But you didn't. You presented one man's opinion. Why don't I call up one of the many opposing views by individuals/groups/states/countries? Or make up my own for that matter. It would be just as valid. The same for your Christianity link. I oppose that with the mission statement by the Adventists.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

That presumes a lot, including an assumption that the gay men would stay in the area they were born.
Unfortunately, since that is often where a lot of the prejudice lies, it makes sense for them to migrate to the cities.

In addition, it assumes "economic success" is more isolated to the larger cities.



You're assuming a switch in cause and effect.
We're talking about predominantly causal / predictive factors, and you're trying to use one predictive factor to exclude a causal factor.
Makes no sense, especially considering the fact that what we're talking about is very real, and very proven in research.


Yet the simplest "angle" to look at involves a direct analysis.
An analysis of gays and the size of their families, and the birth order.
And that's been done, so it's really pointless to try and look at it through mirrors, microscopes, and telescopic lenses in order to contradict what is already seen with the naked eye...

Using additional "analysis" in a half-assed way does not exclude the original conclusion based on the facts.
That would be like observing that blacks have a lower income, and thus presuming that the rich person must be white.

And then there was a hush.

Oh oh. Let the long arse posts begin...

That also assumes they have that option. Not to mention I was talking about humans in general, since homosexuality isn't just limited to Americans. Many people live in areas where they don't have the opportunity to just up and move to "where the gays are".

Actually I meant that a society, and that includes a whole country like I said, that become economically successful usually results in a decreasing birth rate. We discussed this in a previous thread about Japan I believe.

No, the science I'm referring to is observed too. Less intelligence more children.
Intelligence and family size reconsidered.
vs.
Birth Order May Affect Homosexuality

So if gay men are the result of multiple births, the chances of the mother NOT being the brightest increases.
But these are all theories anyway. It's all conjecture. And with all the variable in fertility and family choices, that fecudity study is one of the most questionable ones yet IMHO.
For someone that requires so much fact checking in his proof of stuff negative about gays, I'm surprised you are even paying attention to this witch hunt.

I'm not the one doing the studies. Talk to the scientists dude. You're the one with inflated standards of scientific perfection.
And that birth order study is the one that I'm thinking of and not the fecundity. So you are right, I was mistaken there. But again if the chances of being gay increases with the number of gay boys as that study theorized, that also would eventually run into the fact that larger families are usually less intelligent and poorer. When viewed as a species-wide phenomena. I wonder did they test the IQ's of those families?

Honestly that would also require looking at humans as only Black and White. And since any science would have to take into account that there are other races involved, and mixed families, that would take a closer look. I wonder would you require such high standards of scientific completeness for a study like that?

Besides, your analogy was so vague as to render it useless. What rich person. How do you know they were rich? How did they make their money? "the rich person"?? huh?

Whereas with sexual orientation as we usually refer to it, there's only gay or straight. Not much middle or "other" to work with there. Much simpler to work with.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Of course, as usual, in your attempt to "appear" rational, you over-simplify, and completely omit the notion that some people are perfectly "bi-sexual", and can have their cake and eat it too, so to speak....humans are much more complex than you imagine, and sex is so much more simple and mundane than you make it...it's not that important....except to those 'obsessed" about it.

But in the context of what we are discussing, you are either straight or not. Very few studies available that suss out the bisexual group. If you have access to any, I'd be happy to look them over.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Thank you for denying reality....I haven't the foggiest notion in which dimension or parallel universe you reside...but it sure isn't this one.
One is not either straight or gay...one can be both. Who are you to determine what people are. The world isn't according to you....don't be bringing your issues and your propaganda, yet, again, "over here".
The fact that very few studies are available is besides the point...if you had any friends, undoubtedly, some of them would be "bi-sexual", statistically speaking (unlessen you sleepin' with them and know "otherwise", which would be another show).
Do your own research...but keep your "misinformed" opinions to yourself.
"You're either straight or not"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was a good one...ROTFL

Like I said, show me the studies trying to find a cause for homosexuality that include bisexuality and I'll look them over. Otherwise you aren't addressing your own point. AS for the rest of your post, since I'm not the subject here, not really relevant to the discussion.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

This reply doesn't even say anything real on the topic, or the points I was making.

1) And realistically, who does not "have the option" to leave where they were born? Anybody can move and try to make a living elsewhere.
Whether or not they want to sacrifice as much as they need to and PLAN to make it happen is another thing.

2) Even in the imaginary world you're talking about, gays CAN and DO move. Saying that some can't doesn't ignore the fact that the migration DOES happen, thus reducing your complaint observation.

3) For your observation to have any REAL meaning, you would first (amongst many things) have to examine how many gays were BORN in the city vs rural areas.
Since you aren't going to do that, all the rest of this is pointless.


I know what you meant.
You said "that", THEN you tried to take it a step further and tie the economic success TO A SPECIFIC TYPE of city living environment.
I then pointed out what you were saying, and then you evidently dropped the second part of your comment.


You aren't even listening...
I'm not refuting "observation A" and "observation B" that you made.
I'm talking about how you tried to THEN go to "Since A and B, then C".

The "C" argument you made is the illogical leap. Just because you have A and B doesn't mean C.


That's an assumption.
Just because you have two phenomenon doesn't mean squat.

You are committing the logical fallacy of "Dogs run on four legs. Animals that run on four legs typically aren't smart. Therefore, Dogs aren't smart."

You are committing a logical fallacy in your assumption in MIXING the observations, and making a conclusion that is unproven.



I knew what you were saying.
You didn't pay attention to realize what I was ACTUALLY contesting.


If you're not the one doing the studies, then don't pretend to make such invalid conclusions either.
It's funny how you take this cop-out, but then refuse to acknowledge that you're unqualified to make the type of conclusion you made as well.


That is a possibility, but unproven.
Making that conclusion without scientific proof is a logical fallacy.


No, fxashun. It wouldn't.


Most families are not "mixed". Ergo, your point is meaningless.
And other races would not mitigate the points I made. All I did was compare TWO of the races.
How other races compare would be a look at the larger picture, but would not change the point I made.


We could make clear lines of delineation. Perhaps just looking at the "poor" people by using the established "poverty" line.

But your response is proving my point.
You are trying to come up with these other ideas to mitigate the casual correlation attempt, ignoring the fact that according to your logic, it would indicate what I said.

I repeated your logical fallacy, and you are trying to point out the fallacy in that approach.
Yet you persist in repeating your own logical fallacy.


Actually, there IS a middle there.
Not only bisexuality, but a whole continuum in how "gay" or "straight" people actually are.
It's not binary, but a spectrum.

I'm just going to toss this out there.

Anybody who tries to argue that they can call gays "deviant" and not have it be a personal insult is deluding themselves.

Just because you encompass a GROUP of people which includes the INDIVIDUAL does not lessen the insult. All you've done is insult more people.

Suppose somebody said blacks were "deviant".
Or Jews were "deviant".
Or _____ were "deviant".
Would that somehow NOT be an insult?

Would the person making the statement be insulting EVERYBODY who shared that characteristic? Every INDIVIDUAL who shared that characteristic...
YES!