Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:02:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
234 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
>
> 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 unpublished).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.
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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> What does this have to do with science?
If science can prove that a gay gene exists, then the Bible has also been
proven falacious. Here to fore, all scientific arguments could be argued
simply because of the passing of time and loss of direct solid evidence. A
gay gene is potentialy the evidence that Christianity does not think exists.
The vast majority of world is Christian...or at least thinks so. Are you
getting picture?
> > Also, gay individuals could then demand special treatment
> > similiar to other racial minorities, much of which would come out of
> > taxpayers wallets.
>
> Hey, if their is a gay gene, then there must be a "straight" gene. The same
> could apply. :-)
No it could not. The majority is already "straight". It is the majority
that would have to shell out the "special" treatment.
> I don't believe what you claim will happen in any case - besides, what you
> call "special treatment" is more like a call for cessation of specific
> mistreatment. There are those that claim that if the current laws were
> enforced, there would be no need for "special treatment" cases.
Which is part of my point. Why demand such exceptance of gay-by-birth,
which can have any number of social repurcussions, when the Constitution
already protects the righ to choose?
> > 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.
>
> What if it is neither?
>
> >
Excuse me?
> > The more thought I put into this matter, the more it feels like a political
> > movement.
>
> Clinging blindly to the "gay gene" as a form of justifying homosexuality is
> no more political than blindly denying it.
>
> Bruce
I am not "blidly" denying anything.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
