[scripter]

What!? C'mon, I gave you some credit here and now you're giving me second thoughts. If you don't understand how the metaphor applies to the Bailey and Pillard sample then I've given you too much credit. They demonstrated a blatant disregard for scientific principles. First, your question incorrectly implies their study was valid and you're asking questions based on this same invalid study. Second, Bailey and Pillard would not agree with you. Do you normally accept bogus studies as relevant?

Answering this question will help me understand from where you're coming: Do you think the Kinsey study was based on valid samples? That's a very relevant question for this topic. Here's another off topic but relevant question: Is Al Gore's global warming based on sound science?

[LtdGovt]

I really did not understand what it had to do with the survey. On the face of it, it sounded like a total nonsequitur. There was no direct way I could relate rocks and snowballs to a survey.

So you're concerned that their study allegedly disregarded scientific principles and did not take a valid sample. I don't know about whether either was violated when making the survey, but I think it would be very difficult to get a valid sample of twins when one of the twins is gay. If more surveys are done, then a fusion of those surveys might well produce something that you would agree, is worthy.

Kinsey: As far as I know, he took his subjects from a prison. That would not make a valid sample.

Gore: I think that the earth might well be warming, somewhat, but due to natural causes, since most of the greenhouse gases come from natural sources.