h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"What could possibly be the motive behind these studies that wasn't somehow related to homophobic attitudes?"

Exactly - all will be revealed no doubt in time, but they are just setting the seeds now.

Thanks Mort!

So it's not just *me* feeling paranoid about this. Even though I'm not homosexual myself I see these sorts of 'research studies' as being not only unnecessary but also having a hidden agenda going on. An attempt to undermine the basic human rights of a large sector of our population.

Why is it *necessary* to discover what *causes* homosexuality?

Eh? Eh?


az

These "studies" often used skewed logic in making their conclusions.

People who take diet pills are more likely to be overweight....

You have all likely seen the diclaimers on TV ads for medications:

"Aricept is indicated for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Aricept is well tolerated, but may not be for everyone. Some people may experience nausea, diarrhea, not sleeping well, vomiting, muscle cramps, feeling very tired, or not wanting to eat. Additional side effects that occurred in 1 or more of the studies presented in this website include those in table 3 of the Aricept package insert and also: abrasions, feeling very weak, upset stomach, headache, joint pain, dizziness, accidental injury, and urinary tract infection. In studies, these side effects were usually mild and went away over time. Some people taking Aricept may experience fainting. People at risk for ulcers should tell their doctors because their condition may get worse. Individual responses to Aricept can be different – people may get better, stay the same, or not get better."

Some time ago, there was an ad for an allergy medication where, instead of stating "3% of women taking this medication experience menstrual pain", they said "87% of women taking this medication do not have menstrual pain".

Now, I know that they were trying to downplay the information that as a result of taking this medication, some women experience menstrual pain.... However, what they were also trying to do, or what they were giving every indivation of trying to do, was to not so subtly indicate that 87% of women taking the medication would not have this side-effect -- or that one could take this medication to prevent menstrual pain.

I called the company to complain. The person I spoke to simply would not admit that one could likely, if you were as "savvy" as the average person who allows commercials to influence their use of medications, construe from their ad that the medication would prevent menstrual pain.

Strangely enough, shortly after, they changed their ad to "3% of women taking this medication experienced menstrual pain".

<>

Correct me if I am wrong, but do not homosexuals *want* it to be believed that homosexuality is innate, inborn, *not a matter of choice*?

Umm, the homosexuals I know do NOT '*want* it to be believed that homosexuality is innate, inborn, *not a matter of choice*'.

For a start, there is a huge difference between 'innate' and 'not a matter of choice'. Very simply, I have brown hair, this is innate, but I don't have to HAVE brown hair, I could die it or shave it off. So-called 'innate' behaviours, about which the person has no choice at all, really only include the suckle reflex of an infant, and the brain's natural aptitude for absorbing and learning language. Many people think that aggressiveness, or the mothering instinct, are innate, but they are not behaviours about which one has no choice.

Conversely many behaviours that are damn near impossible to eradicate or alter are not innate, they are learned from infancy, like love of certain foods, like or dislike of certain music, certain ways of expressing love or anger, even the much debated 'mothering instinct' or aggression.

Gay people don't know, as we don't know, whether homosexuality is nurture or nature or both. Want they DO know, and need others to know, is that it is not a wilful decision taken to be 'perverse' or 'different', but it is their way of loving and being, whether they or we like it or not. They really really don't want the 'gay gene' to be found and really really (like me) hope it does not exist as such, or the vile and depressing vision of gay babies being aborted in certain very fanatic and stupid areas becomes a strong possibility. They do want it understood that it is not 'caused' by overbearing mothers or absent fathers or being seduced by another gay person - it is far far more complicated than that. No gay person wants a simple and obvious 'cause' to be found, because if it were, evil bigotted people would be able to take steps to eliminate homosexuality. And frankly, a world without gay people is a world I don't want to be in, homogenous, bland, repressive, pigeonholing in the worst way, sexually fossilized, utterly lacking in friendly tolerance, curiosity, reducing our ability to like people for their own sake, reducing all of us to breeding animals pairing up like Noah's animals with no concept of a different way of doing things. Because the only people who WANT to eliminate homosexuality also want male-female relationships to be as above. Yes, you may say that is my personal opinion, but I have yet to see or hear anything that does other than strengthen it.

Well said, that woman!




az

The use of "studies" to explain the occurance of homosexuality has been going on for generations and has not brought anyone any closer to an answer. These studies are used as ammunition by certain organizations to support their opinion that homosexuality is a disease and that it can be cured or prevented.

It means that the people who hold the opinion that it is not simply a natural occurrance for which there is no "cure" or "prevention" can continue to spread their particular brand of bigorty.

just wait till 'they' cotton on to the research about there being more than 2 human sexes. Between 5 and 17 I have seen quoted.

I'd certainly be interested to know if there was any other reason for finding out the 'cause' of homosexuality. Other than those previously stated here.


az

Here are some interesting studies... AFAIK, there is no reason why homosexuals should assume that 'evil people', and 'homophobes' are the ones who want to "prove" homosexuality inborn!
I think it's a choice, and that many 'gays' want the belief that it's otherwise, to be accepted. There's talk of passing a Civil Uniion Bill here, and its backers all insist that homosexuality is inborn.
Link no 1
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041128-121135-7392r.htm
Extract:
<<. In the early 1990s, science seemed on the verge of finding a "gay gene" or, as Mr. Kerry referred to, some inborn, biological basis for homosexuality, akin to eye color or height.
However, none of the "gay gene" studies have panned out. Even a 2000 study of nearly 5,000 Australian twins showed that, despite having identical genes, only 20 percent of male homosexuals and 24 percent of female homosexuals had a homosexual twin. To many researchers, these findings strengthen the argument that homosexuality stems more from outside influences than inborn genetics.>>
And another one..
http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1869b.htm

I'm not sure how you come to your conclusion from the last one you posted. In fact, the "study" is not a study at all. This was the conclusion of a single writer in 1869 who drafted a list of supposed "traits" which, in fact were nothing more than his own personal suppositions, in an effort to mount a legal challenge to the sodomy laws of the day.

He failed, and the law was not rescinded until 1969.

In the first article, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, while having the terrifically scientific-sounding name, is nothing more than a Christian group bent on "curing" homosexuals. Not a single one of their studies has been recognised by any reputable, recognized medical or psychology body, and their "studies" are designed to do nothing more than "prove" their particular theory that homosexuality is "chosen".

For example, their "study" that found in a study of twins, that pairs of twins have "only 20 percent of male homosexuals and 24 percent of female homosexuals had a homosexual twin".

This proves nothing. Schizophrenia studies on twins have shown that even amongst identical twins, the tendency for both twins to is between 30 and 50 percent. Which means that between 50 and 70 percent do not. Schizophrenia is generally considered to be genetic or to have a genetic component.

"In fact, twin studies have shown that the tendency for both monozygotic (identical) twins to develop schizophrenia is between 30-50%. The tendency for dizygotic (fraternal) twins to develop schizophrenia is about 15%. The tendency for siblings who are not twins (such as brothers of different ages) is also about 15%. Remember, schizophrenia is found in the general population at a rate of about 1%. Therefore, because the tendency for monozygotic twins is NOT 100%, genetics cannot be the only factor. However, because the tendency for monozygotic twins to have schizophrenia is much greater than the tendency for dizygotic twins, genetics DOES play a role."

I am in no way suggesting that homosexuality is a disease or disorder. What I am stating is that, despite the assertions of those who use the reasoning that this study proves that homosexuality ihas no genetic origin or component.

I forgot to add "For example, their "study" that found in a study of twins, that pairs of twins have "only 20 percent of male homosexuals and 24 percent of female homosexuals had a homosexual twin"."

This means that between 76 and 80 percent did.... hmmmmm.... I think it would prove the opposite of what the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality whould be trying to "prove", if, indeed, the study was a valid study at all.

Sorry scratch that last post.... its late, I am tired....

Why so het up about it, Mudhooks? I just put the first two I googled, one of them actually from the Washington Times, so where you got the "thinly-disguised Christian group" idea from I dunno..
Has your tagline <> got owt to do with anything?

I think Mudhooks is *het* up about people claiming that so called scietific studies back their bigotted views.

Della, when you have digested and understood what Mudhooks has said you will realise that its lies that have caused the annoyance.

That you cant tell the difference between something that is true and somethign that happens to sound true and you *like* the idea because it supports your false views is nothing new.



one love

Adelaide, if you visit the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality's homepage (narth.com), you will see that Mudhooks is exactly right and only a moron would fail to spot that they are worst sort of bigots, because they 'pretend' to be doing science, which will of course befuddle the unthinking among us into agreeing with them because hey, it's 'scientifically proved' when of course, as Mudhooks pointed out, it most certainly is not.

Any organisation that claims to or wants to 'cure' homosexuality is ipso facto bigotted. People with hearts and minds aren't in the least bit bothered by the presence of gay people and do not assume they need or want 'correcting'. The hearts and minds brigade are NOT about o try and find out what causes it - it's not rickets, or cancer, or CP, that needs to be cured and prevented, so why search for a cause at all? In our current world climate of fear, suspiscion and aggression towards gay people, talking about causes does come accross as, well, unfriendly at the least, lacking in compassion and understanding, lacking in sensitivity - hey, I know what causes YOU, alas nowadays bears the unspoken rider of 'so we can cure you/ explain you/ discount you as a statistical anomaly/ assume that as you can't help it you don't count/ assume that as you CAN help it you are choosing to be it and therefore don't count.' Geneticists are spending time finding causes of and ipso facto cures for morbid obesity, cancer, pathological states of mind, skin diseases - do you really think gay people want to be bracketted into the same category as a type of pathological disorder? Can't you see that assuming there is a simple cause for homosexuality is in itself insulting? I think Mudhooks does herself credit by getting het up about the subject - she is after all a woman with a heart and a mind.

How about geneticists doing research to identify the bigotry gene? (as was suggested by a friend this morning . . .)

Or how about studies done to discover why people become Christians, Della? How would you feel about that?


az

It is, in my opinion, wrong to discriminate against people on the grounds of homosexuality. (value judgement)

Are there any statistical facts about the parentage, birth order, drugs ingested by the mother etc that would cause me to change this value judgement? Probably not.

Interestingly, clusters of traits corresponding approximately to bigotry and religiosity in general (rather than specific choice of religion) have been found to be partly inherited. What, if anything, should we be doing to treat/cure these "disorders"? (The scare quotes are to indicate that, as with homosexuality, calling them disorders is a value judgement not a fact.)

Noggin

Pregnant women who take slimming pills are more likely to have gay children + The Daily Telegraph = Full blown silly season Blue Rinse Tory B*llocks

That is all I have to say on the matter.