>>11705634Not only does the first theory - which isn't actually a theory in any proper terms - have very few studies cited, it also refers only to the difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
The second "theory" makes the fallacy of correlation=causation, uses decades old data, and in the article it says that the study was criticized very much so for drawing improper conclusions from improper data sets.
Now, you never responded to my other questions, so I'll ask them again, and you can respond in a similarly ordered list if you'd like. I know reading and responding to regular, paragraphed type is difficult sometimes, so I want to make it as easy as I can for you :)
1) Where did I say that?
2) Are you fucking illiterate?
3) Why are you on the /sci/ board - why do you come here?
4) Why did you try to use natural selection as your original argument for 'asexuality' being a preferable "abnormality", then after being shown how this was completely illogical, say asexuality is a paradox of natural selection?
5) Why are you contradicting yourself
6) Why did you cite 2 heavily unsupported arguments from Wikipedia which have nothing to do with natural selection?
If it's still too difficult for you to figure out, I could restate it if you'd like. Again, I understand it's difficult to read things, especially if you have to realize and disconnect yourself from your bias, so I want to make it as easy as possible for you :).
