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 |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
"linda" > wrote in message ... | | TO ALL: | Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological | causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of | "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine | the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history | going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have | existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" | where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has | been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet | determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it | is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if | you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and | lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual | characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual | males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a | more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches. | And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the | situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by | friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by | the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!" | Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different | types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a | lifetime. And history points to what primarily caused of the demise of those "great civilizations"? |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
"linda" > wrote in message ... | | TO ALL: | Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological | causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of | "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine | the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history | going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have | existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" | where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has | been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet | determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it | is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if | you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and | lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual | characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual | males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a | more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches. | And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the | situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by | friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by | the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!" | Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different | types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a | lifetime. And history points to what primarily caused of the demise of those "great civilizations"? |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
This and the other post at this level appear to me to be far from conclusive in
either direction. You could still argue a cultural/learned component in these. |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
This and the other post at this level appear to me to be far from conclusive in
either direction. You could still argue a cultural/learned component in these. |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message > ... > >>Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science. >>> >>> >>>>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too.. >>> >>> >>>It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of > > severe > >>>emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay" >>>movement? >>> >> >>yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a >>14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite >>right... does it? >>I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am >>smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a >>conversation with a peanut, much less you..) >> > > > I never said you wern't intelligent enough to hold a conversation with > a peanut. ok, you never said it, however, you made me feel it. If you recall I strongly emphasized that you needed to have > your internal philosophies worked out so that they were not inconsistent, > before you started posting on a topic. My internal philosophies are not consistent on a lot of matters, that i am working on. thanks to you and having made me aware that i was inconsisent, i am questioning all that i have learned in the past years.. If you recall that was right > before you stopped e-mailing me privately. I did not stop emailing you privately, i sent you an email. you did not respond. the second email that you sent, however, i did not get to respond to since Matt was not here to take care of my computer glitch. i had the best argument, well documented and my philosophy was consistent with what i believe. however, since my computer glitch, i lost everything....and unfortunately, i do not remember what it was that we were supposed to be discussing. please resend if you still have the last email you sent, and i will do my best to respond intelligently.. (but please let me be lazy and not use the shift key, pay attention to the content rather than the capitalization.) > > In any case, if you hold with the idea of a biological basis for > homosexuality, > you are going to have to also hold to the idea of a biological basis for > both hetrosexuality, and for bisexuality, in order to be internally > consistent. i might be wrong, but i think that goes without saying.. or at least that was kinda the way i was going. there is something, biological that switches one way or the other. I am sorry if i did not make myself clear. i will try harder next time. > > And if you are then consistent there is a perfectly reasonable explanation > for Matt's assertion that there are a lot of homosexuals that are now happy > hetrosexuals. And that is simply that these people are not, in fact, > hetrosexuals. What they are, is they are bisexuals, who have decided to only be with > partners of the opposite sex, and don't realize that they are bisexuals, or > are ignoring that they are bisexuals, and are claiming to be hetrosexuals. i agree... > > In any case, as you know this is one area that I tend to agree with Matt - > that > there is no physical/genetic reason to explain homosexuality. I see lots of > evidence that homosexuality AND hetrosexuality and bisexuality is a choice, > but little evidence that it is physical/genetic. However, just because I > think > the evidence points to it being a choice, doesen't mean I think that there > is > any evidence that this is a choice that occurs later in life or even as late > as > adolescence. Nor do I believe that there's credible evidence that this > choice > is one that the person has much control over. I believe that Daniel is sitting at his computer laughing his ass off at us for arguing for and against him.. trying to prove, disprove his sexuality. of course, i have no documentation for this.. unless Daniel wants to verify???? Daniel???? I also believe, that science, and i deal with science every day, being in its infancy, will one day verify, document, prove that what i and others believe to be biological/genetic is true. please research this specific topic: SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MALE Gene map locus Xq28 I found an article in PubMed after looking at the Human Genome under genetics of different behavioral traits. Are you still laughing your ass off Daniel? i would be too... > > I certainly remember myself as a very young pre-adolescent. The very first > time I ever saw a nudie picture of a naked woman, AKA pornography, > I got hard. And this was quite some time before I started growing hair > around my pubes, etc. that is not a pretty picture... however, i get your point.. you apparently are heterosexual, by choice? > > And as a parent I have watched both my children, both son and daughter, > under the age of 2, obviously getting a charge out of touching themselves. it is nice that you are not telling them that it is "dirty" to touch themselves..... > > So I pretty much think that the idea that children are asexual and have no > sexual feelings until adolescence to be a big bunch of dogcrap perpetuated > by really sexually screwed up adults. I never said it was.. i remember feeling those feelings when i was a child.. > > We know that a great deal of things happen in the womb and in the first > 6 months of life that are essentially programming. If you look at people > that have really deviant, to the point of sicko, sex patterns, such as > abusing > children, not being able to get hard unless they are whipping their partner > to > the point of drawing blood, etc. it seems that there's a coorelation between > these folks > and really screwed up home lives, and/or sex abuse when they are young. > Another way of saying this is that if you want to take a child and warp > them into a sexually sicko adult, you have a really good chance of doing so > if you get started abusing them really, really young. I don't believe this to be true, otherwise, i would have been an alcoholic, abusive, child molester. and i am not any of those things. there is proof that in families where abuse takes place, environmental influences make family members different, rather than making them more similar to one another. > > What we can draw from this is that there is evidence that external > environmental > factors can program in certain kinds of sexual proclivities, if those > factors > are present during conception/incubation/early childhood development. > Granted. The Ted Bundy's of the world... But how can you explain a Jeff Dahmer? he was raised in a very loving family (or so they say on Larry King Live)... > SO, it would not surprise me in the least if 50 years from now some > researcher > announces that if you want to increase your kids chances of being straight, > then have them listen to 4 hours of Mozart a day while they are a developing > fetus, and if you want to increase their chances of being gay, have them > listen to 4 hours of Richard Simmons workout tapes while they are a > developing fetus. > Give me Lynnard Skynnard everytime!!!!!!! hey, my mom listened to Hank Williams while she was pregnant with me, what does this make me? > Now, where Matt and I differ, however, is that Matt apparently believes that > if someone is programmed to be gay, that they can later in life choose to > switch back, and that furthermore them switching back is somehow in the > interests of society. I don't believe that the first supposition has worked > when > dealing with cases of repeated child abusers, indicating that the > supposition > is totally bogus. And, I think the second supposition is a bunch of > bull****, > and is completely without merit. > > Ted > > Still laughing, Daniel? |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message > ... > >>Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, linda wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>>It's no use, Linda; Matt places more trust in dogma than in science. >>> >>> >>>>i guess you are right.. it is a shame, too.. >>> >>> >>>It is, really. Have you heard or read some of the horror stories of > > severe > >>>emotional scarring from those who've been suckered into the "ex-gay" >>>movement? >>> >> >>yes, i have... there is even a "homosexuals anonymous".. and they have a >>14 step program, heck, alcoholics only get 12. doesn't sound quite >>right... does it? >>I am cutting and pasting most of the following: so don't think i am >>smart: (Ted, you are right, i am not intelligent enough to hold a >>conversation with a peanut, much less you..) >> > > > I never said you wern't intelligent enough to hold a conversation with > a peanut. ok, you never said it, however, you made me feel it. If you recall I strongly emphasized that you needed to have > your internal philosophies worked out so that they were not inconsistent, > before you started posting on a topic. My internal philosophies are not consistent on a lot of matters, that i am working on. thanks to you and having made me aware that i was inconsisent, i am questioning all that i have learned in the past years.. If you recall that was right > before you stopped e-mailing me privately. I did not stop emailing you privately, i sent you an email. you did not respond. the second email that you sent, however, i did not get to respond to since Matt was not here to take care of my computer glitch. i had the best argument, well documented and my philosophy was consistent with what i believe. however, since my computer glitch, i lost everything....and unfortunately, i do not remember what it was that we were supposed to be discussing. please resend if you still have the last email you sent, and i will do my best to respond intelligently.. (but please let me be lazy and not use the shift key, pay attention to the content rather than the capitalization.) > > In any case, if you hold with the idea of a biological basis for > homosexuality, > you are going to have to also hold to the idea of a biological basis for > both hetrosexuality, and for bisexuality, in order to be internally > consistent. i might be wrong, but i think that goes without saying.. or at least that was kinda the way i was going. there is something, biological that switches one way or the other. I am sorry if i did not make myself clear. i will try harder next time. > > And if you are then consistent there is a perfectly reasonable explanation > for Matt's assertion that there are a lot of homosexuals that are now happy > hetrosexuals. And that is simply that these people are not, in fact, > hetrosexuals. What they are, is they are bisexuals, who have decided to only be with > partners of the opposite sex, and don't realize that they are bisexuals, or > are ignoring that they are bisexuals, and are claiming to be hetrosexuals. i agree... > > In any case, as you know this is one area that I tend to agree with Matt - > that > there is no physical/genetic reason to explain homosexuality. I see lots of > evidence that homosexuality AND hetrosexuality and bisexuality is a choice, > but little evidence that it is physical/genetic. However, just because I > think > the evidence points to it being a choice, doesen't mean I think that there > is > any evidence that this is a choice that occurs later in life or even as late > as > adolescence. Nor do I believe that there's credible evidence that this > choice > is one that the person has much control over. I believe that Daniel is sitting at his computer laughing his ass off at us for arguing for and against him.. trying to prove, disprove his sexuality. of course, i have no documentation for this.. unless Daniel wants to verify???? Daniel???? I also believe, that science, and i deal with science every day, being in its infancy, will one day verify, document, prove that what i and others believe to be biological/genetic is true. please research this specific topic: SEXUAL ORIENTATION, MALE Gene map locus Xq28 I found an article in PubMed after looking at the Human Genome under genetics of different behavioral traits. Are you still laughing your ass off Daniel? i would be too... > > I certainly remember myself as a very young pre-adolescent. The very first > time I ever saw a nudie picture of a naked woman, AKA pornography, > I got hard. And this was quite some time before I started growing hair > around my pubes, etc. that is not a pretty picture... however, i get your point.. you apparently are heterosexual, by choice? > > And as a parent I have watched both my children, both son and daughter, > under the age of 2, obviously getting a charge out of touching themselves. it is nice that you are not telling them that it is "dirty" to touch themselves..... > > So I pretty much think that the idea that children are asexual and have no > sexual feelings until adolescence to be a big bunch of dogcrap perpetuated > by really sexually screwed up adults. I never said it was.. i remember feeling those feelings when i was a child.. > > We know that a great deal of things happen in the womb and in the first > 6 months of life that are essentially programming. If you look at people > that have really deviant, to the point of sicko, sex patterns, such as > abusing > children, not being able to get hard unless they are whipping their partner > to > the point of drawing blood, etc. it seems that there's a coorelation between > these folks > and really screwed up home lives, and/or sex abuse when they are young. > Another way of saying this is that if you want to take a child and warp > them into a sexually sicko adult, you have a really good chance of doing so > if you get started abusing them really, really young. I don't believe this to be true, otherwise, i would have been an alcoholic, abusive, child molester. and i am not any of those things. there is proof that in families where abuse takes place, environmental influences make family members different, rather than making them more similar to one another. > > What we can draw from this is that there is evidence that external > environmental > factors can program in certain kinds of sexual proclivities, if those > factors > are present during conception/incubation/early childhood development. > Granted. The Ted Bundy's of the world... But how can you explain a Jeff Dahmer? he was raised in a very loving family (or so they say on Larry King Live)... > SO, it would not surprise me in the least if 50 years from now some > researcher > announces that if you want to increase your kids chances of being straight, > then have them listen to 4 hours of Mozart a day while they are a developing > fetus, and if you want to increase their chances of being gay, have them > listen to 4 hours of Richard Simmons workout tapes while they are a > developing fetus. > Give me Lynnard Skynnard everytime!!!!!!! hey, my mom listened to Hank Williams while she was pregnant with me, what does this make me? > Now, where Matt and I differ, however, is that Matt apparently believes that > if someone is programmed to be gay, that they can later in life choose to > switch back, and that furthermore them switching back is somehow in the > interests of society. I don't believe that the first supposition has worked > when > dealing with cases of repeated child abusers, indicating that the > supposition > is totally bogus. And, I think the second supposition is a bunch of > bull****, > and is completely without merit. > > Ted > > Still laughing, Daniel? |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
James C. Reeves wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message > ... > | > | TO ALL: > | Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological > | causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of > | "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine > | the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history > | going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have > | existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" > | where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has > | been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet > | determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it > | is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if > | you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and > | lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual > | characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual > | males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a > | more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches. > | And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the > | situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by > | friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by > | the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!" > | Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different > | types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a > | lifetime. > > And history points to what primarily caused of the demise of those "great > civilizations"? > > There are many different factors; longevity (lifespans being shorter), illness, climate changes, wars, to name a few.. however, there are many theories, nothing that i can find that will document exact reasons. can you find exact reasons? please send them to me. I need to have all the info i can in order to develop my consistent belief. lw |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
James C. Reeves wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message > ... > | > | TO ALL: > | Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological > | causation. For too long homosexuality has been considered a form of > | "deviant sexual behavior". Those making these accusations should examine > | the history books and the psychological research. Throughout our history > | going all the way back to ancient Greece, homosexual relationships have > | existed. The term "lesbian" comes from a Greek island called "Lesbos" > | where many such couples lived. An overwhelming amount of research has > | been done showing that homosexuality has a biological causation; not yet > | determined a genetic one, biological one. The easiest way to think of it > | is as a hormonal switch that gets thrown one way or the other. And if > | you think about it, it makes logical sense. Consider many gays and > | lesbians you've seen. NOT ALWAYS, but at times, secondary sexual > | characteristics resemble the opposite sex. In other words, homosexual > | males may have softer voices. Lesbians may have strong cheekbones and a > | more masculine body shape. It's all affected by those hormone switches. > | And why would someone choose to be gay. Do people analyze the > | situation..."Let's see, I can be discriminated against, ridiculed by > | friends and co-workers, rejected by my family, told I'm going to hell by > | the church, subjected to beatings by gay bashers...hmmm, sign me up!" > | Now, there will be odd cases where people experiment with different > | types of sex, but you can't just teach people to be gay or not gay for a > | lifetime. > > And history points to what primarily caused of the demise of those "great > civilizations"? > > There are many different factors; longevity (lifespans being shorter), illness, climate changes, wars, to name a few.. however, there are many theories, nothing that i can find that will document exact reasons. can you find exact reasons? please send them to me. I need to have all the info i can in order to develop my consistent belief. lw |
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 07:47 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | [email protected] | Chrysler | 37 | November 18th 04 05:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ gadkypy | Paul | Antique cars | 3 | November 9th 04 07:54 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Chrysler | 7 | November 8th 04 06:05 PM |