Is Homosexuality psycological or biological?

I think that’s total BS, Has it been statically proven gay men are more "creative"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No offense, but you are all simply spouting off opinions as if they were fact. Reference a psychological or medical study to back up your (often strange) claims; otherwise they're pretty meaningless here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

haha...it is a fact that medical scientific studies are the worst in the field....

it is not in any textbook, but general knowledge.


My time to try to eduate you all:
anyhoo...if you want to be a scientist throw away your stupid textbooks for god sake. What the hell are you all thinking. That science is about facts? Science is about asking the proper question and they surely can not be found in textbooks, since textbooks deal with 'old' and 'proven' science. Which gets updated every year by the way.
If textbooks were really THE source of information we would still be using the ones that were printed 50 years ago. That says enough I would think.

Now...who said it? It was either Watson or Crick. If you want to do great science you have to ask a great question (or something like this). We all started off with a boring pointless question, which contained the answer already within it. That is not science. That is a school exam. If that gives you a kick, then please continue, but do not pretend it has anything to do with science.

my advice:
Now start thinking about questions and not answers if you are truly interested in science.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nasor,

Were you talking to me?

Science is about asking question, testing possible answer to ones question and theorizing from the result. I have cited many modern studies that support the hormonal cause homosexuality and the “textbooks” also cite those modern up-to-date studies. hence it is not BS and is legitimate science.

 

Since the brian has an active feedback component that directly effects brain chemistry (in other words, your thoughts literally physically/chemically change your brain's structure, thusly the way it operates)... is it even possible to separate nature from nurture? Are they not one and the same from both a real time and long term perspective (considering the obvious integrated nature of the beast)?

 

spuriousmonkey,

I'm sorry but they you don't know what science is about.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was simply saying that people should cite some sources when they spout off bizarre 'facts,' especially when discussing and issue as controversial as this one.

WellCookedFetus: I was talking to everyone.

 

sure...come back when you published something

wasn't aimed at you. I am just trying to teach something about science, whether someone wants to read it or not. I am just grabbing any opportunity that comes along. In this case you were the innocent victim.

 

A scientist must be well-grounded in textbook knowledge before he or she can start discovering new things. How are you even going to know what to investigate if you don't know what other people have already done?

 

there are 2 answers to that question (and possibly more):

1. More things are not done than done

2. you survey the literature (not textbooks, but articles primarily), have guidance from experienced researchers in the field, and observe your 'topic'.


but the chances are high that you will fali to investigate a real big question if you base your research on textbooks. Because textbooks deal with the past and accepted. And if you want to make a brakethrough you have to venture on unknown grounds.

 

Give me 2 more weeks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

spuriousmonkey,

I did cite primary research, yes I also Cited as textbook but that was because I don't want to go back searching for the article my self. We are not talking about how to make breakthrough here, we are talking about the cause of homosexuality, stop with the red haring fallacy!

 

where are you going to submit it?

 

You won't even know what the relevant questions are or how to go about investigating them if you don't know the current state of things; this is what you learn for textbooks.

This is just absurd. Do you think that I could understand a journal article about current organic chemistry research if I hadn't studied up on organic chemistry with a textbook?

Of course you aren't making any major new discoveries while studying a textbook, but it's very unlikely that you'll ever discover anything if you don't bother to learn about your subject.

 

spuriousmonkey,

Well first here at the annual SCSU colloquium.

then at the UofM Chemisty colloquim this fall.

then hopefully a primary researcher journal.

Another red harring eh?

 

red herring
A smoked herring having a reddish color.
Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

which one...you can never be sure with you.

 

I stick to what ever topic you start but I will warn you when it has no connection to the threads topic… As I have just done repeatedly.

NEED SLEEP!

 

Why? For this subject I have. There in the post above. Trying to say something is wrong because the nature of the messenger is a Ad humium fallacy.

*Fetus falls over dead from lack of sleep*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

People are attracted to members of their own sex all the time! That's why people have friends: because they are attracted to certain members of their own sex, on some level, for whatever reason! By the definition of a friend-ship, two members of the same sex are attracted to each other (otherwise they would not be in such close company) but the sexual relationship only becomes a reality when the boundary is crossed, and that boundary is very clear. It is a physical boundary. A friendship can go into many different levels but the relationship becomes sexual only after the relationship becomes one of physical interest, namely when there is touching for sensation, at a minimum.

Maybe this is part of the problem?! The original founders and 'finders' (which is not necessarily true but these generations are quite possibly still the dominant members of the country(-ies)) must have been looking for other lands, which could mean that they were outcasts from their original society(-ies). It could be true that the 'founding fathers' of America, and quite possibly the people who 'spread' across Europe (in my understanding) into Britain and Western Europe, could have done so out of a quest to discover and conquer for humanity, but with the religous zeal that must have existed then in their native society(-ies), judging by the religious zeal that is still present today, in the cultures which probably nurtured the roots of human kind, a possible explanation for the spread of humanity across the face of the Earth: beginning in Asia and/or Africa and making it's way West-wards (?), is EXPULSION. Expulsion from the original or primitive societies could explain the spread of people and the erection of 'new societies' with new rules. These are the societies which boast freedom: defiant acts proclaiming their independence from their roots which banished them for some reason or another. It is these societies who could now be avenging their struggle and who now seek revenge on their ancestors for their 'mistake'. However it is the new societies, which i will call 'banished' people without providing any evidence, which promote moral subversion. Anything and everything is encouraged in the name of freedom: abuses of sex are tolerated and indeed encouraged; condoms are freely circulated, homosexuality (which must be the highest form of this kind of abuse) is also tolerated and defended by the governement through Law, and many other forms of 'wrongs' (things which the common sense will recognize as wrong) are condoned: burglars sueing the people whose houses they have broken into etc.

Religion seems highly dependent on dogma which does not encourage change so why would societies which must surely have been more dependent on the idea of (a) Creator(s?) than 'our' society(-ies) encourage travel on this scale??

It seems that the 'new lands' are just declaring their independence by rebelling completely against the basis for the religous-based societies which must contain some of their ancestory.

 

No, it hasn't been proven that was my point. Can you re-read my posts?

That was my point. I said I wanted to do a study.

"I think that's total BS, Has it been statically proven gay men are more 'creative"?"

"No offense, but you are all simply spouting off opinions as if they were fact. Reference a psychological or medical study to back up your (often strange) claims; otherwise they're pretty meaningless here."

It is common knowledge why do you think so many of them are artists, and designers? Do you have to do a study to be observant? Besides, it's my theory, and that is why a study would be done to confirm it. Duh

And some people have strong feelings about the nature of homosexuality because of their own insecurities. Perhaps deep down they think they might be homosexual. Is this why some people are so defensive?

 

Shawn34m,

A observation is just a observation, if you have statistical proof showing that homosexuals have a higher percentage of artist per population then heterosexuals per population, then you would have something there. Precisely because of the controversial nature of this subject it should be handle with pure raw data as unarguable and as neutral as possible. Opinions are strictly taboo.