From: philipla@microsoft.com (Philip Lafornara)
Subject: Re: another greeting
Date: 08 Apr 92 21:24:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Apr02.192817.19169@CS.ORST.EDU> johnh@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (John Holeman) writes:
>
>   I am going to make some observations here that will probably draw quite a 
>flames.  It involves observations on homosexuals in not only scouting, but 
>also in society.  I do not consider myself homophobic or feel that I personally
>discriminate against homosexuals in any way.  With that in mind...here I go:
>

    Yes, I imagine it will draw quite a lot of flames.  Your post is
ignorant, plain and simple, and you have chosen to broadcast your utter
lack of knowledge about the subject to the world.  I find it interesting
that you don't consider yourself homophobic, and urge you to reevaluate
that particular quality in yourself.  More on this below.


>There are two things that determine our personal behavior : environment and
>genetics.  Many posts have stated that homosexuality is something which 
>cannot be taugh(environment).  This leaves it a genetic trait.
>

    There are many things that cannot be changed that are not
genetic.


>It should be obvious that a homosexual couple cannot bear children, so in 
>order for this gene to be passed on to another generation, a person must go
>against his/her tastes in sexual partners, otherwise, the gene would not be
>passed on.  If it isn't passed on, then it must be a characteristic which will

    This is quite simply not how genetics works.  I woudl suggest that
you bone up on the subject, especially the sections on 'recessive genes'.
Not that I am implying that homosexuality is genetic, or caused by
recessive genes, but it is ludicrous to suggest that in order for the
trait to be passed on, a homosexual person must "go against his/her
tastes in sexual partners".


>eventually be eliminated by natural selection.  An analogy would be to have
>two defferent strains or rabbits, one of which is sterile.  The sterile rabbits
>will not produce another generation, and die out, where the other strain of
>rabbits will breed, produce another generation and survive.  In effect

    However, said population of rabbits could quite possibly have
several sterile offspring, assuming the gene for sterility was recessive
(which it would probably have to be).  Note also that homosexuals are
not sterile.  Not even close.


>(this is NOT meant as a derogatory), homo sexaulity is a flaw in the human
>species.

     Is there any way this could be taken as not derogatory?


>  Whether or not this is moral isn't relevent.  That homosexuality
>represents a mistake in society is(by mistake, I mean a characteristic that
>nature could eliminate in time without our help); only through heterosexual
>activity.

     Once again, this is false, and also completely begs the question
of whether or not natural selection is still at work in humans.


>  If an organization wants to believe that their members represent
>the best stock of our species, then it is apparent that they should have the 
>right to not accept flawed specimens.

    "The best stock of our species?"  Reminiscent of a certain German of
aniquity, is it not?
    Does the BSA prohibit members with Downs Syndrome?  Members with
birth defects of any kind?


>  This goes beyond racial discimination.
>A heterosexual black couple can reproduce; except for a certain skin pigment,
>a black person is no different from another person.

    And except for their particular sexual orientation, a gay person is
no different from any other person.  It never ceases to amaze me that
people will denounce one form of bigotry while actively practicing
another, and then deny that they themselves are a bigot.  "Look," they
say, "I'm not a racist!  I just think all homosexuals are inferior!"


>  A heterosexual athiest
>can reproduce; except for his/her conciously chosen beliefs, he too is like
>any other person.  The point is, they can reproduce without going against
>thier beliefs or who they are.
>

    So a person's value is measured by how well they can reproduce?  Is
a woman past menopause a worthless human being?  A pre-pubescent boy?
How about the multitude of sterile heterosexual men worldwide?
    Picture this:  "We'd like you as a Boy Scout leader.  Please leave
a semen specimen in this cup and we'll get back to you."

    
>If this is not the case then there must be some enviromental cause if homo-
>sexuality and the people who claim they had no choice in the matter are wrong.
>They must have chosen at some point in life.
>

    There is still considerable debate over the 'causes' of homosexuality,
and whether it is genetic or environmental, or some combination of the
two.  Let me point out, however, that not every environmentally 
influenced factor in one's personality is a matter of conscious choice,
and not all of them can be consciously changed.


>John Holeman
>Eagle Scout 1991


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.