General: January 2007 Archives

In 2002, researchers from Oregon Health & Science University announced the findings from their analysis of 27 sheep that suggest “marked differences” in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual male sheep, or rams.

The researchers observed that the preoptic hypothalamus — the region of the brain that influences sexual behavior and partner preference — in heterosexual rams contained higher levels of a group of neurons known as the sexually dimorphic nucleus, than the preoptic hypothalamus of rams who prefer to mate with other rams.

The researchers also concluded that the volume of the sexually dimorphic nucleus in gay rams is similar to what is found in female sheep, or ewes. Essentially, it means that heterosexual rams had higher levels of testosterone in their sexually dimorphic nucleus compared to gay ram and ewe. [...]

But critics of the experiment, led by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, assign much more sinister implications to studying sexual orientation among sheep. In particular, they point to researchers’ follow-up studies that attempted to determine “whether sexual preferences can be altered by manipulating the prenatal hormone environment … [in order] to test their hypothesis regarding development of this area of the brain.”

Those follow-up studies — some of whose results were published in the June 2006 issue of the journal Endocrine — involved pregnant ewes receiving testosterone-inhibiting treatments, either surgically or by injection, to determine whether the level of testosterone in the womb determined a baby sheep’s sexual orientation. The results from the studies were inconclusive, but critics argue they could open the door to human beings attempting to influence a child’s sexual orientation prenatally.

“Obviously, this carries insidious implications that homosexuality can be cured,” said Shalin Gala, a research associate for PETA. [...]

“PETA will co-opt whatever cause it can to help advance their own agenda, and that’s what PETA has done with the gay community,” Roselli said. (source)

In the future, will I exist?

Awhile back, I sent an email to Dr. Roselli concerning his research. According to the research, 8 per cent of rams are gay and another 8 per cent are sexually ambivalent, showing no sexual interest in ewes or rams. And after this hormone treatment, some of the gay sheep started showing interests in ewes.

I suppose it’s no surprise that Dr. Roselli didn’t respond to my email. I did after all suggest that others had worked in this field in the past and suggested that instead of starting from scratch, that he may benefit from some of their findings. In particular, I suggested that Doctor Josef Mengele (a.k.a. the “Angel of Death”), one of his predecessors had done experiments in the area of changing sexual orientation in actual people — although most of his subjects never survived the procedure. I concluded the email by saying, “So, does this make you a Nazi? People like you scare the hell out of me and it’s up to people like me to expose what you are up to, IF I’m around in the future to do that.”

Too extreme? Well, let me paint a scene for you. I’m going to use an analogy from the Star Trek series (particularly “The Next Generation” series). One of the moral and ethical problems that became apparent when we mastered time travel, was the ability to change the future. These lessons did not come easily. One very small change could cause consequences that would have devastating effects in the future. Because of this, the “Prime Directive” (do not interfere with the development of worlds that were less advanced, thereby ensuring that whatever their future was, it would be natural for them) was enforced. The Prime Directive states:

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

Later, when we developed the ability for time travel, the “Temporal Prime Directive” was put into place. It stated, “All Starfleet personnel are strictly forbidden from directly interfering with historical events and required to maintain the timeline and prevent history from being altered.”

So how does this effect what I’m talking about? We are talking about the extinction of a certain class of people. There is no doubt what so ever in my mind how this research will be used in the future. Tests will be developed for pregnant women to determine the chances of her producing homosexual offspring. If she is “at risk”, no worry. They will give her a patch containing the necessary hormones that she can simply wear on her arm, assuring her that her baby will turn out to be normal (heterosexual).

Dr. Roselli states, “We’re studying the physiology of behavior, not looking for ways to apply it.” If that is what he truly believes, he lives in Wonderland. I can name a few people right off the top of my head who would exterminate homosexuals via this sanitary and sterile way without a second thought: Dr. Paul Cameron, Rev. Pat Robertson, Rev. Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, Gary Bauer, and many others.

The moral and ethical question is this: Should I be exterminated before I exist?

Of everything that I’ve experienced in life, good or bad, I think that it is better to have existed, than to not have had a choice in my existence.

The elimination of people like me would solve a great many of society’s problems. Marriage equality for gays would not be an issue because gay people would not exist. Gay bashing would not be an issue because gay people would not exist. Civil rights issues for gays would not be an issue because gay people would not exist.

Think about it without emotional thought. If this were to happen, what you are reading right now, along with this entire blog, would never have existed. We would never even know if that was good or bad, because it never would have existed. My people... would have been erased.

He (Martin Luther King, Jr.) had been jailed in Birmingham, Alabama because of his civil rights leadership. Eight white clergy placed an ad in one of Birmingham’s newspapers questioning his right to be in their city, and suggesting strongly that he and ‘The Movement’ become more moderate in their approach.

In his letter he wrote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

---

If we who are black are unable to be in an ally/advocate relationship with our GLBT sisters and brothers of every race in their struggle, our commitment to the black justice struggle loses a bit of its integrity. The negative attitudes of black persons and other persons of color toward the rights of gay persons, suggests that we have forgotten our own struggles that continue to this day.

I cannot comprehend nor understand their theology nor their understanding of justice of many African churchmen who seem to be more ’worked up’ about a gay Episcopal bishop than they are about the legacy of colonialism that is still present in their nations and their churches, the tragedy of the deaths of millions because of HIV/AIDS, the poverty that exists all around them and in places, the appearance that black totalitarianism is valid when white totalitarianism was not.

As a clergyman, I believe Dr. King would vigorously oppose those in religion who use Scripture to justify their denial of human rights in the church and beyond of those who love someone of the same-sex. He would remind religious leaders of how historically, the Bible has been used to oppress persons, only in time to reverse their resistance.

Source