Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:24:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
267 times
|
| |
|
|
This seems like as good a place as any to jump in.
The research i've done shows that a gay scientist found evidence of a gay
gene, but no one has been able to duplicate his results. In scientific
research, that is a very serious thing. It may have been better if he had
quietly coerced other scientists to duplicate his tests, then their failures
would not have overshadowed his possibly biased results.
Proving that the gay gene exists is a very serious matter. If it does
exist, then over 4,000 yrs. of religious doctrine must be either changed or
simply buried. Also, gay individuals could then demand special treatment
similiar to other racial minorities, much of which would come out of
taxpayers wallets. There are many other possible negatives that can and
would occure with the "official" acknowledgement of yet another racial
minority/special interest group. Personally, I think we have enough
problems trying to appease everyone already.
However, if the gay population is such by mere choice, then none of the
above applies.
The more thought I put into this matter, the more it feels like a political
movement.
|
|
Message has 7 Replies:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) You are correct that independent corroboration is vital in verifying scientific observation. It is to the serious discredit of the "gay scientist" that no one else has made an equivalent finding, so we are better off suspending final judgment (...) (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 Allegedly two studies duplicated the original results (one currently unpublished).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)
| | | 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) ? 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) website. 'Cause we just don't have enough trouble of our own? ;-) (...) How can a question be logical or not? (...) I think you are looking through a tinted lense. It seems like a pretty evenhanded treatment to me. (...) You and this hound (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
