Differing brain response found in homosexual, heterosexual men [Archive]

KCN

05-09-2005, 10:05 PM

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...rains09-ON.html

Associated Press
May. 9, 2005 02:16 PM

WASHINGTON - Scientists trying to sniff out biological differences between gay and straight men have found new evidence - in scent.

It turns out that sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male sex hormone, causes a response in the sexual area of gay men's brains, just as it does in the brains of straight women, but not in the brains of straight men.

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Witelson, who was not part of the research team that conducted the study, said the findings show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.

The study, published in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

They exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones.

These chemicals are thought to be pheromones - molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.

Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.

The Swedish study was one of a series looking at whether parts of the brain involved in reproduction differ in response to odors and pheromones, lead researcher Ivanka Savic said.

The brains of different groups responded similarly to ordinary odors such as lavender, but differed in their response to the chemicals thought to be pheromones, Savic said.

The Swedish researchers divided 36 subjects into three groups - heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men. They studied the brain response to sniffing the chemicals, using PET scans. All the subjects were healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV negative.

When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects' brains reacted only in the olfactory region that handles smells.

But when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men, the researchers found.

The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior, the researchers said.

And when estrogen, the female hormone was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain.

Savic said the group is also doing a study involving homosexual women but those results are not yet complete.

In a separate study looking at people's response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.

"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.

In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said.

Wysocki's team at the Monell Chemical Senses Center studied the response of 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual and homosexual women to the odors of underarm sweat collected from 24 donors of varied gender and sexual orientation.

They found that gay men differed from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups.

Gay men preferred odors from gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbian women in the study. Their findings, released Monday, are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.

The Swedish research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Karolinska Institute and the Magnus Bergvall Foundation. Wysocki's research was supported by the Monell Center.

---

On the Net:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org

Karolinska Institute: http://info.ki.se/index-en.html

Monell Center: http://www.monell.org/

KCWolfman

05-09-2005, 10:12 PM

jAZ

05-09-2005, 10:16 PM

The article is rife with opportunity for one side or the other regarding reliability and assumptions. I am sure this thread will take that direction.
I don't care to play it out with those sort of comments.

Personally, I believe this type of study is necessary to define one way or another. Kudos for the work done, and here's to many more man hours working on the veracity of the claim.
Interesting response coming from you. If it turns out that there is a biolgical basis for being gay, how would you react to it? What impact would it have on your chruch and it's/your view of gay rights?

KCWolfman

05-09-2005, 10:19 PM

Interesting response coming from you. If it turns out that there is a biolgical basis for being gay, how would you react to it? What impact would it have on your chruch and it's/your view of gay rights?
I don't know the impact it would have. I am not a theologian or a major clergy member.

My reaction is that I want a definitive answer. I disagree with the findings above, but if proof positive is given in that vein, I would gladly accept it as "your final answer". It would lay a great many issues to rest, finally.

jAZ

05-09-2005, 10:31 PM

I don't know the impact it would have. I am not a theologian or a major clergy member.

My reaction is that I want a definitive answer. I disagree with the findings above, but if proof positive is given in that vein, I would gladly accept it as "your final answer". It would lay a great many issues to rest, finally.
In the secular would it would. And at the boundry between the secular and Christian world, it might settle things... but as you seem to indicate, it would be the beginning of a great deal of turmoil within the Christian world.

Nightfyre

05-09-2005, 10:36 PM

I really dont think it matters if its a choice or not. There is no grounds for prohibiting the behavior within our system of government, and yet people persist.

KCWolfman

05-09-2005, 10:55 PM

I really dont think it matters if its a choice or not. There is no grounds for prohibiting the behavior within our system of government, and yet people persist.
Yes, it does.

If it is a mental condition as many believe, then those who suffer deserve no more preferential treatment than those who suffer agoraphobia or OCD.

Phobia

05-09-2005, 11:10 PM

Different brain waves - are you kidding me? So, the brain doesn't process "oh shit, this vagina feels so nice" and "damn, what in the hell is hurting my asshole so badly, I feel like I need to take a shit" the same?

I hate "studies". They're so ****ing contrived. Somebody develops a hypothesis and then they spend half a million dollars in tax money to prove themselves correct. My hypothesis is that studies are ****ing worthless. Where in the hell is my grant check?

go bowe

05-09-2005, 11:11 PM

Yes, it does.

If it is a mental condition as many believe, then those who suffer deserve no more preferential treatment than those who suffer agoraphobia or OCD.wasn't homosexuality dropped as a mental condition from the dsm some time ago?

it may be that many still believe it to be a mental condition, but the weight of psychiatric/psychologist opinion seems to hold that it is not...

i think this study is an important step in understanding the genetic and/or biological causes of homosexuality...

but much more reasearch needs to be done...

Phobia

05-09-2005, 11:12 PM

but much more reasearch needs to be done...

Yeah - and the results of each will be different - depending on the originating hypothesis.

patteeu

05-09-2005, 11:12 PM

If it is a mental condition as many believe, then those who suffer deserve no more preferential treatment than those who suffer agoraphobia or OCD.

I don't think I get what you are saying because it looks like the implication of your statement is that you think preferential treatment WOULD be warranted if homosexuality is a biologically determined condition. I don't see why preferential treatment would be justified in either case.

KCWolfman

05-09-2005, 11:14 PM

wasn't homosexuality dropped as a mental condition from the dsm some time ago?

it may be that many still believe it to be a mental condition, but the weight of psychiatric/psychologist opinion seems to hold that it is not...

i think this study is an important step in understanding the genetic and/or biological causes of homosexuality...

but much more reasearch needs to be done...
Dropped from the DSM still in the Medical ICD-9

jAZ

05-09-2005, 11:31 PM

Dropped from the DSM still in the Medical ICD-9
That's a little vauge... Perhaps this will clear up what you are suggesting.

http://www.answers.com/topic/homosexuality?hl=ego&hl=dystonic

"The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a disorder, unless sexual orientation becomes an object of distress for the individual. In such cases, the individual—referred to by psychologists as ego-dystonic—may choose to seek psychiatric treatment."

go bowe

05-09-2005, 11:36 PM

Dropped from the DSM still in the Medical ICD-9i have to admit that i'm not familiar with icd-9...

is that medical billing codes, or what?

SBK

05-09-2005, 11:39 PM

What about all the folks that were straight and became gay, or the folks that were gay but became straight?

go bowe

05-09-2005, 11:40 PM

6.0440314241634 - 302.0 Ego-dystonic homosexuality Ego-dystonic lesbianism Homosexual conflict disorder from http://icd9cm.chrisendres.com/index.php?srchtype=diseases&srchtext=homosexuality&Submit=Search&action=search

looks like jaz had it right...

i don't find any other listing for homosexuality in the icd-9 on that site...

Phobia

05-09-2005, 11:42 PM

What about all the folks that were straight and became gay, or the folks that were gay but became straight?

According to this study? Brain damage.

Metrolike

05-09-2005, 11:59 PM

What about all the folks that were straight and became gay, or the folks that were gay but became straight?

Never heard of gay people going straight (but I'm guessing it's caused by all the pressure, so they just pretend, i.e go back into the closet). As for straight people going gay, I think it's a matter of discovery and realizing a self's sexuality. Some people are probably conditioned since childhood that homosexuality is wrong and evil and blah blah, so they just repress the feelings (kind of like people forget about being molested). I'm just guessing on all this, since I really don't know. I just can't imagine why anyone would CHOOSE to carry such a stigma in our society.

Simplex3

05-10-2005, 12:00 AM

It turns out that sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male sex hormone, causes a response in the sexual area of gay men's brains, just as it does in the brains of straight women, but not in the brains of straight men.

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Ah, what wonderful logic. So, by her estimation I loved the smell of chocolate even before I tasted it for the first time.

I'm not buying it bitch. Sell your full supply of stupid somewhere else, I get plenty for free around here.

Simplex3

05-10-2005, 12:02 AM

Never heard of gay people going straight (but I'm guessing it's caused by all the pressure, so they just pretend, i.e go back into the closet). As for straight people going gay, I think it's a matter of discovery and realizing a self's sexuality. Some people are probably conditioned since childhood that homosexuality is wrong and evil and blah blah, so they just repress the feelings (kind of like people forget about being molested). I'm just guessing on all this, since I really don't know. I just can't imagine why anyone would CHOOSE to carry such a stigma in our society.
So when someone goes straight they're embarrassed, confused, somehow pressured by society.

When they go homo, it's the natural order of things straightening out (pun intented).

Gotcha.

SBK

05-10-2005, 12:07 AM

So when someone goes straight they're embarrassed, confused, somehow pressured by society.

When they go homo, it's the natural order of things straightening out (pun intented).

Gotcha.

That's kind of my point. IF it's something you're born with (which I don't buy) then you can't explain the folks that go one one way or the other....or what about the folks that like it bi?

Do bi guys really dig the complete budussy smell? Or do the gays like the bu and d, and the straight guys like the ussy, Im all confused?!? ROFL

Logical

05-10-2005, 12:08 AM

I don't know the impact it would have. I am not a theologian or a major clergy member.

My reaction is that I want a definitive answer. I disagree with the findings above, but if proof positive is given in that vein, I would gladly accept it as "your final answer". It would lay a great many issues to rest, finally.

One can only hope that the results will be verified, it will be one more step forward in progress towards tolerance in society. I do have faith that given enough evidence most religious people could come to accept the results. I hope my belief in my fellow man would be warranted.

Logical

05-10-2005, 12:09 AM

That's kind of my point. IF it's something you're born with (which I don't buy) then you can't explain the folks that go one one way or the other....or what about the folks that like it bi?

Do bi guys really dig the complete budussy smell? Or do the gays like the bu and d, and the straight guys like the ussy, Im all confused?!? ROFL

Yes, well you have made that abundantly clear.

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 12:10 AM

So when someone goes straight they're embarrassed, confused, somehow pressured by society.

When they go homo, it's the natural order of things straightening out (pun intented).

Gotcha.

Yeah, pretty much. I would be willing to bet everything I have that if there wasn't such a stigma associated with being gay, there would be A LOT more homosexuals around.

jAZ

05-10-2005, 12:14 AM

What about all the folks that were straight and became gay, or the folks that were gay but became straight?
This might clear things up a bit...

http://www.answers.com/topic/homosexuality?hl=ego&hl=dystonic

"The description of homosexuality as an orientation also suggests, as some contemporary theorists have argued, that the boundaries between “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are not necessarily rigid. Some studies have indicated that most individuals have some erotic interest in both sexes, whether overt or not."

Logical

05-10-2005, 12:15 AM

Yeah - and the results of each will be different - depending on the originating hypothesis.

For a while that will be true, but if there is true scientific evidence to be found, scientific method usually wins out over pre-determined bias. It takes time but the earth did not remain flat forever despite the overwhelming fear that it presented for explorers to overcome.

Simplex3

05-10-2005, 12:17 AM

Yeah, pretty much. I would be willing to bet everything I have that if there wasn't such a stigma associated with being gay, there would be A LOT more homosexuals around.
I'm all for making it more prevelent. Every gay couple reduces my son's competition for prime chicks by 2. Unless those gays are chicks, in which case it only lowers his odds of dating a chick who leaves him for another chick.

It's really win/win. :)

Logical

05-10-2005, 12:18 AM

I'm all for making it more prevelent. Every gay couple reduces my son's competition for prime chicks by 2. Unless those gays are chicks, in which case it only lowers his odds of dating a chick who leaves him for another chick.

It's really win/win. :)

Funny but a little sad. Does your son really need his odds improved?

Simplex3

05-10-2005, 12:24 AM

Funny but a little sad. Does your son really need his odds improved?
Who the hell knows, he's only one.

Logical

05-10-2005, 12:32 AM

Who the hell knows, he's only one.

Well then it is probably a little early for you to be thinking about his first menage et tois with two lesbians. Give him time.:D

Simplex3

05-10-2005, 12:34 AM

Well then it is probably a little early for you to be thinking about his first menage et tois with two lesbians. Give him time.:D
I have to live vicariously through somebody, and since my daughter is going to be locked in her room until she joins a convent...

Phobia

05-10-2005, 12:34 AM

Who the hell knows, he's only one.

You should get him setup with one of those damn PET scans immediately. If his brain ain't right, you can always beat him straight.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 12:38 AM

I don't care if it's scientifical or not! I'm gonna hate me some homos come hell or high water! Just like Jesus!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

Phobia

05-10-2005, 12:41 AM

I don't care if it's scientifical or not! I'm gonna hate me some homos come hell or high water! Just like Jesus!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

I'm not a bigot. Some of my best friends are homos.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 12:43 AM

That's a wacky coincidence! I'm not a homo, and some of my best friends are bigots!

Ultra Peanut

05-10-2005, 12:45 AM

I hope my belief in my fellow man would be warranted.Hardy har har!

patteeu

05-10-2005, 12:55 AM

Ah, what wonderful logic. So, by her estimation I loved the smell of chocolate even before I tasted it for the first time.

I'm not buying it bitch. Sell your full supply of stupid somewhere else, I get plenty for free around here.

That struck me the same way. How does the fact that a smell stimulates a biological process prove that biology drives the behavior instead of simply being a biological response based on conditioning? I'm no biologist though so maybe I'm way off on this.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 12:55 AM

All jokes aside, I think it's common sense that these "fellas" are somehow biologically gay. I think the fact that there are transvestites in muslim countries tells me enough that it's not just a matter of hedonistic choice. There's a dot. The fact that I'm repulsed by homosexuality tells me a bit about biological reactions. Another dot. There's no amount of "understanding" that is going to make me think that gay sex is desirable. Another dot. Then we have transvestites in countries like Saudi Arabia (http://www.queerday.com/2005/apr/08/saudi_arabia_arrests_100_men_for_behaving_like_women.html), where females are treated worse than the dogs there... and yet men are willing to risk it all for a little butt sex with other men? Somewhere, you've got to start connecting the dots to see a bigger picture...

I can understand why people are uncomfortable with gayness. Especially when they get all in your face about it... But then, it's not me who is stuck liking the idea of sex with men, so I guess who am I to judge?

Taco John

05-10-2005, 01:01 AM

That struck me the same way. How does the fact that a smell stimulates a biological process prove that biology drives the behavior instead of simply being a biological response based on conditioning? I'm no biologist though so maybe I'm way off on this.

How is taste bud predisposition not biological? It's not necessarily that your tastebuds are arranged to like one food or another specifically. But if your tastebuds happen to be arranged in a way that makes one food desirable above the next, then couldn't you say that you are genetically pre-disposed to like that certain food? Wouldn't it work the same way with the wiring of the brain, and especially how the hormones that the brain regulates operate...

Personally, that's where I think the culprit is... But then, I personally believe that there is a spiritual connection that is overlooked as well, but since science can't measure spirit, it's a moot point..

patteeu

05-10-2005, 01:15 AM

How is taste bud predisposition not biological? It's not necessarily that your tastebuds are arranged to like one food or another specifically. But if your tastebuds happen to be arranged in a way that makes one food desirable above the next, then couldn't you say that you are genetically pre-disposed to like that certain food? Wouldn't it work the same way with the wiring of the brain, and especially how the hormones that the brain regulates operate...

Personally, that's where I think the culprit is... But then, I personally believe that there is a spiritual connection that is overlooked as well, but since science can't measure spirit, it's a moot point..

Well, it's possible that we have predispositions toward liking certain tastes, but it's also possible that we condition ourselves to like those tastes. I don't know, is there clear scientific evidence that we are born with taste bud predisposition?

The point of my post was that I didn't see anything in that article that made it clear that the biological reaction being observed was innate versus being the product of conditioning. AFAICS, those observations don't answer the nature versus nurture question even if they are accurate and there is indeed a clear distinction in brain response to different smells by gay versus straight men.

el borracho

05-10-2005, 01:20 AM

Who here thinks they can consciously distinguish between homo and hetero scents?

KCWolfman

05-10-2005, 01:21 AM

One can only hope that the results will be verified, it will be one more step forward in progress towards tolerance in society. I do have faith that given enough evidence most religious people could come to accept the results. I hope my belief in my fellow man would be warranted.
Unfortunately, I don't have faith that the liberal non-religious will come to terms if the results do not meet their standards.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 01:25 AM

Taco John

05-10-2005, 01:27 AM

Unfortunately, I don't have faith that the liberal non-religious will come to terms if the results do not meet their standards.

What are you proposing that they should accept should the results prove somehow that it's all just a matter of selfish psycology?

el borracho

05-10-2005, 01:37 AM

Why does it have to be only one or only the other? Why can't there be both homosexuals by nature and homosexuals by nurture?

Taco John

05-10-2005, 01:40 AM

Why does it have to be only one or only the other? Why can't there be both homosexuals by nature and homosexuals by nurture?

Personally, I think that both probably exist.

I think the argument here is that some people simply refuse the idea that biology could play a major role in why some people "go gay."

Simplex3

05-10-2005, 01:46 AM

I guess I'll never understand why anyone cares what "makes" someone gay. What are you going to do with that info when you figure it out? "Fix" it? Do a little prenatal testing? Some gene therepy? Give me a break.

Why anyone cares about another person's sexuality (unless you're trying to tag them) is beyond me.

el borracho

05-10-2005, 01:47 AM

Simplex3

05-10-2005, 01:53 AM

Well, then your answer doesn't count. I want someone to explain to me why it has to be one or the other.

And I am still waiting to hear from those who believe they could consciously distinguish between homo and hetero scents.
If you sniffed one and got wood AND you knew your own sexual orientation I'd think you could make that determination.

patteeu

05-10-2005, 01:58 AM

You want one clear cut answer? And for what reason? I guess I can understand, because I used to be in the "grudge against the gays at all costs" camp. But I don't think there *is* one clear cut answer. I think it's a combination of things, including biological.

Are you talking to me? If so, my answer is I couldn't care less. I don't see how it makes any difference whether it is nature or nurture. I'm as gay friendly as you can get without bending over.

As far as conditioning yourself to like something... Have you ever tried that? I hate seafood. But I live in the Northwest, and it's everywhere. Rather than being a hamburger at the seafood restraunt guy, I have been conditioning myself to like certain seafoods. It's a painstaking process, of which I get grossed out much. It's a lot of effort that I sometimes wonder if it's worth it. The end result? I can eat lobster and some different scallops... But I don't really like it. I'll force it down though and feel good that at least I'm making the effort to try.

My guess is that the best conditioning takes place early in life. By your age it's probably much more difficult.

I think it's a tremendous reach to say that we condition ourselves to like certain tastes, especially sexually. Especially when we already know that hormones direct a great deal of our sexual energy as it is. It's much more of a stretch to say that someone who is muslim in Saudi Arabia are forcing themselves to be gay because they get some sick pleasure ot of it (pleasure, by the way, which is registered by dopamine reactions, the pleasure center of the brain), than to say that the Saudi Arabian gay man is probably reacting to the hormones that his brain is producing, misfiring or not...

Personally, I think saying that "gayness is about conditioning" is just grasping at straws. It's like saying a pregnant woman is conditioned to crave pickles and ice cream, IMO. No she's not. She's reacting to her biology. Those cravings come from somewhere... Her conditioned selfish greed for produce and dairy mixed isn't the likely explination.

But yet you seem to think "its a combination of things." FWIW, I don't think it's very common to condition yourself sexually. I think most people's sexual preference is determined before they would be in a position to condition themselves. But that doesn't mean it isn't conditioning. Maybe you just don't understand what I mean by conditioning. I'm not suggesting a conscious effort. I'm just talking about the nurture portion of your "combination of things." I happen to agree that the safest bet is that both nature and nurture are involved, but the truth is I have no idea and I don't think this article informs me one way or the other.

KCWolfman

05-10-2005, 02:01 AM

What are you proposing that they should accept should the results prove somehow that it's all just a matter of selfish psycology?
No, had you read my first statement, you would have realized that is the furthest from the truth.

KCWolfman

05-10-2005, 02:02 AM

Why does it have to be only one or only the other? Why can't there be both homosexuals by nature and homosexuals by nurture?
That possibility exists. However, if by nature, then by nuture is a moot point - even if they are in tandem.

GoChiefs

05-10-2005, 02:08 AM

I don't care if it's scientifical or not! I'm gonna hate me some homos come hell or high water! Just like Jesus!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

ROFL

el borracho

05-10-2005, 02:11 AM

If you sniffed one and got wood AND you knew your own sexual orientation I'd think you could make that determination.
So you think you can consciously differentiate between the scent of homo sweat and the scent of hetero sweat?

Taco John

05-10-2005, 02:15 AM

I guess I'll never understand why anyone cares what "makes" someone gay. What are you going to do with that info when you figure it out? "Fix" it? Do a little prenatal testing? Some gene therepy? Give me a break.

Really?

I figure it's a pretty elementary issue understanding why someone would care what' "makes" someone gay. Which is why it's a national obsession.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 02:17 AM

No, had you read my first statement, you would have realized that is the furthest from the truth.

You are the king of dodging tough questions.

GoChiefs

05-10-2005, 03:04 AM

I don't really know what to make of all this. Part of me thinks there's no ****ing way it's genetic. The other part of me thinks its entirely possible. I'm confused. :shrug:

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 03:05 AM

So you think you can consciously differentiate between the scent of homo sweat and the scent of hetero sweat?

Dude, take some psychology classes.

This is our conscious thoughts: >...<
This is our unconscious processes: >................................................<

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 03:07 AM

I don't really know what to make of all this. Part of me thinks there's no ****ing way it's genetic. The other part of me thinks its entirely possible. I'm confused. :shrug:

Weird, I'm the other way around. There is NOTHING in this world that could make want to suck c*ck. And I feel it's unfair for the guys who feel the opposite way and are being persecuted for it because they are a minority.

Nightfyre

05-10-2005, 03:13 AM

GoChiefs

05-10-2005, 03:18 AM

Weird, I'm the other way around. There is NOTHING in this world that could make want to suck c*ck. And I feel it's unfair for the guys who feel the opposite way and are being persecuted for it because they are a minority.

You didn't read my post carefully. I don't know WTF I think.

Rain Man

05-10-2005, 08:30 AM

I don't really know what to make of all this. Part of me thinks there's no ****ing way it's genetic. The other part of me thinks its entirely possible. I'm confused. :shrug:

I can think back now and remember kids in my elementary school and high school who I now am sure were gay. (While not every gay person has 'gay mannerisms', some do.) In rural Missouri in the early 1970s, those people weren't basing their behavior off of role models. It had to be genetically driven.

Garcia Bronco

05-10-2005, 08:34 AM

Interesting response coming from you. If it turns out that there is a biolgical basis for being gay, how would you react to it? What impact would it have on your chruch and it's/your view of gay rights?

There is a biological basis for being gay....there is also a learned aspect as well. I don't know if finding that line is worth the trouble.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 11:00 AM

:rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 11:03 AM

For a while that will be true, but if there is true scientific evidence to be found, scientific method usually wins out over pre-determined bias. It takes time but the earth did not remain flat forever despite the overwhelming fear that it presented for explorers to overcome.

Not true at all. Junk science is alive and well in the politically motivated camps of both the left and the right.

Soupnazi

05-10-2005, 11:05 AM

I'm sure that if they checked hard enough they could find a differing brain response when I look at Heidi Klum versus Kirstie Alley.

Logical

05-10-2005, 11:22 AM

I like your argument... Giving homosexuals the right to be wed would be giving them preferential treatment.... I would argue though, that denying them marriage is giving heterosexuals preferential treatment over homosexuals.

What? There is a serious contradiction in your two statements. You have created a circle where no matter what preferential treatment is the result. I doubt that was your intention.

Logical

05-10-2005, 11:23 AM

Not true at all. Junk science is alive and well in the politically motivated camps of both the left and the right.
You need to reread my post, it does not deny that science/studies based on bias exists. It says that in the long run real science will win out.

MOhillbilly

05-10-2005, 11:45 AM

****ing dog and pony show.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 12:28 PM

You need to reread my post, it does not deny that science/studies based on bias exists. It says that in the long run real science will win out.

Fair enough; perhaps decades or centuries later....I believe your faith in the credibility of such "research" (especially as it is currently and frequently conducted) to be misplaced.

Phil is right--predetermined hypothesis, bias, and methodology currently employed in much of what loosely qualifies as "social" science and "research" is not at all empirical or scientific in any real sense.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 12:33 PM

****ing dog and pony show.

Yup. Pretty much.

|Zach|

05-10-2005, 12:44 PM

I don't care if it's scientifical or not! I'm gonna hate me some homos come hell or high water! Just like Jesus!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

ROFLROFL

RaiderH8r

05-10-2005, 12:50 PM

Weird, I'm the other way around. There is NOTHING in this world that could make want to suck c*ck. And I feel it's unfair for the guys who feel the opposite way and are being persecuted for it because they are a minority.
Yeah, nuts on the chin isn't appealing. That and the mooky stinks on your hang down when you finish the jamorama.

go bowe

05-10-2005, 01:12 PM

Fair enough; perhaps decades or centuries later....I believe your faith in the credibility of such "research" (especially as it is currently and frequently conducted) to be misplaced.

Phil is right--predetermined hypothesis, bias, and methodology currently employed in much of what loosely qualifies as "social" science and "research" is not at all empirical or scientific in any real sense.as an educator, surely you are aware that "real" science exists and that scientific research in the form of studies has been the basis of a great many advances in medicene and biology, as well as psychology...

to glibly dismiss all research as "junk science" just doesn't seem like an educated or rational approach to me...

peer reviewed scientific research has been accepted as "real" scientific evidence in academic and scientific circles for a very long time...

really, i'm amazed at some of the narrow-minded attitudes that you display, and this is just another one of those attitudes...

of course, i've seen this enough times that i'm not disappointed in you any longer - i've come to expect this short-sighted attitude from you on all subjects that you find distasteful... *shaking head in disgust*

Taco John

05-10-2005, 01:17 PM

What? There is a serious contradiction in your two statements. You have created a circle where no matter what preferential treatment is the result. I doubt that was your intention.

That's because the original argument that allowing gays to wed is preferential treatment is a logically flawed argument, kicking off a festivle of circular logic... A mental eddy...

jAZ

05-10-2005, 01:17 PM

really, i'm amazed at some of the narrow-minded attitudes that you display, and this is just another one of those attitudes...

of course, i've seen this enough times that i'm not disappointed in you any longer - i've come to expect this short-sighted attitude from you on all subjects that you find distasteful... *shaking head in disgust*
I agree, but I thought I noticed a recent shift toward that kind of attitude rather than a historically long standing attitude that you have noticed. Maybe I'm wrong about a recent change though.

jAZ

05-10-2005, 01:19 PM

That's because the original argument that allowing gay to wed is preferential treatment is a logically flawed argument, kicking off a festivle of circular logic... A mental eddy...
Does that mean that if we allow the "special treatment" of gay marriage, that logic, reason and possibly space-time itself will fold in on itself until a giant black hole of gayness is created and sucks in everyone and everything around it no matter how "Bwana" a man is?

:p

Nightfyre

05-10-2005, 01:29 PM

What? There is a serious contradiction in your two statements. You have created a circle where no matter what preferential treatment is the result. I doubt that was your intention.
That was totally the point actually. Maybe I should use [/sarcasm]? The government isnt about preferential treatment of individuals, but rather what it can and cannot govern. It cannot govern one's choice in sexuality.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 01:29 PM

God will hate us if America goes gay. Though, he'll be very impressed with our color coordination!

Taco John

05-10-2005, 01:30 PM

What color of man purse will you buy if America goes gay? I was thinking of something Chartruse... Greens really liven my skin tone!

Logical

05-10-2005, 01:38 PM

Logical

05-10-2005, 01:40 PM

Does that mean that if we allow the "special treatment" of gay marriage, that logic, reason and possibly space-time itself will fold in on itself until a giant black hole of gayness is created and sucks in everyone and everything around it no matter how "Bwana" a man is?

:pHaHa you said sucks in a gay issue thread.

memyselfI

05-10-2005, 01:42 PM

Yes, it does.

If it is a mental condition as many believe, then those who suffer deserve no more preferential treatment than those who suffer agoraphobia or OCD.

They deserve no more or no less...

but then I can't recall the OCD or agoraphobics lobby insisting they were being denied the right to marry, share insurance, or inheritance.

memyselfI

05-10-2005, 01:43 PM

You need to reread my post, it does not deny that science/studies based on bias exists. It says that in the long run real science will win out.

Yes, it will and STILL there will be some insisting a religious bias against what science has discovered is true. :rolleyes:

Some folks will never believe a perfect God could create such 'dysfunction' and such malfunctioning individuals like homosexuals on purpose. :rolleyes:

memyselfI

05-10-2005, 01:46 PM

There is a biological basis for being gay....there is also a learned aspect as well. I don't know if finding that line is worth the trouble.

Bravo. This coming from someone I disagree with nearly 100% of the time! :clap:

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 02:22 PM

as an educator, surely you are aware that "real" science exists and that scientific research in the form of studies has been the basis of a great many advances in medicene and biology, as well as psychology...

to glibly dismiss all research as "junk science" just doesn't seem like an educated or rational approach to me...

I'm speaking primarily of THIS particular area of research. Of course there is real science out there, in medicine and biology....and the like.

Unfortunately, and sadly, in the social sociences....there is simply too many variables, too much room for manipulation and bias, too much "cookin' the books" and presuppositions in designing methodology, that ultimately make much of the alleged "research" suspect, and subject to reaching a predetermined conclusion.

In research studies, it's the distinction between qualitative and quantative analysis. Quanitative analysis can be quite reliable; qualitative is much less so. The problem with much social research is they rely heavily on qualitative research. In a phrase, they rely on anecdotal evidence versus empirical evidence. Personally, I'd argue there is a HUGE difference between the two.

If and when social research focuses it's efforts on quantitative research, perhaps the rest of the scientific community will take their "conclusions" more seriously. And I'm saying this, as a social scientist myself.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 02:30 PM

Well said.:clap:

Of course, I should probably begin by defining qualitative and quantitative research designs.....because apparently some here don't seem aware of the distinction, let alone, have an understanding of it. :hmmm:

However, I'm not that motivated to respond to this topic in that depth, yet again. I would think you, Jim, of all people though would understand the crucial distinction between qualitative and quantitative research.

If you do, suffice it to say, biology and medicine rely heavily on quantitative research; while psychology and other social sciences rely predominantly on qualitative research. I share the opinion of many, that qualitative research, without corroboration from quantitative studies....is, generally, "junk science."

You can accept or not accept my opinion, but it is an opinion that is widely shared by the empirical scientific communinity--if not the social science community.

Iowanian

05-10-2005, 02:34 PM

KCN

05-10-2005, 03:03 PM

If you do, suffice it to say, biology and medicine rely heavily on quantitative research; while psychology and other social sciences rely predominantly on qualitative research. I share the opinion of many, that qualitative research, without corroboration from quantitative studies....is, generally, "junk science."

This is not at all true.

Bad science is flat out accepting or rejecting a claim based on hunches or biases or without full knowledge of the subject, which many in this thread are doing, especially you. Why don't you download the paper explaining the study, check the references, research any opposition, then get back to us on the validity of the claims of their research.

Unless you can point out specific flaws in their methodology, your qualititative vs. quantitative argument argument for determining "junk science" is, well, junk. There is no such argument among the science community, and I write this as I take a break from literally writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal as we speak.

Duck Dog

05-10-2005, 03:03 PM

This isn't news. Who needed to spend money to know that strait men and gheys think differently when they see al bundy neked.

The Lumber jack thinks "uuugh, nasty"
the Hair Stylist thinks "ooooh, tathty."

Exactly. Why not study the difference's between straight men and men who have sex with animals. Because just like homosexuality, beastiality is a sexual preference. Nothing more nothing less.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 03:38 PM

This is not at all true.

Bad science is flat out accepting or rejecting a claim based on hunches or biases or without full knowledge of the subject, which many in this thread are doing, especially you. Why don't you download the paper explaining the study, check the references, research any opposition, then get back to us on the validity of the claims of their research.

Unless you can point out specific flaws in their methodology, your qualititative vs. quantitative argument argument for determining "junk science" is, well, junk. There is no such argument among the science community, and I write this as I take a break from literally writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal as we speak.

This research is QUALITATIVE Research.....google the terms qualitative and quanitative research along with qualifiers such as "debate over," or "validity of," or "as "junk science."

There is WIDESPREAD disagreement over the use of qualitative research, period; let alone the specifics of this one study. Some go so far as to reject it, out-of-hand. I'm not that cynical, but unless there is corroborative quantitive studies that have been peer reviewed , qualitiative studies are highly subjective and often suspect IMO. Feel free to disagree, or not. You may not accept that, but ask the scientific community (not social scientists, but empirical scientists) about it....and if they answer honestly, you won't like what they have to say about it.

Why don't you download the paper explaining the study, check the references, research any opposition, then get back to us on the validity of the claims of their research.

I've been there, done that....time and again on this topic. I suspect there would be a concerted effort to dress up this qualitative study as "mixed" research that employs both qualitative and quanitative methods. I have neither the time, nor the desire to "travel that road" again. Present me with quantitative research that has been triangulated and peer reviewed, and I'd be willing to look into that. Otherwise, I consider it a waste of time, based on past experiences.

If it's convenient for you to dismiss my opinion as "ignorance is bliss," or as go bo has said "sop for distasteful topics for you"---be my guest. Whatever works for you.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 03:40 PM

... I write this as I take a break from literally writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal as we speak.

Qualitative or quantitative study? :hmmm:

Let me guess... ;)

Nightfyre

05-10-2005, 03:48 PM

This research is QUALITATIVE Research.....google the terms qualitative and quanitative research along with qualifiers such as "debate over," or "validity of," or "as "junk science."

There is WIDESPREAD disagreement over the use of qualitative research, period; let alone the specifics of this one study. Some go so far as to reject it, out-of-hand. I'm not that cynical, but unless there is corroborative quantitive studies that have been peer reviewed they are highly subjective and often suspect.
:rolleyes: There is a difference between observatory qualitative science and your social research qualitative research. They are observing the brain part activating.

KCN

05-10-2005, 03:52 PM

KCN

05-10-2005, 03:52 PM

Qualitative or quantitative study? :hmmm:

Let me guess... ;)

Both.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 03:59 PM

Both.

LOL....calling a qualitative study "mixed" research is the latest fad by social researchers to lend some real credibility to their research, it seems.

stevieray

05-10-2005, 04:01 PM

so, what they are saying, is that scent is THE trigger?

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 04:03 PM

Any reference using the terms "junk science" or "debate over" I'm sure is a valid source.

"Qualitative" studies are common in my field despite being a field based heavily on numeric data. No credible scientist ever completely dismisses results just because they are qualitative in nature. Results are results.

Again, unless you can cite specific flaws in their methodology or conclusions, your dismissing this study as "junk science" based soley on the qualitative nature is bad science, and does nothing but highlight your bias when presented scientific results.

Science is empirical; social science is experiential. Quantitative study is more difficult with social science research to be sure, but experiential, behavior, and observations based on "interviews" can lend depth to any study....but making broad generalizations based SOLELY on qualitative research is something most respected scientists will not do.

I don't reject qualitative study entirely; however, to be valid there needs to be quantitative and triangulated research to replicate the results....and such research should be extensively peer reviewed.

That is certainly not the case in the study we are discussing here.

KCN

05-10-2005, 04:04 PM

LOL....calling a qualitative study "mixed" research is the latest fad by social researchers to lend some real credibility to their research, it seems.

Your credibility really goes downhill when you try to personally attack my research, of which you know nothing about.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 04:07 PM

:rolleyes: There is a difference between observatory qualitative science and your social research qualitative research. They are observing the brain part activating.

After you finish your master's program, perhaps you'll understand the difference you suggest is mainly semantic....and ideologically convenient to your point of view.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 04:09 PM

Your credibility really goes downhill when you try to personally attack my research, of which you know nothing about.

Although I was responding to your comment, I was referring to the general trend; I apologize if you took it personally....really.

If you truly wish to lay it out, though---what is your research? I'd be happy to apologize if it is not as I suspect.... :shrug:

Nightfyre

05-10-2005, 04:09 PM

After you finish your master's program, perhaps you'll understand the difference you suggest is mainly semantic....and ideologically convenient to your point of view.
After youve taken a couple chem courses, maybe you will understand the difference. You probably think that the results of the Mercury testing canned by Bush was also highly subjective....

Taco John

05-10-2005, 04:15 PM

There is WIDESPREAD disagreement over the use of qualitative research, period;

ROFL

What!?

Qualitative research is VERY POPULAR and is used in everything from business to politics. I'd love to see you validate your "widespread" disagreement claim. Qualitative research is both commonplace, and a well accepted method of research.

Man... Some of the things you will say to validate your homo-hate...

|Zach|

05-10-2005, 04:17 PM

My professors would shit reading some of these posts.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 04:18 PM

Jesus hates science! YEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

stevieray

05-10-2005, 04:19 PM

Jesus hates science! YEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

What is the saying? Science only goes so far, and then there's God?

Taco John

05-10-2005, 04:19 PM

My professors would shit reading some of these posts.

That's 'cuz they're all just a bunch of stinkin' libbies!

Yeeeeeeeeeee hAAAAAAAAAAAW!

Brock

05-10-2005, 04:20 PM

My professors would shit reading some of these posts.

Your professors probably shit themselves all the time regardless.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 04:20 PM

What is the saying? Science only goes so far, and then there's God?

I don't know what the saying is... But it my saying that science is the gradual and methodical discovery of God.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 04:21 PM

Your professors probably shit themselves all the time regardless.

One line wonders!!!!!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!

KCN

05-10-2005, 04:21 PM

Science is empirical; social science is experiential. Quantitative study is more difficult with social science research to be sure, but experiential, behavior, and observations based on "interviews" can lend depth to any study....but making broad generalizations based SOLELY on qualitative research is something most respected scientists will not do.

I don't reject qualitative study entirely; however, to be valid there needs to be quantitative and triangulated research to replicate the results....and such research should be extensively peer reviewed.

That is certainly not the case in the study we are discussing here.

Your first few posts sure seemed to completely dismiss this research.

I understand how qualitative (behavior-based) research can be questionable in a social science field, but this research was not conducted in that manner. This is a biological-based observational study and in all likelihood was extensively peer reviewed before publication, as required with any scientific publication. Furthermore, this article presents no claims by the researchers so there's no claim to reject yet. Just their results.

If you truly wish to lay it out, though---what is your research? I'd be happy to apologize if it is not as I suspect.... :shrug:

It is a dynamical and predictability analysis of a long-lived mesoscale convective vortex. Using observational analyses of the actual vortex supported by numerical simulations.

|Zach|

05-10-2005, 04:22 PM

Your professors probably shit themselves all the time regardless.

Not more so than the normal amount of defication that goes with a healthy lifestyle. :)

|Zach|

05-10-2005, 04:22 PM

I don't know what the saying is... But it my saying that science is the gradual and methodical discovery of God.

I do not think they mix in the least.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 04:25 PM

...
Qualitative research is VERY POPULAR and is used in everything from business to politics. ...

It's popular, because it's easier; some social science types struggle with math and statistics and empirical data...qualitative research is their short-cut. :)

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 04:27 PM

That's 'cuz they're all just a bunch of stinkin' libbies!

See, I knew you could do it; you got SOMETHING right... :p

KCN

05-10-2005, 04:28 PM

so, what they are saying, is that scent is THE trigger?

They're saying the brain responded differently to scents within these particular gay and straight men. Their conclusions haven't been presented.

Of course the obvious implication is that this is supporting evidence of a biological link to sexual orientation.

stevieray

05-10-2005, 04:28 PM

I don't know what the saying is... But it my saying that science is the gradual and methodical discovery of God.

That one is cool.

True, science continually pushes the envelope, but man will never have the answer for everything.

Nightfyre

05-10-2005, 04:28 PM

They're saying the brain responds differently to scents within gay and straight men. Their conclusions haven't been presented.

Of course the obvious implication is that this is supporting evidence of a biological link to sexual orientation.
pheremones trigger brain reactions. Its not about the scent but the interaction of the chemical with the brain.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 04:30 PM

My professors would shit reading some of these posts.

Even "reputable" social science professors are beginning to back away from qualitative research...some are tryin' to compromise and save face by calling for the "mixed" research I and KCN have referred to....but enough fraudulent research and contrived studies have done the damage on their own.

KCN

05-10-2005, 04:31 PM

I don't know what the saying is... But it my saying that science is the gradual and methodical discovery of God.

I agree.

|Zach|

05-10-2005, 04:32 PM

Even "reputable" social science professors are beginning to back away from qualitative research...some are tryin' to compromise and save face by calling for the "mixed" research I and KCN have referred to....but enough fraudulent research and contrived studies have done the damage on their own.Well, I am reading this post from a guy who who tried to discredit Merriam Webster's dictionary when one of its definitions didn't fit his narrow view of the world.

KCN

05-10-2005, 04:33 PM

Even "reputable" social science professors are beginning to back away from qualitative research...some are tryin' to compromise and save face by calling for the "mixed" research I and KCN have referred to....but enough fraudulent research and contrived studies have done the damage on their own.

What about biology? Afterall that is the area of this research.

There is no such issue within my field or any other related field that I know of. Observational results are real and accepted.

Nightfyre

05-10-2005, 04:45 PM

Taco John

05-10-2005, 04:56 PM

It's popular, because it's easier; some social science types struggle with math and statistics and empirical data...qualitative research is their short-cut. :)

You are an educator?

Man that's scary...

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 05:14 PM

Well, I am reading this post from a guy who who tried to discredit Merriam Webster's dictionary when one of its definitions didn't fit his narrow view of the world.

Actually, IIRC what you are talking about; it was ACTUALLY the other way around...me citing Merriam-Webster, others lookin' elsewhere to find a definition that suited them. :hmmm:

Unless it was somethin' else I'm not remembering at this minute....

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 05:15 PM

You are an educator?

Man that's scary...

Do the google search yourself if you don't believe me:

Validity of qualitative versus quantitative reseach....or some variations.

You'll find it, if only you search.

Iowanian

05-10-2005, 05:16 PM

Another response I can comment on, without the assistance of 1 Mil of Tax payer money.

There is also a difference in response of the anus.

When noticing a neked mens, with a stiff doofloppy, they Present their spread cheeks in the air(I guess)

When I strait man walks in on the same situation...he'd be inclined to back out of the room, quickly, without turning his backside on the offending unit.

The Ghey may relax the Spheincter, whereas a strait like me, would clench his tight enough to turn a lump of coal into a diamond.

|Zach|

05-10-2005, 05:19 PM

Actually, IIRC what you are talking about; it was ACTUALLY the other way around...me citing Merriam-Webster, others lookin' elsewhere to find a definition that suited them. :hmmm:

Unless it was somethin' else I'm not remembering at this minute....
Are you kidding?

You don't remember me posting the definition of the word and you trying to say that MW was wrong about it?

Ultra Peanut

05-10-2005, 05:22 PM

Well, I am reading this post from a guy who who tried to discredit Merriam Webster's dictionary when one of its definitions didn't fit his narrow view of the world.omg suht up u fag0t

Logical

05-10-2005, 06:25 PM

Logical

05-10-2005, 06:26 PM

No, no, no Gravity was not real when Sir Isaac Newton observed it. Observational research has been discredited. See Kotter, Mr.

P.S. The sun is not hot despite anything you may have observed.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 07:16 PM

Are you kidding?

You don't remember me posting the definition of the word and you trying to say that MW was wrong about it?

Not exactly? :hmmm:

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else; or maybe I was stoned (NOT!)? :hmmm:

Taco John

05-10-2005, 07:24 PM

Do the google search yourself if you don't believe me:

Validity of qualitative versus quantitative reseach....or some variations.

You'll find it, if only you search.

You can find anything on the internet if you search hard enough for it. I put in your terms into Google and it didn't come up with anything overwhlemingly credible to validate your assertion that qualitative research is by and large a discredited method of research. My academic and professional experience is exactly the opposite.

But even more than that, I'm impressed that you were able to get your diversionary tactic in here... In your true fasion, you've sent the topic careening along a path that has nothing to do with the topic... Out of the wild blue, you bring up the fact that many social studies are qualitative ones, and thus invalid... Whereas, the study presented in this thread is a quantitative one, measuring reactions to different stimuli.

In reality, you're just looking for a way to justify your homo-hate, and the most "reasonable" way to do that is to disqualify every single peice of research out there that would suggest there is a biological connection between being gay and straight.

There is a place for both qualitative and quantitative research. You'll be hard pressed to prove the case that one or the other is popularly rejected as a method of research. They're both very widely used and respected tools of research when conducted properly and peer reviewed. But more than that, this current study is a quantitative one...

If and when social research focuses it's efforts on quantitative research, perhaps the rest of the scientific community will take their "conclusions" more seriously. And I'm saying this, as a social scientist myself.

Translation: If and when social research focuses it's efforts on agreeing with my homo-hate agenda, then perhaps I won't have to resort to trashing the tools of research that they use and can take their "conclusions" more seriously.

Just admit it dude... No amount of scientific "evidence" (quotes put there for your sake) is going to convince you that "gay" might be a natural tendancy governed by biological processes. Why go through the charade of pretending to be reasonable, when we both know the truth is you're just not down with the "gay."

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 07:26 PM

P.S. The sun is not hot despite anything you may have observed.
ROFL :)

el borracho

05-10-2005, 07:43 PM

Actually, IIRC what you are talking about; it was ACTUALLY the other way around...me citing Merriam-Webster, others lookin' elsewhere to find a definition that suited them. :hmmm:

Unless it was somethin' else I'm not remembering at this minute....
I think Zach is referring to the Denver Chiefs Avatar thread where you incorrectly defined homophobe and then rejected the actual definition from your own source.

Check posts 94 through 108, or so.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=113017&page=7&pp=15

patteeu

05-10-2005, 07:51 PM

Again, unless you can cite specific flaws in their methodology or conclusions, your dismissing this study as "junk science" based soley on the qualitative nature is bad science, and does nothing but highlight your bias when presented scientific results.

I think it's only fair to point out that you're take that these are "scientific results" without reviewing the details of the study and it's methodology is just as baseless as what you say Kotter is doing when he calls it "junk science" without performing the same due diligence.

patteeu

05-10-2005, 07:54 PM

But it my saying that science is the gradual and methodical discovery of God.

That's good. I like it.

patteeu

05-10-2005, 08:01 PM

They're saying the brain responded differently to scents within these particular gay and straight men. Their conclusions haven't been presented.

Of course the obvious implication is that this is supporting evidence of a biological link to sexual orientation.

Is it an obvious implication?

I wonder what would happen if we studied the brain activity of two groups of kids after first having one group sit in a soundproof room with nothing but visual stimulation for a few years while the other group was in a completely dark room with nothing but audio stimulation for a few years? Would their brains function differently? If they did, would it be legitimate to conclude that there was some kind of biological factor that causes some kids to rely more on sight than sound and other kids to rely more on sound than sight?

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:07 PM

Is it an obvious implication?

I wonder what would happen if we studied the brain activity of two groups of kids after first having one group sit in a soundproof room with nothing but visual stimulation for a few years while the other group was in a completely dark room with nothing but audio stimulation for a few years? Would their brains function differently? If they did, would it be legitimate to conclude that there was some kind of biological factor that causes some kids to rely more on sight than sound and other kids to rely more on sound than sight?

So you are saying that some kids were locked into a room with a gay man for years and years until they accepted homosexuality and vice versa? I mean really you think that homosexuality is a result of "exposure"?

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:09 PM

I think Zach is referring to the Denver Chiefs Avatar thread where you incorrectly defined homophobe and then rejected the actual definition from your own source.

Check posts 94 through 108, or so.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=113017&page=7&pp=15

Ah-ha, thanks. :hmmm:

The ole compound venacular useage changes the meaning of the "root" words dilemma. :p

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:11 PM

I think it's only fair to point out that you're take that these are "scientific results" without reviewing the details of the study and it's methodology is just as baseless as what you say Kotter is doing when he calls it "junk science" without performing the same due diligence.

Um, calling a scientific result a "scientific result" doesn't mean you're endorsing it as being credible.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:12 PM

No, no, no Gravity was not real when Sir Isaac Newton observed it. Observational research has been discredited. See Kotter, Mr.

Wow. That's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say....comparing empirical study of a simple phenomena through QUANTITATIVE research and analysis, to experiential and incredibly complex biologically based (?) behavior through QUALITATIVE methods? :hmmm:

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:13 PM

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:16 PM

What about biology? Afterall that is the area of this research.

There is no such issue within my field or any other related field that I know of. Observational results are real and accepted.

Are we now confusing possibly biologically based behavior, more appropriately named psychology (a social science that has been "researched" through qualitative methods) with hard biological sciences such as genetics (hair color, eye color, etc), and medical (as opposed to psychological) research? :hmmm:

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:16 PM

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:19 PM

You can find anything on the internet if you search hard enough for it. I put in your terms into Google and it didn't come up with anything overwhlemingly credible to validate your assertion that qualitative research is by and large a discredited method of research. My academic and professional experience is exactly the opposite. ....

In your opinion, it wasn't credible, eh? Gosh, what's your panties all wadded about then in rejecting MY opinion of the credibility of this claim? What's the saying? Opinions are like azzholes....heh.

I suppose you think YOUR opinion, to be superior to the opinions of those who disagree with you....and your assessment of credibility to be superior to those who disagree with you. :shrug:

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:19 PM

Are we now confusing possibly biologically based behavior, more appropriately named psychology (a social science that has been "researched" through qualitative methods) with hard biological sciences such as genetics (hair color, eye color, etc), and medical (as opposed to psychological) research? :hmmm:

You mean biological as in a hypothalamus, pheromones and body odor? Did you read the article?

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:21 PM

You mean biological as in a hypothalamus, pheromones and body odor? Did you read the article?

Reactions to smell..... :hmmm:

patteeu

05-10-2005, 08:21 PM

So you are saying that some kids were locked into a room with a gay man for years and years until they accepted homosexuality and vice versa? I mean really you think that homosexuality is a result of "exposure"?

First, when it comes to nature or nurture, which do you want it to be? Why does it matter?

Second, no that's not what I'm saying at all. I have no personal knowledge of how you become gay. What I'm getting at is the question of whether these aparrent brain differences were innate or are they somehow learned. Which comes first, the sexual orientation or the brain differences? As far as I can tell, there isn't anything in this article to answer that question despite the fact that many in this thread have jumped to the conclusion that the brain differences come first.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:23 PM

Reactions to smell..... :hmmm:

I SMELL my wife's perfume anywhere else....I have the same reaction.... ;)

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:24 PM

Reactions to smell..... :hmmm:

Yeah, reaction of the brain..... :spock:

Taco John

05-10-2005, 08:24 PM

In your opinion, it wasn't credible, eh? Gosh, what's your panties all wadded about then in rejecting MY opinion of the credibility of this claim? What's the saying? Opinions are like azzholes....heh.

I suppose you think YOUR opinion, to be superior to the opinions of those who disagree with you....and your assessment of credibility to be superior to those who disagree with you. :shrug:

More diversion. Just admit it. This is about your homophobia and nothing about science or validity of research methods.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:25 PM

No one said CAUSE. The word was LINKED.

You really wanna run with that....wow. ;)

Imagine the possibilities....heh.

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:25 PM

aparrent brain differences were innate or are they somehow learned.

if it takes years and years to learn these things (as with just about anything) why haven't we heard about these horrible places that educate children to become gay or straight? it was a ridiculous example....you cannot learn to like something overnight ...as you said this would take years and years of re-education and reinforcement

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:26 PM

More diversion. Just admit it. This is about your homophobia and nothing about science or validity of research methods.

We've reached an impasse; thanks for your opinion.

patteeu

05-10-2005, 08:28 PM

No one said CAUSE. The word was LINKED.

I stand corrected. A mere link doesn't seem very interesting though. Certainly not as interesting as most are making it out to be. Afterall, isn't it a biological link to show that straight men are more likely to get sexually aroused when looking at a naked woman than gay men and vice versa wrt a naked man?

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:28 PM

Yeah, reaction of the brain..... :spock:

Are brain reactions are solely "biological" in nature, or do they involve conditioned and nonconditioned responses based on human experiences including a complex of psychological and sociological factors?

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:29 PM

What I'm getting at is the question of whether these aparrent brain differences were innate or are they somehow learned. Which comes first, the sexual orientation or the brain differences? As far as I can tell, there isn't anything in this article to answer that question despite the fact that many in this thread have jumped to the conclusion that the brain differences come first.

You would make a good scientist, though I haven't seen much jumping to conclusions in this thread other than from those declaring this junk science and a dog and pony show.

But this sounds like interesting evidence nonetheless.

stevieray

05-10-2005, 08:30 PM

if it takes years and years to learn these things (as with just about anything) why haven't we heard about these horrible places that educate children to become gay or straight? it was a ridiculous example....you cannot learn to like something overnight ...as you said this would take years and years of re-education and reinforcement

exactly why gay activists target children and schools.

it's obviously more than just brain activity from scents as this research suggests, sight does play a factor, otherwise the porn industry wouldn't exist.

Logical

05-10-2005, 08:30 PM

Not exactly? :hmmm:

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else; or maybe I was stoned (NOT!)? :hmmm:

Or perhaps you went from sober to drunk in 9 minutes.:D

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:31 PM

Are brain reactions are solely "biological" in nature, or do they involve conditioned and nonconditioned responses based on human experiences including a complex of psychological and sociological factors?

and how many years of electroshock therapy would it take to give a man "the gay" or take it away? :rolleyes:

Taco John

05-10-2005, 08:31 PM

First, when it comes to nature or nurture, which do you want it to be? Why does it matter?

Second, no that's not what I'm saying at all. I have no personal knowledge of how you become gay. What I'm getting at is the question of whether these aparrent brain differences were innate or are they somehow learned. Which comes first, the sexual orientation or the brain differences? As far as I can tell, there isn't anything in this article to answer that question despite the fact that many in this thread have jumped to the conclusion that the brain differences come first.

Wow. How deep do you want this rabbit hole to go? I find it interesting that you assert "what does it matter" between nature and nurture, but then lead us deeper down the cavern of "they still haven't proven it's not nurture."

It matters between the two because of the implications of their answers. You know that, which is why you are advocating the nurture aspect of this, and trying to frame it as a psycological issue.

Personally, I see it, like all sexual governance, as primarily a hormonal issue. I do believe them to be mis-firing hormones, so sorry to the gay folks about that. But IMO it is what it is.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:32 PM

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:32 PM

exactly why gay activists target children and schools.

I'm sorry I missed the news article that said gays were implementing a new cirricula about gay porn and how appealing it is....puhlease

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:34 PM

and how many years of electroshock therapy would it take to give a man "the gay" or take it away? :rolleyes:

None. No more than I would an addict, an alcoholic, or a serial adulterer. :shrug:

Live and let live; but leave the REST OF US out of it?

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:34 PM

I stand corrected. A mere link doesn't seem very interesting though. Certainly not as interesting as most are making it out to be. Afterall, isn't it a biological link to show that straight men are more likely to get sexually aroused when looking at a naked woman than gay men and vice versa wrt a naked man?

I don't know, I thought these were fairly interesting:

"Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose."

"In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said."

Taco John

05-10-2005, 08:34 PM

exactly why gay activists target children and schools.

Every type of behavioral activist targets children and schools. It's not specific to any one group. If a group wants to see attitude and behavior changes, they condense their message at the level that a child can digest it. Churches have created an entire Sunday School industry out of this...

Boozer

05-10-2005, 08:34 PM

I'm sorry I missed the news article that said gays were implementing a new cirricula about gay porn and how appealing it is....puhlease

Pissed you didn't get to enroll?

stevieray

05-10-2005, 08:35 PM

I'm sorry I missed the news article that said gays were implementing a new cirricula about gay porn and how appealing it is....puhlease

I never said anything about gay porn in schools, you're combining two sentences form different statements.

My point is that children are like empty vessels, that can be filled with many different things.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:36 PM

Or perhaps you went from sober to drunk in 9 minutes.:D

Nah....that was from drunk to "gosh, let's pretend to be drunker than I am...to disavow my temporary idioacy" in nine minutes.

Get it right. :harumph:

:p

patteeu

05-10-2005, 08:36 PM

Um, calling a scientific result a "scientific result" doesn't mean you're endorsing it as being credible.

It's not scientific if it's completely bogus and since you haven't looked into it you can only assume it's not. Kotter may well have reason to be skeptical of "scientific" research in this field and if he does and he makes the assumption that this is more of the same type of "junk science" that he's encountered before, he's not doing anything much different than you are.

FWIW, my guess is that this is valid science that explains a lot less about sexual orientation than it's being made out to explain.

Logical

05-10-2005, 08:37 PM

Wow. That's a bit of a stretch wouldn't you say....comparing empirical study of a simple phenomena through QUANTITATIVE research and analysis, to experiential and incredibly complex biologically based (?) behavior through QUALITATIVE methods? :hmmm:

I really think you have no clue the differences between the methods you are talking about. Earlier you were trying to dismiss science based on observation. Well my friend gravity was discovered based on nothing more than observation. Sure it has been further studied and undergone much more in the way of scientific study since then but the point still holds.

stevieray

05-10-2005, 08:37 PM

Every type of behavioral activist targets children and schools. It's not specific to any one group. If a group wants to see attitude and behavior changes, they condense their message at the level that a child can digest it. Churches have created an entire Sunday School industry out of this...

never said it wa specific to one group, just the reason.

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:37 PM

I never said anything about gay porn in schools, you're combining two sentences form diffrent statements.

My point is that children are empty vessels, that can be filled with mnay different things.

not sexual orientation...sorry...I can tell you from my own personal experience....and I'm sure you could from your own...your parents didn't tell you that you like women did they? The school didn't....I think you found out on your own what you found pleasurable sexually....no one was going to convince you otherwise...and to say anything to the contrary is a buncha :BS:

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:40 PM

Pissed you didn't get to enroll?
ROFL

patteeu

05-10-2005, 08:41 PM

if it takes years and years to learn these things (as with just about anything) why haven't we heard about these horrible places that educate children to become gay or straight? it was a ridiculous example....you cannot learn to like something overnight ...as you said this would take years and years of re-education and reinforcement

WTH are you talking about? Are you drunk? What horrible places? What ridiculous example?

keg in kc

05-10-2005, 08:43 PM

What about bisexuals?

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:46 PM

It's not scientific if it's completely bogus and since you haven't looked into it you can only assume it's not. Kotter may well have reason to be skeptical of "scientific" research in this field and if he does and he makes the assumption that this is more of the same type of "junk science" that he's encountered before, he's not doing anything much different than you are.

FWIW, my guess is that this is valid science that explains a lot less about sexual orientation than it's being made out to explain.

If this is a completely unscientific study then I'll retract my words but given this is being published in a scientific journal which, if it's like the ones I publish in, requires intense peer review from esteemed members of the community....I think we can assume this is a valid scientific study.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:47 PM

I really think you have no clue the differences between the methods you are talking about. Earlier you were trying to dismiss science based on observation. Well my friend gravity was discovered based on nothing more than observation. Sure it has been further studied and undergone much more in the way of scientific study since then but the point still holds.

Do YOU honestly know the distinction between QUALITATIVE analysis, and QUANTITATIVE? From your statements, I suspect not.

I do. Yes, "science" can be quantitative--and reputable scientists tend to keep it that way. Social sciences "invented" qualitative research, and it has since been applied in some circumstances in the "hard" sciences. Some, wishing to establish more credibility for the qualitative approach have merged the two into "mixed" research, with a variety of results.

If you doubt me, go check out college research textbooks on Research methods. There is invariably a chapter or two (lengthy ones at that) dedicated to reassuring students of the "validity" of qualitative research. If it was "well accepted" why would they bother?

In some settings qualitative research can be legitimate, it can be valid--especially when replicated, triangulated, and peer reviewed, preferably with corroborating quantitative studies. Do you think authors and textbooks would go through the trouble of "defending" their method if there wasn't some serious question about it?

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:48 PM

WTH are you talking about? Are you drunk? What horrible places? What ridiculous example?

uh locking children in a room for years and years to force a change in the brain thru over-stimuli...if homosexuality is learned behavior it would have to be reinforced and rewarded over years and years and I cannot think of one gay man that I know that had mommy and daddy (or anyone else for that matter) telling them to be gay because it was good for them, much less giving them gifts for being how they are. (Pavlov, Skinner) infact it would be exactly the opposite in the majority of cases where parents were physically/emotionally abusive when the suspected or found out about their sexuality

GoChiefs

05-10-2005, 08:48 PM

What about bisexuals?

They're just freaks.

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:50 PM

What about bisexuals?

would be interesting to see if their brains react to the scents the same way both straight men and gay men do

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 08:51 PM

If this is a completely unscientific study then I'll retract my words but given this is being published in a scientific journal which, if it's like the ones I publish in, requires intense peer review from esteemed members of the community....I think we can assume this is a valid scientific study.

exactly you don't get published just because you write something....

stevieray

05-10-2005, 08:52 PM

not sexual orientation...sorry...I can tell you from my own personal experience....and I'm sure you could from your own...your parents didn't tell you that you like women did they? The school didn't....I think you found out on your own what you found pleasurable sexually....no one was going to convince you otherwise...and to say anything to the contrary is a buncha :BS:

Let's not confuse schools today with schools of yesteryear.Or parents.

Sexual orientation..that's such a wild term. I think sexual preference fits better, IMO. mainly because it's just sex.

I think that blindfolded men (gay or straight) would respond to oral sex, regardless of whether it was a man or woman performing it.. if they didn't know which gender it was.

Sight and sound do play a factor in behavioral growth of a child, even adults. ie, It's no secret that most abusers come form abusive homes.

Based on this information, it's like saying a man being attracted to young boys producing scents is natural. Or that gay men never being able to reproduce is natural.

patteeu

05-10-2005, 08:52 PM

Wow. How deep do you want this rabbit hole to go? I find it interesting that you assert "what does it matter" between nature and nurture, but then lead us deeper down the cavern of "they still haven't proven it's not nurture."

It matters between the two because of the implications of their answers. You know that, which is why you are advocating the nurture aspect of this, and trying to frame it as a psycological issue.

You have a serious reading comprehension issue (or perhaps I have a serious problem expressing my thoughts in a coherent manner) if you think I'm advocating nurture over nature (or vice versa). I'm completely agnostic on this issue.

The gay people I know all say that they've felt gay since they can remember. The straight people who I've discussed this with all say they've felt straight since they can remember. Whatever it is, it must happen pretty early in most cases.

Boozer

05-10-2005, 08:55 PM

exactly you don't get published just because you write something....

Unless you're publishing in a law review... By the way, please check out Boozer, The Posse Comitatus Act Applied to the Prosecution of Civillians, 53 U. Kan. L. Rev. xxxx (2005), coming soon to a law library near you.

patteeu

05-10-2005, 08:55 PM

I don't know, I thought these were fairly interesting:

"Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose."

"In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said."

They are interesting, but I think you would agree that the last statement is not a scientific conclusion. And I think we can rule out the possibility that being gay is a "simple choice" even if it is a phenomenon born of nurture.

KCN

05-10-2005, 08:55 PM

The gay people I know all say that they've felt gay since they can remember. The straight people who I've discussed this with all say they've felt straight since they can remember. Whatever it is, it must happen pretty early in most cases.

Thank you for at least believing the testimony from the gay people you know.

I still do not comprehend how some can reject such testimony from virtually every gay person in favor of their own "hunches" on the subject as someone with no first-hand experience on the matter. It's flat out insulting.

Boozer

05-10-2005, 08:56 PM

I think that blindfolded men (gay or straight) would respond to oral sex, regardless of whether it was a man or woman performing it.. if they didn't know which gender it was.

If I knew there was a possibility of it being a man, I don't think I could keep it up. Personal problem, I guess.

patteeu

05-10-2005, 08:57 PM

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 08:58 PM

My first hit on google; if you want others you really ought to look into it....I know which design seems more "scientific" and less subject to manipulation. You make up your own mind....

Features of Qualitative & Quantitative Research

Qualitative
Quantitative

"All research ultimately has
a qualitative grounding"
- Donald Campbell
"There's no such thing as qualitative data.
Everything is either 1 or 0"
- Fred Kerlinger

The aim of qualitative analysis is a complete, detailed description.

In quantitative research we classify features, count them, and construct statistical models in an attempt to explain what is observed.

Recommended during earlier phases of research projects.
Recommended during latter phases of research projects.

Researcher may only know roughly in advance what he/she is looking for.
Researcher knows clearly in advance what he/she is looking for.

The design emerges as the study unfolds.
All aspects of the study are carefully designed before data is collected.

Researcher is the data gathering instrument.
Researcher uses tools, such as questionnaires or equipment to collect numerical data.

Data is in the form of words, pictures or objects.
Data is in the form of numbers and statistics.

Qualitative data is more 'rich', time consuming, and less able to be generalized.
Quantitative data is more efficient, able to test hypotheses, but may miss contextual detail.

Researcher tends to become subjectively immersed in the subject matter.
Researcher tends to remain objectively separated from the subject matter.

(quotes are from Miles & Huberman (1994, p. 40). Qualitative Data Analysis)

Main Points
Qualitative research involves analysis of data such as words (e.g., from interviews), pictures (e.g., video), or objects (e.g., an artifact).

Quantitative research involves analysis of numerical data.

The strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative research are a perennial, hot debate, especially in the social sciences. The issues invoke classic 'paradigm war'.

The personality / thinking style of the researcher and/or the culture of the organization is under-recognized as a key factor in preferred choice of methods.

Overly focusing on the debate of "qualitative versus quantitative" frames the methods in opposition. It is important to focus also on how the techniques can be integrated, such as in mixed methods research. More good can come of social science researchers developing skills in both realms than debating which method is superior.

Recommended Links
Qualitative versus Quantitative - http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Qualitative/qualquan.htm - a table (similar to above), summarizing characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research in more detail

Qualitative versus Quantitative Design - http://www.kelcom.igs.net/~nhodgins/quant_qual.html - another table (like above)

The Qualitative versus Quantitative Debate - http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/gentrans/pop2f.cfm - good overview, but the layout is flat and difficult to skim-read

Qualitative vs Quantitative analysis - http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/monkey/ihe/linguistics/corpus3/3qual.htm - reasonable overview, with linguistics focus

Qualitative Research Designs (notes from a post-graduate research methods class)

Quantitative Research Designs (notes from a post-graduate research methods class)

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 09:00 PM

I think that blindfolded men (gay or straight) would respond to oral sex, regardless of whether it was a man or woman performing it.. if they didn't know which gender it was.

WTF does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
and if the blindfold came off what kind of reaction would the gay man have vs the straight man?

Sight and sound do play a factor in behavioral growth of a child. ie, It's no secret that most abusers come form abusive homes.

While focusing on the abuse of young boys by priests, it's important to keep some perspective on the fact that even though these are homosexual acts, homosexuality is not a dominant factor in child sex abuse. A study at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center found that a child is 100 times more likely to be molested by a relative's heterosexual partner than to be attacked by someone identified as being a homosexual.

if homosexuals could "recruit" children by sexually abusing them and homosexuals are the dominant sexual abusers then there would be A LOT more homosexuals

stevieray

05-10-2005, 09:01 PM

If I knew there was a possibility of it being a man, I don't think I could keep it up. Personal problem, I guess.

personal problem? hardly.

I said if you didn't know.

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 09:02 PM

Unless you're publishing in a law review... By the way, please check out Boozer, The Posse Comitatus Act Applied to the Prosecution of Civillians, 53 U. Kan. L. Rev. xxxx (2005), coming soon to a law library near you.
ROFL I will be waiting :)

patteeu

05-10-2005, 09:03 PM

uh locking children in a room for years and years to force a change in the brain thru over-stimuli...if homosexuality is learned behavior it would have to be reinforced and rewarded over years and years and I cannot think of one gay man that I know that had mommy and daddy (or anyone else for that matter) telling them to be gay because it was good for them, much less giving them gifts for being how they are. (Pavlov, Skinner) infact it would be exactly the opposite in the majority of cases where parents were physically/emotionally abusive when the suspected or found out about their sexuality

I never said it takes years and years of being locked in horrible places to create a biological impact on your brain function. The example was obviously ridiculous since no one would ever lock kids in rooms like those, but it was intended to illustrate the point that brain function can be impacted by something other than genetics. Is it not true that you have experienced years of being attracted sexually to men? You didn't have to be locked in a room to have those experiences. Has it affected your brain function? I don't know. Neither do you.

So anyway, back to my first question. Which do you want it to be, nature or nurture? And why?

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 09:04 PM

Thank you for at least believing the testimony from the gay people you know.

I still do not comprehend how some can reject such testimony from virtually every gay person in favor of their own "hunches" on the subject as someone with no first-hand experience on the matter. It's flat out insulting.

its the "I know whats better for you than you do" syndrome

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 09:04 PM

KCN

05-10-2005, 09:05 PM

The strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative research are a perennial, hot debate, especially in the social sciences. The issues invoke classic 'paradigm war'.

We're talking a biological study here. Besides, PET scans provide quantitative results anyway.

Boozer

05-10-2005, 09:07 PM

ROFL I will be waiting :)

Save yourself the time and take your nap now.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 09:07 PM

Kotter, I'm just wondering how you can dispute the findings?

A homosexual's brain reacts the same way as a woman's brain to the same chemical found in testosterone, yet different from a straight man's brain. How could this be "manipulated" and why would anybody want to do that? BTW, I think the reaction occurs on a completely subconscious level, i.e. is innate.

I'm not so much disputing it as saying, "so what?" What DIFFERENCE does this make? I'd argue none. :shrug:

It's largely irrelevant yet some are trying to confuse psychological/behavioral issues with biolological/genetic issues....and you can't do that if you wish to maintain any credibility, IMO.

stevieray

05-10-2005, 09:08 PM

WTF does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
and if the blindfold came off what kind of reaction would the gay man have vs the straight man?

While focusing on the abuse of young boys by priests, it's important to keep some perspective on the fact that even though these are homosexual acts, homosexuality is not a dominant factor in child sex abuse.

if homosexuals could "recruit" children by sexually abusing them and homosexuals are the dominant sexual abusers then there would be A LOT more homosexuals

1) is this your way of refuting the opinon...?
2) it's homosexual act, but it's not dominant....why is it called SEX abuse, as I stated, according to this article..gay men attracted to young boys producing scents is natural.
3)You don't have to abuse to to "recruit"...on the other end of the spectrum.. filling kids love tank breeds confidence and sense of self worth.

most sexual predators were abused.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 09:08 PM

We're talking a biological study here. Besides, PET scans provide quantitative results anyway.

Behavior is not entirely biological. Surely, you aren't arguing that it is...? :shrug:

As qualitative research has creeped into the hard sciences, it has been even more hotly contested there...

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 09:11 PM

I'm not so much disputing it as saying, "so what?" What DIFFERENCE does this make? I'd argue none. :shrug:

It's largely irrelevant yet some are trying to confuse psychological/behavioral issues with biolological/genetic issues....and you can't do that if you wish to maintain any credibility, IMO.

First of all, Taco John's 17 posts about why it would make a difference, have obvioulsy not reached you.

Second, it is taught in the first level biology as well as first level psychology that psychological/behavioral issues are closely connected to bilogical/genetic issues.

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 09:12 PM

Behavior is not entirely biological. Surely, you aren't arguing that it is...? :shrug:

Nobody said it was, but in this particular case - it is. When will you get that?

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 09:12 PM

Is it not true that you have experienced years of being attracted sexually to men? You didn't have to be locked in a room to have those experiences. Has it affected your brain function? I don't know. Neither do you.

So anyway, back to my first question. Which do you want it to be, nature or nurture? And why?

I didn't have my first homosexual expereince till I was 20 until then I didn't really know what gay was, I was never exposed to gay porn or man sex. When I was 10-11-12 I had playboy magaiznes that I would look at so I definatly knew was straight was. However back to my original point back in the early 1900's gay men were subjected to electro-shock therapy for a very long periods of time to change their orientation and IT NEVER WORKED in fact in most cases it killed them. Skinner showed that in order to create a behavior it has to be reinforced. There has to be a punishment reward system in place for the behavior....if everytime you thought about gay sex you got a session of electro-shock therapy I would think you could unlearn the behavior...this is obviously not the case....the opposite would also have to be true there would have to be some kind of reinforcement to approe of the sexual orientation and like I said before not one gay man I know was pushed byt their parents to be gay and rewarded for being so

KCN

05-10-2005, 09:15 PM

Behavior is not entirely biological. Surely, you aren't arguing that it is...? :shrug:

The chemical reaction of the brain is not behavior. Behavior is what comes next.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 09:18 PM

Nobody said it was, but in this particular case - it is. When will you get that?

So, you are going to look at me with a straight face and say that.... bioloogical reactions have no basis in life experiences, "preferences," sociological, and psychological factors--that behavior is pre-determined based on genetics, rather than a reaction based on life experiences.

Is that your position? :hmmm:

Cause I suppose I should question why I salivate when I see a thick juicy steak, or get excited when my wife comes to bed in lingerie? You are saying biology determines those reactions entirely, eh?

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 09:19 PM

The chemical reaction of the brain is not behavior. Behavior is what comes next.

Tell any reputable doctor or psychologist that "chemical reactions" in the brain are not, in large part, experientially based...and see what they say to you.

It's another "chicken or the egg, which came first?" debate, isn't it? :)

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 09:22 PM

First of all, Taco John's 17 posts about why it would make a difference, have obvioulsy not reached you.

Second, it is taught in the first level biology as well as first level psychology that psychological/behavioral issues are closely connected to bilogical/genetic issues.

First, I tend to skim TJ's posts; sorry if I missed something...

Second, connected yes...but which causes which?

patteeu

05-10-2005, 09:30 PM

I didn't have my first homosexual expereince till I was 20 until then I didn't really know what gay was, I was never exposed to gay porn or man sex. When I was 10-11-12 I had playboy magaiznes that I would look at so I definatly knew was straight was.

Surely, with hindsight you can look back to a time before you were 20 and recognize that you had gay feelings can't you?

However back to my original point back in the early 1900's gay men were subjected to electro-shock therapy for a very long periods of time to change their orientation and IT NEVER WORKED in fact in most cases it killed them. Skinner showed that in order to create a behavior it has to be reinforced. There has to be a punishment reward system in place for the behavior....if everytime you thought about gay sex you got a session of electro-shock therapy I would think you could unlearn the behavior...this is obviously not the case....the opposite would also have to be true there would have to be some kind of reinforcement to approe of the sexual orientation and like I said before not one gay man I know was pushed byt their parents to be gay and rewarded for being so

Nurture doesn't necessarily mean that you are explicitly taught to be gay by someone who specifically intends to make you gay. I think we both agree that that doesn't happen (at least not in the vast majority of cases).

Now that I think about it, I wonder if something like a nutritional deficiency or brain trauma caused by an infection would be considered nature or nurture? I'm not sure. I think they would be nurture, but I'm having second thoughts on the matter.

You still haven't answered my question. Do you want it to be nature or nurture? And why does it matter? I'm curious.

DenverChief

05-10-2005, 09:34 PM

Surely, with hindsight you can look back to a time before you were 20 and recognize that you had gay feelings can't you?

.

I was very Asexual I had one girlfriend in High school....sex just didn't appeal to me growing up....

as for your question I think it is nature cause I didn't make any choice to like guys its just how it happened...I don't think there is any nurture in it

Logical

05-10-2005, 09:41 PM

Do YOU honestly know the distinction between QUALITATIVE analysis, and QUANTITATIVE? From your statements, I suspect not.

I do. Yes, "science" can be quantitative--and reputable scientists tend to keep it that way. Social sciences "invented" qualitative research, and it has since been applied in some circumstances in the "hard" sciences. Some, wishing to establish more credibility for the qualitative approach have merged the two into "mixed" research, with a variety of results.

If you doubt me, go check out college research textbooks on Research methods. There is invariably a chapter or two (lengthy ones at that) dedicated to reassuring students of the "validity" of qualitative research. If it was "well accepted" why would they bother?

In some settings qualitative research can be legitimate, it can be valid--especially when replicated, triangulated, and peer reviewed, preferably with corroborating quantitative studies. Do you think authors and textbooks would go through the trouble of "defending" their method if there wasn't some serious question about it?

The fact that you did not understand that the first observations of gravity were qualitative caused me to believe you do not know what you are speaking on. Qualitative science has been around as long as man.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 09:45 PM

The fact that you did not understand that the first observations of gravity were qualitative caused me to believe you do not know what you are speaking on. Qualitative science has been around as long as man.

Sure it has--no one thought of it as "science" until around 1950 or so--specifically, Brown vs. Board of Ed really gave it a "boost"..... But you referenced Newton; he was big-time into Quantitative...in case you hadn't noticed. Heh. :p

patteeu

05-10-2005, 09:57 PM

I was very Asexual I had one girlfriend in High school....sex just didn't appeal to me growing up....

as for your question I think it is nature cause I didn't make any choice to like guys its just how it happened...I don't think there is any nurture in it

Thanks.

FWIW, nurture wouldn't have to mean that you were making a choice to be gay.

I'm honestly not sure why it matters to people. I can definitely understand why it would matter if it were actually a conscious decision, but IMO that's preposterous.

I guess if it were found to be entirely nurture, then some people might try to figure out how to avoid "giving it" to their kids, but I'm not sure why that would be bad. OTOH, if it is determined to be nature, some people might start trying to abort their gay babies which I think WOULD be bad.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 10:02 PM

Sure it has--no one thought of it as "science" until around 1950 or so--specifically, Brown vs. Board of Ed really gave it a "boost"..... But you referenced Newton; he was big-time into Quantitative...in case you hadn't noticed. Heh. :p

Whatever... The minute someone produces quantitative data, you'll be the first person screaming about how you can statistically prove anything if you massage the numbers enough...

Qualitative and quantitative research are both valid tools of science, whether you are a homophobe or not.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:10 PM

Whatever... The minute someone produces quantitative data, you'll be the first person screaming about how you can statistically prove anything if you massage the numbers enough...

Qualitative and quantitative research are both valid tools of science, whether you are a homophobe or not.

Whatever, TJ.

GIVE me some credible, replicated, peer-reviewed and triangulated QUANITATIVE research, and I'm one of those that patteeu predicts will come on board....believe it or not.

To many of us, the WHY is important; if you wanna continue to insult and impugn us....that's your prerogative. Whether or not you are a religious/moral bigot. :shrug:

KCN

05-10-2005, 10:12 PM

I guess if it were found to be entirely nurture, then some people might try to figure out how to avoid "giving it" to their kids, but I'm not sure why that would be bad. OTOH, if it is determined to be nature, some people might start trying to abort their gay babies which I think WOULD be bad.

I think if nurture were determined to be the cause, there'd be a lot of painful work trying to undo it or suppress it, and a shunning of those parents responsible. I don't think it would help acceptance, whereas evidence of being an irreversible natural trait might.

As you have said, it really doesn't matter. But it would be an awfully great self-esteem boost to those millions of gays that grow up wondering why they are so weird and disliked by society....they would have less reason to feel guilty and ashamed knowing it was no fault of their own.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:16 PM

Logical

05-10-2005, 10:24 PM

Whatever, TJ.

GIVE me some credible, replicated, peer-reviewed and triangulated QUANITATIVE research, and I'm one of those that patteeu predicts will come on board....believe it or not.

To many of us, the WHY is important; if you wanna continue to insult and impugn us....that's your prerogative. Whether or not you are a religious/moral bigot. :shrug:
Ever heard of Pavlov's dogs. There is a well documented, peer reviewed, replicated and credible example of qualitative research. You going to tell me it is not valid.

stevieray

05-10-2005, 10:25 PM

I think if nurture were determined to be the cause, there'd be a lot of painful work trying to undo it or suppress it, and a shunning of those parents responsible. I don't think it would help acceptance, whereas evidence of being an irreversible natural trait might.

As you have said, it really doesn't matter. But it would be an awfully great self-esteem boost to those millions of gays that grow up wondering why they are so weird and disliked by society....they would have less reason to feel guilty and ashamed knowing it was no fault of their own.

Good points. If it is natural, why do you think the ability to naturally reproduce doesn't exist? how does it feel as a gay man to know that (your heritage) bloodline could cease to exist based on sexual preference? (please do not think I'm asking from a negative stance , does it bother you, or even matter?) how does it feel knowing you can't have a child with another man? The reason I ask is that is being married, my wife and I share one of many incredible gift(s)..ie...'you and I created that'..it's a very powerful bonding experience. It is also very motivating...tons to look forward to.

Logical

05-10-2005, 10:26 PM

Common ground here, mostly.

Although....a small point....it does matter to some of us.

Nature = black, women
Nurture = alcoholism, drug addictionYou do know that drug addiction can be nature, where the drug addicted mother passes along the drug addiction to the child.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 10:27 PM

Ever heard of Pavlov's dogs. There is a well documented, peer reviewed, replicated and credible example of qualitative research. You going to tell me it is not valid.

Bunch of liberal dogs anyway...

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:29 PM

Ever heard of Pavlov's dogs. There is a well documented, peer reviewed, replicated and credible example of qualitative research. You going to tell me it is not valid.

It's been QUANTITATIVELY replicated too; that's the difference...

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:30 PM

You do know that drug addiction can be nature, where the drug addicted mother passes along the drug addiction to the child.

Nature/Genetics are can certainly be a factor; in the case of physical addictions resulting from parental abuse....do you really wanna go down that road?

Taco John

05-10-2005, 10:31 PM

It's been QUANTITATIVELY replicated too; that's the difference...

And how does that say anything less about the qualitative process. It's the qualitative that leads to the quantitative. They work hand in hand. You can't just dismiss one, and embrace the other. They are both valid tools that compliment eachother.

Logical

05-10-2005, 10:32 PM

It's been QUANTITATIVELY replicated too; that's the difference...
ROFL Pardon me but you are full of shit. You cannot quantitative replicate it. You want to take that back before you look like a complete fool. It is an experiment that can only be verified using observation. If you are mistaking repetetive obaservation with quantitative science you are sorely mistaken.

stevieray

05-10-2005, 10:33 PM

You do know that drug addiction can be nature, where the drug addicted mother passes along the drug addiction to the child.

kind of proves that the baby is being fed by the mother...and is indeed alive.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 10:35 PM

Did the dog produce saliva or not when the bell was rung? What is your observation? WHA WHA WHAT!? You aren't measuring the AMOUNT of saliva he's producing! JUNK SCIENCE!

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:36 PM

And how does that say anything less about the qualitative process. It's the qualitative that leads to the quantitative. They work hand in hand. You can't just dismiss one, and embrace the other. They are both valid tools that compliment eachother.

Because there is a plethora (literally) of Qualitative research that has be debunked once the quantitative has been done....

social promotion in public schools
self-esteem counseling
sex education (yes, abstinence only programs)

cell phones (not a distraction comparable to DWI)
captial punishment as a deterrent
abortion as birth control

Just a few examples of qualitative research that was subsequently 'debunked' by quantitative analysis. I'm confident there are many, many more.

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 10:37 PM

So, you are going to look at me with a straight face and say that.... bioloogical reactions have no basis in life experiences, "preferences," sociological, and psychological factors--that behavior is pre-determined based on genetics, rather than a reaction based on life experiences.

Is that your position? :hmmm:

Cause I suppose I should question why I salivate when I see a thick juicy steak, or get excited when my wife comes to bed in lingerie? You are saying biology determines those reactions entirely, eh?

So you never got a chubby until you had sex (which would be impossible since one can't happen without the other)? Please, humans are born LOADED with innane behavior.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:38 PM

Did the dog produce saliva or not when the bell was rung? What is your observation? WHA WHA WHAT!? You aren't measuring the AMOUNT of saliva he's producing! JUNK SCIENCE!

Chicken or egg? Which came first? The CONDITIONING or the response? :hmmm:

:shrug:

Taco John

05-10-2005, 10:38 PM

Whatever, TJ.

GIVE me some credible, replicated, peer-reviewed and triangulated QUANITATIVE research, and I'm one of those that patteeu predicts will come on board....believe it or not.

To many of us, the WHY is important; if you wanna continue to insult and impugn us....that's your prerogative. Whether or not you are a religious/moral bigot. :shrug:

Whatever... I think you're FOS. Here we have a study that shows similarities in hormonal reactions between Gay Men and Straight Women, and the best you can come up with is some mumbo jumbo about how it's mainstream to reject observational data out of hand if it can't be measured mathematically...

Forget the fact that qualitative observations are the foundation of science.

Taco John

05-10-2005, 10:39 PM

Chicken or egg? Which came first? The CONDITIONING or the response? :hmmm:

:shrug:

Uh... neither.

The biology came first.

Hence, gay men react to testosterone in the same way that straight women do.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:41 PM

So you never got a chubby until you had sex (which would be impossible since one can't happen without the other)? Please, humans are born LOADED with innane behavior.

I suppose you meant innate, but innane too....heh....as this thread proves (I'm dissin' myself, BTW.)

Biological responses are not purely "biological" generally speaking.....except of course, things like breathing, food, and fight/flight and the like. Of course, there can be genetic predisposition, but predisposition is not determinative--it is not destiny.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:42 PM

Uh... neither.

The biology came first.

Hence, gay men react to testosterone in the same way that straight women do.

So says you, and this "study."

Taco John

05-10-2005, 10:43 PM

Biological responses are not purely "biological" generally speaking.....

This is like some sort of twisted theatre... I can't believe some of the things you are willing to say to justify your homophobia...

Taco John

05-10-2005, 10:44 PM

So says you, and this "study."

Not to mention common sense.

KCN

05-10-2005, 10:45 PM

I'll try to answer these one by one because they're good questions. Those interested in a silly debate please proceed to the next post bcs this is sappy personal stuff.

If it is natural, why do you think the ability to naturally reproduce doesn't exist?

I'm no biologist or geneticist so I cannot answer this question.

how does it feel as a gay man to know that (your heritage) bloodline could cease to exist based on sexual preference? (please do not think I'm asking from a negative stance , does it bother you, or even matter?)

Heritage isn't a big deal to me personally, nor to my family.

how does it feel knowing you can't have a child with another man?

This is what saddens me the most, or perhaps devastates is a better word. I cannot provide my parents, especially my mom, the grandchildren they dream of. Thankfully I have a sister who can. However, I will try my hardest to take in an unwanted child out of a world of neglect into the same family I was blessed with. I know you are a strong Christian so hopefully you will not think I'm crazy or wrong for saying this, but sometimes I actually think my being gay could be a blessing, as if I have a calling to help a child, maybe even 2 or 3, out of a world of neglect into the same family of love that I was blessed with - instead of having a child of my own. Maybe there is even a kid out there already who I am meant to bring in and show a life of support and love, and when I see some of these unwanted children, every part of me wants to. That is of course if society will let me (but let's not get into that).

The reason I ask is that is being married, my wife and I share one of many incredible gift(s)..ie...'you and I created that'..it's a very powerful bonding experience. It is also very motivating...tons to look forward to.

If there were anything to motivate me away from being gay, that would be it. Unfortunately even the power you described isn't enough to change it :(

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:45 PM

... If you are mistaking repetetive obaservation with quantitative science you are sorely mistaken.

Replication without significant deviation, whether qualitative or quantitative meets the professional standard...

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 10:46 PM

I suppose you meant innate, but innane too....heh....as this thread proves (I'm dissin' myself, BTW.)

Biological responses are not purely "biological" generally speaking.....except of course, things like breathing, food, and fight/flight and the like. Of course, there can be genetic predisposition, but predisposition is not determinative--it is not destiny.

I was thinking of you when typing that, thus innane (lol, jk). And you forgot to mention one very important "biological" behavior - mating.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:46 PM

Not to mention common sense.

Common sense to you, is well......eh, heh..... :shrug:

Not so common in deluded Chief fans, let's say....LOL. :)

patteeu

05-10-2005, 10:47 PM

stevieray

05-10-2005, 10:47 PM

I'll try to answer these one by one because they're good questions.

I'm no biologist or geneticist so I cannot answer this question.

Heritage isn't a big deal to me personally, nor to my family.

This is what saddens me the most, or perhaps devastates is a better word. I cannot provide my parents, especially my mom, the grandchildren they dream of. Thankfully I have a sister who can. However, I will try my hardest to take in an unwanted child out of a world of neglect into the same family I was blessed with. I know you are a strong Christian so hopefully you will not think I'm crazy or wrong for saying this, but sometimes I actually think my being gay could be a blessing, as if I have a calling to help a child, maybe even 2 or 3, out of a world of neglect into the same family of love that I was blessed with. Maybe there is even a kid out there already who I am meant to bring in and show a life of support and love, and when I see some of these unwanted children, every part of me wants to. That is of course if society will let me (but let's not get into that).

If there were anything to motivate me away from being gay, that would be it. Unfortunately even the power you described isn't enough to change it :(

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty.

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:48 PM

I was thinking of you when typing that, thus innane (lol, jk). And you forgot to mention one very important "biological" behavior - mating.

Not so much mating, as getting your rocks off....with whatever method you've become accustomed to...

I offer as Exhibit A, gochiefs....heh.

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 10:50 PM

Not so much mating, as getting your rocks off....with whatever method you've become accustomed to...

I offer as Exhibit A, gochiefs....heh.

No, it's all about mating. Just because you can fool your brain into "thinking" you mated doesn't mean it's the primary goal. You're born with one thing on your mind - mating. Why do you think women LOVE jewlery so much?

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:54 PM

I'll try to answer these one by one because they're good questions. Those interested in a silly debate please proceed to the next post bcs this is sappy personal stuff.

I'm no biologist or geneticist so I cannot answer this question.

Heritage isn't a big deal to me personally, nor to my family.

This is what saddens me the most, or perhaps devastates is a better word. I cannot provide my parents, especially my mom, the grandchildren they dream of. Thankfully I have a sister who can. However, I will try my hardest to take in an unwanted child out of a world of neglect into the same family I was blessed with. I know you are a strong Christian so hopefully you will not think I'm crazy or wrong for saying this, but sometimes I actually think my being gay could be a blessing, as if I have a calling to help a child, maybe even 2 or 3, out of a world of neglect into the same family of love that I was blessed with - instead of having a child of my own. Maybe there is even a kid out there already who I am meant to bring in and show a life of support and love, and when I see some of these unwanted children, every part of me wants to. That is of course if society will let me (but let's not get into that).

If there were anything to motivate me away from being gay, that would be it. Unfortunately even the power you described isn't enough to change it :(

As Stevie said, thanks for your honesty. This type of honesty does more for this debate than ANY of the political or ideological or partisan bullshit that we hear way too much of...you've achieved a new level of respect in my mind with this post. Seriously.

Your perspective of being gay as a "blessing" is truly moving and precisely the kind of discussion we ought to be having, rather than the divisive and polarized exchange.....that I too often get suckered into....

Thanks.

Rob

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 10:56 PM

that I too often get suckered into...

ROFL

Mr. Kotter

05-10-2005, 10:58 PM

No, it's all about mating. Just because you can fool your brain into "thinking" you mated doesn't mean it's the primary goal. You're born with one thing on your mind - mating. Why do you think women LOVE jewlery so much?

I'm telling you, as a married man....who's been through "dating," pre-marriage bliss, the honeymoon, the after-glow, the "kids," and as someone trying desperately to reignite the "passion".....that it's NOT about "mating"--unless you mean the in the way that Stevie said, about "making THIS" (kids as our legacy.)

Otherwise, it's all about gettin' your rocks off dude. Everything else is just an illusion. Masturbation is underrated....

ROFL

Metrolike

05-10-2005, 11:02 PM

I'm telling you, as a married man....who's been through "dating," pre-marriage bliss, the honeymoon, the after-glow, the "kids," and as someone trying desperately to reignite the "passion".....that it's NOT about "mating"--unless you mean the in the way that Stevie said, about "making THIS."

Otherwise, it's all about gettin' your rocks off dude. Everything else is just an illusion. Masturbation is underrated....

ROFL

Dude, why do you think getting your rocks off feels so good? Humans are hard wired to pass their genes on, I don't know how you can argue against that. That is the primary goal of any living organism. You can't bring in society and civilization into something like this. You're born with one task on your mind: survive long enough to mate, if you keep living - keep mating. Naturally, humans aren't exactly like that since of the price they have to pay in the society is too great. Because of that we have to find ways to "cheat the system".