Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

JS: A nationwide University of Chicago study of sexuality in America in 1994

I believe he is talking about the National Health and Social Life Survey because no other study of this type has been done at the University of Chicago in that period. If so, he is slightly wrong because it is of 1992

Originally Posted by inked

concluded, ". . . it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured."

I actually agree with this sentence assuming it means what I think it means. Homosexuality is neither a cookie cutter as far as people self-conception (I wonder what dimesion the author was talking about), nor everybody displays same-sex sexual behavior over time (sometimes people exibiting same-sex sexual behavior, exibited different-sex sexual behavior in their youth), and it is a bedevilly difficult character to measur because there as so many possible definition (behavior, attraction, self-identificantion) and different propensities to disclose

Originally Posted by inked

We now know that in the majority of both men and women, "homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to "mutate" into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.

This statement has no scientific support in the way in which it is written. Also the author does not say what he is using as ""homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria"

Originally Posted by inked

The proportion of people who adopt a homosexual identity and the length of time they persist in holding on to it are affected primarily by environmental factors clearly identifiable in these epidemiologic studies.

Well this author is also stating the obvious to confuse people. Identity is socially constructed, Foucault already explained that long ago.
Also note the use of the word "epidemiologic" made to lend credence that homosexuality is an illness. Actually these studies are not epidemiologic in this sense of the word.

The interpretation that this author gives of the elimination of homosexuality from the list of pathologies is highly tendentious. For instance it is extremely well known that Kinsey's report did not use the best statistical methodology; that does not mean that it is completely wrong or unscientific. It was the best scientific evidence available at the time, now we have better evidence; some of the statistical shortcomings have been fixed in subsequent studies (e.g. the aformentioned National Health and Social Life Survey)

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

The way "suspect class status"

It is amazing that he is giving the impression (but he is careful not to say) that Romer, Lawrence and Goodridge were decided on the basis of "suspect classification" when they were not


EDIT: ooooh, but now I see that this guy is (or was) a NARTH fellow. That explains many things. Next time somebody posts something from NARTH please let me know in the title, so I save time by not reading it

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "if you actually meant to say you disagree with what i wrote", so I'll just say that I think if the report addresses, specifically, suicide rates among gays, then the title should reflect that, and should NOT be changed for the sake of "inclusiveness". So it appears, as I said before, that I"m on your side.

yes i was talking about the article but was being lazy. should have said "disagree with the premise behind the change as stated in the article i posted."

I came across the articles a week or so ago, IIRC, and filed it away in my head to think about and hopefully research at a later time. When you mentioned that article that mentioned suicide rates among gays, OF COURSE it popped back into my head, and I mentioned it here. It's that simple. Sheesh! What, do you think I was suppressing it before? If I wanted to suppress it, why would I bring it up now? What motive did you think I had? Why did you think that I mentioned it now, besides the fact that the subject came up? I really can't think of a motive that you think I had

Oh im fine with taking your word for it. Thats why i ASKED questions instead of like screaming accusations at you:

Were you implying that its a waste of money to focus on it? or that you think focusing on suicide specifically with gays is an unfair extra right?

It was just the timing of it then I guess. Because suddenly you use an argument counter to ones you’ve used before that seems to excuse the action of not including the words in the title. See what I mean?

[Nurvingiel]

In the interest of my blood pressure, I'm just going to make one comment on this interview.

We now know that in the majority of both men and women, "homosexuality," as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to "mutate" into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.

I'm preversely curious as to how he has observed this, given that we definitely do not have that much data. Way to go there braintrust.

("Lifetime" implies about a 70 year time period to me.)

[Rían]

It was just the timing of it then I guess. Because suddenly you use an argument counter to ones you’ve used before that seems to excuse the action of not including the words in the title. See what I mean?

OK, I can see how you got where you did, then.

Communication is frustrating sometimes, innit?!

[Juicybearfut]

having the words taken out of the title of the program kinda seems....rediculous....

i think i read somewhere that the suicide rate among homosexual male teens is three times as high as a normal male teen rate...
studys can be done on this...but i think that it is the way that society and people treat them that cause it (i kinda feel like im stating the obvious)

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

EDIT: ooooh, but now I see that this guy is (or was) a NARTH fellow. That explains many things. Next time somebody posts something from NARTH please let me know in the title, so I save time by not reading it

Actually, you can just scan for "virtueonline" in the reference and save yourself a considerable amount of time.

My experience of these copy-and-paste jobs is that if you take the trouble of examining them carefully and responding to the "arguments", as you have done very effectively above, you will get no response.

My conclusion has been that the purpose behind posting these articles is not to engage in debate but to disseminate dogma.

EDIT: Apologies for above rant...

Trying to be a bit more constructive, why do we care what the "cause" of homosexuality is? The more I hear of arguments either way (nature or nurture) the more I think that the whole thing is a political Trojan horse to characterise homosexuality as some sort of disorder.

If we think it's genetic, we can feel sorry for gays because they can't help it, suffering as they do from an inherited disorder. If only we had genetic screening we could save them the trauma of existence.

If we think it's environmental then the implication is that we can view them as suffering from a mental disorder which just requires the right sort of cure.

Both of these are disgusting to me. The key issue is equality. People with all sorts of sexual orientations are equally valuable parts of society and should be accorded the same status. The fact that they aren't means that we should focus on challenging the stigma, not on changing their behaviour.

Indeed, diversity is a good thing and should be celebrated. It's a shame that some people are unable to see this; it's their loss.

[inked]

Or you can just scan for persons' titles and avoid other viewpoints. In my case, I actually like to see stuff from LAMBDA and pro-gay organizations granting them an opportunity, but hey, we all have our options!

New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory

By Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., & Durwood Ray, Ph.D.

2/10/2005

Even the author's "strongest finding" was not statistically significant.

A study to be published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Human Genetics, and available online now, actually undermines the commonly held view that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors.

The study's lead author, Brian Mustanski from the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a news release: "There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

However, a thorough examination of the actual report reveals no statistically significant findings for any of these DNA regions.

The authors describe in the article three non-X chromosomal "new regions of genetic interest" (7q36, 8p12, and 10q26). In the authors' view, a noteworthy aspect of the study is as follows: "Our strongest finding was on 7q36 with a combined mlod score of 3.45 and equal distribution from maternal and paternal allele transmission. This score falls just short of Lander and Kruglyak's (1995) criteria for genomewide significance." They go on to say "two additional regions (8p12 and 10q26) approached the criteria for suggestive linkage"¯again pointing out that neither was statistically significant.

Thus, even the author's "strongest finding" was not statistically significant by widely accepted scientific criteria.

The study also re-examined potential genetic contributions on the X chromosome from region Xq28. This is the region first identified by Dean Hamer as associated with homosexual orientation. However, this study re-analysis, to quote the authors, "did not find linkage to Xq28 in the full sample."

The regions hypothesized as relating to sexual orientation by the research team appear to relate to developmental precursors to temperamental factors that have been associated with environmental theories of same-sex attractions. For instance, one region identified is associated with hormones that impact sexual development. Another is linked to hemispheric development in the brain. Such genes may impact the temperamental traits of activity level and aggressiveness. Lower preferences for aggressive activities have been linked to the development of same-sex attractions in men. However, currently there is no research evidence in the Mustanski study or any other of a direct pathway from genes to sexual attractions that does not involve environment interacting with individual temperamental differences.

Consistent with an environmental explanation of same-sex attraction is the work of Daryl Bem. In a 2000 study, Dr. Bem demonstrated that there is no relationship between genotype and sexual orientation in men unless environmental interaction with the temperamental trait of gender nonconformity is taken in account. In other words, exploring individual temperamental factors lived out within certain environments may provide more precise areas for research into the action of potential genetic factors in the development of sexual attractions.

In summary, the Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

To learn more on the claim that homosexuality is genetic, read Concerned Women for America's paper, Born or Bred: Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality is Genetic by Robert Knight. Click here.

Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., is associate professor of psychology and Durwood Ray, Ph.D. is professor of biology at Grove City College (Pennsylvania).

References:

Bem, D.J. (2000). "Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the Biological Correlates of Sexual Orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior , 29, 531-548.

Mustanski, B.S., DuPree, M.G., Nievergelt, C.M., Bocklandt, S., Schork, N.J. & Hamer, D.H. (2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation." Human Genetics, http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf.


UIC News Release:

[The Gaffer]

er, you've already posted that one;

Trying to be a bit more constructive, why do we care what the "cause" of homosexuality is? The more I hear of arguments either way (nature or nurture) the more I think that the whole thing is a political Trojan horse to characterise homosexuality as some sort of disorder.

If we think it's genetic, we can feel sorry for gays because they can't help it, suffering as they do from an inherited disorder. If only we had genetic screening we could save them the trauma of existence.

If we think it's environmental then the implication is that we can view them as suffering from a mental disorder which just requires the right sort of cure.

Both of these are disgusting to me. The key issue is equality. People with all sorts of sexual orientations are equally valuable parts of society and should be accorded the same status. The fact that they aren't means that we should focus on challenging the stigma, not on changing their behaviour.

Indeed, diversity is a good thing and should be celebrated. It's a shame that some people are unable to see this; it's their loss.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Or you can just scan for persons' titles and avoid other viewpoints. In my case, I actually like to see stuff from LAMBDA and pro-gay organizations granting them an opportunity, but hey, we all have our options!

What do you like of what Lambda Legal publishes?

I am avoiding to read NARTH stuff because everytime I read it in the past it was tearing truth to shreds. It is not even about viewpoint, it is offensive

Originally Posted by inked

New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory

By Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., & Durwood Ray, Ph.D.

2/10/2005

Even the author's "strongest finding" was not statistically significant.

A study to be published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Human Genetics, and available online now, actually undermines the commonly held view that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors.

The study's lead author, Brian Mustanski from the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a news release: "There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

However, a thorough examination of the actual report reveals no statistically significant findings for any of these DNA regions.

The authors describe in the article three non-X chromosomal "new regions of genetic interest" (7q36, 8p12, and 10q26). In the authors' view, a noteworthy aspect of the study is as follows: "Our strongest finding was on 7q36 with a combined mlod score of 3.45 and equal distribution from maternal and paternal allele transmission. This score falls just short of Lander and Kruglyak's (1995) criteria for genomewide significance." They go on to say "two additional regions (8p12 and 10q26) approached the criteria for suggestive linkage"¯again pointing out that neither was statistically significant.

Thus, even the author's "strongest finding" was not statistically significant by widely accepted scientific criteria.

The study also re-examined potential genetic contributions on the X chromosome from region Xq28. This is the region first identified by Dean Hamer as associated with homosexual orientation. However, this study re-analysis, to quote the authors, "did not find linkage to Xq28 in the full sample."

The regions hypothesized as relating to sexual orientation by the research team appear to relate to developmental precursors to temperamental factors that have been associated with environmental theories of same-sex attractions. For instance, one region identified is associated with hormones that impact sexual development. Another is linked to hemispheric development in the brain. Such genes may impact the temperamental traits of activity level and aggressiveness. Lower preferences for aggressive activities have been linked to the development of same-sex attractions in men. However, currently there is no research evidence in the Mustanski study or any other of a direct pathway from genes to sexual attractions that does not involve environment interacting with individual temperamental differences.

Consistent with an environmental explanation of same-sex attraction is the work of Daryl Bem. In a 2000 study, Dr. Bem demonstrated that there is no relationship between genotype and sexual orientation in men unless environmental interaction with the temperamental trait of gender nonconformity is taken in account. In other words, exploring individual temperamental factors lived out within certain environments may provide more precise areas for research into the action of potential genetic factors in the development of sexual attractions.

In summary, the Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

To learn more on the claim that homosexuality is genetic, read Concerned Women for America's paper, Born or Bred: Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality is Genetic by Robert Knight. Click here.

Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., is associate professor of psychology and Durwood Ray, Ph.D. is professor of biology at Grove City College (Pennsylvania).

References:

Bem, D.J. (2000). "Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the Biological Correlates of Sexual Orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior , 29, 531-548.

Mustanski, B.S., DuPree, M.G., Nievergelt, C.M., Bocklandt, S., Schork, N.J. & Hamer, D.H. (2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation." Human Genetics, http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf.


UIC News Release:

You have already posted this article as your post #4309 and I have already answered with my post #4312
Although I could answer much more, I think my original answer is quite illuminating.

[Insidious Rex]

Youll notice this pattern. I think the logic is why respond to a post that legitimately takes apart ones original post when you can just sit and bide your time and then just repost either the very same thing or a post with parallel ideology a little later. Id find it a lot more convicing if the refutations were commented on rather then just ignored wouldnt you?

But in the vien of reposting allow me to quote thyself from a month or so ago:

yes and weve exposed that garden path for what it was. As I recall... not to mention exposed it as irrelevant. So why bring it up again as if it was never refuted? Hard liners have that habit ive noticed.

*crazy argument!*
*logical refutement*
<backs off. waits patiently for smoke to clear>
...*crazy argument!*

still appropriate I see...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Trying to be a bit more constructive, why do we care what the "cause" of homosexuality is? The more I hear of arguments either way (nature or nurture) the more I think that the whole thing is a political Trojan horse to characterise homosexuality as some sort of disorder.

Yes this is the recurring argument I hear against doing ANY studies on homosexuality but that bothers me almost as much as people using the studies to discriminate. The fact is that NO it DOESNT matter if its genetic or environmental or what combination there of when it comes to RIGHTS and EQUALITY as you state. But I think thats a seperate issue. As someone interested in science im keenly interested WHY homosexuality exists and how it comes about in the individual. I reject the notion of "Dont talk about it! It will be used against gays!" We can explore the science involved and STILL refute the lies and stereotypes from those with a bias. I make the same argument when talking about sex or race. Why make any subject taboo to study?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Or you can just scan for persons' titles and avoid other viewpoints.

What, Elf Lord?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Both of these are disgusting to me. The key issue is equality. People with all sorts of sexual orientations are equally valuable parts of society and should be accorded the same status. The fact that they aren't means that we should focus on challenging the stigma, not on changing their behaviour.

Indeed, diversity is a good thing and should be celebrated. It's a shame that some people are unable to see this; it's their loss.

*waves the rainbow flag of diversity* (It's not just about support for GLBTQ people!)

Gaffer, you rock. Well said!
EDIT: It just had to be quoted.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

yay! the rainbow warrior appears

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Indeed, diversity is a good thing and should be celebrated. It's a shame that some people are unable to see this; it's their loss.

Gaffer, please think carefully about what you just said.

All "diversity" means in this context is "things that are different from how I do them or even would like for myself, but I still think they're fine", right? After all, you wouldn't celebrate things that are diverse but that you disapprove of, right?

And if you blame others for not "celebrating" diversity they disapprove of, yet don't blame yourself, aren't you being inconsistent and unfair?

I ask you as a friend to please think about what I said carefully.

[inked]

I apologize for the repost. That was an error. I had meant to repost the one that was taken off the JD thread . Mea culpa.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=2073

One of those busy days and distractions....

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Gaffer, please think carefully about what you just said.

All "diversity" means in this context is "things that are different from how I do them or even would like for myself, but I still think they're fine", right? After all, you wouldn't celebrate things that are diverse but that you disapprove of, right?

And if you blame others for not "celebrating" diversity they disapprove of, yet don't blame yourself, aren't you being inconsistent and unfair?

I ask you as a friend to please think about what I said carefully.

Okey dokey

Just to be clear, I don't "blame" anyone for not celebrating the love of gay people; I heartily disagree with them, feel sorry for them and think they're missing out. They're also, IMO, however unconsciously, contributing towards the needless prejudice that gays experience each and every day.

The "cause" issue is a problem only for the Church, presumably because if it's innate, then it must have been put there by God. Hence religious groups have a political interest in "disproving" a genetic cause. As I said above, I think that one of the consequences of that debate is to further entrench the "homosexuality as disorder" assumption, which I reject.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. I should also add that I even value the diversity of opposing views, particularly when, as in your case, they are presented honestly and in a friendly manner. In this way we can challenge our own ideas, understand each other better and not become complacent.

The only time I don't value them is when they're not honest, masking hidden agendas, or when their proponents are more interested in rhetoric than in engaging in open discussion.

[Embladyne]

I see this thread is still drawing a crowd.

Well, having nothing to do with sexual orientation really, but more with gender identity...I'm going to Drag Ball tonight! It should pretty fun...though I really don't care for the "dance" music people play these days. Anyways, it was funny that a friend of mine commented that she was wearing a very girly outfit 'cause she was straight, and didn't want to confuse the lesbians. And so I pointed out to her than not all lesbians are butch.

[inked]

Feb 25, 8:09 AM EST

New HIV Strain May Progress Quickly

By JEFF DONN
Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) -- Research on a recently discovered HIV strain shows it holds an array of disturbing traits that help it quickly progress to full-blown AIDS while resisting drug treatments, doctors said Thursday at the leading meeting on AIDS science.

The variant, discovered in a New York City patient, may have raced from infection to full-blown AIDS in as little as four months, doctors said at the 12th Annual Retrovirus Conference. Typical strains can take 10 years to progress to full-blown AIDS.

Many new infections are resistant to treatment with common HIV drugs, and a small number of HIV variants have quickly progressed to the disease. But the New York patient's doctors said the case combines both characteristics in a worrisome way.

"The unique feature of this case is the convergence of ... the transmission of a remarkably drug-resistant HIV-1 variant and the extremely rapid clinical course to AIDS," the patient's doctors said in a review of his case.


The team is led by Dr. David Ho at Rockefeller University in New York.

Aspects of the HIV variant suggest it is especially deadly. It is capable of using both main entry points to infect cells, and it grows well in the lab, unlike most drug-resistant strains. It also causes cells that it infects to clump together, allowing them to kill other uninfected cells.

The patient, in his late 40s, was diagnosed in December and has lost 10 pounds in the past three weeks alone. It took him between four and 20 months to develop AIDS, Ho said.

Lab tests showed the patient was resistant to three of the four classes of AIDS drugs. He is taking other AIDS drugs now in the hope of vanquishing the infection.


Scientists are still trying to find the source of the man's disease. New York City health authorities have alerted doctors and begun to trace the patient's sexual contacts. The patient, whose name has been withheld, had unprotected anal sex with many other men, often in conjunction with methamphetamine use.

Some researchers have suggested that the patient may simply be unusually susceptible to AIDS, but his doctors said they have found no sign that his immune system is particularly vulnerable.

San Diego health officials have said they are studying a similar strain found there in a patient.

"We don't know whether this is a single isolated event or whether in fact there are other cases out there," said Ho, who is a paid consultant to ViroLogic Inc., which makes resistance tests.

Up to 950,000 people have the AIDS virus in the United States. About 18,000 die annually.
******************************

A similar strain across a continent - this is extremely fast migration.

[The Wizard from Milan]

This is a sad news (that I knew already).
What is your motive for posting it in this specific thread?