• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic [W:212]

Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

That's interesting, because a quick google search turned up studies that show just the opposite. That homosexuality does have a genetic component.

Gay Men in Twin Study - NYTimes.com

The Importance of Twin Studies

It's almost as if Orthodox.net has an agenda and isn't reporting the information factually.

Born Gay Hoax: Studies Debunked « Conservative Colloquium

"The “Gay” Twins Study

This discredited study was conducted by Michael Bailey, a heterosexual, and Richard Pillard, a same-gender sex activist. In December of 1991, these two researchers published a study of twins, and they claimed to have demonstrated a genetic cause for being “gay.” One same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, wrote, “They found that 52% of identical twin brothers of gay men were gay, as were 22% of fraternal twin brothers, and 11% of genetically unrelated brothers.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.61)
There are several problems with this study. First, (assuming that the study was legitimate) in order to show that homosexuality is genetic (in identical twins) if one twin is “gay” the other should also be “gay” 100% of the time. This study, however, did not produce results that demonstrate this. Despite this fact, same-gender sex activists continue to report that this study is proof that people are born “gay.”
Second, genetics tells us that if one fraternal (non-identical) twin is “gay,” then other non-twin brothers should also be “gay” exactly as often as are the non-identical twin brothers, since non-identical twins and regular brothers are equally genetically different. In this study 22% of fraternal twins both claimed to be “gay.” Therefore, their non-twin brothers should also have claimed to be “gay” 22% of the time. If the non-twin percentage were lower, some environmental cause must have been at fault, not a hidden “gay” gene. But, this was not the case. Yet readers could not have known that this was not the case because Bailey and Pillard left the numbers for the genetically related non-twin brothers out of their original report. Why? If this data had supported their agenda would they not have included it as well?
According to The Advocate, the researcher’s withheld important information about the non-twin brothers in their study, the article states: “According to Bailey, the released data did not include another group in the study: 142 genetically related non-twin brothers of gay men, of whom only 13—or about 9% were also gay.” (The Advocate 3-24-92, p.61; Michael Bailey is not a homosexual)"
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

First, (assuming that the study was legitimate) in order to show that homosexuality is genetic (in identical twins) if one twin is “gay” the other should also be “gay” 100% of the time. This study, however, did not produce results that demonstrate this.

You must have missed this little tidbit that CC posted:

Identical Twins' DNA Varies | LiveScience

Sorry, but identical twins DNA varies so it is not beyond the realm of one being gay while the other is not.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

No....it's pretty easy to understand. I'm not the one being dense here.

Better yet...why don't you find me a definition where man made cities and skyscrappers are considered natural.


*sigh* I am pointing out the inconsistencies in you argument, not making an argument of my own. Your use of "natural" for human homosexuality and your use of "unnatural" regarding other human actions do not jibe.

I'm trying to get you to realize that the funky definition of "natural" that includes skyscrapers is YOUR definition as you have applied it to homosexuality.***















*** - Might be the weirdest sentence I have ever written.
 
Last edited:
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic


Just because it hypothetically isn't a choice doesn't mean its purely genetic. It could be due to completely pre-puberty environmental factors, and they still wouldn't be "choosing" to be gay. What we are talking about, is whether there are differences in brain chemistry between someone homosexual and someone not homosexual. That doesn't have to be genetic.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Not natural? Homosexuality has existed forever, every country and culture since recorded history. Homosexual behaviors have been observed in close to 1,500 species. I don't care what argument you make but calling it "unnatural" is just false. Not true.

Last time I checked, there is not a single species on the face of the earth that reproduces by homosexual sex. There are billions who reproduce with themselves, but none that I am aware of that reproduce with a member of the same sex.

Oh, and the animal kingdom has an estimated 3 million to 30 million species in it. 1500 might sound like a lot, but 0.05% - 0.005% surely doesn't. :lol:
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Women can give blowjobs,women have babies so nope.


No its truth.


I care because homosexual activists and their allies are jamming gay history and lifestyle down kids throats in school.


Actually it is.

Not biologically.

I am a racist? Did I say that somewhere or are you just using that good ole talking out of ass thing again?

Very smart! I know its horrible...

No, it's not truth. Saying that one thing that occurs is "natural" while saying another that occurs is "not natural" is you selectively choosing what is "natural" and what isn't based on your own attribution of purpose and meaning to the world.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Its not natural. The natural course of nature is to make children/young whatever you want to call it. Can't do it with homosexuality.
That's ok too, because we accommodate many other unnatural conditions, such as paraplegics, and unnatural choices such as people who have tattoos, or vegetarians. Homosexuality can be an unnatural choice and acceptable.

Yes, vegetarianism is unnatural; humans are omnivores.
 
Last edited:
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

You must have missed this little tidbit that CC posted:

Identical Twins' DNA Varies | LiveScience

Sorry, but identical twins DNA varies so it is not beyond the realm of one being gay while the other is not.


I agree. I would expect 3% of one of the identical twins to be gay, as that is the esixting percentage in society that are gay. I would expect a slightly higher percentage of gays if the twins were raised in a household where one of the parents was gay.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Last time I checked, there is not a single species on the face of the earth that reproduces by homosexual sex. There are billions who reproduce with themselves, but none that I am aware of that reproduce with a member of the same sex.

Oh, and the animal kingdom has an estimated 3 million to 30 million species in it. 1500 might sound like a lot, but 0.05% - 0.005% surely doesn't. :lol:
I don't think we should base our actions on what the animal kingdom does. We're supposed to be better than that.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Heterosexuality propagates the species. To claim that heterosexuality is not genetic is anti science. There is no genetic proof that people are born gay. We're born with reproductive organs in order to reproduce. Didn't you ever take science in grade school?

No it doesn't. A man and a woman having sex might cause reproduction. But there are many ways that men and women have sex that do not propagate the species. And a gay person of either sex having sex with another person of any sexuality of the opposite sex will also cause reproduction. Reproduction has little to do with sexuality.

Sexuality is a personality trait. It is influenced by genetics, whether it is heterosexuality or homosexuality or bisexuality (which personally I think most people are to at least a degree). Those twin studies provide actual evidence that genes in fact do likely play a part in a person's sexuality, no matter what it is.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

All of your information on the topic has been thoroughly debunked and shown to not be credible, simply because all of your evidence has nothing to do with your position.
False, obviously. :lol:

You simply whine about new scientific realities that conflict with your pre-conceived ideological agenda, nothing more. :roll:

Indeed, this thread's OP scientific link corroborates the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality, that homosexuality is not a genetic "variant", but a gestational epigenetic abnormality, i.e., a birth defect, like spina bifida and cleft palate.

These are the facts, CC, the scientific facts, that you continue to whine about in thread after thread.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Indeed, this thread's OP scientific link corroborates the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality, that homosexuality is not a genetic "variant", but a gestational epigenetic abnormality, i.e., a birth defect, like spina bifida and cleft palate.

These are the facts, CC, the scientific facts, that you continue to whine about in thread after thread.

ACtually the study goes on the false premise that a twin has the SAME DNA which in fact the SCIENTIFIC evidence shows that DNA is not EXACTLY the same in twins and can differ.

Sorry to trump your homophobic "evidence".
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

ACtually the study goes on the false premise that a twin has the SAME DNA which in fact the SCIENTIFIC evidence shows that DNA is not EXACTLY the same in twins and can differ.

Sorry to trump your homophobic "evidence".

There is also the false premise that personality traits, such as homosexuality are either completely determined by a single gene or not determined by genes at all. This is simply wrong. In many cases of personality traits, even besides sexuality, genes play a role, even though they aren't the only thing involved in that particular trait.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

I don't think we should base our actions on what the animal kingdom does. We're supposed to be better than that.

Which is why the whole "homosexuality is natural or unnatural" debate is absolutely irrelevant and a complete red herring.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

There is also the false premise that personality traits, such as homosexuality are either completely determined by a single gene or not determined by genes at all. This is simply wrong. In many cases of personality traits, even besides sexuality, genes play a role, even though they aren't the only thing involved in that particular trait.

Whether there is a gene out there that is "dominant" in determining those things I don't know. I basically don't affirm or deny either way, we don't know for sure (at least right now).

What I do know is that the gay friends I have and their partners are neither deviant nor a threat to humanity and have raised their straight children quite well. In other words, just like any other heterosexual couple.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

I don't think we should base our actions on what the animal kingdom does. We're supposed to be better than that.
Except that we share a common ancestor with the rest of the animal kingdom. What is biological and natural in the animal kingdom is probably going to show up in human nature too. I mean we can certainly understand that we're different from animals and that it's not a good idea to base morality on nature, but our DNA sequences are ~98% identical to chimpanzees, bonobos and other great apes. To those that have issues with gay people, seeing that homosexuality is natural and biological for them only emphasizes how homosexuality is natural and biological for humans as well.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

I don't think we should base our actions on what the animal kingdom does. We're supposed to be better than that.

infanticide, cannibalism, incest, eating other animals ****.... there are many "natural" activities that I want no part of.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

*sigh* I am pointing out the inconsistencies in you argument, not making an argument of my own. Your use of "natural" for human homosexuality and your use of "unnatural" regarding other human actions do not jibe.

I'm trying to get you to realize that the funky definition of "natural" that includes skyscrapers is YOUR definition as you have applied it to homosexuality.***















*** - Might be the weirdest sentence I have ever written.

No you're not...you're acting obtuse. How on earth does a definition that excludes anything man made from being natural somehow including a man made sky scrapper as natural?
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

ACtually the study goes on the false premise that a twin has the SAME DNA which in fact the SCIENTIFIC evidence shows that DNA is not EXACTLY the same in twins and can differ. Sorry to trump your homophobic "evidence".
Typical of ideologues (libertarian-left) you purposely play dumb to misconstrue the meaning of this thread's OP presentation with respect to the etiology of homosexuality I presented .. so that you can sling an ad hominem (homophobic) against the messenger of the scientific message that you perceive to be a threat to your ideological agenda. :roll:

The relevant fact to the point I made remains: the OP corroborates that there is no known genetic cause of homosexuality -- there's now not even a genetic cause suspected.

That corroborates the recent scientific presentation that homosexuality's etiology is indeed not genetic at all but is epigenetic, a gestational epigenetic abnormality, a birth defect.

Ideologues would do well to stop embarrassing themselves on the matter and instead pause for a moment to reflect what the birth defect reality of homosexuality means.

It means that bullying will be greatly reduced as a result, it means that religious fundamentalists will stop trying to "convert" homosexuals to homosexuality (a painful process for the homosexual), it means that scientific research to find a prevention for the birth defect of homosexuality could be months away from providing a simple vitamin supplement to the pregnant woman (like was done to greatly reduce the incidence of other gestational epigenetic birth defects like spina bifida) to prevent their offspring from having the intrinsic misery-creating birth defect of homosexuality, and in no way should all of this compromise the equal-rights or political position of those supporting equal rights for those suffering from homosexuality, indeed, discrimination should reduce as a result of accepting the epigenetic birth defect reality of homosexuality.

Though I can understand the existence of the irrational fear of ideologues and activists, it's simply that: irrational .. and, when the matter is considered rationally, there's really no reason not to simply accept the benefits that come with accepting the scientific truth of the matter as I've presented it.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Whether there is a gene out there that is "dominant" in determining those things I don't know. I basically don't affirm or deny either way, we don't know for sure (at least right now).
Yeah, no "gay" gene. The human biology is not that simple. All we can say is that it is a biological predisposition and more likely than not, there will probably be multiple causes for same sex attraction. We've already pinned down that at least two of the causes lies in epigentics and prenatal birth hormones in respect to birth order. It'll be awhile to find the exact specifics.

What I do know is that the gay friends I have and their partners are neither deviant nor a threat to humanity and have raised their straight children quite well. In other words, just like any other heterosexual couple.
Thank you for being a decent person. :)
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

He's a white supremacist. And before an unaware moderator dings me for "personal attacks," they can google "14 words" and find for themselves.
I don't think that's something the mod team would infract you for. In fact I think that slogan is very mild compared to what passes as acceptable around here.

Do Not. Do. This. At. Work.
Why not? It's not nearly as juicy as you make it out to be. That and I have my own wifi and will do what I want with it.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

Except that we share a common ancestor with the rest of the animal kingdom.
That's not an exception to any rule nor relevant to the conversation in any way.
 
Re: Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic

No you're not...you're acting obtuse. How on earth does a definition that excludes anything man made from being natural somehow including a man made sky scrapper as natural?


Because you apply it differently to various types of human activity as it suits you.
 
Back
Top Bottom