Utah scientists hard at work:
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/sciencentral/696-reversing-sexual-orientation-video.htm
We know from embryology that we all start out as women (see SRY gene for more details) so the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality is fuzzy from the beginning. Also recall Ron White's standup where he says he prefers porno where the guy has a big throbbing $#%@ instead of a small one. There's a bit of woman in each man and probably a bit of man in each woman.
Rosh's argument was that homosexuality is a choice. It almost certainly isn't a (conscious) choice. What's interesting here is that even if it's largely genetic, it may be changeable through gene manipulation. And then this becomes an ethical question: would we want to change the genetics of babies before they are born (which would actually be the mother/father) to favor heterosexuality? Let's discuss this aspect of the nematode experiment.
Also, what's up with that scientist's hair? I didn't think that sort of hair was allowed in Utah.
Note: Labeled under human science even though experiment was carried out on pseudocoelomates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No she was unequivocally not. Unless these worms had access to MTV or cultural television that impressed upon them that homosexuality was great and then they decided to change genders to defy their culture, parents, teachers, GOP, etc, then this video proves Rosh was wrong.
ReplyDeleteI have maintained the entire time that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not a choice. Therefore, it is a mix of genetic predispositions and environmental influences (same goes for heterosexuality). Of course you can change the gender of an organism by switching a gene or set of genes.
I guess I am missing where Rosh was right in all of this. Unless it was sarcastic, she has maintained that it is a choice and that MTV, reality TV, American culture accepts it, and therefore, gays say I’m going to fly in the face of the herd and be gay. This is her reason for maintaining they should not be allowed to marry. The worm experiment exemplifies how we are prejudice against a group of people for things that are out of their control.
Plus, your title is a little insensitive. "the" gays? "the" blacks. "the" jews. "that" one. The use of an article (grammar) before a noun (subject) signifies difference, separatism, and something outside the norm.
ReplyDeleteNo you're right. I was thinking she was saying it was genetic but I was saying it was genetic or even beyond that it doesn't matter. 'The gays' is from Extras and/or Seinfeld, I can't remember which.
ReplyDeleteDid the title of this post change? I thought it originally said "Rosh was right" but now it says "Rosh was wrong." Jarrod's post seems to respond as if it was the former. Either way, I agree with what Jarrod posted.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ethical question Brent posed of wanting to change the genetics, I have to ask why we would do that? Two potential reasons come to mind - The person making the change either believes its "right" for the individual, or it's beneficial for society (i.e. "right" for society). The former seems to be contradicted by the fact that it's genetic, so that only leaves the latter, that it's beneficial for society. At this point, I don't really see how that's the case. Do we need more people having offspring? I would argue not. Do we need those who are anti-homosexual (especially violently so) to have some reason to think so? So what's the reason/benefit for considering this?
Readjust your parameters for someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible and then you see that the ethical question can be interpreted differently based on the core beliefs of the person interpretting. The three of us have similar understanding and frame our ethical questions along that understanding. Specifically, we look at societal benefit or collective benefit. Other people do not (the most obvious example is by those people who for example believe literally the bible or others who believe in individuality and use that as an assumption in answering a question like this).
ReplyDeleteHowever, if their core argument is that homosexuality is a choice, it would obviously be negated in this scenario. So I considered that aspect to be part of the first group, those who would make the change because it's right for the individual. How could one justify playing God by saying it's what God wants?
ReplyDeleteIf a core belief of a Christian is that homosexuality is a sin and a choice, it creates a cognitive dissonance when they are presented with the idea that their unborn child has a gene(s) for homosexuality and they have the choice to reverse it, because it is now not a choice (for the unborn child) but something uncontrollable, most likely in God's hands. We can arrive at a similar cognitive dissonance when discussing the problem with evil (or why bad things happen to people) with an omnipotent, omni-benevolent, omniscient God. I think many Christians accept ignorance in these circumstances, thus freeing themselves to both play God and believe in Him. I think this is dangerous science if they conclude that they can change sexual orientation of unborn children. However, it can be useful if they use this as evidence showing sexual orientation plurality.
ReplyDelete