
mechanical_lullaby at 4:29PM, Feb. 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,905
joined: 1-7-2006
It's all about the anterior hypothalamus.
Simon LeVay actually dissected human brains for the same kind of experiment. Human brains of homo and hetero men who had died from AIDs in which the anterior hypothalamus was smaller than that which was found in heterosexual men's brains. Closer in size to the female anterior hypothalamus.
Why did Simon do this? To find out why he was gay. Now why would you want to investigate into a lifestyle choice that you OBVIOUSLY MADE. OH, WAIT! That's right. Because it's biological AND natural.
In short: It may be a little off because of AIDs on the brain degenerating, and PETA didn't care.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:56PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 6:47PM, Feb. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
This stuff was on Boston Legal a while back.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:03AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved