The subject is a Scottish joke. It goes something like, "What's the difference between the Rolling Stones and the Scottish? The Rolling Stones said, "Hey, you, get offa my cloud', and the Scottish say..." now you get it.
At any rate, I thought this article was interesting.
Couple quick comments:
I think the homosexual community is being very consistent in their support of the notion that sexual preference is an inseperable part of identity. It is not surprising that they would be so adamently opposed to any science that suggests otherwise. However, I think that this is an emotional and political reaction and not a rational, ethical, or scientific reaction. Gaining a better understanding of animal/human behavior is not unethical; neither is producing ways of changing animal/human behavior. What if the scientists were studying ways of making rams more passive so that they didn't fight? Would they have a right to be aggressive?
I think it would be very inconsistent of society at large to reject this science, considering there are many that abort unborn children because they aren't the desired sex. Compared to that, it seems pretty benign to take hormone supplements to encourage a desired sexual preference.
I thought it was a bit irresponsible of the author to include comparisons to Nazi eugenics experiments. These scientists are not conducting experiments on humans (number 1), they aren't conducting genetic experiments (number 2), and their purpose is not related to some felt moral calling to eradicate homosexuality (number 3).
Personally, I think this is pretty responsible science. This is a pretty straightforward study of animal behavior and it seems to be following the evidence as opposed to the political agenda of the day. Jonah Goldberg had a recent post that puts it pretty plainly: it's not the science that's moral or immoral, it's all about how we use it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment