Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Gay Sheep Make Stylish Sweaters

One of the more mirthful memes of our time is that the Right is "anti-science." Normally, this accusation is hurled at anyone who feels science should not be used to destroy human life for "grander" purposes, or to demean the human person.

It is the Left however that has the clout to actually stop science, either through terrorism as we see in the PETA/eco area or "junk science" pushed by certain portions of the trial bar or any of the lunacies the EU foists on its hapless subjects. Now however, the Left is coming out (so to speak) against experiments designed to improve livestock. Rams that mate with other rams produce no lambs. Enter science to reduce this problem with a shot of hormones to pregnant ewes.

The uproar is amazing. In the 70's homosexual advocates touted "choice" and made alliances with the other debasers of that term, the abortionists. Later when it became clear that the civil rights paradigm was better than the freedom paradigm in today's America they switched horses to insist the tendency was "genetic" and not a choice. Now evidence has been coming in that male homosexuality may be influenced not by genes but by hormones in utero. In this article Martina Navratilova attacks the "straightening" of the gay sheep. I am aware of no studies linking female homosexuality to in utero hormones. The Lesbians remain safe from grasping science.

The vast majority of parents are not going to want gay male children. If there is a vaccine that prevents it, without even abortion, as now is conducted against 90% of American unborn children with Downs Syndrome, people are going to choose it. This can not be allowed to happen as far as the Left is concerned. (I also love the part of this article where they fear Iran eliminating homosexuals in utero, when 100's of millions of females have been eliminated simply for being female because of the abortion right promoted progressives and the U.N. worldwide).

The Supreme Court has found a right to participate in homosexual activity. Can we see the day when they determine there is a "right" to be born with a homosexual inclination? And if this "right" is recognized, along with the unlimited abortion right already recognized, we will have a situtation where a pregnant woman could abort a baby but not take hormones to assure he had a normal sexual orientation. "Better dead than het" will be the cry of the Castro District.

All of this is chilling on a host of levels but I do love to see the "progressives" at each other's throats. The twin leftist hobby horses of court enforced "gay rights" and "reproductive freedom" have been in the service of certain outcomes favored by the Left. Now they may become opposed. Will anyone call that segment of the Left opposing experimentation on livestock (practiced since ancient times) "anti-science?"

UPDATE: Mr. Steyn has chimed in on hormones, sheep and eugenics and his thoughts move along the same path as mine. He's just better at it.http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/200050,CST-EDT-STEYN07.article


Further Update: Mr. Goldberg chimes in along my lines: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3YTQwMjQ0OWY4NDRhZTdmODZhZGJhMzdhMTIyODg=

7 comments:

Dave S. said...

The Supreme Court actually reserved the right to participate in homosexual activity to itself, in Scalia et al. v Fire Island, if memory serves.

Anonymous said...

Watching ideological opponents savage each other is a bipartisan pleasure, so I don't begrudge JJV his enjoyment of that.

In my experience the "anti-science" charge is more used against those who, for faith-based reasons, fight against the teaching of evolution. The fact that there is some overlap between the creationists and the anti-abortion groups doesn't mean the adjective applies equally.

Even ignoring: (1) the fact that there is no evidence that hormone therapy changes "gay rams" to straight ones (and wasn't an old argument against gays the idea that it didn't happen in nature?); (2) that even if there were that wouldn't automatically be effective in people; and (3) even if that were true then you don't know what side effects the hormones would cause ... even putting all that aside, this issue has just as much chance of pitting the right against each other as the left. It's easy to see the Fundies (and not just the Christian Scientists) objecting to tinkering with what God made, and other Fundies whose desire to stamp out teh gays trumps moral qualms.

It's like those in the "eco area" that JJV castigates finding alliances in the Relgious Right, who actually feel we should be stewards of the planet. Perhaps it's not all so cut and dried ...

John C.

Dave S. said...

Nuance:JJV = pearls:swine

CRH said...

JJV's tendency to pile rant upon diatribe with a steamy helping of polemic makes it impossible to respond to this mess of a post in any systematic way.

The sins that most annoy me on first reading (and I can't bear the thought of another) are JJV's chronic habit of conflating a single enemy with all his enemies, another chronic habit of adding old shibboleths to new whine, and confusing "science" with "the uses to which the fruits of science may be put."

Hehe, I said fruits.

CRH

jjv said...

The creationist point is pretty good. I do actually think they're antiscience. I just don't think they make up the bulk of what, say, the NYT calls the "anti-science" right.

Dave S. said...

CRH, your comment illustrates perfectly why you are so desperately needed on the front lines of this blog. Update your Blogger account and ride to the sound of whatever sound it is that blogs make!

Dave S. said...

Yes, he is better at it. So much better that I could not read all the way to the end.

The Steyn way has always been out of tune. Hey, I bet he's already written that. What a clever, clever chap.