Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:09:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
226 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> **snip of lots of sensible things**
>
> I hate to post a "me too," but Chris and I are so seldom in 100% agreement
> that I thought it was worth mentioning. Bravo to you, Chris, for a
> well-articulated post.
>
> The only thing I would add is concerning the "gay gene." Certain homophobes
> arbitrarily assert that heterosexuality is the "default" setting for humans,
> so "gay-ness" must necessarily be the result of an additional gene. Since
> the heterosexual default is not proven, it seems that such homophobes must
> necessarily reject it as a theory, since they hate unproven theories.
> Alternatively, homosexuality may be the human default, and a "heterosexual
> gene" is responsible for making some of us "non-gay."
Although I'm far from being a homophobe, I too would have to assert that
heterosexuality would have to be our 'default' setting just for needs of
basic continuation of the species.
Wasn;t there a hypothesis at one time that homosexuality ws the result
of an extra X chromosome in a man? I remember hearing this somewhere in
my youth.
> Of course, even that theory isn't particularly compelling, since people
> are gay and people are straight--what difference does it make "why" they're
> one way or the other. Is there a Christian gene?(1)
Yeah, it's on chromosome 16 (j/k).
> Dave!
>
> (1) Actually, there is some evidence that we are genetically predisposed to
> search for something "higher," even if that higher something is just the
> alpha male that leads our local troupe.
I'm reading a review paper for a seminar class (adaptive genetic
variation in the wild) on genes, evolution, and personality. There is a
brief section on religiousness where they summarize much of the recent
literature on this. Neat stuff!
In the same paper they report a large genetic component to conservatism
(.64 for males vs .45 in females). Now, I don't have to worry about my
children joining the young Republicans. (another joke).
-chris
ps. interests don't seem to have a genetic basis, so if you want your
offspring to enjoy LEGO be sure to raise them in the proper environment.
;)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: **snip of lots of sensible things** I hate to post a "me too," but Chris and I are so seldom in 100% agreement that I thought it was worth mentioning. Bravo to you, Chris, for a (...) (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
|
|
|
|
