It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Slimming pills can make an embryo gay, says research

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Well first of all I don't "think" being gay is not a choice, I know it for sure, since I have a sister who almost comitted suicide because of this.

I am not sure about what God really thinks about gay people having sex. I do know God created sex for every human being, and I also know gay people did not choose to become attracted to their own gender.

So if that part in leviticus would not be there, I would say God is okay with gay people having a sexual relationship.
But because that part in leviticus IS there, it makes me question not only wether THAT part of the bible applies to the here and now, but the same for others parts from the bible as well.

I realize that christians are not supposed to all create their own little version of the bible that let's them do the things THEY want, but it seems obvious that some rules and regulations in the bible should be seen in the context of that time and culture.

So in the end, I don't know.

;+)




posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Well first of all I don't "think" being gay is not a choice, I know it for sure, since I have a sister who almost comitted suicide because of this.

With all due to respect to your sister and her situation, no one is disputing whether or not your sister is biologically gay. I have a similar anecdotal incidence of homosexual behavior not being a choice in someone's life in my family that I shared in your other thread on this topic. And you may know that your sister is gay biologically, you certainly cannot know this in all cases of homosexual behavior. I know several people that appear to have 'chosen' homosexuality over heterosexuality. How does this threaten the case of your sister, or my cousin for that matter?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
In regard to Levictus, there is another way to interpret the doctrine, as this one seems to be a big part of the 'problem'.

In ancient times, the policy of male rape was used to demean and debase your defeated enemies, and a male raping a male was one of the most offensive practices around at the time, because it reduced the victim to a 'woman', or a non-person. Therefore, it was offensive, not because of homosexuality, but because it was an abuse of power and was used to degrade others.

Of course, this is only one way of looking at it, there are many interpretations. But I do agree that it is important to look at the Bible in reference to the time it was written in, and that is why I like this explanation.

Because if God hates homosexuals, then I'm not a big fan of God. Tolerance is for everyone, not just those we agree with.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The American Psychological Association's prestigious journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice has published a comprehensive research paper on sexual-orientation change. Clients have the right to pursue change, the author says, because "sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging trait, is actually quite flexible for some people."

An article by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays," was published in the June 2002 issue of the American Psychological Association's publication Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.

In professional circles, the debate over the development of sexual orientation centers around two viewpoints. The more prevalent of these, known as the essentialist view, argues that sexual orientation is innate, "in-born," and therefore not subject to change. The APA has supported this view, and therefore has influenced the approach many mental-health practitioners currently take.

The second, and less accepted viewpoint, known as the contructionist perspective, posits that sexual orientation is a socially-constructed product of a client's life experiences and can therefore be modified; people who modify orientation through counseling are known as "ex-gays."

Throckmorton's research presents data consistent with this latter view.
Throckmorton's article summarizes the experiences of thousands of individuals who believe their sexuality has changed as a result of reorientation ministries and counseling.

So... since I found this scientific study that suggests sexual orientation isn't innate, and can in fact be changed, does it make it so?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Not really matt.

This is exactly what a lot of people want gay people to believe.
If you spend enough money on therapy, medicine, anything there is a chance you may change your sexual orientation.
What this research probably does not tell is that just like trauma can damage a person sexually, most of these "become straight" therapy programs come down to inflicting trauma on gay people, in the hope it will somehow make them straight.

I know a lot of "ex gay" people who are really still gay, but told their families (mostly christian families) that they somehow magicly became straight.

I do not really believe that the "thousands of happy ex-gay people" are a very good source to base a research on.
Besides coming out there is also the option of jumping back into the closet, with such info going around, and a LOT of gay people are taking their chance.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Fact of the matter is, with enough medication, you can go through life not needing anyone or thing. This type of modification though is denying yourself as a person. See Pink Floyd's The Wall.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Not really matt


I know a lot of "ex gay" people who are really still gay, but told their families (mostly christian families) that they somehow magicly became straight.

So now, somehow, anectdotal evidence becomes more reliable than scientific evidence? Please elaborate.


I do not really believe that the "thousands of happy ex-gay people" are a very good source to base a research on.

So if you were going to do a study on homosexual reversion therapy or whatever, who would you target... miserable straight people? Furthermore, you are suddenly questioning the process of scientific peer review that you wholeheartedly support in this thread and the other. Suddenly, despite the fact that this article appeared in a peer-reviewed publication, you want to cry foul on the methods? So the people who review this journal are somehow less qualified to make opinions about which methods are valid and which are not than the source of your articles, or you yourself? Please elaborate.

You've not even read the actual article (assuming since I didn't post the link), and yet you feel qualified to comment on the methods? That doesn't sound very objective to me. It would appear that this research is only invalid to you because it doesn't support your particular set of presupposed beliefs. If I am wrong, please elaborate on the above points.


Besides coming out there is also the option of jumping back into the closet, with such info going around, and a LOT of gay people are taking their chance.

Not sure what the point of this statement was.

[edit on 17-2-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Okay my point was that your research is based on people claiming they once were gay and turned straight.
I am not sure how they got all these people to say this, but I am quite sure there are a lot (quite a few more than a few thousand) ex-gay people in this world that are really still gay, they just used the chance they got to be able to get back into the closet.

Now I am not saying miracles don't happen, I think God can make a gay person straight. But I think this is just as big and rare as God fixing someone up who is in a wheelchair.
It's a huge miracle.

I do not think therapy can make gay people straight, and based on a lot of peoples stories I think that therapy that tries to make gay people straight, can actually damage those gay people a lot, just like therapy to make straight people gay would damage those straight people.

To me it's 100% sure it's a biological thing, not genetic, biologic.
It's like trying to make someone who likes vanilla ice, hate vanilla ice.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Okay my point was that your research is based on people claiming they once were gay and turned straight.

Well, it's not my personal research. Nor am I suggesting that this study IS conclusive where the one you cited isn't. I merely offered this in juxtaposition to the studies that you keep mentioning that for some reason are conclusive proof of biological homosexual origins. Did you actually read the STUDY? I am not talking about the news article, or my personal spin on it, but the actual study? That would be a good place to start. You wouldn't have to make statements like the following:

I am not sure how they got all these people to say this,

You needn't plead ignorance... look it up and read it if you're really interested.

but I am quite sure there are a lot (quite a few more than a few thousand) ex-gay people in this world that are really still gay, they just used the chance they got to be able to get back into the closet.

So again... somehow your perception of the methods is somehow more qualified than that of the peer reviewers that reviewed this article?


Now I am not saying miracles don't happen, I think God can make a gay person straight. But I think this is just as big and rare as God fixing someone up who is in a wheelchair.
It's a huge miracle.

Why? Just because it hasn't happened in your experience?


I do not think therapy can make gay people straight, and based on a lot of peoples stories I think that therapy that tries to make gay people straight, can actually damage those gay people a lot, just like therapy to make straight people gay would damage those straight people.

So again, your anectdotal experience holds more crediblity than that the of the scientists? This certainly wasn't the case when the research supported your hypothesis.


To me it's 100% sure it's a biological thing, not genetic, biologic.
It's like trying to make someone who likes vanilla ice, hate vanilla ice.

I see. So you've got a presupposed notion, and no matter what you read will teach you otherwise. Sounds like the same attitude espoused by many of the 'Christians' in this forum, you have a particular set of presupposed beliefs that won't be shaken by ANY evidence.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Pffft matt sorry but I am not going to reply to every point, the entire discussion seems a little dumb.
I just offered a view on a new research that points into the direction of gay people being born gay, you digg up another research of ex-gay people claiming they are no longer gay.

Let's just say I think my research owns your research ok?
Just my opinion. ;+)



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Pffft matt sorry but I am not going to reply to every point, the entire discussion seems a little dumb.

I didn't ask you to reply to every point. I just asked how you can be so sure the methods are faulty considering you haven't even read the article. I still wonder this. If you'd ACTUALLY READ either of the primary articles (not the news story), I'd say it'd increase your credibility immeasurably. Otherwise, it looks like you dug research that supports your hypothesis, and that's, and only that, is what you're willing to consider.


I just offered a view on a new research that points into the direction of gay people being born gay, you digg up another research of ex-gay people claiming they are no longer gay.

Right. So? It just goes to demonstrate that there's evidence either way. You started this thread so you could get people's opinions about your research. I gave you my professional opinion as a scientist. To further elucidate my point, I find research that demonstrates the opposite of the research you've shown. However, instead of addressing the research, you make a bunch of vague generalizations without having even read the research. You know the research I presented is faulty based on your own pre-conceived notions. To me, it sounds like you're just as objective as deesw.... but in the other direction.

And no... I don't want to address every point in the article. I'd still like you to address A SINGLE point in an objective manner instead of whining about all the gay people you know.


Let's just say I think my research owns your research ok?
Just my opinion. ;+)

I can certainly acknowledge your opinion, but based on our previous discussions on this thread, and your observed inability to read and critically evaluate evidence that stands in opposition to your beliefs, I would say your opinion on this matter is about as subjective as deesw, or mwm1331. Just my opinion...

Funny how you can state that " I think my research owns your research ok? Just my opinion." yet you've apparently still not read the research article I discussed. Basing opinions off of complete ignorance doesn't seem objective to me.



[edit on 19-2-2005 by mattison0922]

[edit on 19-2-2005 by mattison0922]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I did read it matt, that is also why I think the pill research holds more credibility than the research you mentioned.
I do appreciate that you try to offer different point of views on a much discussed subject, but I wonder what the point is of bringing such a research into this thread.

To me it seems the research you mentioned is rather subjective, and based on what people say, instead of what scientists can see or test.
When you take into consideration that a lot of gay people run right back into the closet when they find out this world is not so gay-tolerant at all, and that the research you mentioned may be based on that kind of people, I can't help but wonder just how serious you should take it.

I said may, because I realize I could be wrong, and the thousands of people that were asked their story of becoming straight could be telling the truth. I do, however, consider this very unlikely, based on what I see around me and what I hear in the netherlands regarding gay people longing to be straight.

I don't want to slamm any research into the ground without looking at it, and I will gladly spend more time trying to figure out just how they selected all these "ex-gay" people, and what kind of stories the research is based on.

I am also very busy with school though, so expect a reply within a few days to the exact details of the research.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
How the hell does a pill that makes you gay make being gay biological? That doesnt make sence at all. Infact it kind of confirms that there is something wrong with them.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Did you actually read the links, or are you replying to the topic title only?

Slimming pills that contain certain hormones can mess up the growth of the embryo when the pilltaker is pregnant, making the embryo gay. (that's what is suggested by the study)

If this is what's the case, then being gay is clearly a biological "defect".



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Did you actually read the links, or are you replying to the topic title only?

Slimming pills that contain certain hormones can mess up the growth of the embryo when the pilltaker is pregnant, making the embryo gay. (that's what is suggested by the study)

If this is what's the case, then being gay is clearly a biological "defect".



Key words: Mess Up



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Key words: Mess Up


I am sorry but I really have no clue what the hell is your point.
Are you saying that you messed up claiming it's not a biological thing? Or did you mean to say gay people are messed up?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join