Does A New Scientific Report on Gender Identity Support the Church?

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps, but not all "science" is created equal.   There can be good science and there can be bad science.  Good science can, in its realm, be very useful; bad science, not very.  (Frankly, I lack adequate grounding to determine if the science from the OP is good science or bad science.)  I wouldn't be overly concerned about science purporting to contradict a faith position if it's not good science.  

If it is likely to be good science and purports to provide evidence contradicting a faith position, then I might very well reexamine my assumptions, try to determine if any incongruity between the two might stem from a misunderstanding of what the science actually says (or from what my faith actually says), and so on.  If the purported conflict remains even after I have gone through this process, then one of my choices certainly is to abandon my faith because "the science doesn't support it," but it's not my only choice: I can choose to remain faithful and to reserve judgment until I've had a chance to discuss the matter directly with The Universe's Chief Scientist, which would probably be what I would choose.  

Whatever conflicts I might perceive between the two, I'm not required to view matters of faith through a scientific paradigm, just as a scientist is not required to view matters of science through a faith-based paradigm, even if the scientist happens to be a person of faith.

I ignored science for most of my life. Until I started questioning the claims of the LDS Church with some seriousness and willingness to look at the cold facts even if it hurt, and from there examining all my beliefs about God and religion I simply ignored science. If it bolstered my faith claims I was all for it. If it didn't I found ways to wiggle around it.  Now I am spending time studying many science issues as well as how an honest and good scientist approaches their business.

Scott said he is fine with using science when it helps defends the argument of his chosen religion and faith. I wonder if he is able to use science when it contradicts and even destroys his faith claims.  Its not an easy thing to face cold hard and cruel facts.

If you want to know more about science vs faith I recommend the book Faith vs. Fact by Jerry Coyne. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

It's hard to have meaningful conversations when we talk past each other and reduce each others arguments to the shallowest possible interpretation.  I certainly did not suggest that everyone who has been exposed to naked men and the concept of homosexuality will instantaneously become attracted to such, and it is a little ingenuous of you to suggest that I did.

I'm not sure where to go with this part of the conversation as you don't seem to really want to engage with what I wrote.

I am interested in your last statement though.  What is the difference between sexual orientation and a fetish?  What is sexual orientation?

-guerreiro9

FWIW, I don't think Gray was trying to talk past you.  What you wrote struck me as being vague and inconclusive.  I didn't know what to make of it or what position you are trying to stake out.  Perhaps Gray was just trying to place your words in some sort of context that he could make sense of.

Regarding your last question, I'd explain it this way:  The sum total of your feelings, emotions, and attractions toward your spouse... that's your orientation.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This study is not "science".  It's a selective review of scientific studies.  The summary itself is not flawed in that it serves its purpose as a political piece (it is flawed if one is taking it as a scientific study).

Part of science is dealing with the data.  Reviewing studies is an essential part of the scientific process.  Research is more than just creating new sets of data points.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

If you want to know more about science vs faith I recommend the book Faith vs. Fact by Jerry Coyne. 

Thanks for the recommendation.  It will be 69th in my reading queue.  

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Part of science is dealing with the data.  Reviewing studies is an essential part of the scientific process.  Research is more than just creating new sets of data points.

I agree.  But cherry-picking certain studies and data points within those studies is not consistent with the scientific process.

[Teancum]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks for the recommendation.  It will be 69th in my reading queue.  

Yea I know there is a lot to read. You may want to avoid this one. It may shake your world view if you are open to such challenges. Most aren't. 

[guerreiro9]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

FWIW, I don't think Gray was trying to talk past you.  What you wrote struck me as being vague and inconclusive.  I didn't know what to make of it or what position you are trying to stake out.  Perhaps Gray was just trying to place your words in some sort of context that he could make sense of.

Regarding your last question, I'd explain it this way:  The sum total of your feelings, emotions, and attractions toward your spouse... that's your orientation.

So if your feelings, emotions, and attractions toward your spouse change does your orientation change?

-guerreiro9

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

So if your feelings, emotions, and attractions toward your spouse change does your orientation change?

-guerreiro9

That would be an orientation toward just one individual.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/23/2016 at 11:28 AM, Thinking said:

My brother once had a roommate who happened to be gay. He asked my brother (who happens to be straight) what was it about the female breast that turns men on. He just didn't get it. My brother's response: "They just do." Heterosexuals are "born that way" too.

I think there is a possibility that factors other than "being born that way" may contribute to a person being homosexual, but IMO the greatest factor is "being born that way,"

This is obviously a delicate subject to be handled in a delicate way, but as a student of psychology and symbolism both as well as being a heterosexual male, I think I have something to say about this.

 Certainly some men feel stronger about this than others.  And certainly this is emphasized in certain cultures more than others- and here we have the "Playboy" culture which perhaps overly emphasized this for at least one generation of American males.

But I also find it interesting that we choose a "heart" shape to symbolize love, and what is a heart shape, but two globes attached in an interesting way.

If you have ever driven through Las Vegas in the last few years, there is a sex store that advertises its wares on billboards in which there is a large heart shape, with the upper "point" of the globes coming together in a small circle

I think perhaps that is something which might be understandable as a symbol for sex both for gay and straight men.  Perhaps explaining it to your former roommate that way may have helped.

I do not know how much this applies to women, but I understand that bottoms also have their appeal for them as well

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by mfbukowski
Less flak for irrelevant stupid comments

[guerreiro9]

 

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That would be an orientation toward just one individual.

Can your orientation toward an individual change?  Can your orientation in general change?

-guerreiro9

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I ignored science for most of my life. Until I started questioning the claims of the LDS Church with some seriousness and willingness to look at the cold facts even if it hurt, and from there examining all my beliefs about God and religion I simply ignored science. If it bolstered my faith claims I was all for it. If it didn't I found ways to wiggle around it.  Now I am spending time studying many science issues as well as how an honest and good scientist approaches their business.

Scott said he is fine with using science when it helps defends the argument of his chosen religion and faith. I wonder if he is able to use science when it contradicts and even destroys his faith claims.  Its not an easy thing to face cold hard and cruel facts.

If you want to know more about science vs faith I recommend the book Faith vs. Fact by Jerry Coyne. 

Coyne is a fool who has no comprehension whatsoever about philosophy or epistemology.

My Rorty quote below and its basis is completely beyond his comprehension must less his ability to refute it.

I held a positivist position like Coyne's until it was destroyed by studying William James and Rorty.  Positivism just doesn't work

Edited August 24, 2016 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

 

Can your orientation toward an individual change?  Can your orientation in general change?

-guerreiro9

I think that one's orientation toward a particular individual can change.  Orientation toward a particular gender can change but that appears to be more of the exception than the rule.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Well, the study linked in the OP is not a scientific study.  It's a political piece in which various studies were excerpted and cherry-picked to "prove" a pre-determined point.  

your conclusion is noted. is there a reason for this? or is it you don't like the message?

[guerreiro9]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think that one's orientation toward a particular individual can change.  Orientation toward a particular gender can change but that appears to be more of the exception than the rule.

I don't like the label orientation, because people use it try and reduce a complex subject (human sexuality) to one of two possible options (gay or straight).

If you're just using it to mean a summation of your feelings, emotions, and attractions, then I don't think we have any disagreement as this would allow for an infinite number of orientations.  Each is unique to the individual and changes over time as the individual passes through life experiences.

-guerreiro9

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It doesn't matter much to me about scientific studies as there are scientists who disagree I am sure.  What I don't understand is how this could be a choice.  There are people inside and outside of many churches who have pleaded to God to make them straight...and somewhat gone through a living shock treatment to no avail.  We CANNOT possibly know how this all works unless we are one of them.  My question outside any study is the connection of everything between two people outside sexuality.  The connection that is just the same as that of our own spouses..I just don't think that we can ever understand.

Edited to add:  The scientist with great knowledge and comprehensive study will do us no good..unless he is gay.

There are people inside and outside of many churches who have pleaded to God to make them straight.. cure their (name the sin, smoking, drinking, etc).  Whatever the cause the sinner is expected to refrain from the activity.

[Danzo]

On 8/23/2016 at 0:11 PM, Sky said:

I can say with 100% certainty that sexual orientation is not a choice and that it cannot be changed.  Controlled, yes.  But that is not the same thing as change.  

This statement sound pretty falsifiable.

So if one could show an example of someone who's sexual orientation has changed does that make your statement false?

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Danzo said:

your conclusion is noted. is there a reason for this? or is it you don't like the message?

I don't like propaganda disguised as science.

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, guerreiro9 said:

I don't like the label orientation, because people use it try and reduce a complex subject (human sexuality) to one of two possible options (gay or straight).

If you're just using it to mean a summation of your feelings, emotions, and attractions, then I don't think we have any disagreement as this would allow for an infinite number of orientations.  Each is unique to the individual and changes over time as the individual passes through life experiences.

-guerreiro9

I don't think people are trying to "reduce a complex subject" as much as they are trying to identify a key facet of themselves.  I see nothing wrong with people self-identifying as gay, straight, or something else... which gets to your next point.

The complexity in human sexuality is apparent in the acronym LGBTQ.

[ERayR]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't like propaganda disguised as science.

So let me get this correct, if I can.  If someone took this same data and summarized it and conclude it proved that homo-sexuality was genetic, would you denounce that just as vehemently? 

[Sky]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

This statement sound pretty falsifiable.

So if one could show an example of someone who's sexual orientation has changed does that make your statement false?

I speak from my own personal experience and that of many, many other gay people.  (If that matters to you at all).  

If sexual orientation change is possible, then where are all the success stories?  Where do I go for this kind of help?  Why has this been discredited time and time again? 

I also believe in the Kinsey scale.  I acknowledge that not everybody is so far on either extreme of it.  

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't like propaganda disguised as science.

Again, your conclusions are noted, I am wondering where your conclusions came from.

[ERayR]

3 minutes ago, Sky said:

I speak from my own personal experience and that of many, many other gay people.  (If that matters to you at all).  

If sexual orientation change is possible, then where are all the success stories?  Where do I go for this kind of help?  Why has this been discredited time and time again? 

I also believe in the Kinsey scale.  I acknowledge that not everybody is so far on either extreme of it.  

And this is all well and good but as far as keeping the commandments of the Church it is a red herring.  No matter what the cause each is required to keep the covenants he/she has committed to.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, ERayR said:

So let me get this correct, if I can.  If someone took this same data and summarized it and conclude it proved that homo-sexuality was genetic, would you denounce that just as vehemently? 

If someone created propaganda under the guise of scientific study (which is likely what would have to be done to prove homosexuality is genetic), yes, I would denounce it.

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, Sky said:

I speak from my own personal experience and that of many, many other gay people.  (If that matters to you at all).  

If sexual orientation change is possible, then where are all the success stories?  Where do I go for this kind of help?  Why has this been discredited time and time again? 

I also believe in the Kinsey scale.  I acknowledge that not everybody is so far on either extreme of it.  

So you  are speaking from personal experience, which may or may not be universal.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by Danzo

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Again, your conclusions are noted, I am wondering where your conclusions came from.

Reading the article.