Cure yourself from homosexuality!

[Legion]

You know i am bisexual sage.

you mean you are open with yourself about it, or are you being sarcastic.

No, i am openly bisexual. I stated this before in a discussion with Natoma.

Can you explain to me what makes some one natural or unnatural.

I dont' understand what you mean by "someone" ?[/quote]

i meant "something"

 

[Sage]

No, i am openly bisexual. I stated this before in a discussion with Natoma.

ahh, I didn't catch that. Seems odd to me then that you always seem to be fighting pro-homosexuals.

i meant "something"

I thought that's what I have been doing

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I never knew religion is a behaviour? When was this discovered?
Linky?

 

[Legion]

I never knew religion is a behaviour? When was this discovered?
Linky?

it was self learned and then taught.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I never knew religion is a behaviour? When was this discovered?
Linky?

it was self learned and then taught.

So how is it a behaviour?
You talking about preaching?

 

[Legion]

I never knew religion is a behaviour? When was this discovered?
Linky?

it was self learned and then taught.

So how is it a behaviour?
You talking about preaching?

i don't see it as a behavior. I see it as a world view or schema.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, i am openly bisexual. I stated this before in a discussion with Natoma.

ahh, I didn't catch that. Seems odd to me then that you always seem to be fighting pro-homosexuals.

I only see Legion fighting against the idea that it's some "fact" that Homosexuality (or sexual orientation in general) is based in genetics...not that he fights pro-homosexuals in general.

That being said, many "pro-homosexuals" are afraid of Legion's view point, because it loosely implies that they may have some control over their own sexuality, or that those who raise them do.

 

[CapsLock]

Googling "homosexual genetic tendency" produces a great deal of religious related responses, however of all the strictly scientific based responses that I have checked so far, all of them have said that there is a genetic cause, if only partially, to homosexuality. For instance this one is good:

http://biology.unm.edu/cadavid/genetics/notes/QTL_genetics.htm

I would say it is a clearly flawed example.

WHich fails to explain as did Bailey and Pillard, why identical twins in their own tests only had a 50% rate of both being homosexual. This makes literaly no sense on a genetic level and would only serve to be convincing to some one who has little understanding on how genetics would play a role

For one identical twins are 100% genetically identical. Ergo if homosexuality has a genetic influence or disposition both brothers or sisters should be homosexual. Yet, they there was only a 50% ratio. Likewise other tests using twins by other groups have shown complete inconsistency in their results. Bailey and Pillard's test results fell way bellow their expected results but still presented their information on the grounds to deceive people. they never tested the effect of enviroment on said inviduals..

Ya, right, great display of deep genetic understanding here. 100% identical genes means there's no possibility of different behaviour especially in so complex a phenomenom that as you point out is very difficult to define. Environment also plays a small part in behaviour you know.

Your webpage is a complete sham and a horrible resource

Most of these gay males are related through maternal lines suggesting that genes influencing sexual orientation are located on the X chromosome.

X chromosome inheritance has been confirmed by examining DNA VNTRs spaced along the X chromosome within band Xq28.

This is an absolute lie. Dean Hamer attempted to prove the Xq28 band influenced orientation but could not. His research has never been substatianted to this day:

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/limitations.html#hamerincons

Didn't prove and unverified does not equal "a complete sham and a horrible resource". The Xq28 theory wasn't the only info there. Similiar twin studies found similiar results. The differences and problems with methodology, consistency and proof lies in the uncontrolably small samples, difficult definitions and difficult precision when dealing with such a subject.

From another site:
http://www.dennis.floripa.com.br/homosexual.htm

Probably due to their recentness, few attempts have been made to replicate these studies of biological differences, so we must be cautious about accepting them. More often replicated have been family, twin and adoption studies suggesting genetic inheritance of homosexuality (Whitam et al. 1993; Bailey and Pillard 1991; Buhrich et al. 1991; Eckert et ali. 1986; Pillard and Weinrich 1986; Flores 1994).

Notice here there are works specifically cited, and there are a few of them, wether thier work is 100% accurate may be in question but not the overall "tendencies" of the results.

Inconsistency

"Replication in science is everything, the primary quality-control mechanism on science's intellectual assembly line" (Burr 42). Holding to this, a number of studies have been falsely hailed due to the inability of other researches to obtain the same results using the same methods. The most obvious of these is the Hamer study. In addition to criticisms on his methodology, the results of Dr. Hamer's study can mysteriously not be reproduced by other scientists. In February 1995, George Ebers and his colleagues at the University of Western Ontario followed Dr. Hamer's methodology and "found no evidence of linkage of sexual orientation to Xq28." In June 1998, Alan Sanders of the University of Chicago announced at an American Psychiatric Association meeting that he also failed to come up with the same data as Dr. Hamer did in 1993 (Sardar). In 1995, Dr. Hamer himself conducted a second study, "repeating the same format of [his] widely debated 1993 study," to confirm the results of the first study (Suplee). "This [1995] report was greeted as though it were independent confirmation of Hamer's earlier work, when in reality it was his own reiteration of his earlier claims" (Ordover 128). Moreover, Dr. Hamer originally claimed that he noticed a maternal pattern that motivated him to use markers on the X-chromosome. However, statistical interpretation of Hamer's data shows no significant difference (thus accepting the null hypothesis that there is no maternal effect) (McGuire 133).

In defence of these challenges from: http://www.phgu.org.uk/newsletter/past_issues/1999/may1999.html

In 1993 the announcement of evidence for a "gay gene" on the X chromosome generated enormous publicity. In contrast, the recent publication of research failing to support this link has been greeted with silence by the news media. Rice and colleagues [Rice, G. et al. (1999) Science 284, 665-667 (Abstract)] studied 52 homosexual pairs of siblings to see if any shared alleles in the relevant part of the X chromosome more often than would be expected by chance. They didn't.

Comment: The authors of the original paper have criticised the new research for not restricting the study group to families where there was an indication of X-linked inheritance of homosexuality, that is transmission of the trait via the mother. They say that the lack of this criterion would tend to obscure a true X-chromosome linkage operating in a subset of homosexuals. Only further research will show whether this criticism is justified, but for the present it seems that in the homosexual population as a whole, inheritance of a homosexual tendency via the X chromosome is not a major factor. The magnitude of any genetic effect on homosexuality remains uncertain. 11/5/99

Just because there is criticism doesn't mean the criticism is correct, and if it is, doesn't disprove the more general idea of genetic tendency.

Your article also states this:

Several studies of twins have suggested that homosexuality is partly genetic.

WHy do you think it doesn't name names them or explain from where the author gather his figures?

Because the authour was lazy, or perhaps the work was of sufficient quality that support was understood and citing wasn't deemed necessary. Also please note that the word "partly" was used. Though I understand this does go against your deep understanding of genetics.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic basis for homosexuality

As you can see the test lack consistant or correlation. If the matter were driven by genetics how could you have a 0% consistancy within the test :? ?

To expect high degrees of correlation and consistancy with these small and difficult to control/define studies is unrealistic. As already noted that doesn't mean that larger patterns are not valid, just not necessarily accurate to a high degree. From your own link above:

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic basis for homosexuality

One problem is that, for most definitions, the prevalence of homosexuality in the general population is low, which means that registries will contain relatively few twin pairs of which one is gay or lesbian. The lack of statistical power resulting from this may explain some of this lack of consistency.

AND further from your own link above:

Overall, data appear to indicate that genetic factors play some role in the development of sexual orientation, but that they probably account for only a minority of variation and that further work will be needed to quantify their influence more precisely.[size]

Male Female
Hershberger, 1997 0% 48%
Bailey et al., 2000 40% 0%
Kendler et al., 2000 28-65% (male & female combined)
Kirk et al., 2000 30% 50-60%

Then here is the review of the Bailey and Pillard's twins tests:

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/limitations.html#hamerincons

Bailey and Pillard's 1991 study is extremely biased and unreliable. The lack of randomness as well as the cooperation of only some of the family members makes the sample and thus the conclusions relevant only to a small group, as opposed to the homosexual population as a whole. Bailey and Pillard recruited subjects through homophile publications in the Mid- and Southwest. They interpreted the data they came up with-- specifically the similar concordance between adopted brothers and DZ twins-- in an effort to show the genetic basis of sexual orientation. "The fact that biological brothers and adopted brothers show the same incidence of homosexuality strongly suggests that it is entirely environmental in origin,...[but] Bailey and Pillard downplay this comparison" (McGuire 139).

This is a faulty criticism. A small group MAY represent a larger one, its a question, not a disproof. The part where concordance of natural and adopted brothers homosexuality rates is concluded to "strongly suggests that it is entirely environmental in origin,..." is incorrect as this could very simply mean that environment CAN play a large role but does not necessarily exclude other (genetic) influences where obviously there isn't such a pattern. Also, if you wish to challenge the reliability of the data, this conclusion may be based on slightly inaccurate sampling. Can't have it both ways you know. See your own quote below.

the Rebuttle cont:

Sample Size

A large sample size is absolutely necessary to draw reasonably accurate generalizations from collected data. This is often very difficult when the characteristic being studied is "taboo behavior" (McGuire 118). Family studies involving parent-offspring relationships are practically impossible to complete, for "many homosexuals do not have children [and] those who do are hard to recruit" (129). Twin studies, particularly with Eckert's work, are very limited by the number of subjects participating. In his research, only six pairs of twins were studied. For a twin study, one would need thousands of pairs of twins for the sample size to be considered acceptable (121).

The same requirements fall upon researchers Heston and Shields who studied twelve male twin pairs, of which he found a 40% MZ concordance and 14.3% DZ concordance. As for Buhrich, Bailey, and Martin, analysis using a t-test was not only an inappropriate test considering the parameters of the study; the conclusions they drew were shadowed with doubt because they too had a small sample size (137-38). Even LeVay's work on INAH-3 is criticized for having an unacceptably limited sample size.

Another rebuttle:

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm

The year 1995 marked beginning of the end of optimism for chromosome Xq28 as an indicator of male homosexuality. In this year Scientific American printed an article that mentioned the doubts in the scientific community over the genetics of homosexuality. LeVay’s findings, the article reports, “have yet to be fully replicated by another researcher†(Horgan, 1995). Also, one study contradicted Hamer’s results and Scientific American reported that he had “been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity,†which was basically a result of his excluding “pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his finding†(Horgan, 1995). This news report came in the November edition of the magazine, which was essentially presenting a retraction for the article the two scientists coauthored in 1994. Unfortunately for these two researchers, more bad news was to follow.

Ok, so I guess that Xq28 part maybe/is wrong. Again, doesn't disprove the general idea of genetic influence though. In fact, again from your own material:

Science also reported that the study by Hamer was being questioned. A study by George Ebers and George Rice in 1995 indicated that “there is no reason to focus linkage studies on the X chromosome†and that there is “no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son†(Marshall, 1995). Although these researchers agreed with the possibility that homosexuality is inherited, they found no clear evidence to justify Hamer’s claims.

ouch. To bad it wasn't carier ending...

Ouch indeed. Do you read your own references?

I would like to add, as you can see within the material i have presented, the bulk of arguments against homosexual genetic predisposition are not religious in nature. Infact there have been fierce critizcisms of these supposed twin tests (many of which were clearly fabricated).

Good to not bring in religion on this, agreement! Show me where "many were clearly fabricated" though, besides Hamers xq28 claim. LeVay's findings have not been reproduced, they haven't been proven fraudulent.

In it studies are cited (without reference unfortuneately) that seem conclusive (enough) to me. In regards to twins I'll post the relevant section:

Interesting they leave out supposed tests yet you assume it is convincing without even a basis to conclude anything.

I assumed from the other similiar cited pieces I found that the results were valid, at least in showing some genetic tendency. However I will allow for some doubt now if that makes you happy. Your own expert references seem to agree with me though.

There were also a number of explanations why homosexuality could have developed as a means of establishing social order and improved survivability of the population, not that this is necessary to be true for homosexuality to be a logical or acceptable practice for any given individual.

A number of arbitrary explanations which reside on evolutionary extrapolation. Considering the clear lack of reputability of this webpage and its complete lack of intellectual integrity i see no reason to further address its disproven misinformation.

Disproven where? Again see your own references !!!!!!!! Open your eyes.

Also if you want to discuss religious bias lets discuss homosexual bias:

No I didn't and don't, actually.

LeVay's study did not even reliably identify the sexual orientations of the subjects. The sixteen men and the six women included were "presumed heterosexual" (Ordover 128).

This would be presumed correct statistically.

Caps
format spelling edit

 

[Legion]

Ya, right, great display of deep genetic understanding here. 100% identical genes means there's no possibility of different behaviour especially in so complex a phenomenom that as you point out is very difficult to define. Environment also plays a small part in behaviour you know.

Caps if the orienation were a genetically enforced disposition there would be no room for differences in behavior.

Accounting for a 50% error rate of the identical twins doesn't coincide with a small amount of enviromental influence.

Infact all of the categories feel way below the expected rates.

Even Bailey and Pillard expected the indentical twins to be 100%.

Didn't prove and unverified does not equal "a complete sham and a horrible resource". The Xq28 theory wasn't the only info there.

Oh come off it. They proffered the Xq28 myth (which is a complete fabrication on behalf of Hamer) and the twins tests. There was nothing else on your site worth mentioning. Both of these issues have been completely refuted and the Xq28 matter almost cost Hamer is job.

You webpage is knowingly presented misinformation rendering its credibility nill.

Similiar twin studies found similiar results.

Your website NEVER mentioned any twins tests what so ever.

The differences and problems with methodology, consistency and proof lies in the uncontrolably small samples, difficult definitions and difficult precision when dealing with such a subject.

I myself presented a number of twins tests which proved there was no correlation between genetic likeness and sexual orientation. The absolute lack of correlation proves enviroment is the major contributing factor to sexual orienation.

Your webpages never mentions any twins tests yet above you assert there are some which support their claims.

From another site:
http://www.dennis.floripa.com.br/homosexual.htm

Probably due to their recentness, few attempts have been made to replicate these studies of biological differences, so we must be cautious about accepting them. More often replicated have been family, twin and adoption studies suggesting genetic inheritance of homosexuality (Whitam et al. 1993; Bailey and Pillard 1991; Buhrich et al. 1991; Eckert et ali. 1986; Pillard and Weinrich 1986; Flores 1994).

Notice here there are works specifically cited, and there are a few of them, wether thier work is 100% accurate may be in question but not the overall "tendencies" of the results.

Notice Bailey and Pillard's test was one of the tests I and my webpages completely refuted.

Notice i presented my own tests which demonstrate complete lack of correlation while you present webpages referencing tests without posting results.

Notice the tests mentioned in your webpages are over 10 years old.

Here a quote from your webpages:

Biological studies have documented differences between male homosexuals and heterosexuals in their exposure to prenatal hormones (Levay 1994; Reinisch et al. 1991), brain structures (LeVay 1994), genetic markers (Hamer et al. 1993), and possibly other characteristics such as fingerprint patterns (see Downtown 1995 with regard to a University of Western Ontario study), possibly related to testosterone exposure (Jamison, et al. 1993). In addition, effeminate boys (who have a strong tendency to become adult homosexuals) are judged more attractive than other boys (Zucker, et al. 1993) which corresponds to Green's (1987) finding that parents of effeminate boys rated these as more "beautiful" babies than their other children

Yet again you bring forth a webpage which presents completely false information. Both LeVay and Hamer's work where thuroughtly refuted within my articles. Hamer's works is indisputably false. This has been known for over a decade. Your webpage is clearly out of date or deliberately misinformating its readers.

Consider wording like "Probably due to their recentness" this was an article written a long time ago rehashed and stuck on a webpage.

In defence of these challenges from: http://www.phgu.org.uk/newsletter/past_issues/1999/may1999.html

The comments section internally and externally refuted:

Comment: The authors of the original paper have criticised the new research for not restricting the study group to families where there was an indication of X-linked inheritance of homosexuality, that is transmission of the trait via the mother. They say that the lack of this criterion would tend to obscure a true X-chromosome linkage operating in a subset of homosexuals. Only further research will show whether this criticism is justified, but for the present it seems that in the homosexual population as a whole, inheritance of a homosexual tendency via the X chromosome is not a major factor. The magnitude of any genetic effect on homosexuality remains uncertain. 11/5/99

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11266&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=200

The Xq28 has recently been called the 'gay gene,' but Hamer has not identified a particular gene, nor has he established what percentage of the gay male population could carry the gene. The study determined that the Xq28, a large area, could possibly contain sequences of genes that are linked to homosexuality. Establishing a link in this subset of gay men does not mean these markers cause homosexuality, because the mechanism for this is not known."

http://www.northwestern.edu/neurobiology/faculty/allada2/gbbpapers/RiceEbers99.pdf

Just because there is criticism doesn't mean the criticism is correct, and if it is, doesn't disprove the more general idea of genetic tendency.

It was far more than just cirticism. There were a number of test which completely refuted the Xq28 theory and your article does not refute any one of these tests. It seems adds the authors opinions.

notice what your own quote says:

In 1993 the announcement of evidence for a "gay gene" on the X chromosome generated enormous publicity. In contrast, the recent publication of research failing to support this link has been greeted with silence by the news media. Rice and colleagues [Rice, G. et al. (1999) Science 284, 665-667 (Abstract)] studied 52 homosexual pairs of siblings to see if any shared alleles in the relevant part of the X chromosome more often than would be expected by chance. They didn't.

Notice your article also doesn't mention Ebers' tests

here is a quote from one of my articles:

Finally, in 1999, George Rice and George Ebers published their data. In the April edition of Science, the scientists show that their results, “do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality†(Rice et al., 1999 and Wickelgren, 1999). They found that the gay brothers looked at by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. This officially sounded the death-knell for the optimism held by Hamer et al. and others looking in this region for the gene leading to homosexuality.

So no, these are not just mere criticisms. They are thorough refutations. Hamer likewise hasn't ever repeated his tests successfully. Its rather obvious it was a sham from the start.

Notice the bulk of the APA, the press and other psychological groups got involved and allegations of Hamer's integrity surfaced. This is not usual occurance. They obviously had balid grounds to pursue allegations against Hamer.

Because the authour was lazy, or perhaps the work was of sufficient quality that support was understood and citing wasn't deemed necessary. Also please note that the word "partly" was used. Though I understand this does go against your deep understanding of genetics.

Lets take the most obvious route. The information wasn't given to supress criticism. This is the only valid explanation to present misinformation.

Your site lied about Hamer's research and what it indicated so i have no doubts your the author is deliberately attempting to mislead readers. No supporting evidence is given ergo it is not trustworthy.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic basis for homosexuality

As you can see the test lack consistant or correlation. If the matter were driven by genetics how could you have a 0% consistancy within the test :? ?

Thank you for presenting this information again. This matter has been apart of my argument from the begining. You do not seem to know what this means. It does not support your position and here is why:

What the author is saying is that when a definition of homosexuality is applied the prevelance of homosexuality in society becomes low. The reason for this is because our definitions of homosexuality are arbitrary and unscientific. This lends even more error into a testing scenerio. This renders testing homosexuality and a possible genetic origin nearly impossible because of the nature of bias of testers and a complete lack of aggreement over what a homosexual is.

All in all this supposition heavily refutes twins testing.

To expect high degrees of correlation and consistancy with these small and difficult to control/define studies is unrealistic. As already noted that doesn't mean that larger patterns are not valid, just not necessarily accurate to a high degree. From your own link above:

But, humorously you and your website mentioning twins tests as though they prove something. Considering the nature of the lack a consistant understanding of what homosexuality is and a definition there of it would be nearly impossible to say there is a genetic disposition here for homosexuality.

More over twins tests indicate that homosexuality, as described by the testers, clearly show lacking consistancy with other heritable traits and even other tests.

Despite your desire to down play this impact it shows quite a bit about the enviromental impact on sexual orientation.

Regardless of how you try and spin the matter a 0% correlation is damned difficult to explain wts to a genetically inherited trait.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genetic basis for homosexuality

One problem is that, for most definitions, the prevalence of homosexuality in the general population is low, which means that registries will contain relatively few twin pairs of which one is gay or lesbian. The lack of statistical power resulting from this may explain some of this lack of consistency.

AND further from your own link above:

Overall, data appear to indicate that genetic factors play some role in the development of sexual orientation, but that they probably account for only a minority of variation and that further work will be needed to quantify their influence more precisely.[size]

Notice the author states some and for only a minority of variation. What that genetic influence is or if it is unique to homosexuality was clearly not defined or explained throughout any of the tests presented by the author.

The author clearly stands against your position genetics play a major role and is indicated in his speach.

Even the author admitts the issue is not resolved and could be proven wrong. He does not deny the possibility. He is simply reviewing the information put before him.

This is a faulty criticism. A small group MAY represent a larger one, its a question, not a disproof.

It is in no way a faulty criticism and here is why:

First off Pillard used biased sampeling

he sampled from tainted sources

he didn't bother to substatiate claims

His sample was far to small

And his result fell far below his expected outcomes.

The part where concordance of natural and adopted brothers homosexuality rates is concluded to "strongly suggests that it is entirely environmental in origin,..." is incorrect as this could very simply mean that environment CAN play a large role but does not necessarily exclude other (genetic) influences where obviously there isn't such a pattern.

It is clearly correct despite your assertions. The fact is proven by the failing correlation to the expected results. Since the matter clearly does not fit with the expected genetic results only enviroment remains. His rebuttle is both fair and accurate.

Also, if you wish to challenge the reliability of the data, this conclusion may be based on slightly inaccurate sampling. Can't have it both ways you know. See your own quote below.

Not having it both ways. My rebuttle already mentions his sampeling was completely biased. Even though this was so his results failed to meet his expectations. Whether or not he sampled correctly doesn't address the issue of why his values didn't correlate with his desired results.

I have mentioned a number of other twins tests which further foment the notion of lacking genetic correlation. So no i am not having it both ways, I am mentioning this man "cheated" and failed evne when cheating .

Ok, so I guess that Xq28 part maybe/is wrong. Again, doesn't disprove the general idea of genetic influence though. In fact, again from your own material:

May be wrong? Come on. They were going to completely humliate Hamer by releaving his absolute lack of scientific integrity. The author of your website has to be painfully aware of this material being that it is apart of a COLLEGE resource. This is apart of the reason why i stated the author of your page was CLEARLY misleading his readers.

It doesn't disprove it what it demonstrates is the complete lack of integrity within the gay scientific lobby.

Ouch indeed. Do you read your own references?

Of course i do. They agreed Hamer was presenting fraudulent information.

Whether or not the testers believe homosexuality is inherited is irrelevant to this conversation as their beliefs were not the issue being reviewed in their tests.

Good to not bring in religion on this, agreement! Show me where "many were clearly fabricated" though, besides Hamers xq28 claim. LeVay's findings have not been reproduced, they haven't been proven fraudulent.

LeVay's work was indeed proven fraudulent and Pillard's twins tests were revealed for having bias sampeling, poor sample sizes, altering of data etc etc. Much of this was already discussed within my links. LeVay was driven by his agenda nad emotions and clearly lacked any scientific reason. he felt he was on to something and ran with it.


Here is an article pointing out the completely ass backwards logic of LeVay:

http://my.voyager.net/~jayjo/borngay.htm

http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/levay-critique

I assumed from the other similiar cited pieces I found that the results were valid,

And wrongly so. You suggest they were "similiarly cited" without knowing which ones were cited at all. How do you know they weren't similiarly citing the same misinformation?

at least in showing some genetic tendency. However I will allow for some doubt now if that makes you happy. Your own expert references seem to agree with me though.

Actually no they don't. One of the authors you cited above as stated genetic influence affects an small minority and is limited in its affect on orientation. This does not support your belief sexual orientation is a genetic predisposition or that genetics plays a major role.

Disproven where? Again see your own references !!!!!!!! Open your eyes.

OMG, the author of your webpage is knowingly presenting false information as true. So no, i haven't an ounce trust in his integrity and feel no need to address his completely arbitrary and obviously tainted perspective and psuedofacts.

No I didn't and don't, actually.

Why not? You brought up religious bias why don't you wish to discuss homosexual bias?

This would be presumed correct statistically.

No not at all. It was a mere guess. This is not even basically scientific.