CC –
Apparently, Tim, you don't pay attention to modern research. This does not surprise me, especially when that modern research negatively affects your position. This is known as "confirmation bias" a logical fallacy of which you often suffer.
Here you go, Tim:
Identical Twins' DNA Varies | LiveScience
You are debunked. How many times does this now make it that I have done so with you? 100?
Ah again you are way too far ahead of yourself, and you talk to me about confirmation bias.. The study on twins is precisely why you should not be so quick to make false statements. The differences are so tiny and localized that in studying twins one gay the other not gay researchers should have found that mythical gay gene easily by now. But alas, not to be seen anywhere. It is certainly promising research, research by the way that I was well aware of before you brought it up, but gene expression is a relatively new science and understanding the mechanics is not well understood. That said, I truly believe that there are genes that set up the sexual mechanism in both men and women, but I fear that going beyond the hardware, science is lost as to how to explain it. You MUST agree with this, or you’re dishonest, or you’re simply not well informed.
Actually, quite easy. You shouldn't have stuck your nose in here. You just got on the standard "CC humiliates his opponents" train.
I see why you and AGENTJ are such good buddies. You’re practically identical twins yourselves. I wonder where the narcissist genes are in you two and how they expressed themselves over time. Would make for an interesting research path.. Ah, but that would be neuropsychology not the soft kind you seem to adhere to.
See, Tim, this just shows that you don't even understand the study at all. I have thoroughly debunked you each and every time we have discussed this issue. Easy, too. Between demonstrating both the rationale and the validity of Hooker's study and quoting people who were at the 1973 meeting where the science of sexual orientation was presented, you have always proven to have nothing to refute me.
Always good to see you on the train.
Umm, but I linked to a PBS documentary series that shows that you are indeed wrong, -or- giving you the benefit of doubt, at the very least providing your opinion of how the events unfolded. Clearly listening to that PBS interview series one could conclude that Hookers self-selected study of 25 or so homosexuals that were perfectly fine with their homosexuality wasn’t science, it was an agenda with the goal of reaching a desired outcome. The research up until that point was clearly about homosexuals that did not feel all hunky dory with their
homophobia, or why else would they seek psychological assistance? I know, I know, I used homophobia in the correct context and historically correct definition, not the rhetorical one re-defined by the gay movement.
And for anyone truly interested in knowing how and why homosexuality was removed as a disorder, you can read my treatment of the issue, supplied with links and references. If I were you, I would ignore the fiction that is in the link that Tim provided. Most of the participants are people who's integrity on this issue have been thoroughly debunked. I mean really, Tim... Bieber? His study was completely debunked and is worthless. Socarides? Virtulant anti-gay bigot. Sure... no bias there. I always enjoy your links, Tim. They should be placed in the fantasy section of the internet.
Here are links to my treatment of the declassifying of homosexuality. It is filled with history and describes what actually happened from the people there:
Baloney.. The PBS documentary was conducted by the granddaughter of the then closet gay president of the APA.. It doesn’t get any more unbiased than that. And as far as Bieber is concerned, he is only debunked by the very organization that he was once the renowned expert on homosexuality. He continues to this day to believe that homosexuals suffering from homophobia do need help. A position that I also share, even if at the time homosexuals come seeking that help, their brains have already wired their sexuality in, and undoing it would be extremely difficult. If you think my link was hogwash then why don’t you point out exactly what was
inaccurate about it?
Suggestion, Bronson. NEVER use any of Tim's links to support your position. I regularly make a mockery of what he posts and of every link he provides. Unless you want me to do the same thing to you, avoid them at all costs.
Bronson doesn’t need me to tell him about who you are. That is well documented. A lot of puffery as usual, CC, but no actual substance, no debunking except in your mind, and those that know you well know what kind of mind that really is.
Tim-