Does 'Movement Conservatism' mean anal retentive?

I'm just sayin'

Ensorcelled

Is that some sort of homosexual slang? Or maybe the guy received a Thesaurus for Christmas.

The debate is over: so-called "manmade global warming" is a crock.

The publishing of the article in TIME magazine and that the article was written by a homosexual, about his homosexuality, and "urban sophistication" is just further proof that the elite liberal media are hell-bent on promoting and "normalizing" homosexuality throughout the culture.  TIME is using its influence and clout to promote and celebrate something that old Mother Nature herself has condemned. 

I found some actual science, and I'm going to quote part of it here:

"The largest genetic studies to date have been our own, one with men and one with women. These studies included not only MZ and DZ twins, but a third group, homosexual subjects with adoptively-related same-sex siblings, who are genetically least similar and thus should be least similar in their sexual orientations. Our two studies obtained results that were quite similar to each other. In the male study, MZ twins of our gay index subjects had a 52% chance also of being gay, compared to a 22% rate for their DZ twins and an 11% chance for their adoptive brothers. In the female study, MZ twins had a 48% chance of also being lesbian, compared to a 16% rate for DZ twins and a 6% rate for adoptive sisters. Note that similarity in sexual orientation corresponded closely with genetic similarity in both studies.

Quantitative analyses provide heritability estimates of the relative proportion of genetic causation, and our heritabilities were consistently above 50%. Thus, both studies were consistent with moderate to strong genetic influences on sexual orientation. Of course, both studies yielded figures lower than the 100% suggested by Kallmann. Two newer twin studies more or less supported ours. One found concordance rates that were lower than ours, the other found higher rates, but both found MZ higher than DZ rates.

All recent studies find that MZ twins often differ in their sexual
orientations, which shows that sexual orientation cannot be completely explained by genes. Environment must play its part. On the other hand, we emphasize that environmental pathways can be biological as well as psychosocial. One of the most interesting questions to stem from the recent twin studies is what environmental factor could affect MZ twins
differently enough to give them opposite sexual orientations.

One other twin study is worth mentioning because it contained what
many consider to be the ideal (if rare) subjects: twins reared apart. In this study both of two male pairs were concordant for adult homosexual feelings and behavior, which would be highly unlikely if genetic factors were unimortant. Although none of four female pairs
was concordant, this sample was too small to be conclusive; of course it provided no support for genetic factors affecting female sexual orientation.

Although we believe the available evidence is strongly suggestive of genetic influence on sexual orientation for both men and women, one serious methodological limitation of available studies prevent them from being definitive. The studies have recruited subjects via advertising in gay- and lesbian-oriented publications. They may have had an overrepresentation of concordant pairs because such studies might be more appealing to gay men and women with gay twins. Such bias is not very serious unless it was stronger for MZ than for DZ twins, and we have no reason to suspect that such differential bias occurred. But only a study using systematic ascertainment could exclude this possibility, and unfortunately none exists.

Research that helps settle some questions raises new ones. By what
pathway do genes lead to the expression of atypical childhood behavior and homosexual orientation? Our studies have usually been discussed as supportive of neuroendocrine theories, and genetic influences might indeed be neuroendocrine. One could imagine a gene that led a fetus to secrete unusually high or low levels of prenatal androgens during
brain differentiation, or alternatively, to be especially sensitive or insensitive to androgens. But genetic influences on sexual orientation would not have to be neuroendocrine in nature. For example, genes could influence personality (say, independent thinking or unconventionality) that could increase the chance of adopting a homosexual identity. For reasons we discuss later, we doubt that the indirect route through personality is typical, and instead believe that genetic influences operate via a neuroendocrine pathway. But our studies have had nothing so far to say about this.

The Biology Debate

A thorough and thoughtful critique of the biological evidence has
been provided by Byne and Parsons, in a recent version of Archives of General Psychiatry. They argue that the biological case is quite weak. Byne has asserted that reviewing the biological evidence is akin to ; because no one study is methodologically strong enough to establish the biological case definitively. While we agree that no one study has established the case for biological factors, we disagree that their sum is "zero" evidence in favor of biological hypotheses. It is difficult if not impossible to do perfect studies using human subjects. But if different kinds of studies with different research strategies (with different methodological inadequacies) converge to similar conclusions, then the critic who rejects the cumulative evidence begins to sound strained."

...

It goes on, but I hope by now everyone gets the point that the biological case, while certainly imperfect, seems to be growing...
JMR

First, at least Sarcasmo and Leon are making sane, rational arguments in the face of thinly-veiled homophobia. Good for you guys for sticking to your guns.

This idea that homosexuality must be caused by one of two mutually-exclusive things is amusing. Is it the mythic gene or is it a decision. Way to be black-and-white, geniuses. Perhaps it has to do with one's upbringing and a near-infinite set of stimuli and experiences that shape one's psyche by the time he or she becomes a pubescent, sexual creature. People don't "just decide" to be foot fetishists either, nor does anyone believe in a foot fetish gene. A vast network of ego-shaping events determine these things.

Someone claimed that "ex-gays" prove that homosexuality is a choice. Well, many gay people spend years in the closet or even convince themselves that they are straight, before coming out. Are they "ex-straights"?

Meanwhile, the liberal use of terms like "sodomite" and "fag" on this board just goes to show that most of you hate gays because you think it's gross or feel your own sexuality threatened or because you were raised to hate them without even questioning why. Pathetic.

Oh, and, like sarcasmo, I am not gay.

"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18