[BykrBayb]

He does so mention lesbians. In the first 3 sentences he talks about homosexuals, both male and female. Then he alternates between discussing male and female homosexuals. He says that he's going to talk primarily about males, and he does. You win the prize for reading the least. You didn't even read his first two sentences. Why would you bother putting up a post about an article that hadn't read at all?

[woofie]

He does so mention lesbians. In the first 3 sentences he talks about homosexuals, both male and female. Then he alternates between discussing male and female homosexuals. He says that he's going to talk primarily about males, and he does. You win the prize for reading the least. You didn't even read his first two sentences. Why would you bother putting up a post about an article that hadn't read at all?

Is it that time of month?

A response from someone who agreed with me:

Posted by Jaysun to woofie

On News/Activism 02/26/2004 5:37:15 PM PST #45 of 71

It doesnt mention Lesbians....

You're right. It focuses on the gay male issue. Are girls that lack female influences more likely to become lesbian? I don't know. It stands to reason. Think about "tom boys." Many lesbians have been victims of sexual abuse(Melissa Ethridge was molested by her sister).

[Unassuaged]

Thank you for a voice of reason! Boy, I sure hope the several knee-jerk reactions coming from people who did not read the article are not the people teaching their own children, that would be sad, so sad.

[Marie]

It's good that you are intelligent enough to read between the lines of this poorly written article. I do not give PHD's who publish the benefit of the doubt. I assume that they will write exactly what they mean to say. The article states that homeschooled boys have a higher risk of growing up gay because of social isolation, then goes on to say that there are other variables that may offset the basic risk of homeschooling. I dispute the entire premise of the article. Don't throw around accusations.