Yes I did but not over “your” study as you hypocritically accused me of. BTW it was TWO studies. One of which had over 1400 subjects in a totally blind random sample.
On the face, that is a silly assertion, since by mere random probability, both twins might be gay in the same proportion as homosexuality appears in the general population, which credible estimates ranging from 2 to 5 percent.
Good point but DATA does not always have to follow population to be accurate and compelling.
On the contrary, although I earlier cited the ASU study, you've inferred that as an indication that my entire understanding of the subject lies with that one study when I've clearly stated that's not the case.
It’s the only one you cited period given your assertion of “Most studies, espeically recent studies” that you’re supposedly relying on when you can’t even cite who wrote the ASU study. Much less who or where your ” Most studies, espeically recent studies” studies come from. Do you have any credibility at all?
Let me be a bit clearer. Any study of a reasonable sample size that finds a 0% correlation has reached an impossible conclusion. It's credibility is not only suspect, but it can be taken as prima facie incorrect.
you can’t even cite who wrote the ASU study
I don't know where you got that notion. Whitam, Diamond, Martin - Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, 1993.
And I can only assume you posted that quote of mine twice so as to point out my typo. In which case, you only reinforce my assertion that you're merely being captious. And let me add immature.