Scientists look to straighten homosexual sheep

[Jenn! 918]

that's not procreation. that's cloning. the scientific name for the procedure is somatic nuclear cell transfer. but thanks for playing.

It's not cloning. Cloning refers to the procedure of creating a genetically identical copy

of the original using SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer). What the Newcastle scientists

have done is different -- they used stem cells to grow real sperm and eggs. Their

research makes it possible to grow sperm using one man's stem cells and eggs using

another man's stem cells and then use the sperm to fertilise the egg. Cool, isn't it?

It is cool, but I think it's also scary to think of someone mating with themself though.

[Mags 112]

that's not procreation. that's cloning. the scientific name for the procedure is somatic nuclear cell transfer. but thanks for playing.

It's not cloning. Cloning refers to the procedure of creating a genetically identical copy

of the original using SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer). What the Newcastle scientists

have done is different -- they used stem cells to grow real sperm and eggs. Their

research makes it possible to grow sperm using one man's stem cells and eggs using

another man's stem cells and then use the sperm to fertilise the egg. Cool, isn't it?

I rather think it IS cool too. I think it is amazing how far we have come scientifically. But then, I come from a scientific background. I'm a science geek....I admit.

(how many times can I fit science into a sentence there? Phew!!)

that's not procreation. that's cloning. the scientific name for the procedure is somatic nuclear cell transfer. but thanks for playing.

It's not cloning. Cloning refers to the procedure of creating a genetically identical copy

of the original using SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer). What the Newcastle scientists

have done is different -- they used stem cells to grow real sperm and eggs. Their

research makes it possible to grow sperm using one man's stem cells and eggs using

another man's stem cells and then use the sperm to fertilise the egg. Cool, isn't it?

It is cool, but I think it's also scary to think of someone mating with themself though.

Ick! Put that way it isn't so cool.....

[Peikko 1,575]

I also thought that most 'factory' farming reproduction was via artificial insemination...or is that just bovine reproduction?

[mawilson 2,133]

Ick! Put that way it isn't so cool.....

It's still cool. Think of all the pimply-faced geeks who can't get any dates. Now they will be able

to reproduce and spawn more pimply-faced geeks who can't get any dates.

[garya505 2]

that's not procreation. that's cloning. the scientific name for the procedure is somatic nuclear cell transfer. but thanks for playing.

It's not cloning. Cloning refers to the procedure of creating a genetically identical copy

of the original using SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer). What the Newcastle scientists

have done is different -- they used stem cells to grow real sperm and eggs. Their

research makes it possible to grow sperm using one man's stem cells and eggs using

another man's stem cells and then use the sperm to fertilise the egg. Cool, isn't it?

I rather think it IS cool too. I think it is amazing how far we have come scientifically. But then, I come from a scientific background. I'm a science geek....I admit.

(how many times can I fit science into a sentence there? Phew!!)

that's not procreation. that's cloning. the scientific name for the procedure is somatic nuclear cell transfer. but thanks for playing.

It's not cloning. Cloning refers to the procedure of creating a genetically identical copy

of the original using SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer). What the Newcastle scientists

have done is different -- they used stem cells to grow real sperm and eggs. Their

research makes it possible to grow sperm using one man's stem cells and eggs using

another man's stem cells and then use the sperm to fertilise the egg. Cool, isn't it?

It is cool, but I think it's also scary to think of someone mating with themself though.

Ick! Put that way it isn't so cool.....

Kinda gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "go ** yourself", doesn't it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While *I* might not see homosexuality as a genetic defect, I don't really see how that has any bearing on whether or not this research is worthwhile. I do know gay people who, if given the choice, would choose to be heterosexual. And I can't understand denying them that choice.

Hell, nowadays people can switch genders...why not sexuality?

It's so strange. BTW people can't switch genders in their minds. Theoretically, they've always been male or female, in the wrong body. I think people should be able to not be gay if they don't want to be, but I'd also like to be taller and better at sports. Where do you draw the line?

The sky is the limit?

I wish I had a third eye.

[Ban Hammer 13,624]

It is cool, but I think it's also scary to think of someone mating with themself though.

isn't that what masturbation really is?

[Peikko 1,575]

Erm, no.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh, I see I'm still being quoted....Is that a good thing?

Anyone care to research the issue of redifining the "family" issue as it pertains to gays? Most people view the gay issue as a "victimless crime" and shrug their shoulders and walk away.....

A very liberal Hollywood has acclimarted, or at least wore us out, to the idea that gay lifestyles are "normal" and harmless......

Brokeback, anyone? Ellen anyone?

These are attempts by liberals to make normal something that most of us know, intuitively, to be very abnormal.......

BTW, homphobic is simply a sanitized label to attribute to those of us that are bigoted against gays...

Where does this "intuition" come from? That's kind of what I was getting at.... Unspoken assumptions arising out of an unconsciously accepted social construct.

If we're going to look at homosexuality - you might want to look at the high rates of depression and suicide compared with heterosexuals? How much of that depression is the result of an unwillingness to conform to that social construct and the pressure that is put on people who refuse to conform to expected norms of behaviour?

You are suggesting that social pressure contributes to their depression and suicides. How much of it might be a result of other personal problems they have, considering a large percentage of gays probably have other facets of their lifestyle that are also "unconventional". For example, don't gay men tend to have shorter relationships and more partners than straight men, which would mean more "break-ups" that could lead to depression?

That certainly could play a part . Its a complex issue. The question here is whether is whether homosexuality is a disease that should be genetically 'cured' (regardless of whether or not any of us approve of it).

Firstly, let's get our terminology straight. If anything, homosexuality would be a genetic defect, not a disease.....

Having said that, if my parents are typical of those with adolescents that are experimenting, or actually engaging in homosexuality, it is a defect, but in their minds one that's behavioral and not in ones genetic makeup, so to speak.....

My parents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on "therapy" for my brother will no discernable result. He still sought out a deviant homosexual lifestyle, eventually succumbing to AIDS.

If it is indeed a genetic, um, I'll say "aberration, or anomaly in ones genes" that predisposes a person to be attracted to same sex later in life, then in my personal opinion the aberration should be addressed, as it's clearly not what nature intended.

The "anomalous" condition should be disclosed to the parents of a newborn and then they would be allowed to choose their options.....

So, my position is that if this condition is identified as a genetic aberration, or defect, then it should be researched and medical options developed to nullify, or reverse the condition.

Any "cure" to homosexuality is irrelevant if the people concerned decide that they are happy with their lifestyle and choose to abstain.

The only remaining practical application of such a technology would then be to give parents the right to pick and choose the genetics of their offspring, which if we are talking about "nature" doesn't seem too "natural". Certainly not the sort of thing that would win any points with the religious crowd. (The "Nature" argument goes back to social ideology, BTW). The sex angle too is questionable - oral sex is a human invention, so is ####### sex - none of it is natural, or intended to produce children - but that's ok because its between members of the opposite sex.

Now if we're talking about a real genetic defect that severely inhibits a person's ability to function adequately in society - perhaps you should take a look at Downs Syndrome. I'd much rather my kid be gay than Downs...

Out of curiosity... do you think that homosexual people have made a valuable contribution to human history and our cultural development?

It wouldn't be irrelevant to those gays who decided to get the cure, would it?

It depends whether or not you work under the assumption that large numbers of homosexual people are unhappy with their sexuality. I don't believe that is the case.

[mybackpages 0]

While *I* might not see homosexuality as a genetic defect, I don't really see how that has any bearing on whether or not this research is worthwhile. I do know gay people who, if given the choice, would choose to be heterosexual. And I can't understand denying them that choice.

Hell, nowadays people can switch genders...why not sexuality?

It's so strange. BTW people can't switch genders in their minds. Theoretically, they've always been male or female, in the wrong body. I think people should be able to not be gay if they don't want to be, but I'd also like to be taller and better at sports. Where do you draw the line?

The sky is the limit?

I wish I had a third eye.

What would you do with it?

[kaydee457 13]

Well, I've had some time to ponder this issue and I now believe that it would be best if science find a cure for heterosexuality...

Yes, I mean we can all be gay if we wish... I would like to volunteer to be made a lesbian trapped in a mans body!

Edited January 5, 2007 by kaydee457

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, I've had some time to ponder this issue and I now believe that it would be best if science find a cure for heterosexuality...

Yes, I mean we can all be gay if we wish... I would like to volunteer to be made a lesbian trapped in a mans body!

As interesting as that would be to see - I think you should keep your Brave New World

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While *I* might not see homosexuality as a genetic defect, I don't really see how that has any bearing on whether or not this research is worthwhile. I do know gay people who, if given the choice, would choose to be heterosexual. And I can't understand denying them that choice.

Hell, nowadays people can switch genders...why not sexuality?

It's so strange. BTW people can't switch genders in their minds. Theoretically, they've always been male or female, in the wrong body. I think people should be able to not be gay if they don't want to be, but I'd also like to be taller and better at sports. Where do you draw the line?

The sky is the limit?

I wish I had a third eye.

Either have it on the back of my head

What would you do with it?

I'd have it on the back of my head, and the CIA could use me as a spy.

[eric&gen 0]

Lets all be happy and gay silly gooses.