> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Miles Jackson
> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 10:57 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: Diet Pills = Gay Babies
>
>
>
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
>
> > Miles writes:
> >
> > > This is wild extrapolation from correlational data!
> >
> > And this is holiday homophbia as only Miles can serve.
>
> Pointing out sloppy, irrational thinking is not homophobia.
> I'm a little impatient with researchers who make strong
> claims about causality from correlational data, because
> I've been teaching about research methods in the social
> sciences for many years.
>
> > > . . . a correlation between drug use during pregnancy and
> > sexual orientation of offspring is ludricious evidence for the
> > claim that "sexuality is determined in the womb".
> >
> > Why? Because you say so? You use the same technique as
> > reparation therapists: can't argue the data, so you attack the
> > approach. Either way, anything to denigrate queers.
>
> Well, I say so, on the basis of years of research and teaching
> about research methods. If you conduct nonexperimental
> research and discover that two things are related, it is
> not proper scientific reasoning to claim that one is the
> cause of the other. I "can't argue the data"? My point is
> that the data here are ambiguous, and I'm pointing out the
> fallacious logic of anyone who treats these ambiguous
> correlational data as clear evidence of cause and effect.
>
> How you can construe this pretty banal point about
> scientific method as an attempt to denigrate queers?
> If you look at the archive, you'll see I've made this
> methodological point before about various research examples.
>
> Moreover, I don't see how you get from questioning the
> claim that sexual orientation is biological to homophobia.
> The question of whether or not sexual orientation is
> influenced by biology is completely irrelevant to the
> question of equal rights for queers. Just as I don't need
> to demonstrate the biological basis for my Catholicism to
> have a right to worship, I don't need to demonstrate the
> biological basis of my queerness to have a right to
> marriage.
>
> I know that you may not believe this, but I'm one of
> your political allies. We share many of the same
> political goals (e.g., equal rights for queers). My
> points of disagreement here are not moral or political.
>
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk