Homosexual activists find themselves faced with a conundrum: If “gayness” is genetic, and if a woman has a right to choose, why shouldn’t a doctor help her avoid having a homosexual child if that is her desire? If “gayness” is an issue of hormonal balance, why not correct what I see as a problem?
Mark Steyn’s column today poses the tough question with his trademark sense of humor. Quoting in part:
Apparently, researchers at Oregon Health and Science University and Oregon State University have been experimenting with ovine hormonal balances in order to persuade homosexual rams of the error of their ways. It seems they’ve had “considerable success” with injecting hormones into the rams’ brains. Suddenly the lads are playing the field and crooning a couple of choruses of “Embrace me, my sweet embraceable ewe.”
Gay groups … are not happy about this. Martina Navratilova, the nine-time Wimbledon champ, has called for the project to be abandoned and for scientists to respect, as the Sunday Times put it, “the right of sheep to be gay.” Many of us can sympathize. … Surely a sheep should be able to celebrate his own sexuality without a lot of crazed ovine eugenicists strapping him to a gurney and shooting him the hetero-juice. … Meanwhile, Udo Schuklenk, professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, has warned that this research “brings the terrible possibility of exploitation by homophobic societies. Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example. It is typical of the U.S. to ignore the global context in which this is taking place.”
Nobody in Scotland seems to be spending much time imagining, say, nuclear technology in the hands of Iran, but in Glasgow they’re up in arms about the mullahs getting sheep-straightening technology. …
Unlike Martina Navratilova, I’m no expert in sheep sexuality. Who put the ram in the ram-a-lama-ding-dong? I couldn’t tell you. But I’m always interested in the internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition. If you’re a farmer, a ram is an economic asset. … So, on hearing that experts have come up with a nicotine-patch-like sticker that a pregnant sheep can wear to straighten out any potential gayness in her fetus, your average farmer might well think it worth investing in.
And, if that happens, at what point will a woman’s right to choose intersect with a farmer’s right to ewes? … Professor Schuklenk is right: “Homophobic societies” may well choose to de-gay their offspring. After all, much abortion practice is already explicitly eugenicist: If a woman can decide she doesn’t want to carry a baby with Down syndrome or a cleft palate or because she only wanted one of the triplets, why should she be obliged to accept his orientation? In 2005, responding to a highly hypothetical possibility of parental screening for a “gay gene,” a Maine state representative introduced a bill for the protection of unborn gays. But it’s hard to see why, in liberal abortion theology, unborn gays should be any worthier of protection than unborn straights.
Read more of Where there’s wool, there’s a way.