To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *15051 (-20)
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) Most Christians believe the Bible is indeed correct. Should someone prove (...) I'm not sure how this question is intended to be read. (...) Sorry, everywhere else I've specified Christian religion, since I am most familiar with it. Also, i'm (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) A simple internet search for "gay gene" will give you all the information you're asking for plus some. (...) The Holy Bible directly refers to homosexuality more than once as a sin. (...) I wish your example is how things actually work. (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) Your second example is what I was aiming for. (...) Not sure if you're actually agreeing with me or not, but thanks for not attacking me. (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) he has done it three times himself and succeeded while at least two others have tried and failed. (...) When it comes to researhing genetic behavior, especially one of controversy, care should be taken not to give false hope, or insight (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) Are you implying that possibly apart from the gay gene question, the 4,000 years of religious doctrine is _correct_? Should someone prove the "gay gene" theory, then we would _finally_ have one case of the doctrine being incorrect? Whatever do (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) In my research I found that there were indeed a total of three tests that showed positive results, unfortuanately all three tests were performed by the same scientist. (...) If science can prove that a gay gene exists, then the Bible has also (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) It is my understanding that the human brain can "change" according to a person's mental development. If so, then study on the brain to find a common link to homosexuality would be suspect. (...) Handed-ness does not promote a lively-hood that (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) Why not? Somewhere else in this thread someone posted that more lesbians think their sexuality is "by choice" than not. Maybe your genes, rather than specifying absolute sexuality, specify a leaning one way or another - it's still your choice (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
in article Gns8LM.n0v@lugnet.com, Kirby Warden at inourimage@msn.com wrote on 12/3/01 1:24 PM: (...) A ridiculous notion. If you are straight, are you straight "by choice?" Do you somehow feel you would be or are free to choose otherwise? And why (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
in article Gns8LM.n0v@lugnet.com, Kirby Warden at inourimage@msn.com wrote on 12/3/01 1:24 PM: (...) Why? If it were to be proven that the tendency to commit adultery or fornication were genetically programmed (not that hard to imagine, really), (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Republic? (was: The *real* Phantom Menace ...)
 
(...) I don't think our republicans will want that 'orrible symbol o' the muvver country in the corner... (...) Changing to decimal currency took about 2 years, I think. Maybe they'll go for US denominations, just to force a change 8?/ It'll be (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Republic? (was: The *real* Phantom Menace ...)
 
(...) Agreed. (...) I think that's a lot more doubtful. There seems to be much higher public support for the flag "that our diggers fought and died for" than there is for the monarchy*. And then there's the Hawaii precedent. (...) I wonder how long (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) [snip] (...) Interesting. It amuses me to wonder though if the existence of a "gay gene" would be ammunition for the creation scientists to use against the darwinians? Cheers Richie (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Republic? (was: The *real* Phantom Menace ...)
 
(...) recently (...) You shouldn't listen to rumours! Anyone who predicts 100% chance in anything political is talking through the wrong end of their digestive tract. It's likely (IMO) we may become a republic in the next 20 years. I'm not prepared (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) A number of people duplicated the results by following the same method as the original claimants - but basically those were non-critical attempts (the methods themselves were not initially questioned). I asked my father-in-law at the time why (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
in article Gnr9z2.64K@lugnet.com, Maggie Cambron at mcambron@pacbell.net wrote on 12/3/01 12:57 AM: (...) The food? I hear that the food is better. 8) Rob ("Gay cuisine: does it rock? we'll be back after this announcement." - Garry Trudeau) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) ? Cold fusion anyone? I'm afraid I don't know enough about it, but what methods were used by this scientist who found them? Have others tried his same methods? Or their own? How long do they take? How consistant are they? How many cases were (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) Quietly coercing other scientists to duplicate research sounds like a more serious issue then a lack of repetability. I'm not sure if I'm parsing your meaning of your last sentence correctly but putting out an idea and seeing if others get the (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) How many attempts have been made to corroborate his findings? (...) I don't know about "very serious" such findings are a part of the scientific process. (...) Sorry? How would that have been better? (...) Why? (...) Gosh. Like what? (...) So (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) Allegedly two studies duplicated the original results (one currently unpublished). Another did not produce the same results. The sample size was small in all cases - I wouldn't take claims either way as conclusive. (...) What does this have to (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR