 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Maybe you're not understanding the question... I'll try and ask again. What difference does it make whether or not we're genetically predisposed to prefer sin? If I have an urge to steal, to murder, to not worship God, or to be gay, what (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
Why are you attempting to debate the very nature of Christianity. It has a written instruction perceived to be influenced by a devine entity and has power via the individuals who believe it. Christians are just as free as anybody to believe what (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Stop making assumptions. I never once stated that I am Christian. I have some depth of knowledge concerning the Holy Bible but that does not make me Christian. I have analyzed the theory of gay-at-birth and dispute it. I have analyzed many of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Doesn't it depend on what the demands are? What if all they want is a fair shot? (...) Probably the same number that are currently labelled criminal for disliking negros. None. You are free to dislike whomever you want. The problem is when you (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Could you cite examples for those of us who don't know to which passages you're referring? Thanks. ~Grand Admiral Muffin Head (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
