The California teacher won a lawsuit last Thursday.
bookmark.
Good to see this. I wouldn’t call it “news” for those of us who pay attention, but it’s great to make this information available to help show that homosexuality is really a mental illness.
NO ONE and I repeat, NO ONE, is born a homosexual.
A homosexual is the result of emotional or physical ABUSE.
Is it any wonder that idiotic people DEFEND one’s right to be ABUSED and propagate the ABUSE on others? Liberals are miserable people. The more miserable people there are the BETTER THEY FEEL.
Interesting, but I also think that it may also be genetic and inherited. Sim[ply based on the fact that some of these people appear to have some kind of hormonal imbalance that makes them act effeminate and therefore easy to spot.
Eighty percent of gay men say they were born that way...the remaining twenty percent say they got sucked into it...
The median age of first contact was 10 years old.
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jul/10072701.html
Age is NOT a barrier.
They’ll easily ABUSE an INFANT.
Fired Calif. professor exonerated in settlement of lawsuit against San Jose college district
From that FreeRepublic.com discussion thread is this quote from the San Jose Mercury News:
The professor, whose cause was championed by an alliance of conservative Christian attorneys, acknowledged that she suggested a connection between an expectant mother's stress and male homosexuality. But an offended student accused the instructor of offering her own, more extreme views, not suitable for classroom discussion.
It must be all these people in New Zealand causing this trouble... [Just joking]
Homosexuals have existed since we first climbed down from trees or out of caves. Some folks would look on a hermaphrodite and say it is a mental disorder.
What about those that didn’t undergo any trauma?
It is a well known fact that most homosexuals are not born that way.
They just get sucked into it.
Another conclusion that didn’t need a study.
I anticipate that this is very important:
Sexual orientation and its basis in brain structure and function
Current evidence indicates that sexual differentiation of the human brain occurs during fetal and neonatal development and programs our gender identity—our feeling of being male or female and our sexual orientation as hetero-, homo-, or bisexual. This sexual differentiation process is accompanied by many structural and functional brain differences among these groups (1). In previous studies (2, 3), the Savic laboratory detected a sex-differentiated activation of the anterior hypothalamus in heterosexual men (HeM) and heterosexual women (HeW) and a sex-atypical, almost reversed, pattern of activation in homosexual men (HoM) and homosexual women (HoW). The hypothalamus (Fig. 1) is a small brain area located under the anterior commissure that is involved in many different functions, including reproduction.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273.full
Blogpimps.
We all knew this.
I’m just surprised that the study was “allowed” to be done.
Sounds like the guy that conducted the study was punished for it, as expected.
Can’t let the truth get out.
Anyone know of a homosexual that has a close loving relationship with their same-sex parent?
I’ve seen one or two other studies that came to the same conclusion, the really sad thing is the Psychology Profession has long ago dropped diagnosing this as a serious illness in the DSMV.
“Of people who reported certain traumatic childhood events, 15% were not heterosexual; of those without such experiences, only 5% were not heterosexual, suggesting that such experiences tripled the chance of later professing homosexual or bisexual inclinations.”
Statistics can be explained, in a skewed manner, to say almost anything you want them to, when 100% of the dataset is not reported.
The survey said 98% of the respondents professed to be heterosexual, and about 1.7% professed to not be heterosexual.
And, by the stats in the paragraph quoted above, among those who reported to NOT have one of a number of certain traumatic childhood events, 5% (of the total respondents to that question) were those who professed to NOT be heterosexual.
But, wait a minute, there were only 1.7% of the total respondents who professed to NOT be heterosexual, to begin with. In order to represent a portion of those who did not have a “traumatic event” (5%) that was larger than their demographic portion of the total respondents (1.7%) one could say they had to be 2.94 times more likely to answer “Not” to that question.
Also, the only stats reported (in the above quoted paragraph) are “among those who reported certain traumatic childhood events”. It does not tell you how many of the total respondents were in that group, in the first place. It does not tell you how many of the total “heterosexual” respondents were in that group, nor how many of the total NOT “heterosexual” respondents were in that group. Does that group represent 5, 10, 20, 25% ??% of all respondents, and what % of either the total “heterosexual” respondent group or the not “heterosexual” respondent group are “among those who reported........”. You don’t know.
So, for instance, if the % of either group that DID NOT answer in the affirmative to the “traumatic event question” is more than 50% of the total respondents in their group, then the percentages cited are fractions of 50% of the respondents represented by their group and not, as the text would have you believe, a fraction of the total respondents in their group.
In sum, without all the data, you cannot trust the reporting of statistics or the analysis based on such reporting.
And the missing data is the important question. Why? Well the author is trying to make the case for a specific set of “nurture” causes to “homosexuality”. But, instead of reporting “among all NON ‘heterosexual’ respondents” X% “reported certain traumatic childhood events”, the author only gives you the group breakdown of those who did respond in the affirmative. Therefore, it is a totally inaccurate gauge of its implication, if any, to the (not reported) total.
While both nurture and nature may supply some fraction of a total set of conditions from which an adult self-identifies as “homosexual”, those “nurture” factors said to be sure fire causes, cannot be “sure fire”, because, in spite of any statistical reports, a larger portion of self-professed “homosexuals” do not identify with those “nurture” factors in their own experience than those who do. If those factors were definitive causes, it would be the other way around.
For instance, for further evidence of the mis-use of statistics:
“One 1992 study found that 37% of homosexual and bisexual men attending sexually transmitted disease clinics had been encouraged or forced to have sexual contact before age 19 with an older or more powerful partner.”
That’s like saying “37%” of “men over 45” attending “cardiology clinics” reported having “high blood pressure”.
Does that mean that “37% of men over 45 have high blood pressure”? No. Because, you don’t know what % of “men over 45” visited the “cardiology clinics” in the first place;
Or, similarly its like saying:
“90% of women under 35” visiting “sexually transmitted disease clinics” reporting working as prostitutes.
Does that mean that “90% of women under 35” are working as prostitutes”? No. Because, you don’t know what % of “women
under 35” visited the clinics in the first place.
Just as the author’s stats cited does not tell you what % of “homosexual and bisexual men”, in the locality of the study, visited the “sexually transmitted disease clinics” in the first place. So, how does the reported stat translate to some fraction of the total “homosexual and bisexual men”? You have no idea, because it’s a stat that is only applicable to some fraction of the total.
trauma = treatment
homosexualists can’t have that.