Originally Posted by
"Brad the Impala":8a6aiigo
: "Because you have never suffered unequal treatment, you deduce from your statistical sample of one, that anyone who has suffered such treatment is inadequate in some way."
Brad, a very fair point, and I apologise if I have offended those many who have suffered unfairly through no fault of their own. What I meant is that it
some, but by no means
all, use it as an excuse.
Pissyboy,
your comprehension of basic English is lacking.The "
other study which used family histories from three independent samples" was of "
selected" samples, as the researchers doubted the "
honesty" of a random or volunteer sample. They were based on recollections of previous generations and relatives by those questioned, not on direct investigation, so were
anecdotal, nothing more. It was also the only one of many references to have looked at any family histories at all. Hardly empirical data and, on its own, worthless.
There are obviously two problems, Pissyboy, and I can quite understand why you would not want to accept either of them.
Firstly, the research paper into hereditary genetics you refer to is based on data which is either flawed, insufficient, or both.
The "
peer review" is only valid as long as it is independent: it was not. The "
peers" carrying out the review of the paper are predominantly the same as those who wrote the very papers and provided the data used as base reference sources and who also "
reviewed" each others' papers - not "
mathematical modellers", as you "
assume"; about as impartial as the studies into the effects of cigarette smoke sponsored by tobacco companies.
Hereditary data, of an
inherited gene, needs to be made over
a number of generations in a considerable number of families. As these studies have only been started relatively recently the data required to make even an initial assessment will not be available in our lifetimes.
Mathematically the data appears to have been selected to match the conclusions made, as do the formulae used, rather than the other way around. The formulae themselves are relatively simple, convoluted rather than confusing - possibly GCE 'O' level standard, but well below the standard required, for example, by 'A/O' level Additional Mathematics, let alone a PhD.
The paper's layout and method is similar to an intelligence analyst being given a conclusion and then collating and interpreting information to support it.
Secondly, even if the "
Darwinian paradox" which the paper ignores was resolved and clear, irrefutable evidence for the "
gay gene" was found tomorrow it would only make a marginal difference to the "
stigma" of being homosexual or to the struggle "
for equality". The core opposition to homosexuals comes from mainstream Christians and Muslims, whose beliefs are based exclusively on the written teachings of the Messiah and his prophets which are only open to minimal interpretation, if any, are paramount, and supersede any scientific hypotheses no matter how much evidence there may be to support them.
Their acceptance of homosexuality due to any evidence of the "
gay gene", therefore, appears highly unlikely. Far more likely, if they were to accept proof of the "
gay gene", is that it would be considered as an identifiable inherited defect which could and should be treated by gene therapy in the same way as other inherited diseases - hardly what you are hoping for.
If mathematical models and scientific evidence alone were sufficient then
Richard Dawkins' Big Bang Theory and
The God Delusion would have replaced the
Bible and the
Koran as the two most influential books in the world, and up to half the population of the US (depending on which statistics you believe) would not believe in creationism.
I doubt if you would agree, as the second problem not only invalidates your suggestion that your research is "
an important line of research" making the chances of your achieving something constructive unlikely, at best, but it makes your job which you clearly enjoy ("
I am immersed in my own research. I love what I do") appear rather pointless. Now that
is sad.
Smiles,
... yer a goddam idiot, so shut the fuck up ...and take Homintern and Bob, with you!