Posted on 06/06/2005 10:50:27 PM PDT by scripter
My thought on that is that the gay obituaries are going to be heavily weighted by deaths from AIDs. We're still just looking at an average. It still doesn't tell us much about life expectancy of gay men who do not have AIDS.
The second sentence in the article says: This study provides additional evidence that the practice of homosexuality, with its attendant lifestyle, shortens the life of practitioners by about 20 years.. That doesn't say anything about AIDS.
Gay men, as a group, most certainly have a shorter average lifespan than the general population. However, this average is heavily influenced by the preponderance of AIDS among gay men.
This is analogous to how we measure average lifespan in the population as a whole. The average is actually a bit shorter than how long people can expect to live in actuality because of the statistical effect of infant mortality. Every kid who dies before age one throws the average off.
But everything we see tells us the major factor is environment. I can't stress enough the importance of folks reading this article: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together, or even better, read the book A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
I am not singling anybody out when I say this, but many folks have a profound ignorance on this subject. They think they know but they really have no idea. And this thanks to the politically correct main stream media. It's sad, and we must get the truth to as many as possible.
Thanks for your post.
What if it's both? That's the common sense conclusion I've drawn. I don't believe all of them were "born that way." If that were true, how would one explain the strange preponderance of sexual abuse victims among homosexuals. But I also don't rule out that there may be some genetic link.
I don't see how this changes the way I view homosexuality one way or the other -- any more than learning that people who have a thing for sheep were "born that way".
My thought on that is that the gay obituaries are going to be heavily weighted by deaths from AIDs.
I'm sure they are. From the article:
In 1994 the CDC put the average age of death by AIDS for homosexuals at 39, the Blade at 40. By 2000, the CDC reported the median age of death at 43 and the Blade at 42.
According to the CDC, the average death from AIDS is much lower than the 60 year average for all homosexuals, both male and female.
Explains why they are so dead set on controlling the Boy Scouts, too.
What do you base your conclusion on? I think you might find Satinover's summary helpful. People need to know how little linkage and association really mean.
If that were true, how would one explain the strange preponderance of sexual abuse victims among homosexuals
That's right. Sexual abuse is indeed one avenue to homosexuality. There's also prison homosexuality. But from everything I've read (in regards to male homosexuality), most cases are due to environment. Female homosexuality stems from similar yet different avenues. You can read anywhere from 1 to over 40 testimonials of former homosexuals, male and female, here.
I don't see how this changes the way I view homosexuality one way or the other...
I can understand that. It may not change your view but there are others who are wired differently that require more information. And there are some who want to help homosexuals leave the lifestyle. And to understand how to help them you have to have a firm grasp of how it all comes about.
My profile will always have pointers to the latest information.
The only way that I would see this being a great case is if the twins were not raised in the same home. Still say it is environmental.
I hope Clint N. Suhks is not permanently banned. He is a great addition to FR, very knowledgeable, generally effusive and of good cheer, and was seriously attacked by personal insults on this thread, as were one or two others.
Depends on the study you look at. Most studies indicate there are many things that can cause an early death for smokers. Same is true for homosexuals. (They don't just die of AIDS.)
Thanks for the link to Satinover's summary. I think one of the best examples of associated traits that may be heritable but don't determine behavior were: dexterity, height, high metabolism, muscle growth, etc. All of which, when combined, may make for a tall, athletic person. If this person is born in New York City, he may become a basketball player. But if he is born in Brussels, the likelihood will be much less that he will become a basketball player, or ever even consider being one. So the traits MAY have been heritable, and when you put them together in one person, they MAY make for a better basketball player, but environmental influence still plays a major and determinant factor.
I am a believer in temperament (sometimes called personality) and that our temperament traits are heritable. I think different personalities become apparent very early and I believe it has a genetic component. Boys who are "sensitive, intelligent, have a heightened awareness of aesthetics, etc." are not necessarily going to be attracted to men. However, these boys are more likely to be bullied and mistreated because they manifest these traits. If such a boy has a father, the father may reject him. If such a boy is raised by a single mother (as is increasingly the case), he may yearn for attention and love from a male. If such a boy is molested by a male, he may associate sexual contact with men as a form of love and attention.
Before you know it, you have a young man who swears he has "been gay" for as long as he could remember, because when he was 3 years old he already had a sense of taste and was into fashion "just like girls are".
Excellent and accurate summary of exactly how it could happen. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.