Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
What I said was taken directly out of actual studies that I have read. I don't know about you but for me paraphrasing and speculating are two separate things.
|
OK, so we can agree then that according to the dictionary definition of the word speculate, that you have been speculating on homosexuality. I think think that aside from a strict definition, your comments here are speculation on a less strict definition as well. Unless there is a consensus among scientists what the biological/environmental nature of homosexuality is, and you know and are regurgitating that consensus, then you are speculating on homosexuality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
At any rate I know nothing about homosexual sex among prisoners outside of what has been said in Hollywood television and the link Ummwhat provided which you dismissed. I simply don't know enough about the topic to comment on it and I did not criticize you for your own speculations, you criticized me for supposedly speculating about gays in the bedroom, but not in prisons remember?
|
Wrong on several accounts. I said it was hypocritical how you implicitly criticized me for speculating on homosexuality in prison while you then proceeded to speculate on homosexuality in general. That's hypocrisy, remember? It's also dishonest for you to mischaracterize my comments on Umm's link. I did not dismiss it. Prove that I dismissed it. I observed that he provided no quotes from his link that reinforced his point. If you believe differently, then elaborate on how he demonstrated his point with his link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
In the end it doesn't matter if I was speculating or not. I did not say anything was wrong with your speculations, however I prefer to know something about the topic before I discuss.
|
You implied that it was weird to speculate on homosexuality on jail, while at the same time you proceeded to speculate on homosexuality in general. That's hypocritical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
Your belief does not account for the physiological changes I mentioned, the only way they could be accurate about most gays is if people's voluntary (such as having gay sex as you believe) behavior caused these physiological differences which is what I was saying. If this behavior does not not affect one's physiology in this manner then your opinion is false. It is as simple as that. I will not explain myself again. You can either except my explanation or not.
|
The basis for your claims of physiological changes in one of your links was based upon rats and quails, not human beings. That's not evidence of human physiological changes. Nor were the findings of the link I mentioned conclusive. I reject both your source, and your explanations about your source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
Hormones could be another explanation. Hormones can affect the body and mind without the genes being different. Growth hormones in particular come to mind.
|
This does not explain why some people would theoretically have different hormone production than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
I took a more indepth look at the study and it's focus is clearly not on the sexual orientation of gays, but it does find it's way into the report. Either way it is just one of many.
|
OK, so the one link out of your list that I focused on, you fail to defend. OK, well if you're just going to go for a quantity over quality argument, I can just pull out random studies that hold the opposite opinion as you do:
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf
"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Head of The Human Genome Project
AGLP Fact Sheets
PsycNET
Homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The A.P.A. Normalization of Homosexuality, and the Research Study of Irving Bieber
The Fading "Gay Gene"
Morphometric analysis of the human corpus callosum...[Hum Neurobiol. 1988] - PubMed Result
Psychodynamic psychiatry in the "decade of the brain" -- Gabbard 149 (8): 991 -- Am J Psychiatry
Transduction of psychosocial stress into the neurobiology of recurrent affective disorder -- Post 149 (8): 999 -- Am J Psychiatry
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf
Quote:
|
Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders, wrote a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He contended that people can change their “sexual orientation” from homosexual to heterosexual. Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom claimed that through reparative therapy counseling, their desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they changed over to heterosexual orientation.
|
OK, so either way, the proof that homosexuality is based upon environmental factors is "just one of many."
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis
No when I copied my post to point out that I never said homosexuality was genetic it got mixed up with that comment. I highlighted it and explained in my edit that it made its way in there however I did not immediately notice it so I just highlighted rather then change then remove it from the post as it would make it look like I edited the whole thing. I just wanted everyone to know that that was not part of my original comment. If I was being intentionally deceptive I wouldn't have that comment stick out. In other words it was supposed to be in my last comment.
|
That's a weird thing to do. I don't know why you would add something in to a later post and give the impression that you were saying something that you never said. I would just say it the next time.
WEB