# Moderation : causes and prevalence of homosexuality unrelated to acceptance of homosexuality

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-causes-and-prevalence-of-homosexuality-unrelated-to-acceptance-of-homosexuality/830878>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [March 10, 2019, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-causes-and-prevalence-of-homosexuality-unrelated-to-acceptance-of-homosexuality/830878 "2019-03-10T07:34:55Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-causes-and-prevalence-of-homosexuality-unrelated-to-acceptance-of-homosexuality/830878/21 "2019-03-12T20:09:07Z")

</div>

> [@SlackerInc](#):
>
> Isn’t the true prevalence of homosexuality, and its biological or social causes, fundamentally a GQ question?

Not really. That has been one of the most debated questions in recent times!

> [@SlackerInc](#):
>
> I mean, otherwise GQ should be shut down, with a sign saying “just Google it”, if it’s only for simple questions of verifiable fact about which there is no dispute.

Sometimes we do have that, and I understand that modding is difficult, but I am confused about the boundaries of GQ. For example, we have a lot of GQ threads that go somewhat like this:

OP: Who was the first President of the United States?  
Posters 1-7: Google it. George Washington! Is this a serious question?  
Poster 8: Actually, it was John Hansen, first president of the continental congress.  
Poster 9: No, it isn’t that is a myth. The Articles of Confederation did not provide for a “President of the United States”  
Poster 8: But he did preside over the highest body of the United States at the time.  
Poster 10: Yet, his office was not called “President of the United States.”

Then MOD NOTE (quoting posters 9 and 10):

All right you two scofflaws, let’s stop this Articles of Confederation hijack. Feel free to start a GD thread if you would like.

\*thread dies

However sometimes such things are not moderated. It’s not a big deal as these are always mod notes, but I’m just curious as to how much debate is allowed in GQ.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-causes-and-prevalence-of-homosexuality-unrelated-to-acceptance-of-homosexuality/830878/22 "2019-03-12T22:36:01Z")

</div>

To me, it seems like any question that could theoretically be settled factually if we had enough data is suitable for GQ. Even if we don’t have sufficient data as of yet.

GD, I would think, should be for areas where evidence and logic are not sufficient, because the “right answer” fundamentally depends on opinion or a moral stance that cannot be empirically determined.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moderation-causes-and-prevalence-of-homosexuality-unrelated-to-acceptance-of-homosexuality/830878.md?page=1)