Is homosexuality a disease?

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

you know i don't believe that prison sex = homosexuality. if you are in the exclusive company of your own sex and the urge to copulate is primal(as i believe it to be) then it doesn't necessarily matter where you get it from, as long as you're getting it.

I agree with this catefrances except that the urge to copluate isn't necessarily only primal but also hormonal. Coz let's face facts....

catefrances wrote:

then it doesn't necessarily matter where you get it from, as long as you're getting it.

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 . . . )

onelongsong

catefrances wrote:

you know i don't believe that prison sex = homosexuality. if you are in the exclusive company of your own sex and the urge to copulate is primal(as i believe it to be) then it doesn't necessarily matter where you get it from, as long as you're getting it.

if that isn't what i've been saying then thanks for putting it into different words. i said a horny person would screw anything. like the old shepards and their sheep.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

it's 4:31 pm thursday.
answering honestly; i don't know where we came from. i only know i'm here. i know this sounds like a cop out but it's the way i feel. i don't care why i am; just that i am. i don't care how the fly got into the house; only that i'm gonna kill this bloody fly. if i came from an ape; cool; but where did the ape come from?

I guess that's how I feel too. I only choose the ape theory over the creation theory because I'm not religious. Spiritual but not religious.

onelongsong wrote:

maybe it's just my mood today but i don't care where i came from because knowing won't change anything or even help anything. the world is so messed up i'd rather focus my attention to the here and now.

That's it isn't it! "I know I was born and I know I will die, the in between is mine. I am mine."

onelongsong wrote:

bearded german iris?

Ooh just looked those up, very pretty indeed! I was thinking more of the blue and yellow iris but the bearded german looks very pretty. A bit like a gladioli. Dame Edna would love em!

Ahnimus

shmap wrote:

Oh lord...J. Michael Bailey. He teaches Human Sexuality at my alma mater. I took that class with him, a seriously nutty guy, don't really trust him. And his research also leaves much to be desired: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/LynnsReviewOfBaileysBook.html

Yea, ok.

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?

Ahnimus

Ahnimus wrote:

http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Publications/Bailey%20et%20al.%20twins,2000.pdf

I haven't read it all yet, but I'll check into it a bit later.

"Genetic and environmental structural equation models were fitted separately for men and women by
maximum likelihood using the LISREL program ( ) and using only the same-sex pairs.
We thus examined the relative effects of additive genetic (A), shared environmental (C; i.e., between family
or common environment), and nonshared environmental (E; i.e., within family or individual-specific
environment, including measurement error) factors on the latent normal variable underlying variation in sexual
orientation."

Ahnimus

Ahnimus wrote:

"Genetic and environmental structural equation models were fitted separately for men and women by
maximum likelihood using the LISREL program ( ) and using only the same-sex pairs.
We thus examined the relative effects of additive genetic (A), shared environmental (C; i.e., between family
or common environment), and nonshared environmental (E; i.e., within family or individual-specific
environment, including measurement error) factors on the latent normal variable underlying variation in sexual
orientation."

Wow, I sifted through 26 pages, just to prove that the proper controls were taken in a scientific research experiment that is already accepted by peer review. What a bummer.

onelongsong

Jeanie wrote:

I guess that's how I feel too. I only choose the ape theory over the creation theory because I'm not religious. Spiritual but not religious.



That's it isn't it! "I know I was born and I know I will die, the in between is mine. I am mine."




Ooh just looked those up, very pretty indeed! I was thinking more of the blue and yellow iris but the bearded german looks very pretty. A bit like a gladioli. Dame Edna would love em!

some scientists believe a comet hit the earth bringing water and micro organisms. some say a metior from mars (since finding the fossils) brought the organisms. last night they showed pictures of water on mars. i saw a show on the discovery channel where they have evidence that aliens bred with ancient humans to create us. all have scientific evidence. some have fossils and bones.
all i know is we are here. let's enjoy what we can and change what we feel is wrong. i'm sure the money put into where we came from could have solved world hunger twice over.

Ahnimus

shmap wrote:

Oh lord...J. Michael Bailey. He teaches Human Sexuality at my alma mater. I took that class with him, a seriously nutty guy, don't really trust him. And his research also leaves much to be desired: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/LynnsReviewOfBaileysBook.html

Harsh, they don't seem to be questioning the results of his research, but rather his book about his theories.

It's interesting because homosexuality was long recognized as a disorder, be it psychological, or physiological, but homosexual protestors have seen had it removed from the medical books, effectively trying to limit the research into it.

It's the social prejudice of a bias minority and their sympathizers if you ask me. I haven't read Bailey's book, but it doesn't sound like he is trying to stigmatize transsexuals or homosexuals, he's just theorizing the cause, and I guess people don't like to have the causality of their actions investigated. What a pile of horse shit.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

Harsh, they don't seem to be questioning the results of his research, but rather his book about his theories.

It's interesting because homosexuality was long recognized as a disorder, be it psychological, or physiological, but homosexual protestors have seen had it removed from the medical books, effectively trying to limit the research into it.

It's the social prejudice of a bias minority and their sympathizers if you ask me. I haven't read Bailey's book, but it doesn't sound like he is trying to stigmatize transsexuals or homosexuals, he's just theorizing the cause, and I guess people don't like to have the causality of their actions investigated. What a pile of horse shit.

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?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, ok.

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?

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.

wikipedia wrote:

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.

wikipedia wrote:

The Council for Responsible Genetics and other researchers have criticized this work for using a self-selected sample

wikipedia wrote:

The book (ed: Bailey's book "the Man Who Would Be Queen") led to a heated debate and a formal investigation into Bailey's research practices.

wikipedia wrote:

also led to a heated debate within the field of sexology, where the book was lauded by Bailey's academic collaborators, but denounced by the vast majority of scientists working in this field, who deemed it "reductionism" and "not science."

wikipedia wrote:

In 2006, the Chicago Free Press announced it would no longer accept ads for studies conducted by Bailey. In an editorial entitled "Bad Science," the newspaper said would not allow itself to be used "to further the dubious agenda of someone who believes he should not be held accountable to our community."

There's more, too. Much of this is questioning his methods.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

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.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

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!

catefrances wrote:

and you know what? you cover anything with chocolate and i'd show some interest. EV naked is just a bonus.

Yes chocolate has become my replacement for sex!
Although, naked Ed? Hmm................:D

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

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.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

Jeanie wrote:

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?

Ahnimus

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

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.

Jeanie

Ahnimus wrote:

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.