CeroX: Joe Blowme: Gay or Gay not, there is no bi.

How do you explain:

Most gay men are NOT attracted to women
Most gay women are NOT attracted to men

Most straight men are NOT attracted to men
Most straight women are NOT attracted to women

There are men who ARE attracted to BOTH men and women
There are women who ARE attracted to BOTH men and women

But your definition says that the men and women who ARE attracted to both men and women do not exist?

Oh i see, they aren't like you, so it's simpler to lump them into one group... Nice to know that the internet isn't just for intelligent life forms

Know how i know you have never seen star wars and have no sense of humor?

That was one of the WORST articles I've ever read!

/subby sounds gay
//seriously, who gives a FARK about sexual tendencies of someone else anymore? What are ya, ten????

If they're not closeted gays, why are they so obsessed with other peoples' buttsex?

/no one demonizes men for farking women in the ass

doubled99: Why is the term :phobia" only used with an aversion to homosexuals?

Dislike of minorities=Hate
Dislike of homosexuals=Fear

I think it all comes down to fear. When you deal with the fear by setting up cultural structures that prevent your having to deal directly with it, it segues to hate, and gays are certainly not immune to the hate part. Let's not forget that racism at its base is just xenophobia - fear of strangers, or of "different people." A (white) child who sees a black person for the first time is going to stare - it's just benign curiosity. When he is told it's not nice to stare at "those people", those people become a source of fear, and here we go again.

People who trash talk Christians are really self-loathing secret Christians.

ThrobblefootSpectre: People who trash talk Christians are really self-loathing secret Christians.

Like Dan Savage?

impaler: Splish: There are innumerable problems with those findings--correlation/causation, retrospective analysis, etc. They say it's proof of something that happens "in the womb," but all their evidence is from adults. There's no proven or even presumptive mechanism of how or why a more symmetric brain would make someone gay.

The findings are that there is a correlation to brain structure and homo/heterosexuality. That's it. So if you think homosexuality is a choice, you think one can ultimately affect the size of their brain hemispheres through choice.

Sure, anyone can. Learn a new language, learn to juggle, whatever, your brain will change is size and composition. The change in brain anatomy isn't the cause.

Splish: f you say "There's some evidence that homosexuality may not be a choice" I'd agree with you.

Or you could try just saying what it is: very strong evidence very strongly suggests that homosexuality is heavily influenced by biological factors like brain structure and genetic configuration which, when combined with environmental influences, come to dictate the development of the complex trait we call sexual preference.

Or, you know, you could stick with your nonsensically twisted version. Whichever, I guess.

impaler: Splish: Sure, anyone can. Learn a new language, learn to juggle, whatever, your brain will change is size and composition. The change in brain anatomy isn't the cause.

Brain hemisphere size isn't affected by learning.

Brain size (and composition) is absolutely affected by learning. Scientists have postulated that for centuries, and with modern imaging techniques they've proven it. It used to be they'd see that one area was denser in musicians, or another was larger in astronomers, and they'd suspect that the rain had changed, but they couldn't refute the possibility that maybe that area was always bigger and that's why that person chose that field. Now they have shown with before and after images, yes, that area is more pronounced. Of course, I can't prove that there are certain things you have to learn to be gay and that's why the brains look the way they do, just like you can't prove that having a brain like that so much as predisposes anyone to be gay.

Splish: impaler: Splish: Sure, anyone can. Learn a new language, learn to juggle, whatever, your brain will change is size and composition. The change in brain anatomy isn't the cause.

Brain hemisphere size isn't affected by learning.

Brain size (and composition) is absolutely affected by learning. Scientists have postulated that for centuries, and with modern imaging techniques they've proven it. It used to be they'd see that one area was denser in musicians, or another was larger in astronomers, and they'd suspect that the rain had changed, but they couldn't refute the possibility that maybe that area was always bigger and that's why that person chose that field. Now they have shown with before and after images, yes, that area is more pronounced. Of course, I can't prove that there are certain things you have to learn to be gay and that's why the brains look the way they do, just like you can't prove that having a brain like that so much as predisposes anyone to be gay.

[citation needed] for all of the above.

Yeah, about that study - it was true.

I wouldn't even stop there - I would suggest every hate group in history was really just expressing a secret self-loathing. You can start with Hitler's having Jewish ancestors and work your way down Rush Limbaugh calling someone a slut - the pattern repeats itself without exception.

Wayne 985: [citation needed] for all of the above.

Have you done a pubmed search and come up empty? Or even tried googling it?

bugontherug: Here's what the author fails to acknowledge: between

1) what the article calls the "social," "anecdotal," and "communal" evidence,
2) the subconscious association study, and
3) the erection strength study,

the available evidence is consistent with the proposition that those who fear/dislike/object to homosexuals show greater likelihood than the general population to experience homosexual desires, and none of the evidence is inconsistent with that proposition.

Is the evidence that homophobe = homo conclusive? Not really.

Is the evidence that homophobe = homo strong enough for reasonable people to infer that those who fear/dislike/object to homosexuals likely experience homosexual desires? Yes.

Thus, to the homophobe apologists, I say this: homo say what?

First, the social/anecdotal/communal evidence is useless for anything beyond prompting more serious study. The go-to example, Ted Haggard, isn't even that compelling. It was a huge scandal because he was the pastor of a very large church and a leader in evangelicalism, not because he had done an inordinate amount of gay-bashing in the past. As I pointed out in another comment, his Wikipedia entry (which pretty much only exists because of the scandal) has a very short section on his former teachings and activities related to homosexuality, and about all it mentions is his support of a constitutional amendment in Colorado and a report that was published by the National Association of Evangelicals while he happened to be president. In other words, Ted Haggard was not some notorious gay basher prior to being outed. His views and actions were pretty typical of (probably) tens of thousands of Christian pastors. (Are you now going to seriously suggest that every pastor who once supported legislation ot ban gay marriage is secretly gay?) So, one of the canonical pieces of anecdotal "evidence" was basically manufactured in support of a popular myth, not the other way around. That, by the way, is one of the problems with anecdotal evidence in general. It is highly susceptible to confirmation bias.

Second, evidence doesn't work that way. What YOU fail to acknowledge in your comment are the plausible alternative explanations for the experimental findings. Consistency is only one test (in a sense the weakest one) of a good theory. I once took a class about scanning probe microscopy techniques, and the professor told us that in the very first paper published with STM results (in the early 1980s, IIRC), the authors chose to examine the (111) surface facet of crystalline silicon. If you don't know what that is, don't worry, it's not central to the point. Up to that time, there were half a dozen or so other theories about how the atoms that make up that surface were arranged, each of them completely consistent with the available evidence. The STM paper settled the debate to everyone's satisfaction in favor of one of them. Before the publication of those results, no one who knew about these theories and who was familiar with the evidence would have been justified in believing in any one of them to the exclusion of the others. Similarly, you are not justified in inferring that people who object to homosexuality experience homosexual desires on the basis of mere consistency.

impaler: Splish: Brain size (and composition) is absolutely affected by learning.

Brain hemisphere size is not affected by learning.

Right, everything in the hemisphere is, but the hemisphere itself stays exactly the same size. Explain to me how that works again?

Splish: impaler: Splish: Brain size (and composition) is absolutely affected by learning.

Brain hemisphere size is not affected by learning.

Right, everything in the hemisphere is, but the hemisphere itself stays exactly the same size. Explain to me how that works again?

Gross neurological structure is decided by hormones. During development, the structure of the brain is 'woven' by axon guidance molecules and other chemicals. However, after a brain reaches a maturity, the direction of a 'connection' between two parts of the brain is decided by activity, not guidance molecules.

Perceivable differences in gross cortex occur in development, but not much in in later life. However, there are examples where such things do occur. The most bandied about one is how a certain region of the hippocampus associated with spatial memory is larger in lifelong cab drivers than anyone else. Activity does shape the brain, but "being gay" isn't an activity. The physical reaction of attraction has been shown to follow the same neurological pathway within a gender, regardless of what gender they are aroused by.

So a straight couple has a boy/girl. He/she grows up with all of the regular straight influences, does the regular straight child things, and likes the regular straight child stuff. But he/she never develops an interest in girls/boys, does develop an interest in guys/girls, and despite all of the straight influences the boy/girl grows up to be gay/lesbian.

Since that's how many gays and lesbians grow and develop, that blows the "learned behavior" and "choice" theories out of the water.

Wayne 985: Splish: impaler: Splish: Sure, anyone can. Learn a new language, learn to juggle, whatever, your brain will change is size and composition. The change in brain anatomy isn't the cause.

Brain hemisphere size isn't affected by learning.

Brain size (and composition) is absolutely affected by learning. Scientists have postulated that for centuries, and with modern imaging techniques they've proven it. It used to be they'd see that one area was denser in musicians, or another was larger in astronomers, and they'd suspect that the rain had changed, but they couldn't refute the possibility that maybe that area was always bigger and that's why that person chose that field. Now they have shown with before and after images, yes, that area is more pronounced. Of course, I can't prove that there are certain things you have to learn to be gay and that's why the brains look the way they do, just like you can't prove that having a brain like that so much as predisposes anyone to be gay.

[citation needed] for all of the above.

You know, I've heard that the smarter you are the wrinklier your brain; and your guys brains must be the wrinkliest! Oh, sure, ordinary Joes like me and Arthur here, maybe our brains are a little on the smooth side, but you don't have to be a genius to know that Evil is Bad! And Good...isn't!

For the people who say being gay is a choice, I have two questions:

1) When did you choose to be straight, and why?

2) Why would someone choose to be condemned by their family and friends, live with anything from derision to mortal danger (depending on country), and have a hard time getting a date, when they could have been part of the dominant, safe, and laid segment of society?

Cythraul: Clever troll. I like how you claim to be pro gay rights with that excellent troll-tastic delivery at the end. Well played, Sir!

No, I sincerely believe that. Ever seen Starship Troopers?

Worldwalker: For the people who say being gay is a choice, I have two questions:

1) When did you choose to be straight, and why?

2) Why would someone choose to be condemned by their family and friends, live with anything from derision to mortal danger (depending on country), and have a hard time getting a date, when they could have been part of the dominant, safe, and laid segment of society?

I don't think that sexual attraction is normally a choice (although I think in some cases it can be influenced by other choices). Even so, I have never found your second question to be a compelling counterargument to that position. People often make (or become trapped in) unwise, self-destructive choices (joining a cult or a gang, using crystal meth, going to graduate school) for reasons that make sense only to themselves.

...just like you can't prove that having a brain like that so much as predisposes anyone to be gay

Mm hmm.

What do you do for a living?

Who would have thought that so many homophobes would react so predictably defensive when being faced with the thing they fear most - being accused of being gay (which they most likely are)?

Splinshints: ...just like you can't prove that having a brain like that so much as predisposes anyone to be gay

Mm hmm.

What do you do for a living?

I teach cognitive development and neuroanatomy at Johns Hopkins. Or maybe I don't. What difference does it make?

You know what I never talk about or think about? Everything I don't care about. Do you really need a study to figure out why a man talks hatefully about sucking on a penis every day of his sad little repressed life? Are you really that unobservant and clueless?

Splish: What difference does it make?

You don't think there's a difference between some random nobody posting easily disproved nonsense on an internet forum and hundreds of highly trained science professionals who have poured thousands of hours of work into their research to come to the conclusions you're arguing so vociferously against?

You keep posting uncited assertions about brain development like you're stating facts. I'm curious what exactly makes you think you're qualified to do that. Especially since a lot of what you've posted so far is easily disproved with simple Google searches.

So, let's hear it. What do you do for a living? Anything at all that would make you qualified to be posting any of the things you've posted without citation?

Why Would I Read the Article: I absolutely despise mushrooms. Does that mean I'm a closeted mushroom?

No, you're Bowser Koopa.

Splish: Wayne 985: [citation needed] for all of the above.

Have you done a pubmed search and come up empty? Or even tried googling it?

I'm not doing your research for you, genius. You made a ludicrous claim that gay people choose to be gay and their brains change to accommodate that. Now back it up.

Splinshints: Splish: What difference does it make?

You don't think there's a difference between some random nobody posting easily disproved nonsense on an internet forum and hundreds of highly trained science professionals who have poured thousands of hours of work into their research to come to the conclusions you're arguing so vociferously against?

You keep posting uncited assertions about brain development like you're stating facts. I'm curious what exactly makes you think you're qualified to do that. Especially since a lot of what you've posted so far is easily disproved with simple Google searches.

So, let's hear it. What do you do for a living? Anything at all that would make you qualified to be posting any of the things you've posted without citation?

So far I haven't seen anything disproved, unless you disproved it to yourself and didn't bother sharing with anyone else. My position this whole discussion gas been that we don't yet have enough evidence to know if being gay is a choice or otherwise determines. You've responded with nothing more than speculation. I pointed this out and restated my position that with the available evidence we simply don't know enough to know one way or the other. So you quote that back to me and ask my qualifications? Seriously? What are yours?

If there was any definitive proof that homosexuality is determined by anything other than choice, it should be easy to provide that, and you simply can't. My position is clearly stated: We don't know. How would you like me to prove that other than by pointing to the absence of conclusive evidence on either side?

Splish: Splinshints: Splish: What difference does it make?

You don't think there's a difference between some random nobody posting easily disproved nonsense on an internet forum and hundreds of highly trained science professionals who have poured thousands of hours of work into their research to come to the conclusions you're arguing so vociferously against?

You keep posting uncited assertions about brain development like you're stating facts. I'm curious what exactly makes you think you're qualified to do that. Especially since a lot of what you've posted so far is easily disproved with simple Google searches.

So, let's hear it. What do you do for a living? Anything at all that would make you qualified to be posting any of the things you've posted without citation?

So far I haven't seen anything disproved, unless you disproved it to yourself and didn't bother sharing with anyone else. My position this whole discussion gas been that we don't yet have enough evidence to know if being gay is a choice or otherwise determines. You've responded with nothing more than speculation. I pointed this out and restated my position that with the available evidence we simply don't know enough to know one way or the other. So you quote that back to me and ask my qualifications? Seriously? What are yours?

If there was any definitive proof that homosexuality is determined by anything other than choice, it should be easy to provide that, and you simply can't. My position is clearly stated: We don't know. How would you like me to prove that other than by pointing to the absence of conclusive evidence on either side?

Straight parents give birth to child, child lives with the typical straight influences, but shows no interest in the opposite sex and all interest in own gender (or shows interest in both genders). Sounds genetic to me.

Also the fact that evidence shows that few people are 100% gay or 100% straight. Stupid Sexy Flanders, Even The Guys Want Him, and Even The Girls Want Her all show this.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Straight parents give birth to child, child lives with the typical straight influences, but shows no interest in the opposite sex and all interest in own gender (or shows interest in both genders). Sounds genetic to me.

Also the fact that evidence shows that few people are 100% gay or 100% straight. Stupid Sexy Flanders, Even The Guys Want Him, and Even The Girls Want Her all show this.

I think you nailed it. Print that out and submit it for publication.

Proteios1: One confusing point I have that I'd like sincere feedback on, if possible, is this:
I'm not gay. I don't dislike homosexuals. But because I don't automatically support all of the politico issues homosexual friends of mine have, I am automatically anti-. Which in itself seems to be a buzzword....but I'm antigay.

What stance on which issue(s), specifically, do you have that people label you "antigay" over?

santadog: Homosexuality is not a choice.

Splish: Has this ever been proven? Or is it just one of those things that gets repeated so much that it's now a "fact"? Like "Homophobes are secretly gay."

Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. But is there a substantial amount of scientific evidence that homosexuality is at least largely determined by genetics? Yes.

It's really not that hard to find this out with Google. But here you go, if you want something fairly easy.

One that's rather amusing is this study on the correlation between homosexuality and the direction a man's hair-whorl rotates.

Excess of counterclockwise scalp hair-whorl rotation in homosexual men

Or read The Science of Gaydar if you want a popular article on the subject.

FarkinHostile: Pffft. Next you'll tell me Psychology is not an exact science.

Psychology is much more of an exact science than it was 20 or even 5 years ago, and far more exact that many people (such as yourself, apparently) believe it to be. The breakthroughs that have been made with recent technology such as fMRI are pretty damn amazing.

You might be interested in Ramachandran's TED talk about the brain for some insight into the connection between the physiology of the brain and psychology.

ciberido Smartest
Funniest
2012-05-02 02:36:59 AM


FarkinHostile: Pffft. Next you'll tell me Psychology is not an exact science.

Psychology is much more of an exact science than it was 20 or even 5 years ago, and far more exact that many people (such as yourself, apparently) believe it to be. The breakthroughs that have been made with recent technology such as fMRI are pretty damn amazing.

You might be interested in Ramachandran's TED talk about the brain for some insight into the connection between the physiology of the brain and psychology.



It's a scientific fact!

ciberido: FarkinHostile: Pffft. Next you'll tell me Psychology is not an exact science.

Psychology is much more of an exact science than it was 20 or even 5 years ago, and far more exact that many people (such as yourself, apparently) believe it to be. The breakthroughs that have been made with recent technology such as fMRI are pretty damn amazing.

You might be interested in Ramachandran's TED talk about the brain for some insight into the connection between the physiology of the brain and psychology.


You mistake Neurology for Psychology. Related, but not the same.

Psychology is not an exact science. Hell, many believe it isn't even a Science at all, and they have a point. There are far too many variables from human to human. Thus, although perhaps most gay bashers might subconciously have homosexual urges/desires, not allwill. This isn't Chemisty, where a reaction works the same in every case where the conditions are the same. Conditions will NEVER be the same in humans.

impaler: Splish: Sure, anyone can. Learn a new language, learn to juggle, whatever, your brain will change is size and composition. The change in brain anatomy isn't the cause.

Brain hemisphere size isn't affected by learning.

Sure it is! Link

/;)

FarkinHostile: You mistake Neurology for Psychology. Related, but not the same.

On the contrary, I was hoping to clarify the connection between psychology and neuroscience, and the way one fees the other, but I can see you have a strong need to deny the reality of scientific progress, so nothing I say is likely to sway you.

ciberido: FarkinHostile: You mistake Neurology for Psychology. Related, but not the same.

On the contrary, I was hoping to clarify the connection between psychology and neuroscience, and the way one fees the other, but I can see you have a strong need to deny the reality of scientific progress, so nothing I say is likely to sway you.


Oh please. If anyone is denying anything, it is you. Psychology has come a long way since it's beginnings, yes, but in no way shape or form does it come close to being a pure science. Besides the potentially infinite variables of the subjects, the same number of variables in the researcher also strongly effect the results of psychology experiments. If you think that psychology can come close to the purity of chemistry, physics, or even neurology, frankly you are a fool.

Deny scientific progress....pfft.


/Guessing you have a vested interest in the belief of the validity of psychology