Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:49:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
232 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
A simple internet search for "gay gene" will give you all the information
you're asking for plus some.
> > 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)
The Holy Bible directly refers to homosexuality more than once as a sin.
> > 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".
I wish your example is how things actually work. Unfortunately, without
enforceable laws for protection, a minoriy will always be abused or
neglected. However my point is that the homosexual community already seems
to be treated as a minority group. They are currently attempting to change
several laws to include homosexual clauses (I don't know where to start
researching the lawsuits). However, if the homosexual community is such by
choice, what need for new laws other than what already exist for freedom of
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
How is it insulting? Don't you think that people have some measure of
control over their lives?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
