Posted on 09/07/2016 7:40:06 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
The Left and LGBTQ community are in an uproar over a recent study published in The New Atlantis scientific journal, which confronts the oft-repeated narrative that homosexuality is innate.
At Patheos, college psychology professor Warren Throckmorton took issue with several parts of the study. He believes that the study "was not a study, but a review and summary of empirical studies."
He was not pleased that The New Atlantis journal is not peer-reviewed, and claims that the co-author, Lawrence Mayer, "is not well known in sexuality research circles" and alleges that the study omitted other studies and research. Throckmorton also pointed out that the study "is being touted most by conservative leaning and anti-gay organizations."
The study is a literature review and summary of previous research and studies. As the New Atlantis editor, Adam Keiper, pointed out to Throckmorton, "It is…a scientific review of the literature." Keiper added that although the journal is not peer-reviewed: "It is, rather, editorially reviewed -- like many other journals and magazines intended for a wide public audience (such as Democracy Journal, National Affairs, The American Interest, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, etc.). When we publish essays and articles on technical subjects, our fact-checking process is especially rigorous, and in such cases we often ask experts to help our editorial team in its work. In the case of 'Sexuality and Gender,' both our editorial team and the authors consulted with a range of experts in different fields. Peer review can be a very important part of the scientific publishing process. Our aim, however, was not to publish an original research study but rather to translate into accessible prose the scientific findings that were already published in peer-reviewed publications."
Taking issue with Throckmorton’s criticism of the lack of research, Keiper disagreed and said, "I believe the report is quite up-to-date." Throckmorton's point “seems to imply cherry-picking, which is an unsupported charge," Keiper added. He continued:
"Of course the authors of the report could not have discussed every paper in the vast scientific literature, but they selected the papers that they discussed on the grounds of their quality and scientific significance -- emphasizing literature reviews and meta-analyses, pointing out when other significant papers contradict or criticize the literature reviews and meta-analyses, and then discussing more recent papers and studies that fill in gaps or further advance knowledge. Some older papers in the literature were deemed to be neither sufficiently important nor sufficiently rigorous to warrant discussion."
LGBTQ - Why do the L’s always have to be first? </sarc>
Why should the 98% of America, bend over and grab their cheeks, for 2% of the population?????
Sounds like a peer review in itself, which of course cannot be allowed to stand.
I have NO IDEA when it comes to this subject, but I CAN tell you that after working with maybe 30ish of them in graphics in Manhattan..drinking, EXTREMELY dangerous sexual behavior, DISGUSTING sex practices that would make you vomit, HIV untold to partners, SEVERE depression, and maybe 3 out of 33 that I didn’t think were completely insane are the facts.
Steve was a sweetheart. He had a partner but RARELY talked about him, was a really nice guy, and quiet. All around (besides being gay and acting on it) good guy.
Mike was a muscle head with none of the outward issues the other had and NEVER talked about being gay. Nice to me and level headed.
Gino was flamboyant dancer but smart enough to buy up cheap houses and be worth a million plus by 35. PLUS he lent me a grand once when I was going to underground poker game in BKLN and forgot my bank card.
The other 30ish, DISASTERS, sickos, girl haters, phenomenally effeminate, boozers, sexually degenerate, some had HIV and lied, other would meet 6 or 7 guys in parks and go to hotel to have orgies, etc.
We hope to show here that, though sexual orientation is not a choice, neither is there scientific evidence for the view that sexual orientation is a fixed and innate biological property.
Then, they go on to show the above statement true. Satan's soldiers have had a setback.
According to an ex-homosexual member of my congregation, each faction in the “LGBTQ” movement insists on having its letter first in the alphabet soup. The first iteration was originally “GLBT”. In fact, the ex-homo claims that the rest of the lunatics want to drop “G” from the alphabet soup because the “G’s” are usually Cis White Men, and therefore are privileged.
Seems like a contradiction.
First they say it’s not a choice, (which I interpret you are what you are and can’t change it), then they say that it’s not a fixed innate biological property (which indicates you can change it.)
Spoiler alert! Liberals believe that there are more genders than there are ASCII characters, so we can never get it right.
Rule #2: God says homosexuality is an abomination.
Rule #3: God is a Holy God
Conclusion #1; God cannot (and does not) create Queers because it would violate His Character
Conclusion #2: All Queers are man-made
it used to be gl.... vs lg.....
they were being called “GiLBrTs” and having a name like gilbert assigned to their deathstyle was not acceptable to their political strategy.
I don’t think this is an inherent contradiction. It may be similar to certain psychological conditions, e.g. Reactive Attachment Disorder, a common characteristic of children raised in orphanages.
RAD is not a choice —— children did not choose the damaging early childhood experiences which result in an inability to form normal affective bonds -— but at the same time it’s not a fixed innate biological property. With a great deal of time and effort and the right kind of emotional support, RAD sufferers can to some extent develop the ability to connect to other people on a healthy emotional level.
What they mean is that homosexuality is not a characteristic to which one is born. It is NOT an innate characteristic to be born homosexual as is often claimed. It results usually from sexual abuse and most certainly from seduction while under the influence of some mind-altering substance like alcohol or drugs.
Excellent logic. Great post.
“First they say it’s not a choice, (which I interpret you are what you are and can’t change it), then they say that it’s not a fixed innate biological property (which indicates you can change it.)”
You’re missing alternative options. It’s not a binary, either/or proposition. For example, your sexuality could be defined by life experiences or developmental events that are not biological, but also not a matter of choice. In other words, you may not “choose” to be gay, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you were born destined to become gay either.
I'm familiar with the subject and have concluded same-sex attraction is not innate but neither is opposite-sex attraction. The largest factor in determining our sexuality is environment. Having said that, biology most definitely supports opposite-sex attraction.
Hello Men’s, hello tryone,
It’s my best guess, on the basis of currently available evidence, that homosexuality is a learned behavior. But no matter how it comes about, in any and every case, this behavior is prohibited.
But I think your logical syllogism is not sufficient. It does not take into account that we are fallen creatures, innately disordered in one way or another, every one if us, and that this broken condition, while not created by God, is an a unavoidable result of Original Sin and is permitted by Him.
All of us gave some depraved tendency. For some, it may be they have been irritable and irascible from birth. Others may have a tendency to sloth, depression or apathy. Some people are temperamentally lacking in empathy. Some are too highly sexed, turbulently lustful from a very early age without ever having chosen this. Some have a tendency, perhaps, to promiscuity, perhaos some to homosexuality, or at least gender affective disorders. Some people inherit a tendendency to schizophrenia, depression or bipolar disease, all of which have impacts on the malformation of conscience.
So if we were as perfect as our Original ParerParernts were inEden, all would reflect the entire rightness of a good Gid making good creatures. But no, we’re born messed up. Through God’s grace, we have to deal with the mess that we are.
Mene, not Men’s. SoellCheck messes with me once again!!
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.