TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:You have a lot of reading to do. People's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain before birth.

Yes, it is, as determined by whether or not there exist two X chromosomes, or an X and a Y chromosome. Science is very much still undecided on the two issues of whether or not A) same sex attraction results from a "gay gene;" and/or B) same sex attraction results from some as yet unknown environmental factors in the womb. The former has been largely debunked by the Human Genome Project, which has never been able to positively identify any "gay gene" or a "gay gene combination." In Utero factors remain a possible hypothesis, but they also remain unproven at this point.

That is the problem when social engineers try to base their engineering on allegedly hard science. They reverse the scientific process. They propose a social paradigm, and then they propose scientific hypotheses to support the paradigm. Then they preach the scientific hypotheses as "accepted scientific concensus," when there is no such thing. In the process, Science is diminished as a respected and reliable institution. The recent Global Warming flap is a perfect illustration of this principle. As it turns out, the chicken littles were grasping at "scientific" straws to keep their social engineering cause afloat. They even went so far as to try and destroy the careers of legitimate and impartial scientists for daring to propose, or to even study, the possibility of alternative explanations to the politically correct orthodoxy. And for those most ardent supporters of that tactic, their reputations and intelligence are forever tarnished. Worse yet, academia is revealed to be a fraud, not the least bit interested in furthering human knowledge; but rather dedicated to bending its every branch to the cause of social engineering - be that in the arts, the humanities, or the sciences. THAT is directly the sad result of attempting to use junk science to support social engineering. Even the current administration, made up of the most vile kind of spin doctors and dissemblers, has changed the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Disruption" because they can't prove the former, and yet they can't let go of using it as a political cudgel to force through social engineering programs. It's just damned dishonest.

The cause of equal rights for homosexuals is far more defensible on grounds of fair play, justice, and common human decency. You don't need to drag phony science into the equation in order to make an argument for those things. They eloquently stand on their own, and they need no false science in their corner. Can we not agree to leave junk science out of it? Any argument for or against DADT out to be made on that basis, because fair play, justice, and common human decency arise out of eternal truths. Science, as it turns out, is no longer any more trustworthy as a social institution than Interpretive Dance.

The cause of equal rights for homosexuals is far more defensible on grounds of fair play, justice, and common human decency. You don't need to drag phony science into the equation in order to make an argument for those things. They eloquently stand on their own, and they need no false science in their corner. Can we not agree to leave junk science out of it? Any argument for or against DADT out to be made on that basis, because fair play, justice, and common human decency arise out of eternal truths. Science, as it turns out, is no longer any more trustworthy as a social institution than Interpretive Dance.

TAM, I have to agree completely with your first sentence.

In my 24 years of Military service I came across Gays that were open and blatant, open and not blatant, and those that I thought might be gay but never did anything overt to suggest that they were.
Those that were open and blatant almost invariably did something that violated the UCMJ (and not the vague articles of the UCMJ), and were consequently punished under that same justice system and discharged. In my mind that is how it is supposed to work.
The rest generally did what the rest of the heterosexual segment of the Military did, and that was their mission.

bdickens wrote:

b322da wrote:

bdickens wrote:One can not choose to be gay or not.

Regrettably, BD, notwithstanding the medical and psychological evidence to the contrary, some of our politicians, bless their souls, still deny this, and to make it even worse, the denial is often phrased in Biblical terms.

Example: I hope I will be forgiven for to some extent merging two active threads, and point out that Christine O'Donnell, when faced with the truth, has not as yet denied that she said in a 2006 interview: "People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-l ... ays_s.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After the Senate's action, or inaction, today, it may be a long time before DADT goes up on the Hill again. As I have said before, if both the Administration and the Congress punts, we are only left with one branch of our government to act responsibly.

Elmo

You have a lot of reading to do. People's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain before birth.

Bryan, do you mean that I have to do some reading? Let me assure you that you and I have no apparent difference of opinion. Either I misunderstand you, or you misunderstood me. Either way I must humbly accept my responsibility for the misunderstanding.

In the post you quote above, I was not reciting my views; I was reciting the views of some of our ignorant and prejudiced politicians, and as an example I quoted Christine O'Donnell.

I then went on to suggest that the only line of attack against DADT right now appears to be through the federal courts. I should have hastened to add that I do not have a lot of faith in this approach succeeding in today's climate. Sitting at the top is Chief Justice Roberts' SCOTUS. Its record so far could almost guarantee that the 9th Circuit's approach would be DOA. The new justice just appointed will not substantially, in my opinion, change the political structure of this very political Court.

Take a look at this article in the Times this morning. It makes the very good point that it may be a very bad mistake for opponents of DADT to push it through the federal courts now. They would be quite likely to get a decision which would lock DADT in for a very long time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/us/22legal.html?hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again, sorry for the apparent misunderstanding.

Elmo

I apologize as well. It seems as though we misread each other completely.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bdickens wrote:You have a lot of reading to do. People's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain before birth.

Yes, it is, as determined by whether or not there exist two X chromosomes, or an X and a Y chromosome. Science is very much still undecided on the two issues of whether or not A) same sex attraction results from a "gay gene;" and/or B) same sex attraction results from some as yet unknown environmental factors in the womb. The former has been largely debunked by the Human Genome Project, which has never been able to positively identify any "gay gene" or a "gay gene combination." In Utero factors remain a possible hypothesis, but they also remain unproven at this point.

Uh...

http://www.simonlevay.com/the-biology-o ... rientation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.simonlevay.com/research-publ ... ects=0&d=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/biology_sexual_orientation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.salon.com/news/environment/m ... _neurology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7 ... ntent;col1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It ain't chromosones.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The cause of equal rights for homosexuals is far more defensible on grounds of fair play, justice, and common human decency. You don't need to drag phony science into the equation in order to make an argument for those things. They eloquently stand on their own, and they need no false science in their corner. Can we not agree to leave junk science out of it? Any argument for or against DADT out to be made on that basis, because fair play, justice, and common human decency arise out of eternal truths. Science, as it turns out, is no longer any more trustworthy as a social institution than Interpretive Dance.

Of course, I have to agree with you on principle here.

However, scientific studies on neurobiology are not the junk science that AlGore and the ManmadeGlobalWarming® crowd commisions to bolster their financial scams.

bdickens wrote:You have a lot of reading to do. People's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain before birth.

It seems you are the one that has a lot of reading to do. The jury is still out on whether or not homosexuality is a genomal trait, an environmentally influenced trait, a hormonal influcence, a combination of the three or something else entirely.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bdickens wrote:You have a lot of reading to do. People's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain before birth.

Yes, it is, as determined by whether or not there exist two X chromosomes, or an X and a Y chromosome. Science is very much still undecided on the two issues of whether or not A) same sex attraction results from a "gay gene;" and/or B) same sex attraction results from some as yet unknown environmental factors in the womb. The former has been largely debunked by the Human Genome Project, which has never been able to positively identify any "gay gene" or a "gay gene combination." In Utero factors remain a possible hypothesis, but they also remain unproven at this point.

That is the problem when social engineers try to base their engineering on allegedly hard science. They reverse the scientific process. They propose a social paradigm, and then they propose scientific hypotheses to support the paradigm. Then they preach the scientific hypotheses as "accepted scientific concensus," when there is no such thing. In the process, Science is diminished as a respected and reliable institution. The recent Global Warming flap is a perfect illustration of this principle. As it turns out, the chicken littles were grasping at "scientific" straws to keep their social engineering cause afloat. They even went so far as to try and destroy the careers of legitimate and impartial scientists for daring to propose, or to even study, the possibility of alternative explanations to the politically correct orthodoxy. And for those most ardent supporters of that tactic, their reputations and intelligence are forever tarnished. Worse yet, academia is revealed to be a fraud, not the least bit interested in furthering human knowledge; but rather dedicated to bending its every branch to the cause of social engineering - be that in the arts, the humanities, or the sciences. THAT is directly the sad result of attempting to use junk science to support social engineering. Even the current administration, made up of the most vile kind of spin doctors and dissemblers, has changed the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Disruption" because they can't prove the former, and yet they can't let go of using it as a political cudgel to force through social engineering programs. It's just damned dishonest.

The cause of equal rights for homosexuals is far more defensible on grounds of fair play, justice, and common human decency. You don't need to drag phony science into the equation in order to make an argument for those things. They eloquently stand on their own, and they need no false science in their corner. Can we not agree to leave junk science out of it? Any argument for or against DADT out to be made on that basis, because fair play, justice, and common human decency arise out of eternal truths. Science, as it turns out, is no longer any more trustworthy as a social institution than Interpretive Dance.

baldeagle wrote:

bdickens wrote:You have a lot of reading to do. People's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain before birth.

It seems you are the one that has a lot of reading to do. The jury is still out on whether or not homosexuality is a genomal trait, an environmentally influenced trait, a hormonal influcence, a combination of the three or something else entirely.

College professors do not allow their students to use encyclopedias as a source.

Why?

bdickens wrote:However, scientific studies on neurobiology are not the junk science that AlGore and the ManmadeGlobalWarming® crowd commisions to bolster their financial scams.

You're missing my point. You assert that sexual preference is hard-wired into the brain, and you give several links to support the assertion. I'm not going to take the time to do so, but I could probably easily find an equal number of links, from equally respected scientific sources, which would assert something different.

But let's say for argument's sake that you are correct that preference is hard-wired at birth. If that's true, then it starts somewhere. If it's true at birth, then it can have only one of two possible etiologies - either genetic, or environmental. "Genetic" implies either a gay gene, or a gay combination of genes; and "environmental" means intra-uterine factors during pregnancy. I suppose you could argue a combination of genetics and environment - but that would be even more difficult to prove.

But the fact is that it is not settled science. It might not be junk science, but it isn't settled science either. So the best argument are still based on the notion that gays are human, and enlightened humans practice fair-play, justice, and common human decency.

However, those are values that cut both ways, and different parties to the public discussion may have competing interests. Therefore, compromises are the method by which we learn to live with one another while still managing to treat equitably with one another. DADT is one such compromise. It may not be the ideal compromise, and maybe a better one can be worked out. But it IS an attempt at compromise.

bdickens wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

bdickens wrote:You have a lot of reading to do. People's sexual preferences are hardwired into the brain before birth.

It seems you are the one that has a lot of reading to do. The jury is still out on whether or not homosexuality is a genomal trait, an environmentally influenced trait, a hormonal influcence, a combination of the three or something else entirely.

College professors do not allow their students to use encyclopedias as a source.

Why?

It's been a while since I was in school, but back in my day, encyclopedias were considered perfectly fine reference sources. What is your experience with not allowing them now?

The only prohibition I've heard is not allowing online e-cyclopedias like Wikipedia. Even that is controversial since Wiki had a third-party, controlled and peer-reviewed study in which it came out about the same as Encyclopedia Brittanica for reliability.

Despite my age, I didn't get my Undergrad until 1999 and MBA until 2007. All of my Prof's were adamantly against using Encyclopedias as any sort of reference.

Purplehood wrote:Despite my age, I didn't get my Undergrad until 1999 and MBA until 2007. All of my Prof's were adamantly against using Encyclopedias as any sort of reference.

I certainly would drink to that, Purplehood, and I have on occasion had to enforce a similar rule. Most encyclopedias, be they in cyberspace or DTBs, are the results of someone's research other than you. I hesitate to call the citation of encyclopedias plagiarism, but they are not a very good example of independent research.

I will say this in defense of Wikipedia. Original citations are solicited, but on the other hand they are not required.

PS: Congratulations on your pursuit of higher education. You prove it can be done, and, I suspect, you prove the value of the current GI Bill?

Elmo

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bdickens wrote:However, scientific studies on neurobiology are not the junk science that AlGore and the ManmadeGlobalWarming® crowd commisions to bolster their financial scams.

You're missing my point. You assert that sexual preference is hard-wired into the brain, and you give several links to support the assertion. I'm not going to take the time to do so, but I could probably easily find an equal number of links, from equally respected scientific sources, which would assert something different.

But let's say for argument's sake that you are correct that preference is hard-wired at birth. If that's true, then it starts somewhere. If it's true at birth, then it can have only one of two possible etiologies - either genetic, or environmental. "Genetic" implies either a gay gene, or a gay combination of genes; and "environmental" means intra-uterine factors during pregnancy. I suppose you could argue a combination of genetics and environment - but that would be even more difficult to prove.

But the fact is that it is not settled science. It might not be junk science, but it isn't settled science either. So the best argument are still based on the notion that gays are human, and enlightened humans practice fair-play, justice, and common human decency.

However, those are values that cut both ways, and different parties to the public discussion may have competing interests. Therefore, compromises are the method by which we learn to live with one another while still managing to treat equitably with one another. DADT is one such compromise. It may not be the ideal compromise, and maybe a better one can be worked out. But it IS an attempt at compromise.

Some people think that evolution is not settled science either. There is an enormous amount of evidence supporting the theory that sexual orientation is neurobiological in nature. And yes, it is a theory and not a hypothesis.

Medical imaging studies have demonstrated significant differences in the hypothalamus of males vs. females and straight vs. homosexuals. The hypothalamus of gay men more closely resembles that of women and that of lesbians more closely resembles that of men.

Aditionally, the right hemisphere of the cerebral cortex is slightly larger than the left in men, whereas in women the two hemispheres are the same size. However, in homosexuals it is the opposite.

Yes, I am aware that there are criticisms of those studies, and I am aware that it is not yet "settled science," but failing to prove a theory is not the same as disproving it. Trying to argue so is argumentum ad ignorantiam. The theory that ADHD is caused by a defficiency in either the production or reception of Dopamine and Serotonin is not "settled science" either but that does not change the fact that certain stimulants and antidepressants that increase the production of those neurotransmitters are extremely effective in treating many ADHD patients.

The Human Genome Project failed to discover a so-called "gay gene" and to claim that proves that homosexuality is not genetic is a gross oversimplification. The Human brain is far more complex than will likely ever be known in our lifetime and most human behaviors are governed by a whole host of interrelated causes.

I think, though, we actually agree in substance on at least the desired end result if not the justifications. And that is that all people be treated with dignity and respect and be afforded the same rights and opportunities as anyone else.

bdickens wrote:Yes, I am aware that there are criticisms of those studies, and I am aware that it is not yet "settled science," but failing to prove a theory is not the same as disproving it. Trying to argue so is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You're right, I mixed up my terminology in theory v. hypothesis. My brain doesn't work like it used to could. That said, offering a theory as truth because it possibly explains something is Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument), an argument based on a theory, stated as a truth, which truth is supported by the theory, and doesn't work either.... ....which is one reason why Evolutionary theory is not any kind of final authority on the origin of species. We could play this game forever, or we could simply move on and agree that fair-play, justice, and common human decency are the best arbiters of what is right in public discourse, and admit that all sides of an argument are equity holders in the outcome. If so, then all sides deserve consideration of their stake in any equitable outcome. This automatically implies compromise. The only areas in which there can be no compromise - other than as a temporary condition on the road to full recognition - are in the protection of constitutional rights.

I don't find a constitutional right to serve in the military. One can argue duty or obligation on social or moral grounds, and certainly it is an admirable thing to do, but I don't see specifically where it is an enumerated right. Can you show me if it is there?

b322da wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Despite my age, I didn't get my Undergrad until 1999 and MBA until 2007. All of my Prof's were adamantly against using Encyclopedias as any sort of reference.

I certainly would drink to that, Purplehood, and I have on occasion had to enforce a similar rule. Most encyclopedias, be they in cyberspace or DTBs, are the results of someone's research other than you. I hesitate to call the citation of encyclopedias plagiarism, but they are not a very good example of independent research.

I will say this in defense of Wikipedia. Original citations are solicited, but on the other hand they are not required.

PS: Congratulations on your pursuit of higher education. You prove it can be done, and, I suspect, you prove the value of the current GI Bill?

Elmo

GI Bill for Undergrad
My Employer for MBA

TAM, I don't see why we would deny the right to serve to any individual that does not violate the articles of the UCMJ.