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.
That's so funny.
As if 'the scientific' method is some that was 'created'.
Maybe if simpler words like "trial and error" were used, Gldn would understand it a little better.
Golden is correct in that there are pros and cons on just about all biological and brain studies of homosexuality. At the same time there is agreement that there ARE differences in brain structure. The disagreements are about what they mean or if they mean anything at all.
A 2011 book entitled Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation by Simon LeVay, PhD, attempts to point out that there is a "range" of brain composition that result in some people being gay or straight and still others being bisexual--and that the latter may indeed have a "choice" in terms of their sexuality.
From a review of the book:
Quote:
LeVay first discusses the multiple meanings of the term “sexual orientation” and summarizes non-biological theories about homosexuality. He presents cross-cultural evidence that goes counter to psychoanalytic and learning theories. For example, “many (probably most) young people in our own culture develop an awareness of their sexual orientation while they are still virgins.” In contrast, boys among the Sambia in New Guinea “are required to engage in sexual contacts with older male youths for several years before they have any access to females, yet most if not all of these boys become heterosexual men.”
Rather than ask, “What went wrong?” biological theories examine sexual variety as part of nature. Homosexual behavior is common among nonhuman animals. Graylag geese include male-male sexual pair bonds that can break up if females become available. Male and female bonobos freely engage in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior. Domesticated sheep include rams that refuse to mate with ewes, but that readily mate with other rams.
The question, “What causes homosexuality?” suggests a simplicity that doesn’t exist. For one thing, definitions of homosexuality vary. The expression of gender-atypical traits — feminine traits in men and masculine traits in women — also varies among individuals, in what LeVay calls “spectra of gender diversity.” Those gender shifts account for variations within both homosexual and heterosexual populations.
In addition to sexual partner preference, gendered traits include toy preference, degrees of aggressiveness, cognitive tasks like mental object rotation, and anthropometric measurements like finger length. They also include the size of brain structures, their degrees of connectivity, and the activities within certain brain regions.
Just because any single individual can "choose" to be heterosexual or homosexual is not indicative that the same is true of every individual. Our physical make-up AND our environment may both play a role in where we ultimately end up in the sexual orientation circle.
It appears that making moral judgments based on a LACK of complete information is one of the more prejudicial actions anyone can take. But it does highlight one thing we are all very aware of---too many people jump to conclusions without having all the information necessary for an informed opinion.
And I say this as a man of faith, a follower of Christ, and one who believes in personal morality. In the case of homosexuality we now have enough information for Christians to refrain from jumping to conclusions that they have been so long prone to do. Because if God created homosexuals then [He sees] all that He ha[s] made, and behold, it [i]s very good. (Gen 1:31a)
In other words, you can only obfuscate. YOU made the assertion, and I asked you to back it up. You can't or won't. Therefore your assertion is null and void.
I said that homosexuality IS NOT innate...YOU, et al, claimed it IS innate. No obfuscation by me...OTOH, I see no definitive proof from you or others to back up the claim you made that goes against past understanding.
By your logic...I could ask you to prove empirically, through application of the scientific method, that Gods do not exist...and show me "valid, peer reviewed, published and accepted science" to back it up. And if you can't, you are obfuscating...and your assertion Gods don't exist is null and void.
Quote:
Then outline what you understand it is.
I understand what it is just fine. Here, this will help your understanding of it: Scientific Method
Quote:
The scientific method is integral into any advances in science. Any other information gathered is not relevant to science (as in what the latest football score is). Your point is irrelevant also, as it is not applicable.
Things can be figured out...and were for almost all of human history...without using some formal procedure to do so. The SM is about as necessary to human existence as sports and music. Nice to have...but really not required.
Quote:
Man you use a lot of words to say nothing.
99% of the time I post to this board, I'm at the computer anyway & working making money, with lag time to kill. What are you doing when you post to this board...wasting precious minutes of your life, I bet...when you could be doing something that is actually useful?
When you get right down to it...in the grand scheme of things, we all "say nothing" when we post to this board, many or few words not withstanding. So, what's your point in making a ignorant comment like that?
That's so funny.
As if 'the scientific' method is some that was 'created'.
Maybe if simpler words like "trial and error" were used, Gldn would understand it a little better.
#186?
Yeah because it makes sense to go to a conservative religious anti-gay source like NARTH whose ideas are not based on evidence and have been debunked over and over - for accurate information about homosexuality right?
That's like saying you discount Lemaitres' work on the Big Bang Theory on the basis that he was a priest...and many of the Catholic churchs' "ideas are not based on evidence and have been debunked over and over".
How about everybody shows the same attitude towards homosexuality that the Atheists on this board show toward religion? Would you like that?
Try this: Be cool toward everyone...regardless of beliefs, nonbeliefs, culture/traditions, or any other factor that doesn't harm (being bothered is not harm) anyone. Love each other!
That's like saying you discount Lemaitres' work on the Big Bang Theory on the basis that he was a priest
Actually, that's not the same thing. Organizations like NARTH aren't interested in discovering the truth. It is only interested in their religious agenda.
Lemaitres wasn't hunting down evidence for God with conclusion already made.
Actually, that's not the same thing. Organizations like NARTH aren't interested in discovering the truth. It is only interested in their religious agenda.
Lemaitres wasn't hunting down evidence for God with conclusion already made.
It kinda is the same thing Shirina.
If you look...none of the links I put up were straight from NARTH...just some of the work by the people was embraced by NARTH.
The same way that just because the Pope at the time, Pius XII, endorsed Lemaîtres' theory and said it provided a scientific validation for existence of God and Catholicism...does not then make reasonable the dismissal of all he had to say by those that are Atheist and/or find fault in Catholicism.
Just because the people in those links put forth info that has been embraced by NARTH...that does not then completely discredit all they have to say on the subject. Only rank bias and prejudice would make one think so.
It kinda is the same thing Shirina.
If you look...none of the links I put up were straight from NARTH...just some of the work by the people was embraced by NARTH.
The same way that just because the Pope at the time, Pius XII, endorsed Lemaîtres' theory and said it provided a scientific validation for existence of God and Catholicism...does not then make reasonable the dismissal of all he had to say by those that are Atheist and/or find fault in Catholicism.
Just because the people in those links put forth info that has been embraced by NARTH...that does not then completely discredit all they have to say on the subject. Only rank bias and prejudice would make one think so.
Ah okay ... I thought the links were directly from NARTH (all I did was Google NARTH since I had never heard of them)
And the way it is seems, as usual, to have no bearing or resemblance to how you represent it. The way it is will remain the way it is despite your attempts to skew, spin, and distort it. Bully for you I guess.
As I said, and you entirely failed to address let alone rebut: If you want to reduce sex and sexuality down to mere procreation therefore, you are simply going to be wrong on just about every attempt at input you make into the topic.
My point was about you reducing sex and sexuality down to only procreation. That is NOT the same as commenting on the necessity and utility of procreation which is where your rant went off on a tangent about. Two entirely different things and you fail, as usual, to rebut me on one thing, if you talk past me about another thing. Not that that has stopped you before. You do like your dodge tangents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Here Nozz, this will help ya:
Then read it yourself and help yourself. It is you, not anyone else, failing to use the word "fetish" correctly. So let me school you on it, wastefully, given I think you understand it just fine but like to pretend you do not in order to present your crass little distortions.
For a fetish in the strict definition of the word to apply the object of your desire needs to either be some kind of object or situation, with no usual sexual element or attribute attached and it must be essential for arousal.
More recent definitions of this have become more dilute but still do not fit the usage you are so desperately clawing at. The criteria for a more modern usage is for any body part object or action that normal has no sexual connotation and must also be a majority element in your sexual identity.
I can only assume that your fetid but transparent need for the word "fetish" to apply here stems from the wish to imply that homosexuality is a learned and not inate or from birth attribute. But try as you might you are not going to magically make the difference between sexuality, and a fetish, simply go away simply to serve your agenda and bias.
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.
