Absurdity Runs Amok: Gay-Sheep Rights and Biological Sin

It started with couple of drunken college jocks being pulled over for speeding, and escalated when a hot gay research ram was discovered in the back of their truck.

No, not “hot” as in sexy — the ram was hot as in stolen.

Turns out that the ram was liberated from an Oregon research center, where his gayness was the subject of a joint university study. Apparently, as many as 10% of rams prefer to mount other males - ignoring the females. Seems this presents a problem for ranchers with sheep breeding programs, so a study was set up to find out why these rams are differently-oriented, and if the orientation could be predicted or changed through hormonal treatments.

The story hit the papers because it was just damn funny. I mean.. university football players with a stolen gay sheep. The jokes write themselves, and reporters and bloggers couldn’t resist. As time went on, the hilarity mounted and the puns bred (presumedly they were the female-oriented rams). Do a search on Googlenews for “gay sheep research” - I promise ewe, my puns are not the worst on the topic)

Anyway, all jokes aside, once PETA caught wind of the experiments, the wool really started flying. Among other things, they claimed that aspects of the experiments amounted to sheep-rape. (I’m not kidding. Sheep-rape) So PETA did what any group of activists normally does, when faced with such overwhelming horror - they started a letter writing campaign.

Among the letter writers they encouraged was Tennis-star-turned-gay-rights-activist Martina Navratilova, who called the experiments “homophobic and cruel”. This, in turn, led to more absurdity about how the researchers were denying the sheep their god-given rights to be gay.

Seriously.
But Wait. It gets better.
The Baptists get involved.

Before I get into Biblical sheep, I need to backtrack a little…

The gay-sheep research bore fruit. (much like the clearly homosexual ram, pictured to the left).

Researchers found a difference in the brains of male-oriented rams. They also found that hormonal treatments on both adult and pre-natal rams impacted their orientation.

It’s important to note that this research is not just done *on* sheep, it is *about* sheep. The goal was to help sheep breeding programs be more successful, by predicting which rams would be good breeders, (or breeders at all). And yes, it was intended to add to the overall understanding of biological sexuality, potential applications to improve humanity, etc etc.

The researchers do not suggest that human sexuality is influenced by the same factors as sheep sexuality. They do not even consider the sheep to be “homosexual”, preferring to call them “male oriented”. That isn’t political correctness gone haywire, it’s scientific preciseness. Yepp. Sure is.

Now, since the Peta controversy, a couple of print and online magazines have written about the research, posing moral questions about the impact if this sort of research were extended to humans. Would potential parents choose to abort if pre-natal tests showed a predisposition to homosexuality? Would they choose to “treat” the sexual orientation in-utero? Would the medical community and the culture at large encourage this, implying that homosexuality is a disease? Complex stuff.

Enter the Southern Baptists.

After reading these articles on the research, The Rev. Albert Mohler (head of the leading Southern Baptist Seminary) published a blog entry rationally musing on the many implications of the gay “male-oriented” ram research. He ran a-fowl (gay chickens, anyone?) of his audience.

• First, Mohler acknowledged that current research might turn out to show that homosexuality has a biological basis. But certain members of the Religious Right were offended that one of their own could commit such heresy. Homosexuals choose to sin, dammit !

• Then Mohler explained that even if biologically determined, homosexuality would still be considered sin. The Religious Right Objectors might have breathed a sigh of relief, but no. They had already stopped reading, and started a letter writing campaign against the good Reverend. Gay-advocacy groups were also offended, and added him to their own letter writing campaign, already in swing against the Oregon scientists, universities, the football players and the sheep.

• Finally, Mohler suggested that if a pre-natal testing and hormonal treatment for homosexuality is found, it should be encouraged on a biblical basis. This last point further angered Gay-Rights Advocates, who oppose the idea that homosexuality is a disease and needs treatment. It further alienated members of the Religious Right, who apparently thought he was advocating genetic manipulation and interfering with the Will of God. It worried ethicists of all stripes, who are generally concerned about tinkering with humans before birth, especially things like manipulating sexual identity based on religious beliefs of parents. And it just plain ticked off Assorted Others, who really didn’t understand, but were pretty sure all of this meant they couldn’t have gay-sex with sheep anymore.

Curiously, the gay “male-oriented” rams aren’t too concerned about what Mohler said. They just want to keep getting to mount other rams in the name of science. They would start a letter writing campaign in support of their view, but it’s hard to hold a pen with a hoof.

Absurdity aside, the research itself is interesting for its implications. There are a lot of ethical questions about expanding our increasing ability to biochemically tweak the brain for certain results. There are moral questions about when tinkering is or isn’t ok, what is and isn’t a choice, and how we, as a culture should think about it.

Yet it’s the wildfire controversy that got me so wound up on the subject. A little bit of careful reading and critical thinking would have stopped most of the fuss before it started.

I did read Mohler’s blog entry on the subject, by the way… I don’t agree with him on much of it, but he outlines his views logically and clearly, and it’s reasonable, from a Southern Baptist theological point of view. He’s also written a response to some of the controversy about his own stance. He makes a neat trick out of recognizing both Baptist doctrine and science, resolving some of the conflicts without invalidating either. I cant help but wonder about his views on evolutionary science.

Deep stuff.

But what I really want to know is this…

Just what were those drunken football players planning on doing with that hot male-oriented Ram?

Omni Brain gets the blame for bringing this one to my attention.