uscitizen
Villified User
Wrong-o. He practiced his profession in urban New Jersey. Thanks for making more wrong assumptions though.
So your are rooted in NJ ?
My ancestors came in thru VA in colonial times and never went above the Mason dixon line.
So your are rooted in NJ ?
My ancestors came in thru VA in colonial times and never went above the Mason dixon line.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Oh? And what would you call filthy then? What about a gay couple is filthy? The fact that they love each other? The fact that they are committed to their relationship?
Exactly what is it that you claim is filthy?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So you are from slave owners then, no?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Their choice of lifestyle is an abomination.
uscitizen
Villified User
So you are from slave owners then, no?
Nope, actually descended from indentured servants myself.
so closer to descended from slaves myself.
All white folks in the south did not own slaves.
And all black folks in the south were not slaves at the beginning of the civil war.
and some black folks in the north were slaves.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
The vast majority of Southerners had no financial ability, or desire, to own slaves. That is why there was so much opposition to the Confederacy up to and including the Civil War. The politics back then controlled by a small minority of wealthy land owners.
Yet Yankees deride The Southern Man for being proud of The South.
C
Cancel3
Guest
First of all, it is not a choice. There has been no research or evidence to show it is a choice, and much to show it is not.
And it is an abomination to whom??? Surely you are not quoting Leviticus??
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
There are several passages in the Good Book, not merely Levi. All point to the abomination that bad choices make.
When you have evidence of a "gay gene" I'd like to see it.
uscitizen
Villified User
The vast majority of Southerners had no financial ability, or desire, to own slaves. That is why there was so much opposition to the Confederacy up to and including the Civil War. The politics back then controlled by a small minority of wealthy land owners.
Yet Yankees deride The Southern Man for being proud of The South.
Umm I think the south of today is the issue. Not your great great granparents.
Beer drinking 4 wheeling bible thumping NASCAR fans.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
uscitizen
Villified User
Yup, the bigotry towards The South continues.
The voice of experience. I guess even facts can be labelled biggotry though.
C
Cancel3
Guest
""Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology
That is a link to a sceintific showing that gay men and straight women have similarly shaped brains.
From that study: "Striking similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women have been discovered by neuroscientists, offering fresh evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into our neural circuitry.
Scans reveal homosexual men and heterosexual women have symmetrical brains, with the right and left hemispheres almost exactly the same size. Conversely, lesbians and straight men have asymmetrical brains, with the right hemisphere significantly larger than the left.
Scientists at the prestigious Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden also found certain brain circuits linked to emotional responses were the same in gay men and straight women.
The findings, published tomorrow in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest the biological factors that influence sexual orientation - such as exposure to testosterone in the womb - may also shape the brain's anatomy."
And our own resident neuro-scientist, Thorn has said that the structure of the brain of many gay men is different than straight men.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Luckily, the "Good Book" doesn't have any bearing on what we americans do, unless we CHOOSE to follow that path.
Legally, its just literature.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Yep, maybe with aversion therapy? They show them pictures of attractive men and give them electrical shocks at the same time. There have been evangelists that claims it worked to "cure" homosexuality.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I can see that you do have experience in that, yes.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. “Research suggests…” by the APA, which was forced, through political means, to remove homosexuality from its list of psychological disorders.
2. Funny also how they are also bringing up the 10% lie when the figure is really only about 1%. Imagine any other science being off by an order of magnitude and still taken seriously.
3. Don’t you find it curious that lesbians and straight men have the same shaped brains but yet a dissimilar conclusion is drawn compared to gay men and straight women?
4. Yes, Thorn has suggested that a defect occurring during fetal development may be the cause. This works against the concept of a “gay gene” doesn’t it? Also, why would a segment of society promote a birth defect?
C
Cancel3
Guest
Research suggests because in science, a hard fact must be proven. And the APA has continued to support the research.
Funny that they say approximately 10%, and also say that many of those do not "come out". Perhaps because of the ignorant bigots calling them "abominations"? But plenty of research (like the Kinsey Report) show a much higher number of gays than actually come out.
The fact that gay men and straight women have similar shaped brains, and lesbians and straight men have similar shaped brains only shows the research to be more valid.
I do not believe Thorn suggested it was a defect, just a variation in the development. Which DOES in fact point towards it not being a choice.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
1. Yet the APA will not support research suggesting choice. Curious.
2. The word “abomination” is taken from the most widely read book in human history. To use this term does not suggest bigotry, but merely accuracy of language.
3. Again, isn’t it funny how a supposed “scientific” study can be off by a factor of ten yet still be quoted with such religious fervor?
4. Amazing that the opposite conclusion wouldn’t be accepted, as it is the obvious one.
5. A basic tenet of biological study is that organisms exist to procreate. A developmental variation that causes a genetic dead end would indeed suggest a defect in that organism.
Thorn
Member
1. How would you suggest designing such a study to produce credible data? The biological approach has yielded a plethora of valid data and is far more credible. Independent "choice" is an interpretation that is not supported by the data.
2. That book has been translated and retranslated from an eclectic collection of writings over hundreds of years. At this point in time it is all but impossible to know/understand all the linguistic and cultural milieus that may have given rise to these translations, which may or may not be correct. Bear in mind also that many religions view that book as a collection of parables, not to be taken literally.
3. I'm missing the connection here; can't access the previous post without losing this one.
4. What, pray tell, is the "opposite conclusion". I believe that that particular study was descriptive only. Moreover, it took place about 14 or so years ago, which probably made it a jumping-off point rather than a final conclusion. There have been many subsequent studies that have examined brains in more depth and detail, and others that looked at prenatal factors as well.
5. Your apparent conclusion is one that may be shared by some members of the nonscientific public, but a true biological scientist would not describe a characteristic in terms of its "purpose"; that's putting the cart before the horse. We prefer instead to look at function; this characteristic enables this function or behavior. It isn't a matter of design, which doesn't belong in science.
You'll recall that in my earlier post I specifically stated that I was not going to call homosexuality an anomaly for the reason that it occurs with great frequency and that those who fall into that category function perfectly well in all respects. Their sexual orientation is as natural for them as heterosexual orientation is for straights. I believe that I also pointed out that homosexuality can be observed with great frequency in the non-human animal world as well.