Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Let the science flame war begin

sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 10:45:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Sadolite, you need to supply links to the original studies, to ensure they are peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals, that their methodologies are current, that they're executed by competent professionals active in the field, that their methods and assumptions aren't under challenge, and that they're not superseded by later work.

It's also really important to use all the findings of studies being conducted, since these provide a necessary context.

Based on the arguments presented I think the conclusions are already contestable, but there's no point discussing them at all until the papers themselves are presented.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.
Meh!
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 1:59:47 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it

All right I'll give you a tid bit because you are to lazy to disprove it and want me to do all the work for you.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 2:25:58 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it

You haven't done anything to prove any of these claims are correct, no one will do that for you. If you don't want to prove your claims, that's your problem, not ours.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:08:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 1:59:47 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it

All right I'll give you a tid bit because you are to lazy to disprove it and want me to do all the work for you.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz...

Ah, I assume you're talking about this Dr Neil Whitehead: https://en.wikipedia.org... (Author of "My genes made me do it! Homosexuality and the scientific evidence)

It seems there are two people. One is "Dr Neil L Whitehead" and "Dr Neil A Whitehead".

Dr Neil L Whitehead authored the book mentioned above, he died in 2012 and google scholar searches bring up Anthropology papers he authored in. Obituaries he features in make no mention of Biochemistry or Statistics.

Dr Neil A Whitehead works (Or at least worked) in the biochemistry department of Cambridge university (Source: http://femsre.oxfordjournals.org...)

On the site you mentioned, Neil L's bibliography makes no mention of working at Cambridge university, something that any academic would hold in very high regard.

While I am not completely sure of this, there seems to be something sketchy going on here.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:09:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 3:08:16 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:59:47 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it

All right I'll give you a tid bit because you are to lazy to disprove it and want me to do all the work for you.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz...

Ah, I assume you're talking about this Dr Neil Whitehead: https://en.wikipedia.org... (Author of "My genes made me do it! Homosexuality and the scientific evidence)

It seems there are two people. One is "Dr Neil L Whitehead" and "Dr Neil A Whitehead".

Dr Neil L Whitehead authored the book mentioned above, he died in 2012 and google scholar searches bring up Anthropology papers he authored in. Obituaries he features in make no mention of Biochemistry or Statistics.

Dr Neil A Whitehead works (Or at least worked) in the biochemistry department of Cambridge university (Source: http://femsre.oxfordjournals.org...)

On the site you mentioned, Neil L's bibliography makes no mention of working at Cambridge university, something that any academic would hold in very high regard.

While I am not completely sure of this, there seems to be something sketchy going on here.

And also: http://www.tandfonline.com...
Meh!
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:40:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 3:09:41 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:08:16 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:59:47 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it

All right I'll give you a tid bit because you are to lazy to disprove it and want me to do all the work for you.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz...

Ah, I assume you're talking about this Dr Neil Whitehead: https://en.wikipedia.org... (Author of "My genes made me do it! Homosexuality and the scientific evidence)

It seems there are two people. One is "Dr Neil L Whitehead" and "Dr Neil A Whitehead".

Dr Neil L Whitehead authored the book mentioned above, he died in 2012 and google scholar searches bring up Anthropology papers he authored in. Obituaries he features in make no mention of Biochemistry or Statistics.

Dr Neil A Whitehead works (Or at least worked) in the biochemistry department of Cambridge university (Source: http://femsre.oxfordjournals.org...)

On the site you mentioned, Neil L's bibliography makes no mention of working at Cambridge university, something that any academic would hold in very high regard.

While I am not completely sure of this, there seems to be something sketchy going on here.

And also: http://www.tandfonline.com...

Try addressing the subject instead of attacking the messenger . Typical
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:50:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 3:40:32 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:09:41 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:08:16 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:59:47 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it

All right I'll give you a tid bit because you are to lazy to disprove it and want me to do all the work for you.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz...

Ah, I assume you're talking about this Dr Neil Whitehead: https://en.wikipedia.org... (Author of "My genes made me do it! Homosexuality and the scientific evidence)

It seems there are two people. One is "Dr Neil L Whitehead" and "Dr Neil A Whitehead".

Dr Neil L Whitehead authored the book mentioned above, he died in 2012 and google scholar searches bring up Anthropology papers he authored in. Obituaries he features in make no mention of Biochemistry or Statistics.

Dr Neil A Whitehead works (Or at least worked) in the biochemistry department of Cambridge university (Source: http://femsre.oxfordjournals.org...)

On the site you mentioned, Neil L's bibliography makes no mention of working at Cambridge university, something that any academic would hold in very high regard.

While I am not completely sure of this, there seems to be something sketchy going on here.

And also: http://www.tandfonline.com...

Try addressing the subject instead of attacking the messenger . Typical

Well, this shows that the Author can be considered discredited for a starter, and you seem to agree on that so that helps. Really, if the Author is discredited, then there is no reason to assume what they have written is legit.
Meh!
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 3:58:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 3:09:41 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:08:16 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:59:47 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it

All right I'll give you a tid bit because you are to lazy to disprove it and want me to do all the work for you.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz...

Ah, I assume you're talking about this Dr Neil Whitehead: https://en.wikipedia.org... (Author of "My genes made me do it! Homosexuality and the scientific evidence)

It seems there are two people. One is "Dr Neil L Whitehead" and "Dr Neil A Whitehead".

Dr Neil L Whitehead authored the book mentioned above, he died in 2012 and google scholar searches bring up Anthropology papers he authored in. Obituaries he features in make no mention of Biochemistry or Statistics.

Dr Neil A Whitehead works (Or at least worked) in the biochemistry department of Cambridge university (Source: http://femsre.oxfordjournals.org...)

On the site you mentioned, Neil L's bibliography makes no mention of working at Cambridge university, something that any academic would hold in very high regard.

While I am not completely sure of this, there seems to be something sketchy going on here.

And also: http://www.tandfonline.com...

The author is probably neither. The Wikipedia article likely misattributed the work to the anthropologist. The author should be Neil E Whitehead.

http://borngay.procon.org...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 8:57:56 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/6/2016 10:45:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Sadolite, you need to supply links to the original studies, to ensure they are peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals, that their methodologies are current, that they're executed by competent professionals active in the field, that their methods and assumptions aren't under challenge, and that they're not superseded by later work.

It's also really important to use all the findings of studies being conducted, since these provide a necessary context.

Based on the arguments presented I think the conclusions are already contestable, but there's no point discussing them at all until the papers themselves are presented.

ME: The only ones that do not have to provide citations or proof of statements are the ones that answer these questions...Just ask them.

I am sure that the statement, that homosexuals are not born that way is very accurate. The parents would carry the same gene if that was the case. Homosexuality is so much against any moral, behavioral or human trait that it must be an aberration like sexual addiction.

When you think about men and homosexuality, the mind revolts at the activity, and only a person with a sexually perverted mind would become involved in the stuff.

Like Pedophiles, rapists, cross dressers and other such perversions, the attitude is only about the sex act, no matter how they go about it.

Anyone that tries to make excuses for homosexuals are making excuses for all perversions.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 9:17:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 8:57:56 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/6/2016 10:45:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Sadolite, you need to supply links to the original studies, to ensure they are peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals, that their methodologies are current, that they're executed by competent professionals active in the field, that their methods and assumptions aren't under challenge, and that they're not superseded by later work.

It's also really important to use all the findings of studies being conducted, since these provide a necessary context.

Based on the arguments presented I think the conclusions are already contestable, but there's no point discussing them at all until the papers themselves are presented.

I am sure that the statement, that homosexuals are not born that way is very accurate.
Peter, no opinion I've ever seen you contribute to this forum has been the product of diligent scientific research. Neither have you the expertise to evaluate such research, nor (apparently) the curiosity to look it up. Consequently, it is a matter of indifference to me what your opinion is on this or any other scientific matter. The only question that concerns me is whether you have yet developed the humility to ask a thoughtful question with a view to learning.

Since you haven't expressed that interest in this post, I'm afraid that ends our exchange.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 11:21:44 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 3:40:32 AM, sadolite wrote:
...

Try addressing the subject instead of attacking the messenger . Typical

Yes, the really interesting fact here is that for all of our self-proclaimed science fans here, this is a pure argument from authority. The only thing that matters is to decide whether to have faith in the author.

Nobody says "Really?? A statistically significant number of identical twins develop opposite sexual preferences?"

That is the question, to a science minded person - is the data correct.

And I doubt that it is, btw.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,019
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 5:44:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It is received wisdom that gender identity is not entirely genetic and that environmental factors seem to be more important that genes - you can get information just from reading wikipedia(I checked) so you don't need to read the book being quoted.

But that doesn't mean homosexuality is a choice. Adult immunity to rubella is also the result of an environmental factor - ie exposure to rubella as a child. But no-one is claiming it is a choice whether to catch rubella or not.

But no-one - AFAIK - has identified the environmental factors that are relevant for sexual orientation. One cannot consciously choose to be gay. Being gay might be in some people's genes, for others being gay might have been triggered by an environmental factor, but no study - AFAIK - has demonstrated being gay is a choice in any meaningful sense of the word 'choice'.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 9:49:25 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 11:21:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:40:32 AM, sadolite wrote:
...

Try addressing the subject instead of attacking the messenger . Typical

Yes, the really interesting fact here is that for all of our self-proclaimed science fans here, this is a pure argument from authority. The only thing that matters is to decide whether to have faith in the author.

Nobody says "Really?? A statistically significant number of identical twins develop opposite sexual preferences?"

That is the question, to a science minded person - is the data correct.

And I doubt that it is, btw.

But you wont bother to check will you. You will just live the doubt based on your feeling. Real good science.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 9:53:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 2:25:58 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/7/2016 1:39:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 12:21:05 AM, Axonly wrote:
At 6/6/2016 9:22:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

"At best genetics is a minor factor," says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

"Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%," Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. "If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women."

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. "No-one is born gay," he notes. "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."

The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. "These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate," he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

"Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books."

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females"lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

"Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual."

"Sexual orientation is not set in concrete," he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. "These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen "naturally" in life, some very quickly," Dr. Whitehead observes. "Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality."

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner"s study demonstrated. "They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later."
"The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case"generally changing their attractions from year to year."
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic " so hard-wired into one"s identity that it can"t be changed. "The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject," Dr. Whitehead notes. "But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side."

Sources please.

The article is legit, do your own home work to disprove it

You haven't done anything to prove any of these claims are correct, no one will do that for you. If you don't want to prove your claims, that's your problem, not ours.

I provided a source. So far nothing to disprove the source other than to attack the messenger. Nothing to say about the content. The ball is in your court. Prove the content of the source is wrong.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:05:08 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 9:53:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:25:58 AM, Axonly wrote:
You haven't done anything to prove any of these claims are correct, no one will do that for you. If you don't want to prove your claims, that's your problem, not ours.
I provided a source.
Sado, you only provided a quote, not a source. You've supplied neither the article from which you quoted nor the report to which the article refers.

This isn't science; it isn't even legitimate journalism -- it's only hearsay. If it's authentic, you're doing it a disservice by not citing it correctly; if it's bogus, you're being deceitful by hiding its dubious provenance.

The homework is yours to do. Nobody need take this thread seriously until you do it.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:19:46 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:05:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:53:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:25:58 AM, Axonly wrote:
You haven't done anything to prove any of these claims are correct, no one will do that for you. If you don't want to prove your claims, that's your problem, not ours.
I provided a source.
Sado, you only provided a quote, not a source. You've supplied neither the article from which you quoted nor the report to which the article refers.

This isn't science; it isn't even legitimate journalism -- it's only hearsay. If it's authentic, you're doing it a disservice by not citing it correctly; if it's bogus, you're being deceitful by hiding its dubious provenance.

The homework is yours to do. Nobody need take this thread seriously until you do it.

The source I provided is not a quote, the article that you read is a summary of that research. I again direct you to the source which is scientific research to back up the quote. Now what in that source is off base and unscientific.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:22:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:19:46 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:05:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:53:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:25:58 AM, Axonly wrote:
You haven't done anything to prove any of these claims are correct, no one will do that for you. If you don't want to prove your claims, that's your problem, not ours.
I provided a source.
Sado, you only provided a quote, not a source. You've supplied neither the article from which you quoted nor the report to which the article refers.

This isn't science; it isn't even legitimate journalism -- it's only hearsay.
The source I provided is not a quote
If you didn't write it, it's a quote. Quotes require attribution to a source for authentication. Once authenticated, the article itself requires attribution to the original study for its authentication. What's your source, and why are you evading this simple diligence?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 2:23:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:19:46 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:05:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:53:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:25:58 AM, Axonly wrote:
You haven't done anything to prove any of these claims are correct, no one will do that for you. If you don't want to prove your claims, that's your problem, not ours.
I provided a source.
Sado, you only provided a quote, not a source. You've supplied neither the article from which you quoted nor the report to which the article refers.

This isn't science; it isn't even legitimate journalism -- it's only hearsay. If it's authentic, you're doing it a disservice by not citing it correctly; if it's bogus, you're being deceitful by hiding its dubious provenance.

The homework is yours to do. Nobody need take this thread seriously until you do it.

The source I provided is not a quote, the article that you read is a summary of that research. I again direct you to the source which is scientific research to back up the quote. Now what in that source is off base and unscientific.

Here is the source again
http://www.mygenes.co.nz...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 7:05:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 2:23:51 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:19:46 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:05:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:53:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:25:58 AM, Axonly wrote:
You haven't done anything to prove any of these claims are correct, no one will do that for you. If you don't want to prove your claims, that's your problem, not ours.
I provided a source.
Sado, you only provided a quote, not a source. You've supplied neither the article from which you quoted nor the report to which the article refers.

This isn't science; it isn't even legitimate journalism -- it's only hearsay. If it's authentic, you're doing it a disservice by not citing it correctly; if it's bogus, you're being deceitful by hiding its dubious provenance.

The homework is yours to do. Nobody need take this thread seriously until you do it.

The source I provided is not a quote, the article that you read is a summary of that research. I again direct you to the source which is scientific research to back up the quote. Now what in that source is off base and unscientific.

Here is the source again
http://www.mygenes.co.nz...

Sado, thank you for the link, but this appears to be a self-published monograph. Could you please cite a reference to the journal-published, peer-reviewed independent scientific study you're relying on for your contention?
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 7:23:16 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 8:57:56 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 6/6/2016 10:45:16 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Sadolite, you need to supply links to the original studies, to ensure they are peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals, that their methodologies are current, that they're executed by competent professionals active in the field, that their methods and assumptions aren't under challenge, and that they're not superseded by later work.

It's also really important to use all the findings of studies being conducted, since these provide a necessary context.

Based on the arguments presented I think the conclusions are already contestable, but there's no point discussing them at all until the papers themselves are presented.

ME: The only ones that do not have to provide citations or proof of statements are the ones that answer these questions...Just ask them.

I am sure that the statement, that homosexuals are not born that way is very accurate. The parents would carry the same gene if that was the case.

You didn't take genetics I see. There are such things as recessive/carrier genes, and that is just putting it simply.

Homosexuality is so much against any moral, behavioral or human trait that it must be an aberration like sexual addiction.

Oh my god! Some consenting guys had intercourse and love each other! End of the world!

When you think about men and homosexuality, the mind revolts at the activity, and only a person with a sexually perverted mind would become involved in the stuff.

This is disgustingly wrong.

Like Pedophiles, rapists, cross dressers and other such perversions, the attitude is only about the sex act, no matter how they go about it.

This is also disgusting to read.

Anyone that tries to make excuses for homosexuals are making excuses for all perversions.

No, get over yourself.
Meh!
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 12:58:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/7/2016 9:49:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 11:21:44 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/7/2016 3:40:32 AM, sadolite wrote:
...

Try addressing the subject instead of attacking the messenger . Typical

Yes, the really interesting fact here is that for all of our self-proclaimed science fans here, this is a pure argument from authority. The only thing that matters is to decide whether to have faith in the author.

Nobody says "Really?? A statistically significant number of identical twins develop opposite sexual preferences?"

That is the question, to a science minded person - is the data correct.

And I doubt that it is, btw.

But you wont bother to check will you. You will just live the doubt based on your feeling. Real good science.

Well, my initial problem is that "it's genetic" is not exactly the same as "born that way", and definitely a long way from "It's a choice".

I have a gay son. He was different from my other "all boy" son, from day one. Does that mean he was "born gay" or just had tendencies? I don't know. I'm a christian, I'm not the opposition here, but much of the christian community has chosen to bury their head in the sand on this one. We gotta deal with truth first of all, and the truth is that some people are just queer - they didn't choose it, so it's not a sin to be that way. What are they supposed to do about it? That's the million dollar question, but we can at least start with acceptance of the person's reality instead of sticking our head in the sand.

btw, I did track down a link to the main study, for those who are pretending they would pay attention if only it were proper peer-reviewed data: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu... So yes, if I read it right, if one identical twin is gay, 80+% of the time the other will be straight. So it's not some simple genetic switch that makes somebody gay, but you also have to deal with the simple reality that some people just are wired different. They just are. Probably one important thing to realize is that gay-ness is a spectrum of desire, not necessarily a boolean yes/no kind of thing. Some people are totally queer, 90% are totally straight, and some people have to make some choices.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:02:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 7:05:39 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:23:51 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/8/2016 2:19:46 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:05:08 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/7/2016 9:53:00 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/7/2016 2:25:58 AM, Axonly wrote:
You haven't done anything to prove any of these claims are correct, no one will do that for you. If you don't want to prove your claims, that's your problem, not ours.
I provided a source.
Sado, you only provided a quote, not a source. You've supplied neither the article from which you quoted nor the report to which the article refers.

This isn't science; it isn't even legitimate journalism -- it's only hearsay. If it's authentic, you're doing it a disservice by not citing it correctly; if it's bogus, you're being deceitful by hiding its dubious provenance.

The homework is yours to do. Nobody need take this thread seriously until you do it.

The source I provided is not a quote, the article that you read is a summary of that research. I again direct you to the source which is scientific research to back up the quote. Now what in that source is off base and unscientific.

Here is the source again
http://www.mygenes.co.nz...

Sado, thank you for the link, but this appears to be a self-published monograph. Could you please cite a reference to the journal-published, peer-reviewed independent scientific study you're relying on for your contention?

The source papers are listed at the end of each chapter. The guy appears to have done his homework. You can disagree with his analyses, but it's a bit of a cop out to disregard what he says because you don't like the font he used, basically.
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 7:22:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:02:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:05:39 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Sado, thank you for the link, but this appears to be a self-published monograph. Could you please cite a reference to the journal-published, peer-reviewed independent scientific study you're relying on for your contention?
The source papers are listed at the end of each chapter. The guy appears to have done his homework. You can disagree with his analyses, but it's a bit of a cop out to disregard what he says because you don't like the font he used, basically.
I have no problem in principle with the use of twins studies to explore inheritance influences on human sexual preference. I think they're a good idea, though insufficient in themselves to draw conclusions, in part for reasons another member has already alluded to.

The main problem is that our OP hasn't acknowledged that the material he quoted was from a religious blog, which in turn has quoted a monograph that was never written for a biologist, psychologist, neurologist or geneticist. Essentially it's clergy quoting one academic's unreviewed ideas of how sexual preference might develop, and then a member representing the summary as science journalism -- which it is not.

Again, what we need instead is a good, peer-reviewed, journal-published survey paper on the latest multidisciplinary research into the development of human sexual preference. I'm happy to explain why that is what we need, and why this is not that, and would be happy to respond to a good-faith, open questions with my own researches, but am not interested in debating lazy research, poor scholarship and dishonest attribution presented as strawman flamebait.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 7:48:37 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 7:22:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:02:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:05:39 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Sado, thank you for the link, but this appears to be a self-published monograph. Could you please cite a reference to the journal-published, peer-reviewed independent scientific study you're relying on for your contention?
The source papers are listed at the end of each chapter. The guy appears to have done his homework. You can disagree with his analyses, but it's a bit of a cop out to disregard what he says because you don't like the font he used, basically.
I have no problem in principle with the use of twins studies to explore inheritance influences on human sexual preference. I think they're a good idea, though insufficient in themselves to draw conclusions, in part for reasons another member has already alluded to.

The main problem is that our OP hasn't acknowledged that the material he quoted was from a religious blog, which in turn has quoted a monograph that was never written for a biologist, psychologist, neurologist or geneticist. Essentially it's clergy quoting one academic's unreviewed ideas of how sexual preference might develop, and then a member representing the summary as science journalism -- which it is not.

Again, what we need instead is a good, peer-reviewed, journal-published survey paper on the latest multidisciplinary research into the development of human sexual preference. I'm happy to explain why that is what we need, and why this is not that, and would be happy to respond to a good-faith, open questions with my own researches, but am not interested in debating lazy research, poor scholarship and dishonest attribution presented as strawman flamebait.

Puuulllleeeeze. Just say "oh, I see, I didn't scroll to the bottom".

lol. You never come out of character, do you?
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 8:00:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 7:48:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:22:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:02:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:05:39 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Sado, thank you for the link, but this appears to be a self-published monograph. Could you please cite a reference to the journal-published, peer-reviewed independent scientific study you're relying on for your contention?
The source papers are listed at the end of each chapter. The guy appears to have done his homework. You can disagree with his analyses, but it's a bit of a cop out to disregard what he says because you don't like the font he used, basically.
I have no problem in principle with the use of twins studies to explore inheritance influences on human sexual preference. I think they're a good idea, though insufficient in themselves to draw conclusions, in part for reasons another member has already alluded to.

The main problem is that our OP hasn't acknowledged that the material he quoted was from a religious blog, which in turn has quoted a monograph that was never written for a biologist, psychologist, neurologist or geneticist. Essentially it's clergy quoting one academic's unreviewed ideas of how sexual preference might develop, and then a member representing the summary as science journalism -- which it is not.

Again, what we need instead is a good, peer-reviewed, journal-published survey paper on the latest multidisciplinary research into the development of human sexual preference. I'm happy to explain why that is what we need, and why this is not that, and would be happy to respond to a good-faith, open questions with my own researches, but am not interested in debating lazy research, poor scholarship and dishonest attribution presented as strawman flamebait.

Puuulllleeeeze. Just say "oh, I see, I didn't scroll to the bottom".

lol. You never come out of character, do you?

If you're interested in my process, I followed the link, navigated to the relevant chapter, went straight to the footnotes, read the citation list, went back to the front of the monograph, read it, sampled multiple chapters and read them, checked the website, and searched on the original article to find its earliest appearance (from 2013) here: [http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...], though it was repeated on the website of Pastor Holland Davis (who loves to abbreviate himself P.HD) in May this year [http://www.hollanddavis.com...], and misreported last year on BeforeItsNews.com as a scientific proof. [http://beforeitsnews.com...]

So my conclusions are: the cited monograph is not a good place from which to discuss the development of sexual preference, and misrepresenting religious journalism as science journalism isn't a good way to begin an honest, respectful science discussion.

And if you'd expect me to say that, good. It means these questions have occurred to you, which means there is no excuse.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 8:18:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 8:00:28 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:48:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:22:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:02:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:05:39 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Sado, thank you for the link, but this appears to be a self-published monograph. Could you please cite a reference to the journal-published, peer-reviewed independent scientific study you're relying on for your contention?
The source papers are listed at the end of each chapter. The guy appears to have done his homework. You can disagree with his analyses, but it's a bit of a cop out to disregard what he says because you don't like the font he used, basically.
I have no problem in principle with the use of twins studies to explore inheritance influences on human sexual preference. I think they're a good idea, though insufficient in themselves to draw conclusions, in part for reasons another member has already alluded to.

The main problem is that our OP hasn't acknowledged that the material he quoted was from a religious blog, which in turn has quoted a monograph that was never written for a biologist, psychologist, neurologist or geneticist. Essentially it's clergy quoting one academic's unreviewed ideas of how sexual preference might develop, and then a member representing the summary as science journalism -- which it is not.

Again, what we need instead is a good, peer-reviewed, journal-published survey paper on the latest multidisciplinary research into the development of human sexual preference. I'm happy to explain why that is what we need, and why this is not that, and would be happy to respond to a good-faith, open questions with my own researches, but am not interested in debating lazy research, poor scholarship and dishonest attribution presented as strawman flamebait.

Puuulllleeeeze. Just say "oh, I see, I didn't scroll to the bottom".

lol. You never come out of character, do you?

If you're interested in my process,

No, I'm not interested in your process since you still fail to find the links to the peer reviewed yada yada studies you claim to care about. Such as the one I linked to earlier, http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu...

And more to the point, you're not interested in the data. You don't care what twin studies may or may not say about the development of homosexuality. Your process is totally to find the right people to tell you what to think. Which is fine, actually, it's just not a science approach. That's all I'm saying, and it's not really directed at you personally. We're in this age of scientism, which masquerades as a science mindset.
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 8:26:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/8/2016 8:18:16 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 8:00:28 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:48:37 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:22:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:02:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/8/2016 7:05:39 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Sado, thank you for the link, but this appears to be a self-published monograph. Could you please cite a reference to the journal-published, peer-reviewed independent scientific study you're relying on for your contention?
The source papers are listed at the end of each chapter. The guy appears to have done his homework. You can disagree with his analyses, but it's a bit of a cop out to disregard what he says because you don't like the font he used, basically.
I have no problem in principle with the use of twins studies to explore inheritance influences on human sexual preference. I think they're a good idea, though insufficient in themselves to draw conclusions, in part for reasons another member has already alluded to.

The main problem is that our OP hasn't acknowledged that the material he quoted was from a religious blog, which in turn has quoted a monograph that was never written for a biologist, psychologist, neurologist or geneticist. Essentially it's clergy quoting one academic's unreviewed ideas of how sexual preference might develop, and then a member representing the summary as science journalism -- which it is not.

Again, what we need instead is a good, peer-reviewed, journal-published survey paper on the latest multidisciplinary research into the development of human sexual preference. I'm happy to explain why that is what we need, and why this is not that, and would be happy to respond to a good-faith, open questions with my own researches, but am not interested in debating lazy research, poor scholarship and dishonest attribution presented as strawman flamebait.

Puuulllleeeeze. Just say "oh, I see, I didn't scroll to the bottom".

lol. You never come out of character, do you?

If you're interested in my process,

No, I'm not interested in your process since you still fail to find the links to the peer reviewed yada yada studies you claim to care about. Such as the one I linked to earlier, http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu...

V, I seldom read your posts unless you address them directly to me, and didn't read that one. My posts, you'll recall, have all been directed to Sadolite, and it was you who interjected.

Nevertheless, thank you for contributing an article. In the right context, it might advance a discussion, however it's not a discussion I'll be having in this thread because as I've already explained, the thread itself is a poorly-constructed piece of strawman flamebait.

And more to the point, you're not interested in the data.
Actually, I am. The development of sexual preference has long been of interest to me, and I'm happy to share researches in some future thread that embraces an open exchange of scientific ideas.

Unfortunately, that's not this thread.

Your process is totally to find the right people to tell you what to think.
That would be an example of you not seeking data before you form a belief.