Doctoral Student kicked out because she does not believe gays are born that way

This is the most irrelevant discussion in the world. Not that the woman was kicked out, that is unfortunate, but the discussion over whether or not a person was born gay or not. The problem with the rights indignity, is it is their own mental deficiencies which make this an issue in the first place!! Because the right has a large number of morons (that is the kindest term I can come up with), they would have you believe that gay people have no rights because they chose to be gay, and were not born that way. So it is not a protected category like race. Well of course that is irrelevant, as religion is a choice and rightfully a protected category. It is an entirely irrelevant discussion, and people on the left shouldn't care about it. In the end it doesn't matter. Gay people should say, "I can't choose which sex I am attracted to, but I do choose who I love," and be done with it. Don't let narrow minded ignorant bigots set the discursive agenda.

PS. I don't believe gay people were born gay, but it certainly isn't a choice either, it seems to be something which develops as people develop based on numerous factors. Environmental, genetic, etc.

 

I did just that in post #199 above.

You did in fact argue that no gene has ever been found that no genetic mapping has ever identified a gene related to sexual preference.

This is incorrect.

As far as the Extreme Left running our Universities...well...I have to agree with you upon that point but the Right could do itself a favor and stop attempting to push Extreme Religious Specific Ideology.

I am Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal.

As are MOST AMERICANS.

AboveAlpha

 

No, you didn't share a quote where I claimed it was a choice or where I claimed it was genetic. Here is the exact quote you targeted from me.

In the above quote I never took one side or the other. I stated clearly that I could care less. You are the one lying and clearly wrong.

You are just making things up. Either share a direct quote I made that is wrong or admit you are lying about me.

All I have ever said is that I don't care if it is genetic or a choice.

What I do care about is that our colleges are being run by thought Nazi's who don't allow for an open discussion.

 

his is what you said and I quote...Again, I suggest you read for comprehension. It is a FACT that many studies have been done. it is a FACT that many of those studies conflict with one another, or imply opposite findings. It is a FACT that no study or set of studies is conclusive, or even consistent. It is a FACT that no genetic mapping has EVER identified a gene related to sexual preference....end quote.

Now if it is no longer on the board you have removed it.

AboveAlpha

 

I don't have the power to remove it. I even used the quote you directly referenced in your post #199. I don't have the power to change your posts too. You have been caught lying. Knock it off.

My only concern on this issue is that there is no open discussion allowed in a University.

Now quit lying about me.

 

I would like to apologize to you as the person who posted this was Flintc NOT YOU!

I am very sorry I accused you of this as I somehow made a mistake.

AboveAlpha

 

No worries... have a good night.

I am good with gay marriage, adoption, etc.... I am not cool with Universities that are supposed to be the bastion of thought and exchange closing down intellectual exchanges.

 

Understand and I agree.

Sorry again for my screw up.

AboveAlpha

 

And yet somehow, not a single psychological organization in the world agrees with that paper. Huh. Not sure how that happened.

...You have no idea how complex genetic determination is, do you? It's kind of a nightmare to decipher any individual trait from a gene - doubly so if the main execution of this trait belongs in the field of evo-psych, because unlike most of the rest of the body, our understanding of the brain is still very much incomplete. Furthermore, if homosexuality were a behavior, and a choice as you seem to imply, I welcome you to take the Dan Savage challenge and choose to be gay.

Yes, and the results have been exactly the opposite of what you've implied. The fact is that homosexuality is defined as a pattern of romantic and sexual attraction to the opposite sex. Not just what you do with them in bed. And attraction is not the same thing as behavior, nor is it a choice.

 

Agree 100%. If this article is true (which I'm on the fence about, as I haven't seen a single source without a vested interest in bashing gays pick up the story, nor have we heard anything from anyone other than her Lawyer), then the professor is definitely in the wrong - incredibly so.

 

What evidence do you have for the claim, that homosexual and bisexual men are up to 10 times more likely to have been victims of child molestation? I've never seen such claim in scientific literature. I consider it pretty improbable considering the prevalence among men in general (5 - 10 %) this would mean 50 % - 100 % of homosexuals or bisexuals have been sexually abused. Some studies even claim prevalence among general male population as high as 17 %. The result vary a lot because using different definitions and different methods. I found two studies about prevalence among homosexual males, one has the result 14 % with representative sample, the other had clearly non-representative sample (selection bias) and found the prevalence 35 %. I didn't find any numbers with clear and definitions and methodology same for both general sample and sample of homosexuals, so I can't compare the numbers.

 

The school should apologize, and she should be allowed back into the program. Even the APA's opinion on whether or not homosexuality has a environmental or biological roots is essentially, "We don't know." At the same time, John-Charles, as a doctoral student, should also be open to the scientific possibilities that may be some biological factors at play in homosexuals. I would like to know how she came to her conclusion. Is it based on scientific research, or just some quotes from a bible? If it's the former, let's hear what she has to say; if it's the latter, well, blah, blah, blah, we've already heard that mumbo-jumbo, so keep it to yourselves, and let real scientists figure it out.

 

Find it in the study and quote it. I briefly scanned the study and haven't found such claims for humans. There are some claims about conditioning being thought to be a cause of deviances (I don't know if homosexuality is considered a deviance here, maybe it is older studies), however there is nothing about what evidence support such claim and it links mostly to old materials. It also says that reconditioning therapies are being used despite limited evidence of their effectiveness

 

The paper Silly is linking to is NOT a study. It is a review paper of prior studies. Many of these are 40-50 years old. Looking at those (where I can find them), I discover that they consist mostly of speculations. Some of them are rather hilarious from today's perspective, because they are studies carefully constructed to support confirmation bias.

Your quotes, as you say, are from as far back as 1965, nothing within the last 20 years. Today "limited effectiveness" is well enough studied so we know it means "completely ineffective." Notice the careful wording - these preferences are "thought to develop". Not by any means demonstrated to develop (at the time), and by now these thoughts are shown to be incorrect.

When something is being intensively studied today, with literally hundreds of studies coming out each year, it's common sense to be dubious of someone hauling out ancient speculations and trying to pass it off as current thinking. Invariably, this isn't done by someone trying to understand what's going on, it's done by someone trying to defend a congenial falsehood.

 

The comparisons to humans is at the end of the Paper. It's a good read too.

Add it to the centuries of practical applications in zoological and agricultural fields where trainers have to train stud animals to artificial conditions in order to collect semen. They have been artificially-orienting animals across all species of warm blooded mammals [we cannot be the one exception] since I think the 1700s? Or maybe as far back as Egyptian times. I forget. You can google the history of the first written evidence of this.

It explains why a stallion or some other such animal [take your pick, any will do] goes from naturally having a sexual appetite near an estrus mare to getting an erection instead at the sight of a trainer's overalls or a certain color of halter and the dummy mount. Anything [sights, smells, sounds] with the first few endorphine-orgasm experiences grafts those conditions onto the animal's sexual-orientation makeup. In fact, trainers have to be very careful not to present the grafted items around the stud animal during day to day handling. They become often so sexually excited that some handlers have been injured by accidentally grabbing the wrong color halter or presenting some of the other stimulus items without thinking. Some animals graft over with as little as two or three repetitions of this classic pavlovian phenomenon, some may take up to 10 or so. Once imprinted, the animal has an artificial sexual orientation and will become more excited at the artificial items than the original estrus mare used to "tease" him.

Human females emit invisible pheremones all the time. We are one of the few species that goes into estrus every month, year round. Add that to hormone surging youth, inability/lack of confidence to access females sexually, his own "training" by venting on something else and you have yourself a sexual deviant in the making: Or if he is coerced to experience his first few orgasmic/endorphine associative events by a sexual predator....

Here you go: [and bear in mind the CDC doesn't use the word "epidemic" flippantly or loosely]

My google results on Dr. Stall tell me that he worked extensively with gay populations in the Bay Area if memory serves and then went on to be an expert for the CDC on gay behaviors and the HIV/AIDS crisis, how the two are linked. Behaviors to epidemic.

Also, from a Mayo Clinic publication 2007"

That latter part "a form of social learning took place" is addressed specifically in this article [where I told you reference to human correlation is at the end of it] http://www.pphp.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno(2001).pdf That article addresses how animals across species, even avian ones, select their first few [imprinting] sexual experiences from cues they get from their social matrix. This is what makes normalizing homosexuality particularly insidious >> http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...boys-ages-13-29-getting-hiv-last-7-years.html

 

Silhouette,

how does

confirm the claim

?

Next, it seems that we notice different things in the studies:

First, there is that theories have speculated, not that there is strong and clear evidence. Next, there are three other possible explanations mentioned. You can't just pick the one that you like.

 

Yes but their conclusion came before: that the abused-abuser phenomenon is rock solid and accepted by the scientific community. Why did you leave that previous paragraph out? Didn't suit the direction you wanted the context to go? People can read my links. And I hope that they take the time to do so. The articles aren't horribly long; but being substantial, they address the questions in depth. Anyone actually wondering about the validity of my claims should be delighted to scour these articles over for accuracy as weighed against my claims. Please go back to my last post, reader, and follow the links. Study well.

 

My record continues for creating provocative threads which get a lot of action

 

Yes. Now if only it wasn't largely because the OP was completely full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You're a political pornographer.

 

OK, I tried the "multi-quote" function and this is all I got from a much larger post?

Here's the whole post from last page: