Here I Stand

Simul justus et pecator - Simultaneously saint and sinner.


Not even PETA could come up with this

Posted On: January 03rd, 2007 at 10:04 am

“Science told: hands off gay sheep,” proclaims a British Sunday Times headline. 

 

"Scientists are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of 'gay' sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans." 

 

"It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch. The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland , has caused an outcry."

 

"But the researchers argue that the work is valid, shedding light on the “broad question” of what determines sexual orientation. They insist the work is not aimed at “curing” homosexuality. Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams rather than mate with ewes, reducing its value to a farmer. Initially, the publicly funded project aimed to improve the productivity of herds." 

 

Apparently the concept of gay sheep is not new. I found similar articles, even pamphlets from the University of Boise outlining their pride for the sheep who had the courage to be different. Dated: 1989. 

 

"It's a very interesting model and we can learn a great deal about homosexuality from it," Perkins said. "They are not morally or culturally or ethically behaving like humans. These sheep are just doing what their bodies are telling them to do."

 

I thought I was reading The Onion, or one of those weird black and white paranormal magazines at the Walmart checkout. Unfortunately, I was not. Every source I read (often legitimate news sources) claimed a sheep’s behavior as instantly homosexual, and then continued by detailing the vocal diarrhea of the homosexual community. 

 

The gay sheep model could not be a clearer example of how misrepresentations of animal behavior and biology can be the determining factor of support for homosexuality being a biological and uncontrollable issue rather than an issue of right and wrong. 

 

I detail the counterargument of gay sheep because I do not want this circumstance to seem factual or evidence for homosexual innocence. While “gay” sheep can easily be explained, there are many instances in our world where homosexuality (bisexuality, etc.) is too complex of an issue to sort out in one sitting. 

 

First, we must remember from the fall of Adam the world was never the same. From the moment we entered this world we were consumed by sin. As we breathe and walk the earth, it is slowly dying, and everything in it is effected by sin. Therefore, animals are going to be imperfect. They are not devoid or excluded from sin, but I propose are effected differently. They lack the rational and analytical mind of a human being, and therefore, have less capacity for certain emotions or thought patterns. Therefore, they must never be put on the same plane as humans. 

 

Animals are programmed for survival. They do everything they can to hide signs of weakness from others, doing everything from secluding themselves to lashing out violently. Homosexuality is not practical for animals. It does not further their specific species, and sets them backwards in resources and members. If evolution wasn’t a lie, the entire concept would be genetically phased out, as homosexuality can be seen as a definite weakness. 

 

From this desire for survival comes a territory and domination issue for many animals, and more specifically, sheep. Sheep are herd animals, often having one or two lead males. Contrary to opinion, sheep do not mate and produce randomly. The strongest sheep is usually the male allowed to mate with females, producing strong offspring. If you have ever seen pictures of bighorn sheep, you would notice the males’ prominent horns. They serve much more of a purpose than show. The hard, callous material is dangerous and a useful weapon in battle against other sheep in determining the strongest male. 

 

In many mammals, the biggest and strongest males are the alpha (lead) breeders and leaders. In every case, animals use their physical attributes to outperform each other. Whoever is on top in the end usually wins. 

 

Referring to the articles, it is easy to see how the act of mating and the act of domination can be confused. A sheep would not attack another sheep from the front for a simple reason - The front is where the horns and thick head are. 

 

The processes of these “gay” sheep tests in universities are a manipulation of environment for the sake of producing a desired effect. Sheep are placed in closely confined quarters. For an animal where the caste system means everything, it can be a confusing time. When given the choice between males and females to approach, males might choose males to demonstrate superiority first, and have all the females to themselves later. For a previously weak sheep unable to breed from subordination, a trapped sheep in a test would seem a target too good to be true. 

 

Doesn’t the “Approximately one ram in 10” seem eerily similar to the famous “One man in 10” slogan from the homosexual community? And of course, we’re told it’s not a pride issue. I’m often reminded by others that gays never choose to be the way they are. 

 

And yet by not choosing the lifestyle, they seem to definitely enjoy it. It causes a conflict for Christians who want to tell them the Gospel but are scolded by a society, telling them not to get in the way of the pursuit of happiness. How can homosexuality be wrong if it makes people happy? 

 

Like it or not, there is a system of right and wrong in this world. If there wasn’t, the earth would be spinning in chaos, unable to have a level of safety amidst widely conflicting individuality. In order for humanity to survive, it must have a common denominator of good and bad along with checks and balances for the bad. 

 

Secular societies, therefore, have justice systems and governments. Christians, with their lives in Christ, have Law. Law is a very dangerous thing, as it condemns right away. It leaves no room for mercy or second chances. You did wrong, and that’s it. This is where those living completely in sin stop (“I tell you the truth, anyone who sins is a slave to sin.” John 8:34). You can’t have only God plus only Law. If you have only Law, it seems as though those who are happy in the Gospel are looking down on you. 

 

But there is, of course, more to life than Law. Thankfully, there is such a thing as a God who destroyed all bonds of sin by laying them on himself and dying. Thankfully, there is such a thing as a God dealing in absolutes, telling us confused minds what is definitely right and wrong, and what to definitely do. Something as simple as John 3:16: …”that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Believe and do not be a slave to sin. Either or. There’s one obvious pick. Those in Christ are given the glorious gift of heaven after death. 

 

So far, I haven’t heard of benefits from sin, especially from the sheep community.




Edited on: January 17th, 2007 7:19 pm


Comments:


Re: Not even PETA could come up with this

Posted On: January 03rd, 2007 at 10:38 am by luvable lutheran
You wrote, "Homosexuality is not practical for animals. It does not further their specific species, and sets them backwards in resources and members. If evolution wasn't a lie, the entire concept would be genetically phased out, as homosexuality can be seen as a definite weakness. "

I never thought about this perspective before. This would be another formative argument as to why evolution is not true or at least asked as a question to get people to think about scientific theories more. It seems at times that the university community can be close-minded when they only teach the evolutionary view/theory in various areas of science: biology, psychology, cognition and the like.

Re: Not even PETA could come up with this

Posted On: January 05th, 2007 at 1:08 pm by John Pawlitz
"And yet by not choosing the lifestyle, they seem to definitely enjoy it." Sounds a little like bitterness or mockery or some other form of antipathy on the surface, even though it is an introduction to an important point. Then again, I sympathize with that feeling. Interesting, yet I would wager perhaps a little more cutting than is useful in an already volatile case. But it certainly does seem like a great point to illustrate that society allows what is unacceptable by thinking that it makes for happiness, particularly in the case of homosexuality.

Re: Not even PETA could come up with this

Posted On: January 16th, 2007 at 8:44 am by Orycteropus Afer
How do you keep doing it, Rachel? Please claim your Golden Aardvark for documentary features.


BlogSCL 2.2.0 © 2004-2005 StanLemon.net