I agree with this catefrances except that the urge to copluate isn't necessarily only primal but also hormonal. Coz let's face facts.... really only applies while you are still getting your sexual drive from your homones. Once they dry up you could be confronted with Ed Ved butt naked slathered in chocolate sauce and you still wouldn't be interested! (Well maybe . . . )
well where else does your sexual drive come from if not from hormones?
and you know what? you cover anything with chocolate and i'd show some interest. EV naked is just a bonus.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
well where else does your sexual drive come from if not from hormones?
I guess I'm saying that if your hormones are all dried up being stuck in a cell with someone of any sex isn't going to get you all down and dirty with them. You'd probably rather read a book!
hey; you're getting between jeanie and myself here! (just kidding)
what i really want to ask is did my previous post about how we got here make any sense to the subject matter? i mean; if we figure it all out; will it change anything?
Well, I think if we figure it out, there won't be anymore controversy surrounding sexual orientation. Rather than expecting people to "just accept" others, we can provide a scientific understanding.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, I think if we figure it out, there won't be anymore controversy surrounding sexual orientation. Rather than expecting people to "just accept" others, we can provide a scientific understanding.
we should just accept others. a scientific understanding brings reasons to find cures.
Well, I think if we figure it out, there won't be anymore controversy surrounding sexual orientation. Rather than expecting people to "just accept" others, we can provide a scientific understanding.
Hey Ahnimus wouldn't it be good if we could have people "just accept" others AND provide scientific understanding?
I didn't get the impression that shmap felt his/her opinion is more substantiated, but that shmap felt there was reason to question the work of J. Michael Bailey. Doing a quick check on wikipedia alone, it looks like there is much controversy surrounding Bailey.
There's more, too. Much of this is questioning his methods.
For what purpose? I mean, when you have science vs society, soceity always wins. Do you think any of these scientists, besides the corroborators of Bailey's research, would stick up for him? Absolutely not. Not when faced with this level of social pressure.
I certainly believe that all science should be scrutinized and science in general should remain skeptical. However, soceity shouldn't have a place in that level of investigation. It's ultimately going to impact the outcome.
I mean, we don't know if Bailey's findings were true, because of this. We don't know if the investigation was bias or unbias. The minority groups have effectively deleted his life-long work from the records. The same way they deleted it from the medical books.
It's like this, I feel like I need to smoke, if I didn't know any better, I could say it's a genetic predisposition, because everyone else in my family (excluding my brother, and those that have quit) smokes, and within my "self" I feel it's required. However, I know through scientific research into my behavior how exactly it's caused.
In this particular case you have a group of people on Bailey's side and group of people opposing him. It's torn down the middle, between the people that actually did the work and know the truth and the people that are investigating on behalf of soceity. In my opinion it's pretty disgusting that this kind of thing can even happen.
So, is everyone that corroborated with Bailey, and Bailey himself prejudice against certain sexual orientations? Seems like a stretch. Or are the "investigators" trying to calm down the protestors? Seems more likely.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Hey Ahnimus wouldn't it be good if we could have people "just accept" others AND provide scientific understanding?
Well yea, but that's asking a lot. How long have we been trying to accomplish that? Where has it brought us?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well yea, but that's asking a lot. How long have we been trying to accomplish that? Where has it brought us?
What you get are closet-homophobes. They may "accept" these people on the outside, but on the inside they still don't understand it and are likely to have disgust for them.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
a scientific understanding brings reasons to find cures.
If they can find out more scientifically about the genetics of homosexuality would they not then be better able to understand disease processes as they apply to homosexuals which could in turn help with similar/same diseases both in the homosexual community and in other population groups? And I'm not just talking about AIDs here.
Well yea, but that's asking a lot. How long have we been trying to accomplish that? Where has it brought us?
It is asking alot but I think it's do-able. Think about the scientific advances they have made with mental illnesses which do appear to be having an effect in terms of de-stigmatising.
see here's the problem. science is expected to explain everything. and it can't. i can't tell you why i am attracted to the guy in the record store. nor can i tell you why i am attracted to dave larkin from dallas crane. or melissa etheridge , now that i think about it. fact of the matter is, i just am. there is no scientific research that is going to validate or invalidate my attraction. there is no cure or antidote for attraction.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It is asking alot but I think it's do-able. Think about the scientific advances they have made with mental illnesses which do appear to be having an effect in terms of de-stigmatising.
Well, I personally accept all sexual orientations. My brain grinds to a halt when I try to understand it though.
I know plenty of people that simply won't just accept, unorthodox or however you want to call it, sexual orientation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If they can find out more scientifically about the genetics of homosexuality would they not then be better able to understand disease processes as they apply to homosexuals which could in turn help with similar/same diseases both in the homosexual community and in other population groups? And I'm not just talking about AIDs here.
i see your point; but i also remember research done a while ago where they were trying to isolate a gene or something in DNA which causes homosexuality. the speaker then made the remark (and i'll try to quote) if we discover what causes this behavior; we can then cure it. that is what i based my post on. mainstream will try to reverse the cause. that's what mainstream does.
scientific research also implies that it is an abnormallity for which we need reasons for. for example; when was the last time you heard research to find out why people are hetro? mainstream says hetro is normal and why research why people would be normal?
Council for Responsible Genetics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG) is a public interest group with a focus on biotechnology.
Founded in 1983, CRG "fosters public debate about the social, ethical and environmental implications of genetic technologies." They list three central principles:
The public must have access to clear and understandable information on technological innovations.
The public must be able to participate in public and private decision making concerning technological developments and their implementation.
New technologies must meet social needs. Problems rooted in poverty, racism, and other forms of inequality cannot be remedied by technology alone.
CRG also publishes GeneWatch, America’s first and only magazine dedicated to monitoring biotechnology’s social, ethical and environmental consequences. The publication covers a broad spectrum of issues, from genetically modified food to biological weapons, genetic privacy and discrimination, reproductive technology, and human cloning.
This is the group that investigated Bailey's work. They are opposed to any kind of genetic interest in sexual orientation. It's fucked up.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i see your point; but i also remember research done a while ago where they were trying to isolate a gene or something in DNA which causes homosexuality. the speaker then made the remark (and i'll try to quote) if we discover what causes this behavior; we can then cure it. that is what i based my post on. mainstream will try to reverse the cause. that's what mainstream does.
scientific research also implies that it is an abnormallity for which we need reasons for. for example; when was the last time you heard research to find out why people are hetro? mainstream says hetro is normal and why research why people would be normal?
There are people with homosexual tendancies that do not want to be homosexual. They could use the cure.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
For what purpose? I mean, when you have science vs society, soceity always wins. Do you think any of these scientists, besides the corroborators of Bailey's research, would stick up for him? Absolutely not. Not when faced with this level of social pressure.
I certainly believe that all science should be scrutinized and science in general should remain skeptical. However, soceity shouldn't have a place in that level of investigation. It's ultimately going to impact the outcome.
I mean, we don't know if Bailey's findings were true, because of this. We don't know if the investigation was bias or unbias. The minority groups have effectively deleted his life-long work from the records. The same way they deleted it from the medical books.
It's like this, I feel like I need to smoke, if I didn't know any better, I could say it's a genetic predisposition, because everyone else in my family (excluding my brother, and those that have quit) smokes, and within my "self" I feel it's required. However, I know through scientific research into my behavior how exactly it's caused.
In this particular case you have a group of people on Bailey's side and group of people opposing him. It's torn down the middle, between the people that actually did the work and know the truth and the people that are investigating on behalf of soceity. In my opinion it's pretty disgusting that this kind of thing can even happen.
So, is everyone that corroborated with Bailey, and Bailey himself prejudice against certain sexual orientations? Seems like a stretch. Or are the "investigators" trying to calm down the protestors? Seems more likely.
I'm the first person to relate to witch hunts. And I also empathize with people who are frontrunners in any field, in a way that their colleagues or peers on any level are unable to comprehend what they see. As I was reading up on this guy, I can't tell one way or the other what this is REALLY about. There seemed to be a lot of concern about his methods, and I don't know if it's valid or not. There is definitely some doubt cast on his work from what I see. In my mind, it's like with anything else we don't know. I must reserve judgment until I know more. For every two steps forward, there usually seems to be one back. The thing about science people and society's people--they're/we're all full-fledged fallible humans, and we can be certain things will fall short of the ideal more often than not. It doesn't mean we don't continue to believe in the ideals and move towards them, but that we keep our eyes and ears open along the way.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm the first person to relate to witch hunts. And I also empathize with people who are frontrunners in any field, in a way that their colleagues or peers on any level are unable to comprehend what they see. As I was reading up on this guy, I can't tell one way or the other what this is REALLY about. There seemed to be a lot of concern about his methods, and I don't know if it's valid or not. There is definitely some doubt cast on his work from what I see. In my mind, it's like with anything else we don't know. I must reserve judgment until I know more. For every two steps forward, there usually seems to be one back. The thing about science people and society's people--they're/we're all full-fledged fallible humans, and we can be certain things will fall short of the ideal more often than not. It doesn't mean we don't continue to believe in the ideals and move towards them, but that we keep our eyes and ears open along the way.
don't you love angelicas way with words? i wish i could keep my thoughts straight like that.
Do you think his opinion is based on his research, or no?
Why do you feel that your opinion is more substantiated?
Have you done any research into sexuality or is your opinion based on personal experience and subjective transduction?
What in bloody hell is this all about? Do you mind not jumping down my throat? I posted that link for you all to read and form your own opinions. Please back off.
I'm the first person to relate to witch hunts. And I also empathize with people who are frontrunners in any field, in a way that their colleagues or peers on any level are unable to comprehend what they see. As I was reading up on this guy, I can't tell one way or the other what this is REALLY about. There seemed to be a lot of concern about his methods, and I don't know if it's valid or not. There is definitely some doubt cast on his work from what I see. In my mind, it's like with anything else we don't know. I must reserve judgment until I know more. For every two steps forward, there usually seems to be one back. The thing about science people and society's people--they're/we're all full-fledged fallible humans, and we can be certain things will fall short of the ideal more often than not. It doesn't mean we don't continue to believe in the ideals and move towards them, but that we keep our eyes and ears open along the way.
See, the thing is nobody questioned his research until he wrote a book about it. When he suggested genetic screening of fetuses for sexual orientation. He suggested it would be ok to abort a fetus if it was found to have the genes for homosexuality. That's why he was attacked, not because of his initial research that was published in many many books.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Thanks. Fancy seeing you around these parts. You seem to be doing okay, yourself. I'm definitely on board about the "normal" and "cure" stuff!
i got addicted here. my animals are looking in the window wondering why i haven't fed yet tonight. jeanie came on at feeding time and she's another sweetheart so i stuck around.
once again; thanks to everyone for keeping me company again today.
fair enough. but if there's a cure then logic demands it be a disease. you don't cure a normal cell.
You can with gene therapy.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What in bloody hell is this all about? Do you mind not jumping down my throat? I posted that link for you all to read and form your own opinions. Please back off.
I'm not, Just asking you some questions.
It would seem it's ok to shit talk someone that isn't involved in the conversation, but not ok to shit talk someone that is?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
See, the thing is nobody questioned his research until he wrote a book about it. When he suggested genetic screening of fetuses for sexual orientation. He suggested it would be ok to abort a fetus if it was found to have the genes for homosexuality. That's why he was attacked, not because of his initial research that was published in many many books.
I personally cannot make such a judgment. I can't see the motivations and reasons behind the "attacks", and therefore I can't allow prejudgment or prejudice to inform me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Well, I personally accept all sexual orientations. My brain grinds to a halt when I try to understand it though.
My thoughts exactly! Whatever floats your boat is fine by me, I just don't need to know the intricate details! And that even applies to straight folk like my brother & sister-in-law who insist on letting me know what they've been up to. Eeeewww!!! :eek:
I know plenty of people that simply won't just accept, unorthodox or however you want to call it, sexual orientation.
Look there are plenty of people in this world who like to judge others. I try to avoid them wherever I can. But I'm not perfect either. Sometimes when my gay friends get all down and dirty in front of me I have difficulty but then I'm not really into PDA's anyway. I tell em to get a room!
I personally cannot make such a judgment. I can't see the motivations and reasons behind the "attacks", and therefore I can't allow prejudgment or prejudice to inform me.
Who's prejudging? The research I cited was done in 1991, the investigation was done in 2006. Seems kind of ridiculous to accept his research for 15 years. His book published in 2003 prompted research by the University into his research.
Taken from wikipedia
Following the 2003 publication of Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen, Northwestern University opened a formal investigation into charges of research misconduct against Bailey. [1] In late 2004, Bailey resigned his Psychology Department Chair following the completion of the investigation. The university refused to reveal its findings or say whether it punished Bailey, and he still serves as a professor there. [2]
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i got addicted here. my animals are looking in the window wondering why i haven't fed yet tonight. jeanie came on at feeding time and she's another sweetheart so i stuck around.
once again; thanks to everyone for keeping me company again today.
Poor animals. :( I can understand getting addicted, though.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I guess the moral of the story of Bailey is: You can't have an opinion if your a scientist.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
well where else does your sexual drive come from if not from hormones?
and you know what? you cover anything with chocolate and i'd show some interest. EV naked is just a bonus.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I guess I'm saying that if your hormones are all dried up being stuck in a cell with someone of any sex isn't going to get you all down and dirty with them. You'd probably rather read a book!
Yes chocolate has become my replacement for sex!
Although, naked Ed? Hmm................:D
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well, I think if we figure it out, there won't be anymore controversy surrounding sexual orientation. Rather than expecting people to "just accept" others, we can provide a scientific understanding.
we should just accept others. a scientific understanding brings reasons to find cures.
Hey Ahnimus wouldn't it be good if we could have people "just accept" others AND provide scientific understanding?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
For what purpose? I mean, when you have science vs society, soceity always wins. Do you think any of these scientists, besides the corroborators of Bailey's research, would stick up for him? Absolutely not. Not when faced with this level of social pressure.
I certainly believe that all science should be scrutinized and science in general should remain skeptical. However, soceity shouldn't have a place in that level of investigation. It's ultimately going to impact the outcome.
I mean, we don't know if Bailey's findings were true, because of this. We don't know if the investigation was bias or unbias. The minority groups have effectively deleted his life-long work from the records. The same way they deleted it from the medical books.
It's like this, I feel like I need to smoke, if I didn't know any better, I could say it's a genetic predisposition, because everyone else in my family (excluding my brother, and those that have quit) smokes, and within my "self" I feel it's required. However, I know through scientific research into my behavior how exactly it's caused.
In this particular case you have a group of people on Bailey's side and group of people opposing him. It's torn down the middle, between the people that actually did the work and know the truth and the people that are investigating on behalf of soceity. In my opinion it's pretty disgusting that this kind of thing can even happen.
So, is everyone that corroborated with Bailey, and Bailey himself prejudice against certain sexual orientations? Seems like a stretch. Or are the "investigators" trying to calm down the protestors? Seems more likely.
Well yea, but that's asking a lot. How long have we been trying to accomplish that? Where has it brought us?
What you get are closet-homophobes. They may "accept" these people on the outside, but on the inside they still don't understand it and are likely to have disgust for them.
If they can find out more scientifically about the genetics of homosexuality would they not then be better able to understand disease processes as they apply to homosexuals which could in turn help with similar/same diseases both in the homosexual community and in other population groups? And I'm not just talking about AIDs here.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
It is asking alot but I think it's do-able. Think about the scientific advances they have made with mental illnesses which do appear to be having an effect in terms of de-stigmatising.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well, I personally accept all sexual orientations. My brain grinds to a halt when I try to understand it though.
I know plenty of people that simply won't just accept, unorthodox or however you want to call it, sexual orientation.
i see your point; but i also remember research done a while ago where they were trying to isolate a gene or something in DNA which causes homosexuality. the speaker then made the remark (and i'll try to quote) if we discover what causes this behavior; we can then cure it. that is what i based my post on. mainstream will try to reverse the cause. that's what mainstream does.
scientific research also implies that it is an abnormallity for which we need reasons for. for example; when was the last time you heard research to find out why people are hetro? mainstream says hetro is normal and why research why people would be normal?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG) is a public interest group with a focus on biotechnology.
Founded in 1983, CRG "fosters public debate about the social, ethical and environmental implications of genetic technologies." They list three central principles:
The public must have access to clear and understandable information on technological innovations.
The public must be able to participate in public and private decision making concerning technological developments and their implementation.
New technologies must meet social needs. Problems rooted in poverty, racism, and other forms of inequality cannot be remedied by technology alone.
CRG also publishes GeneWatch, America’s first and only magazine dedicated to monitoring biotechnology’s social, ethical and environmental consequences. The publication covers a broad spectrum of issues, from genetically modified food to biological weapons, genetic privacy and discrimination, reproductive technology, and human cloning.
This is the group that investigated Bailey's work. They are opposed to any kind of genetic interest in sexual orientation. It's fucked up.
There are people with homosexual tendancies that do not want to be homosexual. They could use the cure.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
fair enough. but if there's a cure then logic demands it be a disease. you don't cure a normal cell.
don't you love angelicas way with words? i wish i could keep my thoughts straight like that.
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What in bloody hell is this all about? Do you mind not jumping down my throat? I posted that link for you all to read and form your own opinions. Please back off.
See, the thing is nobody questioned his research until he wrote a book about it. When he suggested genetic screening of fetuses for sexual orientation. He suggested it would be ok to abort a fetus if it was found to have the genes for homosexuality. That's why he was attacked, not because of his initial research that was published in many many books.
i got addicted here. my animals are looking in the window wondering why i haven't fed yet tonight. jeanie came on at feeding time and she's another sweetheart so i stuck around.
once again; thanks to everyone for keeping me company again today.
You can with gene therapy.
I'm not, Just asking you some questions.
It would seem it's ok to shit talk someone that isn't involved in the conversation, but not ok to shit talk someone that is?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
My thoughts exactly! Whatever floats your boat is fine by me, I just don't need to know the intricate details! And that even applies to straight folk like my brother & sister-in-law who insist on letting me know what they've been up to. Eeeewww!!! :eek:
Look there are plenty of people in this world who like to judge others. I try to avoid them wherever I can. But I'm not perfect either. Sometimes when my gay friends get all down and dirty in front of me I have difficulty but then I'm not really into PDA's anyway. I tell em to get a room!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Who's prejudging? The research I cited was done in 1991, the investigation was done in 2006. Seems kind of ridiculous to accept his research for 15 years. His book published in 2003 prompted research by the University into his research.
Taken from wikipedia
Following the 2003 publication of Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen, Northwestern University opened a formal investigation into charges of research misconduct against Bailey. [1] In late 2004, Bailey resigned his Psychology Department Chair following the completion of the investigation. The university refused to reveal its findings or say whether it punished Bailey, and he still serves as a professor there. [2]
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!