To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 15054
15053  |  15055
Subject: 
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 14:09:48 GMT
Viewed: 
1109 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:
  Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
 
(...) I wonder - does "most frequently obsevered" (or perhaps most frequently admitted to?) equate to "default" ? Jennifer (25 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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 (...) (25 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR