Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:00:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
277 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> 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.
? 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 examined? Honestly? Biology is tough. It's MUCH more
difficult to work in a biological setting than, say, a physics setting. So
many 'other factors'. So little known.
> If it does
> exist, then over 4,000 yrs. of religious doctrine must be either changed or
> simply buried.
? I don't get this. Why? What doctrine? What parts? Changed how? I just
don't see anything that poses a threat to any doctrine any more than if
people found the "evil" gene. I mean, if people have the "evil" gene, does
that suddenly excuse their being evil? (Sorry to associate 'gay' with
'evil', but from the religious perspective I think Kirby's referring to, I
think it applies)
> 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.
I'm afraid I've lost you again. How does proving that being gay derives from
genetics create any more of a need for an 'official' minority group? How
does this change things? Isn't it already considered a minority group? What
changes?
Ex: I'm slightly ADD. Genetic? Yep. And I was absoloutely appauled to find
out that I was therefore entitled to "special treatment" at my college
because I was ADD. I mean, let's say I go out and apply for a job. I can't
do the job as well as an *equal* me (without ADD), because I'm ADD and he
isn't. But because it's "not my fault" or "not my choice" because it's
genetic should I have an equal chance of getting the job? Absoloutely not.
It's up to me to deal with it. If that means I have to work harder to be
'equal' to everyone else, so be it. If it means I have to be on medication
(I'm not), so be it. But it doesn't entitle me to any more just because it's
suddenly "not by choice".
> However, if the gay population is such by mere choice, then none of the
> above applies.
Disagree, see above.
Let me ask one more thing. Define "by choice". Putting it in such words is
kinda-- insulting, I think. I'm not sure how I'd put it, but I assume that
you mean something along the lines of "it's psychological", and that
"theoretically", a good psychiatrist and/or drugs could make someone who's
gay become straight? I assume you DON'T mean that gay people just
consciously decided one day "Gee, I think I'll be attracted to people of my
gender from now on". Is that safe to assume what you mean by "by choice"?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
