Homosexuality as referenced by Conservapedia
 

Now, far be it from me to applaud the site, but I have found it useful. They're directly challenging one of my longer-held beliefs with quite a bit of evidence backing them up. Link Here. I've long been told that there is a lot of evidence for biological roots of homosexuality, but there's a lot of evidence denigrating that viewpoint here. Anyone see any scientific flaws in their reasoning?

All that article does is try to connect homosexuality with every other thing people don't like. Smoking, Drug use, cancer, aids, obesity...

I don't care if they present the best theory of the causes of homosexuality ever, I wouldn't take it seriously due to the rest of the nonsense on that site. Personally, I don't care what makes a person gay, if someone wants to go find a real cure in the genes that's their choice, but it's also the person's choice if they really wanna take a cure if there ever was one. Anyone claiming to be "cured" by jesus or anyone else is a lying son of a bitch.

I'm not talking about 90% of the article, just the part on the causes of homosexuality. I don't care what makes someone gay: I think it's a totally fine orientation regardless. But I am just curious on whether this research is valid.

Did you look at all the footnotes at the end? I'm digging through them at the moment.

See, this is what I don't know to do. Thanks for doing that =).

I don't know about the research, but if there is a biological source in homosexuality, I can see the benefits of knowing more about it down the road. It will help social workers, educators, parents, and counsellors, etc., detect homosexuality in children at a young age so that they can treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve rather than mistakenly try to "fix" their behaviour. It will also help figure out certain interrelationships between these children and their peers, which will help with conflict resolution and other issues.

On the other hand, if homosexuality is partly (or wholly :rolleyes:) environmentally and socially formed, we can use this information to help those who aren't certain of their sexuality. Ideally, it would help us determine the real reasons behind our sexual activity. Sexual habits of any kind can be a result of trauma and abuse; I don't see why homosexuality has to be isolated from the rest. For the record, I don't believe homosexuality is a choice. But that's not to say homosexual desires cannot be triggered by certain events. Whether the experience or feelings are positive or negative depends on the individual context. Homosexuality in itself isn't negative (as these conservatives would have you believe), just as heterosexuality isn't in itself positive. It's the relationships formed around the parties who are involved in either that matter--and many of us know, relationships can very well be positive or negative.

Does it say anything about the apparent predisposition of homosexuals to become conservative congressmen?

I'd like to point out that this website appears to be a wiki. On sites like that, anyone who wants can log in and add content to a page (no facts or proof required). That's issue 1.

The second problem I have is that this organization already knows the answers they want so they'll go out and find the information to back it up, even if that's only 1/3 of the information out there.

Then from a scientific standpoint, none of the research they cite proves anything. Sure, some of it indicates a link between two concepts but it doesn't provide any real insight into what those links are.

Rule #1 for verifying the accuracy of information reported is to check the sources cited. If there are no sources cited, consider the information suspect and/or irrelevant until further notice.

This is part of the reason why wikipedia has such strict policies regarding sourcing information.

I also noticed this:

...



Commence thread derailment.

It's basically a pile of steaming crap.

Cadre: It's actually NOT a wiki, which is what makes it WORSE. Wikipedia, despite being a wiki, is one of the foremost sites in the world for accurate information (especially on important or obscure topics). The important topics are absolutely impossible to vandalize with tens of thousands of watchdogs on the prowl at any time of day, and the obscure topics (like medical information and whathaveyou) just aren't likely to be vandalized (they're more likely to be noticed wrong by an expert and corrected). It's not perfect (there are some vandals who are very sneaky) but it's surpassed anyone's expectations of accuracy.

The BAD thing about Conservapedia is that you must register for an account. They keep tabs on everyone to make sure they're not adding any 'liberal propaganda' to their site. Wikipedia may have a -slight- liberal bias, but Conservapedia's bias is so far to the right it's not even funny.

@Martian: They had plenty of sources cited. I just can't tell the difference between a peer-reviewed study and one they ran their own.

I disagree with the notion that wikis of any type are a source of reliable and truthful information.

The Wookiepedia seems to have reliable information about Star Wars... :orly:

I had read some theories. We cant completely reject them. But we need to closely observe until they are clearly proved. It said if there are to many male children in a family the younger ones are prone to homosexuality.

But I strongly beleive that the genetic reason can only be a subset even if it is true.

In recent times I had learnt to be neutral towards peoples' sexual orientation.

Not long ago a danish documentary aired here in Sweden about the biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. There were several top neurologists and brain chemistry specialists that detected a distinct difference in the hypothalamus reactions to sexual stimuli between homo and hetro people using continuous MRI scans. There is a small biological difference which means it is definitely not a choice to be homo or hetro. But why it occurs they haven't been able to tell yet.

Wish I could remember any of the doctors names so I could do a search on them and their studies..

As a pedantic note, a small biological difference does not mean the individual does not have a choice. It may influence a choice, or it may dictate it. Without further study, it's hard to say.

I don't pretend to know why people are gay. I also don't pretend to care. Whatever turns your windmill, I always say.

Some time ago there was a lesbian TFP member named Gilda who had done extensive research on the question of whether homosexuality was biological or psychological. She posted quite a few links to legitimate, reliable studies which presented strong evidence for, especially male homosexuality, having to do with certain conditions or changes while a fetus is in vitro. I'm not sure how much luck you'd have trying to track down her posts, since it's probably been several years since she made them, but you might take a stab at it.

Edit: Also, nothing on Conservapedia is reliable or scientifically peer reviewed by anyone you'd want to have reviewing anything. It has an agenda, and it's out to prove its agenda however it can. Read it as a parody or a view into another world, not for the information it contains.

It was the conclusion the neurologists took after interpreting their evidence, gay people released different levels of signal substances when confronted with hetro sexual material than straight people did. Meaning they don't have a choice in the matter, no matter how hard you try you won't be able to control what your hypothalamus does. It's lodged so deep into our more primitive brain functions that we have no conscious control over it. The only way to affect it is either psychosomatically or through drugs.

Still trying to find a backlog as to what the program was called so I can give some more viable links to their studies...

I dont' think Conservapedia can be a factual source for any information. The mission of the website is not to show things as they are but as a conservative person would like them to be.

Hence why I was quite happy to hear from onesnowyowl denouncing the studies ^^.

Check out the footnotes for the "science" section. They simply do not pass the sniff test.

One site is supposedly "Exposing the Myth of Evolution", another declares a mission "to protect and promote Biblical values among all citizens - first through prayer, then education, and finally by influencing our society - thereby reversing the decline in moral values in our nation." The other links in the section...dead.

Homosexuality may or may not be genetically based. I suspect most reputable experts would agree the question is still unresolved. The pseudo-science on this site does not help further an open-minded and honest discussion of the issue.

No. It's a handy little reference to get anecdotal information on a topic, or a place to get you turned on to REAL research (which a Wiki is not), but I can guarantee you that you cannot get away with using any Wiki as a valid source on a college paper, or any kind of professional writing, for that matter. Don't try it.

I don't think any of this information would even get accepted for review by a peer reviewed journal. Anything that presents such a clear bias is usually turned down.

+1 Some professors will give you a F on the paper for trying to use a wiki as a source. If you want basic information, wikis aren't bad but they're not a place for in depth research.

It is a good jumping off point sometimes, though--the good articles on Wikipedia have good footnotes, and those footnotes can give a person a good starting place. But it's all in the quality of the citations.

And Conservapedia's citations are a joke.

Abaya and Cadre: I agree that a wiki is a good place to start for research. But what about a Wiki created with original research? I participated in a class based entirely on building a collaborative research Wiki, and we would like it to be considered a rich source of anthropological information one day. Yes, quite a few of our pages reference "real" sources, but a lot of them are also built with original research. What happens there?

you have to treat wikipedia as you'd treat any information--critically.
the artificial rhetoric of authority in an encyclopedia in the old-school mode is if anything less reliable than is a source that requires you treat it with distance.
and no-one relies on an encyclopedia for actual research--not once you're past 8th grade anyway--they're a tool--a starting point. they can be fun to read, like long and strangely organized novels, too.

i've taught for a long time in university--i wouldn't fail a student for using a wikipedia source as PART of what they were doing--but i'd fail anyone for using any source without thinking about it. uncritical acceptance of information is laziness, nothing more nothing less.

conservapedia doesn't seem worth the trouble to engage with at all.
it is a joke.

Yeah, a wiki is basically encyclopedia 2.0.

@abaya: Because of it's fluid and exploitable nature, no, a Wiki is not a valid source for citing. This does not mean that it's information is not accurate. For example, if I was to write a paper and cite Wikipedia, I could -change it to say whatever I wanted-. I have a vested interest, and it only has to be that way momentarily (if it's reverted later, which it probably will be, it doesn't matter). However, if you're using it as a source of information, it's extremely accurate: you have no vested interest in changing the information.

Wikipedia has passed every accuracy test it's been put through with flying colors, and has far more depth and breadth of information than any other source. Are there things wrong with it? Yep...and they're fixed immediately upon discovery.

And in terms of REAL research: Wikipedia is expressly NOT a place for original research. They just report the findings of others.

@merleniau: A personal wiki can be whatever you want, and collaborative research efforts are usually phenomenally successful. It's not a Wikipedia though: Wikipedia distances itself from that by forbidding any and all original research in its pages.

check out the talk page for the article. i think it speaks volumes about the article. had a poke through references myself and i found 2 legit references and the others were just anecdotal stories some of which didn´t even include the author´s name!