Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals

From: Jim Armstrong (
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 23:25:43 EST

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals"

    I think I'm with Burgy on this one. We should proceed with great and
    tempered caution - the human genome findings have every potential to
    present the Christian community (of which I am a part) with one of the
    greatest challenges of this new millenium, should it identify a genetic
    link to homosexuality.

    I haven't heard other contributors say this, so I'll just opine that if
    homosexuality were likely to put much of a dent in population, it would
    have done so by now. In fact, some simply observe that if there is no
    propagative benefit to this "behavior", it should have died out. Yet it
    continues to be manifest (in both human and non-human populations). The
    only explanation I have run across that makes any sense is that such a
    genetic link may be intertwined with some other trait which does in fact
    have some significant propagative benefit. If that should prove out,
    that's gonna be a head-spinner for some of the more outspoken!

    The background for this concern is in part some data I ran across that
    relates to that "shred of proof". What do people say these days to the
    correlation data of ?
    Has anyone shown the underlying studies to be flawed?
    I have read that a genetic link for handedness has in fact been identified.

    JimA wrote:

    > In a message dated 1/20/03 6:15:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
    > writes:
    >> However, if the statement is correct, that does that say that my
    >> friends who, after they found out that they could not have children,
    >> adopted one little girl taken from her family for abuse - and then
    >> took her sister as well to keep the girls together - have no purpose
    >> in life since as a couple they cannot reproduce?
    > If your friends could not have children, that's God's will isn't it? I
    > didn't say that people who don't reproduce have no purpose. I said
    > that as homosexual behavior becomes preferred in a population to
    > heterosexual behavior, the population drops. Haven't you noticed?
    > There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is innate. NONE. If
    > you can find some, please present it. I would like to present it to a
    > few of my colleagues in the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.
    > They're scientists. They don't care about defending Christianity and
    > they don't know of any. I've asked because it is a salient point, but
    > you can't make the point until there's proof.
    > rich

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 23:26:50 EST