Originally posted by RoguePw25
If people are "born" gay, than why is it so hard for scientist to come up with actual proof of this? What I see are articles upon articles of them running test, and studying. If this is so true, than why is it so hard to prove this? If it's there, it's there.No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
I belive that sexual orientation is by choice. Just like someone chooses to be single. All of the stuff you posted, your "evidence" you say. Sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is. I also thinik that your enviorment plays a lot into as well, how you were raised as a child. That also comes into effect.
This is an article I found that was written March 2005. Very current:
Again, my original question: how are gay people born this way? Personally, I don't belive they are. There is nothing in our chemical make-up that "forces" us to have feelings for the same sex. It's the little element of life that I like to call Free Will.
btw, cute pic.
You're joking right? I can see that despite all the evidence that has been given to you, you still deny that homosexuality is not a choice. If you have ever met a gay person (in the flesh; not assumptions) they will tell you that they certainly didn't choose to be this way. Gay teenagers possess the highest suicide rate in the country. Why? Because they cannot deal with their homosexuality. They don't WANT to be gay. They want to be normal and heterosexual. Some men and women try desperately to repress their homosexual feelings. They get married and have kids. But usually it never works. The marriages usually end in divorce because A) the homosexual finally decides to come to terms with his/her homosexuality B) the wife/husband finally finds out about it.
The link you found is completely bulls***. I'm sorry but it is. Dr. Throckmorton is a complete fraud. He's a large supporter of "conversion therapy", which is not supported by the psychological community. That means everyone else who is reputable in the psychological community completely disagrees with his work. He has a Christian agenda to "help" gay people become straight. He is not, has never been, and never will be a reliable source. In fact, 5/6 "successes" in the S&S study were working for "ex-gay" groups at the time - so why would they have signed up for a study of problems with "conversion" therapy?
"The difference in the outcomes of Shidlo and Schroeder and Spitzer (2003) is all about sampling. Shidlo and Schroeder advertised on the Internet and other places, specifically looking for people who felt harmed by attempts to change sexual orientation. Spitzer was looking for people who felt they had changed and were happy about it. Both studies were convenience samples, meaning the authors deliberately sought a certain type of participant. Nothing is random about either study so individually they say nothing about how likely or not change is to occur."
Yes, both studies were convenience samples, but again, S&S did not specifically recuit individuals who felt they were harmed. In fact, 9% of their sample remained in "treatment" at the end of the 5-year study. Not only that, but Throckmorton completely ignores the evidence that S&S found that the "patients" were worse off than before they attempted this "treatment." And they used common tests accepted in psychology, and remeasured several times over the course of the 25 years. The S&S study simply used much better methodology, no matter the convenience sampling. In order for a scientific experiment to be considered viable, the experiment's results most be capable of being repeated. This experiment's results have been repeated for years. Which means its viable.
You couldn't have chosen a worse source. Dr. Warren E. Throckmorton, Professor of Psychology Education: B.A., Cedarville College (used to be a community college) ; M.A., Central Michigan University (ditto); Ph.D., Ohio University (barely passed the bar exam) has been removed from the psychological association board. Why? Because he has broken several ethical/research laws for his so-called "conversion therapies". He's a laughing stock of the psychological community. His "scientific" theories on homosexuality have not been substantiated by any reputable psychological research organization in the country. Most of his studies have been performed by himself and a few other crockpots at a rundown church. I won't even get into what he thinks about race. (it's not good)
LeVay and Bailey however have won Nobel Prizes and have extremely high standings in the psychological community. The "sound bites" have been awarded hundreds of times by the American Psychological Association and the Havard Medical Association. Which one are going to believe these guys or the cracker above? Please.
Sorry dude, but you just lost twice in row. The post you previously made really undermines my view of you. I would think you would be more intelligent not to fall for such a scam. (Dr. Throckmorton has several lawsuits against him for false advertisement and ethical breaching by 'ex-gays". The number of "ex-gays" who remained "ex-gays" for at least two months is approximately 0.8 percent. That's eight out of a hundred. The number who remained "ex-gays" for at least a year is zero percent. Viable he is not.
Nice try btw. Seriously though. Go to RELIABLE sources. Not backward christian sites with more agendas than the CIA. This is an example of such a site :http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html Ivy League educated and completely substantiated. Believe them not the cracker above.
Woe to the ignorant...