 | | Re: A new daughter!
|
|
(...) Congrats! I'd dispense useful advice about having a second child, but our son Connor is only about 5 days older than Kivi. :) Kids rock. James (23 years ago, 12-Dec-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.org.us.gardenslug)
|
| |
| | Re: A new daughter!
|
|
(...) Thanks. (...) Count on it. (...) I think we're going with your first. It's not long like you say TeeVee. It's more like Tipi. It is a Finnish name, but for boys, so we're cheating. Chris (23 years ago, 12-Dec-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.org.us.gardenslug)
|
| |
| | Re: A new daughter!
|
|
(...) Congrats. Don't walk down those pink and purple aisles at TRU - just give her Lego! :-) Bruce (Kivi, Keevee? Intriguing name, either pronunciation) (23 years ago, 12-Dec-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.org.us.gardenslug)
|
| |
| | A new daughter!
|
|
Hi all, My daughter, Kivi Alexis Weeks was born four hours ago at my house! Our Sunroom was the place of birth and is also where all my LEGO is stored, so she was born under the watchful gaze of many many minifigs. We were attended by a midwife and (...) (23 years ago, 12-Dec-01, to lugnet.people, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.org.us.gardenslug) !
|
| |
| | Re: Google archives Usenet back to '81
|
|
(...) Apparently, some of the posts haven't "made it" for some reason--I don't know why. I can state this because a lot of my posts have gone missing, posts that I know I made--maybe they went under pseudo- nyms, but I KNOW that I made more than 7 (...) (23 years ago, 12-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Google archives Usenet back to '81
|
|
(...) Here's my first post to Usenet (I thought I had started using it earlier, but I guess not): (URL) here's my first post on politics: (URL) my first post to RTL (on my Birthday no less): (URL) my first net communication about LEGO is on Lugnet I (...) (23 years ago, 12-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Another interesting essay & how I found it (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
(...) I agree. Lying about such things goes against my aesthetic. Please don't miconstrue any of what I'm saying to suggest that I advocate 'cheating' on your spouse. I don't. But I'm still exploring the nature of morals (or what I and others think (...) (23 years ago, 8-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Another interesting essay & how I found it (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
> The very nature of the "harm" that takes place -- that you have to know about (...) his (...) it's bad (...) Infidelities to do often come out in the end, and of course there is the possibility of you infecting the partner who is unaware of your (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Another interesting essay & how I found it (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
(...) I would certainly personally agree with the sentiment. Point was being that both acting homosexually AND wanting to cheat on a spouse are considered to be sinful acts by some sects of Christianity, regardless of who they hurt. IE, even if it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Another interesting essay & how I found it (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
(...) For contrast, here are some principals for Unitarian Universalism set with those of the Bahai faith: Unitarian Universalists commonly hold: (...) The inherent worth and dignity of all people. (UU pricipal #1) (...) Acceptance of one another (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Another interesting essay & how I found it (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
(...) Not if they don't find out. The very nature of the "harm" that takes place -- that you have to know about it in order for it to hurt -- makes me question the validity of calling it harm. DaveE previously asserted that it would be bad for him (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Even if it's just hearsay, can you tell me what you fear they might be? I hear things like the right to marry which is a pursuit of equality, not a special benefit. (...) I wouldn't fear such a lawsuit. I think it would be hard to penalize (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Sex (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
(...) Not all of us should be incapable of reproduction. Obviously that would be bad. However, the ability to generate, attract, and/or use the assistance of those (whomever/however) who don't reproduce would be a valuable survival strategy. If (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Another interesting essay & how I found it (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
(...) change (...) Thanks for that Carl, I enjoyed your post (although I've not read the follow up URLs yet) and tend to agree with your sentiment. The notion of choosing who you fancy seems absurd; I mean how many of us end up with the partners we (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Another interesting essay & how I found it (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
Here is the essay on Homosexauality: (URL) I don't agree with a lot of the conclusions drawn) & here is how I found it. A few months ago I found out about the Baha'i faith. The following principles of the Baha'i faith are why I researched it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Opinion of the American Psychological Association (was: gay by birth vs. gay by choice)
|
|
Here is something that is interesting (though I forgot where I found it): ===...=== The American Psychological Association released a Statement on Homosexuality in 1994-JUL. Their first two paragraphs are: The research on homosexuality is very (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Withdrawing
|
|
(...) I had not noticed that you had ignored me I'm afraid. (...) I did not say "who cares?", I said "who cares!". Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
|
in article 3C0EBDDF.E99FCC98@mi...pring.com, Frank Filz at ffilz@mindspring.com wrote on 12/5/01 6:37 PM: (...) Ahhh. Sorry, I thought that the poster had changed the subjest line. My mistake. Rob (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
|
(...) Umm, did you pay attention to the subject line and the original message... This isn't the thread you're thinking of... Frank (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
|
in article Gnw1yv.Kwx@lugnet.com, Hendo (John P. Henderson) at hendo@valyance.com wrote on 12/5/01 2:52 PM: (...) No. It's off topic for LUGNET, and so does not belong on the front page. I refer people with kids to LUGNET all the time, and tell them (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
|
(...) Allen, as I kicked off the initial message that started this thread, I was wondering about that myself. But I would feel cheesy if I highlighted my own message... Thanks for the thought though! :) -Hendo (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I don't see how this relates to my post. You said that all of 4000 years of religious doctrine was correct (except possibly the gay genes). I argued that with the diversity of the various doctrines, it couldn't _all_ be correct. Fredrik (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Amen, well spoken! /Tore (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) According to Christianity, every child (with or without the "gay gene"), is born into sin. Is that not a bit more powerful than the "genetic behavior" above? If indeed some very few percent are born into a genetic disposition towards a sinful (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Well two things-- 1st off, this gets into sketchy territory. What is want? How do we define it? And, further, is it really *as* bad as the act? Hence, if we want it, why not just go do it since it's just as bad? Is there any positive side to (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Ok so far I guess-- although we're assuming some stuff about sin and morality, but there's a chance we won't need to get into it very far... (...) Ah. So your thought is that someone who is genetically predisposed to be gay is someone who (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Withdrawing
|
|
The debate that I began seems to be drawing to somewhat of a conclussion. I've made my points, then clarified them, then defended them. It is unfortunate that some still think I have some ulterior motive to the whole debate, however, I am not a (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) That'd be great, except that the demands are not that simple. I really wish I new where to look for the lawsuits, I've heard about them on the news and from Christians, but I've never been able to read about them. (...) It is no longer that (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
I am finding that making so many individual replies is somewhat taxing. I seem to be saying too much in some posts, and not enough in others. Here, I should have distinctly referred to Christianity, rather than religion in general. Other religions (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes: [snip] (...) Asked and answered ;-) (...) 'Cause then we'd be giving birth in winter, which wouldn't be real wise :-) Cheers Richie (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Actually, simply acknowledging that something is beauiful would not be a sin, however, thinking, "...wow, what a bod, I just gotta have it..." is just as bad as actually "getting it". (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Matthew 5:21- here Jesus speaks about "thought sins", whereby a person dwells upon a sin, knowing it's nature, with the intent of "pretending" to to act it out. Specifically the example of adultery, whereby even looking upon a woman lustfully (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(don't mind me, I'm just a teenager who doesn't really know alot) I've been reading through this whole debate with interest, I know a girl who is gay and she says she knew ever since puberty (However she still hasn't told her parents [which makes me (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) The part that says sin can be overcome and must be repented of for acceptance into the kingdom, unfortunately some in the gay community want Christianity, but not the rules. (...) Having a genetic behavior suggests that the behavior cannot be (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Dang, I can't believe I did that, it's supposed to be Leviticus 20:13, I must've looked ahead on my list (It seemed appropriate to make a list). (...) I'm not sure this is really an issue, just an additional verse that shows God's view of how (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
in article Gntz4y.IMp@lugnet.com, David Eaton at deaton@intdata.com wrote on 12/4/01 11:55 AM: (...) Sorry; I didn't read your too well, and I shouldn't have shot me mouth off. I suspect the attraction is largely chemical/hormonal, and that is (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
in article Gnty9D.Fty@lugnet.com, David Eaton at deaton@intdata.com wrote on 12/4/01 11:36 AM: (...) Which is what Catholicism DOES in fact say. Rob (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I'm not sure where to go with this part of the debate without actually veering into a no-holds-barred religious debate. The idea of sin is based on faith, that immorality is a wrong against a god. As such, sin could never be proven or (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I follow you -- why couldn't a gay-gene be maintained in a heterozygote sub-population, like many other recessive traits? (...) Well give it a go!! But given the lack of extant ancestor species, apes seem like the best bet for (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) True. That would not fit the requirements of a default setting for the gay-gene though. (...) I do know of the cases. I'm looking for a different pattern, not sure how to fit it into words. (...) Did humans evolve in an environment that would (...) (23 years ago, 5-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." This has what to do with homosexuality? (...) "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Nah. I would say that we still have the ability to overcome the desire given to us by the gene. Just like I might have the urge to cheat on my wife. Genetic? Of course! I mean, that waitress is hot! Why do I think so? Instinct! But I still (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Why? What part is falacious? I presume that you mean to say that God would create humans with equal desires towards sinning. Hence, if it were found that SOME people had MORE desire to sin based on their genetics, that it would prove that God (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Idunno - as I said, that's their problem to wrestle with (I am not a literalist). I'm tempted to say the problem is one of their own making, but I am hardly enough of a Bible scholar to actually say that with any certainty. I don't know of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) No problem. I found it interesting in my research that many *Christians* don't have a clue where to find these scriptures. I had to resort to an 1700+ page index and a dictionary to find them. Most Christians readily say something to the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) And I never once said that you were. But at the same time I note you don't deny it. You have adopted a stance similiar to that of many fundamentalist Christians, and have brought the Bible into this discussion. It seems to me that you don't (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Yes, if any of your above examples become reality, then the Bible is thereby proven falacious. The Bible is an instruction for Christianity and includes a code of conduct. The Bible should not be used as a source of social reform, but as a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) Just asking-- what problem is created for literalists? How does the literal Bible (Old or New Testament) contradict the existance of a gay gene? I honestly can't think of anything that WOULD contradict unless it said somewhere that "God won't (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
|
(...) From the Holy Bible: Leviticus 20:13 1Corinthians 6:9 Romans 1:26-27 While reading these scriptures, it is important to understand the context that they are being used in. Homosexuality is described as a practice, as are incest, beastiality, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
