New Yorkers live longer!

[DamnYankee]

1. How would you suggest designing such a study to produce credible data? The biological approach has yielded a plethora of valid data and is far more credible. Independent "choice" is an interpretation that is not supported by the data.

2. That book has been translated and retranslated from an eclectic collection of writings over hundreds of years. At this point in time it is all but impossible to know/understand all the linguistic and cultural milieus that may have given rise to these translations, which may or may not be correct. Bear in mind also that many religions view that book as a collection of parables, not to be taken literally.

3. I'm missing the connection here; can't access the previous post without losing this one.

4. What, pray tell, is the "opposite conclusion". I believe that that particular study was descriptive only. Moreover, it took place about 14 or so years ago, which probably made it a jumping-off point rather than a final conclusion. There have been many subsequent studies that have examined brains in more depth and detail, and others that looked at prenatal factors as well.

5. Your apparent conclusion is one that may be shared by some members of the nonscientific public, but a true biological scientist would not describe a characteristic in terms of its "purpose"; that's putting the cart before the horse. We prefer instead to look at function; this characteristic enables this function or behavior. It isn't a matter of design, which doesn't belong in science.

You'll recall that in my earlier post I specifically stated that I was not going to call homosexuality an anomaly for the reason that it occurs with great frequency and that those who fall into that category function perfectly well in all respects. Their sexual orientation is as natural for them as heterosexual orientation is for straights. I believe that I also pointed out that homosexuality can be observed with great frequency in the non-human animal world as well.

1. I’m not sure, but politically proclaiming it as not a disease is not exactly a scientific approach, is it?
2. Actually, as old versions of the text are found they serve to emphasize the correctness of modern translations. The word “abomination” doesn’t leave much to interpret, after all.
3. The context is the claim that gays make up 10% of the populace (the basis of which has no scientific root) when in fact it has been shown using recent scientific data that the real number is fairly close to 1%.
4. The study claims that brain development is due to testosterone levels in the womb. This would argue against the existence of a “gay gene”.
5. Whichever perspective you wish to view it the scientific conclusion is the same. If an organism begins life unable to reproduce then it is a defective organism.
6. Again your argument hinges on the frequency, and most statisticians would argue that 1% is not frequent, and is outside of the range of normality.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Straight up, the South is not something to be proud of.

 

[DamnYankee]

Straight up, the South is not something to be proud of.

If you understood its true history you'd realize how wrong you are.

 

[uscitizen]

I deal in the current south, not that of the past.

I just watched my own county vote almost exactly along racial lines by precinct.

 

[DamnYankee]

I deal in the current south, not that of the past.

I just watched my own county vote almost exactly along racial lines by precinct.

Not sure how that applies, or that's even accurate. If it was then Obama would have gotten less than 20% of the vote.

 

[uscitizen]

Not sure how that applies, or that's even accurate. If it was then Obama would have gotten less than 20% of the vote.

In my county it was darned close to accurate.

You could look at the precinct results and then compare it to the county racial statistics.
Less than 20% of the whites voted for Obama in my county it appears.

 

[Cancel3]

1. I’m not sure, but politically proclaiming it as not a disease is not exactly a scientific approach, is it?
2. Actually, as old versions of the text are found they serve to emphasize the correctness of modern translations. The word “abomination” doesn’t leave much to interpret, after all.
3. The context is the claim that gays make up 10% of the populace (the basis of which has no scientific root) when in fact it has been shown using recent scientific data that the real number is fairly close to 1%.
4. The study claims that brain development is due to testosterone levels in the womb. This would argue against the existence of a “gay gene”.
5. Whichever perspective you wish to view it the scientific conclusion is the same. If an organism begins life unable to reproduce then it is a defective organism.
6. Again your argument hinges on the frequency, and most statisticians would argue that 1% is not frequent, and is outside of the range of normality.

1. No, but doing actual research and changing the popular misconception because of the results of research is pretty well scientific.

2. And the Council of Nicema had a bunch of powerful church people sit around and decide which books stayed in the bible and which were left out. It has been shown to have as much to do with political motivations of the time as it does to do with religious beliefs.

3. The Kinsey Report has shown that 10% of the population is gay. The biggest argument against that was a study that showed only 1% of males answered that they had ONLY had male partners for the last 10 years. In other words, if a man had slept with men for the last 8 years, he would not be considered part of that 1%. If a man had slept with 50 men and 1 woman over 10 years, he would not be considered part of that 1%. Many, many gay men and lesbians have slept with the opposite sex too. But don't consider it to be what they want full time.

4. There is evidence to suggest a gay gene, but its not conclusive. The research is still being done. And if testosterone were part of the issue, it could be that the presence of testosterone is what triggers the gay gene to be dominant.

5. What life form is it that is incapable of reproducing? Gay men can reproduce. They may be attracted to men, but that does not mean they are incapable of reproducing. Since humans do not reproduce by coming into heat and fucking anything available, the reproductive reasoning for calling them defective is insufficient. Many parts of society shelters people who would be unable to survive in a wild situation. That does not make them defective.

6. The Kinsey Report and the APA say 10%. Not sure where you get the 1% figure. I have already pointed out that this could be due to the difference in numbers between people who admit it in a private survey and people who are openly gay.

You are asking for hard numbers in a vague area of the human psyche.

This was about the Kinsey Report:
"The reports also state that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience.[5] 11.6% of white males (ages 20-35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) throughout their adult lives.[6] The study also reported that 10% of American males surveyed were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55" (in the 5 to 6 range)"

So what % of the population would you say?

 

[Cancel3]

But I have a sneaking suspicion that you could care less about scientific evidence.

I think you will only accept the science and evidence that backs your firmly held beliefs.

 

[DamnYankee]

In my county it was darned close to accurate.

You could look at the precinct results and then compare it to the county racial statistics.
Less than 20% of the whites voted for Obama in my county it appears.

You don't have any evidence of this, just your conjecture. There are many other ways to explain it that make more sense, I'm sure. Why always look for the racial component?

 

[uscitizen]

You don't have any evidence of this, just your conjecture. There are many other ways to explain it that make more sense, I'm sure. Why always look for the racial component?

It fit the racial profiles of the precincts per my counties racial statistics in the census.

 

[DamnYankee]

1. No, but doing actual research and changing the popular misconception because of the results of research is pretty well scientific.

2. And the Council of Nicema had a bunch of powerful church people sit around and decide which books stayed in the bible and which were left out. It has been shown to have as much to do with political motivations of the time as it does to do with religious beliefs.

3. The Kinsey Report has shown that 10% of the population is gay. The biggest argument against that was a study that showed only 1% of males answered that they had ONLY had male partners for the last 10 years. In other words, if a man had slept with men for the last 8 years, he would not be considered part of that 1%. If a man had slept with 50 men and 1 woman over 10 years, he would not be considered part of that 1%. Many, many gay men and lesbians have slept with the opposite sex too. But don't consider it to be what they want full time.

4. There is evidence to suggest a gay gene, but its not conclusive. The research is still being done. And if testosterone were part of the issue, it could be that the presence of testosterone is what triggers the gay gene to be dominant.

5. What life form is it that is incapable of reproducing? Gay men can reproduce. They may be attracted to men, but that does not mean they are incapable of reproducing. Since humans do not reproduce by coming into heat and fucking anything available, the reproductive reasoning for calling them defective is insufficient. Many parts of society shelters people who would be unable to survive in a wild situation. That does not make them defective.

6. The Kinsey Report and the APA say 10%. Not sure where you get the 1% figure. I have already pointed out that this could be due to the difference in numbers between people who admit it in a private survey and people who are openly gay.

You are asking for hard numbers in a vague area of the human psyche.

This was about the Kinsey Report:
"The reports also state that nearly 46% of the male subjects had "reacted" sexually to persons of both sexes in the course of their adult lives, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience.[5] 11.6% of white males (ages 20-35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) throughout their adult lives.[6] The study also reported that 10% of American males surveyed were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55" (in the 5 to 6 range)"

So what % of the population would you say?

1. The evidence, however, as submitted in another thread, shows that the APA made a political decision under intense militant homosexual lobbying. Doesn’t that bother you?
2. That’s your take on how it happened, but I would argue that the Council rejected certain texts because of questionable authenticity as well as inconsistency with those that had indisputable authenticity. These decisions have been revisited by scholars who have agreed with them.
3. The US Census of 2000 represents the largest study of its kind and its conclusion is that the figure is about 1%. This Kinsey report that you refer to is outdated and done with questionable methods.
4. Millions of dollars and thousands of dollars have been spent in search of your gay gene. It’s a waste of time and money since it doesn’t exist, because homosexuality is a genetic dead end.
5. Your argument seems to suggest bisexuality rather than homosexuality.
6. http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000Census_Gay_state.htm

 

[DamnYankee]

It fit the racial profiles of the precincts per my counties racial statistics in the census.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[Cancel3]

1. The evidence, however, as submitted in another thread, shows that the APA made a political decision under intense militant homosexual lobbying. Doesn’t that bother you?
2. That’s your take on how it happened, but I would argue that the Council rejected certain texts because of questionable authenticity as well as inconsistency with those that had indisputable authenticity. These decisions have been revisited by scholars who have agreed with them.
3. The US Census of 2000 represents the largest study of its kind and its conclusion is that the figure is about 1%. This Kinsey report that you refer to is outdated and done with questionable methods.
4. Millions of dollars and thousands of dollars have been spent in search of your gay gene. It’s a waste of time and money since it doesn’t exist, because homosexuality is a genetic dead end.
5. Your argument seems to suggest bisexuality rather than homosexuality.
6. http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000Census_Gay_state.htm

1) I put the evidence of the APA making decisions based solely on militant homosexual lobbying under the heading of "Conspiracy Theories". The people I know who are gay have told me the exact same thing that the APA says. My sister has repeatedly said it was never a choice, its the way she is.

2) There are also "scholars" who say that the creation described in Genesis happened exactly that way, the Flood and Noah's Ark are historically accurate descriptions, and that the passage where the sun was stopped in the sky is an exact description of what happened. Doesn't change much for me.

3) I would love to see where the US Census asks about sexual orientation. Please find that on the Census forms for us all?

4) Millions of dollars have been spent on researching all facets of human sexuality. Perhaps you would have preferred to stay back in the days when little was known about HOW things work. But that is not where we are and not where we are going. Homosexuality has been around as long as humanity has been around. There are examples of it in other species as well. The fact that it does not lead to reproduction does not effect the topic of gay marriage.

5) No, my argument suggests such societal pressures that gays and lesbians will submit to what they do not want rather than risk being ostrasized, berated, and ridiculed. It also suggests that there is not such a hard line as you would want. It is shades of grey rather than pure black and white.

6) This information ONLY represents living situations. Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that unless the same-sex couple is living together they are not gay? The Census info is worthless as far as gauging the number of homosexuals and lesbians in society.

 

[DamnYankee]

1) I put the evidence of the APA making decisions based solely on militant homosexual lobbying under the heading of "Conspiracy Theories". The people I know who are gay have told me the exact same thing that the APA says. My sister has repeatedly said it was never a choice, its the way she is.

2) There are also "scholars" who say that the creation described in Genesis happened exactly that way, the Flood and Noah's Ark are historically accurate descriptions, and that the passage where the sun was stopped in the sky is an exact description of what happened. Doesn't change much for me.

3) I would love to see where the US Census asks about sexual orientation. Please find that on the Census forms for us all?

4) Millions of dollars have been spent on researching all facets of human sexuality. Perhaps you would have preferred to stay back in the days when little was known about HOW things work. But that is not where we are and not where we are going. Homosexuality has been around as long as humanity has been around. There are examples of it in other species as well. The fact that it does not lead to reproduction does not effect the topic of gay marriage.

5) No, my argument suggests such societal pressures that gays and lesbians will submit to what they do not want rather than risk being ostrasized, berated, and ridiculed. It also suggests that there is not such a hard line as you would want. It is shades of grey rather than pure black and white.

6) This information ONLY represents living situations. Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that unless the same-sex couple is living together they are not gay? The Census info is worthless as far as gauging the number of homosexuals and lesbians in society.

1. Hardly a conspiracy. Here is more evidence for you to dismiss off-handedly: “In a harsh critique of his own profession, a former American Psychological Association president told fellow clinicians at the NARTH Conference that social science is in a state of alarming decline.” http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html
2. I would argue that there are more scholars who agree that the story of creation is a parable and when viewed with that perspective describes the current scientific theory perfectly.
3. One in five US households received this long form.
http://www.gaydata.org/02_Data_Sources/ds008_USCENSUS/ds008_USCENSUS_Long_Form.pdf
4. You appear to agree with me that there is no possibility of a gay gene. Therefore you should also agree that continued research to find one is a waste of time and money.
5. Your argument of societal pressures seems to indicate that homosexuals are making choices, which supports my position.
6. Actually, the census data compares homosexual households against heterosexual households, not homosexual household against the entire population as you appear to suggest. This represents a data set that simply dwarfs any previous study.

 

[uscitizen]

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

You need to do something about that cough.

 

[Cancel3]

1. Hardly a conspiracy. Here is more evidence for you to dismiss off-handedly: “In a harsh critique of his own profession, a former American Psychological Association president told fellow clinicians at the NARTH Conference that social science is in a state of alarming decline.” http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html
2. I would argue that there are more scholars who agree that the story of creation is a parable and when viewed with that perspective describes the current scientific theory perfectly.
3. One in five US households received this long form.
http://www.gaydata.org/02_Data_Sources/ds008_USCENSUS/ds008_USCENSUS_Long_Form.pdf
4. You appear to agree with me that there is no possibility of a gay gene. Therefore you should also agree that continued research to find one is a waste of time and money.
5. Your argument of societal pressures seems to indicate that homosexuals are making choices, which supports my position.
6. Actually, the census data compares homosexual households against heterosexual households, not homosexual household against the entire population as you appear to suggest. This represents a data set that simply dwarfs any previous study.

1) A handful of malcontents in a profession as large as this does not concern me. The scientific peer review would have nailed too many studies.

2) So here it is the NUMBER of scholars that believe a certain way. But when it comes to the APA, its the extreme minority that matters? Handy.

3) That long form is very interesting. Perhaps you could point out the questions about sexual orientation? I scrolled down and did not see a single one.

4) No, I do not agree with you. I did not say I agreed with you.

5) My position here is about gays making choices about whether to come out, not about making choices about being gay. There is a huge difference.

6) The US Census does not gather data about sexual orientation. The closest thing you have is if there are two people of the same gender in one house and check the Unmarried Partner box. This completely ignores all gays and lesbians that do not cohabitate. So the idea that the US Census somehow gives you the number of gays in the US is completely bogus.

 

[DamnYankee]

You need to do something about that cough.

Kudos for taking the high road with your humor.

 

[DamnYankee]

1) A handful of malcontents in a profession as large as this does not concern me. The scientific peer review would have nailed too many studies.

2) So here it is the NUMBER of scholars that believe a certain way. But when it comes to the APA, its the extreme minority that matters? Handy.

3) That long form is very interesting. Perhaps you could point out the questions about sexual orientation? I scrolled down and did not see a single one.

4) No, I do not agree with you. I did not say I agreed with you.

5) My position here is about gays making choices about whether to come out, not about making choices about being gay. There is a huge difference.

6) The US Census does not gather data about sexual orientation. The closest thing you have is if there are two people of the same gender in one house and check the Unmarried Partner box. This completely ignores all gays and lesbians that do not cohabitate. So the idea that the US Census somehow gives you the number of gays in the US is completely bogus.

1. Thanks for meeting my expectation. Not merely a malcontent but an ex-president of the APA and a major organization. How many people do you think are members of NARTH?
2. You addressed the wrong issue. May I assume that to mean that you capitulate?
3. You asked for the form and I gave it to you. Do your own research.
4. So are you saying that there is a gay gene? Where is it then?
5. That is like saying that most women are whores because they have the necessary equipment. Either you act on some immoral impulse and be immoral or you don’t.
6. The data does not compare homosexuals who do not cohabitate, just like it doesn’t compare heterosexuals who do not cohabitate. It compares homosexual households against heterosexual households as I stated previously, which again, represents an enormous data set that dwarfs any other previous study on the subject.

 

[Cancel3]

1. Thanks for meeting my expectation. Not merely a malcontent but an ex-president of the APA and a major organization. How many people do you think are members of NARTH?
2. You addressed the wrong issue. May I assume that to mean that you capitulate?
3. You asked for the form and I gave it to you. Do your own research.
4. So are you saying that there is a gay gene? Where is it then?
5. That is like saying that most women are whores because they have the necessary equipment. Either you act on some immoral impulse and be immoral or you don’t.
6. The data does not compare homosexuals who do not cohabitate, just like it doesn’t compare heterosexuals who do not cohabitate. It compares homosexual households against heterosexual households as I stated previously, which again, represents an enormous data set that dwarfs any other previous study on the subject.

Lets stick with the Census claim you are making. That is a totally bogus claim. There is not a single thing on that census form that asks about sexual orientation. Not one single block.

The ASSUMPTION is made based on a combination of gender and unmarried partner blocks checked. But that is as close as you can get, and that is tenuous at best.

The original reason you brought up the US Census was your claim that homosexuals represent 1% rather than the 10% that is claimed. You have not shown a single iota of evidence that anyone has a better study than the Kinsey Report. The US Census is in no way a method of coming up with numbers of gays in the USA.

 

[Cancel3]

1. Thanks for meeting my expectation. Not merely a malcontent but an ex-president of the APA and a major organization. How many people do you think are members of NARTH?
2. You addressed the wrong issue. May I assume that to mean that you capitulate?
3. You asked for the form and I gave it to you. Do your own research.
4. So are you saying that there is a gay gene? Where is it then?
5. That is like saying that most women are whores because they have the necessary equipment. Either you act on some immoral impulse and be immoral or you don’t.
6. The data does not compare homosexuals who do not cohabitate, just like it doesn’t compare heterosexuals who do not cohabitate. It compares homosexual households against heterosexual households as I stated previously, which again, represents an enormous data set that dwarfs any other previous study on the subject.

Now I will address the rest.


1) A former president of the APA? Homosexuality was removed from the list of recognized mental disorders in 1973. That means that here have been 35 presidents since the decision was made. One disagrees and 34 agree. Hmmm, what should I think?

2) No, I do not. I was merely pointing out that when it suits you the majority of scholars matters. When it doesn't, the minority or the individual should be the authority. Unless you can show any validation of the divinity of the bible, it is still legally just literature.

3) I got the form, printed the form, and I am still asking you to show me where the US Census got ANY information about sexual orientation.

4) First of all, if I gave you the location on the chain of our DNA would you be able to verify or deny it?

Second, I am not saying it exists or does not exist. I am saying I have read studies that show that a gay gene may exist or that homosexuality may be something hardwired in.

Is there a gene for brown hair? Where is it?

5) This entire topic is because of the discussion of gay marriage. And that is not about impulses. It is about being in love with another person. I could no more fall in love with a man than I can fly to the moon. But there are men in love with men and women in love with women. And that is the part that seems to be ignored by your ilk.

Also, homosexuality is defined by the desire, not necessarily by the act.

6) No it does not. You can make that claim when you show me where the Census asks about sexual orientation. Until then, the census is NOT an authority for the number of gays in the US.