It is amusing that some people fulminate about so-called activist judges, and yet when judges in California legalize gay marriage by a strict reading of the Constitution, conservatives rush to get a referendum on the ballot for November that would restrict marriage to a man and a woman.
Food for thought: a mere forty one years ago, the marriage of Senator Obama’s parents would not have been recognized in sixteen states, because there were strict laws against a mixed race marriage…until some gosh-darned activist judges ruled that law unconstitutional.
When are those who are busy minding other peoples’ business going to tumble to the fact that any two people who wish to marry are the same race–the human race–whether they have different skin or like gender? There cannot be different grades of equality. Marriage, which once was something strictly arranged by parents, typically for financial gain, is in a constantly state of change and gay marriage is simply the next logical step in its evolution…presuming that critics of gay marriage believe in evolution.
PAD
• 
What’s wrong with you that you think ridiculing someone for being right is a good idea? How would you justify — to whatever guardian angel the universe may provide you — holding someone’s accuracy against them?
Maybe by the fact that 6.7% does NOT = 100% renders you the opposite of accurate, no matter how many angels are invloved?
If you can explain how a study that shows that if one twin is gay the other is only 6.7% likely to be gay is the same as saying that “if one twin is gay, you can pretty much count on the other twin being gay as well.” the you will have an argument.
More likely you will just flail around. As PAD once speculated you are probably incapable of understanding that you’re wrong.
On the bright side–you know how you once sniveled about how you’ve gotten lip service from people all your life about how smart you are? Show people this thread and they’ll probably stop doing that.
The reason you have no idea what I’m talking about is because you don’t let the complete compatibility of your facts with what I say interfere with your relentless need to challenge me.
Mike, you’ve made several snide remarks about math.
I have degrees in physics and astronomy, and I’ve both tutored and taught math.
You. Are. Fûçkìņg. Wrong.
Deal. Please.
TWL
not in a suffering-fools-gladly mood
The truth is that, from an ethical-political point of view, it doesn’t matter whether homosexuality is genetic, psychological or a completely voluntary choice.
If you assume that homosexuality is just a harmless life style than you respect somebody’s decision to pursue it even if he could easily make another choice. If you think that it’s wrong or a sin than you expect anybody to refrain from doing it even if it is a very strong natural compulsion.
I feel bad for homosexuals who are also religious. Their own beliefs tell them they have to supress their own sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is a funny term. I alays have the image of somebody in an office pointing out the coffee machine.
“Deal. Please.”
Unlikely.
“No, it’s 6.7% for identical twins, 7.2% for fraternal twins.”
Without having the actual/ raw data, plus you don’t statistical significance – this is pretty meaningless. The difference may be statistically insignificant.
The question to ask is, what is the statistically significant difference between fraternal twins AND singleton births to the same mother, as fraternal twins are no more alike (genetically) than singleton siblings.
That being said, if the difference between identical twins and fraternal twins is statistically significant, wouldn’t that support uterine environmental conditions, not genetic.
This is what I get for getting up too early on Saturday morning.
“plus you don’t statistical significance”
should read “…plus you don’t give…”
The twin studies being cited, were both members the fraternal twins pairs the same sex or different? Was there any difference between boy/girl sets as opposed to boy/boy & girl/girl?
I hate jumping into a pìššìņg match (and yet I am anyway), but if everyone would take a half-second and read the posts in question, the misocmmunication that led to this math argument will be clear.
Per Bill Mulligan, a study showed that the chances of a twin being gay, given that his/her twin sibling is gay, is between 6.7% and 7.2%. Per Mike, that is approximately the same rate as the general populace. After Bill clarified that the percentage only refered to the second twin alone, Mike did the math and calculated the probability of both being gay (which is accurate, as I will demonstrate in a second). Bill replied that the percentages were 6.7% again, apparently not properly reading Mike’s post, and from there it spiraled on.
The Math
If the probability of any individual being gay is 6.7%, and
if the probability of a twin being gay, given that their twin is gay, is 6.7%, then
the probability of both twins being gay is the product of the probability of the first being gay times the probability of the second being gay, given that the first is gay. Since the probabilities of both are 6.7%, then the resulting probability is 6.7% x 6.7% which is 0.4489%.
You can argue with the assumptions made, but the math is accurate.
Dustin, your math is completely accurate — but I do not see how it makes Mike’s point even remotely accurate. You just pointed out the probability of a twin being gay is 6.7%, and the possibility of BOTH being gay is 0.45%. That certainly does not support Mike’s statement that “if one is, you can pretty much count on the other one being gay as well.” In fact, it utterly undercuts that point.
No arguments with your math or your assumptions, just the logic in Mike’s head that connects your math to his claim.
TWL
“You can argue with the assumptions made, but the math is accurate.”
Yes, but is it statistically significant?
Mike whined: “What’s wrong with you that you think ridiculing someone for being right is a good idea?”
Oh, grow up, Mike. And where did you find that question? It appears to be exactly the same phrasing you used last time I responded to one of your posts. Is there an online site that provides you with inane things to say when your feelings are hurt?
You’re obviously of some intelligence, Mike. You can make arguments and string together sentences to form paragraphs. You frequently miss the point that others are trying to make. But some of your arguments are weak. And when you are corrected on your weak arguments, you tend to get defensive and lash out.
Nobody here has said anything like ‘you’re an idiot, and fat, too’ or asked if ‘you were still living in your parent’s basement’ Those might be reasons to lash out. Nobody’s called you a leper nor a leopard, a dog nor a dogie, a twit nor a twerp. Those might be reasons to lash out.
Have a nice day, Mike.
“Tim Lynch at June 20, 2008 06:41 PM”
It just means that you can report data “massaged” to sound like it’s meaningful.
I know all about that, Megan — I’m an astronomer. 🙂 I have no idea what level of massaging would make this sound even half-assedly meaningful, though.
TWL
Yeah, Dustin, I didn’t see where he got that .45% number at first. Not really sure of the significance or how he then somehow turns it into “if one is, you can pretty much count on the other one being gay as well.” but I think Mike is more interested in getting some aknowledgment of his existance than he is in getting any facts right. Whatever. The subject is more ineteresting than he is.
Megan, as far as I can tell, the conclusions were that the results showed no statistically significant link. You’d expect there to be a greater correlation between identical twins than fraternal twins and that wasn’t seen. The slight increase seen in fraternal twins wasn’t considered enough to matter much. Among just plain siblings the result was just 5.5% concordance. So the conclusion was that if there is a genetic component it is only a minor thing compared to other, unknown influences.
I’m not quoting this thing like it’s scripture. there were earlier studies that seemed to show a definite link but it turned out that they recruited the twins in part by advertizing in gay magazines. well, duh. If the participants are not randomly chosen I don’t see the value of the study. Whether or not this one holds up remains to be seen.
It comes from the miscommunication I noted earlier. Your response to his presentation of the .4% number was to reply that it should be 6.7%. What he seemed to understand you to be saying was that the probability of both twins being gay (without any assumptions made) was 6.7%, the same percentage as the general populace. For that to be true, the probability of one being gay given that the other is gay is 100%, easily demonstrated using the same formula as before:
6.7% x X = 6.7%, X = 100%
I can’t, nor do I want to, speak to Mike motives, but his math is accurate based on what has been presented. When his calculation was challenged, he revised his assumptions based on what he was told, hence the “if one is, you can pretty much count on the other one being gay as well” confusion.
Open the calculator application from your Start menu:
…and you get approximately 0.004, which is approximately 0.4%.
Now look at the first quote you are all trying to deny. The relationship of this math to what I said is approximately 1:1. Thank you all for providing definitive evidence of your stupidity.
Bill literally tried to correct my ~0.4% For Any Given Set Both Twins Being Gay™ with his 6.7%-7.2%. Is “literally” some kind of unproved theory in Physics™ and Astronomy,&trade dìçkhëád?
Mike,
I’m sure I’m going to regret this in the long run, but I apologize.
Specifically, I did not initially catch your 0.4% statement, which was in fact correct. If your conclusion was in response to Bill’s slight misstatement, then on that level it’s correct, and I should not have said what I did. My thanks to Dustin for his patient unraveling of this mess.
I would note, however, that the paragraph quoted below…
Then they’re in line with the general population, math major. Which means if one twin is gay, you can pretty much count on the other twin being gay as well.
… does not follow from Bill’s statement. The second sentence might given your interpretation, but the first and second statements are incompatible with one another.
One final thought. As I said, I’m a teacher. When I say something in class and 85-95% of the class looks back at me as if I’m speaking another language, I don’t generally take the position that they’re all stupid dìçkhëádš who can’t understand anything. I take the position that I’ve either erred or phrased something badly, and correct myself. In the words of Michael Palin, “I think there’s a lesson in that for all of us.”
‘Night, all.
TWL
“The slight increase seen in fraternal twins wasn’t considered enough to matter much”
That’s what I was getting at – you can throw numbers and percentages around (even without the leaps that Mike was making), and still not be telling the story.
I’ve just spent the last few weeks helping (I hope 🙂 ) my son and a couple of his mates through an undergrad stats subject.
Stay classy, Mike Leung.
Dustin, thanks for making sense of this–I finally see where he was coming from. Pity he hasn’t your ability to function among normal people. But that’s Mike!
Yeah, don’t stop hating on those demonstrating a fidelity to reality, Bill Mulligan. You’re the hostage that keeps on giving.
The statement I opened 6 of my last 8 posts with? You didn’t catch it? It seems implausible, so I want to make sure I’m reading that right.
If:
If the rate of homosexuality stays the same for twins, for the faux application of Bill’s fact you can rely on a gay twin having a gay twin pretty much 1:1 — and dramatically different odds for a twin being gay is Not A Casual Stat To Leave Out.
Is this after they tell you “You.Are.Fûçkìņg.Wrong.?” Nothing more severe than you replying they’re a dìçkhëád happens to them?
So, what are you sorry for?
Rene, I wonder if the large amount of gay people you(and I, for that matter) know that don’t have the best fathers is less of a causal factor and more a result of some fathers’ inability to handle that their children aren’t, for lack of a better term, “normal.”
Micha, ya know, I might be about to start a new job. Not going to be able to keep a straight face when they show me the coffee maker.
Now, if I might, as a person of Irish lineage, I have to take exception to all the 18 months cracks. They’re so not true, and an insulting stereotype. I’d have expect more from–HEY! SON! PUT THAT WHISKY BACK! IT’S ONLY SIX YEARS OLD, AND YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO DRINK THE STUFF THAT’S OLDER THAN YOU!!
What was I saying?
Is this after they tell you “You.Are.Fûçkìņg.Wrong.?” Nothing more severe than you replying they’re a dìçkhëád happens to them?
I wouldn’t know — I’ve never had it happen, mainly because they know that if they think I’m wrong and tell me so politely, I won’t treat them like a walking pile of excrement.
So, what are you sorry for?
I was sorry for misinterpreting some of your words. I’m now sorry for having gotten involved in this attempt to turn yet another thread into Mike Vs. the World.
Done here. Say whatever you’d like.
TWL
Well, I have. By You.
So, how did my not being wrong stop you from leaving out the profanity from your first reply to me? Because I wasn’t wrong. And you still directed profanity at me.
So you aren’t sorry for cursing at me when by your account I wasn’t even wrong. Lovely. Thank you for demonstrating in this publicly accessible forum you know you’re wrong, and you still reserving for yourself the privilege to arbitrarily issue profanity at me.
The only thing I’m sorry about for regarding Mike is that he was born…
You’re not my real dad, “Bladestar.”
Googling “gay twin studies” gave me, among other (often heavily biased, to one side or the other) links, a Wikipedia article regarding Biology and Sexual Orientation. There have been a few studies of monozygotic (identical) and dizygotic (fraternal) twins; the one yielding the data cited above (in which there was a 6.7% concordance of homosexuality between identical twins – that is, if one was gay, this study showed a 6.7% chance the other one would be) is criticized, as it required self-reporting from teenagers, who are often not yet completely sexually developed (in a psychological sense), and who will often experience powerful direction to self-identify as straight (even if that self-identification isn’t entirely accurate). (Bearman, P. S. & Bruckner, H. (2002) Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology 107, 1179–1205.)
Other studies (such as Wilson & Rahman, 2005) found a concordance of 52% among identical twins and 22% for fraternal twins.
I just think it’s more fun to argue when there are actual facts and numbers in play…
“the rate for any set of twins being both gay is not (1/15)(1/15), but also 1/15 –*
No, I don’t agree. If we were tossing a fair coin, the “odds” (theoretically) are that if we toss it 10 times, 5 times it will be heads and 5 times it will be tails. Repeat this 100 times and you’ll start seeing this 50:50 distribution. It is also possible to toss this same coin 10 times and get 10 heads in a row, or 10 tails – now that’s unlikely BUT possible – the coin/chance has no memory or effect on subsequent tosses.
Each member of a DZ twin pair share no more genetic material that 2 singleton siblings.
This is really the old nature vs nurture thing.
Megan, I don’t know what you’re saying — or who you’re disagreeing with, since you’re citing a sentence-fragment paraphrasing Bill’s faux application of his facts — but there’s no way a single coin toss, which seems to be the only analogy you’ve introduced for twins both being gay, beats 2 coins being tossed simultaneously.
In this discussion the misunderstanding is the objective. The subject of the discussion and the trut are notimportant. One can’t play the role of misunderstod genius if he’s understood.
If you’re referring to me, where is the room for ambiguity in simply saying “for a set of twins, there’s a ~0.4% chance they’re both gay?”
Other studies (such as Wilson & Rahman, 2005) found a concordance of 52% among identical twins and 22% for fraternal twins.
I just think it’s more fun to argue when there are actual facts and numbers in play…
yeah, part of all this confusion was the assumption of facts not in play. I don’t know if any of the studies were even asking if twins, in general, are more or less likelyto be gay–only whether there was a concordance between the siblings.
i think one complaint about the earlier studies that showed a much greater concordance was that they actively recruited twins from the gay community. There’s a possibility that twins who are both gay would be more likely to volunteer for something like this, thus skewing the results.
Always a problem with these kind of studies. It’s amazing how many things that get reported as valid stats really fall apart upon examination. Basing broad conclusions of overall populations on small groups of prisoners, voluteers, and doctor’s patients doesn’t seem like it would even be worth the time.
Even if homosexuality IS a choice, why should two people who choose to pledge their lives together be denied the same rights as others simply because they happen to be the same sex?
exactly
I was just reading today about how Iran’s government is adopting a harsher than even attitude of repression, because they don’t want to appear weak with all the international pressure, etc.
I’ve read about police car patrolling Iranian streets, arresting boys with hairstyles that are “too occidental”, and girls wearing clothes that are too short. And I got angry.
I know we should beware of slippery slope arguments, but Iranian society is the logical result of what happens when the authorities are given free rein to legislate on morality and custom, and when religion and politics become incestuosly entangled.
Extreme conservatives of the West really have a lot in common with the hardline Muslims they consider their enemies. Iranian society is a nice example of how their ideal society would be.
I am a gay Republican voting for Obama (simply because he’s interesting) and I’m in favor of revoking all marriage licenses (heterosexual and heterosexual alike) and replacing them with documents of full-right civil unions.
I mean, the government has every right to take a bet on a couple’s stability, but doing it under the guise of religion?
I don’t like what California’s doing, but I can respect it as it’s a whole lot better than calling some things ‘marriages’ and others ‘civil unions’ because that’s freely giving someone sitting in an office somewhere with access to no other biographical data the opportunity to discriminate.
… Of course I’m only advocating the blanket term of ‘civil union’ for everybody because I see ‘marriage’ as a religious term. There are those on this board who are non-religious and married and feel that ‘marriage’ works quite well as a secular term for a secular institution and wonder why they should change what they call themselves just because I feel the way I do… While I don’t yet have an adequate response, I still feel there’s one somewhere and I hope to find it someday.
… Meantime, eh, Go California? *cheers half-heartedly*
–Bladestar
–“If the government says it is OK, we have to do it, right?”
–CHeck your tax forms/instruction booklet. In there I believe it mentions you can send extra money above and beyond what you owe to help the government, how many people actually do that?
Heh. I’d send in extra money to the government if I knew they would file it as a tax-deductible contribution. Otherwise they’re just being unrealistic.