Re: Is there a gay gene?

From: Stuart d Kirkley (
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 15:26:31 EDT

  • Next message: Graham Morbey: "Re: What does a liberal think?"

    If homosexulaity is determined by genetics, how then do you account
    for those homosexuals who have renounced homosexuality and reformed
    their sexual morality. For that matter, any person who has reformed
    their 'sinful' behaviours must have denied their genetic makeup,
    according to this line of logic. To ascribe behaviour to genetics is
    a cheap cop out of morality, plain and simple. Where is the justice
    in absolving a pedophile of criminal behaviour because it is contesed
    that he 'couldn't help it, my genes made me do it'. There is no
    excuse for criminal behaviour, it is allways a result of moral
    transgression or ignorance. But the law doesn't excuse ignorance, nor
    should it exclude culpability based on the 'genetics' cop out. If a
    person is deemed innocent by virtue of some 'genetic psycho babble',
    then wheredoes that leave the redeeming value of morality and reform.
    The criminal begins to think he has free licence to do as he will
    because of his genetic makeup. He may even !
    ue that God made him that way. 'God is of purer eyes than to behold
    evil.' So that would be what I call moral idiocy, and any inclination
    to give credence to such a ludicrous claim, is headed in that same


    On Sun, 12 May 2002 08:22:58 Dawsonzhu wrote: > >John Burgeson wrote: > > >> Tolerance is better than hate. Acceptance is better than tolerance. Rehab >> is, as far as I can see, a false hope for persons with a homosexual >> affinity. AT least most of them. >> >> > >I'm sure I can find this out somewhere, but anyway, >you have posted on several occasions that being gay >is genetic. Is there strong evidence for a locus >(probably several if true) for "gayness", or is it >still mainly a matter of conjecture. > >If being gay is a genetic disposition, then it is >not entirely a matter of free will anymore, and that >changes how one should view a person who exhibits >such behavior. It also raise issues about social >responsibility in some cases. For example, to >what extent should we hold a gay responsible in a >case of child molestation? And if pedophiles are >shown to have a genetic disposition, what then? > >I know this is a big bomb to drop, but >clearly, crimes committed in the conditions of free >will are different from crimes committed by people >not so possessed with a free will. There is a real >conflict between mere scientific analysis, and the >social consequences of such behaviors. It would >not be trivial to reconcile these at all. > >by Grace alone we proceed, >Wayne > > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 12 2002 - 17:10:52 EDT