Posted on 07/12/2006 2:07:22 PM PDT by carlo3b
It's clearly immplied by your contention that the statistics don't show any difference whatsoever. That is exacly the same as saying 20% is the same as 0-10%. That's a fact.
Note the rehash from post 159:
Re: The statistics do.
" They don't but you're free to believe otherwise."
Point out the covariant variables in the table and their corresponding statistics.
"You are free to continue inferring your personal beliefs into the study but the study doesn't support your significant physical factors statement."
Failure to again show that 20% is the same as 0-10% noted.
" Besides there being no scientific evidence to support your claim,"
Ditto the last note.
I hope you realize this, but calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact. And inferring your personal beliefs into a study does not mean the study supports your personal beliefs.
Again, Table 1 doesn't support your statement that significant physical factors exist. And that is the real issue here.
Ditto to my previous comment. See, we can go back and forth all you want but the fact remains the study doesn't support your significant physical factors exist statement. And you're apparently getting confused with linkage, association and how little they mean.
This is beyond ridiculous so I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.
What is, is.
" Again, Table 1 doesn't support your statement that significant physical factors exist."
Again, failure to show 20% is the same as 0-10%.
"you're apparently getting confused with linkage, association and how little they mean."
Point out the covariant variables and their corresponding statistics in the table.
Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth?The answer is a resounding "No."
Failure to address the relevant scientific facts and points in #165 and jumping to NARTH propaganda piece noted.
I only know of one homosexual source that states the obvious here, but it's not a website. It's a book by lesbian Tammy Bruce entitled The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values.
Thank you, Scripter. I read the excerpt on Amazon and it looks like a good read.
And referring to the NARTH article as a propaganda piece shows your bias. What's interesting is the article you provided cites Hamer and LeVay, both of whom are homosexuals and scientists, and the NARTH article I provided cites both Hamer and LeVay but according to you, it's a propaganda piece.
What's most telling is what Hamer and LeVay have said, and they don't support your position. From the NARTH article:
When "gay gene" researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied:Hamer is also on record as stating"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."
I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what's installed at the factory and what's added by the userHamer, a scientist and homosexual doesn't agree with you, and he cites the twins studies.
The article you provided says the following about LeVay:
LeVay's findings that for one hypothalamic nucleus, gay men are more similar to heterosexual women that to heterosexual men is perhaps the most important finding motivated by this perspective.
In an interview with David Nimmons, here's what LeVay said about his 1991 work referenced above:
"[His 1991 research] made the unassuming LeVay one of the most misunderstood men in America. "It's important to stress what I didn't find," he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain--INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior. My work is just a hint in that direction--a spur, I hope, to future work."Hamer and LeVay are referenced in the article you provided and the propaganda piece from NARTH, both are homosexuals and scientists and neither of them agree with you.
Yet you continue to engage in obfuscation and misrepresentation. Once again, the study you referenced does not support your position. Two years ago you used the same tactics here and I called you on it. Unfortunately you didn't learn anything then or now.
You are free to believe homosexuals are born that way, but you can't say the evidence supports your belief.
You'll have to show that 20% is the same as 0-10% for that to be true.
" What's most telling is what Hamer and LeVay have said, and they don't support your position."
Ping them if you think they can show 20% is the same as 0-10%.
" When "gay gene" researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied: "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited."
I don't see papers based on the research this guy did. He wrote a book, which causes me to think he's simply a commentator on other folks research. His statement here simply refers to the mixed orientation pairs of monozygotic twins, not the same orientation pairs. The same orientation pairs are the 20% group. In that group the homosexual orientaiton is rooted solely in biological factors.
"I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment"
Again, it refers to the mixed orientaiton group.
" LeVay's findings that for one hypothalamic nucleus, gay men are more similar to heterosexual women that to heterosexual men"
A difference here can only effect emotional, or drive state. Since the statement is unaccompanied by the relevant research and how this difference fits into the general differences between the male and female mind, there's not much more that can be said here.
"I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain"
Fine. He's not responsible for table 1 though. If he can show 20% is the same as 0-10%, ping 'em here. If you think he has a handle on how the mind works all the better. I think he doesn't though. He was unable to understand the fundamental difference between the pairs he commented on above.
"you continue to engage in obfuscation and misrepresentation."
Yeah, right. Explain how 20% is the same as 0-10%. Try to do it w/o handwaiving and posting the irrelevant and errant comments of others.
"Two years ago you used the same tactics here and I called you on it. Unfortunately you didn't learn anything then or now."
I got news for 'ya pal, you're not a scientist. Not only do you not understand the basic material, you refuse to even try. So your worth as a teacher is zip. As is the case on this thread and the other thread, you failed to rationally address the fundamental facts. Instead you post propaganda.
" You are free to believe homosexuals are born that way, but you can't say the evidence supports your belief."
Hey, repeat it often enough and it becomes true right!
Since you can't provide a reference from any credible scientist that believes homosexuality is rooted solely in biology, it appears you're the only one on the planet who can read the study and come away believing homosexuals are born that way.
So, what they've essentially done is create a generation whose motto can be, "If it looks good, f$@# it!"???
Note: Bestiality is the new homosexuality.
Shalom.
What causes some men to be sexually attracted to large breasts? What causes some men to be sexually attracted to overweight women? To one derrierre vs. another? To very skinny women? Attractions are funny things.
I know my own vision of sexual beauty has become significantly older as I have aged, so they are never truly static things.
Shalom.
Google Clay McLean Ministries.
He has a clue.
Shalom.
I don't need to and I have no desire to resort to propaganda techniques, such as an appeal to authority. You're addressing a scientist right here. You have the option to either address the fasts of the matter in a rational fashion, or ping someone that can show 20% is the same as 0-10%.
That has never been the issue. The issue is you believe homosexuals are born that way but have no evidence to support your claim. The scientists used in the study you provided do not believe homosexuals are born that way. It is your personal belief and not the belief of the scientists referenced in the study you provided.
The only thing that matters is the truth.
"The scientists used in the study you provided do not believe homosexuals are born that way."
I don't care what they believe. They presented data and statistics on that data. That's all I care about. I don't need a mommy to lead me through it.
"It is your personal belief and not the belief of the scientists...
Yeah, whatever. Drop the propaganda and try rational thought.
Apparently you're the only scientist in the world that believes homosexuals are born that way; as none of the scientists referenced in the study you provided support you.
Gee, I'm simply heartbroken.
"...as none of the scientists referenced in the study you provided support you."
You're shootin' blanks with that logic.
You're misrepresenting the study you provided by stating it supports your personal belief. That's a live round that demonstrates your extreme bias.
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.