 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) And? What has to change? What part no longer works? I mean, what if we discover the "cheat-on-your-wife" gene or the "stealing" gene? What if we find out that people are genetically predisposed to behaving in this way? Are they any less "evil" (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Hmm... that leads me to think that he might be baising his data someway (willingly or unwillingly). (...) care to share some of this research? i'm curious, I'm not trying to bait you. -chris (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Although I'm far from being a homophobe, I too would have to assert that heterosexuality would have to be our 'default' setting just for needs of basic continuation of the species. Wasn;t there a hypothesis at one time that homosexuality ws (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Is this fair?
|
|
Nope, doesn't seem fair at all, but the buck has to stop somewhere right? That's why it's so important to know what's happening with the supreme court during election years: will any positions open up during the next presidency? what kind of people (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Is this fair?
|
|
U.S. Supreme Court, ASHWANDER v.TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) [abridged, for full text try somewhere like findlaw.com] The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
