If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_gadkypy | Michael Barnes | Driving | 4 | January 4th 05 06:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | [email protected] | Chrysler | 37 | November 18th 04 04:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 06:54 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Chrysler | 7 | November 8th 04 05:05 PM |