Is there a gay accent in English?
Scientist, Granny also told us to stay out of the sun; we in the 70s ignored her, and now my generation is riddled with skin cancer. She told us that if we wanted to lose weight, watch your carbs; scientists have been telling us for years to cut the fats yet we are collective lard asses, getting fatter with each passing year.
She also told us that smoking was highly addictive, while a 1982 scientific study proved without doubt that nicotine is NOT an addictive substance.
Lets not forget that while Granny did indeed think homosexuality an abomination, the scientific community insisted it was a mental illness until 1974.
This is all beside the point, however. My main beef relies with the vein of superciliousness that runs through the scientific community. Nobody likes a know-it-all, Scientist, and if scientists in general would learn some humility, I believe that people would believe them more often.
If it is ok to deny people employment on the grounds that they are homophobic then surely its just as reasonable to deny them employment on account of being gay.
Or does 'close-minded' only apply to certain people?
Its okay to hate some people but not others?
<<This is all beside the point, however. My main beef relies with the vein of superciliousness that runs through the scientific community. Nobody likes a know-it-all, Scientist, and if scientists in general would learn some humility, I believe that people would believe them more often. >>
Meh, genetics is a hard science.
Or are you claiming to know more about genetics than someone who can clone a pig or who could clone a person if it were allowed? Are you claiming to know more about genetics than someone who can alter life at will? Are you claiming to know more about genetics than someone who has mapped the genome of real animals?
Well, arrogance is not good, but they have more right to be arrogant about it than someone who knows nothing about it and disregards it because it might hurt someone's feelings. There's a difference between a "know-it-all" and a PhD.
"Meh, genetics is a hard science.
Or are you claiming to know more about genetics than someone who can clone a pig or who could clone a person if it were allowed? Are you claiming to know more about genetics than someone who can alter life at will? Are you claiming to know more about genetics than someone who has mapped the genome of real animals? "
I said nothing of the kind. I merely contend that science, being wrong more often than right, is no monolith to which to look for the absolute God-given Universal Truth.
Let's look at scientist's original statement:
"I don't have anything against gays, but from a scientific point of view there is as of yet no evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
Just thought I would point that out, since I see people claim this often without any idea of what 'genetic' actually means."
Now let's parse the words. He says there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. I am reminded of studies done by a Brain Institute which found significant differences in the size of the hypothalmus gland, other studies involving twins showing a very high correlation of shared homosexuality, and still a third study showing a significantly higher correlation between homosexual males and maternal homosexual uncles.
What does all this mean? It means to me that there is at least a tenuous genetic link. So why did Scientist stretch the truth about it? He probably holds some deep-seated resentment against homosexuals, which calls for a psychological assessment.
Let's go further, shall we? There has not been shown, as yet, a genetic marker for alcoholism, schizophrenia, or even the tendency to be religious, but studies have shown a strong tendency for these traits to be inherited.
But Scientist would continue to insist that "there is as of yet no evidence that [insert trait] is genetic. "
I think that that attitude is disingenuous, and this is one reason I have such a beef with scientists. They see what they want to see—and from my point of view, often commit quackery.
My beef with gays is the following:
<<So why did Scientist stretch the truth about it? He probably holds some deep-seated resentment against homosexuals, which calls for a psychological assessment.
I think that that attitude is disingenuous, and this is one reason I have such a beef with scientists. They see what they want to see—and from my point of view, often commit quackery. >>
Answer: ok, yep whatever... so nice day today eh?
Now, let's reword this a little.
<<So why did Gay Person stretch the truth about it? He probably holds some deep-seated resentment against scientists, which calls for a psychological assessment.
I think that that attitude is disingenuous, and this is one reason I have such a beef with gays. They see what they want to see—and from my point of view, often commit quackery. >>
Answer: OH MY GOD YOU'RE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH!
↑ Guest, I admit to not being neutral in my attitude towards scientists, because I have had members of my family harmed by "quack science".
That being said, however, I maintain that scientist's original statement did not reflect a "scientific attitude" on the matter of the genetics of homosexuality. To wit:
"I don't have anything against gays, but from a scientific point of view there is as of yet no evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
Just thought I would point that out, since I see people claim this often without any idea of what 'genetic' actually means."
Now I believe that if he were truly neutral on the subject, he would have worded it something like this:
"Despite some evidence suggesting a tendency for homosexuality to be inherited, a genetic marker for it has not yet been found."
The fact that he did not do this suggests two possibilities:
1. That he really is a homophobe hiding under a cloak of scientific detachment.
2. That he simply does not have the skills of diction to have worded it properly.
Let's give him the benefit of a doubt, shall we?
I choose no. 2.
Maybe it is. Homophobia seems natural in most individuals whereas tolerating homosexuals takes a lot of brainwashing.
Let's collect things that make men to be viewed with suspicion by heterosexual men . For example:
one more cliché
can speak languages much better than straights :-)
Cliches always have some reality in them.
<<The posting made just before "scientist" was the work of an impostor using my name in vain >>
I suppose we should have known as soon as we saw it -- any one line post from Damian is automatically suspect :)
Well, you can take that as a guideline as to the true identity of the poster in this sadly) anonymous forum.
I have been a victim of impostors before in this Forum and, yes, you are correct - the brevity of the fraudulent posts and the use of Americanisms gives anyone interested a clue which can be taken as wholly sufficient to deduce that any such postings did not come from the Scot in Edinburgh, Scotland, who was genuinely sprinkled with the holy water at the font as he was granted the name of Damian.
Genetic? There is no cast iron undisputed evidence that it is NOT genetic. I really, really am finished with this whole tiresome business now....I've said my piece and put my case forward and that's it now...end of. I really can't believe that this thread has run for as long as it has.....there are far, far, far more serious issues in this world and I suggest that all heterosexual people focus on topics that really don't concern them instead of getting all fashed and worked up about people's sexual orientation (well, that of men in particular - paradoxically. and by definition hypocritically, homophobic heterosexual men indulge in double standards when it comes to lesbians.
***...any one line post from Damian is automatically suspect :)***
Well, you can take that as a guideline as to the true identity of the poster in this (sadly) anonymous forum.
I have been a victim of impostors before in this Forum and, yes, you are correct - the brevity of the fraudulent post and the use of Americanisms gives anyone who is interested a clue which can be taken to be sufficient to deduce that it is not the Scot in Edinburgh who was genuinely sprinkled with the holy water at the font and granted the name of Damian.
Accidentally I posted the response to bubbus twice - I didn't intend to but I suppose it emphasises what I said about those wastrels in here.
Armada Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:28 am GMT
Maybe it is. Homophobia seems natural in most individuals whereas tolerating homosexuals takes a lot of brainwashing.
===================
Homophobia seems not just NATURAL in most individuals, but also UNIVERSAL in ALL cultures!
You cud hardly find any religion or culture that tolerates homosexuality!If you know one, plz let us know!
Wud someone plz give a reasonable reason on this phenomenon, if you agree to my generalization?