Identical twin studies show that homosexuality is not genetic

[elder999]

Guess not. At least I have you to police the boards looking for all the mistakes I make. Carry on my friend take out the red pen and correct away.

Hardly "correcting"-merely pointed out a less charged word. We are, after all, on an internet forum: words are all we have. Others understood what you said to have a negative connotation-you say you didn't mean any, something I'm willing to accept at face value. "Abnormal" generally does have a negative connotation for most U.S. English speakers, though......

 

[Steve]

Guess not. At least I have you to police the boards looking for all the mistakes I make. Carry on my friend take out the red pen and correct away.

Or you could say, "my bad. I didn't know." And carry on, instead of getting defensive.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

Or you could say, "my bad. I didn't know." And carry on, instead of getting defensive.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Or he can realize its the INTERNET not a term paper. He understood what I was trying to get across. Just like you do when I use the term Abnormal. Change it to whatever feel good word you want. Non-normal, against the norm, not like most people, different then the majority, blah blah blah blah. You all are so wrapped up in this PC blanket you cant even admit Homosexual behavior is different then Normal behavior. Its not bad, worse, wrong, evil or anything else its just different. If it wasn't different there would be no need to study it. There would be non need to classify it, there would be no need to have this conversation.

 

[ballen0351]

Hardly "correcting"-merely pointed out a less charged word. We are, after all, on an internet forum: words are all we have. Others understood what you said to have a negative connotation-you say you didn't mean any, something I'm willing to accept at face value. "Abnormal" generally does have a negative connotation for most U.S. English speakers, though......

OK so go back and change all the "abnormal" to "different (but not bad) then the majority". will that make you feel better?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Abnormal is just a word I use a lot at work so that's why I went with it. When I describe someone's behavior as abnormal I'm saying its different. For example I pull a car over and the driver is acting differently then 100 other people I've stopped before I write how behavior was abnormal. Its not good or bad its just different. Its a way to build PC so I use the term often. I didn't give it any negative stigma and in fact said several times I didn't believe it to be a bad thing just different.

If it didn't carry any negative stigma, it wouldn't help you invent probable cause.

So in other words: :bs:

 

[ballen0351]

If it didn't carry any negative stigma, it wouldn't help you invent probable cause.

So in other words: :bs:

Really so now your an expert in law enforcement too? I love how you know your on the wrong side of the topic so instead of talking about the topic you spend 3 pages on grammar and word usage. You win
Im not gay, dont want to be gay, and quite frankly dont care about gay issues. I said my part I think the study on Why is stupid and a waist of time. People are Gay because they are Gay, people are straight because they are straight. If its genetic, chemical, or choice I really dont care it doesnt really matter.

SO SHOVE THAT UP YOUR BS POLE

 

[Sukerkin]

Before this escalates any further, gentlemen, can I suggest that all those with stirred blood take a look in your respective mirrors and ask yourself if you are handling this topic in a way that does credit to yourself.

 

[Makalakumu]

Okay. I've had some time to investigate. The original post is based on a lie at worst, faulty data at best, and-most likely-predetermined outcomes based on a religiously driven agenda.

You see, there are a number of twin studies on sexuality. In one, 52% of monozygotic male twins shared sexuality, but only 22% of the dizygotic (two eggs....) did.Most studies have shown similar results, with a higher incidence of shared sexuality in the monozygotic (what the OP calls "genetically identical") twins, indicating at least a partial genetic basis in sexuality, which is, as others have pointed out, not merely a biological behavior in humans (or other primates!) which is used in a variety of contexts, and far more fluid than simply genetics.

For myself, I know that at a very early age, while I had no idea what it was, there was something I wanted to do with girls. Other men have said the same thing, and-among my homosexual friends and relatives, many have said something to the effect of having similar early attractions toward boys. While this is anecdotal, it lead me to believe long ago that such drives,whether typical or, as in the case of homosexuality, atypical, (try that one for PC speak of things that veer from the mean, ballen) were genetic in nature.

Yes, most homosexuals are born that way-time will prove this out.

In the original article, it was claimed that 8 large studies from the US, Australia, and Scandinavia all supplied evidence that showed that homosexuality was not genetic. The original studies were not linked in the article. Did you find them? Could you post one that you looked at?

This is interesting, because I referenced another book earlier that looked into the evolutionary psychology of sexuality and the conclusion that huge numbers of researchers are concluding is that sexuality and sexual orientation are far more fluid then we assumed.perhaps it can be "set" in some people, but from a cross cultural perspective, that number is exceedingly small.

Case in point, if you looked at the cultures where homosexual relationships are normal and accepted, an overly large percentage of people who perhaps would have claimed to be heterosexual in another culture, now freely engage in homosexual relationships. This is a big problem for people who think sexual orientation is something that you are born with.

In the end, and this is something I've thought for a long time, perhaps our language is flawed. Perhaps classifying people as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual is not valid.

 

[Steve]

Or he can realize its the INTERNET not a term paper. He understood what I was trying to get across. Just like you do when I use the term Abnormal. Change it to whatever feel good word you want. Non-normal, against the norm, not like most people, different then the majority, blah blah blah blah. You all are so wrapped up in this PC blanket you cant even admit Homosexual behavior is different then Normal behavior. Its not bad, worse, wrong, evil or anything else its just different. If it wasn't different there would be no need to study it. There would be non need to classify it, there would be no need to have this conversation.

my opinion is that people trot out the term PC when they know they're being jerks and want to make themselves feel better about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[jks9199]

In the last few days, I have posted a warning in this thread. There have been at least two, possibly more, reminders or hints that people are crossing the line. This is the last warning. Discuss the issue. Leave the insults and shots out.

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.

jks9199
Asst. Administrator

 

[elder999]

Or he can realize its the INTERNET not a term paper. He understood what I was trying to get across. Just like you do when I use the term Abnormal. Change it to whatever feel good word you want. Non-normal, against the norm, not like most people, different then the majority, blah blah blah blah. You all are so wrapped up in this PC blanket you cant even admit Homosexual behavior is different then Normal behavior. Its not bad, worse, wrong, evil or anything else its just different. If it wasn't different there would be no need to study it. There would be non need to classify it, there would be no need to have this conversation.

Your logic is flawed, sir.

We study a variety of things that are called "normal." Human sexual behavior in general, for one-various mores and customs for another. History. Art. English literature. Biology. Physics.......etc., etc., etc.

More to the point-for a heterosexual, like myself, or-I'm assuming-you, having sex with a member of the same gender is abnormal. For the homosexual, it is, in fact, normal-and it would be abnormal for them to have congress with a member of the opposite gender. it is in this context-and only in this context-that your use of "abnormal" might not have any charge or connotation, but that isn't how you are using it.

 

[arnisador]

More to the point-for a heterosexual, like myself, or-I'm assuming-you, having sex with a member of the same gender is abnormal.

...although we see that in many circumstances, such as prison or the navy, such a person often enters into consensual of this sort, showing that preference is what's at issue indeed.

 

[Aiki Lee]

I somehow missed all the action continuing here so here is my lengthy responses to to everything. Please excuse me as my words still run together in places when I copy this from Word to MT.

If its notgenetic as some claim and, serves no biological benefit then perhaps it is amental illness of some kind. Some chemicals messed up or unbalanced in thebrain

It is most certainly NOT a mental illness.
From the National Alliance on MentalIllness:
“A mental illness is a medical condition thatdisrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others anddaily functioning. Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mentalillnesses are medical conditions that often result in a diminished capacity forcoping with the ordinary demands of life.”
Anyoneidentifying as non-hetero does not automatically have a disruption in thinking,mood, feelings, daily functions, or the ability to relate with others.
There isnothing unique about not-hetero individuals that would qualify them to bementally ill based on orientation alone. Just because a person’s brainchemistry may be different does not mean they are ill.

So whats thedefinition then? If being straight is normal being gay is normal bisexuality isnormal. Is anything not normal?

Normal is a subjective term. It meanssomething different to everyone. There is no such thing as ‘normal’ inactuality. There are only what we perceive to be acceptable or unacceptable andthat will vary from person to person.

Because we livein a society and knowing what's "right" is what makes society work.
Normal doesn't matter much other then as a label. But that's what this topic isabout I guess studying why being gay isn't normal. If it was normal we wouldnot need to conduct a study

Society’s definition of right is oftenwrong, just look at the Civil Rights campaign. A lot of people thought it wasjustified in keeping minorities segregated and that it was a man’s job to keepwomen “in their place”. That’s not right, that is just what has been acceptedin the past. As humanity grows as a species we must constantly challenge perceivedinjustices and right the wrongs of society.
Studying something is done so that one canunderstand. Something doesn’t have to be “abnormal” to be studied. I couldstudy the family dynamics of Irish Americans, are they abnormal just because noteveryone is Irish American? Being different is not the same as not beingnormal. When people don’t understand something they study it.

Masterbation isan act not a way of life

If a man identifying as straight has sexwith another man is he gay now? Has that changed his way of life? Sexualintercourse is an act, not a way of life. I’m fond of red heads, is that a wayof life? There is more to a person than just their orientation.

That doesn't make something normal. It makes it commonplace.

I'm bald. Most people are not. Does that make me "abnormal"?

Yes again you actlike abnormal is bad. Its not its just different

No that is not abnormal. You don’t look at a balding man and say “that’s not normal”. You look at it and think “sometimes men go bald”. The majority does not define normal. As it was already said byothers, the majority decides what is common. White people may be the majority in this country but that doesn’t make them more “normal” compared to minorities. See how odd it would be to look at Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, andother ethnicities and say “you’re abnormal”?

Animals are bydefinition amoral. People, have morals, well some...

All people live by some sort of moral. But like Steve said, morals can be different depending on culture and belief systems. Personally I draw the line that immorality stems from causing harm to people and homosexuality causes no harm, therefore how can it be immoral?

Ok everything'snormal nothings different were all the same but not.

Actually normal implies that things are as they should be. In physical health having cancerous skin cells would be abnormal but having a good tan wouldn’t be. But if I burn under the sun and another person tans are either of us abnormal? Different yes, but not abnormal.
Abnormal implies something is not the way it should be, and who are we to say that people attracted to adults of the same sex is not how they should be? A person faking being straight to avoid stigma would not be doing what is normal for him or her; it doesn’t feel right to them.

While it may not be an individuals "choice" I don't believe that its a biological assignmenteither. There's no biological advantage in it....its a social/psychologicalissue.

It is a combination of all three. Sexual attraction is partially chemical, partially psychological, and partial socially constructed. There is no one answer to it. And just because there is not “advantage”to being gay (and really that’s for the individual to decide), doesn’t mean itis not biological. What is the advantage of having green eyes as opposed to hazel? None, but it is genetically determined.

People also pointed out it was common among aspects of Greek culture. It was prevalent in many parts of the world including Persia, Japan, the Netherlands, and many places in Africa. It’s prevalent throughout all of human history, but not every culture accepted it.

So would you consider the cultures that forbid it more normal than those that do not?

Abnormal is justa word I use a lot at work so that's why I went with it. When I describesomeone's behavior as abnormal I'm saying its different.

Abnormal and different are not the samething. As said before something can be different and considered normal, likeskin color for example. There is a difference between commonality and normalcy.

But the term abnormal does carry negative stigma whether you intend it or not. When someone has an unhealthy psychology it is abnormal. If someone is just different then they are different, not abnormal.
Elder’s use of the word “atypical” maybetter reflect the idea you are trying to represent.

Or he can realizeits the INTERNET not a term paper. He understood what I was trying to getacross.

The appearance it gave me was that you used abnormal to describe the behavior as wrong or unhealthy as that is the meaning of the word as used in the common vernacular.

Just like you dowhen I use the term Abnormal. Change it to whatever feel good word you want.Non-normal, against the norm, not like most people, different then themajority, blah blah blah blah. You all are so wrapped up in this PC blanket youcant even admit Homosexual behavior is different then Normal behavior. Its notbad, worse, wrong, evil or anything else its just different. If it wasn'tdifferent there would be no need to study it. There would be non need to classify it, there would be no need to have this conversation.

Homosexuality is not different from the “norm”,it is less common. Again that is like saying minority ethnicities are not normal. The wording is wrong, whether you chose to believe it or not the word does not mean what you think it means.
We classify everything. We are human beings have to assign names and meaning to everything, it’s how we gain psychological control of our lives by assigning meanings and values to things and categorizing them.
People study common things as well, not just the uncommon. Again something is studied when understanding is being sought. People study everything.

 

[elder999]

In the original article, it was claimed that 8 large studies from the US, Australia, and Scandinavia all supplied evidence that showed that homosexuality was not genetic. The original studies were not linked in the article. Did you find them? Could you post one that you looked at?

Interestingly,John, given the claims of the countries involved, I think I did look at some of the same studies-in other words, the writers of the article are claiming findings that are completely opposite the conclusions put forth by the actual experimenters.

There's this one : A genetic study of male sexual orientation.Bailey JM, Pillard RC.Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill 60208

and this one: Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Bailey, J. Michael; Dunne, Michael P.; Martin, Nicholas G. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

and this one:Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior: A Population Study of Twins in Sweden , which studied more than 7000 pairs of twins in Sweden, and concluded-as most have-that there are genetic as well as environmental factors that seem to determine or influence sexuality.

So the article is pretty much B.S., John.

This is interesting, because I referenced another book earlier that looked into the evolutionary psychology of sexuality and the conclusion that huge numbers of researchers are concluding is that sexuality and sexual orientation are far more fluid then we assumed.perhaps it can be "set" in some people, but from a cross cultural perspective, that number is exceedingly small.

See above. I know there's nothing "fluid" about my sexuality, though-over the years, I've had numerous gay friends, some of whom hit on me, and-even at my drunkest and most horny-I have never been slightly interested.

Case in point, if you looked at the cultures where homosexual relationships are normal and accepted, an overly large percentage of people who perhaps would have claimed to be heterosexual in another culture, now freely engage in homosexual relationships. This is a big problem for people who think sexual orientation is something that you are born with.

Define "overly large percentage." I mean, essentially, what you're saying is that there's more evidence of certain sexual behaviors in environments where those behaviors are accepted-I'd posit that it's not that there's a higher percentage of homosexuals, but a higher percentage of open homosexuality.

I mean, you don't really think that there are no homosexuals in Saudi Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan, do you? :lol:

In the end, and this is something I've thought for a long time, perhaps our language is flawed. Perhaps classifying people as homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual is not valid.

People classify themselves, John-one could say much the same about race:am I black or African-American or Indian or Native-American or white or Polynesian or "other?" Does it matter? In the end, I am all of those things-some to a lesser degree than others, perhaps-and, quite truly, none of them. I am simply who I choose to be. Sexuality may be the same, but basic drives are basic drives-I don't much like some cheeses-as in, find them completely unpalatable-but I bet I'd eat them if I were starving....this is, of course, not the best analogy-I'm pretty good at taking care of myself, sexually, and would prefer that over congress with another man, I think, just as I prefer love making with my wife over masturbation-but you get the idea.

 

[DennisBreene]

It's interesting to me that the statistics in the article from Northwestern show about 1/2 the incidence of homosexuality in dizygotic (fraternal) twins as compared to monozygotic (identical) twins and another 50% drop in incidence when compared to adoptive paired siblings with no genetic linkage. That suggests pretty strongly that homosexuality is strongly linked with genetics and also demonstrates the importance of adequate control groups. And I agree with elder. From a societal perspective it matters little. What is ultimately relevant is how one identifies oneself. The only marginal benefit to the general population is that this kind of evidence for genetic influence reinforces the wisdom of leaving people alone to live life as they wish when it is of no consequence to others.

 

[jezr74]

Have been on the road so behind on posts, but for what its worth, quoted from a mate of mine who is a genetic scientist.

Actually it is just a gene. everything about you is programmed by your genes. nothing you do say think or anything else is possible without them and the way what they code for interacts. of course environmental influences will affect which genes are expressed more then others within a specified context. But your genetic make-up determines the parameters within which you can exist. Gayness is simply another parameter which may not be expressed. conscious will, may retard expression, but not base desire, no matter how hammered into ones subconscious.

the article which i just bothered to read, seems to lack insight. any difference between twins sexuality is genetically based, cause its part of their programming. it can simply be explained that environment turned up certain genes or turned down others leading to same sex attraction.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Makalakumu]

It can simply be explained that environment turned up certain genes or turned down others leading to same sex attraction.

This seems to indicate that the phenomenon is genetic and environmental. Which brings up a point I brought up earlier, if homosexuality is epigenetic, it's not a choice, but neither is it something that you are necessarily born with or can pass on to your offspring.

I also think this shows that the subject of orientation is a lot more uncertain than it is often portrayed in the media.

 

[Makalakumu]

Thanks for looking up some of these studies. I've been busy and let this conversation drift off.

People classify themselves, John-one could say much the same about race:am I black or African-American or Indian or Native-American or white or Polynesian or "other?" Does it matter? In the end, I am all of those things-some to a lesser degree than others, perhaps-and, quite truly, none of them. I am simply who I choose to be. Sexuality may be the same, but basic drives are basic drives-I don't much like some cheeses-as in, find them completely unpalatable-but I bet I'd eat them if I were starving....this is, of course, not the best analogy-I'm pretty good at taking care of myself, sexually, and would prefer that over congress with another man, I think, just as I prefer love making with my wife over masturbation-but you get the idea.

Yet, if you were born in a different culture, it might have been easier to make different choices sexually. Is this because the individual was genetically predisposed toward same sex unions, or is it the product of deep seated sexual mores? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. Perhaps some people have a drive that makes them attracted to who they are and perhaps others have a more flexible sexuality? Genetic testing wouldn't necessarily reveal someone without the "sexuality" gene, but with more flexible standards.

What would happen if we could go back and test people in past cultures with more flexible standards? How about cultures that exist right now? How about prison "gay for the stay" populations?

 

[Blade96]

why do we need a study for this and a study for that to try and explain why people like or dont like what they like and dont like?

Cant we just accept that we are just different?

I dont like babies and toddlers. But I sure as heck dont need a study to try figure out why I dont like them.

To me this is ridiculous.

 

[elder999]

Thanks for looking up some of these studies. I've been busy and let this conversation drift off.



Yet, if you were born in a different culture, it might have been easier to make different choices sexually. Is this because the individual was genetically predisposed toward same sex unions, or is it the product of deep seated sexual mores? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between. Perhaps some people have a drive that makes them attracted to who they are and perhaps others have a more flexible sexuality? Genetic testing wouldn't necessarily reveal someone without the "sexuality" gene, but with more flexible standards.

What would happen if we could go back and test people in past cultures with more flexible standards? How about cultures that exist right now? How about prison "gay for the stay" populations?

These area all good questions, given the obvious and inherently flexible nature of human sexuality. I think, though, that in most cases, some sort of preference one way or the other would be noted. As in "gay for the stay," which might be about sexuality but is more often about power and dominance. Culturally, in some of the examples you speak of, this is pretty much true: in cultures where such flexibility has been more acceptable, sex with one gender served one set of purposes, and sex with the same gender served another.