Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Gay Sheep

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Sorry about the source, I nicked it from a debate on another message board. I know very few of you are interested in the animal rights issues here, but think about the human rights side...

If this experiment is true, wouldn't it be a cause to worry?

Say for example they find a way to fix homosexuality in sheep, then what?

Will the LGBT community be further maginalised? Will we be pressurised in to getting treatment to "cure" ourselves? Will decades of LGBT activism go down the drain because we find out it's some sort of defect?
«134

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Edit wasted nonsense: why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I don't think it should matter - it should be personal choice. If you want to be gay fine, but say someone doesn't want to - then this would allow them that choice.

    I don't see anything wrong with people being gay - but these days we can get a sex change - so why not a sexuaity change too?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Will the LGBT community be further maginalised? Will we be pressurised in to getting treatment to "cure" ourselves? Will decades of LGBT activism go down the drain because we find out it's some sort of defect?
    I doubt it. The only retards who would consider putting people under pressure to "cure" themselves, are the same people who think that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. This would prove beyond all doubt that it is a completely natural occurance, and therefore blow away any argument they might have had for people to not "be gay".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Errrmmm...read Ben Goldacre in The Guardian on this. The story is mostly fabricated.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,,1989526,00.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Errrmmm...read Ben Goldacre in The Guardian on this. The story is mostly fabricated.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,,1989526,00.html
    Ahh Ok. I don't normally believe much that PETA say (plus they use the same images over and over, normally from the most nasty slaughterhouses, again probably in America)... It just worried me is all, if people did find a "cure" for homosexuality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think most sheep would have to be a bit gay to wear those woolly jumpers like that all the time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wasn't homosexuality only removed from the list of "mental illnesses" in like the 1960's or something?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It was taken of W.H.O. big book of diseases in the late 90's
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote:
    It was taken of W.H.O. big book of diseases in the late 90's
    That's shockingly recent isn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No doubt a few influential people out there try their damnest to keep it on the books.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    RubberSkin wrote:
    :)
    Is that implying that shearing sheep "cures" them of gayness? :confused:

    :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Is that implying that shearing sheep "cures" them of gayness? :confused:

    :p

    Well they're certainly less happy at least until a Great American Jackalope arrives

    , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoR0Mnv03oc
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    RubberSkin wrote:
    :)

    :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even if there was a "cure" found. Why would any homosexual want to change?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thing is, whenever we discuss it, I always say, looking at things perfectly naturally, man supposedly has sex with woman to procreate - hence man and man or woman and woman isn't 'natural'. But then I get my head bitten off by all those people who feel that in order to prove that they believe in equal rights they have to scream and shout about how wonderful gay people are.

    But yea, doesn't matter insomuch that most of what we do is unnatural. We have sex for fun. Hell, we buy bits of plastic off the internet to simulate having sex, I'm sure evolution didn't see that one coming. However when the genetic arguments come up, if it is born into people, then I can't say that it's 'normal' because it's obviously not how humans are supposed to work. Not that anyone is especially normal, I don't know how to put across what I'm saying without some people getting annoyed.

    Ah they're going to anyway, what the hell, call me a queer basher :p go on!

    eta: just thought, maybe if I say this it will make more sense. Why does a gay person need to justify why they're gay? Anymore than I need to justify the fact I like motorbikes, there is no law against it, some people hate bikers, but I don't have to prove myself for htem. I can see in a different cultural climate then homosexuals need to 'band together' to get political change and look for each other, but I think that gays don't get such a hard time of it these days. Of course it's never perfect, but it's not exclusive to homosexuals, there are always those out to pick on someone.

    We've arrived at a wonderful point in time where you can be openly gay, go out to gay clubs, kiss other gays in the street, without being lynched. So people should enjoy it, rather than say making sure they have everyones approval first. Not pointing to everyone in this thread, just whenever this argument comes about theres always some like that. It's the same for racism too, and women. Grrr, someone I know takes it far too far with women.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    ShyBoy wrote:
    Ah they're going to anyway, what the hell, call me a queer basher :p go on!

    Queer Basher! :p

    I can take your argument and simply change it a little... and make you lose.

    Man and Women have sex to procreate - the only reason, if these good Christians are to be believed, but different point - but sex for pleasure is a different matter. If sex between a man a man provides pleasure , and sex for pleasure alone is not procreation - there is nothing not natural about that. Sex with both women and men provides pleasure for both sexes. It is a different matter from procreation entirley.

    As long as it is consenting, it is probably, in all fairness, natural. It happened through evolution, didn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yea but my point is that the purpose of sex is to procreate. We didn't just naturally evolve to have fun, that came about as an incentive for sex. So it was designed by evolution, that a penis felt good in a vagina, and a vagina felt good with a penis in it.

    The anus, by comparison, is for defecating. I myself can think of several modifications that would make it better for sex. Self lubricating and thicker colon wall to prevent tearing, for example. But we've improvised, so it's fine. Just like those birds that improvised with bread to catch fish (how cool :D). But it was never hardcoded into our design to bum each other :p, just as those birds were never coded to find bread. What is bread to a bird??
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote:
    Yea but my point is that the purpose of sex is to procreate.

    No, that is not the only purpose of sex.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote:
    So it was designed by evolution,

    Evolution doesn't "design" stuff.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote:
    However when the genetic arguments come up, if it is born into people, then I can't say that it's 'normal' because it's obviously not how humans are supposed to work.

    Can you explain how, if something is genetic, that it isn't "normal"?

    Surely genetics is part of evolution and part of our natural make up just as much a blue eyes are?
    Why does a gay person need to justify why they're gay?

    ... because homophobes keep telling them that they are not "normal"?
    but I think that gays don't get such a hard time of it these days.

    You are, of course, talking from a point of complete ignorance? Do you think it's "not a hard time" to have people, like you, forever saying that you are abnormal? Of facing discrimination when you book into hotels? Or knowing that there are some states in the US where you will be jailed for having sex with your chosen partner? Or being killed in some nations just for "being" homosexual?
    We've arrived at a wonderful point in time where you can be openly gay, go out to gay clubs, kiss other gays in the street, without being lynched.

    Just stared at, tutted at, spat at...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    No, that is not the only purpose of sex.

    Procreation is a purpose of life though and sex plays a major part of that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sex may be vital to procreation - it doesn't follow that procreation is vital to sex. Besides the 'natural' arguement completely collapses when you look into how often gay sex occurs in the animal kingdom. After all, even one example of gay sex (and there's a lot more than that) in the animal kingdom would mean it's entirely natural, after all an animal can't do anything that isn't natural in its natural habit.

    And as Blagsta mentioned - evolution is accident not design, things just happen to happen, they aren't aimed at perfect reproduction, what wins out just happens to work better than the other alternatives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    Sex may be vital to procreation - it doesn't follow that procreation is vital to sex. Besides the 'natural' arguement completely collapses when you look into how often gay sex occurs in the animal kingdom. After all, even one example of gay sex (and there's a lot more than that) in the animal kingdom would mean it's entirely natural, after all an animal can't do anything that isn't natural in its natural habit.

    Gay sex has been prevelant in human society for thousands of years as well, no one disputes that fact. Procreation is a vital part of life, sure there are anomolies here and there but that shouldn't overshadow what's at stake here. In modern days' other pressures like work mean families are planned later and are not seen as important, also attitudes towards sex have changed but it still doesn't mean the main aspect to sex is to procreate. If it was just for pleasure then we wouldn't have sperm or eggs. Simple as.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote:
    Procreation is a purpose of life though and sex plays a major part of that.

    If you think sex is mostly about procreation, your g/f must be disappointed!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    If you think sex is mostly about procreation, your g/f must be disappointed!

    Nope, I said procreation is a purpose of life and sex is a major part of this. I didn't say sex can't be used for other purposes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote:
    Nope, I said procreation is a purpose of life and sex is a major part of this. I didn't say sex can't be used for other purposes.

    Of course procreation is a major part of sex. However it is not the only purpose.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    all of your opinions are based on theory, no ones knows really what's going on. You can't say it's natural or accident, all you can say is that it happens. Nothing you say can prove anything. Open minded 'til the day our maker shows us or we die like a light bulb and never know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Theories are not just guesses y'know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    No, that is not the only purpose of sex.

    Would you agree that is the primary / main purpose though? When creatures were evolving, sex 'developed' in order to survive and procreate.
    Blagsta wrote:
    Evolution doesn't "design" stuff.

    Well, not as such, but it shapes it. We evolve and change by trial and error - I don't know how to articulate it - I understand the concept of evolution, in fact I've read a lot on Darwin's theories, so either you've assumed I wasn't aware, or are trying to pick me up on an otherwise insignificant argument? :confused:
    Can you explain how, if something is genetic, that it isn't "normal"?

    Well, like Jim says, evolution is survival of the fittest by accident, and I think of the 'normal' as a perfect being that lives in complete efficiency / effectiveness in it's environment. Every single living thing is above / below this normal, with deviations in certain areas. Being predisposed to heterosexual behaviour brings you closer to an 'ultimate' point of evolution, homosexual further away, simply because in a homosexual creature, the chances of them procreating is far far less.
    Surely genetics is part of evolution and part of our natural make up just as much a blue eyes are?

    We evolve by our genes mutating and changing randomly (or perhaps not so? maybe one day I'll do research into that :p), so that goes without saying. Homosexuality is just as usual (well not so, but is a change equivilent to) blue eyes, however those with blue eyes don't have a significant disadvantage in their environment (however lighter pigmented eyes mean you're more sensitive to light apparently, so better in areas of the world with less light?), however homosexuality will not make the creature 'survive more effectively', in fact any purely homosexual creature will be doomed to extinction, which is why 95% of the population (off the top of my head, I've head some people saying 14% of the population is gay, but I think that's an exaggeration) is heterosexual. Inherited behaviours / desires through genes from their parents.
    ... because homophobes keep telling them that they are not "normal"?

    By normal, I don't mean socially unacceptable, I mean as an example of the species that will survive effectively in it's environment. I think this is where the main confusion comes from. I'm not making an emotional argument, I am purely looking at the science of it, that homosexuality isn't what most humans evolve towards, it is a random mutation that occurs. Which has no bearing on the quality of character of a homosexual person whatsoever.

    You are, of course, talking from a point of complete ignorance? Do you think it's "not a hard time" to have people, like you, forever saying that you are abnormal? Of facing discrimination when you book into hotels? Or knowing that there are some states in the US where you will be jailed for having sex with your chosen partner? Or being killed in some nations just for "being" homosexual?

    But how many homosexuals are travelling to Iran for their valentines holiday? I think you are trying to exaggerate the discrimination faced by homosexuals. Of course it occurs, but by all accounts there's nothing that stops your average gay person in the UK from enjoying their life. Discrimination in hotels is the exception not the rule, and it's just because people get so worked up over it that it's made into a big deal.
    Just stared at, tutted at, spat at...

    Hmm. I can't vouch for every gay person in the world, but in my experience when I've been out and seen guys or girls kissing nobody pays them much notice - not anymore than if it was a girl and a guy. Have you noticed that people do spit, tutt and stare then?
    Jim V wrote:
    Sex may be vital to procreation - it doesn't follow that procreation is vital to sex. Besides the 'natural' arguement completely collapses when you look into how often gay sex occurs in the animal kingdom. After all, even one example of gay sex (and there's a lot more than that) in the animal kingdom would mean it's entirely natural, after all an animal can't do anything that isn't natural in its natural habit.

    Well it's natural in that random variables mean people are gay, but as my point earlier, homosexual creatures would not reproduce or propogate their species, and hence would 'die out'. Again in my original post, I said that it doesn't make much difference to our society, because the sociological aspects are a different branch from the biological ones, and gay people I'm sure are more concerned with equal rights than the continued survival of the 'gay race'. Taking this into consideration though, I think - relatively speaking - gay people in the year 2007 have it pretty good.

    There will always be discrimination, but at least in the UK that is the minority now rather than mainstream, along with racism. We've come a long way. Of course bigotry against homosexuals (I dislike the term homophobia as it always reads to me as a phobia of gays, which is different altogether) is reprehensible, but I've noticed a fair amount that people make up for this by trying to over-compensate.

    As an example, my friend put it like this:
    If a guy cheated on me with a girl, I'd be devastated. If it was with a guy though, although I'd be a bit down I'd be happy for him.

    Whereas I thought cheating was cheating, whether you're gay or not.
Sign In or Register to comment.