 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) What muddies the issue here is that you have gays who are so at birth (IMO), and then you have the *lifestyle choice* gays, who, for one reason or another, choose to experiment with their sexuality with the same sex (so-called bisexuals). I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
|
(...) First of all, IMO, Channel 4 holds no credibility anyway, so a test by them is more luducrious. Having taken the test, I found it very interesting, and self defeating, that you must chose your sexual orientation prior to taking the test. I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I wonder - does "most frequently obsevered" (or perhaps most frequently admitted to?) equate to "default" ? Jennifer (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I don't think it's a question of circular definition-- it's a question of "why". Why am I attracted to women and not men? Why are heterosexuals attracted to the opposite sex? Not, "why am I a heterosexual?". IE, if gayness is a choice, is (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
|
(...) Perhaps by US standards! I did the test the same way as you and got 35-41% (...) Like I said Dave, it is just a bit of fun. I think it would be even poorer if the questions were more pertinent. This way it is just a bit of fun. :) Scott A (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Republic? (was: The *real* Phantom Menace ...)
|
|
(...) A rather right-wing Oz friend always says the aboriginal flag looks good. I've never seen it, but it sounds better than just making one up. Rather interestingly, Scottish bank notes have no sign of the Queen on them... Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Cheap Scientist (Re: Doing the Discover Mag Rag )
|
|
After out recent new scientist "debate", I got this e-mail from them today: ==+== New Scientist - it's essential reading for anyone with a passion for exploration and discovery. Subscribe today and save 60% off the annual price of USD 140 - that's 1 (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I'm really curious, because I just don't see how. Does the Bible say "Gayness is by choice"? Does it say "Gayness is not genetic"? Just because someone is genetically predisposed to sinning, does that absolve them from the guilt of the sin? (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
in article GnszKI.5KJ@lugnet.com, Ross Crawford at rcrawford@csi.com wrote on 12/3/01 11:07 PM: (...) Please, can't you think any better than that? It is the FACT that heteros find the opposite sex attractive that MAKES us heteros, not some "choice" (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) It is neither here nor there. If there is a gay gene, I don't see what the Bible has to do with it. That is a problem for the literalists to wrestle with. (...) No, not at all, except that you seem to interpret the possiblity of a gay gene (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
