Originally posted by Simaril
OK, first off, this study (and most other "studies" on politically active questions) suffers from issue blindness -- the expectation that what you already believe will be proven.
What an amazing disservice you do to the scientists that produce studies on this topic. And although it might be true in some cases you can't assume it's true in this one. Another point is that although it might be a politically hot topic in some places, it's quite possible that it simply isn't in Sweden, but I honestly don't konw..
That results in drawing conclusions that are not supported logically, or sometimes even by the data.
Luckily this isn't the case in alot of studies which demostrate biology as the probable cause of homosexuality. And it's also a reason that peer review is such a necessary part of the scientific method.
To draw the conclusions they do, they would have to do the studies on PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT YET GAY, and then watch to see their sexual orientaion play out.
Do you mean "people who have not had a homosexual experience"? I say this because it might be possible that people are either hetero or homosexual thier entire lives.
ANother example of this application of PC conclusions
The scientists certainly didn't reach a PC conclusions, but infact stated the same point you made about causality.
"Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it. But, he said, "it certainly seems unlikely that somehow being interested in men would cause the brain to rewire itself in such a dramatic way."
Note the qualifiers.
to scientific data BY THE RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES is a study from a few years ago that measured the brain tissue volume in areas associated with sexuality, in men who had died of aids. The researchers chose to ignore the well known fact that HIV infects the brain. Therefore, it was unclear whether the changes seen were caused by the HIV infection, or by the victim's previous sexuality.
You are discussing the controversial research done by Simon LeVay, but what you are leaving out is that he was repeating the experiments of Laura S. Allen, and concurrently D.F. Swaab. That found that also differences in the hypothalamus.
You say that HIV infects the brain, but there is no evidence that it causes areas of the hypothalamus to shrink or grow?
The incidence of homosexuality in maternal, fraternal and non-twin brothers also leads credence to the theory that homosexuality it caused by biology. As wells as the genenic sequencing experiment done by Hamer.
And although yes, I agree that more research needs to be done in order for it to be conclusively proven that homosexual is caused by biology. There is a hell of alot more scientific evidence to support that theory than any other.
But, researchers themselves can fall prey to their own bias, and when the bias is generally held by the world at large the researcher's failings can be accepted at face value.
Indeed, but simply making that statement alone doesn't invalidate the research.
One last point: even IF eventually a pre-existing tendency to homosexuality can be demonstrated, it would still NOT prove that sexuality is predetermined.
Actually by definition it does, what it doesn't predetermine is whether or not someone is going to act on that sexuality.
To choose a stereotyped example: the fact that I have Irish blood may (supposedly) leave me more likely to have an explosive temper, but it DOES NOT mean that I'm allowed to beat my wife because I'm mad.
I don't imagine making this tread a discussion of morality will aid in. In fact it will probably take it totally of topic.
