The State of Englishness

[Xavier_Onassis]

Anthropology is a social science, and as such is not as precise or as absolute as mathematics.

This does not mean that one may not apply hypotheses and act upon them, it just means that less accuracy will result from doing so.

If homosexuality were exclusively the result of mother-son or perhaps mother-daughter relationships, since these vary from one society to the next quite a bit, then it would be expected that the percentage of gays and lesbians would also vary immensely. But this is not the case.

Of course, it is also not clear that gay male homosexuality ad lesbianish are the results of the same cause or causes, either.

[Stray Pooch]

Anthropology is a social science, and as such is not as precise or as absolute as mathematics.

This does not mean that one may not apply hypotheses and act upon them, it just means that less accuracy will result from doing so.

If homosexuality were exclusively the result of mother-son or perhaps mother-daughter relationships, since these vary from one society to the next quite a bit, then it would be expected that the percentage of gays and lesbians would also vary immensely. But this is not the case.

Of course, it is also not clear that gay male homosexuality ad lesbianish are the results of the same cause or causes, either.

I agree completely.  My point in citing that ages-old "mama's boy" study is that such studies, as they are more subject to inaccuracy, cannot be cited as "proof."   They can be cited as evidence (which is different) but they are not definitive. There is a built-in weakness with statistical analysis, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.  Those who did that study (and similar ones) viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder, for which a cause and cure needs to be found.  Those who do studies seeking genetic causes have a bias that homosexuality is a perfectly natural state seek a biological factor to prove the contention.  There can always be uncontrolled variables including, but not limited to, experimenter bias in statistical studies.  Even with highly ethical studies with careful controls (and many are not) the human mind tends to find relationships where none really exist because it helps us make sense of the world.  The sorts of "scientific" studies that JS is citing are exactly that sort of thing.  Anyone who uses terms like "White Male Deviance" has a bias that is unacknowleged, and this will invariably lead to skewed results in studies.  Another great example of this is "The Bell Curve" which, I'm sure, the author of JS's book would be willing to denounce as biased and racist with little consideration.  And there's a pretty good chance the author would be right. 

[Amianthus]

There are two types of scientific procedure cited today.  The first - and in my opinion the most valid - is that of what I would call "pure" science.  That is, observing a certain phenomenon, developing a hypothesis for it's occurence, testing that hypothesis for truth and then adjusting the hypothesis as necessary until it can be proven to conform to the facts observed.

You missed a part. A theory in "pure science", in addition to explaining observed data, also has to be able to predict future finds. If it cannot do so, then it is not scientific.

[BT]

Is your goal to see how completely ridiculous this conversation can become?

My goal is to seek clarification and therefore have a better understanding of your position, if you indeed have one.

My definition of culture is not relevant when it is you who is insisting that we are shaped by our culture, whatever that is.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I find it curious strange that some of those who state that homosexuality is deviant behavior and does not occur in lesser animals, seem entirely oblivious of male dogs to hump any human knee or other dog regardless of gender.

There have always been homosexuals, just like there have always been neurotics, great athletes, dullards and geniuses. If society had a cure for homosexuality, we would have probably had no works by Leonardo or Michaelangelo. Withourt neurotics, there would be no Woody Allen movies or Cather in the Rye type novels.
So curing them would probably not be a great idea, even if a cure were possible.

Turn Leonardo into a fundamentalist and forget about the Mona Lisa. He'd be writing Jack Chick comix in Italian.
 

[kimba1]

 homosexuality is deviant behavior and does not occur in lesser animals


lol

a friend of mine had 2 male rats ,because he didn`t want to deal with the very possible population growth.
lets just say those rats tried thier darndest to make more.
and very very loud.
I think the diiference between humans and animals is animals won`t shun others for being gay.

[Rich]

>>and very very loud.<<

One of them must have been straight.

 

[kimba1]

I had to take care of them for a week once.
at night I`m always throwing something at cage to quite them.
I think more likely thier both straight but get bored easily.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Dare we even ask whether anal sex is possible for rats?

[kimba1]

when i figured out what they were doing
i covered the cage  left them alone til they make too much noise

[Universe Prince]

My goal is to seek clarification and therefore have a better understanding of your position, if you indeed have one.

I do. It's been stated. The real question right now is, do you?

My definition of culture is not relevant when it is you who is insisting that we are shaped by our culture, whatever that is.

On the contrary you are either denying or refuse to address the notion that people are shaped by the culture in which they live, so I'd say your definition of culture is quite relevant. And I know how this game works. This is a set up. I expose my thinking, and you criticize, meanwhile you remain guarded and refusing to answer questions. And then I'm supposed to accept that this somehow isn't about criticizing me. Well, I've been nice and played this way long enough. So I'll make a deal. You give your definitions, and then I'll give mine. If you don't want a discussion of ideas, if you're just here to criticize, say so now and we can both move on to more fruitful pursuits.

[BT]

If you can't answer questions about your position, a position you have stated numerous times, by simply defining the parameters of that position, then you are correct, there are more fruitful ways for me to spend my time.

[Universe Prince]

If you can't answer questions about your position, a position you have stated numerous times, by simply defining the parameters of that position, then you are correct, there are more fruitful ways for me to spend my time.

I can and have answered questions about my position. Notably, you have not answered questions about yours. And I said quite clearly I'd give my definitions. As I recall my exact words were, "You give your definitions, and then I'll give mine." So obviously this is not about me being unable to answer questions, but rather about you being deliberately unwilling to do so. Whether you refuse because you cannot or because you simply will not, discussion with you is apparently an exercise in being criticized, sometimes for ideas that you make up on your own, and there is absolutely nothing constructive or profitable in that.

[BT]

You haven't defined "culture", which is a central part of your statement.

[Universe Prince]

And you still have not answered questions that are about the nature of your objection. As I said, discussion with you is apparently an exercise in being criticized, sometimes for ideas that you make up on your own, and there is absolutely nothing constructive or profitable in that. When that situation changes, let me know.