Bryn Mawr;828080 wrote: My opinion :-
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=25
was dismissed as "idiotic doublespeak of scientific bababry".
Ever since, I've been trying to defend science's right to have a view that does not accord with Jester's view of what's in the Bible.
Thanks. And you're right about the "friendly poke."
BTW, My dictionary doesn't list 'bababry.'
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
rjwould;828012 wrote: [...] And anyway, it's all meant in a spirit love and friendship.:)Bullshit. You've posted very little in a spirit of love or friendship, unless possibly you refer to a love of potstirring and have friends with you while you post.rjwould;828016 wrote: This is an interesting post considering that this thread has nothing to do with opinion. Either there is or is not a gay gene, there is no opinion about that. I have not read where you are equally bothered by jesters attacks on those of the gay lifestyle.
No offense, jester--ya know I love ya!Granted, I should have asked for opinions if that's what I wanted. You're right about the gene existing or not regardless of opinion.
As for Jester. He made a completely predictable and consistent response which anyone who's been here for even a little while would have been surprised had he done anything different. I am curious why you bring love and marriage into the conversation, but only mildly.
Even if scientists found a gene, I'm sure it would only point toward a propensity for homosexual tendencies or some such. I think the best point was made by JAB, I believe, when she mentioned differing testosterone levels among siblings.
I would think the only people really anxious to find such a gene would probably be those looking for a reason to play the victim. Most if not all homosexuals I know (and love) simply get on with life.
No offense, jester--ya know I love ya!Granted, I should have asked for opinions if that's what I wanted. You're right about the gene existing or not regardless of opinion.
As for Jester. He made a completely predictable and consistent response which anyone who's been here for even a little while would have been surprised had he done anything different. I am curious why you bring love and marriage into the conversation, but only mildly.
Even if scientists found a gene, I'm sure it would only point toward a propensity for homosexual tendencies or some such. I think the best point was made by JAB, I believe, when she mentioned differing testosterone levels among siblings.
I would think the only people really anxious to find such a gene would probably be those looking for a reason to play the victim. Most if not all homosexuals I know (and love) simply get on with life.
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;829087 wrote: It sure is rational, its based on my observation of every single person that I know of who claims to be Gay. And my research on the subject, the number of times Ive been into the 'hotel gaystation' in SF CA (a location where I do environmental cleaning for three businesses) and see feces coated condoms littering the roof top garden, and have accidentally come up on them in action and the observable and gross sickness that mainfests the act is very very apparent to me. I have to ask the building manager to go clear the roof of them before my crews will go up there to clean. Ive lost three employees who refuse to go there, for fear of being sexually assaulted by the very very agressive deviants who populate the place. Part of my belief is certainly by faith, but on this thread I have very wisely tried to avoid being dogmatic for this very reason, because I get accused of being a 'fundamentalist' and Im just being contrary because the bible says its wrong. Well guess what Bryn, homosexual acts are flat out GROSS, and repugnant! and thy'd make me sick to my stomoch even if I wasnt religious!
And what has ANY of this to do with the findings of genetic research?
Homosexuality might very well be morally wrong and physically repulsive but that does not determine whether there is, in some people, a genetic predisposition towards it.
It is not your opinion that makes you " 'fundamentalist' and Im just being contrary because the bible says its wrong", it's your insistence that "Real science will match Gods design and intended use" and that any study that finds differently is "idiotic doublespeak of scientific bababry".
And what has ANY of this to do with the findings of genetic research?
Homosexuality might very well be morally wrong and physically repulsive but that does not determine whether there is, in some people, a genetic predisposition towards it.
It is not your opinion that makes you " 'fundamentalist' and Im just being contrary because the bible says its wrong", it's your insistence that "Real science will match Gods design and intended use" and that any study that finds differently is "idiotic doublespeak of scientific bababry".
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;829098 wrote: Its my explaination for why I believe they will NOT find a genetic predisposition to the so called 'gay lifestyle'. Which I have said several times now on this thread, and which is actually the subject of the thread.
You see it differently, although I cant see why you do but you do. You guys just cant stand it if someone elses opinon dosent fit into a nice little neat box for you to open and pick apart, suck it up and find a new arguement bud or a new person to pick on this ones not goona cow to your agenda.
I agree, it is the subject of the thread which is why I brought it back there from a description of how disgusting the practice is and how you loose employees if they have to go near it.
When I posted a link to a paper which suggested that there is a link, you dismissed it as "idiotic doublespeak of scientific bababry", "it cannot be true because the parts don't fit" and "the Bible says it's a sin" - this might be your belief but it is not rational discussion.
I no conviction one way or another as to whether such a link exists and I have no objection whatsoever to you holding your moral opinions on homosexuality but I do have a strong belief in rationallity - I *will* defend the right of science to produce findings that do not accord with what's stated in the Bible. The days of putting people to death for the heresy of believing the Earth revolves about the sun are long gone and will never be allowed to come back.
You see it differently, although I cant see why you do but you do. You guys just cant stand it if someone elses opinon dosent fit into a nice little neat box for you to open and pick apart, suck it up and find a new arguement bud or a new person to pick on this ones not goona cow to your agenda.
I agree, it is the subject of the thread which is why I brought it back there from a description of how disgusting the practice is and how you loose employees if they have to go near it.
When I posted a link to a paper which suggested that there is a link, you dismissed it as "idiotic doublespeak of scientific bababry", "it cannot be true because the parts don't fit" and "the Bible says it's a sin" - this might be your belief but it is not rational discussion.
I no conviction one way or another as to whether such a link exists and I have no objection whatsoever to you holding your moral opinions on homosexuality but I do have a strong belief in rationallity - I *will* defend the right of science to produce findings that do not accord with what's stated in the Bible. The days of putting people to death for the heresy of believing the Earth revolves about the sun are long gone and will never be allowed to come back.
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;829826 wrote: Agreed the days of putting peple to death over a belief are done, (but you might let the jihadist muslums know thats the case)...
My belief carries a lot of weight for me, so does my observation as I have stated many times already, If you want to hold out and be neutral until you get difinitive proof then go ahead, I'll continue to operate as I believe, for me the decision is simple, my observations and my belief let me know ahead of time that there wont be a gene found. If you want to stay open then fine. Your trying to tell me I cant hold my opinon becasue they are not scientific, well guess what I can absolutely hold whatever opinion I want, its MY opinion. If you want to, as you have, you can try to proove your neutrality over and over again as well and discuss and or argue till your hearts content. I absolutely maintain that there will be no conclusive scientific evidence for a 'gay gene'... the study will conclude that it "maybe", or that it will use language like 'this suggests', but it will never say it is certain. And the media will play it up as though it were Jesus Words directly from heaven, in a claer audible voice... "The gays cant help it!", will be the news line.
Its a media and scientific agenda to deny the culpability of mans sin. period. Its yet another pathetic attempt to disguise personal responsibilty to appease the minds of the folks that want to do what they want to do despite the authoirity that dwells within their hearts. It's a simple fact of humanity to appease guilt and man has not changed in 6000 years.
I very specifically upheld your right to hold your opinion on homosexuality, what I dispute is your right to determine that science will be unable to reach this or that conclusion because it disagrees with your opinion.
You have made statements here as statements of fact, not as opinions. As statements of fact they should be justifiable and verifiable in a logical and systematic way. When asked for supporting evidence you quote sin and repugnance - opinion not fact or logic.
Science has no agenda with regard to sin - that is the preserve of religion. Nowhere in the article presented was there any suggestion that "gays can't help it" - "a tendency to" does not mean the other side of a brick wall. What science does is to observe facts and draw logical conclusions from those facts, then make predictions based on those conclusions and check to see whether those predictions match the real world. A study of genetics is just that, a study of genetics and does not speak on matters moral or personal. Neither does, or should, the Bible speak on matters genetic.
For all of your absolute insistence that your opinion is right the world is as it is and fact does not depend on opinion. If you want to insist on your statements of fact then be prepared to support them, not hide behind secret agendas and conspiracies.
My belief carries a lot of weight for me, so does my observation as I have stated many times already, If you want to hold out and be neutral until you get difinitive proof then go ahead, I'll continue to operate as I believe, for me the decision is simple, my observations and my belief let me know ahead of time that there wont be a gene found. If you want to stay open then fine. Your trying to tell me I cant hold my opinon becasue they are not scientific, well guess what I can absolutely hold whatever opinion I want, its MY opinion. If you want to, as you have, you can try to proove your neutrality over and over again as well and discuss and or argue till your hearts content. I absolutely maintain that there will be no conclusive scientific evidence for a 'gay gene'... the study will conclude that it "maybe", or that it will use language like 'this suggests', but it will never say it is certain. And the media will play it up as though it were Jesus Words directly from heaven, in a claer audible voice... "The gays cant help it!", will be the news line.
Its a media and scientific agenda to deny the culpability of mans sin. period. Its yet another pathetic attempt to disguise personal responsibilty to appease the minds of the folks that want to do what they want to do despite the authoirity that dwells within their hearts. It's a simple fact of humanity to appease guilt and man has not changed in 6000 years.
I very specifically upheld your right to hold your opinion on homosexuality, what I dispute is your right to determine that science will be unable to reach this or that conclusion because it disagrees with your opinion.
You have made statements here as statements of fact, not as opinions. As statements of fact they should be justifiable and verifiable in a logical and systematic way. When asked for supporting evidence you quote sin and repugnance - opinion not fact or logic.
Science has no agenda with regard to sin - that is the preserve of religion. Nowhere in the article presented was there any suggestion that "gays can't help it" - "a tendency to" does not mean the other side of a brick wall. What science does is to observe facts and draw logical conclusions from those facts, then make predictions based on those conclusions and check to see whether those predictions match the real world. A study of genetics is just that, a study of genetics and does not speak on matters moral or personal. Neither does, or should, the Bible speak on matters genetic.
For all of your absolute insistence that your opinion is right the world is as it is and fact does not depend on opinion. If you want to insist on your statements of fact then be prepared to support them, not hide behind secret agendas and conspiracies.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester, it's homosexual behavior that's got your knickers twisted, right? Not genes, propensities, potential or anything mental - only behavior.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830190 wrote: Folks seem to want to excuse abnormal behavior by insisting they are hardwired to be a certain way, I do not believe that anyone is hardwired to go against the created purpose of the human body, it is a choice, pure and simple to engage in homosexual behavior.
So yes If I understand your question correctly, yes, its not any component of being hardwired, exactly.
Same as there is no drinking gene, or smoking gene, etc. All those are choices one makes based on learned behavior.
That's why I'm unconcerned, moral-wise, beyond mere curiosity about this particular issue. If one believes homosexual acts are against God's law/rules/wishes/whatever, then one will resist that behavior, no matter what urges are inside. No different from theft or a hundred other undesirable behaviors. If one doesn't believe such acts are immoral, one might try it even if the urge isn't there. So, genetics are really irrellevant to your outrage.
There is no stigma gene, as far as I know.
So yes If I understand your question correctly, yes, its not any component of being hardwired, exactly.
Same as there is no drinking gene, or smoking gene, etc. All those are choices one makes based on learned behavior.
That's why I'm unconcerned, moral-wise, beyond mere curiosity about this particular issue. If one believes homosexual acts are against God's law/rules/wishes/whatever, then one will resist that behavior, no matter what urges are inside. No different from theft or a hundred other undesirable behaviors. If one doesn't believe such acts are immoral, one might try it even if the urge isn't there. So, genetics are really irrellevant to your outrage.
There is no stigma gene, as far as I know.
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Scientist think left handedness is caused by certain genes..or shifts in testosterone levels inutero...more gay men were reported being born to mothers in the german slave camps..than straight men..(i read this somewhere..) there is an arguement that testosterone levels shift in the mother if she is in alot of stress during pregnancy...
is it hormones? or dna or gene? we dont know yet..but according to some studies...more left handed women are lesbians than right handed..there is also a high incincidence of left handed homosexual males..
i have read of links to left handedness and the link to rheumatoid arthritis also..if you are left handed..and ruematoid arthritis runs in your family you have a highter tendency to get it...
my interest? i am left handed and have ruematoid arthritis..my sexual orientation is to men...I have two cousins who are both left handed..and coincidentally both homosexual..does being left handed mean you are gay ? no...but i use this to state..i dont believe i chose to be left handed anymore than homosexual men choose to be homosexual...
according to studies..right handed people have a larger right hemisphere in their brains..left handed people do not..the hemispheres are usually equal or the left side is larger..
to state that sexual preferenece is evil is about as hethonistic as saying i am a witch for being left handed..but it wasnt too many years ago..left handed women were accused of witchcraft..ignorant people fear what they dont understand...
:-2
is it hormones? or dna or gene? we dont know yet..but according to some studies...more left handed women are lesbians than right handed..there is also a high incincidence of left handed homosexual males..
i have read of links to left handedness and the link to rheumatoid arthritis also..if you are left handed..and ruematoid arthritis runs in your family you have a highter tendency to get it...
my interest? i am left handed and have ruematoid arthritis..my sexual orientation is to men...I have two cousins who are both left handed..and coincidentally both homosexual..does being left handed mean you are gay ? no...but i use this to state..i dont believe i chose to be left handed anymore than homosexual men choose to be homosexual...
according to studies..right handed people have a larger right hemisphere in their brains..left handed people do not..the hemispheres are usually equal or the left side is larger..
to state that sexual preferenece is evil is about as hethonistic as saying i am a witch for being left handed..but it wasnt too many years ago..left handed women were accused of witchcraft..ignorant people fear what they dont understand...
:-2
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
and just to throw this thread off track..:sneaky:it really pisses me off when i slam into a department store door..half the f------ time a right handed person unlocks one f'ing door and it is always the right one..
i want a lawyer...:p
i want a lawyer...:pBorn Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830224 wrote: Exactly, sicne thereis no genetic disposition towards homosexual behavior then genetics is irrelevent.
That is until they insist it exists (despite not finding one) much like they do with a lot of non conclusive pseudo science. As in the way you outlined the OP, the media made it appear as though the gene exisists when they are still only searching for it. Forget the fact that most of the clinical psychology today has debunked the gay gene theory. Even some gay groups dont want them catagorized as having a 'defective gene', so they steer clear of the issue of a genetic disposition.
And contrary to Bryns assertions, I'm not trying to stop good science, or base my thoughts souly on religion, but I am not going to sit back and let them pass off bad science as fact.
Assertion of fact - can we have some evidence to back this up please. From a peer reviewed journal that deals with Clinical Psychology.
You have yet to produce any evidence other than your own opinion that it was "bad science". You are now claiming scientific support without any evidence but your own opinion. Until I see evidence to the contrary I do class you with Galileo's killers, trying to bury science beneath your religious intolerance.
That is until they insist it exists (despite not finding one) much like they do with a lot of non conclusive pseudo science. As in the way you outlined the OP, the media made it appear as though the gene exisists when they are still only searching for it. Forget the fact that most of the clinical psychology today has debunked the gay gene theory. Even some gay groups dont want them catagorized as having a 'defective gene', so they steer clear of the issue of a genetic disposition.
And contrary to Bryns assertions, I'm not trying to stop good science, or base my thoughts souly on religion, but I am not going to sit back and let them pass off bad science as fact.
Assertion of fact - can we have some evidence to back this up please. From a peer reviewed journal that deals with Clinical Psychology.
You have yet to produce any evidence other than your own opinion that it was "bad science". You are now claiming scientific support without any evidence but your own opinion. Until I see evidence to the contrary I do class you with Galileo's killers, trying to bury science beneath your religious intolerance.
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
guppy;830238 wrote: Scientist think left handedness is caused by certain genes..or shifts in testosterone levels inutero...more gay men were reported being born to mothers in the german slave camps..than straight men..(i read this somewhere..) there is an arguement that testosterone levels shift in the mother if she is in alot of stress during pregnancy...
is it hormones? or dna or gene? we dont know yet..but according to some studies...more left handed women are lesbians than right handed..there is also a high incincidence of left handed homosexual males..
i have read of links to left handedness and the link to rheumatoid arthritis also..if you are left handed..and ruematoid arthritis runs in your family you have a highter tendency to get it...
my interest? i am left handed and have ruematoid arthritis..my sexual orientation is to men...I have two cousins who are both left handed..and coincidentally both homosexual..does being left handed mean you are gay ? no...but i use this to state..i dont believe i chose to be left handed anymore than homosexual men choose to be homosexual...
according to studies..right handed people have a larger right hemisphere in their brains..left handed people do not..the hemispheres are usually equal or the left side is larger..
to state that sexual preferenece is evil is about as hethonistic as saying i am a witch for being left handed..but it wasnt too many years ago..left handed women were accused of witchcraft..ignorant people fear what they dont understand...
:-2
This is hilarious given that Jester once accused me of being a homosexual on the grounds that I admitted to being left handed :wah:
is it hormones? or dna or gene? we dont know yet..but according to some studies...more left handed women are lesbians than right handed..there is also a high incincidence of left handed homosexual males..
i have read of links to left handedness and the link to rheumatoid arthritis also..if you are left handed..and ruematoid arthritis runs in your family you have a highter tendency to get it...
my interest? i am left handed and have ruematoid arthritis..my sexual orientation is to men...I have two cousins who are both left handed..and coincidentally both homosexual..does being left handed mean you are gay ? no...but i use this to state..i dont believe i chose to be left handed anymore than homosexual men choose to be homosexual...
according to studies..right handed people have a larger right hemisphere in their brains..left handed people do not..the hemispheres are usually equal or the left side is larger..
to state that sexual preferenece is evil is about as hethonistic as saying i am a witch for being left handed..but it wasnt too many years ago..left handed women were accused of witchcraft..ignorant people fear what they dont understand...
:-2
This is hilarious given that Jester once accused me of being a homosexual on the grounds that I admitted to being left handed :wah:
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Bryn Mawr;830250 wrote: This is hilarious given that Jester once accused me of being a homosexual on the grounds that I admitted to being left handed :wah:
welcome to my world..we are the minority ya know....:wah:
welcome to my world..we are the minority ya know....:wah:
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
I'm left eyed and footed and right handed. Mostly I fancy geese. Dear Agony Auntie, is it my fault? :p (true about the split between left and right!)
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830224 wrote: Exactly, sicne thereis no genetic disposition towards homosexual behavior then genetics is irrelevent.
That is until they insist it exists (despite not finding one) much like they do with a lot of non conclusive pseudo science. As in the way you outlined the OP, the media made it appear as though the gene exisists when they are still only searching for it. Forget the fact that most of the clinical psychology today has debunked the gay gene theory. Even some gay groups dont want them catagorized as having a 'defective gene', so they steer clear of the issue of a genetic disposition.
And contrary to Bryns assertions, I'm not trying to stop good science, or base my thoughts souly on religion, but I am not going to sit back and let them pass off bad science as fact.Why not? What difference does it make?
That is until they insist it exists (despite not finding one) much like they do with a lot of non conclusive pseudo science. As in the way you outlined the OP, the media made it appear as though the gene exisists when they are still only searching for it. Forget the fact that most of the clinical psychology today has debunked the gay gene theory. Even some gay groups dont want them catagorized as having a 'defective gene', so they steer clear of the issue of a genetic disposition.
And contrary to Bryns assertions, I'm not trying to stop good science, or base my thoughts souly on religion, but I am not going to sit back and let them pass off bad science as fact.Why not? What difference does it make?
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Clodhopper;830277 wrote: I'm left eyed and footed and right handed. Mostly I fancy geese. Dear Agony Auntie, is it my fault? :p (true about the split between left and right!)
my dominant eye is my left one..the one i am blind in now..makes aiming at something or bowling or the like a challenge..i switched up and bowl and shoot pool right handed. it took me awhile to get comfortable doing that..but it works better now..
my dominant eye is my left one..the one i am blind in now..makes aiming at something or bowling or the like a challenge..i switched up and bowl and shoot pool right handed. it took me awhile to get comfortable doing that..but it works better now..
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830224 wrote: Exactly, sicne thereis no genetic disposition towards homosexual behavior then genetics is irrelevent.
That is until they insist it exists (despite not finding one) much like they do with a lot of non conclusive pseudo science. As in the way you outlined the OP, the media made it appear as though the gene exisists when they are still only searching for it. Forget the fact that most of the clinical psychology today has debunked the gay gene theory. Even some gay groups dont want them catagorized as having a 'defective gene', so they steer clear of the issue of a genetic disposition.
And contrary to Bryns assertions, I'm not trying to stop good science, or base my thoughts souly on religion, but I am not going to sit back and let them pass off bad science as fact.
not being a smart ass or the like but jester you are a man of faith are you not..? you cannot produce anything of physcal proof of your beliefs either. not all truths can be proved or disproved by science..can they? is it bad science or an attempt to understand..
who said that the gay groups would or do have a defective gene..some of the smartest most creative people in our history..were gay..
i am left handed by genetic disposition..this doesnt make me inferior to right handed..anymore than being a woman makes me inferior to men..different does not mean by definition..inferior..
is sexual orientation of such great importance..i dont think so..what i look for and see is the spirit of the person i am around..i have gay men friends..they treat their life partners with more respect and honor than some heterosexual people i know..one of the things i have dicovered about say johnathon..a really good friend of mine..he has been judged so harshly by his family..by society..that he doesnt judge others..he is one of the most open..giving kindest hearted men i know..his relationship with his mate..josh..is a wonderous thing..something i dont see in very many heterosexual couples..beyond the physical difference..what i see in them is they have learned unconditional love..in the spirit..isnt that the most important of all?:-6
That is until they insist it exists (despite not finding one) much like they do with a lot of non conclusive pseudo science. As in the way you outlined the OP, the media made it appear as though the gene exisists when they are still only searching for it. Forget the fact that most of the clinical psychology today has debunked the gay gene theory. Even some gay groups dont want them catagorized as having a 'defective gene', so they steer clear of the issue of a genetic disposition.
And contrary to Bryns assertions, I'm not trying to stop good science, or base my thoughts souly on religion, but I am not going to sit back and let them pass off bad science as fact.
not being a smart ass or the like but jester you are a man of faith are you not..? you cannot produce anything of physcal proof of your beliefs either. not all truths can be proved or disproved by science..can they? is it bad science or an attempt to understand..
who said that the gay groups would or do have a defective gene..some of the smartest most creative people in our history..were gay..
i am left handed by genetic disposition..this doesnt make me inferior to right handed..anymore than being a woman makes me inferior to men..different does not mean by definition..inferior..
is sexual orientation of such great importance..i dont think so..what i look for and see is the spirit of the person i am around..i have gay men friends..they treat their life partners with more respect and honor than some heterosexual people i know..one of the things i have dicovered about say johnathon..a really good friend of mine..he has been judged so harshly by his family..by society..that he doesnt judge others..he is one of the most open..giving kindest hearted men i know..his relationship with his mate..josh..is a wonderous thing..something i dont see in very many heterosexual couples..beyond the physical difference..what i see in them is they have learned unconditional love..in the spirit..isnt that the most important of all?:-6
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830778 wrote: In the 40's and 50's teachers used to retrain left'ys to be righty's with great sucess.
My son (about 18 mo old) is clearly left handed at this point. My brother is left handed. I was probably left handed, but my sister "corrected" me.
Around high school, it began to irritate me that I was using a different hand than I initially felt natural, so forced myself to learn to write both ways. Something about it just drove me nuts, although probably because I'm left-eyed.
I don't think training people to switch what they find natural is itself natural ... the results are not really successes, as teachers have since learned it's a mistake to do it in the first place.
My son (about 18 mo old) is clearly left handed at this point. My brother is left handed. I was probably left handed, but my sister "corrected" me.
Around high school, it began to irritate me that I was using a different hand than I initially felt natural, so forced myself to learn to write both ways. Something about it just drove me nuts, although probably because I'm left-eyed.
I don't think training people to switch what they find natural is itself natural ... the results are not really successes, as teachers have since learned it's a mistake to do it in the first place.
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830779 wrote: I did?:-2
Indeed - and very funny it was too :-
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=107
Indeed - and very funny it was too :-
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... tcount=107
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830778 wrote: I'd call it a coincidence, rather than a significant finding.
I am right handed, and left handed. I have a right hand dominance in manual activies and a left side dominance in sight and shooting. I trained in hand to hand combat and in weapons to be both left and right handed/sided. Its a learned behavior/activity. Its tendency, not a genetic predisposition.
There is a rehab program that takes stroke victims and retrains them to be otherside dominate from thier affected side, which worked marvelously, then some resaercher decided to limit the active side and force neuromuscular activity through the affected side only, and what do you know, previously plataeud stroke victims began to make gains again. One of my family member benefited greatly from this therapy.
I think we need to make a clear distinction between behavior and true genetic determination.
In the 40's and 50's teachers used to retrain left'ys to be righty's with great sucess.
Might I ask what you think a genetic predisposition is?
It is a tendency for a person with a given gene or combination of genes to have a given physical or behavioural characteristic.
It has no suggestion or inference that the person with such a gene or combination of genes is guaranteed to have that characteristic - that would be a genetic trait such as the recessive trait for blue eyes.
I am right handed, and left handed. I have a right hand dominance in manual activies and a left side dominance in sight and shooting. I trained in hand to hand combat and in weapons to be both left and right handed/sided. Its a learned behavior/activity. Its tendency, not a genetic predisposition.
There is a rehab program that takes stroke victims and retrains them to be otherside dominate from thier affected side, which worked marvelously, then some resaercher decided to limit the active side and force neuromuscular activity through the affected side only, and what do you know, previously plataeud stroke victims began to make gains again. One of my family member benefited greatly from this therapy.
I think we need to make a clear distinction between behavior and true genetic determination.
In the 40's and 50's teachers used to retrain left'ys to be righty's with great sucess.
Might I ask what you think a genetic predisposition is?
It is a tendency for a person with a given gene or combination of genes to have a given physical or behavioural characteristic.
It has no suggestion or inference that the person with such a gene or combination of genes is guaranteed to have that characteristic - that would be a genetic trait such as the recessive trait for blue eyes.
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830778 wrote: I'd call it a coincidence, rather than a significant finding.
I am right handed, and left handed. I have a right hand dominance in manual activies and a left side dominance in sight and shooting. I trained in hand to hand combat and in weapons to be both left and right handed/sided. Its a learned behavior/activity. Its tendency, not a genetic predisposition.
There is a rehab program that takes stroke victims and retrains them to be otherside dominate from thier affected side, which worked marvelously, then some resaercher decided to limit the active side and force neuromuscular activity through the affected side only, and what do you know, previously plataeud stroke victims began to make gains again. One of my family member benefited greatly from this therapy.
I think we need to make a clear distinction between behavior and true genetic determination.
In the 40's and 50's teachers used to retrain left'ys to be righty's with great sucess.
right handed people
true left handers are right brain dominent..and born that way..to force them to use their right hand means they had to retrain their brains to send signals to the right hand from the left side..almost all left handers are left side dominent..their left eye..left foot and arm are also dominent..and controlled by the right side of their brain..and they are born that way...i disagree with you that leftys were retrained with great success..what happened was they were forced to use the lesser side of their brain in fine motor coordination..and as a result were exposed to greater risk of harm..in machinery..warfare..and most of the coordination needed in the working world..
experiment with yourself..try writing with your less dominant hand..your dominant hand will probably try to mimic your actions..your brain is sending cross signals...
so by your words are you implying in any kind of way that homosexuals can be retrained in your correct way of thinking? to be heterosexual..i disagree..
although not firmly proven by science yet..homosexuality is a result of a combination of genetics..hormones and environment..i believe they are born that way..
I am right handed, and left handed. I have a right hand dominance in manual activies and a left side dominance in sight and shooting. I trained in hand to hand combat and in weapons to be both left and right handed/sided. Its a learned behavior/activity. Its tendency, not a genetic predisposition.
There is a rehab program that takes stroke victims and retrains them to be otherside dominate from thier affected side, which worked marvelously, then some resaercher decided to limit the active side and force neuromuscular activity through the affected side only, and what do you know, previously plataeud stroke victims began to make gains again. One of my family member benefited greatly from this therapy.
I think we need to make a clear distinction between behavior and true genetic determination.
In the 40's and 50's teachers used to retrain left'ys to be righty's with great sucess.
right handed people
true left handers are right brain dominent..and born that way..to force them to use their right hand means they had to retrain their brains to send signals to the right hand from the left side..almost all left handers are left side dominent..their left eye..left foot and arm are also dominent..and controlled by the right side of their brain..and they are born that way...i disagree with you that leftys were retrained with great success..what happened was they were forced to use the lesser side of their brain in fine motor coordination..and as a result were exposed to greater risk of harm..in machinery..warfare..and most of the coordination needed in the working world..
experiment with yourself..try writing with your less dominant hand..your dominant hand will probably try to mimic your actions..your brain is sending cross signals...
so by your words are you implying in any kind of way that homosexuals can be retrained in your correct way of thinking? to be heterosexual..i disagree..
although not firmly proven by science yet..homosexuality is a result of a combination of genetics..hormones and environment..i believe they are born that way..
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;830785 wrote: Not if they operate outside of Gods design for a relationship. I'm sure there are many, many nice folks who think the are gay. I'm sure they are capable of love though misguided as I see your discription of them. But that does not make what they do right in Gods eyes. He has a mandate, its to be followed, or its sin. I realize this is a totally rejected concept by most of you, but God has not changed His design since he created us.
I respect your beliefs jester..they are yours...and rightfully so...
just as i respect others that make adult consenting decisions.that hurt no one else..:-6
I respect your beliefs jester..they are yours...and rightfully so...
just as i respect others that make adult consenting decisions.that hurt no one else..:-6
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester;832079 wrote: Bryn, In response to your inquiry about a link to the psychology comment I made:
The first is an interesting article, the second a total irrelevance and the third is exactly why I asked for peer reviewed articles.
Your attitude appears to be that unless proof is total and absolute then there is no possibility of it being true - hardly balanced and certainly no basis for the "facts" you have claimed during these discussions.
The first is an interesting article, the second a total irrelevance and the third is exactly why I asked for peer reviewed articles.
Your attitude appears to be that unless proof is total and absolute then there is no possibility of it being true - hardly balanced and certainly no basis for the "facts" you have claimed during these discussions.
Born Gay? - A Homosexual Gene?
Jester, you are free to state your opinion... I defend your freedom of speech.
I just don't find your arguments very convincing. For example in this thread, you've made many claims, the truth of which is mutually exclusive:
(1) sexuality is hard-wired (people are born "heterosexual")
(2) sexuality is largely a learned behavior (not hard wired)
(3) if there's no conclusive proof of something's existence, it doesn't exist
(4) God exists, and he says that homosexuality is wrong (despite there being no conclusive proof of any of this)
(5) there is no proof or disproof of there being a biological cause for homosexuality
(6) there is no biological cause for homosexuality (without proof?)
(7) if something is sinful, it can not have a biological basis.
(8) people are born with a sinful selfish nature, because of the fall of man in Eden ... making it all genetic after all. (You stated this in another thread)
(9) it's wrong for groups to have a social agenda on homosexuality
(10) you are part of an group with a anti-gay social agenda, lacking proof for your claims.
You can pick the odd numbers or even ... hard to combine both sets consistently though.
I'm not sure you have any real reason for believing homosexuality can't have a biological basis, other than the fact that homosexuality makes you uncomfortable. That alone doesn't rule out there being a biological basis that underlies the thing that makes you uncomfortable.
If you think I've mischaracterized your views, I apologize, but I'm just trying to explain why I am not convinced by your arguments presented.
I just don't find your arguments very convincing. For example in this thread, you've made many claims, the truth of which is mutually exclusive:
(1) sexuality is hard-wired (people are born "heterosexual")
(2) sexuality is largely a learned behavior (not hard wired)
(3) if there's no conclusive proof of something's existence, it doesn't exist
(4) God exists, and he says that homosexuality is wrong (despite there being no conclusive proof of any of this)
(5) there is no proof or disproof of there being a biological cause for homosexuality
(6) there is no biological cause for homosexuality (without proof?)
(7) if something is sinful, it can not have a biological basis.
(8) people are born with a sinful selfish nature, because of the fall of man in Eden ... making it all genetic after all. (You stated this in another thread)
(9) it's wrong for groups to have a social agenda on homosexuality
(10) you are part of an group with a anti-gay social agenda, lacking proof for your claims.
You can pick the odd numbers or even ... hard to combine both sets consistently though.
I'm not sure you have any real reason for believing homosexuality can't have a biological basis, other than the fact that homosexuality makes you uncomfortable. That alone doesn't rule out there being a biological basis that underlies the thing that makes you uncomfortable.
If you think I've mischaracterized your views, I apologize, but I'm just trying to explain why I am not convinced by your arguments presented.