Replies

Homosexual Agenda Ping!

If you oppose the homosexualization of society
-add yourself to the ping list!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search [ Add keyword = homosexualagenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

A study contending that boys with older brothers are biologically more likely to be homosexual has been challenged by a Canadian psychiatrist who dismisses the study as "rubbish," and by a Dutch psychologist who says the claims are "unsubstantiated."

Joseph Berger, a Distinguished Life Fellow with the American Psychiatric Association, and a member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality's (NARTH) Scientific Advisory Committee, says in an article posted on NARTH's website that the study is "absolute utter rubbish" and "should never have been published."

YET -published it was AND touted in hundreds of headlines it was... Just like the recent "Lesbian Brain" study - ROTFLMAO

I do not envision that this version of the news will get as much fanfare -it never does...

Although, to be fair, neither Dr. Berger nor Dr. van der Aardweg could be called impartial critics. They each have their own particular hobby horses to peddle. A more persuasive criticism of the study would be an evaluation of the data and conclusions by actual geneticists and statisticians. This particular study, as I remember, is simply correlational and the authors make the classic mistake of concluding cause and effect from correlation, which is a big statistical faux pas. This is done every day when associating things like caffeine intake and cardiovascular disease or cancer. It is reported as cause and effect when no such conclusion can be validly reached based on correlation. Also, these two doctors seem not to know the difference between genetic and prenatal. The study made no claims for a genetic basis for homosexuality, but instead concluded something in the prenatal environment was causing the effect. (The most obvious factor that could account for this would be changes in hormonal levels in the womb as a result of the aging of the mother and is something that could actually be tested to support or disprove Bogaert's conclusions.)

Also, how much do you want to bet that these same two doctors see no problem with the whole global warming hoax which is based on similar "levels" of proof?