Identical twin studies show that homosexuality is not genetic

[Steve]

I was reading on my phone, and responded before I got to page 2 and saw the further conversation around Manseau's comment. I just want to clarify a little bit what stood out in my mind.

First is that you (Manseau) drew a clear distinction between the actions and the intent. As Flying Crane said, determining intent is a difficult thing to do.

Second, why do you think intent matters in this? Say a man or woman is just kind of... meh. Doesn't really matter either way. Or maybe he or she is just trying to be cool. What is it about this that makes it contemptible? Is it the sexual component, or do you feel the same way about hipsters of any kind?

 

[Steve]

http://www.hollanddavis.com/?p=3647

This is very interesting, if people aren't born with it, then something in the environment is causing people to learn this behavior. Intersting.

As with most things, I don't believe this is as simple as on or off. When we get into the vagaries of personality and behavior, nothing is clean and neat. I think that we all have propensities and genetic predispositions, but how they are handled by our parents and shaped by our early experiences will have a large effect on the person we become.

 

[jezr74]

First of all, this doesn't affect my position on whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I think consenting adults should be allowed to enter into any kind of arrangement with each other and the government need not be involved at all. Two men, two women, man and woman, moresomes, if it harm none, do what thou wilt.

Thanks for answering, I wasn't having a go, was just curious. And didn't want to assume you had an agenda, or what that was.

Secondly, it's interesting that you bring up the fact that this was posted on a Christian site. The argument they often make is that if homosexuality is not something you are born with, then it is unnatural and can be prayed away or some other BS. What they fail to recognize is that if homosexuality is caused by the environment, then the vaunted "Christian lifestyle" is actually no better at "preventing" people from being gay. As far as I know, there are just as many gay people in Christian families as there are in anyone else family. I am not saying that homosexuality is caused by Christianity, by the way. There just isn't any demonstrable difference between Christian and non-Christian environments and the prevalence of homosexuality. It's interesting when you start to consider the implications of an environmental cause for homosexuality.

I wish there was more information (that I could find) on the studies with the premise and controls etc...

 

[granfire]

This is interesting. Why do you hold some in contempt? That stood out to me

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

It also raises the question: IF the distiction he is making even were to exist, how would he be able to tell the difference?

You can tell pretty much the people who shag anything that is still luke warm from the rest of them....

 

[Steve]

You can tell pretty much the people who shag anything that is still luke warm from the rest of them....

So, this is an issue with promiscuity? I'm genuinely struggling to figure this out. I flat out don't get it.

 

[Manseau]

That's what I'm asking, what is the evil part about? your statement..
I was thinking about Big Don's glib comment about evil twins and inadvertently used that adjective to present the position that I don't see any gay person as bad.
Are you saying that in some cases it is evil? No! When you have no control over a predisposition in your sexual orientation that is neither a crime nor is it evil.



That's not correct, you have made a comment of your opinion. You even went so far as to say, that people that make the choice beyond genetics you would extend the finger to. Wanna-be gay people may enjoy your support but they don't have mine.



Who has has forced what on who?

Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America. I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.

 

[Manseau]

It also raises the question: IF the distiction he is making even were to exist, how would he be able to tell the difference?

Ask Lady Justice. She is the one who raises her blindfold to make the call and tip the scales of justice in "hate" crimes. Seems like George Orwell already went down this road, didn't he?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America. I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.

Yeah, because there's nothing divisive about excluding Boys from the Boy Scouts based on their sexual orientation.

Nothing divisive about giving someone the finger because of their sexual orientation, either.

 

[Manseau]

Yeah, because there's nothing divisive about excluding Boys from the Boy Scouts based on their sexual orientation.

Nothing divisive about giving someone the finger because of their sexual orientation, either.

My, aren't we the selective readers.

 

[Makalakumu]

Why do gay activists earn your contempt?

 

[Flying Crane]

Wanna-be gay people may enjoy your support but they don't have mine.

who are "wanna-be gay people"? Given that gay people have historically, and often still do today, suffered derision, hostility, violence and open discrimination from much of the straight (or perhaps the fearfully closeted) population, why would you think that someone would want to be gay? Why would someone make a blatant choice in the matter, if they were not irresistabley compelled by the very fiber of their being? That makes zero sense at all.

Gay people are gay because that is who they are. It's not a choice.

 

[Flying Crane]

Ask Lady Justice. She is the one who raises her blindfold to make the call and tip the scales of justice in "hate" crimes. Seems like George Orwell already went down this road, didn't he?

While Lady Justice may "raise her blindfold" (that doesn't make much sense either, by the way) it is YOU who said you raise your middle finger at a certain portion of the gay population. So, how could you tell if a gay is gay because of genetics, or because of a "choice"? It sounds like you've somehow got it figured out. Please share your wisdom with the rest of us.

 

[Flying Crane]

You can tell pretty much the people who shag anything that is still luke warm from the rest of them....

That is certainly not exclusive to the realm of homosexuality. Plenty of straight people fit that description perfectly. And still this has nothing to do with being gay thru genetics vs. making a choice in the matter.

 

[Flying Crane]

Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America. I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.

casualty of the activist gay movement? Naw. Some people simply need to grow up and become adults in the modern era. Boy Scouts are a good example.

 

[Steve]

Why do gay activists earn your contempt?

Or, is it activists in general?

Makalakumu, regarding the OP, I said before that it is likely both. It occurred to me that this would be similar to identical twins with the BRCA1 "cancer" gene. Both have a predisposition to cancer. With the BRCA1 gene, according to Wikipedia, there's about an 80% chance of getting breast cancer before age 90, and a 55% chance of getting ovarian cancer. So, would you say that if one of the twins ends up with ovarian cancer and the other does not, it's not genetic?

What about if one chooses, as Angelina Jolie has recently, to have a mastectomy? There is a choice involved, but wasn't the choice precipitated by a genetic predisposition?

 

[jezr74]

You can tell pretty much the people who shag anything that is still luke warm from the rest of them....

Your assessment of gay people is they shag everything that walks? That's the criteria?

 

[jezr74]

Are you asking me for an anecdotal observation of who is the latest casualty of the activist gay movement? I guess that would be the Boy Scouts of America. I don't have a problem with gay people, I have a problem with the divisive agenda. I am sorry if my views offend you; I am happy to listen to yours if you would offer any.

I think you do have a problem with gay people, that is why you are making the comments your making. I'm just asking questions based on your statements to understand.

Your views don't offend me, you have made the statements and I'm just querying them.

Personally, I think it was a good step for the Scouts, maybe could have been more and extended to leaders. It definitely gained respect on the world stage. Progressive, and still morally stable and ethical.

 

[Carol]

I must say I become more skeptical when I see articles like this hosted on a christian site, and I do first ponder the hidden agenda. But I guess science is handy just not sure of the premise. I'm not sure how many people actually put merit in the genetic stance in the first place.

The fact that the none of the studies are referenced in the blog post to begin with leaves me skeptical.

 

[jezr74]

The fact that the none of the studies are referenced in the blog post to begin with leaves me skeptical.

Yeah, I did a quick search to try and find supporting articles, or the comments made... some of the data doesn't match. I actually have a friend who is a genetic engineer, I've emailed him for his take on it.

There is something that doesn't sit right, and my genetic knowledge is very limited.

 

[granfire]

So, this is an issue with promiscuity? I'm genuinely struggling to figure this out. I flat out don't get it.

they could be serial monogamists.

but I have always had the feeling that a few people were just in it for the 'in factor' or shock value. But that was in the early 80s, before AIDS...