For what it's worth. Wheaton, Il is home to Wheaton College, a fundie college (http://www.wheaton.edu/). I'm doing lazy research, but I'm also guessing that Victor Books is somehow affiliated with the College or with the fundies. Now, this doesn't necessarily imply bias in the aforementioned rigorous scholarly tome, but it raises the spectre of, shall we say, a taint of bias.
I notice you are unable to provide any references to gainsay it. Actual science is far superior to quoting LGBT activists without any scientific degree which is all your side has been able to come up with so far.
I haven't tried to provide any references to gainsay it. That wasn't my point. It is to point out your hypocrisy in charging others with "lazy research" when your argument in this case is the very epitome of lazy research. Mr. kettle, meet Mr. Pot. It was also my point to suggest that we have a very reasonable justification to be skeptical of this guy's research. He has a known bias and he does not submit his arguments to review by real experts.
Sometimes no evidence is better than shi**y evidence.
I'm happy to get off your case if you are willing to climb down from your lazy research high horse.
This is not science; it is religious fundamentalism cloaking itself in the guise of science. This is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, but a polemic reviewed by and written for openly anti-homosexual audience. This guy is NOT a scientist in this particular context (though apparently he has an MD). Let him submit his arugments to review by real scientists and let them judge the scientific validity of this argument and evidence.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
I notice you are unable to provide any references to gainsay it. Actual science is far superior to quoting LGBT activists without any scientific degree which is all your side has been able to come up with so far.
I haven't tried to provide any references to gainsay it. That wasn't my point. It is to point out your hypocrisy in charging others with "lazy research" when your argument in this case is the very epitome of lazy research.
The way to debate an issue is to use your weakest argument first. I threw out a quote by a simple doctor expecting to get a quote from an non-degreed activist and that is indeed what I got. Most people would trust a doctor over any activist as I think you'll agree.
When these guys start pulling some actual references, I'll up the ante.
I only give back what I have received. Either you insult our intelligence with blatant misreadings of references or you are simply uneducated.
Was it or was it not an article about one man's experience in a non-peer-reviewed fundamentalist tome?
May is may. Was not the counter argument from a non peer-review activist?
Do you consider the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to be non-peer-reviewed activists? Good heavens!
Bogaert's analysis of men's family histories appears in the July 11 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It confirms an analysis of sexual orientation in 604 men reported in 1996 by Bogaert and a colleague. That report didn't include men raised with non-biological older brothers, leaving open the possibility that some psychological reaction to older brothers fostered homosexuality.
bcspace wrote:Not according to science....Bernard J. Klamecki, “Medical Perspective of the Homosexual Issue” in J. Isamu Yamamoto, ed., The Crisis of Homosexuality (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990) 116-123.
Anyone interested in what kind of "science" this tome propounds may Google it to find it listed among myriad fundie xtain bibliographies...
I figured bcspace would "coggins" up the process and go with obviously biased sources.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
Indeed. They may have reasons, but no compelling ones. One can find just as much sex, companionship, security, etc. outside marriage. The only thing unique is raising children.
I'm so glad LDS support my sexual lifestyle!
When did I say that? Just because people give reasons does not mean they are moral or ethical.