prevalence of a behavior does not show cause

Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 07:42:26 EST

  • Next message: "SOFTWARE BLOWOUT - NORTON ANTIVIRUS 2003 - INSTANT DOWNLOAD - Straight from the Moo-Mailer!"

    In a message dated 1/20/03 11:27:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

    > 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.

    Homosexuality is already presenting the Christian community with one of its
    greatest challenges...

    > 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!

    I don't know where you've been but in the '50s, we had a sexual revolution in
    which we were told that we should curb the population explosion. Birth
    control became available, abortion became available, and homosexuality became
    acceptable. Today, we are told that unlimited immigration is essential to
    fill jobs because our population is not big enough. Surely, you've heard
    those arguments and given that you are probably a "baby boomer," can connect
    the dots.

    > 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.

    I went to this page supported obviously by gays themselves. There are
    observations about the prevalence of behaviors in the population but no
    studies as to why this might be the case. NONE. What underlying studies are
    you referring to and do you discount the possibility that if a genetic origin
    for a tendency to be homosexual is found would you then discount nurture
    entirely and say that young boys could not/ prisoners could not, prisoners of
    war could not be coerced into homosexuality? In other words, would you then
    throw all caution to the wind and accept all homosexual behavior as from
    nature totally disregarding any environmental causes/effects and why would
    you ever do such a thing if your own eyes tell you it is true?

    There have been studies of homosexual chimp troops. They consist of males
    that do not compete successfully for females and form satellite groups on the
    periphery of chimp breeding groups (on the periphery).

    > JimA



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 07:42:46 EST