linda wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matthew Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> All of the homosexuals who are now happy heterosexuals. If it was
>>>>> biological, they couldn't change their preference. If even one does
>>>>> change, and many more than one have, then the biological argument goes
>>>>> out the window.
>>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matt, Read your statistics and failures... also, read how many
>>>> homosexual men marry homosexual women. are they hiding something?
>>>> or is
>>>> this just the perfect unions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, as an electrical engineer and computer scientist who works
>> in an R&D facility of a Fortune 1000 company, I depend on science
>> rather often. However, I'm talking real science, not junk science.
>> Got any real science to support a genetic/biological basis for
>> homosexuality? I've asked for data about three times here and have yet
>> to see anything.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
>
> Just a matter of time, Matt... and you will be eating your words....
>
>
> Annu Rev Sex Res. 2002;13:89-140.
>
>
> A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual
> orientation.
>
> Mustanski BS, Chivers ML, Bailey JM.
>
> Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington 47405, USA.
>
>
> This article provides a comprehensive review and critique of biological
> research on sexual orientation published over the last decade. We cover
> research investigating (a) the neurohormonal theory of sexual
> orientation (psychoneuroendocrinology, prenatal stress, cerebral
> asymmetry, neuroanatomy, otoacoustic emissions, anthropometrics), (b)
> genetic influences, (c) fraternal birth-order effects, and (d) a
> putative role for developmental instability. Despite inconsistent
> results across both studies and traits, some support for the
> neurohormonal theory is garnered, but mostly in men. Genetic research
> using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence
> that genes influence sexual orientation, but molecular research has not
> yet produced compelling evidence for specific genes. Although it has
> been well established that older brothers increase the odds of
> homosexuality in men, the route by which this occurs has not been
> resolved. We conclude with an examination of the limitations of
> biological research on sexual orientation, including measurement issues
> (paper and pencil, cognitive, and psychophysiological), and lack of
> research on women.

Ha, ha, ha.. If this is the compelling biological evidence, then I'm
not holding my breath worrying about eating my words...


Matt