You’re arguing with a guy whose entire reading comprehension is Fox in Socks.
I’d advise you to take the higher road there, man.
I just won’t address anecdotal evidence or research pushed through by special interest groups.
Ok so I’m going to post here to make this point though I really want to stay out of this debate as a whole. But if there is one thing I can’t stand is half-assed science.
First just saying “refer to peer-reviewed scientific literature” is the internet’s way of saying “I didn’t actually do my research, but hey I found a random article on a website that links to some article WOOT!” People throw those words far too lazily. The reason this is half assed is that I’ll tell you first and foremost as a scientist that I don’t trust any website that summarizes an article because so many of them are shitty and often misrepresent or outright fail to capture the article correctly. So even if it does link to an article, if you haven’t actually verified that the article in question does indeed say what the study says your argument amounts to jack shit.
Second don’t just say “peer-reviewed” like it is some holy grail that means what is said in the article is truth. First of all you need to actually check to see if it was published in any journal worth its salt. There are several journals that have very low requirements to publishing. And even if it is published in a good journal there is no guarantee it is actually correct. I’ve found things that are wrong in articles written in top tier journals.
Third even if you perform the first two actions, that doesn’t mean you are done. You need to actually look for response articles as well. For instance if we take that journal article found here
and type the name into google scholar here
we see there is a nice little “cited by” button that makes our lives easier. What this does is shows you the list of articles that have cited your paper. This can given you information first if the paper is of any importance since typically less important papers won’t be cited as much. This can also show you immediately if there is an article that takes the opposite position
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4038808248050564953&as_sdt=8000005&sciodt=0,19&hl=en
I can’t tell you the number of times a quick search like this yields a half a dozen articles that say the one you started with was inaccurate. And if you can’t find citations either the article wasn’t really impactful among other scientist or that there hasn’t been enough time for further study which you can usually tell by what year a paper was published in.
So if you want to claim the hand of science for your own purposes then you need to get off your ass and actually do the work.
Now if you will excuse me, I must get back to kicking the shit out of my chemical simulations to get them to work.
Angry scientist rant off
Edit: Oh and if you want to make the point about “It’s behind a paywall” go to /r/Scholar on reddit. They can help you with that.
Why are you so angry? I was not saying that the science I linked to was infallible, nor that the articles were 100% proof that what I was saying was correct. All I was pointing to was there is at least, a basis for the idea that homosexuality is biological. The poster I was replying to stated that all science points to homosexuality not being biological (natural) but being a product of nurture.
Further, the part you quoted merely stated that peer-reviewed scientific literature is much more reliable than “my friend told me different.” Do you disagree with this?
Just relax, bro.
EDIT: Thanks, by the way, to linking to all the replies to the Rice study. I will read them when I get a chance, as I’m pretty interested in this stuff anyway (although I am, by no means, a scientist).
I smell trouble in his gay polygamist marriage already.
The problem with saying “this is what the science says” is that most people read the tag line and not the bottom line. As a result the science can say something completely different, but because people only read it through 2nd hand accounts they never actually get to see what the science is really like. Which is why I’m going on long rants on a fighting game website. 
This is more my general rant against the line “links to peer-reviewed articles” because I despise 2nd hand articles as a scientist. Scientific reporting is notoriously bad and I’ve gained an almost complete distrust of it because of how often those articles get it wrong.
I deal with scientific articles a lot for work and the reason why it’s so hard to report on is because that shit isn’t in English. It might as well be written in Ants because it’s never easy to read through them.
I agree and it wasn’t my intention to make the claim “science says differently.” I understand that getting a general consensus on anything in the scientific field is rather difficult. My reply was to a poster who was stating that there was a consensus. Perhaps, he should be the one you should be aiming your post at, if that is your contention.
Your take on 2nd hand articles may very well be correct. As an admitted layman, I rely on these types of articles to explain the heavy scientific theory involved. That said, I am not opposed to showing why the article, itself, is wrong in its synopsis.
Real talk reading science articles makes me feel stupid. They just use words i have never heard of before, so i have to look those up. The definitions contain words i have never heard of before so i have to look those up, and then when its all said and done I have to interpret what the fuck this guy said in this journal. This is only for one sentence, and these journals can sometimes contain 20 or 30 pages of info.
I just look at it and say “iight you win you bodied me”
Not always. I can understand say reporting on quantum physics can be hard because even sometimes the people doing the work don’t always understand it, but the problem with second hand article is that they often sensationalize results without actually asking the scientist involved what the results actually mean.
If I had a dollar for every time I saw something on the order of “scientist have a cure for cancer!” only to read the article and it says something closer “scientist have something which reduces cancer activity by 10%, but won’t actually cure cancer”
That and statistical articles are hilariously misreported often for political purposes. I remember seeing some article claim “that doing x would increase your risk by 75%” yet when you read the source article you realize the base risk rate was 0.1% and “doing x” risk rate was 0.175%.
I’ve really gotten sick of second hand reporting.
Scientific articles are written for other people in the field. This is the primary reason why, from the hard sciences to the social sciences, it would help if you dudes just stopped saying stupid shit. Every time you guys talk about some random dumb shit like you know it just sounds like beaker making noises.
Regardless of what religious twats say in this thread, your wizard failed at holding back the reality of things.
Gays can get married and life is good.
Why should life style choices of something as innocuous as sexual preference limit what they can or cannot do? Is anal sex and cunnilingus really that bad?
Because “religious texts” and “it’s not natural”.
You do know there are over a thousand species besides humans that engage in homosexual acts…right?
fuck it. “You may now kiss the bride.” If one of them is wearing a dress, then you’re the bride. The same reason it doesn’t work for two guys is the reason it goes double for two girls. Your solution works too, but I say fuck it…NO, NOT NOW! ON THE HONEYMOON!!
-Starhammer-
Speaking of that, i had a dog that only mounted male dogs, he also let other male dogs to mount him. When it came to female dogs, he just ignored them
You know its bad when dudes are comparing gays to animals to quantify what normal behaviour is. Gimme that popcorn!
Uhh… Humans are animals. Don’t think too highly of yourself.