Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is NOT Genetic

which gay people told you that?

 

You don't understand human fetal development. The brain develops according to genetically defined pathways, but those pathways can be affected by factors like maternal blood chemistry (consider the effects of FAS). Once the sexual identity pathway is set to the default female version, it follows that pathway to the end -- sexual attraction to males -- pretty much automatically.

 

Behavior is by defintion a choice and Homosexuality is behavior. There is less and less evidence as time passes for a genetic component to homosexuality. But exactly how and at what point that choice is made remains unclear.

 

These numbers are interesting. It's suggested that only 2% of the population at large is gay. But for identical twins it is 11%-14% being gay?

Either one of the identical twins is 5 times more likely to be gay, or there is a representative heuristic skewing one of these claims.

If you have any questions for me I'll be peeing on your lawn.

 

Not necessarily beast, if nurture not nature plays the predominant roll then one would expect higher results among twins and siblings.

 

no hetero sexuality is not a choice its an attraction to the other gender I did not chose to be heterosexual even if their is no you must be hetero sexual gene same for homosexuals except their attracted to the same gender

 

Homosexuality is not a behavior. Homosexuality is being attracted to people of the same sex, not the act of having sex with someone of the same gender. Let's say that a guy who's attracted to women is forced at gunpoint to have sex with a guy - is this guy a homosexual because he had sex with a male? Is he a homosexual while he's performing the act? No!

 

The fact that there's a higher correlation in twins shows that there's a genetic link. Are you are aware that twins experience different conditions in the same womb? For example one twin usually has a more advantageous connection to the placenta, and receives more nutrients.

 

Not as liberals define it. Liberals define sexuality by preference, not action. You still have a choice beyond a preference. You might prefer to sleep in, but be an early riser. You might prefer chocolate but choose a salad. You might prefer to not work but choose to work overtime, because you want the money.

Whether or not it's a choice is irrelevant. Conservatives say it's a choice because liberals say 'it's not a choice.' What's important about it has nothing to do with choice, or genetics. I still don't get why people feel the need to say it's "natural", "genetic", etc. in order to justify it, as if w/o that it's wrong. It's just the simple non-aggression principle.

impossible. identical twins raised in the same household will be different in name only.

 

Spend some time looking through some of the more recent papers on the genetic basis of sexual orientation on Google Scholar and you'll find that, it hasn't yet been possible to definitively disentangle genetic factors from non-genetic ones. In fact, sexual orientation doesn't even appear to be a simple "nature vs. nurture" scenario. But that won't stop people from trying to "prove scientifically" that there own private preference in the matter is the correct one.

 

Wrong.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=174855&page=1

Oh wow, from a website with sermons, authored by a member of the anti-gay pseudoscience organization NARTH . What a surprise. Yeah, that doesn't seem biased or anything. Who needs pure reviewed scientific studies?


Not that it matters if being gay is a choice. I really don't care either way. But just keep in mind that you're basically saying you could choose to be sexually attracted to other men.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/blogs...ng-homosexuality-those-who-dont-want-get.html

Not sure if serious.

 

Mommies count the little fingers because of chaos, the crap shoot of nature, but gender is not just chaos:

http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/p/chromosgender.htm

Their lifestyle in the sense of everything other than what their life chooses, or by whatever makes desire a compulsion, to frack or love is probably no different. I would hope they want to marry to provide for their loved ones.

Justification is determined by society, and has been for as long as we humans have thought. We only get into major problems when society is forbidden to denigrate former edicts of dead fathers. Our US Constitution has an amendment process in keeping with a future potential prophet, or simply the desires of the souls of men, Islam has no such capability.

People have banned stuff for "ickpants-ness" claiming gods told them so since our time began. Governments that are Religions such as Islam, have no such requirement to protect homosexuals as weaker members of society. In some situations society is told it is icky, by their god, and they have no provision for another prophet to correct it should your soul think it is wrong. The right of freedom of speech and press (which anyone can press, so beware of laws that make gubermint approved licensed journalists a protected class) is inherent in a holy spirit not a Holy Edict or unchangeable or unamendable with letters Book especially when it is forbidden to denigrate the potentially false prophet. For society to look into their own soul and determine whether the icky is acceptable requires the ability to denigrate those that from edict of a god, not only wish, but believe those who do not bow down with those who bow down are transgressors.

“The resolution urged ‘all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human rights instruments to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief.’ The Commission adopted the resolution without a vote.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations

“10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs…” (ibid)

Why should a Gay like, not discriminate against with contempt, understand, and tolerate and respect a religion, a prophet, a belief that says kill them?

“Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. “

Statecraft requires precise use of words, so if you object to the following feel free to look up any word in MORE THAN ONE DICTIONARY.

Rights which society’s soul believes must be stood up for, the freedom to denigrate the belief that homosexuals are an abomination to be killed, the freedom to denigrate the belief that Gays are exceeding all limits and are transgressors; the freedom of speech and the protection of the State can be lost by refusal to impeach this horror of the quisling Obamanation:

Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...3479-its-actually-closer-us-being-idiots.html

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

Your rights are only as strong as the will to impeach that which must be impeached. Can you walk the walk and talk the talk, or is it only nothing but the little head that rules?

 

are you f***ing serious?

 

Nothing there that contradicts a thing I said. What is it you think I don't understand?

 

well, fine, but everyone has a "lifestyle" of some sort. Mine is the Midwestern Suburban Lifestyle. I'm simply pointing out that simply because someone does not like a lifestyle does not mean that I get to ban it or discriminate against those who practice it without a legitamte reason for it. Especially in a constitutional republic like the United States, where our political system is based upon the notions of human rights and human freedom. In such a situation, ickypants isn't good enough. You have to show why this behavior will cause some sort of harm to other people.

Since marriage seems to be one the agenda anyway, I don't see much point in bringing that up as something that gays should do for acceptance. It's something that's on the record.

Which is interesting, but since no part of American law is based on Sharia, I have no idea why we're discussing the amendability of the qu'ran or the rise of a prophet that doesn't seem in the offing. We're in America, and American law holds. I think the issue of religion is best left to the religions themselves. If a religion doesn't see something as legitamate, it's not something a government should force them to accept in their own communities, but that would go for a lot of things. I don't think gay is more of an issue here than hundreds of other religious laws and ordinances -- from working on the Sabbath to charging interest to providing contraceptives. It's simple enough -- a group of religious people who come together for a religious purpose should not be forced to do things that they find blasphemous.

Again, we're talking about America as a Constitutional Republic. What happens in your church, mosque, synagogue, or temple has very little to do with the laws of America. American government cannot force a church to say that homosexuality is good or bad, but neither can it use a religious test to say that since religion X opposes homosexuality, then homosexuality is not allowed. The first would be "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, while the first would in essence "establish" a religion that others must follow or that would be promoted as the American Religion. A society could regulate based on harm, but it cannot be religious harm.

“The resolution urged ‘all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human rights instruments to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief.’ The Commission adopted the resolution without a vote.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_of_religion_and_the_United_Nations

“10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs…” (ibid)

Why should a Gay like, not discriminate against with contempt, understand, and tolerate and respect a religion, a prophet, a belief that says kill them?

“Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. “

Statecraft requires precise use of words, so if you object to the following feel free to look up any word in MORE THAN ONE DICTIONARY.

Rights which society’s soul believes must be stood up for, the freedom to denigrate the belief that homosexuals are an abomination to be killed, the freedom to denigrate the belief that Gays are exceeding all limits and are transgressors; the freedom of speech and the protection of the State can be lost by refusal to impeach this horror of the quisling Obamanation:

Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...3479-its-actually-closer-us-being-idiots.html

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

Your rights are only as strong as the will to impeach that which must be impeached. Can you walk the walk and talk the talk, or is it only nothing but the little head that rules?[/QUOTE]

well, we need to talk about a specific case, but if judges are denying clear civil and human rights on either side, they do need to be impeached or recalled. However, refusing to ban a constitutionally protected activity on the basis of religion is itself an establishment of a religion. If I say that "pork eating is banned because it violates Islam" I've established Islam as the American religion. or if I banned commerce on Sunday, I've established Christianity because I'm banning something for no other reason than that activity violates a religion.

 

Thank you for the biology lesson. I already knew the gist of it. But, that doesn't refute my argument that there are several formative months that are the most important to development.

Through cellular mitosis the zygote needs to zip up what would take a billion years for us to lay out one-by-one. Both in the brain and the body. Not even identical twins get equal treatment in the womb as shown by the statistic numbers that each twin, both get the same change to become homosexual or not at the same rate as in the general population. I don't know why the PHD in the OP article skipped that gestation period. Oh well, maybe science can't do that yet.

 

I don't see any difference in the lives of homosexuals and heterosexuals in most cases. The "lifestyles" are very similar if not exactly the same.

 

You said, "But I see nothing to indicate this leads to a biological attraction to the same sex." There is no "biological attraction to the same sex." There a biologically based attraction to males, which is the default female sexual preference, and there is a biologically based attraction to females, which is the default male sexual preference. But these biologically based preferences are not guaranteed. They depend on certain hormones being present in certain quantities in the developing fetal brain, other hormones not being present in too-great concentrations, etc. NON-GENETIC factors such as the mother's hormone levels can interfere with the default fetal brain developmental path, making a developing male brain eventually go down the path of attraction to males, or, more rarely, making a developing female brain eventually go down the path of attraction to females. But those are two totally different developmental anomalies, not two manifestations of a single "same-sex attraction" anomaly.

 

American law only holds as long as the people are willing to impeach those that violate their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Official Statecraft of the United States of America, the first one was posted on the State Department's website:

"The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Clinton)

"We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." (Obama)
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...3479-its-actually-closer-us-being-idiots.html

“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241

That violation of oath of office was in defense of a mass murderer of Gays.

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22)

"026.165
YUSUFALI: "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
PICKTHAL: What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males,
SHAKIR: What! do you come to the males from among the creatures

026.166
YUSUFALI: "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
PICKTHAL: And leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are froward folk.
SHAKIR: And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits..."

"Book 38, Number 4447:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done."

“You have to show why this behavior will cause some sort of harm to other people.” (septimine)

Say for instance you believe that there is no harm in Gays marrying. And whether it is a choice (regardless of nature including the complexity of the delicate process and or nurture) or genetics is simply academic. Then the official Statecraft of the highest executive tells US and the Islamic world, and expends taxpayer dollars in doing it, that WE the PEOPLE reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of a mass murderer of Gays. And you do not impeach, why?

American law cannot hold, harm to our rights is done by YOU and the entire Party protecting such Statecraft, especially when the kingly “we” reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs that the mass murder of Gays is God’s will.

Lawrence v. Texas does establish that the mass murder of Gays is unconstitutional, that is sustained only by the speech of the people, but it cannot hold because the official Statecraft violates the Constitution’s Freedom of Speech to denigrate false prophets and beliefs that Gays be mass murdered and YOU and yours will not impeach.

So whereas one might not be able to show any harm in Gays marrying, and due to the added benefit of monogamy a lack of Oral Sex Can Add to HPV Cancer Risk could reduce medical costs to society, and even getting spousal benefits of Social Security may reduce other expenditures, then the only harm done to society is your lack of desire to impeach those whose statecraft attempts to give and supports a Trojan Horse the ability to spread a social virus free from oral denigration.

You or the US either impeaches Obama or accepts that a mass murder of Gays is Holy; if it is holy to mass murder Gays there cannot be any harm in doing it.

The whole argument that Gays have any legitimate rights completely fails without the impeachment and conviction of Obama for his violation of oath of office.

 

I am not refuting that part of your argument, what exactly happens may not be possible to determine easily. I joked in one topic that it might be Gay aftershave, as the simple fact is that there is so much that can go wrong; food, drugs, smoking, household chemicals, and you name it could have some effect on development. From that first little formation of a hole where the brain and ass are attached to continue to make the little fish and then on to us, wow. If stress in an environment can cause changes is sex for one critter, that is more easily adaptable, it might for another in formation, but the complexity of our system might not allow anything more than what makes my dick hard when it sees a good looking female, basically brain changes and not physical changes.

I think the OP article is flawed. I already stated how I would make changes. Even with studies of finished animals that does not change the fact that so much of development can be affected by pollution…

 

That would mean that only men could have a biological attraction to men while women could not have a biological attraction to women. Not "more rarely" but not at all.

 

One problem.........Not all apsects of a identical twin is shared with their twin. Their personalities and brain chemistry, which is what homosexuality comes from, is not shared. Only their the their physical appearance is shared, and physical appearance has nothing to do with whether someone is gay.

 

I don't know of any such cases in the US, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. There haven't been cases of mass murder of gays in the US. It does happen in places like Iran.

Yes, it's considered a problem in many religions, which is why I'm saying that you cannot force a religious group to act as though it's accepted by the same religions. That's also a part of this. I'm not reaching into church or mosque issues. If a mosque thinks homosexuality is evil, they can preach that, they can kick you out for doing that. I don't think any religion should be able to kill anyone, but that's not much of an issue in the United States. It's more of an issue of allowing religions the freedom to believe what they think God said to them.

I'm not impeaching people for refusing to protect gays from mass murder because it's not happening in the US. The most I've ever heard is stuff like job discrimination, which I admit sucks, but there are no mass murders here. Again, without an actual case to talk about, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Show me a case, and we can talk, but your writing isn't very clear. I'll be clear on my stance -- a church, a mosque, or a temple can believe whatever they want as far as what God said, the state can't mess with them. They are not allowed to do violence to another human being. But it doesn't happen in the US.

Well, free speech is actually limited at the moment a person advocates the breaking of a law. If I say "we should kill those guys" and someone does it, I can be held responsible for it. I can also be held responsible if my speech starts a riot. It's not that free speech is a free for all, the limits are clear -- the minute you say that someone should commit a crime, or your speech causes a riot, you are no longer protected by free speech.

On the other hand, you are protected in saying things that people find in poor taste. We have all kinds of people doing all kinds of crazy things all protected by constitutional law. We have people protesting funerals (westboro baptist church) because they oppose the legalization of homosexuality. We have KKK rallies. Sure no one really likes it, but unless you protect unpopular speech, you run the risk of shutting down all debates because someone is offended by the content.

What case are you talking about? I have no idea where this is coming from -- there hasn't been a mass murder of gays in the US. Obama is only president in the US and cannot control another country, which is what I think you might be talking about.

 

No, of course it wouldn't. What do you even erroneously imagine you are talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

Even their physical appearance can be quite different, as one can be a "runt."