Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:57:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1307 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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
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
the possible social repercussions to proving the gay-at-birth theory and
have come to the conclussion that it might be detrimental.
My previous attempt to discuss this with a gay individual led to negative
results which mostly ended with "...we're born this way, deal with it..." I
brought the debate to Lugnet where I had hoped to get a more even-handed
debate from a more highly educated community.
My only motive is to better understand something that I perceive is an
issue. I have a lot of ideas concerning this issue and merely wish to
discuss them.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) And I never once said that you were. But at the same time I note you don't deny it. You have adopted a stance similiar to that of many fundamentalist Christians, and have brought the Bible into this discussion. It seems to me that you don't (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
