What would happen to homosexual equality if parents could choose to have a normal child?

My thanks to Michael R for the latest on the long-running story of the gay sheep of Oregon:-

Science told: hands off gay sheep

Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger

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.

So far so good. But then the Times reports the reactions from a famous lesbian who won Wimbledon once or twice, a Professor of bioethics who seems, to judge from his blog, terribly interested in homosexuality (and doesn’t much like Iran), Peter Tatchell of the former Bermondsey bedsit tendency, and a spokesperson - or possibly spokes-sheep, it isn’t clear which - from animal rights group, PETA.

For some reason none of these people are advocates of parental rights. Ovine, yes. Homosexual, certainly. Parents? Children? Not a chance.

It puts me in mind of a similar “debate” some years ago about a newly discovered and effective means to restore hearing function to certain deaf children. The outrage from professional deafness advocates was very similar to the story here. A hitherto undiscovered richness in deaf culture was noisily evoked. We the public were asked to believe that something profoundly rewarding in signed interaction, something that weighed more heavily in the treasures of the personal life than the very voices of those one loves, would be lost to these children if the treatment was provided. It was obviously untrue. But then as now, nobody wanted to point out the reason for the deception: that it is unbearable for the disadvantaged, having fought perhaps all their lives to erect some semblance of self-respect and equal worth, to have this exposed as nothing by the simple mechanism of parental choice. So unbearable is it, the antis will willingly deny new generations of children a normal life.

For such delusion to attend disability is no cause for our political satisfaction. It is human farce upon human tragedy. But it is also not really the point because rights of free speech and free association are taken from the majority not to raise others to some leftist utopia of joyous equality, but to deprive the majority of its healthy and natural cultural hegemony. There is absolutely no morality in this, and no reason why we should hesitate to prick the “rights” balloon out of some newly learned Marxist sensibility.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 07:38 PM in Marxism & Culture War
Comments (5) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Lurker on January 03, 2007, 09:45 PM | #

“richness in deaf culture was noisily evoked”

Superb GW, was that intentional? I had to laugh.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 03, 2007, 11:06 PM | #

“But then as now, nobody wanted to point out the reason for the deception: that it is unbearable for the disadvantaged, having fought perhaps all their lives to erect some semblance of self-respect and equal worth, to have this exposed as nothing by the simple mechanism of parental choice. So unbearable is it, the antis will willingly deny new generations of children a normal life. For such delusion to attend disability [...] is human farce upon human tragedy. [...R]ights of free speech and free association are taken from the majority [...] to deprive the majority of its healthy and natural cultural hegemony. There is absolutely no morality in this [...].” (—from the log entry)

Very well put. The healthy must defend and care for the sick but it is immoral and a perversion for society to pretend, in a misguided spirit of compassion, that health and sickness are the same.

Posted by Andrew on January 04, 2007, 01:21 AM | #

Gay sheep argument hay, Well just the other day a sheep farmer- ( Non Kiwi) informed the audience that if any of his male sheep display Homosexual tendencies;;;;; Its off to the meat works- Slaughter house.
And a large sum of Tax payers money, had paid some Pseudo scientist to figure out the chemistry in the Sheep’s brain- when the farmer just said, its bull- Sheep shit.
They just plug the first thing in sight, much like male Dolphins, so now we are aware, and warned to look out for animals that want to sodomize you. Even your friendly nabour-hood Fish, And everyone was frightened of Sharks?
Maybe Kiwis ( New Zealanders) have a lot to answer for also;

The world is certainly not as it use to be.

Posted by newmanj on January 04, 2007, 08:37 PM | #

Jim Newman here from the university actually conducting the research.

In regards to the Sunday Times article which is he source of all these wild conspiracy theories, I am pleased that a writer has thoroughly investigated the article. As he reports, the Sunday Times article is filled with major errors and false claims. His analysis also raises important questions about the timing of the article which comes almost five years after the research was actually conducted.

Here’s a link to that analysis that anyone who is interested in this topic should read:

A wolf in gay sheep’s clothing: Corruption at the London Times
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/4/134158/4348

Posted by Guessedworker on January 05, 2007, 06:47 PM | #

Jim,

Thanks for the info. Very interesting. PETA’s mercenary actions here are fully what one would expect from those hard-left demo thugs who dispersed into the Animal Rights movement after the Soviet Union collapsed. I wish I had known about the DK piece before I posted, not because the cultural left are any less blameless for being duped in this instance but, obviously, because it raises two further issues of substance: the fundamentally criminal nature of politically motivated (ie non-sentimental) animal rights activism, and the ability of two, presumably, professional journalists to pursue wholly personal agendas with no editorial oversight from their Times editor.

Next entry: Should UK outlaw heresy?

Previous entry: Of rough riders and Roughback Mountains

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa