[QUOTE=Valteron]
Once gain, this posting contains an inherent and built-in prejudice. “Tampering” implies they shifted the rat from what he was supposed to be in the eyes of God to something unnatural.
The very idea of gay rats is laughable!!! 
Are they the ones who walk on limp-wristed legs and swish? Do they have Bette Midler and Cher albums? Do they decorate their cage in the lab with impeccable taste?
How do they decide the rat is “gay”? Because he tries to hump other male rats!??? Give me a break. Comparing human and animal sexuality is a stupid game and I am always amazed that there are scientists willing to make fools of themselves by announcing some “discovery” about homosexuality and rats.
Human sexuality (or perhaps primate sexuality) is vastly different from that of other animals and even closely-related mammals.
[/QUOTE]
A bit defensive? This seems to be the sort of argument we see launched against the notion of evolution because someone believes that humans must be the result of special creation.
First, “tampering” does not imply that the rat was shifted to “something unnatural,” it merely indicates that womb conditions were changed from what would typically occur during rat pregnancy. So you’ve made a huge assumption at the outset without having any reason (beyond your own desire) to claim it.
Second, I really doubt that the biologists doing the experiment claimed that the rats were “gay,” so you can stiffen up your wrist and stop making silly claims on that score.
That human sexuality is an extremely complex phenomenon that is not necessarily directly comparable to sexuality in animals that exhibit less social adaptation is probably true. However, making the leap from “we are more complex” to “we can learn nothing from examining them” is not merely wrong, it is silly. We have learned a lot about the effects of overcrowding in humans that initially began as studies of rats despite the fact that all the various human characteristics involved in the whole social dynanism of raising children over multiple years, pair bonding, having separate situations for labor and family and recreation, etc. are also more complex than that of rats.
You then go on to propose an entirely unlikely sscenario of a bunch of scientists who work with rats for years not recognizing an automatic reaction in a crowded cage, as though they would not know how to set population limits in their studies to control their experimentrs. That is beyond silly.
I agree that we still do not recognize the specific triggers and developments that lead to human sexual orientation and I would not accept the rat study as being in any way definitive–even if we actually had the results of the study before us. However, your dismissal is a gross overreaction to the idea that suggests a bit of fear that something might actually be discovered some day.
[QUOTE=LonesomePolecat]
Yep, sure do. The fact that an awful lot of people who come out as “gay” when they’re young mysteriously turn straight as they get older would seem to support that.
[/QUOTE]
“An awful lot”? Can you name one? I have never encountered a claim that any gay person has changed to being straight. (I am aware that there are various right-wing Christian groups who profess to “cure” homosexuality. They have a horrendous track record (both of abuse and failure) with lots of notable “backsliders” but I doubt that anyone has ever “turned straight” and it would be interesting to see any numbers.)
I can picture a situation in which a bi-sexual person chooses to settle down with a single life partner which would necessitate them appearing to have “become” either gay or straight, but I think your claim is just wishful thinking on your part.