Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Be Ye Not Gay
Topic Started: Oct 25 2011, 05:32 PM (3,712 Views)
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 08:41 AM
How are beings identified sexually?
How, scientifically do we identify homosexuals and heterosexuals?
What you are attracted to.

Not how you live, what you have sex with, whether you like Cher, how masculine or feminine you appear, how you say Ss, or how well you take care of your appearance.

Since "What you are attracted to" is known only to you in the privacy of your own mind science cannot identify your sexuality.
These people cannot be counted, sorted or classified.

. . . and yes, I agree that people do land on a continuum somewhere between being attracted only to one or the other gender.
Further, where they are today may differ from where they were before or will be in the future.

This is awkward for relationships and classifying people, but too bad.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 09:22 AM
Who is anti-gay, and why does it become a question of "better than?"
What a dismal and boring worldview, where everything boils down to qualitative, comparative analysis.
That's what's behind all this.
That's what's behind religion too.

You get to feel you are more groovy than others.

Equality means the end of superiority.
People fight to maintain the status quo, their superiority.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
If you think all religions seek to do the same for people, and that all religion seeks to make one feel more groovy than another, then I would suggest a simple 100 level Philosophy of Religion course at your local Community College. I mean that in the kindest, genuine, and sincere way. I think it would help you to better understand some facts about what major religions actually believe.
Edited by KlavierBauer, Oct 30 2011, 09:49 AM.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Oct 30 2011, 09:25 AM
I don't think anyone here is anti-gay.
you're probably right but many several of the forum's openly pious church goers are anti-fornication. In the Christian tradition sexual intimacy between two people of the same sex cannot be described as anything other than fornication.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
IvoryThumper
 

"then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another. "

You disagree with this? Then why do you accept the study itself? AFAICT, Jolly just reiterated the conclusions of the study.


jon-nyc
 

The outcome of the study has no bearing on the origins of sexual behavior. It simply tells us that a smallish minority of guilt ridden christian homosexuals will change their behavior after undergoing some (further) religious indoctrination. But it tells us not a thing about the origin of the homosexual behavior they feel so guilty about. Not a thing.


jon-nyc
 

no one has yet put forward a convincing argument as to how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined from the fact that a small minority of religious homosexuals who attempt to change their behavior are successful in doing so.

If you believe that statement is incorrect, please point out which post provides the argument, or feel free to summarize it yourself.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 09:48 AM
If you think all religions seek to do the same for people, and that all religion seeks to make one feel more groovy than another, then I would suggest a simple 100 level Philosophy of Religion course at your local Community College. I mean that in the kindest, genuine, and sincere way. I think it would help you to better understand some facts about what major religions actually believe.
I think it would be cheaper, quicker, and of more educational value to just read a book about it.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Good advice Horace.
I'd also add that his isn't just to learn what religions believe, but also what they teach, and endeavor to do as belief systems.

Just the most obvious example (to me anyway), would be the assumption that Christianity teaches, or endeavors to make one feel superior or "groovier" than another. It simply misses the entire point of the belief system for that to be the main take away, yet that seems to be a common secular understanding.
High altitude point here - broad generalization - but both Buddhism and Christianity seek to better oneself through admission of their own faults and diligent effort to change their behavior toward unconditional love toward all. (in the Buddhist sense, 'faults' might not be the best word, but self reflection and determined action are paramount).
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
kenny
Oct 30 2011, 09:30 AM
how you say Ss
One thing I've wondered for a while: why do some gay men do that slight lisp on S's? :shrug: Where does it come from?
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
A qualified speech pathologist can usually rehabilitate a lisp. Best to get them to the SLP and into therapy when they're young.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Perhaps gay-therapy could include speech-therapy all on the same campus?
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
KB wrote:
Quote:
 
How, scientifically do we identify homosexuals and heterosexuals?


I think I've asked that question at least 4 times in this thread, using different approaches. I haven't gotten an answer. Wanna take a crack at it?

Secondly, if you can't identify all of them, tell me why you want to give a class of people civil relief, when they cannot be identified? Haven't gotten an answer to that one either. Feel free to take your best shot.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I think I've asked that question at least 4 times in this thread, using different approaches. I haven't gotten an answer. Wanna take a crack at it?

I don't - I was asking, not offering answer. It seems paramout to the discussion, and your original assertion though.

Quote:
 
Secondly, if you can't identify all of them, tell me why you want to give a class of people civil relief, when they cannot be identified? Haven't gotten an answer to that one either. Feel free to take your best shot.

Well first: this thread is about the assertion that people either are, or aren't born with a sexual identity. Put forth as evidence, is a study that showed people who called themselves one thing, could at some other point in time call themselves something else. A couple of us have pointed out that any correlation between the two ideas is a complete non-sequitur. Your quote above does nothing to address this correlation, which you have personally introduced into the discussion.
The discussion isn't about civil rights - the discussion you started has to do with whether or not people calling themselves straight after previously calling themselves gay has anything to do with whether or not they were born to prefer men or women sexually.

Second, you enjoy civil liberties and special freedom/rights afforded anyone who self identifies as "religious" - yet there is also no known scientific way to identify these individuals who are guaranteed these freedoms. Furthermore, religious people would argue that they - in fact all mankind - are born that way (with the proclivity to be religious and seeking of God).
I won't toss that back on you as a question though - because again, that isn't the point of this discussion.
It is an interesting observation though, if one is seeking an analog to self identifying people seeking protection from laws which might inhibit their beliefs which they by their own account have naturally engrained in them, without much choice on their part.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I've seen you ask the question or make the point, I'm just not sure how important it is. In practice, self-identification of self-selection seems to work ok in the examples I can think if.

Can you give me a realistic example where self-identification would lead to issues in applying protections?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 07:38 AM
jon-nyc
Oct 30 2011, 03:39 AM
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 12:26 AM
Jolly
 

If homosexuals can be "re-oriented" (for lack of a better word), then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another. If so, biology cannot be destiny, since biology would predicate if one is born an aardvark, one is an aardvark.


Yeah, this was the conclusion I disagreed with. I was pretty clear about that throughout the thread.
Not sure what that little diversion accomplished, other than getting the conversation away from your feeble and transparent attempt at constructing a strawman.

Try to resolve a discussion without taking parting shots, Jon -- it's not good form to destroy friendships over mere topical disagreements. Like this:

"then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another. "

You disagree with this? Then why do you accept the study itself? AFAICT, Jolly just reiterated the conclusions of the study. :shrug:
The piece in the baptist press mentioned no such conclusion of the study. AFAICT that conclusion was Jolly's.

If, in fact, the study also made that conclusion but it simply wasn't reported in the baptist press piece, then I disagree with that particular conclusion of the study as well. Obviously.


I haven't paid the fee to read the actual study, of course, but I would find it odd if the study's authors drew such a conclusion and the Baptist Press failed to report it. I would find it even more odd if the study's authors drew such a conclusion and got it published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 07:37 AM
You take pussy parting shots, Jon. Only pussies take parting shots.

Posted apparently without irony.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 12:31 PM
Quote:
 
I think I've asked that question at least 4 times in this thread, using different approaches. I haven't gotten an answer. Wanna take a crack at it?

I don't - I was asking, not offering answer. It seems paramout to the discussion, and your original assertion though.

Quote:
 
Secondly, if you can't identify all of them, tell me why you want to give a class of people civil relief, when they cannot be identified? Haven't gotten an answer to that one either. Feel free to take your best shot.

Well first: this thread is about the assertion that people either are, or aren't born with a sexual identity. Put forth as evidence, is a study that showed people who called themselves one thing, could at some other point in time call themselves something else. A couple of us have pointed out that any correlation between the two ideas is a complete non-sequitur. Your quote above does nothing to address this correlation, which you have personally introduced into the discussion.
The discussion isn't about civil rights - the discussion you started has to do with whether or not people calling themselves straight after previously calling themselves gay has anything to do with whether or not they were born to prefer men or women sexually.

Second, you enjoy civil liberties and special freedom/rights afforded anyone who self identifies as "religious" - yet there is also no known scientific way to identify these individuals who are guaranteed these freedoms. Furthermore, religious people would argue that they - in fact all mankind - are born that way (with the proclivity to be religious and seeking of God).
I won't toss that back on you as a question though - because again, that isn't the point of this discussion.
It is an interesting observation though, if one is seeking an analog to self identifying people seeking protection from laws which might inhibit their beliefs which they by their own account have naturally engrained in them, without much choice on their part.
As I understand it a non sequitur is a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise.

Part of the conclusion is that biology cannot be destiny, since no one can point out the biological factors which produce homosexuality. Since it is shown that some people can be "cured" of homosexuality, or at the very least remain celibate, is not that part of the conclusion logical?

The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly:
What "does not follow" (non-sequitur), is drawing a correlation between the study and biology/genetics.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 08:41 AM

Now, to the real subject of the thread, I become increasingly confused.
IT, reading the entire thing in one go, your position seems to be both that a) this study says something about sexual origin, and b) this study asks/answers no questions having to do with sexual origin.
AFAICT, a) the study does not say anything about sexual origin other than it can evidently not be ascribed entirely and in all cases to genetic and/or that it is necessarily a permanent fixation; and therefore b) the study does not ask about sexual origins but gives evidence against the prevalent view that homosexuality is a permanent, fixed and immutable trait.

AFAICT, Jolly's concern is that if the conclusions are correct (and Jon does not seem to have any argument against the study or its conclusions) then why should we be enacting laws and setting public policy as if homosexuality were a permanent genetic trait that was inescapable (as, for instance, race).

I think that about 95% of this thread can be boiled down to those points.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
apple
Oct 30 2011, 09:18 AM
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 07:34 AM
apple
Oct 30 2011, 03:32 AM
as usual, i agree with moonbat, and kathy who mentioned that homosexuality was a continuum.

ivory.. you never answered my question.

i don't really care tho so keep posting your arguments.

What question, Apple? About anti-gays? Who here is anti gay?

But it's good to know that you don't really care about me. That's a shame since I like you. I guess friendship for you requires conformity to your worldview.
ya think?

whatever you think is fine with me.. you were just accusing people of evading questions but never answered mine except with a question..

so i keep asking more.

whether or not i like you (i do) has nothing to do with this thread.
I ask questions for clarification, Apple, not to evade. If it is unclear what someone is actually asking, it seems better to ask a question to make sure you understand them first.

If you or Jon think that is evasion, that would be your problem, not mine.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
AFAICT, a) the study does not say anything about sexual origin other than it can evidently not be ascribed entirely and in all cases to genetic and/or that it is necessarily a permanent fixation; and therefore b) the study does not ask about sexual origins but gives evidence against the prevalent view that homosexuality is a permanent, fixed and immutable trait.

And Jon agrees with you that the study says nothing about sexual origin.
Your second point is a presumption I think that Jolly is asserting, but which some of us disagree on. I don't think the study is "evidence" of anything scientifically, other that when you ask people questions (i.e. "are you gay?" or "are you straight?") they can answer with either option.
That's basically been what Jon has said repeatedly - this study is evidence of nothing, and so the huge jump to whether or not this should inform policy is irrelevant, as the premise (that the study is some sort of evidence of something) is hugely flawed. As Jon has said, the study (by all appearances) is boring and worthless (as science anyway).
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 30 2011, 12:44 PM
The piece in the baptist press mentioned no such conclusion of the study. AFAICT that conclusion was Jolly's.

If, in fact, the study also made that conclusion but it simply wasn't reported in the baptist press piece, then I disagree with that particular conclusion of the study as well. Obviously.

I haven't paid the fee to read the actual study, of course, but I would find it odd if the study's authors drew such a conclusion and the Baptist Press failed to report it. I would find it even more odd if the study's authors drew such a conclusion and got it published in a respected peer-reviewed journal.
So is your complaint with the interpretation of the study given in the link? The interpretation was given by "coauthor Stanton L. Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College".

Jolly didn't make up any conclusion that was not already indicated, or strongly implied, by the co-author of the study. I already linked you to that paragraph numerous times trying to help you understand.

Or do you really think that the coauthor of the study is making a press statement about something other than what his study purports to show?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
KlavierBauer
Oct 30 2011, 01:15 PM

Your second point is a presumption I think that Jolly is asserting, but which some of us disagree on. I don't think the study is "evidence" of anything scientifically, other that when you ask people questions (i.e. "are you gay?" or "are you straight?") they can answer with either option.
That's basically been what Jon has said repeatedly - this study is evidence of nothing, and so the huge jump to whether or not this should inform policy is irrelevant, as the premise (that the study is some sort of evidence of something) is hugely flawed. As Jon has said, the study (by all appearances) is boring and worthless (as science anyway).
I don't understand that. The study does purport to be evidence that some people can be redirected from a same sex attraction to a heterosexual attraction. Are you quibbling about ""evidence" of anything scientifically"? It seems you don't like their methodology or conclusion or just don't accept the validity of the study for whatever reason.

You can argue with all the points about the validity or methodology of the study or how it confirms or disagrees with your assumptions, (see my post 134), but then you are not really talking about the conclusions of study as the article presents.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 01:17 PM
Jolly didn't make up any conclusion that was not already indicated, or strongly implied, by the co-author of the study. I already linked you to that paragraph numerous times trying to help you understand.
Again, the article made no mention of such a conclusion. I've done no further reading beyond the article itself.


In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I don't understand that. The study does purport to be evidence that some people can be redirected from a same sex attraction to a heterosexual attraction. Are you quibbling about ""evidence" of anything scientifically"? It seems you don't like their methodology or conclusion or just don't accept the validity of the study for whatever reason.

You can argue with all the points about the validity or methodology of the study or how it confirms or disagrees with your assumptions, (see my post 134), but then you are not really talking about the conclusions of study as the article presents.

We may simply think different things when we read these words, and that's ok.

It sounds as though you're making this logical assumption to combat some false notion that being genetically wired to be gay means that no one ever acts differently, but I don't hear any opposition to you or Jolly in this regard. I think it's clear that someone can be gay and act straight, or be straight and act gay, so a study showing people changing their preference doesn't logically (in my opinion) implicitly indicate that people can't be born gay or straight.
So when I mention a lack of scientific evidence, I'm saying that there's no observation or measurement that I'm seeing here that 1) defines how one is objectively gay or straight other than their self identification, and 2) connects sexual origin with change in self-identification.
The only way I can see correlating the study with sexual origin, is to presume that one's position is either that sexuality is 100% nature, or 100% choice. I don't think anyone's arguing that (based on what I said in the previous paragraph).
Edited by KlavierBauer, Oct 30 2011, 03:14 PM.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 30 2011, 02:42 PM
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 01:17 PM
Jolly didn't make up any conclusion that was not already indicated, or strongly implied, by the co-author of the study. I already linked you to that paragraph numerous times trying to help you understand.
Again, the article made no mention of such a conclusion. I've done no further reading beyond the article itself.


""The results that we report in our study suggest that change is definitely not impossible, and it's probably not uncommon, either," coauthor Stanton L. Jones, a psychologist at Wheaton College, told Baptist Press."

"The results... suggest..."

Sounds like a conclusion to me. It might be a weak conclusion, it may be the only responsible conclusion one can draw from the data, but when the author talks about "results" of a study, they are talking about what their research has concluded.

So basically this 200+ post thread is nothing more than you quibbling over "results" and "conclusion". Okey dokey.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply