Cure sought for gay sheep

[Datajack Franit]

I am sure that you will be the first one trying the new anti-gay treatment on yourself then

[Heresson]

I would love to be straight, but I can not imagine it, and I can't imagine it work.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
They should rather find a cure for Catholicism, a really nasty disease.

, but he didn't bite

[Barnabas]

Can they induce gay sheep into having sex with sheep of the opposite sex? maybe the gay sheep like it and give up their gayness

[Aeson]

This is a pretty old story isn't it? It's kinda funny that it's being painted in an anti-homosexual light, as a few years ago the fuss was the opposite, that it was providing evidence for homosexuality as something you are born with, not simply a choice.

[PLATO]

The real issue here is that the government is funding research that could be used to alter people's behavior to fit some definition of "normal".

Am I the only one here who is worried about the broader implications of this type research path?

[snoopy369]

Wait, so do homosexual people prefer it to be genetic, or to be a choice? I think I've talked to some who go either way on that question ... while the religious nuts prefer it to be a choice, right? (So they can tell people to just stop doing it?)

Anyway, perhaps there are legitimate farming reasons for this ... I mean, if you have a ram that just won't make baby lambs for you, and you can 'fix' the ram so that he would then make baby lambs, is that a bad thing?

[PLATO]

As with most technologies, there are probably beneficial uses. It is the potential for abuse in altering people's freedom of choice. Does it matter whether or not it is genetic or choice to be gay if someone is living a healthy and happy life that way? Who makes the choice that this person should be "cured"? Who made the choice that this person was even "sick" to begin with?

What happens when you are "sick" with the wrong political thoughts or choices and the government decides you need to be "cured"?

Is this a path we want to persue? If the benefits of this research are strong enough that it should be persued, then don't we need to answer some ethical questions as a society before we do?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by PLATO
The real issue here is that the government is funding research that could be used to alter people's behavior to fit some definition of "normal".

Am I the only one here who is worried about the broader implications of this type research path?

Saying "the government is funding" is a pretty inaccurate implication, even if technically accurate. Nearly all scientific research is 'government funded' in the broadest sense, in that the scientists get grants from NIH/NSA/etc. to fund their labs, and often multiple grants for multiple different research tracks (for larger labs especially).

It's 99.9% likely that Bush and his cronies have absolutely nothing to do with this; the NIH people who presumably would have funded this aren't generally political appointees to my knowledge and thus won't make the decision on political grounds. NIH, outside of following strict rules (such as "no funding stem cell research") tends to fund anything that has merit, or might show merit, as it's run by scientists who are ever curious

Thus I don't think this bothers me in the least. Now, if there were a statement to the NIH from the (real) government saying "We want to preferentially fund mind-control research", then I'd be worried. But I doubt that would stay underground long

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by PLATO
As with most technologies, there are probably beneficial uses. It is the potential for abuse in altering people's freedom of choice. Does it matter whether or not it is genetic or choice to be gay if someone is living a healthy and happy life that way? Who makes the choice that this person should be "cured"? Who made the choice that this person was even "sick" to begin with?

What happens when you are "sick" with the wrong political thoughts or choices and the government decides you need to be "cured"?

Is this a path we want to persue? If the benefits of this research are strong enough that it should be persued, then don't we need to answer some ethical questions as a society before we do?

We should pursue anything that furthers our understanding of biology. Like the scientist said (in Dis' article), it's up to the politicians to make ethical choices. If it helps us understand the human brain better, then it is a good thing to research. Do you not trust our democratic process to ensure the right thing is done?

Any scientific advance comes with risk, but ... such is life. Would you rather us not understand how viral and bacterial agents operate, just because some nut might convert them into weapons? The problem with science is you never know where your research might take you ... even if you are researching something in one area, there's quite the risk that something entirely different will ultimately come about as a reason (ie, did Einstein realize the atomic bomb would result of his initial work? I doubt it...)

[snoopy369]

at the quote between the pages...

If one studies too zealously, one easily loses his pants.
-- A. Einstein.

Random coincidence FTW!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The quote in the OP says that the experiment is viewed as looking for a "cure" for being gay. Homosexuals have a big problem with this because they don't think they need to be "cured."

However, scientific research is scientific research. It must take us whereever the Truth may lie.

My best guess is that this expenment will lead nowhere. --But it's wrong to impose outside pressure from offended groups to prevent these experiments from going forward.

Meanwhile: MmmmMmmmmMMMMm giros.

yeah well no one is forcing gays to accept the "cure".

Just like there may be cures for depression, but no one forces them to accept them. Some people like being depressed- like me. Gives me something to complain about.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Aeson
This is a pretty old story isn't it? It's kinda funny that it's being painted in an anti-homosexual light, as a few years ago the fuss was the opposite, that it was providing evidence for homosexuality as something you are born with, not simply a choice.

not an old story, but one I covered a few weeks ago in my thread.

[Heresson]

anyway, farmers who fed their sheep with soy have noone but themselves to blame...

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson
This is a pretty old story isn't it? It's kinda funny that it's being painted in an anti-homosexual light, as a few years ago the fuss was the opposite, that it was providing evidence for homosexuality as something you are born with, not simply a choice.

Yeah, I think that some of this is just how it is portrayed (by PETA).

JM