Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Homosexuality is a naturally occuring trait, but not necessarily a desirable one. We have no "cure" or means of preventing it today. But with advances in genetics and scientific understanding of the reproductive process, it may well become possible for parents to preclude such tendencies in their offspring, increasing their chances of having grandchildren. In the future babies will be designed for many traits, but I doubt same sex orientation will be among them.
"Their own" are not necessarily saying anything within the sciences. NARTH for instance, does not agree at all with the hypothesis (and it is a hypothesis) of the heritability of homosexuality.
Using "NARTH" and "science" in the same breath is an oxymoron. They aren't scientists, they do no research. They ideas are about 100 years old and have no evidence to support them and plenty to disprove them. Basically they are a bunch of religious conservatives who use propaganda, misinformation and distortions in their anti-gay agenda.
When I said conservative Christian researchers, I actually meant honest ones who actually do research. They are a few, although not many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
There is an old maxim in science: correlation does not equal causation.
Well as I wasn't trying to say that lefthandedness causes homosexuality, I'm not sure what your point is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
And 60 years of research is supposed to mean what to me? I had to sit through lectures in a philosophy of biology class--one given by an openly, effeminate homosexual belong to a campus gay group--negatively critiquing the social biases in those early scientific studies of homosexual males and lesbian women dating to the 1940s and '50s or whenever many of them were carried out (and still selectively quoted today), because every single one of them assumed as fact all homosexual males were effiminate and all lesbians were butch. They also studied the anatomy of homosexual males and came up with statistical "evidence" that homosexual males statistically have smaller hips (or some part of the body, but I can't remember exactly which) than heterosexual males. Just like these statistical correlations between genes.
I guess if you knew much about all the research from the past 60 years, you might know what it might mean to you. eg Dr Kurt Freund designed the first penile plesmograph during WWII to test whether men who said they were homosexual were really homosexual and not heterosexual men dodging the draft in Czechoslovakia. Homosexual men were not allowed to serve in the army. He later went on to try all sorts of ways to try to change the sexual orientation of homosexual men for years and was completely unsuccessful. His work was one of the main reasons homosexuality was decriminalised in Czechoslovakia.
Homosexuality is a naturally occuring trait, but not necessarily a desirable one. We have no "cure" or means of preventing it today. But with advances in genetics and scientific understanding of the reproductive process, it may well become possible for parents to preclude such tendencies in their offspring, increasing their chances of having grandchildren. In the future babies will be designed for many traits, but I doubt same sex orientation will be among them.
Homosexuals can, and do, have children. My parents have 12 grand children, 3 of them from me.
I think its number 1. It's a disorder like pedophilia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers
There are a number of posters here who oppose homosexuality for one reason or another. I'm wondering which best describes their position.
1. Homosexuality is an illness. Affected individuals must be cured through prayer and/or other means. Any person experiencing same-sex attractions must recognize that they're sick and get help accordingly.
2. There is no such thing as sexual orientation. Homosexuals simply choose to ignore their natural state, (heterosexuality is the only thing that naturally exists), and pervert themselves with strange flesh.
3. People may experience same-sex attractions and may even have a homosexual orientation. However, actually practicing this behavior is sinful and affected individuals must either remain celibate or have relations within an opposite-sex framework.
4. Any others?
Also, a couple of other questions:
5. Do you believe that any experiencing same-sex attractions who truly repents of them, even assuming they occur again, is truly forgiven and can be made right with God, the church, or conservative society?
6. Do you believe that it is okay for people to remain single for their lives, or is it everybody's duty in conservative society to marry and have children?
I've mention Thomas Kuhn as a philosopher, historian, and scientists that had an enormous impact on the philosophy of science. He coined the term paradigm shift.
I studied History and Philosophy of Science in the early 80's in my first year of a BSc, so yes, I know who Kuhn was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
It was once thought by all scientists that homosexual males were effeminate males. They also looked for statistically different anatomical differences in between homosexual males and heterosexual males. This was "the" only "right" way to investigate male homosexuality. Similar to those that think "looking for genetic causes" is the "only right way" or some other bio-chemical determinist cause that either begins at conception or results through prenatal development.
I see by your blanket statement that you think one lecture makes you an expert. I remember thinking like that when I was about 19 doing an undergrad degree too. As you are apparently unaware of all the research, you may not be aware that you have missed the obvious 'paradigm shift'. There have been many lines of research into homosexuality. What's interesting is that these lines of research do seem to be converging in an interesting way. I'll leave that up to you to research what I might mean when I say that. A good way to learn....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
Kuhn also points out how no subject in school is taught so closely related to theology (dogmas) than science. Even though science is not supposed to be built on dogmas. It gets slightly less dogmatically taught in undergrad college. And even less dogmatically taught at the graduate level.
Curious, but you realise he was writing from the 1960's? Isn't that one of his contentions? That we need to understand the way 'scientists' thought within the context of their own time and cultural/knowledge base?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
Already at the undergraduate level I'm repeatedly having it drilled into my head by professors and TA to question and to solve the puzzle and attempt to bring resolution to a problem. Something, I continually find non-science students sneering at on the internet as they throw up one published study after the next as if merely parroting the views of some published papers is how "science is done."
Really? Sounds a bit simplistic to me if they are 'drilling that in your head'. Questioning is a basic, but I would have thought at undergrad level, you would be already using approaches like Kolb's learning cycle or the concept of 'praxis'. What's interesting is to discuss the research, but I don't come across many posters (like none) who even bother to read any of the articles first before dissing them, so don't get much opportunity to discuss them in any meaningful way. Perhaps you'll be an exception? Let me know your thoughts into Savic's early work for example? And serendipity.... You'll get what I mean if you do a little research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
My "musings" and speculations are part of and product of my educational background in biology as my major. Contrary to what you may think, when a professor or TA asks a class a question they do not want a student replying back with "this study says X, Y, Z.." They want you to apply what you have learned in an attempt to resolve a problem.
I thought the main thing you are supposed to learn at an undergrad level is to think critically? Not just try to 'solve a problem' applying only one line of thought. You appear to be trying to apply a simple 'rule' to something that is far too complex, so it's sounds kind of silly and robotic to me. Like discussing driving a car in a city only within the context of red traffic lights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
Its said science of old before Galileo was carried out much the way of merely repeating what the wise elders before them said.
Lucky that's not what science is about anymore eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
You also don't seem to be able to differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory. There is not scientific theory that homosexuality is genetically heritable. End. Accepting your or your teams hypothesis as a researcher does not mean a scientific theory has been established.
Huh? Where have I used the terms 'scientific theory' or 'hypothesis' in regards to sexual orientation? You seem to be arguing with your own straw man here. You don't appear to be aware of any of the evidence-based research in this field, so your uninformed blanket statements are just..... uninformed blanket statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
My views actually are in part (not wholly) influenced by other scientists and philosophers learned in the sciences. This geneticist used the term "nuances" in the conclusion of his paper on homosexuality. His conclusion was basically it is unlikely homosexuality is genetically heritable but a result of more nuanced factors in a person's life as they develop. Terry McGuire
This paper of Terry McGuire was required reading in a philosophy of biology class of mine, as well as papers promoting the idea homosexuality is genetically heritable. In other words, we did not just look at one side of the debate.
Are you aware that the year is 2013? The paper you cite was published in 1995 and refers to small studies ranging from more than 20 years ago to 70 years ago. So yes, his criticism of their limitations is entirely valid. If you knew more about the body of work in this area in the past 20 years you would know that pretty much anyone who is anyone in the field criticises these early studies for their sampling methods and conclusions- especially the researchers themselves. Researchers in this field already know that sexual orientation does not have purely genetic causes and have known that pretty much since the mid 90's.
Please note that ALL of the articles I cited are fairly recent (from the 21st century, not the 20th). Also please note that nowhere have I ever stated that homosexuality is purely genetic. In fact you seemed to have completely missed the point of the range of research articles I posted from various fields. We do indeed know that there is a genetic factor involved in sexual orientation, but of course your author McGuire wouldn't have known that yet because those studies had not even been done at the time he was writing in the early 1990's. He also seems to have been stuck in the disproven paradigm that homosexuality is just a 'behaviour'.
I'm unsure why your class would bother to look at review that is 20 years out of date and ignore all the far more recent work from far larger and more robust studies if they truly wanted to look at more than 'one side' of the debate"?
What was the purpose of you linking to this dated article?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
Also, thus far we have spoken about genes in so far as they are some entity we denote as "a unit of heredity." Which is fine. But it's English 101, prose, the writings of a storyteller, it's philosophy. It's descriptive in terms of a dictionary meaning. It's speak of "gene" the way we speak of "god." Which is to say neither term in and of themselves tells us much as the hard scientific level of chemistry, physics, and math,
We can define a gene chemically, and we know it codes for proteins (again, more literary style than mathematical content for the latter). The whole thing driving the human organism and genes are molecules and atoms. Not the English language.
Not sure what your point is here other to hear the sound of your own voice in your head pontificating about nothing really. You seem to have a preference for black and white simplistic concepts. And quite simply, trying to apply that to something as complex as human sexuality is a bit.... simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
So, given what little I have learned in biology, I ask myself (I don't just parrot a view of a paper published)
Well, it's quite apparent you know little of the biology of human sexuality. Instead you seem to parrot a view that you heard in one lecture which used a very dated article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
how does the shape of proteins "tell" a grown woman to be attracted to a "stud" with braids, dressed in baggy pants, that looks like a teenage boy (which seems to correlate to male pederasts attractions), rather than a grown man dressed in a suit and tie that looks like a grown man?
That seems to be your straw man, so you can argue for or against it all you wish. You appear to be making some unfounded assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
Notice, I never said I brought resolution to that question. But the whole issue of homosexuality remains unresolved (no matter if you think it has been resolved).
Unresolved for who? People who don't even have clue how little they know and how much they don't know about the topic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
And my basic proposition is that I suspect no one--not me, not anyone--is "born with a sexual orientation."
And you base this 'suspicion' on your lack of knowledge of the research? - um okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
I state this in part because I don't recall being sexually attracted to girls or anyone 2 days after my birth. In fact, as an infant I can't recall being sexually attracted to anyone. Not to mention there is little to no sexually dimorphic difference between a male infant and a female infant. I also subscribe to the view human sexuality is far more fluid than contemporary European and U.S. cultures feel comfortable admitting.
Oh dear. You're serious aren't you. Why on earth would you expect a 2 day old baby to be sexually attracted to anyone? Do you even know what the term 'sexually dimorphic differences' means? You are aware that male and female infants do have different sexual organs aren't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
(And I never said there was a correlation between "homosexuality" and pedophilia. There are heterosexual, homosexual, and probably bisexual pedophilies. What I said--through observation--is that lesbians that have a things for some studs that look like 12 year old boys or teenage boys, seem to have some correlation in their attractions to homosexual pedophiles and pederasts. But I never asserted or implied that was something I observed for all lesbians or gay men. Not all lesbians are attracted to "studs" for one.)
Where the heck did you draw that 'conclusion' from?
What's so funny? I am a female, who had a child, just like millions of other females that have had children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
