[quote=Kevin Walker]Hello Tlaloc,
Do you ever read the results of the studies you post?
Nah! What would be the point when nobody listens to things like evidence or studies anyway.
Or do you just use your preconceived notions for your pro-homosexual agenda? The twin studies for the genetic cause of homosexuality have been found to be bogus by the very scientists listed under Specific Problems with the Twin Studies of Homosexuality.
First off they specifically talk about the 1992 Twin studies, not all of them. Second off these “scientists” make a number of simple errors as I point out above. If they can’t get the simple stuff right I have trouble believing they can handle harder cognitive tasks. Third these “scientists” are in the minority since Homosexuality is widely accepted as having a genetic component. But what does it matter what the rest of the scientific world thinks? You found the magic clutch of nutballs who are out of touch. Enjoy. By the way there’s this wonderful Flat Earth society you may be interested in joining, they have “scientists” too!
It is impossible to have a rigorous study using a small sampling size, that’s why you must use a minimum of 1,000 subjects for any experiment using a sampling population to be statistically significant (or else you run into Type 1 errors). Please review your STATS 101 course.
And what kind of sampling error would be introduced Kevin? I’m curious what exactly you think here could be attributable to a sampling error. If you want to argue they can’t determine precisely how much of a contribution Genes make then you’d be right but we’ve already covered that ad nauseum and it doesn’t support your position that the results of all the studies are magically skewed in one direction only. Thats not a statistical error, Kevin.
Again, you are demonstrating an act of desperation by clinging to refuted experimental results, typically used in a self-fulfilling prophecy! So far their is no causation or correlation between genes and homosexuality, adoption studies and cloning theory bear this out.
By all means post the results of these adoption and cloning studies. Otherwise I’ll stick with the research that is compelling, available, and accepted by the scientific community in general. I’m wacky like that.
Just so you know finding a small group of flat-earthers to write a poor critique of a study doesn’t really disqualify it.
And as far as the theories of Sigmund Freud goes, he is a joke that will not go away; Freud’s theories on childhood sexuality, the unconscious, and his studies on human sexuality have won him international acclaim and emulation.
Yeah he did win awards. And yeah he was emulated. Of course that was before his ideas were pretty widely repudiated or at least recognized as having no evidence to back them up. Notice that Freud is now taught in Psychology only as a history subject? Besides which Freud runs counter to your own position on reparative therapy. He didn’t believe our neurosis could ever be dealt with only recognized. Whoops!
So after all this time on this Catholic forum you should have learned by now that there is no genetic causality, correlation, or influence to the development of homosexuality.
Yes because when you say something it’s true no matter how much evidence to the contrary. Kevin, I want to make this very clear to you: you have no credibility with me on matters of science. You’ve shown that you deserve none. If you want to actually convince me of your point you’d actually have to provide some evidence which so far you haven’t. You also might want to take a stab at explaining why just you have the truth that the rest of the scinetific community doesn’t. Or you could spend a few minutes with Occam’s Razor and realize how you’ve bamboozled yourself.
Or of course you could start another stalker thread about me, the last one got you a lot of admiration and respect.