re: Homosexuality not caused by genetics. They ar not "born that way ETA Addit link added

And I have never said that this is an impossible scenario. What I've been saying is, right now, we do not know.

So, let's not act like we do.

quote:

---

But...but...but how do they determine whether the 4 year old boy is a homosexual or a female trapped in a male's body?

---

quote:

---

Ideally, they don't.

---

Shouldn't it be determined so that they don't cut the little boy's balls off if he is a homosexual and not a female trapped in a male's body?

Link to debunking of the two most prominent trials of identical twin homosexuality gene

quote:

---

A couple of months back, a study carried out by a team at New York’s Mount Sinai hospital found that genetic changes stemming from the trauma suffered by Holocaust survivors are capable of being passed through generations. The team, specifically interested in one particular region of a gene associated with the regulation of stress hormones, found some evidence for the transmission of trauma through "epigenetic inheritance": the idea that environmental factors, instead of changes in the DNA sequence, can influence the genes of your children or even grandchildren. Controversial stuff, considering the commonly accepted belief among geneticists that the composition of our genome is completely unchangeable. However, it does open up a completely new, exciting field of research on the origin of human behavior and the scale of nature versus nurture.

---

quote:

---

Last Friday, the Telegraph presented a study led by a team of researchers at UCLA, stating that they can predict whether a man is gay or straight with 70% accuracy based on epigenetics. So has the 'gay gene', an old eugenic fantasy, finally been discovered? According to the English-speaking press (tabloids, American media and gay magazines) there seems to be no doubt about it. But to say that we have drawn definitive conclusions is an overstatement.

---

quote:

---

As specified in an article published by The Atlantic, there are a number of holes in the study and enough of them to raise some eyebrows. Firstly, the results were presented during the American Society of Human Genetics conference, before being taken up by Nature News via a press release published by the body. These are non-published results, meaning they have not been subject to a peer review – an indispensable step for the validation of any scientific study. But the real problem comes from the experimental protocol of Tuck Ngun and his team— prettily presented as an infograph by the Telegraph— which really calls the validity of the study into question. To carry out the study, UCLA selected 37 pairs of male twins — one gay and the other straight — and 10 pairs of homosexual twins. The study went on to study and analyze 140,000 regions in the genome of the subjects in the hunt for methylation marks— "chemical Post-It notes that dictate when and where genes are activated" as The Atlantic explains. Once in possession of this data, a model was created to try and predict the sexual orientation of a subject in accordance to his genome.

---

quote:

---

The first problem: this model was only correct in 67% of cases using just five of the methylation marks. The second problem is that the 94 subjects — a tiny sample — were divided into two groups: the first 'training set' of data was used to build the algorithm and the second 'testing set' whose data was used to verify it. The final problem, and perhaps the most significant, was that Tuck Ngun's team presented the results of only one version of the model: the one with the greatest accuracy when applied to the testing set. Using the results to optimize the predictive quality of the model broke an essential rule of scientific methodology. As The Atlantic explains, "if you use this strategy, chances are you will find a positive result through random chance alone.": in other words, you create a false positive. To conclude, the article states:

---

quote:

---

"So, ultimately, what we have is an underpowered fishing expedition that used inappropriate statistics and that snagged results which may be false positives. Epigenetics marks may well be involved in sexual orientation. But this study, despite its claims, does not prove that and, as designed, could not have." So, while the results provide some proof that there is a relationship between homosexuality and environmental factors, they are not sufficient to constitute a causal link: once again, we have not discovered a 'gay gene'.

---

quote:

---

This study constitutes the latest in a series of failures in the search for a hypothetical 'gay gene': from Nazi scientific research looking to 'cure' homosexuality, to the discovery, in 1993, of the Xq28 gene — a serious candidate for the role of 'gay gene' debunked in 2014, following an extensive study. The mechanisms of sexuality continue to fascinate science and society in general. In the hypothetical case that homosexuality was clearly identified as an alteration of one or several particular genes, the discovery would radicalize the, already tempestuous, debate surrounding LGBT rights. Supporters of 'born this way' would be given certain scientific proof for the argument that we are born homosexual, contrary to the suggestion that we become gay. But on the other hand, for those considering homosexuality as something to be banned, eradicated or cured, the opposite would offer a terrifying eugenic handbook to test, repair or 'treat' homosexuality like a genetic disease. According to New Scientist, in a terrifying dystopian spirit, this is something that could probably even be done before birth.

---

quote:

---

These ethical challenges are so significant that Tuck Ngun and the gang "left the lab last week", deciding to abandon their research in fear of the "potential for misuse of the information". Given that homosexuality is still penalized in 76 countries and that we have long been rummaging around in the human genome, it may just be best to never find the biological response to the question of sexual orientation.

---

So, we basically have two case studies done over 50 years or so each saying there was a gay gene. The first one with Xq28 gene was debunked due to peer review.

The second done by UCLA was never peer reviewed, had a list of holes in the study, and the scientists backed off their research.

So, saying it is a proven fact that it is hereditary is bunk. bullshite. If we are going to follow the science; let's follow the science. Let's not make it up or add what we think MAY be the cause to either fit our agendas or make us feel better.

Especially, when most of the evidence right now is environmental.

quote:

---

The Bible says that it is "against nature" and that homosexuals have "changed" to it, so it is a FACT that they are NOT BORN THAT WAY.

---

That attitude is commendable. I disagree with what we know about the lived experience of gay people, though. You need only talk to a few gay people (or read memoirs since it's obviously not a topic you can pick up lightly with someone) to hear that their attraction for members of the same sex emerges naturally in their adolescence in the same way that it does for those of us who are heterosexuals. I suppose there are a few brave souls who try it out against preference, but that's far less common than those who try to fit themselves into straight lifestyles often with predictably unsuccessful results.

If I ever see someone shaking "no" while "born this way" is on in the club, I'll come over and say hello.

I don't care one way or the other, but this:

quote:

---

If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes.

---

It's just flat out wrong and terrible science. That I do care about.

Oddly enough, the author then follows with this:

quote:

---

But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

---

Which completely refutes the entire thesis. By these numbers, the twin of a homosexual is SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to be a homosexual compared to the general population.

Derp

I love how you can't respond to the additional review of BOTH extensive studies and how they have both been debunked!

You keep doing you Disgusted Cuckeye!

quote:

---

I love how you can't respond to the additional review of BOTH extensive studies and how they have both been debunked!

---

Huh? I don't see anything that debunks the estimates, just the notion that a specific genetic profile has been identified.

There are a number of things that have shown Heritability without identifying the specific mechanisms that cause it.

quote:

---

You keep doing you Disgusted Cuckeye!

---

You know I will.

quote:

---

Right, likely because they grow up in identical environments.

---

But then we would expect dizygotic twins and non-twin siblings to have similar, if not identical, estimates.

Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden.

quote:

---

Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34-.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61-.66 of the variance.

---

Don't the estimates seem reasonable: 1/3 of the variance attributed to genetics and 2/3 attributed to the environmental conditions?