From: Jim Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 12:09:48 EST
> In a message dated 1/20/03 11:27:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> email@example.com 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...
Don't you think the challenge might be more difficult yet if a genetic
link were to be established?
>> 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.
Mmm, maybe connect the dots, but following the numbers they don't make
the same picture for me. Education, or rather the quality of it, and the
lack of qualified technically trained persons is one significant
contributor to immigration rules. We have many refugees. There are
low-tier jobs that many of our home-born folks deign to take. There are
many other reasons for our immigration policies, and I really doubt that
it is driven to any significant extent by non-propagation by the
homosexual population. Your first two reasons are the more likely
birth-related causes. There don't seem to be very many problems that are
made better by overpopulation.
>> 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
>> http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/traittab.htm ? Has anyone shown
>> the underlying studies to be flawed?
>> I have read that a genetic link for handedness has in fact been
> 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?
It's not about who supports the page - my question had to do with the
validity of the data. The "underlying studies" I referred simply to were
the cited sources of the data compiled in the table. I still would like
to know if there is any technical problem with the data presented.
As to your nature/nurture question, of course not! But pediphilia and
sexual abuse occur in heterosexual populations as well. But this is an
> 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).
And other non-anthropo critters as well. Your point? Do not? Cannot?
Choose not? Same question - no resolution.
We should proceed with great and tempered caution.. JimA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 21 2003 - 12:09:53 EST