[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Homosexual marriage is not a value we should be promoting in this society[/quote]
Who said anything about promoting?
Gay marriage is legal in Canada since 2005.
Guess what happened?
Nothing. No fucking change whatsoever.
There were a few news items about the first ones, but that didn’t last. Showing two bearded men kissing on the news during dinner time kills ratings something fierce.
Now it’s gone back to being the fucking non-issue it always should have been.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Chromosomes 7, 8, and 10 in gay men:
In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.
The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes – chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.
The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother.
[/quote]
60% is not proof. Maybe for the pro-gay crowd, but not even science will take that as proof.
Sorry.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
We don’t need to be validating and encouraging the behavior of a proselytizing, pathological group of people that spreads disease and its associated misery.
True. Shall we ban religions denying kids condoms then? I assume you’re all for prohibition of any and all recreational drugs yes? [/quote]
This is the same group who are pro-life… until the kid’s born. Then it’s “You’re on your own.” Heaven forbid anyone fall on hard times. Corporations and finance institutions - not individuals - get the tax breaks and bail-outs.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Politics should not enter into science, but it does.
forlife wrote:
I agree with you. However, science has built in safeguards against these biases, which raw opinion does not. Scientific studies must be peer-reviewed in order to be published in respected journals, and unless the claims can be replicated under the same conditions, they are suspect.
Collectively, over time and a large number of studies finding the same results, increasing confidence can be placed in the conclusions drawn from the research. [/quote]
And here you misunderstand science. It is not peer reviewed until it is published. It can’t be peer reviewed until it is published.
Just because something has been published does not mean it is true. Yes if things cannot be replicated, then the study will fail in the scientific eye. But that study is still there in that journal.
Also the act of getting a study into a journal is riddled with politics. Some journals have been harshly ridiculed for publishing research the scientists find “inappropriate”, or that gives results they dislike. And this is way before any research into true peer review occurs.
In the 80’s, I read that a full 20% of studies are intentionally flubbed. (In other words the researcher knew his work was incorrect, but published anyway.) I don’t know if this number has changed. The peer review process is intended to weed these things out also. But those studies were still published.
If you want to really prove something, you cannot rely on one single study. Even 2 may not be enough. You actually need 3 studies that say the same thing.[quote]
The Mage wrote:
The problem is which side is Copernicus.
forlife wrote:
The claims of Copernicus were subject to scientific investigation, just as the claims of the Catholic church were. Over a number of years, the accumulated evidence made it clear that Copernicus was correct.
It would be foolish to place the personal opinion of medieval Catholics at the same level as the consensual conclusions of the scientific community on whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. Science has clearly shown that it does, and the conclusions of science trump personal opinion.
Science isn’t perfect and it does sometimes get things wrong, but it usually corrects itself and is the best tool we have for understanding objective truth.[/quote]
I am not putting down science. Quite the opposite. But what you are not seeing is the bias, the politics, and dare I say it, the religion that exists in science.
That is why the quote “Science advances on death at a time.” There is an unfortunate political structure in science. To get funding, to be allowed to publish, to be an accepted scientist, and not be ridiculed, you must follow the status quo.
The point I was trying to make is that currently there is a current structure in science that treats people in a way similar to the way the church treated Copernicus. No they cannot throw people into jail, but there are “blasphemers” of science out there. And they will be suppressed.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Wouldn’t a gay person know better than you whether it’s a choice or not? Do you think that that many gays are liars?
Second, who the hell would choose a lifestyle that exposes them to mockery, ridicule, contempt, ostracization? Yeah, nice choice.[/quote]
Who says they are lying? They may truly believe there is no choice, which many of them undoubtedly do. But - throw in an incentive to call it anything but choice, and I wouldn’t take them at their word.
Some people are just like that. Remember Anne Hesche(sp)?
[quote]In the old gay thread, the one with Zeb and forlife that went on for 3000 pages, some studies were posted that suggested that the cause wasn’t gene related, but might be caused by an hormonal imbalance in the mother’s womb. The gay gene might be in the mother, not the individual.
[/quote]
If it is an hormonal imbalance, it can be cured - which means it is a disease, or even a correctable birth defect. Regardless, it is still not genetic.
If the gay gene is in the mother, then it HAS to be in the offspring 100% of the time.
If gays can be cured, could a heterosexual be turned gay? I know I certainly couldn’t. The word “preference” seems like a misnomer. I don’t just prefer females, I can’t NOT crave them (my wife, anyway). 
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Who says they are lying? They may truly believe there is no choice, which many of them undoubtedly do. But - throw in an incentive to call it anything but choice, and I wouldn’t take them at their word.
Some people are just like that. Remember Anne Hesche(sp)?[/quote]
So 60% is not good enough for you, but a sample of one - Anne Heche is? Looks more to me like you’re just picking the positions you want. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t try to pretend you’re being “objective” and basing it on evidence.
The hormone affected the child’s development in utero; it wasn’t one of his hormone that was out of whack.
Maybe you could cure the mother, but couldn’t change the already present offsprings.
Do you think you have 100% of your mom’s gene? Along with 100% of your dad’s? That’s a lot of genes in the same guy.
Remember biology 101, with those XXs and XYs? (girls and boys) Mom passes on half her chromosomes (a bunch of genes) and dad does the same. Adding them together gives you a new full set. There are some genes that men never get because they happen to be on the sex chromosome (the X part that’s not on the Y).
Other possibility: The “gay gene” might be present in the offspring, but because it affects hormones in the uterus, it’s useless in men. “Not expressing,” I believe, is the term used.
So it’s entirely possible that either:
A) A gene causes homosexuality, but is not present in the man.
B) An hormone imbalance causes it, but cannot be treated in the afflicted individual. (Because its effect occurs during embryonic/fetal development).
C) A gene causes homosexuality, but indirectly, through uterine hormones, and while present in the man, is dormant.
Neither of these possibilities has been confirmed, as far as I know of (but “the gay gene” is extremely low on the scale of what interests me in science and physics…) but there is certainly nothing that excludes those possibilities either.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
If gays can be cured, could a heterosexual be turned gay? I know I certainly couldn’t. The word “preference” seems like a misnomer. I don’t just prefer females, I can’t NOT crave them (my wife, anyway). :)[/quote]
I think we’d be surprised what can be done.
People I know well underwent major personality changes when taking anti-depressants. I know the point of SSRIs and SNRIs is to stabilize their mood, but in some case the difference was pretty shocking; especially when alcohol was further added to the mix.
And I mean Mikeyali supporting gun control or Rainjack moving to Morocco shocking. Lifticus making sense two sentences in a row shocking.
Ok, I’m exaggerating with that last one, but fuck with the chemical reactions going on between both ears, and you’re fucking with the individual.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Do you think you have 100% of your mom’s gene? Along with 100% of your dad’s? That’s a lot of genes in the same guy.
Remember biology 101, with those XXs and XYs? (girls and boys) Mom passes on half her chromosomes (a bunch of genes) and dad does the same. Adding them together gives you a new full set. There are some genes that men never get because they happen to be on the sex chromosome (the X part that’s not on the Y).[/quote]
I am quite aware of what Mendel figured out, thanks.
You are the one who seems to be lacking in understanding on this, so let ME help YOU.
If there is a gay gene - based on forlife’s studies - that has been found in the mothers of gay men, even on one of the mother’s X chromosomes, it must be passed through to the son for him to be gay.
Since only the X chromosome can come from the mommy - the gay gene would have to be found in the homosexual son 100% of the time for gayness to be considered genetic.
Even non expressing genes will show up in the genome. It can be found if it is there. Non expressing does not mean nonexistent.
[quote]So it’s entirely possible that either:
A) A gene causes homosexuality, but is not present in the man.[/quote]
I don’t think that is possible. Please explain the pathway by which that is possible.
Most plausible, but that would mean homosexuality is a birth defect. There’s not a gay guy on the planet that would want to admit to that.
But the gene would still be found in the genome.
[quote]Neither of these possibilities has been confirmed, as far as I know of (but “the gay gene” is extremely low on the scale of what interests me in science and physics…) but there is certainly nothing that excludes those possibilities either.
[/quote]
I am totally willing to change my opinion - all I need is proof. But there is also nothing excluding the possibility that homosexuality is a choice either. And no, asking a homosexual if they feel like they had a choice is not proof.
I think the non-homosexual homosexual advocates on this site would benefit from actually reading the APA’s position on homosexuality:
[quote]How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?
According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience.
People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-�??be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.
Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people.
Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or othersex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation.
Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.
divider
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.
Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.[/quote]
So homosexuality is not necessarily an innate orientation, it can be chosen one way or another in a certain percentage of individuals.
[quote]Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras.
Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience.
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.[/quote]
Actually, as I demonstrate several pages back, it IS associated with psychopathology. One of the original reasons it was de-listed from the DSM-III is that, at the time, researchers beleived the opposite was true. Also, why do they declare it to be a “normal form of human experience”? Well, they just do.
[quote]A second stereotype is that the relationships of lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unstable. However, despite social hostility toward same-sex relationships, research shows that many lesbians and gay men form durable relationships.
For example, survey data indicate that between 18% and 28% of gay couples and between 8% and 21% of lesbian couples have lived together 10 or more years.
It is also reasonable to suggest that the stability of same-sex couples might be enhanced if partners from same-sex couples enjoyed the same levels of support and recognition for their relationships as heterosexual couples do, i.e., legal rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.[/quote]
Wow! A whopping 18-28% of homosexual men form stable, monogamous relationships. It’s reasonable to believe this will change if gay “marriage” is allowed, why? “Oh, I’m allowed to get married now. I guess I’ll all-of-a-sudden stop sleeping with as many men as I feel like!”
[quote]What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?
All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.
Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.
Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life.
Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person�??s (client�??s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client�??s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.[/quote]
So they don’t believe conversion therapy is effective, but they at least respect the right of self-determination.
It’s interesting to watch this organization tie itself in verbal knots. Homosexuality results from a variety of factors, but heaven forbid we try to change any of them, but it’s your own right to determine your own sexuality!
Those that say that homosexuality is a perfectly normal, unchangeable, healthy mode of behavior are just expressing a belief in unicorns, because the science simply doesn’t support it. I’m sure the facts will alter none of their viewpoints, though.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
We don’t need to be validating and encouraging the behavior of a proselytizing, pathological group of people that spreads disease and its associated misery.
True. Shall we ban religions denying kids condoms then? I assume you’re all for prohibition of any and all recreational drugs yes?
This is the same group who are pro-life… until the kid’s born. Then it’s “You’re on your own.” Heaven forbid anyone fall on hard times. Corporations and finance institutions - not individuals - get the tax breaks and bail-outs.
[/quote]
You’re a typical paranoid, bitter liberal, like the self-loathing Jew above. Pro-life organizations support adoption and adoption agencies and work with the mother to find the baby a loving home. Anti-life organizations work to have the baby sucked into a garbage disposal.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are the one who seems to be lacking in understanding on this, so let ME help YOU.
If there is a gay gene - based on forlife’s studies - that has been found in the mothers of gay men, even on one of the mother’s X chromosomes, it must be passed through to the son for him to be gay.[/quote]
Not if the gene works by affecting the hormones the mother releases in her uterus, and that it’s those hormones who affect he embryonic/fetal development of the person while it is in gestation.
In other words, the mom’s gene modifies uterine hormones which, in turn, cause the person to eventually become gay.
Not if the gene happens to be on the sex chromosome. It would be present in gay females only, not males.
Note that the gene could be on any one of the other 22 autosomes; be present in the male too, but because its function is to modify uterine hormones, it would not do anything in the gay person.
Well, yes, it has to be somewhere in the human genome… I was just pointing out that it could be one of the mother’s gene who has the “gayness” effect; or that hormones could be a cause, but not treatable after the fact.
Women have a bit more genetic material than we do on the sex chromosome. The XX vs. XY thing. The letters weren’t picked randomly, that’s the sex chromosomes look. The little leg on the bottom right of the X that’s missing on the Y… that’s additional genes that women have that we don’t.
A bunch of diseases (like hemophilia - non-clotting blood) express only in men and are carried by women. Why? Because the gene that prevents expression is on the little leg of the X sex chromosome.
Who cares what someone wants to admit? If that’s reality, then that’s reality. There’s no shame in having a birth defect; plenty of people are color blind; tone deaf; etc… doesn’t make them any less human.
[quote]C) A gene causes homosexuality, but indirectly, through uterine hormones, and while present in the man, is dormant.
But the gene would still be found in the genome.[/quote]
Well, yes.
Homosexuality is observed in animals. Are they choosing to be gay too?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think the non-homosexual homosexual advocates on this site would benefit from actually reading the APA’s position on homosexuality:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.htm[/quote]
So you guys want 100% solid proof from biology before accepting anything, but are quite open to accepting what psychology - a science with about 50 different school of thought who seldom agree on anything - currently says?
Yikes.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The question of causation can only be determined by controlling the variables in question, and any attempt to conclude causation based only on correlational data is statistically and scientifically unjustified.[/quote]
In which case, we’ll never know true causation on the issue, because no such experiment exists.
[quote]This is a correct statement. Obviously the existence of a correlation doesn’t mean there isn’t a causal relationship between two variables. I never said or implied otherwise.
There very well may be a causal relationship, in either direction. What I said was that you can’t assume a causal relationship based on correlational data alone.[/quote]
But no one else did either. No one claimed “proof” - they claimed there was a worrying “good hint”. You continue to argue against a straw man.
Here is the problem - you are trying to hide behind semantics in hopes you can undermine the point that correlation does say something about causation.
This isn’t any different than “correlation suggesting causation” - you might as well have said “correlation suggests the possibility of a chance of a hunch of some potential of causation” - it’s the same thing.
And again, this looks like a deliberate deflection on your part. Note how my sources flatly state that "correlation suggests correlation - and yet you replied to none of it, deleting it, hoping to avoid the issue.
There are these, completely skipped over by you:
[i]To say that “Correlation does not suggest causation” is false: A demonstrably consistent correlation often suggests some causal relationship (or implies it, in the casual sense of the word).
The catch - and it’s a big one - is that correlation does strongly suggest a causal relationship. (There’s a Yale professor of statistics who’s famous for saying something close to “Correlation is not the same thing as causation - but it’s a darn good hint!”. ) [/i]
These contradict your attempts. And, as I added:
But too often, the mantra “correlation does not imply causation” is a hand-waving way of dismissing data that the speaker doesn’t feel like dealing with.
That is exactly what you are doing. Correlation can suggest causation - it doesn’t prove it, but no one is arguing it is - but correlation can be a very strong indicator of causation and can’t be ignored.
You continue to try and define out of existence the importance of correlation’s “suggestions” because it hurts your cause - but you are wrong, and we know this because folks who know more than you about the issue have contradicted you, and your disingenuous attempts to cavil are transparent.
But no one is - another straw man of your invention to deflect from data that hurts your Crusade.
Precisely what we were trying to do, but you raised your flag and declared no such discussion was valid on the basis that the correlations meant nothing.
You see, now you have moved the goalposts - after you have been called out on the validity of correlations. Now, suddenly, they have “potential”. Remarkable.
And this was the point I made earlier - this is why a scientific discussion is wasted on you: you will never ever hear a compelling explanation for why gay marriage would hurt straight marriage, so no correlation or causation would be good enough.
I could have negative correlations out the wazoo suggesting gay marriage was bad for traditional marriage - I could have study after study, research over several cultures, whatever - and because of your commitment to your ideology, you wouldn’t consider the data and be open to a conclusion or even a legitimate theory that might hurt your cause.
And see, that is the opposite of science - you have to be amenable to wherever the analysis takes you, no matter whose ox is gored…even your own. You are unwilling to undertake that journey, so you aren’t a legitimate part of any discussion on the issue.
[quote]I actually was enjoying your post up to this point, and appreciated responding to what you were saying. Why sully the discussion by resorting to personal attacks here and later in your post?
Again, please keep your comments focused on the topics and stay away from mudslinging. I’m asking this sincerely because I enjoy our ongoing conversation and believe it can be constructive.
I see Mick as a troll and don’t respond to him on principle, but I would like to continue discussing these topics with you as long as we can stay mutually respectful. Fair?[/quote]
My labeling you was not mudslinging - it was a statement of fact describing a weakness in your argument: that you switch positions solely on the basis of convenience. I still believe that.
[quote]The conclusions supporting the role of genetics in sexual orientation are not restricted to correlative data.
For example, the twin studies show a clear causal relationship between biology and sexual orientation. The experimental design controls for other effects, allowing the research to isolate the variance specifically predicted by the twins’ genetic makeup.
This is because the incidence of homosexuality in identical twins (100% same genetic code) can be directly compared against the incidence in fraternal twins (50% same genetic code). Any noted differences are due specifically and uniquely to genetics. [/quote]
Nonsense - and we see again: you aren’t just biased, you are dishonest.
The data w/r/t the twins studies do not “show a clear causal relationship” - they show a correlation. And in fact, there is a debate over what the roughly 50% incident of homosexuality among identical twins is actually suggestive of:
some look at that figure and say “wow - look how high”. Others look at it and say “only half, when the genetic identity is exactly the same?”
The point is not to have that debate now - the point is to refute the ridiculous notion that the twins studies show a “proof of causation” - they most certainly do no such thing, they show a correlation.
But I suspect you knew that. You continue to carry the baggage, as I mentioned above, that you can’t have a scientific discussion, for precisely the reasons listed. Correlations that hurt your cause get drowned out in a “correlations are meaningless” propaganda, whereas correlations that help you rise to the level of causation.
You continue to be a disappointment - and don’t read that as an insult. You are a disappointment because you can’t be objective when discussing the science, so such a discussion is wasted.
And that is why you actually hurt your cause more than you help it - everyone gets that you can’t divorce yourself enough to analyze objectively.
We can disagree on values, we can disagree on where the science takes us - but why be dishonest on the ground rules? That is damning your whole approach.
OK, I really could not give two cents for all the Scientific Mumbo Jumbo. Science in and of itself is worthless because they are constantly trying to prove themselves wrong.
My only basis for saying it is a choice is from watching what goes on around me. I work in a profession which allows me to see many different people, I happen to see a lot of people who claim to be gay.
They change back and forth more times than I change my socks (which is everyday for those of you who care). Which to me indicates a certain amount of decision making going on. It seems that there will always be those who swing one way or another depending upon the percieved winds of popular opinion.
As was stated earlier, the people of California of which I happen to be one have spoken on this issue more than once, and will again in November. Popular opinion right now as it was prior to Prop 22 seems to think Prop 8 will not pass, we shall see. If it does not, I guess I will have to find a small shack in Wyoming.
[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think the non-homosexual homosexual advocates on this site would benefit from actually reading the APA’s position on homosexuality:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.htm
So you guys want 100% solid proof from biology before accepting anything, but are quite open to accepting what psychology - a science with about 50 different school of thought who seldom agree on anything - currently says?
Yikes.
[/quote]
My word, you have reading difficulties. I’ve been posting studies showing the genetic contribution of homosexuality. Did you read the last link I posted on the twins study?
The genetic contribution was estimated to be about 35%. Maybe you’re just not trying to argue with me, but some imagined version of me though.
[quote]pookie wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
I think the non-homosexual homosexual advocates on this site would benefit from actually reading the APA’s position on homosexuality:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.htm
So you guys want 100% solid proof from biology before accepting anything, but are quite open to accepting what psychology - a science with about 50 different school of thought who seldom agree on anything - currently says?
Yikes.
[/quote]
LOL. I think I should just create another account on this forum called ‘PRCalDude2’ and you can just babble to him.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Score one point for me?
Yes, and it’s a big one.
Anytime that I’ve actually taken the time to check on forlife I’ve found that about 90% of the crap he throws around on this forum are either half truths, like his Bible nonsense, or complete fabrications.
[/quote]
I think this post is good enough to be brought to the front again. 
[quote]pookie wrote:
Homosexuality is observed in animals. Are they choosing to be gay too?
[/quote]
bad example. They do it because it feels good. There is nothing romantic or an attractive factor. They do it the same reason you lock the door, and bring out the lube.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Homosexuality is observed in animals. Are they choosing to be gay too?
bad example. They do it because it feels good. There is nothing romantic or an attractive factor. They do it the same reason you lock the door, and bring out the lube.[/quote]
I love this argument. We’re now using the example of animals as a normative standard of behavior for humans. Sometimes, one tribe of monkeys will decide to wipe out another and eat them. I guess animals do it, so it must be fine for us too!