Are homophobes born that way?

[_scipio337]

Does homophobia even exist? Only in the minds of NAMBLA supporters I'd say.

Broadbrush much?

[_GoodK]

Does homophobia even exist? Only in the minds of NAMBLA supporters I'd say.

Sometimes it is just appropriate to call someone an idiot. Bcspace is a prime example.

[_The Dude]

I just am looking at this wondering why these women would actually have higher birth rates with their ability to control that.

Let me try again. Everybody uses birth control. This lowers the birth rate across the board. These women we are talking about only have relatively more children -- slightly more, when averaged over thousands of women -- because of their tendency that is connected to male homosexuality.

1. Some women are not responsible with their birth control.
2. Sometimes birth control fails.
3. Some women, married or not, actually want kids.

It seems like you are expecting these androphiliacs to compensate for their male attraction by using birth control more effectively than the average woman, but I don't see why that should be the case. If they use it just about the same as other women, then they could still have slightly more babies because of considerations 1-3.

[_Moniker]

Let me try again. Everybody uses birth control. This lowers the birth rate across the board. These women we are talking about only have relatively more children -- slightly more, when averaged over thousands of women -- because of their tendency that is connected to male homosexuality.

1. Some women are not responsible with their birth control.
2. Sometimes birth control fails.
3. Some women, married or not, actually want kids.

It seems like you are expecting these androphiliacs to compensate for their male attraction by using birth control more effectively than the average woman, but I don't see why that should be the case. If they use it just about the same as other women, then they could still have slightly more babies because of considerations 1-3.

I already got everything you stated. I just don't understand why precisely they are more likely to have more births.

Are they more fertile than the woman that does not have the gene? Do they have more sex than women that don't have the gene? I just don't understand how more attraction would correlate to more offspring with the average use (even taking the other considerations into account -- which I'm fairly aware of seeing that I volunteered and was very active with Planned Parenthood for years) of birth control.

So higher than average attraction to males results in more births? WHY? Do they have sex with a variety of males? Do they have more sex with their partners? Are they more fertile than the average woman? What precisely is it as to why they have more births?

You seem to keep repeating the same thing (which I already get) and I still don't' understand why the gene that makes someone more attracted to the opposite sex correlates to more births.

As for your number 3 I don't see that this is really a consideration unless you're saying that these women desire more children -- is this a part of the gene?

by the way, birth control is incredibly effective when used properly. No doubt number 1 is a consideration, though.

~edited to add~

I assumed with an earlier reply that they're more fertile or likely to have more sex -- yet, I don't know!

[_The Dude]

You seem to keep repeating the same thing (which I already get) and I still don't' understand why the gene that makes someone more attracted to the opposite sex correlates to more births.

It seemed like your issue was that birth control should normalize all other factors. I was just trying to point out, repeatedly, why that is not the case.

by the way, birth control is incredibly effective when used properly. No doubt number 1 is a consideration, though.

If you are talking about thousands of people having sex hundreds of times per year, then a small chance of failure (throw out a number, please) becomes very, very important.

I already got everything you stated. I just don't understand why precisely they are more likely to have more births.

They have more sex with male partners. That leads to more births. Why is this not obvious?

And males with the same genes experience some of the same androphiliac attractions, and may actually have sex with male partners, but this does not lead to more births. (This also should be obvious, but maybe not!)

:)

[Guest]

You seem to keep repeating the same thing (which I already get) and I still don't' understand why the gene that makes someone more attracted to the opposite sex correlates to more births.

It seemed like your issue was that birth control should normalize all other factors. I was just trying to point out, repeatedly, why that is not the case.

by the way, birth control is incredibly effective when used properly. No doubt number 1 is a consideration, though.

If you are talking about thousands of people having sex hundreds of times per year, then a small chance of failure (throw out a number, please) becomes very, very important.

I already got everything you stated. I just don't understand why precisely they are more likely to have more births.

They have more sex with male partners. That leads to more births. Why is this not obvious?

And males with the same genes experience some of the same androphiliac attractions, and may actually have sex with male partners, but this does not lead to more births. (This also should be obvious, but maybe not!)

:)

Haha. Smart ass.

So, they're not more fertile? They're just having more sex with their partners?

Yet, I think even with an enormous amount of sex women can still control their rates of reproduction. Yet, I wasn't suggesting they SHOULD normalize, I just didn't understand why if you had 2 women and they both had the ability to control reproduction why there would be a discrepancy in rates. Unless of course your number 3 does somehow play into it where these women actually desire more children. <--- Which just seems silly, to me, unless of course the gene plays into it - and if it doesn't you just threw that out there for no purpose, at all. Eh?

I can't wait until you write something oafish on the board that doesn't deal with science and I swoop in .... :)

[_Mister Scratch]

Mon & Dude:

Isn't the basic theory here one that is evolutionary in nature? That is to say: the gene, in theory, leads to more births. Women in the past who had this gene would be more attracted to men and would therefore have more sex and have more births. Right? Thus, one would need to take a long view of history on this matter and see this genetic development playing out over thousands of years. Modern birth control is scarcely fifty years old, and seems to be a moot point as far as this gene is concerned. Sure---*TODAY* birth control might level off the number of births overall, but that has no bearing on how and why this gene evolved.

Is that about right?

[Guest]

Mon & Dude:

Isn't the basic theory here one that is evolutionary in nature? That is to say: the gene, in theory, leads to more births. Women in the past who had this gene would be more attracted to men and would therefore have more sex and have more births. Right? Thus, one would need to take a long view of history on this matter and see this genetic development playing out over thousands of years. Modern birth control is scarcely fifty years old, and seems to be a moot point as far as this gene is concerned. Sure---*TODAY* birth control might level off the number of births overall, but that has no bearing on how and why this gene evolved.

Is that about right?

That's the way I see it. I even mentioned earlier how this blasts a hole in the arguments against homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint.

~edited to add~

And I was seriously asking what precisely "attraction" meant. It wasn't obvious, to me that "attraction" = more sex. I haven't seen the study and went on the article I read and my memory of an earlier thread.

[_Mad Viking]

I suspect that the term ... loosely applied, represents nothing more than an attempt to gain rhetorical advantage over those who fail to fall into lockstep...

Much the way "anti-Mormon" is used.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Much the way "anti-Mormon" is used.

By some people, sometimes, yes.

GoodK already raised this point.