NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12820

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 3.4 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12820 alt.politics.clinton:19471
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!psg
From: [e-mail] (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:20:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 55

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>Yes, I have heard of that study, but the researcher was a gay with an
>>admitted bias.
>
>    Admitted to whom?
>
>    If you think that a scientific study's results are biased because of
>the sexual orientation of the researcher (also please tell us how you know
>that they're gay), you condemn the integrity of the investigator with no
>cause.
>
>>You'll have to try harder.

Not much Howard...

I won't bet my life that this is the same quote of which the poster is
talking about but it comes close enough.

Newsweek did an article on the research in to this area in which the
person doing the study of the relationship of homosexual orientation
to the size of the hypothymus(sp?) gland, admitted that while many in
the gay community were touting their research as proof, and he wanted
to believe it was also, that it was not.  Not only did he admit that
the methods used to show a connection between orientation and the size
of cells contained within the glands were less than credible; they
had no way of determining the true sexual orientation of the cadeavors,
no was of discerning the degree of sexual activity between cases, and
nearly all the supposedly "gay" brains studied were also men who'd
died from AIDS - which obviously is know to cause changes in brain cell
structure etc etc.  Not only did they admit, in the article, the methods
were sloppy but, they also admitted that most prior reasearch in to
relationships between sexual activity and changes in brain structure
made it clear that any physical abnormalities the they observed in the
brains were more likely to have been the result of sexual behavior and
not the cause.   Of course no one in the gay community, including the
"researchers", wanted that to be the result so they simply continue
to repeat the false findings.

Also in the same Newsweek article the woman (I think) that produced a
study of twins that supposedly proved a genetic cause of homosexuality
was rebuffed by other genetic researchers.  They said, in studies
were gays participants had geneticaly identical or nearly identical
siblings that were gay less than 50% of the times, the evidence was at
best inconclusive and more likely to indicate no genetic cause for
homosexuality.  That particular researcher admitted that while this
study didn't pass muster by accepted standards of genetic research, it
was good enough for her to produce the report that she did.

All in all the article was pretty damaging to the current propaganda
that there's any kind of unbiased reasearch that shows a genetic
cause of homosexual orientation.

PSG