 | | Re: Cheap Scientist (Re: Doing the Discover Mag Rag )
|
|
(...) As I was going through my inbox right after I posted about this I found the same message Scott posted. I should read all my mail when it arrives. Thanks Scott -chris (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) But genes that inhibit reproduction _can_ be inherited, recessively. Cf cystic fibrosis (without treatment sufferers die before puberty). (...) Try a little google search for "homosexual bonobo". My thoughts, such as they are: I think the "why (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap Scientist (Re: Doing the Discover Mag Rag )
|
|
(...) Buy it buy it! Each week a fresh issue delivered to your mailbox, to (cherish/ tear articles out of/ swat bugs with) for only a buck a pop -- what a bargain! Thanks for the ref Scott. // Dave (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice... who cares!
|
|
(...) Is the first on cited on this page? (first result returned by google) (URL) interesting... -chris (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) No, it does doesn't. Pattern does usually follow process though. It would have to be the default(1). The only ones who matter(2) in evolution are the ones who reproduce, so therefore how can it be that we should incapable of reproduction? (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Cheap Scientist (Re: Doing the Discover Mag Rag )
|
|
That is cheap. Hmm... buy it or use the library copy.... decisions decisions (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Essentially, it implies that similarly being homosexual is the same as being heterosexual :) IE if I sinned by thinking that the waitress is hot, I sin equally by thinking that a waiter is hot. Again, as long as I know not to act on my (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) The Bible simply IS part of the discussion. Christians and homosexuals alike have argued it to such a degree that it is difficult have a discussion of only homosexuality. For what it's worth, when I began debating gay-by-birth elsewhere, a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Clearly, "4,000 yrs. of religious doctrine" must include more than just the Bible. The Bible, as we know it today, was not available 4,000 years ago. Take an example. According to Jewish belief, Jesus is not the son of God. According to (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I was only speaking from a hypothetical standpoint and not voicing my own opinion. My viewpoint is the same as yours, but from the Catholic standpoint, you just commited a sin (the thought is the same as the action), so what does that imply? (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
