Posted on 03/14/2007 9:42:16 AM PDT by EveningStar
Well ... I sure gave the hate crowd a good excuse to crawl out from under their rocks yesterday. I knew that I was stepping into it when I opened my mouth, but proceeded to express my thoughts anyway. Thoughts on what? Thoughts on the comments made by the Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff about homosexuals...
(Excerpt) Read more at boortz.com ...
Honestly Dominic. Don't be so dour.
You have to get into the gestalt of the story.
Witless little girl... prancing into someone else's home, pigtails bouncing...starts criticizing everything and trashing that which she doesn't find to her liking...never tries to infer a thing about how this little tableau came to be, because that would entail thinking of others rather than herself and what she wants gratified right now...
I should say I'm disappointed by your lack of imagination, but that would go back to the "inferring" thing, so while I am disappointed, I'm not surprised.
Very nice, it's not often someone works the word 'gestalt' into a conversation these days. My compliments.
Seriously, am I wrong in guessing that this all boils down to a question of the authority of the Bible, in the end?
If I'm not a biblical literast, I'm not a true conservative?
If my guess is wildly off track, please let me know. Sometimes it's hard to understand where other folks are coming from.
Yeah and Bush excluded Michael Savage, who has around 7 million more listeners than Boretz, because he wasn't as much of a BushBot. Had Bush listened to Savage, we might still be holding the Senate.
LOL - you think Boortz is a Bushbot? Boortz isn't even a Republican.
In no way would I presume to demean the authority of Scripture or Church. I've done that study, and I'm convinced.
However, neither would I presume to expect those lacking an education in Christianity to recognize that authority. There is little more ridiculous than reading threats out of the Bible...to people who don't believe the Bible.
Rather like affecting a french accent when speaking to a frenchman, wouldn't you say?
Indeed!
And may I say, you can turn a very nice phrase when you want to. :-)
Sure does. How would a homosexual gene in 2.5% of the population be passed on to offspring?
The most obvious example would be through recessive genes.
Cystic fibrosis affects only 1 in 2,500 children (far smaller than the 2.5% you claim for homosexuality) and yet is it is still passed on as a hereditary condition. It does so through recessive genes.
From Joseph Sobran:
bigot: one who practices sociology without a license
Good example.
There, fixed it.
Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
The Bailey and Pillard studies in 1991 and 1993 demonstrated a blatant disregard for scientific principles. They used an invalid sampling method similar to Kinsey's invalid sampling method. It's called the snowball effect. What Bailey and Pillard did was advertise in homosexual publications and then asked those who responded to recruit their homosexual friends.
Nobody really checked into the validity of their study until it was referenced by many others as valid. Unfortunately, we can't glean anything from the above Bailey and Pillard studies.
And I've also read recently of a study where male birth order correlated with incidence of homosexuality - the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be homosexual.
You may find the following of interest:
Do Mothers Create Gay Sons In The Womb?
Anthony Bogaert (& Friends) Grasping At A Straw
BTW, here's an interesting article that was posted on FR two days after the post to which I'm responding, so you may have already read the article: "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project
My profile has a number of additional links.
NARTH, I note, has a strong bias. I think you're unlikely to get reasonable analysis from them as they have an agenda to push.
I don't suppose you share that bias, do you?
I would imagine you're familiar with the Kinsey study. If you are, would you consider the Kinsey study valid? That is, a study based on valid sampling methods?
Are you familiar with the snowball effect or snowballing? I ask because those in the scientific community familiar with the snowball effect realize such a sampling method demonstrates a blatant disregard for scientific principles.
What I said was Bailey and Pillard advertised in homosexual publications and asked those who responded to recruit their homosexual friends for the study. I am quite surprised at your question. Sixteen years later Bailey and Pillard would be the first to tell you their study doesn't support a genetic component to homosexuality. When you're talking about a genetic component you must understand linkage and association. Correlation does not mean causation. There is no evidence homosexuality is genetic. As Dr Collins of the Human Genome Project has recently said, homosexuality is not hardwired.
Since the Bailey/Pillard study is 16 years old I don't know where you could find their study nor commentary on their invalid sampling method. I read it years ago, but nobody today thinks their study carries any validity. Unfortunately their study was referenced years ago as valid until they revealed their sampling method, and all those old references are still around providing many people with information that was discredited years ago.
I'm not sure what you mean in reference to NARTH. To what bias do you refer?
Hahaha, good one.
I just have time for a drive-by.
There's been dozens of twins studies since Bailey/Pillard including a second Bailey/Pillard, et/al.
The one thing they concluded is that none have been replicated. If science is valid, science is replicable.
When concordance rates for replication range from 0% to 65% and in between, given any sample range, then the conclusions are invalid.
Pro perversion cheerleader: Hahaha, good one.
Great comeback. Do you have more factual innuendo other than the usual liberal's dismissal?
Maybe we "bigots" should start our own lobby.
I'm serious. You said:
NARTH, I note, has a strong bias. I think you're unlikely to get reasonable analysis from them as they have an agenda to push.In what way is NARTH biased?
I read their 1993 study years ago as well which had different results than their 1991 study. Yet again they demonstrated a blatant disregard for scientific principles
I'm reminded of Simon LeVay's 1991 study where he didn't prove anything but many misrepresented his studies. He's even on record as saying his study didn't prove anything but very few seem to know this.
The one thing they concluded is that none have been replicated. If science is valid, science is replicable.
Thank you! That is a very key point and something I forgot to mention in post 232.
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.