[quote]The Mage wrote:
And here you misunderstand science. It is not peer reviewed until it is published. It can’t be peer reviewed until it is published.[/quote]
Nope. The process of publication requires blind peer review before an article can be published in a scientific journal.
There’s nothing magic about the number 3, but I said essentially the same thing in principle earlier. The more studies published that draw the same conclusion, the greater confidence you can place in the validity of the conclusion.
I’m very well aware of the politics that exist in all human enterprises, science or otherwise. I specifically acknowledged this in my earlier post.
Again, the point is that science has a built in protection against human bias which, while imperfect, eventually weeds out the false claims from the true. Any hypothesis can be tested by independent observers, and the more those third party tests find the same results, the greater confidence you can place in the conclusions that are drawn.
PRCalDude, you missed this definitive statement from the APA on whether or not sexual orientation is a choice. It doesn’t get much clearer than this:
[quote]Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called “Conversion Therapies”?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients’ sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. [/quote]
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nonsense - and we see again: you aren’t just biased, you are dishonest.[/quote]
I’ve been patient with your personal attacks, but one more and I’m done with our discussion. I will put you in the same bucket as Mick and spend my time with people that can focus on the topics being discussed, without making it personal. I don’t appreciate having my integrity questioned. I’ve tried to respect the sincerity of your posts, and expect the same respect in return.
That said:
Wrong. Are you trying to argue that all experiments are correlational, and that nothing in science controls variables in a way allowing you to conclude causation? I don’t know if you you’ve had a course in experimental design, but the twin studies are a classic example of controlling for factors outside of genetics.
The studies compare identical vs. fraternal twins, controlling for environmental variables such as being raised by the same parents. Any differences identified between identical and fraternal twins are effectively due to the differences in shared genetic code. How could those differences be due to anything other than genetics?
All of that aside, think about it from a logical perspective. Even if the data were only correlational, how much sense does it make that the relationship between shared genetics and sexual orientation is due to a reverse causation? That is, how could sexual orientation possibly affect a person’s genetics? The correlation can only go one way: genetics → orientation.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Can’t speak for the Bible stuff (and as a non-christian it’s pretty irrelevant to me).
[/quote]
The science speaks for itself, and I’m happy to back up my claims with scientific sources.
On the bible, everything I provided is 100% accurate. I ignore Mik and other trolls as a matter of policy, but anyone wanting to discuss my biblical quotations is welcome to do so.
People quote from the new testament in order to justify discriminating against gays, but then they ignore other passages from the same new testament condemning women having their heads uncovered, women speaking in church, and slaves disobeying their cruel masters. If their holy book really comes from god, why aren’t they following god’s will in these other areas? Or are they cherry picking only those passages that support their religious and political agenda?
I’ve been patient with your personal attacks, but one more and I’m done with our discussion. I will put you in the same bucket as Mick and spend my time with people that can focus on the topics being discussed, without making it personal. I don’t appreciate having my integrity questioned. I’ve tried to respect the sincerity of your posts, and expect the same respect in return.[/quote]
Actually, you have it backwards - it’s my patience that has been tested, going back to the other thread when you wanted to start every argument over at the beginning while ignoring nearly everything that was written.
If it bothers you so much to be called dishonest, then the solution is easy - stop being dishonest.
What we have instead is you throwing a hissy fit because I won’t let you get away with changing the rules of the game in the discussion when it suits your convenience. You have been called on it, and you’re unhappy about it.
When a correlation hurts you, you do your best to dissemble what a correlation even means, directly in contrast to the understood value of a correlation. Every time “correlation” comes up w/r/t negative correlations and gay marriage, suddenly you indulge in postmodern claptrap trying to tell us all that “science isn’t interested in correlations at all.”
As such, you have made clear that any kind of objective analysis is completely lost on you - so stop pretending otherwise. I could have mountains of irrefutable data supporting my claims, and you would never consider changing your mind on the issue. So, a “scientific” discussion is wasted - you have the answer you want, no matter what any science says.
Time and again, I have given you the benefit of the doubt - but this time, you’ve crossed the Rubicon.
As is, college football started this weekend, both sides of the Presidential contest are set and have some really interesting issues, and over half the states in the Union have amended their constitutions to protect traditional marriage - there are more interesting things to discuss these days.
The debate can be fun, but at some point it becomes ludicrous - witness your torturing of “correlations” as meaningless, except when they point to possible causation you like - and you have, despite your attempts to project yourself as even-handed and open to other ideas, demonstrated yourself to be nothing short of the zealous fundamentalist you claim to hate.
I look forward to discussing gay marriage with open-minded advocates at a later date - if you know any, Forlife, direct them this way.
Thunder, the only time I’ve repeated a point is when you have dodged it:
You still haven’t responded to my question on why if you have such an issue with surrogacy parenting, you don’t simply outlaw it for straight couples.
Nor have you responded to my question on why the statement I made about mixed race couples is logical or illogical, on its own merits.
Nor have you answered my point on the twin studies being an experimental design allowing conclusions regarding causality, beyond correlational data.
I’ve noticed a pattern with you. When I call you on your generalities and drill down to the underpinning “logic” of your arguments, you either ignore my questions or accuse me of repeating an argument, when in fact you have never addressed the actual points that I have made.
Despite your verbal gymnastics, I have tried to at least give you credit for being sincere in your arguments. However, you continue to call my honesty and sincerity into question.
Doing so only underscores the weakness of your position. Even if I were insincere, manipulative, and dishonest in my posts as you claim, it wouldn’t matter because the essential logic of the arguments stands or falls on its own merits. My character and yours are irrelevant. What matters are the actual points being made, and the validity and supportability of those arguments.
Your arguments fall apart under scrutiny, which I suppose is why you never address my points once we dig past the surface.
If you reach the point of being able to continue the discussion without resorting to attacks against my character, let me know. I would be happy to continue the discussion. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me if you preferred to keep the discussion at the surface level and call it a day.
[quote]forlife wrote:
makkun wrote:
Can’t speak for the Bible stuff (and as a non-christian it’s pretty irrelevant to me).
The science speaks for itself, and I’m happy to back up my claims with scientific sources.[/quote]
I know - that’s why I agree with you pretty much all the way. Actually going into newer sources since I left university has invigorated my interest in the topic. Thanks for that.
Certainly I don’t - I don’t do god.
Well, I tend to think that fundamentalist views tend to have a strong socio-political component - and as I don’t believe the bible comes from god, but from humans it will be just as easily eclectically used by whoever tries to push a certain agenda. What worries me is when the inclusive and merciful message especially of the new testament gets turned on its head and is converted into exclusion and persecution. But - that’s what sadly people do.
Thunder, the only time I’ve repeated a point is when you have dodged it: [/quote]
Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I haven’t dodged the issues - I have decided that they aren’t worth pursuing on the basis that they are a waste of time.
After all, you seem so worried about “lingering questions” - and yet, we still have the lingering question from another thread w/r/t negative correlative data and gay marriage: where is my answer? We’ve been tapdancing around that long before this thread, and the most we ever got out of you was a patently dishonest “correlations are just plain meaningless!!!”
So, you continue to misunderstand - there is quid pro quo at issue here. And you’ve yet to understand that your credibility to “get questions answered” is dependent on your willingness to “answer questions put to you” - and that credibility was shot in the last thread.
That is a straw man - I don’t have an outright problem with surrogacy parenting. I have a problem with incentivizing having children outside of the two biological parents that created the child. I don’t think much of surrogacy personally, but I don’t think it undermines traditional marriage because marriage still serves its purpose of keeping the individuals married from going out and having children out of wedlock, even if one happens to be infertile and the couple chooses to go surrogate.
It’s a dumb question - a black man who can marry a white woman definitionally only has “special rights” if a white man can’t marry a black woman. So, who cares? Marriage serves the needs of a union between a man, woman, their children, and society at large - and race as an impediment is immoral.
I don’t have to - the studies show a correlation, nothing more. And I am fine with that: I think correlations are of value. The studies don’t show causation, and no one disputes this: except you, while pleading your desperate case.
It’s ok - I have already said I think there are some correlations that suggest homosexuality is genetics: you are arguing with yourself (and others, but that was never my position). My position was to demonstrate your opportunistic inconsistency w/r/t to correlations as suggestive of causation" “good when it helps, no such thing when it hurts.”
A bald-faced lie: I have about 50 pages worth of detailed, repeated defenses of my claims. In fact, you’ll note an interesting detail: most of your “drill down questions” are [b]reactions[/b] to points I have raised. I bring up an argument, and you try to play defense on it.
That is no problem, but let’s not try and pretend I wade in generalities when the points being made are raised by me and you are merely reacting to them.
And, let’s point out something else, since you are so obsessed with the mistake of “generalities”: when asked why we should engage in radical social experimentation and create gay marriage, your brochure answer is “it is good for gays, their children, and society” - broad, conclusory statements with little detail - as if the question is settled. Hogwash.
Tell me, do you always pull this therapeutic nonsense to make you feel better?
Easy one to field - that is because I think you aren’t being honest.
Actually, no - your zany inconsistency on “science” is available for all to read, which actually hurts the defense of your cause, not mine.
Logic dictates that correlations matter as suggestive of causation - and yet, despite my demonstrations to the contrary via sources and common sense (and a Yale professor), yet you refuse to concede even this basic point because of your fear of what it admits.
How so? You haven’t done anything except ankle-bite my arguments, and childishly declare “victory!!” after demanding a restart in every other post.
Here is Forlife’s game plan, laid bare:
Ask questions on other people’s theories
Forlife keeps dithering and caviling till the other person gets bored of repeating himself
Opponent stops answering questions
Declare “I win! You simply can’t answer the questions I put to you! I win! I win! I win!”
I have fielded every question you had, right up until I realized I was wasting my time in a fruitless discussion. I didn’t “stop answering your questions” because I couldn’t think of any answers, I stopped because I got bored.
Enough with the triumphalism, Black Knight. You look like a fool.
Go read the near-treatise myself and others put together in the other thread if you are so worried about “getting beyond surface level”.
And I know you’d be be happy to continue the discussion - you are the internet equivalent of the zealot on the street corner handing out pamphlets. You never want the discussion to end - even when intelligent folks have moved on.
I tend to ignore the fundamentalists on the street corner telling me I am going to hell if I don’t change my ways as narrow-minded ideologues who would never change their mind. I think the exact same of you.
Don’t think of it as an insult - think of it as a categorization. Want to change that categorization? Operate with something better than your admitted “closed mind”.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
One would have thought that any type of homosexual orientation in the gene pool would have been vigorously selected against simply because it is a loss of genetic fitness. Any trait that lessens the ability to reproduce with a member of the opposite sex and thus create viable offspring would simply not have survived. Those that prefer sex only with the opposite sex would have had an ENORMOUS genetic advantage over those who did not. This is going back to when sexual reproduction became the norm some 1.2 billion years ago. This is quite a conundrum from an evolutionary perspective. (Perhaps we have found a point that finally refutes Darwinism!) From the “unbiased” studies that I have seen on the subject, the majority of those individuals who practice such homosexual behavior generally had poor family relationships, some sort of sexual or social trauma growing up or just having a poor experience with members of the opposite sex. Here is a link to one particular one: epjournal.net
Personally, I don’t know whether homosexuality is due to nature or nuture. However I certainly will keep my mind open if any concrete evidence arises on the subject that leans one way or the other.[/quote]
Question; If it was based “mainly” on genetics, wouldn’t those genetic traits have died out quite a while ago. Considering they wouldn’t be able to reproduce (due to their attraction to the same sex)
[quote]RebornTN wrote:
Question; If it was based “mainly” on genetics, wouldn’t those genetic traits have died out quite a while ago. Considering they wouldn’t be able to reproduce (due to their attraction to the same sex)[/quote]
Perhaps homosexuality has it’s uses in the gene pool. Consider the fact that mothers of homosexuals tend to be more fertile.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question; If it was based “mainly” on genetics, wouldn’t those genetic traits have died out quite a while ago. Considering they wouldn’t be able to reproduce (due to their attraction to the same sex)
Perhaps homosexuality has it’s uses in the gene pool. Consider the fact that mothers of homosexuals tend to be more fertile.[/quote]
Could you post some studies that back up that assertion. That is a pretty bold statement saying that it is a “fact”.
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
Makavali wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question; If it was based “mainly” on genetics, wouldn’t those genetic traits have died out quite a while ago. Considering they wouldn’t be able to reproduce (due to their attraction to the same sex)
Perhaps homosexuality has it’s uses in the gene pool. Consider the fact that mothers of homosexuals tend to be more fertile.
Could you post some studies that back up that assertion. That is a pretty bold statement saying that it is a “fact”.[/quote]
Consider that there are homosexual animals. And since we have a recorded history that human homosexuality is at least 2000 years old. I see no reason to doubt that its been going on for quite some time both in humans and among other species.
And still it hasn’t died out. Evolution apparently cannot stop this. (If you want to use this as an argument that homosexuality isn’t a matter of genetics leave the bible alone from that point on. Cause you just abandoned the genesis, so you obviously don’t take your bible that seriously.)
It seems lots of different kinds of animals have homosexuality. All shapes and sizes. From Fruit flies to humans. So what do we have in common with a fruit fly (ironic, the name)?
Point is gayness can be genetic, its proven in fruit flies.
We might hope we are very different from them, but that might not be the case.
What I find interesting are fetishes, people are turned on by bizarre things. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are genes that determine our potential to become aroused by strange stuff. Quite useful when population drop to be able to be turned on by saggy skin, if those are the only women left. For instance.
What strange thing that sticks in your head and becomes the ultimate turn-on is not stored in your genes. I am pretty its nearly impossible to have a genetic memory for wanting women in red latex uniforms. But that doesnt stop us from wanting that.
I am not saying homosexuality is a fetish. But the fact that human sexual triggers are learnable is interesting.
[quote]Jorlen wrote:
Charlemagne wrote:
Makavali wrote:
RebornTN wrote:
Question; If it was based “mainly” on genetics, wouldn’t those genetic traits have died out quite a while ago. Considering they wouldn’t be able to reproduce (due to their attraction to the same sex)
Perhaps homosexuality has it’s uses in the gene pool. Consider the fact that mothers of homosexuals tend to be more fertile.
Could you post some studies that back up that assertion. That is a pretty bold statement saying that it is a “fact”.
Consider that there are homosexual animals. And since we have a recorded history that human homosexuality is at least 2000 years old. I see no reason to doubt that its been going on for quite some time both in humans and among other species.
And still it hasn’t died out. Evolution apparently cannot stop this. (If you want to use this as an argument that homosexuality isn’t a matter of genetics leave the bible alone from that point on. Cause you just abandoned the genesis, so you obviously don’t take your bible that seriously.)
It seems lots of different kinds of animals have homosexuality. All shapes and sizes. From Fruit flies to humans. So what do we have in common with a fruit fly (ironic, the name)?
Point is gayness can be genetic, its proven in fruit flies.
We might hope we are very different from them, but that might not be the case.
What I find interesting are fetishes, people are turned on by bizarre things. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are genes that determine our potential to become aroused by strange stuff. Quite useful when population drop to be able to be turned on by saggy skin, if those are the only women left. For instance.
What strange thing that sticks in your head and becomes the ultimate turn-on is not stored in your genes. I am pretty its nearly impossible to have a genetic memory for wanting women in red latex uniforms. But that doesnt stop us from wanting that.
I am not saying homosexuality is a fetish. But the fact that human sexual triggers are learnable is interesting.
[/quote]
fruit flys are not people. hetero pedophiles are closer to “normal” then homosexuals. Is pedophelia genetic too?
[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
[…]
Could you post some studies that back up that assertion. That is a pretty bold statement saying that it is a “fact”.[/quote]
Genetic Factors Increase Fecundity in Female Maternal Relatives of Bisexual Men as in Homosexuals
New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity
