Notice how they point out that it's a model; this supposed cause for homosexuality is nothing but hypothetical, by their own admission. It's simply the only idea they could come up with to make the data fit their premise (that homosexuality is genetically derived).
Introduce even the possibility of another premise, and it falls apart.
But that's neither here nor there, because even limited to their own model, it's so extremely full of holes as to be laughable. Firstly, it provides no benefit, despite how they try to spin it; it simply makes the observation that when women have a lot of children, the chances are higher that some of the males will be(come) homosexual. Gee, what a find. Second, it only takes males into account. Kind of a big deal.
And frankly, high fertility rates in women is linked to a lot of different defects in the children. This is nothing new.
So essentially, they've found data that can be used to support any and all of the different, opposing premises surrounding the whole concept. That's not terribly useful or revealing.
rhjunior
Introduce even the possibility of another premise, and it falls apart.
But that's neither here nor there, because even limited to their own model, it's so extremely full of holes as to be laughable. Firstly, it provides no benefit, despite how they try to spin it; it simply makes the observation that when women have a lot of children, the chances are higher that some of the males will be(come) homosexual. Gee, what a find. Second, it only takes males into account. Kind of a big deal.
And frankly, high fertility rates in women is linked to a lot of different defects in the children. This is nothing new.
So essentially, they've found data that can be used to support any and all of the different, opposing premises surrounding the whole concept. That's not terribly useful or revealing.
-Kire Du'Hai