Tangent002:
Cases of people claiming to have been "cured" of homosexuality are anecdotal only. There has never been a single medically documented case of a fully-homosexual person being "turned" fully-heterosexual.

The vast majority of anecdotes I have read are folks given strategies to ignore their same-sex attraction and live lives of celibacy.

Amos Moses:
"There has never been a single medically documented case of a fully-homosexual person ......... "

if you had stopped there it would have been the truth ...............

Ambulance Chaser:
False. "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men," Science, 1991.

Amos Moses:
"LeVay's finding was widely reported in the media. LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover's death from AIDS."

again .... more pseudo-science and bias ..... looked at a Rorschach and saw what he wanted to see to justify himself and his sin ...... more baloney ..........

Ambulance Chaser:
You said it wasn't reported in medical journals. It was.

(Also, is be remiss if I didn't point out that nothing you wrote discredits the findings.)

Amos Moses:
"You said it wasn't reported in medical journals. "

WHERE .............. FYI ..... Science magazine .... IS NOT a medical journal .....

FYI .... BIASED findings are ALREADY discredited ............. ON THEIR FACE ....... Prima facie evidence of falsity is BIAS ......... that makes any assertion of science FALSE ...... "i have my conclusion .... now let me see if i can manufacture evidence to prove it" ..... NOT SCIENCE ...

Ambulance Chaser:
Right, except LeVay didn't do that and you have no evidence that he did. All you know is that he's gay and his partner died. That's ALL.

Jane Goodall likes chimps. She has an affinity for them. Does that mean that all her research is therefore null and void?

Amos Moses:
J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

todays story ........... sorry charlie ..... all you have is PSEUDO-SCIENCE ..................

Ambulance Chaser:
A) That's not what Armstrong's paper concluded. It's actually a lot more complicated than that.
B) Armstrong says nothing about this study. How do you know it's not one of the 1%?
C) Why should I believe Armstrong at all? You don't trust things published in scientific journals.

"his open PUBLIC admission is enough to discredit his findings ...
i.e. ....."LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover's death from AIDS."

No, it isn't, because nothing about being gay has anything to do with whether your findings are correct. YOU'RE biased. Can I summarily dismiss everything you say? If a research oncologist has cancer, do his findings automatically become wrong? If a Christian theologian writes a treatise about the Bible, is everything he says immediately wrong?

Amos Moses:
"Armstrong says nothing about this study. How do you know it's not one of the 1%?"

but there are NUMEROUS other studies of science journals ...... and i did not say it included this study ..... but this study is flawed from inception for the reasons i have cited ...... believe what you want to believe ..... you do anyway ......

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, is it flawed? How? Be specific. Cite page numbers.

Don't tell me "because the author is gay." Do the work.

Shouting "bias" is an irrelevant ad hominem. I've explained why but you chose to ignore me.

Amos Moses:
"Be specific. Cite page numbers."

starts at the beginning and goes until the end ..... the ENTIRE study is BIASED and FLAWED by the authors PUBLIC ADMISSION of WHY he did the study and the BASIS of his bias ............. how hard is that to understand ..........

i do not expect a study on slavery to be against slavery by a slave owner ..... it is a pointless exercise ....... why do you think the standard changes for homosexuals trying to prove the benefits or whatever of being a homosexual with science ...... it is equally pointless ..... they will see what they WANT to see and any other outcome was not even considered .....

Ambulance Chaser:
So let me get this straight: I can submit a rebuttal to ANY scientific article, on any topic, to any peer-reviewed journal in America, and all I have to write in that rebuttal is a one-sentence comment about the first author's "bias?" And that sentence will be sufficient to rebut the totality of the first article?

How do you account for the fact that approximately ZERO articles published every year follow this format?

Amos Moses:
strawman argument ...... he stated his bias PUBLICLY ........... that is sufficient to disregard his findings .....

his open PUBLIC admission is enough to discredit his findings ...

i.e. ....."LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover's death from AIDS."

Ambulance Chaser:
So you're only biased if you state it publicly?

Amos Moses:
nope ..... but he did ..........