Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

8 Major Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic


PhuturePriest

Recommended Posts

PhuturePriest

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. 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. 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.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

It appears we have concrete evidence that people with same-sex attraction are not born that way, and thus it is not genetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%"

 

As someone who is actually an identical twin, let me assure you FP, that you need some education in science (and so does the above "dr"). 

It may surprise you to learn that many things we KNOW are genetic - from IQ to predisposition to mental illness to age of first menstruation - are not always mirrored in identical twins. 

In fact there are virtually no well designed twins studies that show a matching rate of 100% besides things like eye color.

The fact that one set of twins doesnt fit the pattern, doesn't disprove an inherited link at all. 

It means there is perhaps something working with the genes, turning them on and off.

For instance my sister had severe ulcerative colitis requiring an operation. Twin studies reveal a genetic connection, but for whatever reason, I've never fallen ill. 

On the other hand, my premature ovarian failure was first diagnosed (a relatively rare and mysterious disease we know little about). Testing revealed my sister had it too- yet our genetics have been karyotyped and are normal. Nevertheless there must be a gene connection because the incidence is noted as much higher in ID twins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless let me say I don't think there is a "gay gene" either but there's every reason to believe sexuality is something encoded before birth. After all if gay people aren't born gay then straight people aren't born straight right? And it's all socially controlled. 

I dont think that hypothesis is correct. I think people are born with certain sexual preferences (of varying degrees) and it's due to development in the uterus. Research tends in this direction I believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also love his comments about how twins have the same womb environment so they must come out baked the same right? Lol. I came out of the womb 1 pound lighter and and inch smaller than my sister. How can that be??? 

Note I did catch up to her in weight ;errrr) but never in height...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AccountDeleted

My problem with these kinds of studies is simply that when I Google the topic online I get as many scientific studies that prove one thing as there are those that prove the other thing. I have no idea what the truth is but I certainly am not going to get my opinions from Internet 'scientific studies' that are all in support of one theory, especially when all the scientific studies that disagree with those conclusions are not also presented. 

Personally I think the whole homosexual issue is a very complex one and a few studies are not going to provide all the answers. As for the twin thing, well, that's just absurd - twins can be completely different, even identical ones. Scientists keep employed by getting funding to prove a point one way or the other - and that's why there are so many different 'scientific studies' with different results. In this area, I hardly think that it can be a definitive measure of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great article. Goes over how twins are different... One can even be born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome while another escapes unscathed. 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/similar-but-not-identical-study-reveals-more-about-twins-than-about-education-9004120.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also love his comments about how twins have the same womb environment so they must come out baked the same right? Lol. I came out of the womb 1 pound lighter and and inch smaller than my sister. How can that be??? 

Note I did catch up to her in weight ;errrr) but never in height...

​you were obviously part of a set of triplets and she ate the other one to gain strength and assert dominance in the womb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing proves anything. I'm skeptical of any study that claims it proves something about something so complex as human sexuality. That's silly. It's probably heavily genetic for some individuals, more "nurture" for others. There's also an interplay between someone's genes and environment (epigenetics for example, or even how one's cultural understanding of sexuality affects a person's self-concept). It's super complex. I thought we've moved beyond nature vs. nurture. The "born that way" is falling out of vogue anyhow so attacking it as a central principle is just hacking at the branches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always tell my science students never to use the word "prove*" in any of their papers or speeches. They still do, and it's always wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

veritasluxmea

I always tell my science students never to use the word "prove*" in any of their papers or speeches. They still do, and it's always wrong.

​Science can't prove anything, in the pure sense of the word. It's better phrased as "8 major studies suggest homosexuality is not genetic."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...