Ok, I borrowed that title from an article at slate.com about the science of gay sheep.
An experiment to test which sex rams chose to mate with found out that about 10% of all rams are gay:
A bare majority of rams turn out to be heterosexual. One in five swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and 7 percent to 10 percent are gay.
Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brainsâ€”the "sexually dimorphic nucleus"â€”looks more like a ewe's than like a straight ram's. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project's lead scientist, says such research "strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans."
Now, you'd think this sort of evidence would put conservative-types between a rock and a hard place, having to reconcile claims that being gay is opposed to nature with the fact that God's own creation includes gays. Not so! The article goes on...
Identifying gay rams wasn't enough. In 2000, Stormshak described an attempt to "alter" them. The idea was to "enhance their sexual behavior or performance" by making them act like straight rams. Three years later, Roselli told an OHSU committee that "information gained about the hormonal, neural, genetic, and environmental determinants of sexual partner preferences should allow better selection of rams for breeding and as a consequence may be economically important to the sheep industry." OSU president Ed Ray says the research "may define biological tests that can be used to identify" gay or asexual rams, "thus eliminating their use for general breeding purposes."
With new advances we may one day be able to influence the development of the brain during pregnancy to eliminate homosexuality. This kind of stuff makes me uneasy. What do you think? clearly this would be going against the natural course of things (ie 'God's design'), but is tampering with nature and engineering the brain development of a fetus justifiable in the name of creating "a more moral society" ? We already have amniocentesis to test for downs, and many women who consider themselves to be "pro-lifers" say they'd consider having an abortion if they knew their kid would have downs syndrome.
The Slate article concludes:
But killing is the horror scenario. The more likely path is gentler. Science will gradually convince us that sexual orientation is innate, more like the color of your skin than like the content of your character. Condemnation of homosexuality as a sin will subside. Freed from the culture wars, we'll turn to the biological differences between race and sexual orientation: Homosexuality defies the aspiration to procreate with your mate, and it's easier to isolate and alter in embryonic development. Resentment will give way to pity. We'll come to view homosexuality as a kind of infertilityâ€”a disability, like deafness. The rhetoric of "acceptance" will shift from liberals to conservatives. We'll inoculate our offspring against homosexuality out of love, not hate.
The sheep researchers intend nothing like this. But they didn't foresee the initial uproar over their work, either. It has come from the left, not the right. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has tried to quash their research, falsely depicting them as bigots. PETA, like President Bush, thinks that bad ideas come from bad people, and you have to stamp out the whole lot.
But bad ideasâ€”communism, eugenics, wars of liberationâ€”don't happen because they're bad. They happen because, in the beginning, they're good. What we do with the biological truth about homosexuality, for good or ill, isn't written in our hormones or our genes. It's up to us.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Brokeback Mutton".
TrackBack URL for this entry: