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

I don't believe that. Ultimately, Genes determine behavior and 'feeling'; feeling being subtle inclinations toward particular choices/beliefs. Chosen belief - as individuals become more sophisticated in relation to their particular choice - is influenced by common Cultural influence from early childhood, forward toward belief being formed according to the individual's ability to reason and their will to believe/act accordingly.

I was raised in a very benign 1950s, Christian-based morality, rural Culture; we (my peers) didn't know what 'gay' was...nor was there any need to know. Life was good in the country. Outside influences (tv) was virtually non-existent, other than the "Leave it to Beaver" version.

That said, there were male (Christian) individuals in our group which clearly manifested "sissi" tendencies, and female individuals which manifested "tomboy" tendencies. As these individuals aged - and their knowledge/choices expanded - they began to choose to follow their (Genetic/Natural) inclinations, and sought out Cultural rationalization to support such (anti-Christian morality) choice.

Bottom line. To VARYING DEGREES, Genetics do indeed affect choice. But ultimately - given that all manner of Natural/Genetic inclinations may not be practical re the goal of survival and prosperity/"the pursuit of happiness" - choice becomes a matter of Individual Values. Example being, a person with strong Genetic, homo-sexual inclinations may CHOOSE not to value/serve them for the opposite choice of marriage/childbearing. The creation/molding of a unique individual which is a 'copy' of their selves - and all the potential therein - while bearing the burden of not being relatively as 'comfortable' with their innate sexual inclination. This would be the more Spiritually productive choice (IMO), being that there is far more to be gained re greater Love (God version) in such a laborious life...as opposed to the simple life of relatively comfortable sexual feeling-based choice. But that choice is strictly in the moral realm of particular individual; it's they baby, they rock it. I really don't care one way or the other. Loving and responsible people come in an infinite variety.

quote:

---

So, taking those numbers as accurate, that is a roughly 5-fold greater incidence for males and a 15-fold greater incidence for females. It renders his conclusions as highly dubious.

---

That may be explained by the fact that they are identical twins and are 5-fold more likely to have the same post-birth experiences compared to other siblings.

As always, I agree with your every word GVice. Or as Stew T once said in phase B of Rush at the old frat house before it was so inauspiciously burned to the ground by the angry hordes jealous of our academic prowess, " who among us has not smoked a little pole "....lol.

One thing about the right I just don't get. Why does it matter to you? It's just somebody doing things with their genitalia and hanging out with the person they love or believe they love.

You could make the argument that it's societally damaging, and contrary to the word of God, but I don't see any right wing groups attacking adulterers (probably as damaging to society as any other sexual behavior and definitely a big soon in the Bible). Is it because adulterers already have rights and aren't matching in the streets?

Why does the right choose to walk around with this socially conservative albatross around their necks?

LINK


This guy does a good job of breaking down the stats and the validity of the data. FWIW

quote:

---

taking those numbers as accurate, that is a roughly 5-fold greater incidence for males and a 15-fold greater incidence for females. It renders his conclusions as highly dubious

---

That doesn't make any sense.

They are assuredly exposed to the same or similar environmental factors. So you would expect some overlap of outcomes contributed to those environmental factors.

quote:

---

Is it because adulterers already have rights and aren't matching in the streets?

---

Actually, they don't - they're not a protected class, some companies (like CFA) have policies discriminating against them, and in some states they're still theoretically subject to civil or even criminal penalties.

quote:

---

The nitwit author of this "study" claims “Because they have identical DNA, it [the incidence of homosexuality] ought to be 100%.” I cannot tell you how scientifically stupid that is.

---

Is the study saying it ought to be 100 or because it's so low it's not likely genetic.

Those are two fundamentally different statements.

quote:

---

I am curious. How do you know the studies are being misrepresented if you could not find them?

---

If you accept the numbers he cites from unnamed, unlinked studies, his conclusions misrepresent those numbers per NCT's post.

Here's an article from an actual scientific journal regarding homosexuality and twin studies with good links and quotes from actual scientists that reaches a nuanced conclusion: It's genetic plus environmental (which from what I read is more epigenetic): LINK

Where's the science that says it's genetic?

Isnt there's a better chance that it's a compulsion?