Posted on 01/14/2006 4:14:10 PM PST by wagglebee
Another good post - if you have a ping list - feel free to add me.
My thought is that the fact that the homosexual protagonists have to advertize and encourage the bahavior is proof enough that people aren't "born that way". I'd say that varying degrees of gullability combined with weird life experiences is what moves people towards homosexual behavior.
Right, Barry Goldwater went crazy in his old age and lost his moral compass regarding homosexuality.
Am I wrong in some fashion if I find the prospect of studying a group of possibly/probably bisexual 16-to 23 year old females to be, shall we say, intriguing? Just sayin,s all.
"Am I wrong in some fashion if I find the prospect of studying a group of possibly/probably bisexual 16-to 23 year old females to be, shall we say, intriguing?"
Go to any large, liberal college campus, and you'll find LUGs (lesbians until graduation) by the boatload. It's apparently fashionable, in some odd way.
I was actually trying to lighten up the discussion with a "sicko/fantasy" comment, no heavy intellectual lifting being done here, nosireee...
"Occam's Razor has been dulled by fallacies of logic. Sharpened up, it would tell you the drive to mate in mammals and other sexually reproducing organisms is biologically heterosexual."
Occam's Razor is a sharp as it ever was. Occam's Razor states, "That when faced with a number of possible explanations, the simplest one is usually the correct one."
Now, for your statement,
""My opinion of Concerned Women of America, like a lot of other groups tied to television evangelism, is probably afflicted with "True Believer Syndrome", an inability to accept alternate explanations.""
"An ad hominem fallacy you can't use on an atheist like myself..."
I have a very low opinion of television evangelists, considering them to be the 'scum of the earth'. Why? It seems they are always trying to frighten people into making very large contributions to the television evangelist's coffers. In other words, the television evangelists are nothing but common grifters, con artists.
It has seemed the most appropriate form of address for a television evangelist is, "Reverend Scumbag".
" It seems they are always trying to frighten people into making very large contributions to the television evangelist's coffers."
A lot like research scientists trying to scare up grant money, come to think of it.
Let's talk about Concerned Women for America. The organization is run by Beverly LeHaye, wife of television evangelist, Tim LeHaye.
Since she is the wife of a television evangelist, she is every bit as corrupt as he is. In other words, Concerned Women for America is just another confidence game.
"Since she is the wife of a television evangelist, she is every bit as corrupt as he is."
Is Richard Dawkins married?
bttt
I have noticed this anecdotal phenomenon as well. However, I also noticed that the parents were screwy too, and it seemed to me that their kids swapped gender roles so as to compete for the attention of a particular parent. (ie environmental)
I seriously doubt the existence of an exclusive "gay gene", simply because we are talking about behavior and not a simple physical trait like hair color. IMO, if there is any genetic predisposition at all, it's likely to be very complex and have about as much influence as genes do in the development of our other personality characteristics. I say, go ahead and do the research...maybe they'll eventually find the pedophile gene, the bad manners gene, the moonbat and FReeper gene etc. Yeah....that would be great...
Meanwhile, there is a body of environmental factor evidence out there.
I wonder how many politicians have gay children. I bet it is over the national average.
Or to put it another way, the author did not set out with an open mind and go where the data led him. He had an agenda, and he set out to prove it.
I disagree with all of you who think this is a fine piece of work. It is not. It is not scholarly nor objective. I am a Republican and a conservative, but I will not surrender my scientific objectivity on this topic simply because many conservatives believe homosexuality is a sin. Lack of objectivity for purposes of proving one's preconceived notions hurts us all. I can't do it. It's wrong. Make all the moral arguments you want but do not try to twist science to say what it does not. That is what was done here and it is really objectionable.
Let me give you an example from the paper's discussion of Michael Bailey's twin study:
In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality. Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category. But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.35
"This finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors influencing homosexuality," writes Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, "because … in order for something to be genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to approach 100 percent."
This is the art of the demagogue. Sure, physical traits such as height and eye color show heritabilities of 90% or more. But there is no expection of such a high value for a psychological trait such as sexual preference. You simply do not see heritability values that high when you are dealing with psychological traits. Doesn't happen.
Moreover, if there is no genetic influence on homosexuality, when a man who is a twin is gay, the likelihood that his co-twin is gay should be the same regardless of whether that co-twin is identical or fraternal. But that isn't what the data show. In fact Bailey's data does show a high heritability--which Satinover ignores. CWA does not tell you just how high it is, but you can figure it out from the numbers given. It comes out to a heritablity of 60%. If that held with repeat testing it would be on the high side for a psychological trait. Even if the heritability settled in at the range of 40% it would still be significant however.
What matters IMO is that at this time research does find that both twins are more likely to be homosexual if they are identical than fraternal twins. This require explanation, and the CWA people lose credibility by writing it off the way they do.
I am a great admirer of Goldwater myself. But I think he was wrong about this one. Let me put it this way. Those with far more knowledge than me about troop morale are concerned that having gay men in close proximity with straight men might impair troop functioning in war. I have to ask myself who the hell am I to question their expertise. Similarly, who the hell are these law professors at Harvard and Yale to do the same thing. What to they know about living in a foxhole? Hardship for them is when they have to survive for an hour without air conditioning.
"I disagree with all of you who think this is a fine piece of work. It is not. It is not scholarly nor objective. I am a Republican and a conservative, but I will not surrender my scientific objectivity on this topic simply because many conservatives believe homosexuality is a sin. Lack of objectivity for purposes of proving one's preconceived notions hurts us all. I can't do it. It's wrong. Make all the moral arguments you want but do not try to twist science to say what it does not. That is what was done here and it is really objectionable."
I agree.
I had another idea that would be very interesting. The folks from the Concerned Women for America, Traditional Values Coalition, NARTH, Paul Cameron, Jeffrey Satinover, Fred Phelps, and etc. should be required to undergo PET scanning while exposed to male and female pheromones, in oder to determine if they are truly heterosexual, or if they are "Queer as a Three Dollar Bill". I have my doubts they would submit to such an evaluation.
I tend to take a more neutral position than you do -a simpler position....
Throughout history there has never been social acceptance of homosexual activity as normal nor has homosexual marriage been accommodated etcetera. It is self evident that homosexual activity is a procreative dead end AND I see no history showing me any benefit homosexual activity provides society --IF [it] did benefit society why no evidence of societal embrace, acceptance and or institutionalizing?
If not for homosexual activists attempting to coerce others into accepting the sexual CHOICE they make as normal. and or moral or whatever IT would be easy to ignore what goes on in others bedrooms because it would not be known. Considering that status quo, history etcetera IT is up to the pro-homosexual activist and apologetics to PROVE the theories they allege supporting the agenda they promulgate.
I myself need not prove what is -let them prove what might be... If there are those that want to turn reality on its head THEN bring the data or shut up...
I knew it was a bunch of pooh.
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.