Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:24:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
295 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> If science can prove that a gay gene exists, then the Bible has also been
> proven falacious.
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.
> 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?
No, not at all, except that you seem to interpret the possiblity of a gay
gene being a threat to your doctrinal beliefs.
Nor is the vast majority of the world Christian. Nor does a gay gene mean
much of anything beyond the literalists are wrong (one would think they
would get the picture after finding out the sun does not go around the
earth, the planets do not have a perfect circular orbit, the surface of the
sun is not perfectly uniform, that Jupiter has moons, that continents drift,
that the earth is extremely old, that there are genetics at all (and thus
there is a mechanism for evolution), etc.).
Not that I'm convinced that a gay gene exists. Maybe it does, maybe it
doesn't. And even Hamer doesn't cite a gay gene as being the exclusive
cause of homosexuality.
>
>
> > > 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.
This is a simple scare tactic.
>
> > ***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?
Are you claiming that there isn't persecution? Reread the section above
that I set off with the *** astericks.
>
> > > 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?
Didn't read my other message? What if it is neither: what if it isn't
genetics but at the same time not a conscious choice? The predeliction for
homosexuality often develops during childhood, before the individual has
much of a clue as to what sex it.
>
>
> > > 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.
I did not mention you above (and deliberately so), but since you bring the
subject up it seems pretty obvious. Gays want to believe the study
regardless because it they feel it gives them an unshakeable argument for
being. Some members of certain religions (and let me emphasize "some") fear
that it gives gays exactly that: an unshakeable arguement. So they oppose
it. Neither side truly gives a heck about the truth of the situation
(wherever that may lie).
From the science standpoint, there's hardly conclusive evidence either way.
Certainly I'm not convinced such a gene exists, but it exists or does not
exist exclusive of my philosphical and religious wants and beliefs. That
you even bring up the subject of religion in reference to this pretty much
gives away your outlook: a gay gene contradicts your beliefs.
You seek to belittle the viewpoint you oppose as merely political. I agree
for the most part. But yours is just as politically driven (philsophical,
religious, whatever - i.e. not scientifically driven). At least I
understand the one as an attempt to avoid persecution even if I don't agree
with it.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Stop making assumptions. I never once stated that I am Christian. I have some depth of knowledge concerning the Holy Bible but that does not make me Christian. I have analyzed the theory of gay-at-birth and dispute it. I have analyzed many of (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Just asking-- what problem is created for literalists? How does the literal Bible (Old or New Testament) contradict the existance of a gay gene? I honestly can't think of anything that WOULD contradict unless it said somewhere that "God won't (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) 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. (...) If science can prove that a gay gene exists, then the Bible has also (...) (23 years ago, 4-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
|
|
|
|
