Posted: Apr 30, 2012 3:46 pm
Nicko wrote:@[color=#CC0000][b]Thommo:[/b][/color]
Sorry, but you are confusing correlation with causation.
Being homosexual does not cause anal sex. There is, however, a higher correlation between having male/male sex and having anal sex than there is with having female/male sex and having anal sex.
Look at it this way. There is also a higher correlation between having female/male sex and having anal sex than there is with having female/female sex and having anal sex.
Does this mean that heterosexuality "causes" anal sex?
Yes, that's exactly what it means. People without sexual desires would not have a whole lot of anal sex.
And no, I'm not confusing correlation and causation, that's why I linked to a passage clearly explaining the difference between the two things. The "correlation is not causation" quote is incredibly abused. They are not the same, but in all cases of dependence amongst distinct RVs some form of causation is a consequence of correlation, the questions to be addressed are which variables are involved (i.e. rule out spurious correlations) and in which direction the causation is.