DOMA ruled uncons utional

[z0sa]

What is? This is the same conversation of prove me there's a god and disprove there is a god. Which philosophically speaking, really makes psychology a lot like religion.

I don't think the two are all that similar. We can't study the nature and behavior of god. We can study the nature and behavior of humans. We can look through their past for reasons why things happen now, and even implant false memories using hypnosis. We can see how chemical balance affects the psyche.

Through psychology?

We've gone from people burning witches because of possession by the devil to medical drug treatments based on the amount of neurotransmitters like acetylcholine in your brain. I think psychology has much, much evidence to the contrary - not all of its implications are simply descriptive.

[ElNono]

Not in the case of sexuality. In fact, sexuality is one of the very few aspects of psychology that can be "measured." How? Most people can be sure, or mostly sure, of their sexuality, without much "mental" red tape.

Sure. But you don't know how it works. Where it's coming from. You're merely observing based on a set of parameters, and looking at the reaction. It's truly looking into a black box that you have very little, if any, idea of how it works.

It is verified by the facts. Just because more than one theory fits the facts doesn't mean a theory isn't verified.

A verified theory is no longer called a theory. If it's still called a theory, it's because in part or as a whole, it can't be verified. The thing with psychology is that statistics play a major role. I don't really have to explain this to you, but for reference of anybody else reading here, if a research shows 85% of people reacts a certain way to a stimuli, then it gets accepted as 'good enough' for psychology. I understand. You don't know how the black box works, and you gotta work with something. But when you translate that to other fields of science, it's entirely unacceptable.

That's like saying evolution isn't a fact even though every day it's proven time and time again. (Yes, I just said that, and meant it.)

Sure. We can also talk about the special relativity theory. Although, now we find out that it doesn't work with quantum mechanics. In psychology, statistical 'good enough' is good enough. I like exact sciences better.

That's interesting (really). How do you find philosophy not full of the same BS? I haven't taken a philosophy course but I'd think it'd have much more immeasurable, non-empirical "proof."

I had to take an inexact science course. It was non-negotiable. I thought psychology would work, and it didn't. Philosophy is as much BS, but it doesn't go around trying to explain too much. You don't see philosophers setting up offices to attend to people
Anyways, it was interesting in it's own way. I'm more of an exact science zealot though.

It's an interesting point, and one I'm willing to concede. It still doesn't mean that the facts don't fit their theories, or that the theories themselves are unusable. Second, 99.9% of educated people base their arguments on some aspect of psychology (nature/nurture) when having these discussions. An appeal to your inner self as proof is simply questionable, because a psychologist has already done that with others.

Listen, I'm not saying psychology is worthless. As an aid to certain people, it works (coincidentally, much like religion, as I mentioned before). I just can't really give it the authenticity of actual verifiable science, since it doesn't have it. That's why it pisses me off to no end when people remit other people to educate themselves in psychology. I'm also well aware this comes off as a snub on psychology, and pisses psychologists off. Oh well.

[ElNono]

It's a bunch of bull , the feild of psychology doesn't support your premise so you're hoping to find that gay gene.

It's not about waiting for the truth.

At some point in time we thought the earth was flat. Then we figured out through science that it wasn't.

At some point in time we thought only humans could create life. Then along came test tube babies.

I couldn't care less what you think. I am pretty sure we will figure out eventually through actual exact science what are the conditions in which this happens. Might be a gene, might be a chemical imbalance, etc etc etc

[z0sa]

Sure. But you don't know how it works. Where it's coming from. You're merely observing based on a set of parameters, and looking at the reaction. It's truly looking into a black box that you have very little, if any, idea of how it works.

Psychologists, especially recently with the advent of genetic research, form very solid working relationships underlying their theories.

Of course there is no simple, always verifiable answer concerning the human mind. The mind isn't a tree that, if cut a certain way, will always produce 2x4's.

However, research into the biological aspect of the mind, and stimulation of certain parts of the brain, allows us to decipher what controls what, and how it does that. There will always be the "why" concerning psychology, because humans are capable of choice. Which is why you have humanist-existentialist psychologists. However, the vast amount of research supports what I've said, and is verifiable in that it accurately predicts behavior.

A verified theory is no longer called a theory. If it's still called a theory, it's because in part or as a whole, it can't be verified. The thing with psychology is that statistics play a major role. I don't really have to explain this to you, but for reference of anybody else reading here, if a research shows 85% of people reacts a certain way to a stimuli, then it gets accepted as 'good enough' for psychology. I understand. You don't know how the black box works, and you gotta work with something. But when you translate that to other fields of science, it's entirely unacceptable.

It's not an exact science. That's because the human brain and body is different for everyone - if the settings of an experiment can never be truly the same, why expect exact, repeatable results? That's the main reason why psychologists operate solely on theories, instead of facts, and why statistics play such important parts.

Sure. We can also talk about the special relativity theory. Although, now we find out that it doesn't work with quantum mechanics. In psychology, statistical 'good enough' is good enough. I like exact sciences better.

^^ see above ^^. Humans aren't exactly pieces of clay that can be sculpted. All of our clay is born a little different than everyone else's clay, so to speak.

I had to take an inexact science course. It was non-negotiable. I thought psychology would work, and it didn't. Philosophy is as much BS, but it doesn't go around trying to explain too much. You don't see philosophers setting up offices to attend to people
Anyways, it was interesting in it's own way. I'm more of an exact science zealot though.

Thanks for relating, although I can't say I agree that psychotherapy is a bad thing. It's hard to measure anything about it accurately, true, but all in all polling suggests that most people benefit greatly from it.

The religion parallel is rather uncanny, and something I never thought of. Good take.

That's why it pisses me off to no end when people remit other people to educate themselves in psychology. I'm also well aware this comes off as a snub on psychology, and pisses psychologists off. Oh well.

I think it's important to at least know the basics of psychology before arguing about it, then lambasting someone else for missing the point. JMO. And it doesn't piss me off, personally, even though I appeal to psychologists' reasoning concerning any argument over human behavior; I think it's a misinformed opinion, but yours to justify how you wish.

[ElNono]

I don't think the two are all that similar. We can't study the nature and behavior of god. We can study the nature and behavior of humans. We can look through their past for reasons why things happen now, and even implant false memories using hypnosis. We can see how chemical balance affects the psyche.

What you do is stimulate and observe reactions. Then try to draw conclusions based on the observation. That's psychological research 101, and it's the most inefficient method of research. Basically, a brute force research. I understand you do it because only now other sciences are getting to the point where you can actually take a look inside the black box. We're still far away from understanding how it all works, but that sheer amount of information and divergence is what makes psychology itself undervalued.
IE: Even if you could implant false memories using hypnosis, you couldn't possibly ascertain that everybody will react the same to them.

We've gone from people burning witches because of possession by the devil to medical drug treatments based on the amount of neurotransmitters like acetylcholine in your brain. I think psychology has much, much evidence to the contrary - not all of its implications are simply descriptive.

Well, the people burning witches were long before psychology existed. And psychiatrists are the ones in charge of medical drug treatments.

[ElNono]

Psychologists, especially recently with the advent of genetic research, form very solid working relationships underlying their theories.

My sister is a bioengineer. It's a painstaking job, but ultimately what will end up either verifying or dispelling a lot of what we think we know about psychology and the human mind and body. But we're just getting our feet wet there.

Of course there is no simple, always verifiable answer concerning the human mind. The mind isn't a tree that, if cut a certain way, will always produce 2x4's.

Well, we can't conclusively say one way or the other. Through observation, it looks like it's not possible for it to be that way. But observation is not conclusive, it's merely 'good enough'.

However, research into the biological aspect of the mind, and stimulation of certain parts of the brain, allows us to decipher what controls what, and how it does that. There will always be the "why" concerning psychology, because humans are capable of choice. Which is why you have humanist-existentialist psychologists. However, the vast amount of research supports what I've said, and is verifiable in that it accurately predicts behavior.

Prediction is a field of statistics. It's as good as Paul the octopus. And it should be taken with a big grain of salt. Otherwise, John Hollinger wouldn't need to write articles for ESPN every week. He would just know how everything will turn out to be.

It's not an exact science. That's because the human brain and body is different for everyone - if the settings of an experiment can never be truly the same, why expect exact, repeatable results? That's the main reason why psychologists operate solely on theories, instead of facts, and why statistics play such important parts.

Then why we should assume that because 92% of a given sample size behave one way, then that should be the ultimate authority on a given theory? especially when external factors normally have huge implications in these very same experiments? The reason they can be temporarily accepted is that as a society we simply can't do better right now, but you simply can't pretend that the result is not a precarious one, and likely either be confirmed or completely dispelled when new research comes along.

Thanks for relating, although I can't say I agree that psychotherapy is a bad thing. It's hard to measure anything about it accurately, true, but all in all polling suggests that most people benefit greatly from it.

I don't think it's all bad. Psychology or psychiatry. Works for some people, doesn't work with another. I'm sure you can guess in which group I'm personally at.

The religion parallel is rather uncanny, and something I never thought of. Good take.

I think it's important to at least know the basics of psychology before arguing about it, then lambasting someone else for missing the point. JMO. And it doesn't piss me off, personally, even though I appeal to psychologists' reasoning concerning any argument over human behavior; I think it's a misinformed opinion, but yours to justify how you wish.

I think that without explaining the 'caveats' (ie: this is the best we know today, even if it might be a bit shaky), you will end up with the same old argument: prove it to me/you can't disprove it.

[MannyIsGod]

Yo manny: how does one ac ulate 35000 posts on a message board then talk about someone else being a loser while holding a straight face?

Well I'll just say this. You know how much you annoy the out of people. For your sake, I hope thats merely an online phenomenon. Only you know if thats the case.

[George Gervin's Afro]

peopel are born gay regardluess of their upbringing..

I am tired of hearing conservative males explaining to me that being gay is a choice and that how you discipline your child is a cause of their sexualtiy. Find me one poll that asks gay people how they became who they are. The conservatives on this board go to text books to explain to us the origins of sexuality all the while ignoring what gay people state to the contrary!

Every gay friend that I have tells me the same thing so my poll is still hovering at 100%....


In the end you ladies are trying to justify your nasty and vulgar at udes. Man up and admit you don't like gay people...there are plenty of people on this board who agree so you will have support..

[CuckingFunt]

Because it's a stupid question that usually doesn't have an answer. Mostly no one can answer, and those very few that can are supremely ed up (IMO). I assume you are supremely ed up.







Untrue.



I can't help you're an idiot. I gladly destroy these misrepresentations of facts you (and others) call arguments.

Pick up a ing psychology text and stop talking out of your ass.



Your opinion is rooted in bull , not facts. Touchy, feely bull . And even when you have addressed the issues - like talking about me bringing up nature and nuture - you've done it in a way that reveals you have no ing clue about what you're discussing.

Time to face the music.

Either you really can't read, or you're being intentionally thick for the sake of dragging out the argument.

[Blake]

I don't see how a child can have a healthy view on the role of genders from sexuals who are engaging in deviant and abnormal behaviour.

define "healthy view" and how a lack of it might keep a child from being a productive member of society

[z0sa]

Either you really can't read, or you're being intentionally thick for the sake of dragging out the argument.

Actually, being an aggressive asshole helps me sleep better at night.

[LnGrrrR]

Absolutly but don't hold your breath.

I know it's off subject but how is that kid of yours. I thought I read somewhere a few weeks/months ago he might need surgery somewhere down the road. Hope everything is going well with the family.

I find it amazing that everyone who says they could easily start liking men absolutely decline to. If it's so easy, why not like men for a day then go back to women? I didn't say it had to be a permanent switch, or that you have to have sex with a man. Just like them for a day or two.

My kid's doing fine, thanks! He's learning to climb on everything... the other day he grabbed this make-shift gate we put up, then lifted himself up by his arms and tried to walk up it! He's insane. And my mother is doing well after her chemo treatments, and looking forward to next March where she comes to visit me here in Honolulu/Pearl Harbor.

How is your family Jack? Doing well I hope?

[LnGrrrR]

52 % cons utes scientific proof, . This is science not a presidential election.

Stay in the Nba Boards.

Your critical thinking skills are atrocious. Absolute garbage, honestly. Do you expect EVERY set of twins to be either gay or straight? Really?

The evidence shows that genetic twins tend to be both gay or straight more often than fraternal twins, and fraternal are both gay or straight more often than adopted twins. In fact, the closer they are genetically, the more likely they're both gay or straight.

You, sir, are an idiot.

[Blake]

Actually, being an aggressive asshole helps me sleep better at night.

you must sleep great

[LnGrrrR]

you must sleep great

[Ignignokt]

Your critical thinking skills are atrocious. Absolute garbage, honestly. Do you expect EVERY set of twins to be either gay or straight? Really?

The evidence shows that genetic twins tend to be both gay or straight more often than fraternal twins, and fraternal are both gay or straight more often than adopted twins. In fact, the closer they are genetically, the more likely they're both gay or straight.

You, sir, are an idiot.

This doesn't prove , you can't prove anything of that kind that has many variables with statistical analysis. If it's genetic then both would have to be gay. You couldn't have identical twins vary if gayness was truly genetic. The fraternal disparity could have many variables. One is that fraternal twins are different and also look entirely different which can cause one parent to favor the other and which could change on how they are treated and nurtured, also. fraternal twins could be both boy and girl.

We don't even know the sex of the twins studied in this study, that can prove to make a big difference. If the fraternal sample had more girl/boy than the identical twin samlple, you can't draw anything.

Identical twins also may recieve different treatment than fraternal twins.

Sorry, LNGGRR, you haven't brought one legitamate argument in this whole thread. You suck hard eggs quite honestly, tbh.

[Ignignokt]

define "healthy view" and how a lack of it might keep a child from being a productive member of society

Being gay is unhealthy, and can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle. Gays are more prevelant than the straight population to contact deadly std's by the very nature of their act.

[LnGrrrR]

Being gay is unhealthy, and can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle.

Define "unhealthy".

Gays are more prevelant than the straight population to contact deadly std's by the very nature of their act.

Really? Explain how being gay, or having gay sex, is more likely to cause STD transmission, if you don't mind.

Being an athelte is rather unhealthy too...have you heard all the stories about ex-NFL players that had concussions? Beter ban football while we're at it!

[LnGrrrR]

This doesn't prove , you can't prove anything of that kind that has many variables with statistical analysis. If it's genetic then both would have to be gay. You couldn't have identical twins vary if gayness was truly genetic. The fraternal disparity could have many variables. One is that fraternal twins are different and also look entirely different which can cause one parent to favor the other and which could change on how they are treated and nurtured, also. fraternal twins could be both boy and girl.

You are an idiot.

The whole point of the study is that both are MORE LIKELY TO BE GAY IF THEY SHARE THE SAME GENETICS.

Do you think people are robots? Even if two people had the exact same genetics, nurture plays a part too. It's just that genetics plays a strong role. Just like if cancer runs in my family, I'm more likely to get it; if a gay gene runs in my family, I might be more likely to be gay.

We don't even know the sex of the twins studied in this study, that can prove to make a big difference. If the fraternal sample had more girl/boy than the identical twin samlple, you can't draw anything.

What difference would that make?

Identical twins also may recieve different treatment than fraternal twins.

And I might find a dollar on the sidewalk today. What's your point? What does "different treatment" have to do with them being more or less likely to be gay?

Sorry, LNGGRR, you haven't brought one legitamate argument in this whole thread. You suck hard eggs quite honestly, tbh.

You're an idiot. Your points are invalid and your logic is poorly formed.

[Blake]

Being gay is unhealthy, and can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle. Gays are more prevelant than the straight population to contact deadly std's by the very nature of their act.

what is your source of information? miamiheat?

what about lesbians? how might being raised by a pair of lesbians keep a child from being a productive member of society?

[CuckingFunt]

what about lesbians? how might being raised by a pair of lesbians keep a child from being a productive member of society?

I'm almost certain the answer to this is dependent upon the attractiveness of the women in question. That's usually an important consideration when bigots discuss gay women.

[z0sa]

Well I'll just say this. You know how much you annoy the out of people. For your sake, I hope thats merely an online phenomenon. Only you know if thats the case.

[Ignignokt]

You are an idiot.

The whole point of the study is that both are MORE LIKELY TO BE GAY IF THEY SHARE THE SAME GENETICS.

Do you think people are robots? Even if two people had the exact same genetics, nurture plays a part too. It's just that genetics plays a strong role. Just like if cancer runs in my family, I'm more likely to get it; if a gay gene runs in my family, I might be more likely to be gay.

You can't make a hypothetical out of something that has not been found or exist and try to pass it off as logical or rational. The gay gene has not been proven.

This study isn't scientific proof of anything, as to which plays a role in sexuality.

We don't know what were the sex of the twins in the study, so you can't take that study seriously.

Half of paternal twin pairs feature opposite sexes so it would not prove anything.

I don't know how you wake up everyday and deal with a moron when looking in the mirror.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't know how you wake up everyday and deal with a moron when looking in the mirror.

you do just fine so it can be done!

[Blake]

You can't make a hypothetical out of something that has not been found or exist and try to pass it off as logical or rational. The gay gene has not been proven.

This study isn't scientific proof of anything, as to which plays a role in sexuality.

We don't know what were the sex of the twins in the study, so you can't take that study seriously.

Half of paternal twin pairs feature opposite sexes so it would not prove anything.

I don't know how you wake up everyday and deal with a moron when looking in the mirror.

how might being raised by a pair of lesbians keep a child from being a productive member of society?