Nonreproduction, homosexuality, transsexualism, and intelligence

The relationship between various forms of nonreproduction (especially homosexuality) and intelligence (as measured by IQ and other tests) is investigated by a systematic review of the literature, selecting studies without regard to the direction of their findings.

Most studies found the more homosexual subject groups' scores to be higher than those of the more heterosexual controls, and all exceptions to this trend are concentrated in one subgroup: prisoners.

Moreover, the more representative the sample studied, and the less subject to challenge the methodology used, the clearer and more statistically significant was the superiority in intelligence of the more homosexual over the more heterosexual group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/659850

 

So you FINALLY admit that the person behind the Deidre profile is MALE..:excited::excited::excited:

 

Au contraire.

That rumor was invented to taunt me. I do not taunt easily.

 

Making the facts fit your limited views and opinions is much like a twenty stone woman trying to squeeze herself into a dress for a ten stone one - she just ain't going to fit, no matter how much she breathes in

 

admit it you fell for a guy,, then switched to baller how gay is that doggo ????,,,,,,,,,

 

I am also like Detective Joe Friday of Dragnet. "I want the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."

 

Look Teacher. He said it too!

 

a perfect comment about DL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

Homosexuality is not a result of a gay gene. If it were, 100% of identical twins would have the same sexuality. Also what evidence is there to show gay people are more intelligent? And by evidence I mean something that stands up to peer reviewed scrutiny. And even if such a correlation exists, have you considered the possibility that less intelligent homosexuals are more likely to remain in closet about their sexuality?

 

Gay Men in Twin Study

The New York Times December 17, 1991

A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that homosexuality has a genetic basis, researchers say, though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

The study, published in the December issue of The Archives of General Psychiatry, adds to evidence that sexual orientation does not result from a maladjustment or moral defect, one author said.

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers," said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, "which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on." By "unrelated," Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html


Homosexuality is not likely to be caused by a single gene, but by several genes working in conjunction with each other, and by the environment, including the prenatal environment.

 

Can't you find a more up-to-date report than this.
Get real D.L. as this report, and the study it relates to, is 22 yrs. old.

 

It's not surprising that there is a strong correlation between twins, they grow up under very similar circumstances in the same environment, much more so than regular siblings. It's quite possible that there are genes involved, which may effect hormones or even directly their sexuality, but if it were a purely genetic process, you would expect 100%( or at least close to 100%) of identical twins to have the same sexuality, not 50%. Also by suggesting the evidence points to there being an environmental factor(and perhaps the dominant factor or even only factor), I'm not proclaiming one has a choice in their sexuality. I don't think anyone can control what they desire sexually, it's still very much hard wired, but through a process of early life experiences.

 

I do have to agree with DL about homosexuality having a genetic factor to it. Remember though, just because a gene is present doesn't mean it's expressed. There are also a myriad of biochemical actions that would influence something like this as well.

On the IQ study of homosexuals article that was referenced. It's over 30 years old. But aside from that, the wording is also odd. What defines a more heterosexual group as opposed to a more homosexual group? Either one group is compromised of homosexuals, or it is compromised of heterosexuals. Of course there are certain preferences as related to the Kinsey Scale, but wouldn't people between homosexuality and heterosexuality just be bisexual? Did the more heterosexual group only prefer penis 10% of the time, or was it closer to about 30%?:razz: Like I said, the wording of that seems a little off to me (though I do appreciate the linking of an article with some explanation rather than just statistics).

The theories I've looked at range from the fact that those with higher IQ's tend to deviate from the social and evolutionary norm (and thus would be more inclined to homosexuality) to the fact that intelligent people tend to socialize with other intelligent people (and thus would be more accepted as a homosexual than in other groups). Neither seem completely accurate to me, but I don't know how one would go about measuring it anyway. The amount of processes that would dictate something like this would be staggering.

 

December 22, 2005

A number of studies have looked at homosexuality in twins, all with similar results. For example, in one study, if one identical twin was gay, the other was also gay 50% of the time. If they were fraternal twins, they were both gay 22% of the time. And if one was adopted, the chances fell to 11%.

Now these numbers are from one study. Other studies have different percentages but the same trend -- identical twins are more likely to both be gay as compared to fraternal twins.

This strongly suggests that there is a genetic component -- there is something in their genes that makes them more likely to be gay.

By Dr. Barry Starr, Stanford University
https://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask155

 

The point I am making here is that I am not condemning homosexuality from a moral standpoint. I do not think people choose to be homosexuals, and have difficulty understanding why one would make that choice. I am simply acknowledging that I find overt expressions of sexual desire between men to be distasteful.

I am opposed to efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals. I doubt such efforts are possible. Even if they were possible I don't see why we should encourage more people to have children. The planet suffers from human overpopulation.

One explanation I can think of for several passages in Leviticus that condemn homosexuality is that the Israelites were at a more or less constant state of war. They needed a high birth rate to compensate for losses on the battlefield.

The only New Testament writer who condemns homosexuality is St. Paul. Several passages from his writing suggest that he was a repressed homosexual.

 

Don't condescend to me, you are clearly a hateful little man with no love in his heart.

Once my anger subsides you will have my pity, for I am sure you are going to end your days sad and lonely, holding on to your hatred in your lonely bed. I'm done with you, you don't even deserve my anger.

 

I never knew you were homophobic as well as racist DL? You got it all goin' on sistah!

 

I don't see how studies could be truly valid unless the research is being done on BOTH males and females living a homosexual lifestyle. If you draw conclusions with genetic markers for one sex, doesn't that marker/genetic sequencing have to be present in the other sex?

In addition, how do bisexual or pansexual individuals; fit into homo/heterosexual studies?


As for gay marriage.... I would like anyone who wants to get married, have the right to not only do so, but call their union any damn thing they want to.

 

So which is it? You talk out of both sides of your mouth.
"Master of Facts"? "Poster of BS" is more like it!