|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 13:20:50 GMT 1
I think you have to be careful when extrapolating animal behaviour to human beings and opinions based on good evidence is what counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 8, 2011 13:23:06 GMT 1
Please include this 'good evidence' when you post your opinions, then we might be able to see where you are coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 13:25:03 GMT 1
Please include this 'good evidence' when you post your opinions, then we might be able to see where you are coming from. Well, I've already made the point that there seems to be a lack of firm scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetically based. |
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 8, 2011 13:35:30 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 15:02:01 GMT 1
Sorry Louise but you'll have to do better. None of these studies have been replicated and therefore do not count as scientific evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 8, 2011 15:06:31 GMT 1
None of these studies have been replicated and therefore do not count as scientific evidence. Please explain to me exactly how you verified this. |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 16:12:16 GMT 1
None of these studies have been replicated and therefore do not count as scientific evidence. Please explain to me exactly how you verified this. Louise, there is no firm scientific consensus to date that I know of that attributes sexual preference to genetic make-up. In fact, in the first article you cited it specifically stated that no replication of the study had been achieved. People tend to find what they want to find in such studies which is why it is important to allow such work to be peer reviewed. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 16:59:47 GMT 1
This is just utter bollocks! There are (whether or not some people choose to just deny it from a point of almost total ignorance), a range of studies (not all will have been replicated, but you CAN take the whole range of studies, even if they all aren't exactly the same replicated experiment) that indicate that there is SOME genetic component to sexual orientation, along with pre-natal environment and early environment. What it certainly isn't is some sort of conscious choice you make when you're 16 (or 14, or 9, or 5).
Some people seem to thinkl that since there ISN'T a simple gay gene, it isn't genetic -- but then it's like most complicated aspects of human behaviour -- a combination of genetic factors, developmental and enviromental influences.
This is just plain wrong, and a misunderstanding of the scientific process. In physics, fior example, you don't usually just replicate an experiment, you look for a DIFFERENT experiment that tests the SAME hypothesis.
So, IF there is a genetic component to being gay, we should expect to see, for example:
Identical twins more likely to be both gay if one is, than compared to non-identical twins, or siblings brought up in the same familial environment.
If genetic, we might expect to see patterns of gay people in families (gay sons more likely to have gay uncles and so on).
and so on and so on. Trying to just ignore all these results just because no one else has done exactly the same study is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 8, 2011 17:01:34 GMT 1
it is important to allow such work to be peer reviewed. Which is why I linked to peer reviewed research and not some opinion piece. Please explain to me how you checked your claim that there has been no peer reviewed and replicated work that shows a genetic element to homosexuality - I'm willing to learn. |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 8, 2011 17:08:16 GMT 1
DO you realise how daft you sound? Do you actually KNOW any 16-year old boys? If so, you'd know how ridiculous the suggestion would be -- that they should all try taking it up the bum as a fashion statement!
The over-whelming point remains is that there still were gay men, even when discovery would have meant disgrace, getting beaten up, being imprisoned, sacked, and even killed. Hardly a sensible lifestyle choice driven by peer-pressure in those cases, is it?
This is just the same nonsensical line from the far right, that the gay rights lobby have some agenda, and that if we talk about being gay too much, or even indicate that it might be okay, all and sundry are going to turn queer in some wild burst of youthful sexual experimentation. As I said before, most teenage boys would rather DIE (literally), than have anyone think they might be queer. It isn't exactly peer-pressure if none or your peers is doing it, or if the ones that do get their heads kicked in outside the school gates.
All I can say is, is being gay is REALLY that attractive and easy, that people will do it despite fears of queer-bashing, being banished from their families, or threatened with death, the the whole human population should be gay, because its obviously more addictive than heroin or crack, and more pleasurable than the most expensive designer drug.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 17:16:02 GMT 1
STA, I'm disappointed at how much woolly thinking you bring to this issue. If there is compelling scientific evidence then present it, otherwise shut up.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 8, 2011 17:23:02 GMT 1
Abacus - I presented peer reviewed evidence as you requested but you dismissed it.
It is clear that you have your own opinions that you have not been able to support with any evidence, peer reviewed or otherwise.
Now it's my turn to ask you - where is your evidence (replicable and peer reviewed as you demanded of me) that homosexuality is purely a lifestyle choice?
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 17:25:11 GMT 1
it is important to allow such work to be peer reviewed. Which is why I linked to peer reviewed research and not some opinion piece. Please explain to me how you checked your claim that there has been no peer reviewed and replicated work that shows a genetic element to homosexuality - I'm willing to learn. "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences, with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientationNow what this says is that sexual orientation is a complex interaction of factors, NOT just genetic factors so that anyone might become homosexual. This is the point I am making Louise. |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 8, 2011 17:28:57 GMT 1
Then how do you account for the high incidence of homosexuality among boys that attended boarding school?
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 8, 2011 17:40:00 GMT 1
Correct. But that does not follow. Espcially if you want to imply (as I think you do) that conscious choice might override all the other interacting factors. |
|
