ARE HOMOSEXUALS A MINORITY GROUP?
The Frog
Minority status has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court based on
3 criteria:
Economic Deprivation: Those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are
among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a
higher per capita income than heterosexuals, and higher household
incomes. (W.S. Journal, 2/10/89; N.Y. Times, 8/22/90).
Political Powerlessnesss: Homosexuals demonstrate great influential
political power far beyond their actual numbers. TheHuman Rights
Campaign Fund has annually donated millions ofdollars to candidates,
more than most other non-corporate PACs. (The Economist, 4/24/93).
Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.
Immutable Characteristics: Minority groups share unchangeable, benign,
non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability or national
origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based
on behavior! There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. No
one has found the "queer gene"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The multicultural project will never fully succeed if 'diversity'
is defined as one's own preferred ideologies and political groups."
--Richard E. Redding, "Grappling With Diverse Conceptions of Diversity,"
American Psychologist, April 2002, p. 301.
Blutak
"The Frog" <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:omjprv4c5ok4j1icp...@4ax.com...
> ARE HOMOSEXUALS A MINORITY GROUP?
> Minority status has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court based on
> 3 criteria:
>
>
> Economic Deprivation: Those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are
> among the most advantaged people in the U.S. On average, they have a
> higher per capita income than heterosexuals, and higher household
> incomes. (W.S. Journal, 2/10/89; N.Y. Times, 8/22/90).
>
> Political Powerlessnesss: Homosexuals demonstrate great influential
> political power far beyond their actual numbers. TheHuman Rights
> Campaign Fund has annually donated millions ofdollars to candidates,
> more than most other non-corporate PACs. (The Economist, 4/24/93).
> Media news and entertainment coverage is overwhelmingly favorable.
>
> Immutable Characteristics: Minority groups share unchangeable, benign,
> non-behavioral traits such as race, ethnicity, disability or national
> origin. Homosexuals are the only group to claim minority status based
> on behavior!
There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic. No one has found the
"queer gene"
------------------------------------
you may want to check the accumulating evidence here.........
------------------------------------
Look at your fingers. They may tell a lot
By Nicholas Kristof
November 3, 2003
Some people say we should settle gay rights disputes on the basis of the Old
Testament. I say we should rely on blinking patterns.
In case you've misplaced your latest copy of Behavioral Neuroscience,
there's a fascinating article about how people blink. It turns out that when
males and females are exposed to a loud noise, they blink in somewhat
different ways - except that lesbians appear to blink like men, not like
women.
The study (peer-reviewed but based on a small sample) is the latest in a
growing scientific literature suggesting that sexual preferences may be not
simply a matter of personal preference but part of our ingrained biology.
Indeed, some geneticists believe that sexual orientation in men (though not
women) may be determined in part by markers in the Xq28 chromosomal region.
One needs to be wary of these kinds of studies, partly because researchers
drawn towards this field may have subconscious biases of their own.
Moreover, many of the studies on the biological basis of homosexuality are
flawed by small numbers or by the difficulty of finding valid random samples
of gays and heterosexuals.
Still, while the data has problems, it is piling up - there are at least
seven studies on twins. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality,
one would expect identical twins to share sexual orientation more than
fraternal twins, and that is indeed the case. An identical twin of a gay
person is about twice as likely to be gay as a fraternal twin would be.
Earlier this year, the journal Personality and Individual Differences
published a review of the literature entitled "Born Gay?" After reviewing
the twin studies, it concluded that 50 to 60 per cent of sexual orientation
might be genetic.
Many studies also suggest that sexual orientation may be linked to
differences in brain anatomy. Compared with straight men, gay men appear to
have a larger suprachiasmatic nucleus, a part of the brain that affects
behaviour, and some studies show most gay men have a larger isthmus of the
corpus callosum - which may also be true of left-handed people. And that's
intriguing because gays are 39 per cent more likely to be left-handed than
straight people.
Now look at your fingers. Men typically have a ring finger that is longer
than the index finger, while in women the two are about the same length.
However, two studies have suggested that lesbians have finger-length ratios
that are more like those of men than of women.
Studies suggest that ring-finger length has to do with the level of
androgens in the womb, and that may help explain another puzzle of
homosexuality: a male is more likely to be gay if he has older brothers. It
doesn't matter if he has older sisters, but for each older brother he is
about 33 per cent more likely to be gay. Some scientists speculate that a
woman's body adjusts the androgen level in her womb as she has more sons,
and that the androgens interact with genes to produce homosexuality.
OK, these theories are potentially junk science until the studies are
replicated with much larger numbers. But we also shouldn't ignore the
accumulating evidence.
"There is now very strong evidence from almost two decades of
'biobehavioural' research that human sexual orientation is predominantly
biologically determined," says Qazi Rahman, the University of London
researcher who led the blinking study.
Gays themselves are divided. Some welcome these studies because they confirm
their own feeling that sexual orientation is more than a whim. Others fret
that the implication is that homosexuals are abnormal or defective - and
that future genetic screening will eliminate people like them.
For me, the implication, if these studies are to believed, is different: it
is that something is defective not in gays, but in discrimination against
them.
A basic principle of our social covenant is that we do not discriminate
against people on the basis of circumstances they cannot choose, such as
race, sex and disability. If sexual orientation belongs on that list (with
the caveat that the evidence is still murky), should we still discriminate
against gay marriages and the like?
Can we countenance discrimination against people for something so basic as
how they blink - or whom they love?
- New York Times
The Frog
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Blutak
"There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic." Big bold statement but
one not supported by the accumulating research on the topic. This statement
is at the very least contestable if not plain wrong......
The Frog
The "Study" is a crock....see below...
Study Trumpeted by Health Writer
as Evidence that Some Are "Born Gay"
Some Headlines Mischaracterize Study's Findings
by Roy Waller and Linda Nicolosi
October, 2003-- A British study just published in the October issue of
Behavioral Neuroscience claims to find contributing biological factors
for homosexuality.
The study--which was conducted among only a small number of subjects,
and found modest differences between groups--added some evidence to a
recent body of research that suggests that for some people, biological
factors contribute to homosexual development.
The factors identified in this and other studies seem to be factors
that masculinize females and feminize males, which results in
gender-atypical development.
Yet an October 6, 2003 article by reporter Amanda Gardner in Health
Day News, and trumpeted on the internet by Yahoo, mischaracterizes the
study's scope and findings with the headline, "Startling Study Says
People May Be Born Gay."
The first sentence of Gardner's article adds, "The origins of sexual
orientation may be evident in the blink of an eye."
The Study's Method
The basis of the study, conducted by Qazi Rahman of the University of
East London, is a technique known as "pre-pulse inhibition," or PPI.
The main premise of PPI is that when people are startled by a loud
noise they involuntarily blink their eyes, but when the test sound is
preceded by a quieter noise, this appears to inhibit the response to
the second, louder sound. PPI is used in tests to gauge certain inborn
human responses and characteristics.
For purposes of the study, the 59 gay and straight men and women
participants were subjected to both noises--first the louder noise
alone, followed by the softer and louder sounds, and their responses
were compared. The goal was to determine the differences, if any,
between the responses of homosexual and straight men and also gay and
straight women, as well as any possible similarities between
homosexual men and heterosexual women and straight men and gay women.
The attempt was to use the data collected from the PPI responses to
demonstrate a bridge between a genetic cause of homosexuality and an
automatic human response.
The researcher sought to find an automatic physiological response that
was not developed as a result of learning or social interaction. He
decided to employ startle responses, which are involuntary and
instinctual.
In terms of statistics, Rahman's study presents the following
findings:
Among lesbians, the PPI response rate was 33 percent--compared to 13%
in heterosexual women--thus leaning towards the heterosexual male end
of the spectrum.
In gay males, the average for PPI was 32 percent, while it was 40
percent for heterosexual men.
Among other conclusions drawn by Rachman and his colleagues in the
study is that it appears that some 4 percent of men and 3 percent of
women are homosexual-- figures which do not agree with those of other,
well-known studies which suggest somewhat lower figures.
The researchers appeared unaware on the recent finding that
homosexually oriented individuals have been found to exhibit a
significantly higher level of psychiatric problems than the general
population. Nor were they evidently aware that the reasons for the
high rate of problems have not been identified.
"Although homosexuality per se is not related to psychiatric
problems," Rachman states, "on those occasions that gays and lesbians
do present with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that
are typical of the opposite sex."
The recent study correlated with findings of reorientation theorists,
who generally agree that biological factors lay the foundation for
gender-atypical feelings and behavior in some people. This sets the
stage for feelings of differentness from their own biological sex.
However, because other factors besides biology are known to influence
gender identity, reorientation therapists do not believe that inborn
gender-atypical traits mean that a person was "born gay."
Copyright © NARTH. All Rights Reserved.
Updated: 10 October 2003
Blutak
but if does not invalidate my point...
You made the point "There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic."
This is wrong. There is research to suggest this......
The Frog
"Suggest" and "is" are two different things........my statement
stands.
NARTH is the only organization that has not been intimidated into
halting research. The APA is filled with homos. They also were
sanctioned by the 106th Congress of the United States for publishing a
study concluding that Pedophilia may be beneficial for the children
involved.
http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/congress.htm
Congress was rigth. This "study" of the APA was proven a crock by
STANFORD researchers.
http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2001/novreleases/CSAeffect.html
Bottom line, the APA is not a good source for unbiased opinions nor is
the LNYT (NEw York Times). Only 2 years after the APA removed homo
from it's list, there appeared a huge "gay caucus" within the APA. Who
really believes that all of those memebers joined in that 23 year
period? Can you say "inside job"?
I'm sorry that the world doesn't work out to be the warm and fuzzy
"Mr. Rogers" world you seek. The long and the short of it is
homosexuality, even if genetic, would simply be considered a defect of
the libido. As it is, it can't even be proven to be genetic and what
is worse, is no one but NARTH wants to know more about this
irregularity. Here is who heads up NARTH.
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
Past President (New York, N.Y.)
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
Albert Einstein School of Medicine
Benjamin Kaufman, M.D
A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H.
Vice President (Salt Lake City, Utah)
President, Thrasher Research Fund
Clinical Professor, University of Utah
.
Chairman of the Board (Sacramento, CA)
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
University of California at Davis
Psychoanalyst
Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
President (Encino, CA)
Director, Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic
Psychologist
Blutak
peer-reviewed research makes no distinction who does the research. SUch
research is based on the notion of replication. Frankly, if you want to
suggest political bias, have a quick look at narth's aim: It actually
states:
It is NARTH's aim to provide a different perspective. Particularly, we want
to clarify that homosexuality is not "inborn," and that gays are not "a
people," in the same sense that an ethnic group is "a people"--but instead,
they are (like all of us) simply individuals who exhibit particular patterns
of feelings and behavior.
Who needs research when NARTH have already come to a conclusion. Not
surprising then that all their research supports this.......hmmmmm. It is
this reason they are not taken seriously by the medical profession.
----------------------------
They also were
> sanctioned by the 106th Congress of the United States for publishing a
> study concluding that Pedophilia may be beneficial for the children
> involved.
> http://www.humanbeing.demon.nl/humanbeingsweb/Library/congress.htm
>
> Congress was rigth. This "study" of the APA was proven a crock by
> STANFORD researchers.
>
http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2001/novreleases/CSAeffect.ht
ml
-------------------------
irrelevant to topic
----------------------------
>
> Bottom line, the APA is not a good source for unbiased opinions nor is
> the LNYT (NEw York Times). Only 2 years after the APA removed homo
> from it's list, there appeared a huge "gay caucus" within the APA. Who
> really believes that all of those memebers joined in that 23 year
> period? Can you say "inside job"?
---------------------
can you say peer review research.
---------------------
>
> I'm sorry that the world doesn't work out to be the warm and fuzzy
> "Mr. Rogers" world you seek. The long and the short of it is
> homosexuality, even if genetic, would simply be considered a defect of
> the libido.
--------------------------
your opinion only.
--------------------------
As it is, it can't even be proven to be genetic and what
> is worse, is no one but NARTH wants to know more about this
> irregularity. Here is who heads up NARTH.
>
> Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
> Past President (New York, N.Y.)
> Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
> Albert Einstein School of Medicine
> Benjamin Kaufman, M.D
>
> A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., M.B.A., M.P.H.
> Vice President (Salt Lake City, Utah)
> President, Thrasher Research Fund
> Clinical Professor, University of Utah
>
> .
> Chairman of the Board (Sacramento, CA)
> Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
> University of California at Davis
> Psychoanalyst
>
> Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D.
> President (Encino, CA)
> Director, Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic
> Psychologist
>
>
>All you've provided are shrill *political* reasons why you don't like the
APA. Militant homosexuals have attacked the who science area and have them
all scared to reveal the truth. Yeah right. Research by its nature is
objective and peer reveiwed research increasingly shows a genetic link. So
the *blanket* statement "There is NO evidence that homosexuality is genetic"
is not true. In fact why some-one is homosexual is a much contested area.
While you are *sure* there is no evidence, the science community says
otherwise.
The Frog
While you try to win the battle of words, the war is lost.
(Clintonesque)
If, homos are found to be "born that-a-way", they still only meet one
of two requirements of the Surpreme Court to be eligible for special
group status. It also leads one to the conclusion that it is a birth
defect of the libido. It is the best scenario possible. The worst
would be that there is no 'born that-a-way" and they remain simply
perverts........So what?
Blutak
history. Anyone who uses the term "pervert" one can safely assume is not
involved in the medical/research community, I'm not terribly surprised. But
hey, you're entitled to your increasingly "minority" position......
The Frog
Let's see how "minority" my opinion is when the next election comes
and how many candidates support queer marriage.
Don't get me wrong. It is, indeed, a free country. I understand there
have always been homos, and will always be homos. I want to "get
along". You can be just as gay as you please. You can 'queer-it-up' as
much as you wish. I offer tolerance, but not acceptance nor
equivalency.
And you may be right. If proof comes that they are, indeed, born that
way, then I will concede that they are not perverts. However, it still
leaves the spectre of defective libidos, another group with a birth
defect.
Ashland Henderson
It's pretty funny, in fact downright hilarious, to see you talk about
how subconcious biases can influence studies and then quote a NARTH
op-ed piece in your defense against the study in question. Thanks for
a good, and unintended, laugh at your expense. Do try to do better
next time.
The Frog
Henderson) wrote:
They lead the nation. Einstein School of Medicine, Utah State
University, Univ. of Cal, etc.......
APA has been discredited in this area. They ARE the leading authority,
and, i might add, the only ones that have not been intimidated into
halting all research into this controversial area.
Keep your head in the sand.
The Frog
wrote:
>The Frog <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in message news:<omjprv4c5ok4j1icp...@4ax.com>...
>> ARE HOMOSEXUALS A MINORITY GROUP?
>> Minority status has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court based on
>> 3 criteria:
>
>(snip)
>
>Frog, as a reader who looks forward to your posts, might I suggest you
>trim your posts after the first original article? You'll get read a
>lot more frequently. Trust me when I tell you that most, myself
>included, absolutely will not wade through repeated postings of the
>same stuff posted fifteen posts down in a thread. The presumption is
>that those following the thread know what came previously, and if
>something escapes them they can always scroll up to refresh their
>memory. For those whose newreaders won't accommodate this feature, I'd
>suggest they access Usenet in another fashion. Not trimming posts is a
>surefire guarantee that many won't read your latest comment.
>
>Cordially, Marie
Thanks for the tip. I was being overly cautious.
Robin
"Marie A." <LetEmE...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1dc521ed.03112...@posting.google.com...
> > Minority status has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court based on
> > 3 criteria:
>
>
> Frog, as a reader who looks forward to your posts, might I suggest you
> trim your posts after the first original article? You'll get read a
> lot more frequently. Trust me when I tell you that most, myself
> included, absolutely will not wade through repeated postings of the
> same stuff posted fifteen posts down in a thread. The presumption is
> that those following the thread know what came previously, and if
> something escapes them they can always scroll up to refresh their
> memory. For those whose newreaders won't accommodate this feature, I'd
> suggest they access Usenet in another fashion. Not trimming posts is a
> surefire guarantee that many won't read your latest comment.
>
> Cordially, Marie
OMG, I agree with Marie (is this one of the signs of the apocolypse, or
just an indicator that "homosexualists" really aren't all that different??)
Blu, Frog, trim your stuff, will ya?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/18/2003
Ashland Henderson
Even funnier. Sorry, but they are a special interest group with a
vested interest in their own beliefs. They have basically assumed their
conclusion. This does not generally lead to good science.
loaferboss
LetEmE...@yahoo.com wrote on 11/20/03 3:51 PM:
> The Frog <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
> news:<omjprv4c5ok4j1icp...@4ax.com>...
>> ARE HOMOSEXUALS A MINORITY GROUP?
>> Minority status has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court based on
>> 3 criteria:
>
> (snip)
>
> Frog...
> trim your posts after the first original article
I ... absolutely will not wade through repeated postings of the
> same stuff posted fifteen posts down in a thread and ... won't read your
latest comment.
<snip>
Yes, Frog - it also makes it easier for people like Marie and BW to take
quotes completely out of context and, in effect, put different meaning to
the posts of the person their answering - like above :)
Dracc...@netscape.net
I just love your logic, because a group, be they black, Chinese, or
homosexual, when they strive to be granted equal rights within
society, you always cry out they are looking for special status. They
want "Special Rights". Lets look at the "Special Rights" homosexuals
are asking for shall we. They ask to be allowed to marry a partner of
their choosing whom they love. They are asking to not be discriminated
against in housing and employment. They ask for the right of
inheritance and visit a loved one in the hospital. Boy your right have
to stop them from getting all those "Special Rights", oh wait those
are the same rights that every heterosexual takes for granted daily.
You are a homophobic bigot, and while I deplore you, it is your right
to be an ignorant bigot, but you do not have the right to legislate
your ignorant bigotry to the rest of the Nation. There is ample peer
reviewed scientific evidence that Homosexuality is genetic, including
the hypotheimeis studies. There is also a little look at nature itself
homosexuality is found through out nature is it so strange that chimps
and wolves, just to name two examples have homosexuals among them
would you say they choose that behavior too? Why are you so blind when
homosexuality is found among man?
Do Not Meddle in the Affairs of Dragons for You are Crunchy and Good
with Ketchup
Dracc...@netscape.net
Please present cites to a few NARTH studies that have been peer
reviewed, also note by peer review it does not mean by people who
agree with their point of view. That is an old creationsit trick, they
love to write in each others publications.
The Frog
>The Frog <jmatt...@ticnet.com> wrote in message news:<rorprv8dvhg6knr5j...@4ax.com>...
:
<snip>
I feel the same about your rights, except I don't make insults against
you and that makes me better, yes, BETTER than you.
My logic is reasoned and not based in religion.
You have not refuted any of my argument about this irregularity, if
found to be "born that way" would be most truthfully characterized as
a birth defect.
You have pointed out that this possible birth defect occurs in the
animal kingdom as well. So what? So does schizophrenia, narcolepsy and
other defects.
You did't read the whole conversatuion.
I know they have always been with us and always will for whatever
reason. I afford them tolerance. They can be just as queer as they
please. It is, indeed, a free country.
What I offer is tolerance. What you ask for is acceptance.
JoettaB
news:<BBE2F7E5.AAE2%loafe...@comcast.net>...
> from context in order to distort what the writer meant. You keep at
> this business of snipping posts, Loafer, but you never provide
> examples of where what someone said was deliberately distorted. When I
> snip a post, the original post and surrounding context is right above
> for the world to see. And it's a quite simple matter for you, or
> anyone else, to demonstrate how snipping the post destroyed the
> context. Rather than merely making these claims, you must demonstrate
> what you're talking about instead of babbling on about how just
> snipping a post is a nefarious activity. But it's all bullshit on your
> part, Loafer, and everyone knows it.
>
>
> Cordially, Marie
Marie/BW/Barbarba Walker/Rene/Jan/name of the day:
You take the cake on BS.