Posted on 05/29/2003 11:42:24 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
If doctors/scientists/researchers can't do this, why would you expect that I could? At least I'm taking all studies into consideration. Most studies, espeically recent studies, seem to suggest that there's a biological component to sexual orientation. That's a long way from being conclusive, but neither is it dismissive as you seem to suggest.
Researchers may never find a 100% definitive cause of sexual orientation. Even if they did, I have no doubt you'd find a way to impugn the findings.
To simply tout studies that agree with your argument and reject studies that tend to challenge your position, as you seem to be doing, is intellectually dishonest. Or, in other words, you're fooling yourself.
Another lie! You only mentioned the one done by the ASU science building that has no name. But now I'm curious, do these "several other studies" have names either or do we just refer to them as the "several other studies" studies.
Presumably heterosexuality is genetic and so is hemaphroditism. Why is it odd to suggest that homosexuality is genetic? Rarity nor society's approval have nothing to do with whether something is genetic or not.
Can you show me anywhere I tout “my” studies over yours? You keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
At least I'm taking all studies into consideration.
Yet another lie, you’ve only cited the ASU study that said "[The] findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation." while panning the studies I cited. You are rediculous and a liar.
Oh my gosh, you're really grasping at straws here.
OK...I'll rephrase then just for you.
You think a behavioral pathology is sometimes healthy?
Alleged misrepresentation of what someone said is another matter, to be sorted out in either public fact-airing or the courts.
pro·jec·tion (pr&-'jek-sh&n): the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety
In several posts you've touted a study that supposedly shows a 0% correlation of sexual orientation among twins. On the face, that is a silly assertion, since by mere random probability, both twins might be gay in the same proportion as homosexuality appears in the general population, which credible estimates ranging from 2 to 5 percent.
On the contrary, although I earlier cited the ASU study, you've inferred that as an indication that my entire understanding of the subject lies with that one study when I've clearly stated that's not the case.
I presume that you're intelligent enough to realize that, but you're merely being captious in order to keep up your illogical insults toward me.
It’s called DATA and the interpretation of said DATA is supported by the DATA. That means for that EXAMPLE the “convention” was a burden on society, which doesn’t make his conclusions wrong.
What is so dishonest. A greater than 1 in 5 rate for homosexality is quite significant. That's a greater than 4 times increase in the normal rate. You are the one being blatantly dishonest by saying 'only'.
Did somebody fart?
Exactly. Thank you for making my point!
If non-twin siblings have an orientation correlation of 1 in 20, dizygotic twins have a correlation of 1 in 5 and monozygotic twins have a correlation of 1 in 2, that is statistically significant.
There would seem to be an indisputable, if unknown, biological element involved in sexual orientation.
Yes I did but not over “your” study as you hypocritically accused me of. BTW it was TWO studies. One of which had over 1400 subjects in a totally blind random sample.
On the face, that is a silly assertion, since by mere random probability, both twins might be gay in the same proportion as homosexuality appears in the general population, which credible estimates ranging from 2 to 5 percent.
Good point but DATA does not always have to follow population to be accurate and compelling.
On the contrary, although I earlier cited the ASU study, you've inferred that as an indication that my entire understanding of the subject lies with that one study when I've clearly stated that's not the case.
It’s the only one you cited period given your assertion of “Most studies, espeically recent studies” that you’re supposedly relying on when you can’t even cite who wrote the ASU study. Much less who or where your ” Most studies, espeically recent studies” studies come from. Do you have any credibility at all?
Let me be a bit clearer. Any study of a reasonable sample size that finds a 0% correlation has reached an impossible conclusion. It's credibility is not only suspect, but it can be taken as prima facie incorrect.
you can’t even cite who wrote the ASU study
I don't know where you got that notion. Whitam, Diamond, Martin - Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1993.
And I can only assume you posted that quote of mine twice so as to point out my typo. In which case, you only reinforce my assertion that you're merely being captious. And let me add immature.
As there is an equally if not more significant environment element involvled. And being human, it is still ultimately a choice.
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.