Gay Patriot Header Image

Liberals: Hands Off The Gay Sheep, But Abort Gay Conservatives!

Greg at Rhymes With Right tipped me off to this interesting story.  I admit I’m late to the game on this by a few days.

Science told: Hands Off the Gay Sheep – The Sunday Times, Britain

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.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned. 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.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Greg has some initial thoughts that I completely agree with:

First, it could very well help determine the source of homosexuality — nature, nurture, or choice — and place it squarely in the “nature” column. But it also raises the possibility of being able to “correct” whatever causes homosexuals to deviate from the biological norm. If such “treatment” becomes available, should it be permitted? Should it be required? And should parents be permitted to make that determination for their unborn or minor offspring — or should the choice be reserved to individuals who have reached some arbitrarily determined age of reason/consent?

Now, to take this prospect even further…. could the first scientific step be a pre-birth genetic test to determine a fetus’ sexuality?  And if so, shouldn’t the gay community oppose this type of a test vigorously?  Plus shouldn’t our wonderful leaders on Gay Street (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) realize that in the interests of gay self-preservation, the gay community has to become anti-abortion?

Fat chance.  The gay community has had much success over the years playing the victim card.  I’m sure a few thousand aborted gay babies each year will only help the Hypocrite Rights Campaign’s fundraising cause… as opposed to actually saving those lives to begin with.  Because we know that the gays will always align themselves with The Party of Death if given a choice. 

Come to think of it, this may give the Gay Left an incredible opportunity!  The chance to rally and abort Gay Republicans instead of waiting until they are born to “out” them with no regard to the personal consequences.  After all, the Gay Left wishes to weed out opposing opinions anyway.  Isn’t aborting gay conservatives the most efficient way to achieve gay political harmony at last?

**UPDATE** – I see our wise sage, North Dallas Thirty, agrees with me.

For me, this research is a dream come true; I finally get to see what happens when it becomes possible to identify gay babies in utero. It should be interesting to watch the Martinas of the world try to argue that a baby that can be merrily cut, folded, spindled, mutilated, vacuumed, and harvested for parts without a word of protest from them suddenly has rights, as well as seeing the rabidly-homophobic contort what little morality they have to justify aborting the demon-spawn that they previously argued was “life” and “sacrosanct”.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

28 Comments

  1. “Plus shouldn’t our wonderful leaders on Gay Street (HRC, Log Cabin, NGLTF) realize that in the interests of gay self-preservation, the gay community has to become anti-abortion?”

    Conversely, religious nuts may have finally found a reason for them to support abortion.

    Comment by Vic — January 4, 2007 @ 10:06 am - January 4, 2007

  2. […] Bruce over at GayPatriot points to this article about the possibility of curing gay sheep.  What an interesting concept we have here: identify a trait we don’t like about someone, and try to find a way to cure it in utero.  Of course, the research into this presupposes that homosexuality is nature not “nurture”.  And, if homosexuality is found to be genetic in nature, and can’t be cured in utero, religious nuts will finally have a reason to support abortion. […]

    Pingback by Darth Apathy » Blog Archive » Religion vs. Science pt. 145,891,553,297 — January 4, 2007 @ 10:36 am - January 4, 2007

  3. Vic – When it turns out that the “religious nuts” are consistent in their principles, and continue to oppose abortion consistently, what will you do with the information? Will you be able to revise any of your views?

    Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2007 @ 11:58 am - January 4, 2007

  4. Sage…….isn’t that what you use in poultry dressing? 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - January 4, 2007

  5. Abortion? Where does abortion enter into it? Maybe y’all are reading a different article than I did, but the valid paragraph seems to be this one:

    “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.”

    Not a word about abortion, or even birth control. On the other hand, consider this: Just for the sake of arguement, assume the line of research here is valid and that homosexual behavior is caused by a birth defect, and a correctable one at that. What complexion does that put on the Gay Rights movement? And can we get Jerry Lewis to host the telethon?

    Second, and far more fun, point: Once again, assume the research is correct, and homosexuality or heterosexuality can be chosen in the womb via hormone supplement pills or patches. Does anyone want to bet me which pill/patch will sell better, the Gay Patch or the Straight Patch?

    Comment by DaveP. — January 4, 2007 @ 1:22 pm - January 4, 2007

  6. I doubt whether there will be a genetic test to diagnose Republicanism. Unlike homosexuality, its origins are not biological.

    Comment by vaara — January 4, 2007 @ 1:34 pm - January 4, 2007

  7. #4 – Yeah, NDT, but I prefer green onions instead. Also, down here near the Coast, we put parsley in it too. Don’t know what else you guys up in North Texas use.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 4, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - January 4, 2007

  8. Isn’t it the GayLeftBorgTypes who cry for science to replace religion? Religion restrains; Science enlightens?

    Unfettered research applications for embryonic stem cells… choice as an absolute in aborting pregnancies… rail against any Christianist (sic) pretensions about Creationism or Intelligent Design? Gather knowledge and the fruit of scientific inquiry just because we can… maybe we’ll get Chris Reeves to finally crawl out of the grave, toss off that wheelchair and join Michael Fox in a joyous dance to science’s progress,

    I say let’s let the PC police take a breather on this issue and let science pursue pure knowledge. We can channel the spirit of Josef Mengele when we need to discover the best way to experiment with the new discoveries of science. What’s old, becomes new.

    yeah, sean… it’s all sarcasm.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 4, 2007 @ 2:37 pm - January 4, 2007

  9. Abortion? Where does abortion enter into it?

    Where it does, Dave, is that gay leftists have unequivocally opposed any attempt to grant the baby any rights whatsoever; according to them, it’s the mother’s body, and she can do whatever she wants, including kill the baby.

    Now, though, they’re saying that she has no right to treat or affect the baby in any way if it’s gay — because the baby has the right to exist and be gay.

    And you actually hit on the reason Martina and her fellow leftists are fighting this; they know full well that, if given the choice, most parents won’t take the ‘mo. If there are fewer ‘mos, that decreases the potential pool that they can convert into leftist gay zombies, and the fewer the leftist gay zombies, the weaker they are politically and the less money they make.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - January 4, 2007

  10. Interesting spin (but a predictable one) by GP on an interesting development. I agree with Dave P. above in that the potential results from the research described in this article and the abortion issue have nothing to do with each other, but leave it to the wrongwing nutcases to spin it that way…. And where did it mention stem cell research? Apples to oranges to pears.

    My personal opinion is that it’s ok to perform the procedure on livestock for breeding purposes, but not on humans. Simple as that.

    Science has exeperimented with various methods to induce breeding in livestock for many years now. That’s old news. We already have laws/ ethics practices in place in the U.S. to prevent human cloning, as they do in most other developed countries. I’m sure that if any scientist even thinks of using this treatment in humans, there will be a public outcry, followed by strict laws enacted against it in the U.S. and in most other developed countries (thanks to the efforts of us LIBBERRALLLSS — it sure as hell wouldn’t be protested by any of you koolaid drinking, gop worshippers). Even if by some fluke, this procedure were to be developed for humans, I’m sure it would pose a great deal more risk for the life of the human fetus in practice than that of an animal, and that very few, if any, parents would opt for it. Many more people in this day and age already know their genetic predisposition for a myriad of debilitating, hereditary diseases, yet they still decide to have children (some more than one), so why would a treatment for this one genetic mutation affect the decision of most parents? Even if the treatment does evolve and someday becomes available to the public, it will be quite a few years in the future. I think that by that time, we’ll have gained a much broader/higher level of acceptance in society. Homosexuality won’t be that much of an issue. Even if it is still a hotbed issue then, I don’t think that the treatment would be available to EVery parent who wants it, or even to anywhere near the majority. Like in vitro procedures today, I’m sure it will be very expensive and risky.

    Of course, you I’m sure you wrongwingers wouldn’t care if our sexual orientation was eliminated in pregnancy, since all of you wish you had been born as neocon hetero’s anyway.

    Btw, happy new year!

    Comment by ndtovent — January 4, 2007 @ 5:58 pm - January 4, 2007

  11. why don’t you get back us when of you men out there can get pregnant? By the way, where exactly does this article talk about abortion?

    Comment by Kevin — January 4, 2007 @ 6:25 pm - January 4, 2007

  12. Jim Newman here from the university actually conducting the research.

    In regards to the Sunday Times article which is the 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

    Comment by newmanj — January 4, 2007 @ 7:56 pm - January 4, 2007

  13. NDT: yes, I’m sure Martina Navratilova lies awake every night in abject terror at the thought that 25 years from now, the NGLTF might not be able to afford premium liquor for its annual Christmas party.

    *rolls eyes*

    Comment by vaara — January 4, 2007 @ 8:14 pm - January 4, 2007

  14. Of course, you I’m sure you wrongwingers wouldn’t care if our sexual orientation was eliminated in pregnancy, since all of you wish you had been born as neocon hetero’s anyway.

    Personally, I don’t think it would have made one whit of difference in our lives.

    But I can’t imagine how you and your fellow leftists would survive if you didn’t have your sexual orientation to blame for all your problems.

    I guess the question to be asking is why you’re so terrified of being heterosexual.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 5, 2007 @ 2:07 am - January 5, 2007

  15. From what I read today, at The Next Hurrah website, the people who are doing this Oregon study have not had anywhere near the level of success with sheep that the article claims. They also said they aren’t putting electronic devices in sheep, and that they were called at the last minute by these reporters, they barely had any input in the article at all.

    The other scientist who is quoted in this story, Michael Bailey, isn’t involved in the study. He has a history of supporting eugenics for gays, saying straight parents have every right to abort gay babies. He also had to resign from his university’s psych panel a few years ago because of his ethics problems.

    The story is a lot of hype over just about nothing. It’s nothing but shock value and trash, and you are basically pushing what PETA wants by talking about this. I think they’re the main people behind this story making the London Times.

    Comment by Carl — January 5, 2007 @ 2:31 am - January 5, 2007

  16. BTW, I hope that this story from GP may mean that all of you who are voting GOP in 2008 will make sure that the Presidential candidate will never support aborting gay fetuses, nor will he support using hormones to warp them just to try to “cure” them. I can’t ever vote for any candidate who supports this.

    Comment by Carl — January 5, 2007 @ 2:33 am - January 5, 2007

  17. “Wise sage”….blahLOL!!!!

    Comment by sean — January 5, 2007 @ 2:50 am - January 5, 2007

  18. We already have laws/ ethics practices in place in the U.S. to prevent human cloning, as they do in most other developed countries.

    That’s a lie. The Missouri Amendment passed in 2006 (with overwhelming liberal support) not only legalizes cloning, but enshrines it in the state’s Constitution.

    Now, all we need to get full-fledged organ farms is for Michael J Fox or some other celeb to go on TV and tell a sob story about how he can be cured, if we would just set up Federally-funded organ farms. Because liberals form their political opinions based entirely on “compassion” for people they see portrayed sympathetically on TV.

    Comment by V the K — January 5, 2007 @ 11:46 am - January 5, 2007

  19. So What?

    Truth and Science March on!
    Good bye morals based on superstition!
    Hooray for rationalism!

    Comment by keogh — January 5, 2007 @ 12:02 pm - January 5, 2007

  20. Let’s take a moment to review liberal reproductive ethics.

    1. Cloning embryos – Good (see Missouri)
    2. Harvesting of embryonic stem cells for research purposes – Good
    3. Partial Birth Abortion of babies at any time before delivery for any reason – Good
    4. Killing off persons in a persistent vegetative state – Good

    In short, nothing in liberal ethics would forbid someone from cloning an embryo, growing it to whatever stage in pregnancy, aborting or inflicting brain damage on it in utero to put it into a persistent vegetative state, then harvesting its organs. All that’s needed now is a little refinement of existing science, and some celebrity with a disease who can woo over enough voters to make sure this all stays legal, maybe with the help of a few rich bio-technology companies.

    Comment by V the K — January 5, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - January 5, 2007

  21. V the K,. I did a little research, and you’re right. There was a bill introduced by the house (below) which was tabled by the senate–your devine REPUblican controlled senate (I thought that one of the bills passed and was signed into law, but was mistaken). Sooo…the only standing legislation remaining against human cloning is an executive order signed by (guess who!!) — BILL CLINTON, in 1998, which prevents federal funding for research in human cloning. Your darling (king’s men) gop controlled house and senate (at the time) couldn’t ‘put humpty together again’ by passing real legislation against one of the most coveted fundamental issues that social conservatives hold dear. Thanks, ‘you made me look ‘-)

    “In the House of Representatives, the two primary competing bills were HR 2505 and HR 2172. Bill 2505, “The Human Cloning Prohibition Action of 2001” was introduced by Representative David Weldon (R-FL). It called for permanent bans on both the creation of clonal embryos and their use to produce a fully formed human clone. Bill 2172, the “Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001” was introduced by Representative James Greenwood (R-PA). This bill called for a 10-year moratorium on producing cloned human beings followed by an automatic “sunset.” It also required that anyone intending to produce cloned human embryos for research purposes inform the federal government, and promise not to use them to produce fully formed human clones.

    On July 31, the House of Representative passed the Weldon bill by a vote of 265 to 162. Voting for the Weldon bill were 200 of 221 House Republicans, joined by 63 of 210 House Democrats, plus two Independents. Democrats who voted for the Weldon bill came almost entirely from conservative southern and western districts, or from northern and eastern blue-collar districts. However, 12 liberal House Democrats, 8 of whom had 100% pro-choice voting records, did vote for the Weldon Bill. Four of these Democrats were African-American, one was Hispanic-American and two were Asian-American.

    In April 2001 conservative Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced a companion bill to the Weldon bill (S. 790). In 2002, the legislation was tabled and a vote was never taken.”

    Comment by ndtovent — January 5, 2007 @ 2:04 pm - January 5, 2007

  22. oh and, NDT, #13 — I’m not, nor am I terrified of having been born gay. I got over that one a lonnnggg time ago. Have you?

    Comment by ndtovent — January 5, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - January 5, 2007

  23. Indeed I have, ndtovent; that’s why I so easily and fluently can buck gay leftist ideology without a single worry.

    And as for your grasping at straws in legislation, let me point out something to you; the House passed both the bills you mention with large support from Republicans and large opposition from Democrats. Furthermore, Brownback’s bill, which you mention, was indeed tabled; however, do you remember which party controlled the Senate in 2001 – 2002?

    So, ndtovent, since you claim that Democrats are against cloning, why did so many of them vote AGAINST a bill to ban it — and why did the Democratic-controlled Senate table a bill that would have completed the process?

    I think it’s because V the K is right; if leftists are so bereft of restraint that they can justify abortion, or harvesting embryos in utero for stem cells, it shouldn’t surprise us that they have no qualms about cloning human beings for their own uses.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 5, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - January 5, 2007

  24. #12, #15 – perhaps not yet, but they will. We might as well think about it. I don’t see any reason to prevent this sort of thing. Why should we be subject to the whims of fate? The entire point of being human is to take our destiny into our own hands rather than just being alive.

    I would have no problem if my mother had done this and I had not been born gay. “gayness” is not my defining characteristic.

    It could be that homosexuality is just a side-effect of some more important characteristic (like sickle-cell anemia and malaria resistance). If we choose to select-out the more important characteristic for aesthetic reasons, that’s our fault and too bad for us.

    So, while I favor knowing how to do this sort of thing and I’m not against people choosing to do it, I would not, myself.

    Comment by mrsizer — January 6, 2007 @ 3:21 pm - January 6, 2007

  25. why don’t you get back us when of you men out there can get pregnant? By the way, where exactly does this article talk about abortion?

    I loath, loath, loath this idiotic argument.

    Abortion is more than just a women’s issue.

    Good think I am a woman then, so do I get to have an opinion, since I can get pregnant and have done so? Just checking.

    I admit that I am very much pro life/anti-abortion whatever you want to label me. But at least I am consistent, I don’t think treating babies in utero to prevent homosexuality is ethical either, and wouldn’t mind seeing it banned just in case. I loath the concept of creating “designer” babies, made to order. I hate the idea that baby girls in India and China and probably in the US to some degree get aborted, because their parents want boys. I really get squicked by the idea that babies with real or perceived disabilities are aborted in the womb-and I have a disabled child I wouldn’t wish out of my life or trade for the world.

    And honestly, I think men have just as much a stake in this kind of issue, and have a right to a voice, even if they can’t get pregnant, and even if they are gay, and are unable to conceive a child in the traditional way. I don’t think anyone’s voice should be shut out, simply because they can’t get pregnant. A lot of anti war people never servedin the military, does that mean they shouldn’t get an opinion on war?

    As for what curing gay babies has to do with abortion, think about it, if the “gay” position is that a woman has an incontrovertable right to kill her baby in the womb-simply because said baby isn’t convienient, because it is her body, and the baby has no right to life, then it is pretty much out of the question that said baby would have a right to gayness, and that said mother couldn’t get hormone treatments to prevent said baby from being gay.

    If a baby has no right to live, then how can it have a right to be gay? And this is where the marriage of gay groups to abortion groups leads to a major contradiction.

    Comment by just me — January 6, 2007 @ 8:29 pm - January 6, 2007

  26. -I would have no problem if my mother had done this and I had not been born gay. “gayness” is not my defining characteristic. –

    You would be an entirely different person if you were straight. Being gay is not an “aesthetic”. It influences every part of our lives. I don’t buy for a second that homosexuality somehow causes malaria or sickle cell and that wiping out gays would cause this to improve.

    -If a baby has no right to live, then how can it have a right to be gay? And this is where the marriage of gay groups to abortion groups leads to a major contradiction. –

    If this is the case, then why haven’t pro-life activists been out there actively saying they won’t abort gay babies, nor will they use hormones to try to genetically twist and manipulate babies? Shouldn’t pro-life gays demand this from pro-life groups?

    Comment by Carl — January 8, 2007 @ 1:05 am - January 8, 2007

  27. You would be an entirely different person if you were straight.

    Or if I were a woman, or black, or whatever. But just as those particular thoughts holds no terror for me, why should I be terrified of the fact that I would be an entirely different person if I were straight?

    If this is the case, then why haven’t pro-life activists been out there actively saying they won’t abort gay babies, nor will they use hormones to try to genetically twist and manipulate babies? Shouldn’t pro-life gays demand this from pro-life groups?

    Weak argument.

    Pro-life groups do not want to abort babies, period. That speaks more than enough to the former.

    As to the latter, why should they? If you can make something straight, you could make it gay as well. Somehow, I don’t think they’re going to care.

    Of course, Carl, you’re desperately trying to explain why gay leftists like yourself who support unlimited abortion of straight babies would try to ban anything that might make gay babies straight. It amuses us that you think children in utero are nothing but medical waste — but if they’re gay, they suddenly have “rights”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 8, 2007 @ 2:41 am - January 8, 2007

  28. If this is the case, then why haven’t pro-life activists been out there actively saying they won’t abort gay babies, nor will they use hormones to try to genetically twist and manipulate babies? Shouldn’t pro-life gays demand this from pro-life groups?

    Well, since pro life groups don’t advocate abortion, I think your first point is moot.

    And while I am not actively involved in pro life groups, I do know that most churches that advocate pro life positions are on record as being opposed to manipulation of embryos in order to create designer babies.

    Comment by just me — January 8, 2007 @ 7:30 am - January 8, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.