Well you simply mean orthodox about one issue then.

No I don't. *You* think I mean it about one issue only, but that is because you don't like what I stand for on that issue.

Your comments about Colin are very clearly ad hominem

No they are not. The issue is what Colin believes or doesn't believe and that is what is being discussed. To argue that someone's beliefs put them outside the bounds of "catholicity" when they claim to be catholic is not ad hominem.

It is ad hominem to attack someone like you are doing, impuning my motives and character for raising the issue.

But interestingly, on the key presenting issue of this current crisis (sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman) all the churches you mentioned are united. You'll find that you are the unorthodox one here, not me.

I'm quite clear what I mean by orthodoxy - there are enough clues on the site. I think you might be slightly confused though as to what I mean by orthodoxy, but that could be because you don't like what I stand for.

And anyway, the issue was Slee's catholicity, not his orthodoxy.

I think I used the word "catholic" not "orthodox".

One could argue that it's called "the Mass", but it's not actually the same kind of "Mass" as criticised (rightly) by the Articles.

But then, Slee is one of those "catholics" who thinks he's a catholic but is absolutely nothing of the sort.

The issue is whether, since we do not have women bishops, she can operate in any manner that suggests she is a bishop. So its a legal and a political issue (which I suspect is part of the point of Colin Slee inviting her).

What data collected by the FRC? All the data in this study comes from the CDC. You need to complain to them if you don't like the result. It won't change just because someone else does exactly the same mathematics.

Thanks Peter - yes this is exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to say. Take the classic case in this area of boys born later in a series of boys being more likely to be homosexual. That could be because of hormonal levels in the womb (the "nature" argument) or because a boy with lots of brothers has less of his parent's time and therefore suffers (the "nurture" argument). It could be a combination of those two factors.

Or, it could be (which is the point you're making) that there's something independent about the kind of parents that produce homosexual children which also makes them have more children then average (more children, greater chance of later ones being homosexual child).

Correlation does not equal causation.

I think you are bothered about it otherwise you wouldn't have joined in the commenting on the subject! For some people it's really important to prove this one way or the other. As for me, I'm just fascinated in general by the question of how our sexuality develops.

Aren't you just curious a teensy-weensy bit as to why there is such a strong difference between different family backgrounds and same-sex behaviour?

Oh I see - Table A on page 4 of this.

That's not the same dataset as the indepth analysis was done on Tim. It's a much bigger (number of people questioned) survey which didn't include all the indepth questions on family life, all sexual partners etc.

Apples and pears.

Where do you get the CDC figure of 4.4% from?