11 Oct 05
Originally posted by HalitoseYou're right about controlling for environment. I'll also have to do the homework because I'm not certain how some of these famous articles accomplish (or don't accomplish) this. Ideally, you'd want identical twins that were raised by different families from different regions. I don't know how easy it is to get ahold of this data or even how large a set it might be. One may have to look into adoption records from outside the US, perhaps in a country that isn't as strict in its adoption policies. Sounds like a lot of work, but, if it hasn't been done before, also a huge contribution (for an enormous number of possible research topics).
[b]What a great link! Not only did I discover that some evidence of genetic link = no evidence of genetic link, but I also learned (from a supposed psychology think tank) that all sorts of major media groups including NPR, Newsweek, and the Wall Street Journal are out to destroy our nation.
Yeah, I never quite got a kick from these media conspiracy ...[text shortened]... lly read some of these quotes in context.[/b]
Thanks. I'll work my way through it some time.[/b]
Personally, I think there's a mix. I suspect that it is primarily determined genetically, but that the environment can alter some people's sexual practices (not sure if that's the same as altering preference though).
11 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseHe had his first sexual experience arranged by his mother? How many people can relate to that I wonder.
The Masters-Johnson Institute reported that: "A 25-year-old man had had his first sexual experience when he was 13 years old. It was arranged by his lesbian mother with an older gay man. After that episode, his imagery and interpersonal sexual experience were exclusively homosexual.... The man was however motivated to establish a heterosexual life style b ...[text shortened]... ively heterosexual. He has moved out of the gay community and has changed... his life style."1.
A friend of mine--formerly a drama student, now a bearded, barefoot hippy with a cast in one eye--was deflowered at the age 14 by an amiable prostitute at his macho father's expense; he went on to experiment broadly with his sexuality, and now professes to be "polyamorous". He is happy, as far as I can tell.
I don't know anyone else whose parents had such intimate influence over their love-life.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn the section of the article which you cut and pasted, nowhere does it mention that she is an atheist.
She wasn't Catholic to begin with - she's an atheist. I simply switched the situation around.
So - still think atheists cannot be prejudiced?
EDIT: Did you actually read the Guardian article?
I never claimed that atheists cannot be prejudiced. I stated that atheists are not prejudiced against the religious (meaning for their religious views). This is because atheists have rejected the notions of religion which they have been subjected to.
They will inevitably have experienced religion from society, and will probably have accepted it as gospel (excuse the pun), until they critcally analysed it and rejected the notion at a later stage in life.
Thus atheistic criticism of religion is not prejudicial, but rather based upon justifiable, rational reasons.
Atheists can still be sexist, racist or homophobic, just like any one else.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by howardgeeIn the section of the article which you cut and pasted, nowhere does it mention that she is an atheist.
In the section of the article which you cut and pasted, nowhere does it mention that she is an atheist.
I never claimed that atheists cannot be prejudiced. I stated that atheists are not prejudiced against the religious (meaning for their religious views). This is because atheists have rejected the notions of religion which they have been subjected to ...[text shortened]... , rational reasons.
Atheists can still be sexist, racist or homophobic, just like any one else.
That is the most (if not only) reasonable inference.
I stated that atheists are not prejudiced against the religious (meaning for their religious views).
When I switched the situation around to a Christian setting, no one doubted that the sister was prejudiced in her initial set of reactions to her brother. Why should this change when the situation is reversed?
This is because atheists have rejected the notions of religion which they have been subjected to
This girl has not been "subjected" to any notions of religion at home - her parents are distinctly irreligious.
They will inevitably have experienced religion from society, and will probably have accepted it as gospel (excuse the pun), until they critcally analysed it and rejected the notion at a later stage in life.
Not in this case.
Thus atheistic criticism of religion is not prejudicial, but rather based upon justifiable, rational reasons.
To quote your words from an earlier post:
Our derision of religious beliefs is ...
Derision/scorn is a very different animal from [rational] criticism. One is an emotional response, the other is intellectual. One is rooted in bias and prejudice, the other is not.
12 Oct 05
To quote your words from an earlier post:
Our derision of religious beliefs is ...
Derision/scorn is a very different animal from [rational] criticism. One is an emotional response, the other is intellectual. One is rooted in bias and prejudice, the other is not.
While derision/scorn is a emotional response, it may follow from rational criticism. It is not clear that this emotion must be rooted in bias and prejudice.
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by telerionYou're right - it probably does not need to be rooted in bias; but it sometimes (if not usually) is.
[b]
To quote your words from an earlier post:
Our derision of religious beliefs is ...
Derision/scorn is a very different animal from [rational] criticism. One is an emotional response, the other is intellectual. One is rooted in bias and prejudice, the other is not.
While derision/scorn is a emotional response, it may follow from rational criticism. It is not clear that this emotion must be rooted in bias and prejudice.[/b]
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrYou're referring, I think, to the original Bailey-Pillard studies (1991,95) which concluded that it was twice as likely for one identical twin to be homosexual if the other twin was homosexual than for fraternal twins.
Human Biology, April 1998 v70 n2 p347(19)
The most recent study, however, suggested that the high concordances in earlier studies was due to a sample bias (essentially, volunteers were sought using advertisements in gay publications). In the most recent Bailey study, he writes:
The most striking difference between our results and those of past twin studies of sexual orientation concerns the probandwise concordance rates. In a recent review the lowest concordances for single-sex MZ samples were 47% and 48%, for men and women, respectively ( ). In contrast, our MZ concordances were 20% and 24%, respectively, for the strict criterion that is most similar to those used
in prior studies. These rates are significantly lower than the respective rates for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation: for men, 52% ( ), [chi] (1, = 550) = 8.2, < .01, and for
women, 48% ( ), [chi] (1, = 1,115) = 4.3, < .05. This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias ( ). In those studies, twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate. In contrast, both the more general focus of our study (i.e., on sexuality in general) and its anonymous response format made such considerations less likely.*
In other words, correcting for this bias means that MZ (monozygotic) twins do not display a higher propensity for homosexuality (given that one twin is homosexual) than DZ (dizygotic) twins.
---
* http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Publications/Bailey%20et%20al.%20twins,2000.pdf
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI didn't intend this to be a 'debate' thread in that it would reach a conclusion. For me, the objective was to provide an opportunity for self-reflection to everyone reading the thread (in particular the atheists, but the theists are not excluded) so we can reduce the amount of vitriol flowing through this forum.
Have you drawn any conclusions from this thread, LH?
12 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think there is always opportunity to reduce the vitriol in the threads and it is a worthy goal. Where I disagree is the idea that some sort of religious intolerance is the root cause. When you ask the good people of this forum to be nice to the likes of RBHILL, Blind faith101 and to a somewhat lesser extent dj2becker you are essentially asking them to suffer a fool. I cannot speak for anyone else but I'm not very good at that and have never been shown a decent argument as to why I should be.
I didn't intend this to be a 'debate' thread in that it would reach a conclusion. For me, the objective was to provide an opportunity for self-reflection to everyone reading the thread (in particular the atheists, but the theists are not excluded) so we can reduce the amount of vitriol flowing through this forum.
You for instance argue your points with intelligence and thoughtfulness and do not get nearly the abuse that the more wacko religious elements get. To the extent that you do get abused and/or mistreated for your beliefs that is unfortunate but is it any worse than RBHILL condemning people to hell?
There exist morons and blowhards on both sides of this issue and we all need to do a better job of ignoring them. Sadly, as with many news outlets sensationalism sells and it seems to be no different here.
In short, I have nothing against Christianity or Catholicism or any mainstream religion that comes to mind but I often have considerable problems with the followers of those various religions and not simply because they are Christians (or whatever) but because they behave in a way that makes me angry. I guess I just don't think you are dealing with much intolerance of religion in this forum so much as intolerance of the stupid, annoying and silly. Is that really so bad?
TheSkipper
12 Oct 05
Originally posted by TheSkipperRecced.
I think there is always opportunity to reduce the vitriol in the threads and it is a worthy goal. Where I disagree is the idea that some sort of religious intolerance is the root cause. When you ask the good people of this forum to be nice to the likes of RBHILL, Blind faith101 and to a somewhat lesser extent dj2becker you are essentially asking them to s ...[text shortened]... so much as intolerance of the stupid, annoying and silly. Is that really so bad?
TheSkipper
12 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour summary of the work is erroneous. Read page 14 (under the heading "twin similarity"😉 of the report you cite above.
In other words, correcting for this bias means that MZ (monozygotic) twins do not display a higher propensity for homosexuality (given that one twin is homosexual) than DZ (dizygotic) twins.
13 Oct 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerPlease try reading your own cut 'n' paste jobs!
[b]In the section of the article which you cut and pasted, nowhere does it mention that she is an atheist.
That is the most (if not only) reasonable inference.
I stated that atheists are not prejudiced against the religious (meaning for their religious views).
When I switched the situation around to a Christian setting, no one dou ...[text shortened]... onal response, the other is intellectual. One is rooted in bias and prejudice, the other is not.[/b]
"Though our dad is Catholic he has been non-practising since I was at primary school, and our Protestant mum has been a non-church-goer for years"
Thus your claims that;
"This girl has not been 'subjected' to any notions of religion at home - her parents are distinctly irreligious" is erroneous.
She has at least been made aware of their beliefs, even if her parents have lapsed in practising them.
"When I switched the situation around to a Christian setting, no one doubted that the sister was prejudiced in her initial set of reactions to her brother. Why should this change when the situation is reversed?"
It does not change. Like I said;
"Atheists can still be sexist, racist or homophobic, just like any one else."
15 Oct 05
Originally posted by howardgeehmmmm...no reply to this eh, LH?
Please try reading your own cut 'n' paste jobs!
"Though our dad is Catholic he has been non-practising since I was at primary school, and our Protestant mum has been a non-church-goer for years"
Thus your claims that;
"This girl has not been 'subjected' to any notions of religion at home - her parents are distinctly irreligious" is erroneo ...[text shortened]... . Like I said;
"Atheists can still be sexist, racist or homophobic, just like any one else."
15 Oct 05
The relative contribution of nature and nurture to sexual orientation is much debated.
Note, however, that it's debatable whether the alleged "decision" to become a homosexual, or to act homosexually, should be classed as falling under nature, nurture, both, or neither.
It could be nature, as it would be my "internal" decision.
It could be nurture, as I would make my decision on the basis of stuff I learned from the "external" environment.
It could be both, as a decision could be the epigenetic result of my genes "interacting" with my environment.
It could be neither, as a decision might be deemed a causeless mental act of "free will" irreducible to any cause, internal or external.
Take your pick.
But let's be sensible for a moment. Following up on bbarr's point, isn't it obvious that sexuality is primarily about spontaneously-arising desires not worked-through decisions?
Sexual orientation is a dispositional preference for sexual activity with people of a given sex. You can't decide to give yourself this dispositional preference (though of course you can decide whether or not to act on it). And the ingrainedness of the preference also appears to be equally strong, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual. So, if God makes you straight, he also make you gay. I think this is the bitter pill that religious anti-homosexualists find hard to swallow (no pun intended).
Interestingly, however, male sexual orientation (and drive) seems to more fixed and either-or (and insistent) than female sexual orientation (and drive). What religious anti-homosexualists assert about the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality--in terms of it being a given rather than a choice--appears to be truer of male and female sexual orientation.
Baumeister, R.F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347-374.
Here's a journalist link to other research tending to substantiate the same point.
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20030515235025_health_news.shtml