Science might have found why some people are gay.

[Gooders1002]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012...le-are-gay
I find it intreasting how we might have found why some people are gay, and this is a close to home issue as I am also gay and it intreasting to know why. It should be proven in 6 months. And the comments made me laugh as there so stupid.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I can't believe what assholes those commenters are. Even when I was a fundamentalist and believed (begrudgingly) homosexuality was a sin, I could never bring myself to express that at all, let alone as passionately as these idiots.

[KichigaiNeko]

Would be interesting to know just what does "cause" homosexuality in humans other than making guesses regarding population density, or some of the pseudo reasons (past life etc etc)

[Rev. Rye]

I can't believe what assholes those commenters are. Even when I was a fundamentalist and believed (begrudgingly) homosexuality was a sin, I could never bring myself to express that at all, let alone as passionately as these idiots.

Really, if this is the hill to die on for fundamentalist Christianity, it'd be for the best if it died out.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, we talking about the same jackasses that -already- claim that we are born into sin?

Like anything else, no matter which way this pans out motivated christards will be falling all over themselves to claim that the findings support their articles of faith.

:

[Kayenneh]

Original topic aside, Kichi, I love your new banner

[Gambit]

Those comments make me sad.

[KichigaiNeko]

Those comments make me sad.

Which ones are those Gambit?

[Angrboda]

Reading a critique of Paul Cameron's research on homosexuality concerning the 1983 ISIS survey (ISIS being the former name of Cameron's group, The Family Research Institute) :

Cameron's claim that, "having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50," based on a survey of several thousand people is an inference drawn from a sub-sample consisting of a mere 17 respondents.

Thus, even if the numbers had come from a representative sample, the only valid conclusion that the Cameron group could have drawn is that the true proportion of adults who report having a homosexual parent and being an incest victim is somewhere between -4% (effectively, zero) and +62%. This is such a wide margin of error as to be meaningless. Moreover, because this confidence interval includes zero, the Cameron group cannot legitimately conclude that the true number of children of homosexual parents (in the 8 municipalities sampled) who were victims of parental incest was actually different from zero.

The critique also criticizes the validity of the questionnaire used in the survey (citing issues such as respondent fatigue, overly complex questions, and so on). I think the gem in the survey however comes from a question in which respondents were asked why they thought they had developed the sexual orientation they had, they were given a list of 44 options, including the response, "I failed at heterosexuality."


For more fun:



or, alternatively,

[Gooders1002]

Reading a critique of Paul Cameron's research on homosexuality concerning the 1983 ISIS survey (ISIS being the former name of Cameron's group, The Family Research Institute) :

Cameron's claim that, "having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50," based on a survey of several thousand people is an inference drawn from a sub-sample consisting of a mere 17 respondents.

Thus, even if the numbers had come from a representative sample, the only valid conclusion that the Cameron group could have drawn is that the true proportion of adults who report having a homosexual parent and being an incest victim is somewhere between -4% (effectively, zero) and +62%. This is such a wide margin of error as to be meaningless. Moreover, because this confidence interval includes zero, the Cameron group cannot legitimately conclude that the true number of children of homosexual parents (in the 8 municipalities sampled) who were victims of parental incest was actually different from zero.

The critique also criticizes the validity of the questionnaire used in the survey (citing issues such as respondent fatigue, overly complex questions, and so on). I think the gem in the survey however comes from a question in which respondents were asked why they thought they had developed the sexual orientation they had, they were given a list of 44 options, including the response, "I failed at heterosexuality."


For more fun:



or, alternatively,

Everything in this post (except the PSLC) is complete bullshit, it's all been debunked. You know the FRC have been regarded as a unscientic organization, and thus full of shit right. Also the Southern Poverty Law Center info has not been updated as the research need to go thought peer review thus it is possibly out of date.