Actually, it did.
You are trying to take observation A, and observation B, and reach claim C in an illogical manner.


If you can show any studies on this issue FROM these countries, then you'll have relevance.
Otherwise, you're just dragging this discussion off topic.


And until the studies are presented, the logic in reaching your conclusion just isn't there.
In fact, the fact that "more study is required" demonstrates that even you know your conclusion isn't justified...


You've just given all three.
A being gays and family size.
B being family size and intelligence.
C being a claim regarding the intelligence of gay families.


Pointless truisms, devoid of any actual meaningful response to the discussion.


So you embrace the logical fallacy whole-heartedly.
I am unsurprised.


What am I actually obfuscating?


And herein lies the problem.
I have NO problem with the SCIENTISTS information.

It's YOUR conclusion, which the scientists NEVER made, which we are discussing.
Quit obfuscating the issue.


Wrong.
There are possibilities for other causal factors. Like in this case, one thing you are specifically overlooking is that the "larger families" is a function of the gay genetic heterosexual dichotomy.
There can be two DIFFERENT factors causing the issue.

One trick I have seen from racist bigots is to point to blacks having a higher crime rate, and thus presume that being black CAUSES the crime.
By your limited analysis, that argument holds true.



Did you really think I should spend several web-pages detailing all the possibliities involved?
I listed two for brevity and simplicity. That in no way implies what you claim.


Quote me.


So in all this time of you babbling over homosexuality and the issue of sexual orientation, you lacked any rudimentary understanding of some of the basic concepts like "bisexuality"?
No wonder you're all turned around on the issue.

And what's even more laughable?
LOOK AT THE STUDY YOU GAVE ME earlier and then get back to me with that question.

Actually I thought we had cleared up the OP was a mistake in the fundicity vs. birth order.

Not really. But then again, we are still referring to a mistake I made about CF's post.

Duh??? That IS why I said it.

Nope. To me and birth order, which is what I was thinking...

Actually "family size" isn't necessarily what I was referring to. I was concentrating more on just the female. Since that is where the birth order theory originates. The "family" really doesn't matter since the number of boys in the household didn't seem to make a difference. It seemingly was just dependent on the number of males shared the uterus.

So we WERE on different wavelengths.

It seems this discussion was built on two errors.

Yeah, I don't see anything illogical about relating brain size to intelligence.

It looks like obfuscation isn't the correct word. We just weren't communicating.

I'm not obfuscating anything. I said from the beginning that was my opinion. That IS what this thread is about right?

I don't think "families" has anything to do with it.

But being Black doesn't cause crime. If I just don't do the actions that are criminal, no crime. The same analogy works for AIDS and gay men. Gay man doesn't cause AIDS but a specific activity performed by gay men happens to be a efficient transport for HIV. But if you just sit at home and "be homosexual", no AIDS. I understand causality quite clearly.

But if you are gonna make a racial analogy, why would anyone assume just 2 races?

That would be like observing that blacks have a lower income, and thus presuming that the rich person must be white.
Why just two races? Additionally what criteria am I using to define "rich"? There are plenty of rich Black people in Atlanta. It's not that easy.

I understand that people might be bisexual. But I haven't seen much consideration given for it in research looking for a purpose reason cause for homosexuality. I ask again for research that DOES include Bisexuality. or are you gonna continue with that "you've never heard about bisexuality" BS?

What about it?

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

"fundicity" isn't a word...


So you explicitly admit that your conclusion is not justified?


Actually, you're moving further away from substantiating your point.
If it's really about gays and "birth order", then you've lost any commonality on the whole "family size and intelligence" argument.
You're eliminating what minimal attempt at a link you had to begin with.


And you attempted to invoke scientific credibility for your opinion, which I am refuting. Right?


Likewise, parental intelligence has nothing to do with homosexuality.


You're going to go this route, after proposing the whole "lower intelligence" argument attempting to associate it with gays???

Then by that logic, since the parents of gays don't do anything actually gay, they can't be associated with the sexual orientation regardless of their own "intelligence"...
< end sarcasm >

The point is that crime rate is higher for blacks, and some people falsely attempt to insinuate cause and effect. While you personally don't do the actions that are criminal, OTHER people who are black DO.


And if I be as "homosexual" as I want with my partner, still "no AIDS".
And for blacks, there HIV rate is much higher than gays.
So would it make sense if I said anything about people not "being black" in their actions, therefore "no AIDS"???


And lesbians can be as "homosexual" as they want, with no real risk from AIDS.

You still haven't a clue as to what the REAL risk factors are...


1) I never "assumed just 2 races".
2) I've asked and answered your question.
If you aren't satisfied with my reasoning, you can learn to cope with the disappointment...


If you want me to change "white" to "not black", it doesn't change anything about my actual point.


I really don't think you realize when you start proving my point about how your analogies get fundamentally flawed....


I don't see any point to this, other than to detract from the main issue.

Fecundity..Damn dude is it really that bad?

I admit that I was thinking of birth rate instead of fecundity.

Family size wasn't my point, birth order was. And females having more children. That's not necessarily equated to family size.

I only listed the studies that I got my information from.

But it does reflect the types of upbringing that they might encounter. It might tell the reason why so many are homeless since uneducated people are more homophobic, etc. If a scientists can relate fecudity to homosexuality, there is a whole new angle to explore.

Then by that logic, since the parents of gays don't do anything actually gay, they can't be associated with the sexual orientation regardless of their own "intelligence"...[/quote]
And the siblings of gays don't do anything gay either, yet they are being called more likely to have tons of kids. I'm not the only one making leaps.

But being Black doesn't compel a person to commit crime. You have to look for another motivation.

Actually even among American Blacks, being gay male is still the highest with drug addict next and heterosexual females on down. Just makes you concerned about what gay Black men are doing.
Even in Africa, HIV isn't uniformly spread among the differing countries.

[quote]And lesbians can be as "homosexual" as they want, with no real risk from AIDS.[/QUOTE[
Exactly what I said.

In the U.S. it's anal sex, drug abuse, and multiple partners. Unless you have information otherwise.

1. You only gave 2 possibilities
2. No you didn't. You gave an dodge that you still are trying to defend. Just because a black person is poor doesn't mean a rich person is White. That's nonsensical.

It's not satifaction, just pointing out you are making no sense.

Actually that makes more sense. In a simple minded way, I can agree with that.

Just as you didn't understand what I was saying in the first place.
I can admit I mistook fecundity with the birth order studies.
You seem to be stuck on family size when I simply thinking about the number of previous males that occupy a uterus. That's what the birth order studies concern.

You are the one with the long ass posts. Who started that crap? You stretched each individual sentence into a paragraph in your first post. Damn...And then you complain about detracting. I'm complaining about superfluous bullshit.

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

It's an angle to explore, but I doubt it will get explored just cause of the logistic hurdles involved.
To definitively approach the question, one would have to test the intelligence of the parents of gays. And that includes verifying that the parents HAVE a gay child, instead of allowing the "I have no son if he's gay" mentality to obliterate data points.

Personally, I don't think there would be any correlation seen. What you might get is the link between bigotry and ignorance rearing its ugly head. Parents who would throw their kids out of the home over being gay would (IMO) be more likely to be less intelligent. Representative of the sub-group and not of all gay parents.


The data shows what it shows.


By that logic, having your sixth kid turn out gay doesn't compel a mother/father to have six kids either.
You're missing the point of the analogy, and I think I've proven the point to others so I'm moving on.


I can pull the same trick.
Even amongst gays in America, being black still has the highest percentage.
And furthermore, it's not just America where the "black / HIV" connection could be made.
AFRICA has it as well, with world-wide an astounding percentage of the HIV problem being comprised by blacks.
Wherein the "gay" connection to HIV is NOT as prevalent world-wide, with the vast majority of cases per capita cases being made up by heterosexual sex.


Anal sex is no more likely to transmit HIV than vaginal sex.
"Anal sex" is not really a factor, but rather a sub-factor of one means of the "multiple partners" problem.


You admit you made the mistake, and yet you blame me.
I can go back to your original quote and show EXACTLY what you said.
And then I can press you for what I supposedly "didn't understand", and compare notes.

Is that the route we need to take here?


I can cut down on the response length by simply noting that this is a complete non-sequitur.
You waste more time complaining about "long ass posts". I wonder how many web-pages you've wasted on THAT meaningless complaint...

Hmmm, at the "big boys" table...it's clear who sits at the head of it, and who is the "rowdy" guest. Pass the potatoes, please.

You see, at the big boys table, we actually discuss the topic though, and not the poster or the posts. Foundit is a big boy. You are just the runt who everybody just gives wedgies to. Your potatoes would more then likely be in "Happy meal" form

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

Didn't give criteria for the study, just said that using the studies that say "gay male is the result of more male children", studies that say "more children equals less education and intelligence", and studies that say there is more acceptance among the college educated there is bound to be some overlap somewhere.

And it may actually call into question whether birth order really is a determinant.

I agree there.

Not really. Because no one plans for a gay kid. Just as Black people aren't compelled to commit crime just because they are Black. I know I'm don't have a compelling urge to run out and shoot anybody or rob an old lady. Nor do women count on the fact that with each successive male the chances of one being gay increases. I still don't see how your broken analogy is somehow proven.

No you can't...Outside of Africa it's a predominately gay and drug addict disease. prompting this headline recently...
There Will Be No Heterosexual AIDS Epidemic, Experts Admit
Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits - Health News, Health & Wellbeing - The Independent
Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Liar.
Anal Sex Increases Risk For Heterosexual HIV Transmission
The researchers reported that the risk of transmission for each individual anal contact was 10 times higher than the risk for each individual vaginal contact. These authors concluded that the results confirm their previous finding that anal intercourse is a far more efficient mode of transmission than vaginal intercourse.

I'm not blaming you for my mistake, I'm just saying you are still stuck on making points against my mistake. I'm not necessarily talking about "families". You can go right ahead and do that though if you wish, I already said I was mistaken.

Actually you cutting down on any post length would impress me.

Making that complaint only takes one line, while your long ass posts take up a whole page sometimes. You'll still be the one wasting more bandwidth.

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

we were just commenting on fxashun's absence on the gay threads on another forum today.

now I see why

he's on THIS forum bleating about gays and pissing and moaning and whining about post length and personal comments

__________________
"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities."
...Christian Nestell Bovee

I'm talking about a lot of stuff here. It's actually quite nice to have several different topics instead of 20 whiney "gay" ones.

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