This issue came up like, months ago when PETA started spamming it to all the gay groups I belong to.
Look, the scientists don't believe in eugenics for sexuality. They think it's wrong, Rosselli said that it makes him uncomfortable, which means in his scientific and expert opinion, it's not the right thing to do.
I love gay campaigners to death, but I think that this is all about misunderstanding how science works. In order to prove or disprove the hypothesis that sexuality (in rams) is controlled by hormone variance int he womb, they have to perform experiments where they increase the amount of hormone and decreases the amount of prenatal hormones and see what happens.
Example: You want to know if sunlight is necessary for plant growth. You take a plant and put it in the sun and see that it grows. Then, in order to confirm that sunlight is the x-factor, you take anothe rplant and keep it in cosntant darkness. The plant may die, but it demonstrates that sunlight is necessary for plant growth. It's not done because you want to kill the plant, it's done because you need to see if that's the case, to prove that it IS sunlight that helps the plant live.
So understand that when these scientists 'alter' some rams, it's part of determinging whether or not the hormones are the X-factor in homosexuality, not because they have diabolical plans to stop gay kids from ever being born.
I'm sorry if some rams get changed into heterosexuals or homosexuals in the process, but that's what it takes to know. It doesn't 'stink of eugenics'. How can gay campaigners attack these scientists for basically trying to see if being gay is genetic or not? Because if they prove that it IS genetic, which is where the results are pointing, then they prove what gay campaigners have always been saying but never had the solid scientific proof to back up.
The only eugenic threat is from media spin. Who said that a nicotine-like patch is being developed? Did the researchers say that? Did the researchers propose that? Or did the journalist throw that in as a possibility?
Scientists say that 'theoretically' increasing prenatal hormones could change sexuality. If someone asked me if that could theoretically be done, I'd say that yes, it could too. But if you asked me if I would ever allow it to be done, I'd say hell no and I think the scientists asked for their opinions on the validity of that theorteical procedure would say the same.
You can ask if that technology would be abused in another country, and yes, that's true. It could. But all scientific fact can be used appropriately or abused. Does that mean we shouldn't ever learn anything?
Botox is made from the bacteria that cuases botulism. Less than 50 grams of that toxin could gruesomely kill the entire population of the United States. But, it can also be used to paralyze the muscles in some aging WASP's face. Because the toxin is so dangerous, does that mean we shouldn't have ever learned about it or how to cultivate it? Or how it works so it can be treated if someone gets botulism?
Scientific fact is just like power. It can be used for good and bad, but at the heart, it only exists because we seek understanding. Does performing these experiments mean that we'll know what causes homosexuality and heterosexuality and the entire scale of sexuality? Yes. Does it mean that the findings could potentially be used for the unethical idea of a 'cure' or prevention? Yes. Does it mean that that is what it WILL be used for? No. Whose responsibility is it to stop this important and enlightening and beneficial scientific research from being abused? People like us, our representatives, and scientists.
The difference between this and Nazi eugenic experimentationw as that Nazis stated that their express goal from allof this research was to one day make it so that there would only be those specific traits.
But this researching is not making that statement, in fact, he's made the complete opposite statement. He just wants to know what the x-factor is. He may have to do the same process, because the scientific process is fixed and the same for everything, but his intentions are not the same. There is no threat in his research and no maliciousness.
Isn't it strange that gay groups are basically ont he same side as anti-gay groups who don't want his research to point where it's headed? And we seem to be on their side only because we don't like the fact that some rams were born heterosexual instead of homosexual so that the result we want can finally be proven? Let's stop missing the forest for the trees.
