Posted on 04/27/2006 3:30:52 PM PDT by DBeers
YOu got that right -- we need these kind of data, but the data need to be above reproach.
YUP!
Considering the homosexual social experiment is something only recently evidenced; the fact that there are inherently small populations comprising objectively measurable and observable homosexual related 'things' e.g. marriage, adoption, raising children; AND that no long term study is possible UNTIL a long term of time has elapsed; -- One reasonably has to question the seemingly impossible legitimacy all the studies and research coming from the left that paint a rosy picture for all things homosexual.
YET -a majority of court decisions overturning common law, convention, and enacted law are handed down citing the studies and research coming from the left as basis. Very odd that homosexuality is favored -it seems far from random when statistically insignificant pro-homosexual studies and research is primarily favored?
It is as if there was an agenda... LOL
And society has done the job well with activist manipulation the past 40 yrs.
Overhauling of Straight America
http://www.parentsrightsusa.com/Overhauling%20of%20Straight%20America.htm
I know priest who told kids they were made that way, accept it, it's who you are....now if that didn't push them to succumb. We need to educate them how to overcome those unwanted same sex feelings.
Identical twin studies are the only way to differentiate between nature and nurture.
With all due respect, you have a f*cked up family.
Maybe he was referring to this:
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
-Mark 9:42 (KJV)
"This is probably correct but the sampling is too small to be of any use in any real argumentation."
I disagree - the results seem to be very statistically significant given the wide variation from the control.
It would be very difficut to assign these results to random error.
LOL!
And there's yet another problem, which is that if there's a genetic component to sexual orientation then you would actually expect to see a higher incidence of homosexuality among the children of homosexuals. However, if there's no genetic component, but entirely socialization, then you would still expect to see a higher incidence of homosexuality among the children of homosexuals, at least if the homosexuals were 'out' and if parenting styles is part of what internalizes the sexual orientation of children under a social construction rubric.
So, just about whatever your view on the origins of homosexuality, you would expect to find a higher incidence of homosexuals among the children of homosexuals. You would have to construct a study to specifically isolate one factor, and that'd be immensely difficult even with a dedicated study, much less with a meta-study which would be impossible.
See AntiGuvs post #13 above for more things to think about.
77 is a very small sampling and there are methodology (and agenda) issues.
I would like to see this same study done on a broader scale -- but who would have the stones and money to do so?
The causation hypotheses (that I can think of) where you would not expect to see a higher incidence of homosexuality among the children of homosexuals are, in no particular order:
1) Social construction where parenting styles are totally irrelevant to the development of sexuality.
2) An epigenetic causation, such as hormone exposure in the womb, where the epigenetic factor was completely independent of parent sexual orientation.
3) Some kind of genetic causation where genotypes are inherited and expressed in such a way that the genotype of the parent generation has no influence whatsoever on the genotype of the descendent generation. (I'm not even sure this is possible.)
But, under most pure "nature" or pure "nurture" causation scenarios you would expect to find a higher incidence of homosexuality among the children of homosexuals. The same goes for just about any "mixed" causation scenario.
"77 is a very small sampling and there are methodology (and agenda) issues. "
What are the methodology issue you allude to? It says that the respondents were volunteers and given that the control population would have predicted 7%, the 23% result is very statistically significant.
Its not like the Truman-Dewey survey that was done only to people that owned phones. I can't imagine why volunteers of homo parents would be predisposed to being non-hetero.
YUP!
Attempting to scientifically prove either side of any argument is inherently impossible when there is NOTHING yet objectively measurable that identifies a "homosexual"
Which again begets the question -what is all the study and research from the left that claims all things homosexual are "okay" based on?
Feel free to address the elephant in the living room that many do not acknowledge exists...
a big "duh" factor here...
kids raised by single parents more likely to be single parents
kids raised by drug addicts are more likely to be drug addicts
kids raised by abusive parents are more liked to be abusive
kids raised by an adulterous parent are more likely to commit adultery
kids raised by parents who lie are more likely to be liars
and on and on it goes...
You have virtually hit the nail on the head, IMHO. With men especially, scientists haven't even identified a neural structure or process that produces heterosexuality, much less what produces homosexuality. What I mean is, there is no identified neural component expressly associated with a differentiated sex drive, either heterosexual or homosexual.
PS. With females there are some tentative neurostructural associations, but the science is nowhere near definitive yet.
100% of "children of homosexuals" were conceived through heterosexual relations.
All "children of homosexuals" are either:
1) children of other people claimed (adopted) by homosexuals
2) the result of a heterosexual relationship before the homosexual "discovered" the orientation he/she was "born" with.
Isn't the title wrong? I think the real title (at least in the MSM) would finish with . . . Not That There's Anything Wrong With That!
Monkey see, monkey do, if you'll pardon the expression! Of course they're more apt.....that's what they are EXPOSED to!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.