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.
Thats a stretch LOL The more children a woman has the more likely anything could happen and a male fetus is not a foreign concept at all if a female only had a female fetus we wouldn't be here LOL I wouldn't brag about being part of that study.
I am not part of the study, I said the results were presented at a function I was at about 2 weeks ago.
You may think it is a stretch but science is saying otherwise.
Can you even understand how at the hormonal level a male (full of testerone) is a foreign concept to a vessel (mother) that is full of estrogen? If you can't grasp that simple concept, then I am sorry.
I am not part of the study, I said the results were presented at a function I was at about 2 weeks ago.
You may think it is a stretch but science is saying otherwise.
Can you even understand how at the hormonal level a male (full of testerone) is a foreign concept to a vessel (mother) that is full of estrogen? If you can't grasp that simple concept, then I am sorry.
You do know that women also have testosterone in their body.
I am not part of the study, I said the results were presented at a function I was at about 2 weeks ago.
You may think it is a stretch but science is saying otherwise.
Can you even understand how at the hormonal level a male (full of testerone) is a foreign concept to a vessel (mother) that is full of estrogen? If you can't grasp that simple concept, then I am sorry.
Well,based on personal experience alone, I have to disagree. I have 5 kids and none of them are gay. Based on the research findings presented at this 'function', how many kids was I supposed to have before this thing kicked in?
Well,based on personal experience alone, I have to disagree. I have 5 kids and none of them are gay. Based on the research findings presented at this 'function', how many kids was I supposed to have before this thing kicked in?
In the meantime, i'll be putting on my hipwaders.
While I'm not arguing whether it's true or not, I have to point out that the claim says the chance increases. Chance doesn't speak to any one case in particular. For example just cause your baby has a 25% chance of having blue eyes doesn't guarantee you'll have 1 blue-eyed kid out of 4. Actual outcome only starts approaching percentages predicted by chance in the higher numbers, so you need at least a hundred people, if not a thousand, or ten thousand, before you can expect numbers to be anywhere near what chance predicts.
I knew it would not take long for someone to suggest I was uneducated or in some way intellectually inferior. As a conservative with traditional values I am used to that response from those who claim to be more "tolerant and progressive". You leave me these links to read regarding the APAs acceptance of homosexuallity. In one of the links it describes how the APA delisted homosexuality as a mental disorder back in 1973. Hippie era protests were continuously disrupting the meetings of the APA because of its listing as a mental disorder of that time, along with the fact that members of the APA who were homosexual were working inside the system to have it removed from the list of mental disorders. It sounds as if the APA delisted it because it had become a huge distraction to face the protesters, and science played little part in the decision. It was not study, or hard science that led to the acceptance but political pressure from hippie era protesters. This fact makes APA acceptance worth nothing. All you have proved is something many of us already know. Liberal activist do succed sometimes simply by making themselves loud and forceful. This does not bring true acceptance, but gives them a sense of victory. Its kind of like giving the screaming toddler his candy in order to make him stop. I wonder if you really read the links, because in my opinion that link weakend your argument. You want everyone to believe that science says homosexuality is not a mental disorder, but the APA only came to that decision by the screaming voices of hippie protesters in 1973. Hardly science.
What outrageously ridiculous BS. Where do people like you get your ideas? To anybody uncontaminated by the radicalized right wing populism currently masquerading as conservatism and eating this country like a cancer it is clear that its devotees have abandoned their usual MO of stereotyping and oversimplifying the opposition to the point of caricature and have now fallen headlong into the murky waters of paranoia and outright delusion ala Glenn Beck.
What you are failing to understand is that although the practice of psychiatry is somewhat of an art form the discipline itself is a science and is rooted in scientific principles. The problem that the APA faced in 1973 is simply that the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness didn't stand up to critical scrutiny in the light of research that consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis to back up this claim. In short, there was NO evidence that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
In fact, the accumulated research of professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal variations of human sexuality. In any scientific endevour you go where the evidence leads you rather than where you want it to. The APA was absolutely right and took the appropriate stance in this case. To do otherwise would have beem intellectually, scientifically, professionally, and morally dishonest.
To think that a bunch of "hippies" could alter anything other than their individual brain chemistries much less science itself is profoundly absurd. In order to actually believe this you would have to be either a person of very humble intelligence or someone suffering under the spell of some sort of dellusional psychosis, but then that's where all the pied pipers on the neo-right are leading you now isn't it?
While I'm not arguing whether it's true or not, I have to point out that the claim says the chance increases. Chance doesn't speak to any one case in particular. For example just cause your baby has a 25% chance of having blue eyes doesn't guarantee you'll have 1 blue-eyed kid out of 4. Actual outcome only starts approaching percentages predicted by chance in the higher numbers, so you need at least a hundred people, if not a thousand, or ten thousand, before you can expect numbers to be anywhere near what chance predicts.
Genetics can link to physical characteristics of an infant. Blue eyed, yes, red hair yes, likely to have diabetes, yes, skin tone pigmentation, yes. However, genetics used to determine 'human behavior', the vote is still out on that one.
Quote:
Is There a "Gay Gene"?
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American 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. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
Well,based on personal experience alone, I have to disagree. I have 5 kids and none of them are gay.
Well, your personal experience is a sample of 1. That's indicative of essentially nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pamelaBeurman
Based on the research findings presented at this 'function', how many kids was I supposed to have before this thing kicked in?
Also, the prevailing theory is it's polygenic (multiple genes) dependent on environmental influences (such as in utero hormonal exposure). Many human characteristics are like this: height, handedness, type 1 diabetes, etc. Twin studies really elucidate these types of situations. If 1 identical twin has juvenile diabetes, the other twin has it only about 50% of the time - despite having all the genes necessary for it. If one 1 identical twin is left-handed, the other twin is also left-handed 75% of the time. If one identical twin is gay, the other twin is gay 50% of the time (even in twins that are raised separately).
Under this theory, if you and your husband (it's believed to be mostly follow maternal lines) don't pass along the required combination of genes, no matter how many kids you have and no matter their hormonal exposure, none of them will be gay. Even if your kid (or kids) have all the genes necessary to become homosexual, there is no guarantee they will ever be expressed (turned on). The research shows that the more kids a women has, the more likely it is they are turned on. Research also show that the more kids a women has, the more the hormonal environment in the womb changes (generally less testosterone, more estrogen). At this point it's an interesting correlation - no causation has been proven.
Give me an explanation as to WHY you think homosexuals are born homosexual and why you are so certain that people are born as homosexuals.
Because some things are intuitive, and unless some evidence goes against an intuitive belief people tend to believe it. So, given that there is no such evidence, and people's day to day experience is that thy didn't choose their own sexuality, it seems only sensible to think that homosexuals also don't choose.
Genetics can link to physical characteristics of an infant. Blue eyed, yes, red hair yes, likely to have diabetes, yes, skin tone pigmentation, yes. However, genetics used to determine 'human behavior', the vote is still out on that one.
We choose to do that which was never intended by nature.
Let's talk about the intentions of nature for a second. How do you explain the fact that homosexuality is well known to occur in the animal world? This IS nature after all. Are these animals choosing to go against nature or have they fallen under the spell of a bad influence? Do you see how silly this sounds? Logic 101: if it occurs in nature it cannot be unnatural.
Should you choose to reply try to shy away from quaint and cliche' arguments such as "God gave humans free will blah, blah, blah." Having grown up in Texas I've heard enough insipid christian pontification to last ten lifetimes.
[quote=danielj72;16312580]
"homosexuality is a deviant sexual behaivor. It is not normal, but likely a mental disorder. Gays get all defensive when homosexuallity is compared to other deviant sexual disorders but anything outside of regular heterosexual sex between non related adults is deviant."
It comes to a matter of logic really, your currently follows:
Homosexuality is probable genetic - homosexuals are less frequent - therefore homosexuality is mental disorder/problem
See now, the last part of the logic is a non sequitur, that something is infrequent doesn't make it an illness or indeed a problem. Like, for example high intelligence is genetically linked, and infrequent, but not really a mental disorder.
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.
