Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is NOT Genetic

...Except that they don't. In fact, if anything, they show that it is very likely to have its roots at least partially in genetics, as we're talking about a 400-600% increase from the general population. That is extremely significant, especially considering how many genes do not always have the same results (the example of alcoholism was mentioned earlier - it's genetic, but at the same time you still have very good odds of it being inactive).

Great! Then you can take the Dan Savage Challenge, here issued to Hermain Cain but just as applicable to you:

(He doesn't beat around the bush)

More specifically, you have to choose to be straight; that is, show no arousal or attraction towards males, then choose to be gay and demonstrate arousal and attraction towards males, and then change back. This removes any potential problems bisexuality would pose to the issue, and demonstrates that you can, in fact, choose your sexuality.

...So far, Dan doesn't have any takers. I'd assume this has only partially to do with the fact that pretty much the only people who assert that sexuality is a choice are fairly anti-gay, and mostly to do with the fact that you can't, because the entirety of research on the subject by legitimate psychological institutions has pegged sexuality as essentially an immutable characteristic of a person.

The truth is already widely known. The facts are all there. The reason we care is because people who don't know, don't understand, or intentionally misrepresent the facts legitimately make life harder for homosexuals, in various forms - either by misrepresenting the debate ("They choose this lifestyle, why should we give them equal rights for this choice?") or trying to fix them ("Don't worry, we can make your son realize the poor choice he made at our corrective facility!") or the like. And people like you, who are dead wrong and either can't or won't figure it out, end up actively or passively hurting people like me and my friends.

Sexual imprinting simply does not work like this.

Because it won't cease to exist (being part of the genetic structure of pretty much all mammals), and because we've been fighting for equal rights for ages. Because I care about what happens to my friends and family. Because if I have a son and he turns out gay, I want him to live in a world where he can't be discriminated against because of his sexuality. Because I care about those beyond myself.

How do you propose it cease to exist? Assuming that homosexuality is not a choice (which it isn't), how would you suggest it go away? Well, in Uganda, they have an answer: kill all homosexuals. In the USA, you hear stuff like "put them all behind an electric fence until they die out (which wouldn't work anyways, because homosexuality is genetically transferred from heterosexuals).

 

Yeah, becuase until these things started happening, the gays weren't oppressed at all! They were able to live their lives happily, without oppression.

Except for homosexuality being condemned in the bible.
Except for homosexuality being illegal.
Except for homosexuals being murdered.

Yeah, it's a recent phenomina alright.... *rolls eyes*

- - - Updated - - -

If I could "like" something multiple times, I would do that to this post.

 

Sooooo then it is not determined by genetics. Traits determined by genetics have their root, trunk, branch and leaves in genetics.
But no doubt you would likewise claim the alcoholic was born that way. Had no choice in the matter. He is a product of his genes.

 

Where do you all get this assumption that if a heterosexual is born a heterosexual, that homosexuals therefore must also have been born homosexual? I suspect 95% of us are born with a biological drive that compels us to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. Just like some people are born without an arm, some people are born without this biological drive to be attracted to the opposite sex, which makes possible for someone to develope an attraction to the same sex. Does not compel it but instead simply makes it possible.

 

Get benefits, from insurance, someone else has paid into? That is what legislatures are for, it is called "consent of the governed." Some States have said they can marry, so they should get Federal spousal benefits if the State has ruled them married regardless of whether it was choice or genetics.

 

I think it's great that identical twins were studied. An excerpt of the findings is below and is quite telling

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

the last part now makes one wonder why the gay movement has encouraged gay clubs within High Schools. Perhaps this study shines light on the fact that if you don't try and encourage the kids to remain gay, they will move to heterosexuality.

I find the study to be interesting and am not surprised by all of the intolerance, sciencephobia and heterophobia from the usual suspects within this thread. Since they don't like the results, attack the scientist

 

The hell it doesn't. You need to study some psychology. Sexuality is always affected by psychological issues. Sometimes it's benign. Sometimes it's serious. And trauma victims never have normal sexuality unless they've processed what they've been through.

Again, this doesn't mean that every gay person is a victim of trauma, but it does mean that some people who have been through trauma can potentially turn out gay. And if you're not willing to look into this because you're too preoccupied with trying to be "tolerant," then you're ultimately being more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

This is why I can't stand this ignorant militant tolerance mindset that infects the western world. It refuses to even try to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy. It's not even interested in knowing what's actually true. Its only goal is to embrace without question and condemn all who dare not to do the same. "Shut up and obey." Talk about mind control.

Karl Marx was wrong. Religion isn't the opiate of the masses. It's political correctness.

- - - Updated - - -

Iron E.

 

I don't think we're dealing with a singular population anyway. Some is most likely genetic, some may be epigenetic, some might be trauma, some might be a kid who was rejected by every woman he ever flirted with and thus he turned to gay guys. Any of that could be true. But even so, it's still not something that matters a great deal unless this is being done to another person against their will, or to someone who because of immaturity, retardation or drug use cannot consent to gay activity. The day some gay woman tries to rape me or someone else, that's the day I get a vote on this. I'm not going to worry about causes, because there are so many agendas funding so many studies to prove their side right that it's not possible to figure it all out.

 

Good one - see I knew Americans understood irony, puts the sword to that stupid idea.

 

Good points. I know this is about twin studies but there is also the issue of situational homosexuality, for example in prison. Purely anecdotal stuff but it goes to self-definition. To put it crudely if you're a pitcher in prison you're not gay, if you're a catcher, you're gay. When the pitcher leaves prison he can resume sexual relations with women and chooses not to have sex with other men. As I said, anecdotal.

 

how is it not wrong to discriminate against them if hetero sexuals get insurance benefits they don't pay for?

 

Non sequitur. Identical twin studies only isolate genetics. They say nothing about in utero factors that lead to congenital conditions.

But that doesn't include in utero factors.

Wrong. Same uterus does not mean equal conditions. Fetal position, blood supply, exposure to pathogens and infection, etc. can all be quite different between identical twins, and make significant differences in congenital (not genetic) conditions.

Wrong again. Unequal in utero factors can make one identical twin a "runt," and have many other effects.

Whitehead is an ignoramus, as explained above.

Much higher than the random chance.

Refuted above. "Pre-birth" does not mean "genetic."

How does Whitehead explain the fact that the chance of a male being gay is proportional to the number of older brothers he has with the same mother, and this relationship is independent of how many of those older brothers are themselves gay? The obvious explanation is that having a male child somehow changes a woman's hormones or something in a way that makes it more likely any subsequent male children she bears will be gay. So while gayness is not genetic, it IS present at birth.

 

Genetics does not determine the entirety of either the body or the brain. So.....

 

"That is what legislatures are for, it is called 'consent of the governed.'"

 

If the lifestyle is a choice you cannot grant Homos marriage by tyranny of a court action and without hypocrisy still discriminate against Mormons, Muslims, and Bisexuals…

If the lifestyle is prompted by genetics or nature then that still leaves society to judge the disposition, which was somewhat different prior to the Texas ruling.

If the Supreme Court rules Homos can marry in any State regardless of their legislature and the Congress (or We the People) do not impeach or replace those necessary to get justices for a different disposition, it is “consent of the governed.”

 

I dont doubt that some people are born without the overwhelming biological drive that compels them to be attracted to the opposite sex. But I see nothing to indicate this leads to a biological attraction to the same sex. It merely makes it possible for someone to develope an attraction to the opposite sex.

 

its not equal protection under the law and its a violation of the 14th amendment why would you do that to people?

 

being gay is not a life style or a choice theirs no justification for baring same sex couples from getting married and such marriage would not be limited to homosexuals

 

I suspect among identical twins you would find an even higher correlation for HS dropouts, criminal convictions and drug abuse. Just silly to simply assign genetics as the cause.

 

So says you and what army?

Lifestyle “: the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lifestyle

I am quite sure that in the past atheists or barbarians (whatever you want to call them) probably with large axes or clubs and wearing animal skins justified killing homosexuals. And I can imagine the simplicity of their justification went something like they thought of them as some kind of hideous mutants that either wanted to frack manly men in the butt for no reason, or had a vagina and would not have sex with horny men. It is not all that hard to imagine that if gays serve no useful purpose in making little barbarians that there is no justification for them getting married but better justification for them being put in a stew pot.

Justification does not just pop out of the air or grow on trees, you have to work for it, and sometimes it takes time to get there. Like say for instance three Hispanic barbarians are out trolling to kill mutants in San Francisco, if the person has a knife and is attacked it may be advisable to use the knife, and leading psychologists will tell people to remember to gut the biggest one first just like it was a fish. {Please note the use of the word “it,” as you must have your justification mind right.} Historians though will advise running away faster than Zimmerman due to barbarian sympathizers in the justification department. Now we can whine all day long about barbarian sympathizers, but you really got to do more than just spout "this is what I think, therefore, it must be true."

 

To be specific, You mean that the scientific studies haven't tied sexuality down to a gene.

But, sexuality and gender aren't decided by genes. It's all determined in-utero -- well after the DNA combination-- by the unpredictable growth patterns that occur during that gestation period.

 

What about the "lifestyle" of homosexuals?

How is it so different than that of 'heterosexuals'? (I'm curious about that.)

 

don't need an army were not part of some hetero sexual culture just because were hetero sexual

and a gay married couple can do anything a hetero sexual couple needs to do in order to get married theirs no justification for discriminating against them by taking away the rights you get when your married

 

Funny that we don't actually do that. You cannot, for example refuse to hire someone for being Mormon or Muslim. Not everything protected under the law must be genetic, in fact, a lot of things that are protected in the constitution have very little to do with genetics. Unless you want to argue that freedom of religion or the press (both of which represent behaviors) are not legitamate rights, then there's very little basis for saying that ONLY genetic factors should be protected.

The government does have the right to regulate activity, but it's almost always done with an eye to protect the people involved or weaker members of the society. Merely having people think that it's icky is not enough to ban it. You can regulate, set age of consent, things like that, to protect the public. You just don't get to ban something for "ickpants-ness". Not good enough.

I think it's a question of the right of the individual to enter into relationships as they choose. they are the ones making the choice and living with the choice, and in most situations, placing arbitrary limits on freedom only results in more problems than it solves.

 

gays just love to come liek all guys do, there should be no stigma, do whatever u want, just dont ask me to back governmetn marraige contracts involving gays, since its not a right to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed ina divorce by governemnt

abng as many trannies n guys as u like

hek with the fake tits some trannies look as good as pamela anderson

as women cut their hair shorter n look more liek democrat warthogs those trannies look great

esp since thye probly less inhibited!!