Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:51:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
235 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> 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.
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 until someone else can confirm the observation.
Of course, if it's not a function of one's genes but of the structure of
one's brain, then it's unimportant that we can't find a gay gene.
> 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.
So you're stating, in effect, that if I can identify a genetic cause of my
left-handedness, my southpaw kindred and I are going to storm Capital Hill
to tap into the US Entitlement Coffers? Your supposition is premature and,
frankly, xenophobic.
> 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.
But you're proposing that, if a "gay gene" is found, the truth of its
discovery would be a detriment. That's hardly consistent with scientific
ideals, which follow a path based (more or less) on "truth at all costs, and
truth before pleasantness." If there's a "gay gene," there's a "gay gene,"
and we'll just have to deal with it.
> The more thought I put into this matter, the more it feels like a political
> movement.
Like The Christian Coalition, for instance?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
