AIDS & Abortion: 2M deaths yearly

[ilikeverin]

Another thing.

The underlying causes of AIDS, i.e. promiscuous sex among homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, and drug use are the real problems deserving of attention and cure, not the disease itself. Otherwise you will just encourage immoral behaviors like promiscuous sex and drug use. For example......Oh, I'm gonna have group sex and get high on heroin tonight...it's not like I'm gonna get AIDS or anything.

Imagine you had a teen.  That teen wanted to go to a party.  Because you want to promote his individuality, you let him go.  However, you suspect alcohol may be there, so you say, "First off, please do not drink.  However... if you drink, then either make someone who hasn't drunk drive you home, or call me and I'll call a cab to pick you up."

I consider that to be common sense

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is absolutely NO evidence that homosexuality has anything whatsoever to do with “brain wiring”. Further, there is very little evidence to support that homosexuality is genetic, other than some studies, most of which were done erroneously. A study done by Robert L. Spitzer MD of Columbia University showed that of 200 homosexual men and woman who took part in reparative treatment , 99% of men and 88% of women fantasized about the same sex at least a few times a month, and afterward only 32% of men and 5% of women fantasized about the same sex at least a few times a month. In addition, 42% of homosexual men in the study before were bother by depression, and afterward only 1% were. Reparative treatment DOES work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John, you’re once again putting words in my mouth. Firstly, I made VERY CLEAR in my last post that homosexuals can’t be “converted” into heterosexuality. I understand that some heterosexuals have homosexuality, and some homosexuals have heterosexuality. It’s not true that you “are or aren’t homosexual”. Also, you have just said that biological, environmental, and psychological factors play into a child becoming homosexual. Although there is not a lot of evidence for biological factors playing in, environmental and psychological factors definitely play in, and homosexual publicity applies to environmental factors. The reason why homosexuality is so prevalent right now is because many people in society have accepted it as normal sexual behavior. Should society not accept homosexuality as normal behavior, homosexuality would not be prevalent.

Coincadentally, half of all the homosexuals I know were molested as children.

[Engineer]

Imagine you had a teen. That teen wanted to go to a party. Because you want to promote his individuality, you let him go. However, you suspect alcohol may be there, so you say, "First off, please do not drink. However... if you drink, then either make someone who hasn't drunk drive you home, or call me and I'll call a cab to pick you up."

I consider that to be common sense

Hummm, let me get this straight, and rephase it for you.  By the way, I have teenagers.

Son I understand you wish to attend a party in which criminal activity is probably going to be taking place (underage drinking).  As a parent who will be responsible if you run into any legal problems, I realize that your engaging in this criminal activity is important for your individuality.   Furthermore, association with other criminals can only assist you in your quest for a healthful individuality.



 

[John Dibble]

Bram(this was a longer post, but connection problems killed my post ):

1. Brain 'wiring'(chemistry would be more accurate): Read this and this.

2. Reparative therapy - not sure which kind this is based on what you linked. It's too much to go through. I'm assuming, based on what I read, that it is not the kind that actually tries to change a person's sexuality, merely try to suppress someone's sexual desire. If so, that's the same kind of therapy that nymphomaniacs need. We both know all homosexuals are not promiscuous, so some don't need therapy.

3. Environmental and psychological factors - to try to seperate these from biological factors if not wise. The brain, which controls most functions in the body, is affected by the environment and psychological factors. However, there are other biological factors - being exposed to a chemical in the womb is considered a biological factor, for instance. When I mentioned 'brain wiring' before, I believe I mentioned development as well - the brain is not fixed upon birth. Something as simple as what you eat can affect it's development. However, some people are simply born with certain predispositions. Sometimes a catalyst may be necessary. Therefore it is not out of the question to think that some people are predisposed towards homosexuality, but may need an outside catalyst in early age to affect the development of the brain in the way that would wire it to be homosexual. Of course, predisposition is not a gaurantee. As far as homosexual publicity goes, I don't think it is a very important factor, outside of the possibility of overexposure(just as overexposure to alcoholism or violent imagery can sometimes affect someone later in life, most kids see these things sometimes but it doesn't really affect them if it is occassional). Something big like being molested is far more of a factor than seeing two men kiss.

[Platypus]

do you wonder why so any homosexuals suffer depression?

If you don't know why, buy a mirror.

[ilikeverin]

Imagine you had a teen. That teen wanted to go to a party. Because you want to promote his individuality, you let him go. However, you suspect alcohol may be there, so you say, "First off, please do not drink. However... if you drink, then either make someone who hasn't drunk drive you home, or call me and I'll call a cab to pick you up."

I consider that to be common sense

Hummm, let me get this straight, and rephase it for you. By the way, I have teenagers.

Son I understand you wish to attend a party in which criminal activity is probably going to be taking place (underage drinking). As a parent who will be responsible if you run into any legal problems, I realize that your engaging in this criminal activity is important for your individuality. Furthermore, association with other criminals can only assist you in your quest for a healthful individuality.

ROFLMAO, way to ignore my entire point

So, pretend that line never existed.  Now what do you say?

[Engineer]

No, your "point" is that unacceptable behavior is going to happen so let's just make the best of it.  The solution is to eliminate the unacceptable behavior. 

If your drain pipe leaks under the sink, you can treat the results by putting a pan under it and emptying it every so often (hey sometimes it overflows, I just have to live with it, drains are going to leak), or fixing the pipe.

It is just easier to  live with the inconveniences than trying to correct the problem.

[John Dibble]

No, your "point" is that unacceptable behavior is going to happen so let's just make the best of it.  The solution is to eliminate the unacceptable behavior. 

If your drain pipe leaks under the sink, you can treat the results by putting a pan under it and emptying it every so often (hey sometimes it overflows, I just have to live with it, drains are going to leak), or fixing the pipe.

It is just easier to  live with the inconveniences than trying to correct the problem.

Some problems can't be solved. His point is that you can't expect to solve them, so you can try to prevent them occuring in your own kids as best you can.

It's been my experience that the more freedom and respect you give your kids(teenagers especially), the more likely they'll respect and listen to your advice. Teenagers are at a point in their life where they want some recognition as adults and individuals - too much restriction will only make them want to lash out. Letting them go to a party where there might be activities you dissaprove of tells them that you have enough respect for them to make the right decisions - in which case they probably will respect your wishes in the matter.

[Bogart]

I wounder how many of you posting here really have ever had any substantial interaction with the gay community. It really doesn't seem like it, for the most part, and most of the conclusions seem drawn upon very little more than stereotypes. I will agree that gays tend to be more promiscuous than hets, but I also believe that the statistics on the subject vastly overstate the reality. It is very difficult to get an accurate sample when polling gays. Those most likely to be having the most sex tend to be more likely to be vocal in saying so. This would be the "out and loud" crowd. Even so, someone mentioned that to the extent that gays tend to be more promiscuous because of being free from societal barriers is probably correct on base; i.e. "society hates us already, so why not do what we want?"

The other thing that I'd like to mention is with regard to "conversion therapy." It's pretty much been exposed as a load of crap. Moreover, those pushing it as a solution to the "gay problem" don't realize that most gays don't want to be straight, believe it or not.  We tend to view ourselves as superior in many ways to non-gays--which brings me to my last point.

Gays tend to be better educated and more financially successful than heterosexuals. We don't get our girlfriends knocked up during high school or college, so we finish. We don't have kids to worry about, so we can focus on our careers. We don't have kids to pay for, so we have more disposible income and pay more in taxes. So, whatever cost is incurred by society because of above average promiscuity, it is paid for at an above average rate by us.

[John Dibble]

New stuff for you Bram -

As I said before, the various factors are not always seperate. Biological and environmental factors are especially inseperable in one very important place - the womb. The womb is a biological environment, and what the mother does affects the developing fetus's biology. We know that if a mother drinks too much while pregnant, the baby could be born with birth defects, or if the mother is a crack-head, the baby could be addicted to crack. Now, we have some new info - a recent study found that pregnant women taking slimming pills increase chances of bearing lesbian children.

[ilikeverin]

Gays tend to be better educated and more financially successful than heterosexuals. We don't get our girlfriends knocked up during high school or college, so we finish. We don't have kids to worry about, so we can focus on our careers. We don't have kids to pay for, so we have more disposible income and pay more in taxes. So, whatever cost is incurred by society because of above average promiscuity, it is paid for at an above average rate by us.

That's what we wrote about in our gay marriage letter to Minnesotan politicans

However, our teacher-leader person rejected my idea of putting in something about family-inclined homosexuals adopting children and reducing strain on the adoption system... but he dismissed it as too 'liberal-logical'

[bushforever]

Another thing.

The underlying causes of AIDS, i.e. promiscuous sex among homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, and drug use are the real problems deserving of attention and cure, not the disease itself. Otherwise you will just encourage immoral behaviors like promiscuous sex and drug use. For example......Oh, I'm gonna have group sex and get high on heroin tonight...it's not like I'm gonna get AIDS or anything.

Imagine you had a teen.  That teen wanted to go to a party.  Because you want to promote his individuality, you let him go.  However, you suspect alcohol may be there, so you say, "First off, please do not drink.  However... if you drink, then either make someone who hasn't drunk drive you home, or call me and I'll call a cab to pick you up."

I consider that to be common sense

How bout making your kid do a breathilizer test when they get home.  Or something as simple as smelling alcohol on their breath or making them walk a straight line.  Or enforcing a strict curfew. 

[Brambila]

The two sources you provided are simply theories, and have not been confirmed. As a matter of fact, the evidence has not even been confirmed!

“Although the new University of Chicago findings suggest male sexual response is regulated in large part by genes or neurochemistry, the results are preliminary and need to be replicated in other studies.”

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not understand your point in this post, as it seems logically flawed. Simply because not all homosexuals are promiscuous doesn’t mean that Reparative Therapy is not a good alternative, if that’s what you’re saying. Whether or not some homosexuals are promiscuous is not any reason to disallow reparative treatment. Even if a minority of homosexuals are promiscuous (not the case), Reparative Therapy would be extremely helpful in eliminating the unhealthy homosexual desires.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you’re confusing neurological disorders with psychological disorders, something I believe you have confused in the past (I’m not sure; it may have been somebody else). I probably didn’t explain it thoroughly. Neurological disorders have to do with the physical brain- such as the case where a poison reaches the fetus and the fetus has mental disorders as a result of the poisoning, as you have mentioned. Such neurological disorders are hypochondria, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cerebral palsy, Dyslexia, etc.  Psychological disorders, meanwhile, have to do with the disorders in the experience of the world- such disorders include stress disorders, phobias, anxiety disorder, anorexia, bulimia, depressive disorders (though this may have chemical influences), schizophrenia (again, possibly chemical influences from viral infections), and posttraumatic stress disorders. Homosexuality, in my opinion, is a psychological disorder, and has nothing to do with brain chemistry. Is has to do with the environmental experience the person had as a child, and lack of understanding normal behavior, as a young child. Although I would agree that being sexually molested is more of a cause than seeing two men kiss, it still can be a slow aid to creating or worsening homosexuality.

Bogart, I am quote confident that I have had a bigger interaction with the homosexual community than you have had, in that I have gone to school with homosexuals, been educated their opinions as a child, have several family members who are homosexual, and live in San Francisco.

[John Dibble]

The two sources you provided are simply theories, and have not been confirmed. As a matter of fact, the evidence has not even been confirmed!

“Although the new University of Chicago findings suggest male sexual response is regulated in large part by genes or neurochemistry, the results are preliminary and need to be replicated in other studies.”

Many of your studies still need to be confirmed, or had suspicious motives behind them, or insufficient methods, ect. but you still linked them as part of your argument. And I did link a third study.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well it's only your opinion that homosexual desires are unhealthy. I don't believe they are. Having uncontrollable heterosexual desire is unhealthy, but you don't see people trying to make them homosexuals. My point is that not all homosexuals need therapy, and many don't even want it. You've still yet to convince me that homosexuality is a disorder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I think you conveniently ignore the fact that neurology is intricately connected to the mind. Ask any decent psychologist - brain chemistry's effect on any psychological disorder should not be ignored. Heck, look at the third study I linked - you mentioned the fetus getting poisoned, the article mentions possible effects of medicines being taken by the mother that affect the fetus.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is absolutely inaccurate. Almost all of the sources I have provided with you in the past have been confirmed by the APA, which is a heavily pro-homosexual organization. It is ludicrous to say that my sources needed conformation or had "suspicious motives" behind them. And a third study doesn't prove or confirm your argument, all it means is that several people did the same study without confirmation. Anyone can give studies that prove anything. For every study you point out that says that homosexuals have life-long relationships is another that says otherwise. What is nessecary is confirmed studies by prestigious organizations. The APA is biased to the left, but surprisingly they still have confirmed studies that many would say weaken their argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's your point of reference for what's healthy and what's unhealthy? Where is the line drawn? Since you're a liberatarian, and with the evidence I've seen in other posts, I believe you're a relativist- is then, society the determination for what is normal and abnormal behavior, what's ethically wrong and what's right? If we're speaking from a scientific approach, I can prove and have proven in the past that homosexuality is physically and psychologically unhealthy. If we're speaking from a statistical point of view, sure, it's normal, because they make up a considerable portion of the population, and society has accepted their behavior. But I'm not arguing from a statistical point of view, I'm arguing from the matter of fact- if it in it's actuality unhealthy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is partially correct. Yes, neurology has influences on psychology. But there are two different kinds of mental illness- organic and cognitive. Organic is actual physical damage that is done when the physical brain is traumatized such as retardation. Cognitive has to do with the behavior in the behavioral issues of the person- such cases include schizophrenia, phobias, etc. I'm not saying in any way that brain chemistry shouldn't be ignored, I have never said that. However, to link that as the main or one of the main reasons for the cause of homosexuality is silly. Genetically, we are all capable of being homosexual; bipolar, pedophiles, murderers, etc, but we can't use it to justify or define anything. Yes, anything is possible, but nothing has been confirmed. Homosexuality is not caused by genetic background.

[John Dibble]

Bram, I have to say this - you don't know as much about pyschology as you think you do. No offense, and I'll correct you on the biggest thing I saw wrong with your argument - schizophrenia.

You say schizophrenia is a cognitive disorder - you are wrong. It is cognitive, in the sense that it affects behavior, but unlike a phobia the biggest causes are not cognitive. Most recent research on schizophrenia shows that the major causes of it are neurological and probably genetic(having a close relative with it increases your chances of having it, twin studies also show this as well) - for more info go here. I'm not denying the possibility of some cognitive causes, but for the most part science shows it to be biological in nature.

Other diseases that have cognitive effects but biological causes: 
- Manic-depressive disorder, or bi-polar disorder
- Obsessive-Compulsive disorder
-Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, though admittedly this one is probably overdiagnosed. In many cases I think we just don't give children enough exercise time to release pent-up energy(I heard that the elementary school I used to go to cut recess out as well as shortened gym time, for instance.

Of course, then there's mixed bag cases like depression. Some people are biologically vulnerable to depression, but it usually takes cognitive factors to set it off, and treatment often involves both cognitive and medicinal therapy. All I listed above may also sometimes have cognitive factors, but usually biology is the biggest factor and medication is the biggest treatment.

Homosexuality is clearly behavioral in effect, but the causes are probably not all cognitive. We are not sure which it leans towards. Biological causes of something are vast, and just because they have not been found that does not imply they don't exist. I linked studies, very recent ones, that still need to be followed up - but that does not mean we should discount them, unless at some point they are disproven. I disputed many of the studies you listed, too much to really dig up and list, but, just as an example one of the journals used in a report you linked was misused by the author(I remember the researcher being furious her work was used in that way). I suppose only time and more research will tell. However, I think that it is more likely to lean on biological causes than cognitive, though in many cases it's probably 'mixed bag'. If genetics are involved, it may only be in terms of increasing risk - there is no one 'gay gene' as was insisted in the past. Like schizophrenia, the causes are not the same for everyone.


Now, as to the 'healthiness' of homosexuality. Based on what I've read from your posts, you think that homosexuality is unhealthy in itself - that being attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite is unhealthy. Please do correct me if I'm wrong on that. I do not think that is the case. I do believe that unchecked promiscuous behavior, whether homo or heterosexual, is unhealthy in that is has so many risks to one's health, both physical and mental, but simply being attracted by the same sex is not in of itself unhealthy.

I don't view two homosexuals who are monogamous with eachother, in a non-abusive relationship, as living an unhealthy lifestyle. If they are supportive and loving, it's a healthy relationship. There might be a few health factors, such as increased chance of anal tissue damange/infection during their gay sex, but overall that is not a big factor on the scale of health.

If two homosexuals are in a relationship, but they are promiscuous or abusive, then it's unhealthy.

I'm not really a relativist in the sense that you described - personally I think society can be filled with idiots, as it is in many places on the planet, and they are ignorant on what's actually healthy. Now, you do have to distinguish that healthy and moral are not the same things - some people view masturbation as unhealthy, but any doctor will tell you it has no real negative health effects. Society often defines what it views as moral or healthy, and that gives a general sense of the culture of the society, but not what is actually healthy. As far as health goes, I'd be more willing to ask for the consensus of studied medical professionals as well as some common-sense bolstered by self-study to determine what is healthy.

What I actually am is an individualist - I think people can hold their own standards of morality, though for society to function there usually has to be some consensus and compromise in the laws made. And, being an individualist, I don't generally lump people into groups - there are healthy homosexuals and there are unhealthy ones, just as with heterosexuals.

[Redefeatbush04]

Bram, I have to say this - you don't know as much about pyschology as you think you do. No offense, and I'll correct you on the biggest thing I saw wrong with your argument - schizophrenia.

You say schizophrenia is a cognitive disorder - you are wrong. It is cognitive, in the sense that it affects behavior, but unlike a phobia the biggest causes are not cognitive. Most recent research on schizophrenia shows that the major causes of it are neurological and probably genetic(having a close relative with it increases your chances of having it, twin studies also show this as well) - for more info go here. I'm not denying the possibility of some cognitive causes, but for the most part science shows it to be biological in nature.

Other diseases that have cognitive effects but biological causes: 
- Manic-depressive disorder, or bi-polar disorder
- Obsessive-Compulsive disorder
-Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, though admittedly this one is probably overdiagnosed. In many cases I think we just don't give children enough exercise time to release pent-up energy(I heard that the elementary school I used to go to cut recess out as well as shortened gym time, for instance.

Of course, then there's mixed bag cases like depression. Some people are biologically vulnerable to depression, but it usually takes cognitive factors to set it off, and treatment often involves both cognitive and medicinal therapy. All I listed above may also sometimes have cognitive factors, but usually biology is the biggest factor and medication is the biggest treatment.

Homosexuality is clearly behavioral in effect, but the causes are probably not all cognitive. We are not sure which it leans towards. Biological causes of something are vast, and just because they have not been found that does not imply they don't exist. I linked studies, very recent ones, that still need to be followed up - but that does not mean we should discount them, unless at some point they are disproven. I disputed many of the studies you listed, too much to really dig up and list, but, just as an example one of the journals used in a report you linked was misused by the author(I remember the researcher being furious her work was used in that way). I suppose only time and more research will tell. However, I think that it is more likely to lean on biological causes than cognitive, though in many cases it's probably 'mixed bag'. If genetics are involved, it may only be in terms of increasing risk - there is no one 'gay gene' as was insisted in the past. Like schizophrenia, the causes are not the same for everyone.


Now, as to the 'healthiness' of homosexuality. Based on what I've read from your posts, you think that homosexuality is unhealthy in itself - that being attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite is unhealthy. Please do correct me if I'm wrong on that. I do not think that is the case. I do believe that unchecked promiscuous behavior, whether homo or heterosexual, is unhealthy in that is has so many risks to one's health, both physical and mental, but simply being attracted by the same sex is not in of itself unhealthy.

I don't view two homosexuals who are monogamous with eachother, in a non-abusive relationship, as living an unhealthy lifestyle. If they are supportive and loving, it's a healthy relationship. There might be a few health factors, such as increased chance of anal tissue damange/infection during their gay sex, but overall that is not a big factor on the scale of health.

If two homosexuals are in a relationship, but they are promiscuous or abusive, then it's unhealthy.

I'm not really a relativist in the sense that you described - personally I think society can be filled with idiots, as it is in many places on the planet, and they are ignorant on what's actually healthy. Now, you do have to distinguish that healthy and moral are not the same things - some people view masturbation as unhealthy, but any doctor will tell you it has no real negative health effects. Society often defines what it views as moral or healthy, and that gives a general sense of the culture of the society, but not what is actually healthy. As far as health goes, I'd be more willing to ask for the consensus of studied medical professionals as well as some common-sense bolstered by self-study to determine what is healthy.

What I actually am is an individualist - I think people can hold their own standards of morality, though for society to function there usually has to be some consensus and compromise in the laws made. And, being an individualist, I don't generally lump people into groups - there are healthy homosexuals and there are unhealthy ones, just as with heterosexuals.

Excellent post Dibble. I agree wholeheartedly

BTW on a semi-random note, I have ADHD, and I do think it is overdiagnosed. While I know I am correctly diagnosed (13 of 15 symptoms and you only need, I think, 4), my friend was misdiagnosed

[senatortombstone]

You shouldn't be too upset with abortion.  Most conservatives/Bush-backers are against it andwon't have them.  It is democrats and liberals who are having abortions.  I can only assume that most parents choose which values to instill on their children.  A democratic parent will most likely raise a democrat.  I don;t see it as aborting babies, I see it as aborting liberals and less liberals is good!

[Brambila]

I have to leave soon, but I'll address parts of your post.

Firstly, allow me to explain my sources. There are three psychologists who are prominent figures in my life- my father, and two close friends. I have contacted one of them during this debate to confirm what I had initially thought homosexuality was (although it is debated among Psychologists). Do I know a lot about Psychology? No, I don't think so. But I know enough about psychology to tell you that neurological disorders and psychological disorders (organic and cognitive) are NOT the same. They both have different causes.

You are correct in saying that schizophrenia is not entirely cognitive, it is possibly influenced by brain chemistry, as I said in my previous post- "schizophrenia (again, possibly chemical influences from viral infections)". I say "possibly" as none of this has been confirmed, and have only been proven by studies, it has yet to have physical evidence. However, schizophrenia is still a cognitive disorder, NOT an organic disorder. Simply becuase of is suppable to a certain disorder doesn't make the disorder organic. An organic disorder is one where there was physical damage done to the brain. Schizophrenia wasn't caused by brain damage:

"Current research proposes that schizophrenia is caused by a genetic vulnerability coupled with environmental and psychosocial stressors, the so-called diathesis-stress model. Family studies suggest that people have varying levels of inherited genetic vulnerability, from very low to very high, to schizophrenia. Whether or not the person develops schizophrenia is partly determined by this vulnerability. At the same time, the development of schizophrenia also depends on the amount and types of stresses the person experiences over time. An analogy can be drawn to diabetes by virtue of both genetic factors (e.g., family history) and behavioral factors (e.g., diet, exercise, stress) that interact to determine whether or not a given person develops diabetes. How the interaction works in schizophrenia is unknown, yet the subject of ongoing research."
-Source

You're on the right track, but not entirely correct. A genetic vulnerability doesn't mean that the disorder is organic. Genetically, we are all vulnerable to disorders; as I said, I have the capacity from birth to be a homosexual, a murderer, a pedophile, bipolar, whatever.  However, that does not mean I have a organic disorder. In addition, what YOU stated in your post about what is a biological factor in psychological disorders is not an influence of schizophrenia.

"However, there are other biological factors - being exposed to a chemical in the womb is considered a biological factor, for instance."
-John Dibble

Being exposed to a chemical while in the womb will most likely not cause schizophrenia. It may cause retardation, but not schizophrenia. Genetics may have an influence- again, it hasn't been confirmed, and neither have viral infection influenes.

I hope to finish your post when I get back today.

[John Dibble]

Two things, Bram -

1. First, just letting you know I fixed the link on schizophrenia I posted. Here it is again, so you don't have to go digging for it: http://psychologyinfo.com/schizophrenia/index.html

I didn't deny that schizophrenia has possible cognitive causes, I merely asserted that, based on what research I have seen, that the causes are mostly biological. I've admitted in previous posts that stressors could serve as triggers.

I believe in looking at causes to determine how to classify a disorder. A phobia is usually pure cognitive - little having to do with biology is actually involved in causing the fear. Schizophrenia has cognitive effects but has primarily biological causes in nearly every case - you disagree because of supposed lack of physical evidence, but I say we have enough to conclude that it is majority biological causes. Doesn't mean more research should be done, though. I guess this is up to opinion. Really we don't have physical evidence that a lot of things exist or happen, yet we accept them as fact - lots of physics stuff for instance. Perhaps it would be better to classify disorders by both cause and effect(pure organic, pure cognitive, cause organic/effect cognitive, cause cognitive/effect organic, ect) rather than simply organic or cognitive.

2. That quote was about biological factors causing disorders in general, not schizophrenia(I'd think that would be obvious, since it was before the schizophrenia argument). Alcohol can be a factor in any number of disorders, whether schizophrenia is among them or not I do not know. Of course, as you admitted, viral factors in the womb can increase chances of developing schizophrenia. By the way, the same site you linked(different part of it) says something about prenatal alchohol exposure, and other chemicals such as lead, can increase the risk of schizophrenia by %300. Read here, section 6.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's fine- I'm just making sure you understand that schizophrenia is mainly caused by psychological trauma, not brain trauma. Though some studies suggest the possibility of genetic vulnerabilities, enviromental issues still play a major role. What would be correct in asserting is that among the cognitive disorders, schizophrenia is one with one of the most genetic influences. I think I saw a study somewhere that said identicle twins have a 40% chance of getting schizophrenia if their sibling has it. Although this is a high number, enviroment obviously plays a huge role of influence.

Yes- I saw that sixth section. Again, it was purely statistical and lacks physical evidence.

Addressing your old post:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My belief is merely that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, like pedophilia and alcoholism. In all three of these disorders, some are able to control their desires and live normal lives. My uncle is an alcoholic, but doesn't drink, for instance. I agree that promiscuous behavior period is very dangerous and unhealthy. I'm not saying that homosexuality in itself is unhealthy, but can lead to unhealthy consequences. I have a few friends who are homosexuals, but are living chaste lives because they know the risks of homosexual behavior. Pedophilia, for instance, isn't unhealthy in itself, but can cause problems. I repeat: Homosexuality isn't unhealthy in itself- and neither are any other disorders; it is the behavior that is unhealthy. 
 
A few alcoholic friends of mine tried "Moderation Management", which is an organization for alcoholics who want to drink, but want to reduce the amount they can drink. Not surprisingly, this works for some people, as everyone has a different form of alcoholism. However, many of these individuals will relapse, and if not pose a serious threat of relapsing. Similarly, I believe that sure, some homosexuals can live homosexual lifestyles with non-abusive, less promiscuous, loving relationship. However, in addition to the fact that these cases are rare among homosexuals (I have already shown with multiple confirmed sources that the average amount of sexual partners in a lifetime for a homosexual is in the hundreds; and already gay marriages in Sweden have a huge divorce rate*), homosexuals have a risk of relapsing into promiscuous behavior.

As far as health and morality goes, one would argue that mental health is just as important as physical health.

*In Sweden, there are 53  divorces for every 100 marriages. Homosexual men were 50% more likely to divorce than heterosexuals, and homosexual women were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexuals. (Anderson, G, Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America).

[King]

You shouldn't be too upset with abortion. Most conservatives/Bush-backers are against it andwon't have them. It is democrats and liberals who are having abortions. I can only assume that most parents choose which values to instill on their children. A democratic parent will most likely raise a democrat. I don;t see it as aborting babies, I see it as aborting liberals and less liberals is good!

Let me guess...teenage Republican?

[danwxman]

The only thing more annoying then a teen Democrat is a teen Republican.

[King]

The only thing more annoying then a teen Democrat is a teen Republican.

Then there are the Teen Greens, which share no Green Party beliefs at all, they just like the color green.

[senatortombstone]

No, I am in my mid-twenties, but I still look like a teenager, damn-good lookin' one at that.

Seriously, this thought about abortion being more detrimental to liberals as a voting block came to me about a year ago, but it hasn't gained much ground since then.

I live in MN and believe I saw many liberals waving signs on the bridges above the highways and I would encourage them to have as many abortions as possible.