Xref: utzoo sci.bio:4095 soc.men:24127 soc.singles:74582
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!ub!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!fa1cs250
From: fa1cs250@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Travis Low)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <10800@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 90 16:31:13 GMT
References: <6091@crash.cts.com> <660405383@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Reply-To: lowj_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Travis Low)
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY
Lines: 32


In article <660405383@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
=>In article <6091@crash.cts.com> rcf@pnet01.cts.com (Bob Forsythe) writes:
=>>Personally I'd find suggestions that my left-handedness was learned to be on
=>>par with suggestions that gays are made, not born.  
=>
=>What difference does it make if gay are born this way, 
=>or they are made this way, or they choose to be this way?
=>Why does it have any importance?

   My, touchy, aren't we.

   Here is my interpretation of Bob Forsythe's sentence:
   "It is just as stupid to suggest that handedness is learned as
   it is to suggest that sexual preferences are learned."

   Or, if you prefer:
   "It is just as stupid to suggest that handedness is learned as
   it is to suggest that smiling is learned."

   Now, the generic version:
   "It is just as stupid to suggest that handedness is learned as
   it is to suggest that {insert favorite innate behavior here}."

   Finally, the short version:
   "Suggesting that handedness is learned is dumb."

   And to answer your last question, it doesn't make one rat's tit
   worth of difference how gays come into being, and I don't think
   Bob Forsythe indicated otherwise. Is it my imagination, or do
   you loop around looking for things to be offended by?

--Travis