http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524408_1,00.html
Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay.
That might be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Despite that, it's still an interesting article.

Try not to turn this thread into a flame war like every 'serious' thread so far. No delving into religion, for glod's sake.

Interesting article indeed, however:

"Initially, the publicly funded project aimed to improve the productivity of herds."

If that's the case I can't see what the fuss is about.

It's more about whether it'll be applicable on humans, and the amount of fuss it'll cause.

But even if they succeed with sheep, it would easily take decades to get it working for humans, and no-one would ever let it happen, so there's not much need for fuss.

Funny story, but I was quote shocked when I read the comments from the gay community, as the study obviously wasn't homophobic and would serve a very useful purpose in the farming industry. The fact is gay rams are useless and a nuisance to farmers, and being able to get them interested in ewes can only be a good thing.

this sure is a serious thread

I agree it's a great thing but what can stop science from making it for use of humans? One discovery always leads to another.

although again i have nothing against gay people, i have friends that are gay and some are my best friends. Isn't it the same issue with humans as it is with rams, wouldn't no gay people mean more breeding, meaning more people.
Or what if they had another case like china with over population, they could make a large percentage of the population gay and that reduces population. so i think it's valuable research but everything is political.

Edit:
About religion this would be good for my religion simple because the Torah says a man and a woman, meaning being gay or acting so is against the Torah. Is the only weird Jewish law i know of thats against a specific group of people without reason.

Ghost;552612']
About religion this would be good for my religion simple because the Torah says a man and a woman, meaning being gay or acting so is against the Torah. Is the only weird Jewish law i know of thats against a specific group of people without reason.
No delving into religion, for glod's sake.
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/2985/1236986im7.jpg

You do have a point though; as science improves they'll probably find a way to use it on humans.

How can 'homosexuality' in animals be compared with it in humans? When on heat (or 'bulling') cows will mount other cows - it's how we farmers tell when they're ready to be inseminated, artificially or otherwise. It doesn't mean they're gay. The human brain is much more intelectually developed than that of animals - we have no way of knowing if a sheep feels love, or any of the other complex emotions that make us human, so we cannot tell if a sheep can have, or change, a sexual orientation. The two are uncomparable.

Ghost;552612']I agree it's a great thing but what can stop science from making it for use of humans? One discovery always leads to another.

Well, why shouldn't they?

There must be people who'd like to change their sexual orientation just like there are people who change their gender. I for one would welcome something that made that possible.

This is rubbish! Even if it does get implemented in humans, it does no harm to anyone; so gay people shouldn't be complaining.

I don't think the sheep would really care if it was homosexual or not. it would probably have an... enjoyable life either way.


I don't see why this is even an issue. if there is a drug like this for humans, like AndrewTaylor said, people who want to keep thier orientation wouldn't need to worry about using it.

Weird.
Big Gay Al's animal house from South Park is what that topic reminded me of...
What they can find using science is amazing.

I don't think the sheep would really care if it was homosexual or not. it would probably have an... enjoyable life either way.


I don't see why this is even an issue. if there is a drug like this for humans, like AndrewTaylor said, people who want to keep thier orientation wouldn't need to worry about using it.

I would agree with AT in that there would be nothing inherently wrong with developing it for human's, as long as people don't have to have it. It reminds me of when scientists were saying they could screen embryos for whether or not a child would be disabled, and not use them if they were going to be, but then disabled groups came out saying it was evil and saying that somehow they weren't as good as other people.

What they are saying though is that in some countries people might be forced to take it against their will, although these are typically countries which persecute homosexuals and make buggery a criminal offence, so I think a course of pills would be preferable to that kind of treatment.

I doubt it's just a pill, though.

I doubt it's just a pill, though.

You're probably right... it's most likely going to be a series of needles, and pills.

What they are saying though is that in some countries people might be forced to take it against their will

We shouldn't stop developing technology just because it might be abused.

i say do it, not everyone will want it because making something like homosexuality optional makes homosexuals feel as though we think they are inferior.

Just do it and make it optional, if they don't want it they don't have to take it once it's developed.

Ghost;552661']i say do it, not everyone will want it because making something like homosexuality optional makes homosexuals feel as though we think they are inferior.

I see no reason why the same technology couldn't make heterosexuality optional as well.

but there are more heterosexuals then homosexuals so thats not t he way people see it and in sheep were specifically trying to get rid of it.

Well, of course they were. What good is a homosexual sheep to anyone? (Unless its wool could make more stylish knitwear.)

Besides which, we certainly shouldn't not develop technologies because irrational people might object to them. That would be, well, irrational.

I think the research they are doing is pretty interesting. I never knew that homosexuals have physically different shaped brains.

I love that that article says "...in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans."

Breeding out homosexuality? Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely mankind has effectively been doing that for millenia and it's not worked yet.

It's certainly a grey area. On the one hand, it's incredible research that could lead to even bigger discoveries. One the other hand, in more homophobic communities (not necessarily persecuting, but less tolerant) the information could be twisted towards implying homosexuals have worse, flawed brains. Hell, it's been done in the past without any scientific evidence, reasons ranging from demonic to disease.

I certainly don't see any problems with... affecting sheepy sexuality. Personally, I don't see the problem with developing the treatment for those who would want it. However, people have been arguing against genetically, or otherwise, altering people to encourage 'perfect' characteristics for years be it race to sexuality. Daleks to Cybermen, it alls ends in silly deus ex machinas.

Heck, maybe they'll figure out how to allow the goats to be bisexual. Then they can look at us and say "Pfft, close-minded freaks. Oooh, Torchwood's on!"

I love that that article says "...in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans."

Breeding out homosexuality? Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely mankind has effectively been doing that for millenia and it's not worked yet.

Yeah, I thought that statement looked a little incorrect too. For reasons I forget, I always think of that bit in Ellen where the lesbian woman gets a toaster for 'recruiting' her.

Every research is a grey area. Everything can be abused. Nobody can predict the future, but because of our history, people are always prone to expect the worse, whether it be "messing with nature, the work of god, evolution, the laws of physics, etc". People don't like change. But that still never stopped research. No matter how morally-wrong it may or may not be/seem.

Whoever came up with gunpowder or even nuclear power didn't consider the current destructive implications and still nobody stopped them, and now there's nothing we can do about it even though it might be frowned upon. Even if someone did come up with anti-homossexuality pills so that in 10 years from now you'd find them in every pharmacy around, people would still make a fuss about it, but they still couldn't stop it. Even if in 100 years from now people can shapeshift into whatever they like, people would still frown upon it. But research would still move on.

[iWhoever came up with gunpowder or even nuclear power didn't consider the current destructive implications and still nobody stopped them, and now there's nothing we can do about it even though it might be frowned upon.
I believe Openheimer once said "I have become the destroyer of worlds".

Not that nuclear weapons and gay sheep are quite on the same level...

Every research is a grey area. Everything can be abused. Nobody can predict the future, but because of our history, people are always prone to expect the worse, whether it be "messing with nature, the work of god, evolution, the laws of physics, etc". People don't like change. But that still never stopped research. No matter how morally-wrong it may or may not be/seem.

Progress is no excuse for unethical decisions.

Progress is no excuse for unethical decisions.
Wrong, try again.
What good are humans witouth progress?
What good are humans with ethics?
I would rather be inmortal than be happy.
This probably makes me sound like an ass, but it's not how I intend it, honest.

Progress is no excuse for unethical decisions.

By definition there is no excuse for unethical decisions. But the research is not unethical; the abuse of technology is unethical. A gun is not a murderer. It can even be a tool of good.

Not that nuclear weapons and gay sheep are quite on the same level...

How ironic that this should come up in a Worms forum...

Progress is no excuse for unethical decisions.But with research, you never know how it'll end up. For all you know, "unethical" research could eventually lead to a lot of useful ethical info that completely makes the unethical research obsolete.

I'm ok with gays, but it's gay rights activists I hate, why try to fight against something you can't beat?

I'm ok with gays, but it's gay rights activists I hate, why try to fight against something you can't beat?

Because they could beat it. Admittedly, they need to change their approach slightly, but...

I'm ok with gays, but it's gay rights activists I hate, why try to fight against something you can't beat?

So basically you hate optimists?

I don't mind gay rights people that are serious about it. I'll just copy+paste a rant I posted on a different forum:

There's absolutely nothing bad about it. People (like, say, the Pope) argue that homosexuality will somehow make the human race extinct and other nonsense like that.

I'll say, try supporting the suffering people that are actually alive right NOW as opposed to worrying about our race disappearing because of homosexuals. All those nuclear weapons are a much larger threat than people who don't want to help populate the world.

On the other hand, I DO mind people that take a small difference in their lifestyle like homosexuality and turn it into a large "community", with 'gay pride' bars, parades and cereal brands. Yes, you are 'different', other people with this harmless difference have been persecuted numerous times and demanding equalty is always a good thing. But for god's sake, there isn't anything to be "proud" about just for being in the minority. The fact that you have a romantic relationship with people of your gender makes no difference, just like being black or being born left-handed. Of course there's nothing BAD about it, but it's not something to be "proud" of either. Try taking pride in your own achievements instead of small differences you were born with.

When's the last time you saw left-handed people starting "left-handed pride parades" or something like that (in the literal sense; I'm not delving into politics here)? Or, say, a black person registering a message board and posting something by the lines of "hey guyz i'm black, if you have anything against it then F*** YOU that's how i was born! BLACK PRIDE AAHAHAH"? That's right, never. All they want is equalty, and the easiest way of achieving it is acting like a sane human being while being slightly different.

The really obnoxious "gay/lesbian pride" zealots, such as overly feminist females who hate men yet try to act like them, the male transvestites who think being attracted to other guys is a good excuse for acting stupidly, and the ever-so-annoying attention-seeking 13 year old girls on message boards with stupid pink MS Paint-made triangle signatures whining about gay pride and how society denies their love, yet are actually straight and just seeking attention... people like this make me sick. They're the main reason normal, level-headed homosexuals are persecuted so often.

Also, I still fail to see what motorcycles or crossdressing have to do with your sexuality. These types of overly zealous and slightly... 'strange' people are what's keeping homophobes from ever changing their opinion on homosexuals. A lot of homophobic people I've talked to are more against these unusual fetish-fueled communities than them being attracted to the same gender.

Normal, sensitive showings of pride, all while being normally dressed and acting like a sane person are always welcome and a good way of changing people's opinions on homosexuality. But actually embracing every stereotype and symbol of persecution thrown at you is what confuses me.

About adoption... most public showings of pride aren't helping that either. Sure, two normal and level-headed people of the same gender that just happen to share a romantic relationship would be excellent parents. However, the same thing can't be said about two female motorcycle obsessors who try to act as manly as possible while paradoxically hating all males, or two cross-dressing men.

Edit: The article I linked also helps prove my point. I certainly wouldn't let a gay person who argues about sheep's "right to be gay" adopt a child. Not their homosexuality somehow harms the child, but because they have no damned common sense.

I agree with you pretty much completely Iguana. Well said, wherever it was you said it.

completely agree very nice rant : o)

I pretty much agree with you there Iguana but, at the risk of incurring the wrath of any more liberal minded members, I always disagree with gay adoption.

I just don't think it would be fair to the kids being adopted. Aside from that traditional families are shown to benefit children most, and you really want them in the best environment (although there's no reason two gay parents would be any worse than one straight one, and really they'd probably be better) but there's the social stigma any child would encounter after being placed with a gay couple. I'm sure you remember when you were younger that being called gay was pretty much the worst insult that could be thrown around, followed by insults to your parents. Not to say that I personally think there's anything WRONG with being gay, but at present the overriding public opinion, particularly amongst kids, is that homosexuality is wrong and shameful.
I think it is obvious and inevitable the problems any child who'd been adopted by a gay couple would face at school, and frankly in the worst case scenario it could ruin their life. I read an article once about a child placed with her gay, transvestite father instead of her criminal mother after a divorce who hated social services for doing that to her, because of the prejudice she got from not only the kids, but their parents.
I just don't think it fair, and I think the interests of kids to have a normal life overrides the rights of minority groups to adopt.

I don't mind gay rights people that are serious about it. I'll just copy+paste a rant I posted on a different forum:

There's absolutely nothing bad about it. People (like, say, the Pope) argue that homosexuality will somehow make the human race extinct and other nonsense like that.

I'll say, try supporting the suffering people that are actually alive right NOW as opposed to worrying about our race disappearing because of homosexuals. All those nuclear weapons are a much larger threat than people who don't want to help populate the world.

On the other hand, I DO mind people that take a small difference in their lifestyle like homosexuality and turn it into a large "community", with 'gay pride' bars, parades and cereal brands. Yes, you are 'different', other people with this harmless difference have been persecuted numerous times and demanding equalty is always a good thing. But for god's sake, there isn't anything to be "proud" about just for being in the minority. The fact that you have a romantic relationship with people of your gender makes no difference, just like being black or being born left-handed. Of course there's nothing BAD about it, but it's not something to be "proud" of either. Try taking pride in your own achievements instead of small differences you were born with.

When's the last time you saw left-handed people starting "left-handed pride parades" or something like that (in the literal sense; I'm not delving into politics here)? Or, say, a black person registering a message board and posting something by the lines of "hey guyz i'm black, if you have anything against it then F*** YOU that's how i was born! BLACK PRIDE AAHAHAH"? That's right, never. All they want is equalty, and the easiest way of achieving it is acting like a sane human being while being slightly different.

The really obnoxious "gay/lesbian pride" zealots, such as overly feminist females who hate men yet try to act like them, the male transvestites who think being attracted to other guys is a good excuse for acting stupidly, and the ever-so-annoying attention-seeking 13 year old girls on message boards with stupid pink MS Paint-made triangle signatures whining about gay pride and how society denies their love, yet are actually straight and just seeking attention... people like this make me sick. They're the main reason normal, level-headed homosexuals are persecuted so often.

Also, I still fail to see what motorcycles or crossdressing have to do with your sexuality. These types of overly zealous and slightly... 'strange' people are what's keeping homophobes from ever changing their opinion on homosexuals. A lot of homophobic people I've talked to are more against these unusual fetish-fueled communities than them being attracted to the same gender.

Normal, sensitive showings of pride, all while being normally dressed and acting like a sane person are always welcome and a good way of changing people's opinions on homosexuality. But actually embracing every stereotype and symbol of persecution thrown at you is what confuses me.

About adoption... most public showings of pride aren't helping that either. Sure, two normal and level-headed people of the same gender that just happen to share a romantic relationship would be excellent parents. However, the same thing can't be said about two female motorcycle obsessors who try to act as manly as possible while paradoxically hating all males, or two cross-dressing men.

Edit: The article I linked also helps prove my point. I certainly wouldn't let a gay person who argues about sheep's "right to be gay" adopt a child. Not their homosexuality somehow harms the child, but because they have no damned common sense.I know a few gay people here at uni. They're obviously few and far between but the only real way they're able to hook up with others is if there's a gay bar they can all meet at. In fact there's a gay night at one of the clubs where they all go once a week.

As for gay adoption, I'm all for it. From having this debate on another forum, most seem to miss the point that the choice isn't between a heterosexual couple adopting or a homosexual couple adopting, it's between the child(ren) going into care or being adopted by a gay couple. While I think generally heterosexual couples will be better at bringing up children than homosexual couples, I think it would be far more beneficial to the child to be brought up by a gay couple than being in care, which is the alternative. Also what about single parent families? Personally I think generally a gay couple would bring up a child better than a single parent. If gay couples can't adopt, the children will go into care instead, which I think is far far worse than them being adopted.