"Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

[cpwill]

Welll yes.. the corrolation they were looking for is 'If one of the two of the twins were gay, there were xxx chances that their twin would be gay also'. They looked for one of the pair to be gay, and checked to see if the other one was gay too. So, you analogy for 'African Americans for trump' is not valid and incorrect.

...Do you know what "selection bias" is, Ramoss?

 

[RAMOSS]

...Do you know what "selection bias" is, Ramoss?

Do you know what they were looking for??? They were looking at pairs of twins , at least one of which was gay. They wanted to see if ONE of the twins was gay, is the other twin gay or not. THey then check to see what percentage of the other twin was gay, and compared fraternal twins vs identical twins to see the difference between them. That was the study.. Selection bias has nothing to do with it. You obviously are not understanding what the study was.

 

[cpwill]

Do you know what they were looking for??? They were looking at pairs of twins , at least one of which was gay.

Yup. Now, how did they go about finding them? Was the process random in order to avoid selection bias? Or was it - like so much work in this area - not?

 

[RAMOSS]

Yup. Now, how did they go about finding them? Was the process random in order to avoid selection bias? Or was it - like so much work in this area - not?

And, how does that matter from the purpose?? Please, using reason, show how that matters.

 

[cpwill]

And, how does that matter from the purpose?? Please, using reason, show how that matters.

Okedoke.

When you select subjects of a study in such a way as to strongly influence the result, you are engaging in "selection bias".
For example, if you advertise "Hey, we want to study gay twins to see if this is genetic!" in gay press, you are going to get more people who wish to be involved in that highly ideologically charged study. The same issue pops up when we see the "studies" showing that children of gay parents perform equally or better to children who are raised by their biological parents - advertising for people to come forward in venues that winnow your selection pool before the self-selection even takes place results in people who want their result to be representative both being more likely to be contacted, more likely to volunteer, and therefore very likely to make up a non-representative section of the sample.

IE: If you were to go onto "African Americans for Trump" and ask "Hey, is there anyone out here who is both African American and who wants to participate in a poll about Trump's popularity with African Americans?", then you are going to get a sample that is going to give you a result that you may be looking for, but which is far off of what you would get if you were to go with random selection.

 

[RAMOSS]

Okedoke.

When you select subjects of a study in such a way as to strongly influence the result, you are engaging in "selection bias".
For example, if you advertise "Hey, we want to study gay twins to see if this is genetic!" in gay press, you are going to get more people who wish to be involved in that highly ideologically charged study. The same issue pops up when we see the "studies" showing that children of gay parents perform equally or better to children who are raised by their biological parents - advertising for people to come forward in venues that winnow your selection pool before the self-selection even takes place results in people who want their result to be representative both being more likely to be contacted, more likely to volunteer, and therefore very likely to make up a non-representative section of the sample.

IE: If you were to go onto "African Americans for Trump" and ask "Hey, is there anyone out here who is both African American and who wants to participate in a poll about Trump's popularity with African Americans?", then you are going to get a sample that is going to give you a result that you may be looking for, but which is far off of what you would get if you were to go with random selection.

Show me how that is the case in this manner.. Should you include people who are totlaly heterosexual?? DOn't be silly.

 

[cpwill]

Show me how that is the case in this manner.

In which a more random selection methodology is done than advertising in ideologically charged literature to see who wants to help make a point?

 

[maquiscat]

Show me how that is the case in this manner.. Should you include people who are totlaly heterosexual?? DOn't be silly.

Basically what he is asking is can it be shown that how they would their subjects resulted in a true random mix or did they get their subjects by such means that would cause a disproportionate amount of gay people with gay twins. Or to put it otherwise did they say, "are you gay with a twin who is also gay?" Or did they say, "are you gay and have a twin who is straight, gay or bi?" The later would result in a sample most closely reflecting the population, while the former will produce a biased sample.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Basically what he is asking is can it be shown that how they would their subjects resulted in a true random mix or did they get their subjects by such means that would cause a disproportionate amount of gay people with gay twins. Or to put it otherwise did they say, "are you gay with a twin who is also gay?" Or did they say, "are you gay and have a twin who is straight, gay or bi?" The later would result in a sample most closely reflecting the population, while the former will produce a biased sample.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I would expect CpWill's potential issue is not with the question, as I expect that would I expect be neutral (ie just seeking gay people who happen to have twins)

The issue would be in how they found and selected subjects. If targetting gays, advertising in gay media would get a higher response rate, but would be focused on people who were likely to be openly gay, missing out on those still keeping their sexuallity secret. This could result in a population bias, in which "cultural acceptance" increasing the positive results (in which both twins report being gay.


In any case, any study regarding homosexuality is going to have a biased population in that people who are gay, yet not accepting of that situation are unlikely to report or respond in a survey that they are gay

 

[Divine_Wind]

I would expect CpWill's potential issue is not with the question, as I expect that would I expect be neutral (ie just seeking gay people who happen to have twins)

The issue would be in how they found and selected subjects. If targetting gays, advertising in gay media would get a higher response rate, but would be focused on people who were likely to be openly gay, missing out on those still keeping their sexuallity secret. This could result in a population bias, in which "cultural acceptance" increasing the positive results (in which both twins report being gay.


In any case, any study regarding homosexuality is going to have a biased population in that people who are gay, yet not accepting of that situation are unlikely to report or respond in a survey that they are gay

Twin studies are a valid form of study as are other psychological and sociological studies. The problem nowadays are those who seek to politicize studies for political agendas against the ideals of science. The result is that we see people denying science as political when what they should be doing is denying the political types for politicizing science.

 

[Bodi]

Have psychologists figured out why people turn gay yet?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Have psychologists figured out why people turn gay yet?

Nope and they haven't figured out why people turn straight yet either. The best I've found is that it's wired deep into our brains.

 

[Bodi]

Nope and they haven't figured out why people turn straight yet either. The best I've found is that it's wired deep into our brains.

Pretty sure that people are born straight...

 

[Divine_Wind]

Pretty sure that people are born straight...

Have psychologists figured out why people are straight yet?

 

[RamFel]

"He" is the president of Grindr, the app for gay men in the world to meet other gay men.

He immediately explained that he supports gay rights, including gay marriage.

But he said that as a straight man with a wife and two children, his personal opinion clashes with his support for gay rights.

He respects everyone's view on this subject.

He has since deleted his controversial remarks.


*****

You can read the whole article on the British newspaper Guardian's website. It was posted on November 29, 2018. Just google the newspaper's title and the words "Grindr president." (I learned about this matter when checking the Drudge Report this morning.)

Sounds sad. Everytime I hear about two gay men who think they have found love, I want to rip sombody's hair (not mine) out. But there are plenty of people who will gladly jump down my throat and defend boy to boy marriage. You cannot defend it anywhere. It is impossible to defend (except that people try anyway) and I have to scream "Why?" Do you realize how silly two gay guys looks in public?

 

[RamFel]

Have psychologists figured out why people are straight yet?

Because they are. What you need to do is ask why they're gay.

 

[RamFel]

more like human assholishness. Gay's marrying have no affect on these people what so ever. They are just being assholes, plain and simple. Probably to make up for their own insecurities about their ****ty, sad lives

Not ass holes, but just married gays who love being themselves until they rip themselves new assholes.

 

[RamFel]

Perhaps this ignorance about the effectiveness of condoms is the reason so many people end up dealing with accidental pregnancies?

My hope is this ignorance isnt widespread but IMO it probably is...that, mixed with expedience.

why would you want to wish something like that?

Older poeple should rise up against these dangerous ideas.

 

[maquiscat]

Sounds sad. Everytime I hear about two gay men who think they have found love,

Since love is an emotion that is only determined by the one feeling it, you are unable to say whether or not they are in love with each other.

... I have to scream "Why?" Do you realize how silly two gay guys looks in public?

"Silly" is a subjective value. I have seen plenty of straight couples who look silly in public.

I do notice that you keep doing the same thing over and over again; concentrating on male homosexuality and completely ignoring female homosexuality as if it gets some kind of pass. I mean if you are really against homosexuality as a whole, I would have thought that you'd have balanced out your comments more.

 

[maquiscat]

Have psychologists figured out why people turn gay yet?

Have you anything to show that those who claim to be gay were definitively straight to begin with?

 

[maquiscat]

Since you are still active in the thread, you still have outstanding arguments. Let's recap:

Sorry, I forgot the second comment. Define wrong. Wasted effort at procreation makes it wrong.

So any woman who has had a hysterectomy, is no longer supposed to have sex with a man because it is a wasted effort at procreation?

No. She can have all the sex she wants. Ever heard of condoms?

So let's try this again. And we will even back up a step. Is sex without the possibility of procreation wrong, and thus should not even be done?

No. It's not wrong.

You just contradicted yourself. It's all there in black and white (or whatever colors your screen is set to). If wasted effort at procreation is wrong, then having sex when procreation is not possible is wrong. If having sex when procreation is not possible is not wrong then there is nothing wrong with sex between two people of the same sex/gender. What can you possibly provide as evidence that your two statements do not contradicted each other?

sex without procreation between a man and a woman is not wrong. It's wrong between two men, however.

You are creating a double standard. Either procreation is the basis of whether or not sex is wrong, or it isn't. If the lack of potential procreation (because we can't really guarantee sex will result in pregnancy) makes sex wrong then it is wrong regardless of who the participants are. If the inability to procreate is allowable then it is allowable regardless of who the participants are.

This is aside from the fact that you are now moving the goalpost. You never made any mention of this double standard before. And now that you've been called on your conflicting statement, you are backpedaling to try to cover up.

Note:Underlined word corrected for typo not caught earlier. See original post for actual typo.

So there we are. You have not shown why it is alright for a man and a woman to not procreate, but wrong for a man and man, or a woman and a woman to not procreate. What logical justification do you have for that double standard.

 

[maquiscat]

I would expect CpWill's potential issue is not with the question, as I expect that would I expect be neutral (ie just seeking gay people who happen to have twins)

The issue would be in how they found and selected subjects. If targetting gays, advertising in gay media would get a higher response rate, but would be focused on people who were likely to be openly gay, missing out on those still keeping their sexuallity secret. This could result in a population bias, in which "cultural acceptance" increasing the positive results (in which both twins report being gay.


In any case, any study regarding homosexuality is going to have a biased population in that people who are gay, yet not accepting of that situation are unlikely to report or respond in a survey that they are gay

Why would being openly gay mean that the twin is any more likely to be gay? I would think that we would want people who are going to be open and honest about their sexuality to be the ones to respond to the study. The point of the study would not be to determine if the twin of an openly gay person would admit to it, but whether or not they actually are.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: "Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

How on earth can you state an opinion about an opinion? Why don’t you get your head on straight before making dumb statements about things you know nothing about? The proof is in the abilities to procreate.

No, that argument has already been obliterated.

 

[uptower]

Marriage is for two consenting adults. End of story.

 

[JoanDavis]

Why do you think that hampers gay marriage? Do you believe the Constitution gives us our rights or that we're born with rights and the Constitution limits government?

Lets ask what far right conservative - and screaming gay - Milos Yiannopolous - thinks about all of this.

And throw in the closeted lesbians Anne Coulter and Condaleeza Rice as well.