Homosexuality and genetics

[captainbryce]

You recently claimed that PubMed did not refute the study by Roberts, Glymour, and Koenen, but that is merely your unprofessional opinion.

Uh, no that's not an opinion, that is actually a fact! And I'll explain why its a fact further down.

Maybe PubMed was right, and maybe they were wrong, but my point is that at the time that you mentioned your PubMed article, you assumed that there might be a correlation between child molestation and homosexuality, although as you now know, that was not PubMed's intention regarding their article.

With all due respect, I don't think you know what PubMed actually is. I don't think you know what peer-reviewed articles are either. So I'm going to take a moment in this next response to explain these things.

A peer reviewed article is one written by some type of qualified, scientific researcher, biologist, medical doctor (surgeons/physicians/psychiatrists), psychologist, etc. The article is usually based on some kind of study (in this case, causes of homosexuality) and contains conclusions that the researcher came to based on raw data and statistics, and the researcher's interpretation of that data. The article is then submitted for review from other science professionals within that particular field of research. If the majority within that field accept the findings of the researcher at the time, then it is considered "peer-reviewed" and is published by a medical or science library (like PubMed). PubMed is not a medical organization that endorses one peer reviewed article over another. It is simply an online library that publishes peer-reviewed articles. PubMed is neither right, nor wrong, and it takes no stance one way or the other, for or against the legitimacy of any article that is published. If an article is published by PubMed or any other library of peer-reviewed articles, it should be taken seriously by the science community. The findings or official stance of the researcher may be criticized or challenged by other researchers who have submitted their own peer-reviewed articles, but that does not refute the findings of the previous article, it just posits an alternative model or draws a different conclusion.

At the time that you mentioned your 2001 PubMed article, you believed that PubMed believed that there is a correlation, or a possible correlation, between child abuse and homosexuality. You later found out that that is not what they believe.

1) PubMed does not "believe" anything in particular. It is merely an online library that publishes peer-reviewed articles.

2) There IS a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality because there are have been at least two peer-reviewed articles published that show a definitive correlation. That does not prove that child abuse results in homosexuality, because correlation does not equal causation. However, is does suggest a possible connection between the two based on statistics which have not been refuted.

Nothing there indicates that I am trying to make a case that homosexuality is not partly caused by environment.

I think this point has already been conceded by now. You were initially unclear, I proceeded based on what I thought you were arguing, you then clarified, and now we both understand that you were not insinuating this at all. We can move on from here. But I think you should consider the rest of my response before I make any attempt at replying to everything else you've said because a lot of what you are saying doesn't make any sense. PubMed is not what you think it is, it is something entirely different. With that in mind, I think you should reconsider what I have been saying all along, and then revise your statements according to the facts.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

There IS a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality because there are have been at least two peer-reviewed articles published that show a definitive correlation. That does not prove that child abuse results in homosexuality, because correlation does not equal causation. However, it does suggest a possible connection between the two based on statistics which have not been refuted.

I have said many times in this thread that homosexuality is caused by genetics, and environment.

You have needlessly wasted a good deal of your time in this thread since you know that the only reason that I started it was because of the following claim that a Christian made in another thread:

"I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality."

In my post #13, I said:

"Regarding homosexuality and genetics, I think that a sizeable majority of experts believe that genetics, and environment both play an important role in homosexuality, and that few experts believe that genetics is not an important part of homosexuality. The predominantly conservative Christian group NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuals) believe that environment is primarily responsible for homosexuality. Their opinions are widely rejected by the majority of experts. As I quoted in the opening post, 'homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins.'"

 

[captainbryce]

I have said many times in this thread that homosexuality is caused by genetics, and environment.

That's not the issue anymore. You've also suggested MANY TIMES that there was no correlation between child abuse and homosexuality, or that I was only making an assumption that there was, or that I believed that PubMed "believed" that there was. What I'm telling you is that I have not made any assumptions. I have merely stated a FACT based on peer-reviewed studies. And that your "assumptions" at each step in your analysis has been dead wrong! That's the only point I'm making here now. I have no idea what point YOU are trying to make.

You have needlessly wasted a good deal of your time in this thread since you know that the only reason that I started it was because of the following claim that a Christian made in another thread:

And you've wasted a lot of time defending yourself and deflecting the fact that you've been WRONG on more than on occasion. I don't consider pointing out your erroneous statements to be a waste of time. I'm simply trying to explain to you WHY you were wrong when you were. Stop being so defensive and learn how to be appreciative of constructive criticism. Your argument COULD have been solid from the get-go, but you tainted it more and more as you went along. You keep going back to this "the real reason you started the thread" nonsense when we are well beyond that now. Your thread was initially misleading (though somewhat corrected for in the end). But it was also reliant on many false assumptions, and biased throughout. I tried to point out to you why your arguments have been biased, but apparently that has fallen on deaf ears. I can only hope that I've at least given you a broader perspective on exactly what peer-reviewed articles are, and how to use them to formulate a non-biased position. I think this new perspective will greatly benefit you as you attempt to argue other polarizing points of view in the future. Hopefully, you can avoid similar pitfalls. That's all! Have a good evening.

 

[Agnostic75]

That's not the issue anymore. You've also suggested MANY TIMES that there was no correlation between child abuse and homosexuality.......

But that was cleared up before you continued to say that I claimed that environmental factors were not an important cause of homosexuality. I told you that I became temporarily confused by an article about epigenetic factors inside of the womb. Once I became aware of that, I admitted it right away.

And you've wasted a lot of time defending yourself and deflecting the fact that you've been WRONG on more than on occasion. I don't consider pointing out your erroneous statements to be a waste of time. I'm simply trying to explain to you WHY you were wrong when you were. Stop being so defensive and learn how to be appreciative of constructive criticism. Your argument COULD have been solid from the get-go, but you tainted it more and more as you went along. You keep going back to this "the real reason you started the thread" nonsense when we are well beyond that now. Your thread was initially misleading (though somewhat corrected for in the end). But it was also reliant on many false assumptions, and biased throughout. I tried to point out to you why your arguments have been biased, but apparently that has fallen on deaf ears. I can only hope that I've at least given you a broader perspective on exactly what peer-reviewed articles are, and how to use them to formulate a non-biased position. I think this new perspective will greatly benefit you as you attempt to argue other polarizing points of view in the future. Hopefully, you can avoid similar pitfalls. That's all! Have a good evening.

In my post #42, which I posted eight days ago, on July 16, I said:

"The major issues for me regarding factors outside of the womb are claims by some Christians that 1) factors outside of the womb primarily determine a person's sexual identity, that 2) those factors can be manipulated in formative years of sexual identity to produce a heterosexual sexual identity, and that 3) reparative therapy, or abstinence for life are the best solutions for homosexuality. Regarding those issues, all major medical associations agree with me, and oppose those claims."

On July 17, you said:

"Forgive me, I misread your quote. I didn't see the 'primarily determine' the first time. In skimming it, I thought you were implying that these external factors had NO impact at all. In that case, I retract my statement and I apologize for my error."

So a week ago, you knew what my main intentions were, but you still kept saying that I claimed that environmental factors outside of the womb are not important.

There IS a correlation between child abuse and homosexuality because there are have been at least two peer-reviewed articles published that show a definitive correlation. That does not prove that child abuse results in homosexuality, because correlation does not equal causation. However, is does suggest a possible connection between the two based on statistics which have not been refuted.

You have known what my main intentions are in this thread for at least a week, reference your post #85. After your post #85, there was not any need for you to make any more posts in this thread.

Would you like to make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151188-does-christian-god-have-free-will.html?

 

[captainbryce]

Would you like to make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...51188-does-christian-god-have-free-will.html?

Not particularly!

Considering that you've failed to actually address anything that I brought up in my last post (concerning admitting to being wrong and biased, and not being receptive to constructive criticism), I think I'll have to pass. Many of the points I've tried to make on this thread have fallen on deaf ears and it's hard to imagine that you're likely to be more receptive on another thread, which is really too bad!

 

[Agnostic75]

Not particularly!

Considering that you've failed to actually address anything that I brought up in my last post (concerning admitting to being wrong and biased, and not being receptive to constructive criticism), I think I'll have to pass. Many of the points I've tried to make on this thread have fallen on deaf ears and it's hard to imagine that you're likely to be more receptive on another thread, which is really too bad!

But I did admit that I was wrong as soon as I found out about it. I told you at least three times that I temporarily got confused about an article about homosexuality and genetics.

I have definitely benefited from some of the information that you have provided in this thread, and you have probably benefited from some of mine.

I started this thread in order to defend homosexuality. You are defending homosexuality in another thread. Let us concentrate more on our similarities than on our differences. The temporary confusion of one skeptic is nothing compared with the overall goal of defending homosexuality.