Those Liberal Social "Scientists"

[Psychic Missile]

Did you even READ the article?

Yes.

What "evidence"? You mean the numerous "studies" from incredibly biased persons who are peer reviewed by incredibly biased peers?

Why "incredibly biased"? Because they're liberal?

[firstfloor]

The fact is that homosexuality is still a disorder. Regardless of what a radically liberal psychology claims.

Not really.
"You were made as well as we could make you." (Tyrell (a god))
In other words, homosexuals are as well made and by the same recipe as you are.

[Cow Poke]

Why "incredibly biased"? Because they're liberal?

That's what one of their own was asserting.

[Faber]

Not really.
"You were made as well as we could make you." (Tyrell (a god))
In other words, homosexuals are as well made and by the same recipe as you are.

Agreed. So the deviancy took place some time after birth.

[firstfloor]

Agreed. So the deviancy took place some time after birth.

“[Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally."]”

http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...t-evidence.htm

[One Bad Pig]

Why "incredibly biased"? Because they're liberal?

Everyone's biased. However, since the field is so overwhelmingly liberal, the bias tends to get positive reinforcement and there's precious little balancing from other viewpoints.

[Adam]

I generally enjoy reading your posts,

First person to confess THAT yet. Te absolve, dominus vobiscum.

[Adrift]

“[Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally."]”

http://www.natureworldnews.com/artic...t-evidence.htm

I don't know anything about Nature World News, but the reporter misrepresented the findings of the paper she cited when she said that the new data offers evidence that "sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics". The actual study they're citing says,

"While our study results provide further evidence for early (pre-natal) biological influences on variation in male sexual orientation, we also emphasize that genetic contributions are far from determinant but instead represent a part of the trait’s multifactorial causation, both genetic and environmental." (Link found here)


The Associated Press reports that "Experts not involved in the study were more skeptical."

Source: http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/d040135eac064545bb1f5bc25e7e6f70/study-suggests-genetic-link-male-homosexuality

Neil Risch, a genetics expert at the University of California, San Francisco, said the data are statistically too weak to demonstrate any genetic link. Risch was involved in a smaller study that found no link between male homosexuality and chromosome X.

Dr. Robert Green, a medical geneticist at Harvard Medical School, called the new study "intriguing but not in any way conclusive."

© Copyright Original Source

Others have noted that the study runs contrary to eight other major studies on the subject, except for one by a Dr. Dean Hamer 20 years ago, and like Hamer, it fails to find an actual gene responsible for orientation.

[Psychic Missile]

That's what one of their own was asserting.

As a whole, not per individual study. If these scientists were conservative, wouldn't they be just as biased?

[Cow Poke]

As a whole, not per individual study.

Bias as a whole, yes, and the implication is that it affects the their work. Perhaps you should actually read the article this time.

If these scientists were conservative, wouldn't they be just as biased?

Hmmmm.... a conservative is inclined to hold to the accepted, not reinvent society.

[Cow Poke]

Everyone's biased. However, since the field is so overwhelmingly liberal, the bias tends to get positive reinforcement and there's precious little balancing from other viewpoints.

Yes, "peer review" simply reinforces or feeds groupthink.

[Cow Poke]

The "fact is" that homosexuality is only seen as a "disorder" by those who want it to be for religious reasons or whatever. There's virtually no psychiatric association or related discipline in the word that views homosexuality as a disorder.

Oh my goodness! Jichard has the unmitigated gall to disagree with you. You never could handle effective opposition. Pity you can't produce an effective response other than just accusing your opponents of liberal bias.

I'd ask you to leave the thread, but every village needs an idiot, so you can stay.



(CP is kidding - he really doesn't think Tazzy is an idiot)

[Cow Poke]

Which "prepositions"? "from" or "by"?

[nico]

The "fact is" that homosexuality is only seen as a "disorder" by those who want it to be for religious reasons or whatever. There's virtually no psychiatric association or related discipline in the word that views homosexuality as a disorder.

I suppose there is some form of "want" regarding homosexuality being a disorder. It is, after all, a named sin in the Bible. Additionally, homosexual copulation was widely viewed as a repulsive act (and still is viewed that way in the absence of political correctness), so people would default to thinking that only a psychologically contorted person would have that desire.

It's only through the last couple of decades of intense campaigning in the entertainment media to "introduce" homosexuality as a normal desire possessed by normal people. It has, in some sense, benefitted even the evangelical Christian community to better understand (and treat) homosexuals, that not all desires (sinful or not) are a matter of choice.

Like it or not, no one, even in the psychiatric community, wants to be viewed as a social pariah resistant to the times. No one is immune to the effects of social change. You should know as well as anyone that homosexuality was classified as a disorder with many studies (at the time) to prove it.

[firstfloor]

Religion has been a little behind the curve in adjusting to the reality of diversity in human sexuality.

“[If being gay is truly a choice, then people who attempt to change their orientation should be able to do so. But most people who are gay describe it as a deeply ingrained attraction that can't simply be shut off or redirected.
On that, studies are clear. Gay conversion therapy is ineffective, several studies have found, and the American Psychological Association now says such treatment is harmful and can worsen feelings of self-hatred.

For men, studies suggest that orientation is fixed by the time the individual reaches puberty. Women show greater levels of "erotic plasticity," meaning their levels of attraction are more significantly shaped by culture, experience and love than is the case for men. However, even women who switch from gay to straight lifestyles don't stop being attracted to women, according to a 2012 study in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Those results suggest that while people can change their behavior, they aren't really changing their basic sexual attraction.]”

http://www.livescience.com/50058-bei...-a-choice.html

AND

“[Homophobic attitudes may say a lot about the person who holds them, new research suggests.
A new study of university students in Italy revealed that people who have strongly negative views of gay people also have higher levels of psychoticism and inappropriate coping mechanisms than those who are accepting of homosexuality.
This doesn't mean that homophobic people are psychotic; rather, psychoticism is a personality trait marked by hostility, anger and aggression toward others. But the study does suggest that people who cling to homophobic views have some psychological issues, said lead researcher Emmanuele Jannini, an endocrinologist and medical sexologist at the University of Rome Tor Vergata.

"The study is opening a new research avenue, where the real disease to study is homophobia," Jannini told Live Science.]”

http://www.livescience.com/52146-hom...m=most-popular