Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic

Holland Davis ^ | May-13-2013 | Mark Ellis

[kabumpo]

I could have told him that and saved the time and money. My previous husband was an identical twin, and his brother was gay. Actually, that was how I told them apart when I first met them. A while later I saw a photo of them at age 3, and I could tell which was which by the gay look on the other one’s face. Knowing their mother, I consider it a wonder that they weren’t both gay.

[Jim Noble]

What difference does it make if it’s “genetic”?

I mean, obviously it isn’t, but if proof that it was were published tomorrow, it wouldn’t change any opinions I hold, not even a little bit.

Why does this keep coming up?

[SERKIT]

One is gay and the other is a homophobic hater who is actually gay but has not come out yet. That’s the only explanation. It’s all explained in the new Federal Employee Handbook.

[fr_freak]

But, but, the liberals have told us that homosexuals are born that way.

When it comes to things like "gay rights" and "gay marriage", don't fall into the trap of arguing whether gay people are born that way. It is a trap because you are immediately ceding the idea that, if gays are born that way, then the whole pro-homo push is justified. If you establish that, under some conditions, it can be justified, then in a lot of people's minds, that means it is justified, period. This is the way the argument has gone also with abortion. The pro-aborts deflect from the fact that it is murder by saying "Sometimes it is necessary for the health of the mother" or "What about rape?" If you ceded that abortion is justified under certain circumstances, that opens the door wide for other rationalities. It is the same with the gay stuff.

The truth is that it doesn't matter whether gay people are born that way or not - it is still a sexual disorder and should be treated as such. People are born with all kinds of defects and issues, both mental and physical, and we don't re-order our society based on them (with the exception of physical handicaps as covered by ADA). For example, we don't treat schizophrenia as a "life choice" just because he was born that way. Nor should we redefine our most important institutions to accommodate people with a sexual disorder, regardless of whether they were born with it or not.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's only recently (in the last 150 years) that a homosexual "identity" was even proposed or imagined. It was always assumed that sodomy was a sin some men could be tempted to get into, especially under conditions of isolation from from women, stress, crowding, and an all-male environment (such as, prison, an all-boys' school, the military barracks.)

Or, that any man who was morally corrupted could get into pederasty (sex between an older man and a post-pubescent young man), assuming there were some way to induce the young man's participation, e.g. slavery, bribery, or force.

But none of this notion of there being a set homosexual "identity."

[James C. Bennett]

Not a sense of humour, but a proclivity to explore random mutations.

Women with natural penises and men with lactating breasts are a sick joke if only they were designed as such.

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

Interesting angle and I know exactly what you’re talking about.

[headsonpikes]

That boy ain’t right.

[jonrick46]

For the Marxists, consistency with Natural Law is irrelevant. The control over human beings is the objective. Redefining marriage is the Trojan Horse to that ends.

Just remember, any means to justify totalitarian control is the objective. If it requires a surgical procedure, they will make sure the knife is sharp.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

If it was genetic, it would lead to the argument that sexual orientation was an immutable characteristic like skin color, which is regarded as a prohibited basis for discrimination under law. I think they’ll get there anyway based on equal protection jurisprudence. But that’s what the pro gay rights folks were hoping for.

This researcher better be ready for a shi*storm from gays. They don’t want to hear this.

[Coleus]

http://narth.com/

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

There is a heck of a lot more to biology than just genetics. For example, halfway through gestation, a male fetus will excrete a squirt of testosterone, which will travel to its brain to make it a “male” brain. If that testosterone does not arrive, by default, brains are “female”.

Importantly, a male or female or mixed brain in a human is *not* enough to determine their sexuality, just their masculine or feminine behaviors.

And it gets odder. Males have a small amount of estrogen in their bodies, and females have a small amount of testosterone in theirs. But females with more than the usual amount of testosterone generally have stronger libidos, and want and enjoy sex more.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic

Of course not. Homosexuality is a proclivity, a sexual degradation, a weakness of the mind.

God forbid my beautiful twin daughters, just 6 months old, were touched by the insidious proclivity of the homosexual agenda.

However, I know that their genetics are strong enough to fight any female weaknesses.

As their mother, I can attest against the homo agenda. I’ve never been inclined or even curious about what being gay might feel like. I know I’m a woman, and I have NEVER had the desire to ever try to imitate a man (no matter how flimsy of a man).

So, I freaking know that being a homo is not genetic, but a mental weakness given into perversion. And btw, I hate weakness!

[meyer]

Well, heck, I could have told you that!

It can’t be hereditary because if it was, it would have evolved out of the species by the simple fact that homosexual behavior is not reproductive. Dance with your own gender, you have no babies. End of the gene.

It isn’t rocket science.

[Ramius]

I could have told him that and saved the time and money. My previous husband was an identical twin, and his brother was gay. Actually, that was how I told them apart when I first met them. A while later I saw a photo of them at age 3, and I could tell which was which by the gay look on the other one’s face. Knowing their mother, I consider it a wonder that they weren’t both gay.

I would submit that there's a difference between the relative masculine or effeminate personality trait and their sexual preference. There's plenty of heterosexuals that are more effeminate and homosexuals that are more masculine to show that, for either sex. The curious thing to me however is that of the gays I've known over the years they do, almost without exception, always pair up in relationships with their role opposite. That's to say... Two gay men will pair up with one in a masculine role and one more effeminate, and lesbians will likely pair up with each taking a gender role. It's inescapable.

The curious part is why... For example... A lesbian woman claims not to be naturally attracted to men but is attracted to a masculine woman. Seems its not about gender or psychology at all... But merely about the equipment. They're happy to have sex with a masculine-acting woman with strap-on equipment... But not with a man. That's not gay... That's just a man hater.

[rottndog]

Can you find a link, other than to this blog, and some references or links to the studies that the article refers to? Not that I don’t believe the article, but I would like to be able to back it up.

[Salvavida]

IMO 90% of Homosexuals have had a traumatic sexual experience as a child or a mother or father who pointed them in that direction.

Your opinion is actually backed up by studies. Many studies, and they are all consistent. I believe they fall within th 85-90 percentile range, but it's been 3 years since I looked at the data.

[Salvavida]

IMO 90% of Homosexuals have had a traumatic sexual experience as a child or a mother or father who pointed them in that direction.

Your opinion is actually backed up by studies. Many studies, and they are all consistent. I believe they fall within th 85-90 percentile range, but it's been 3 years since I looked at the data.

[Paradox]

If it was genetic, it would have been bred out of existence long ago.

That said, it still could be some kind of birth defect, or perhaps due to exposure to something in our water/food/air (soy anyone?).

My fear is that this might be something physical, and preventable or treatable, but because both sides are so adamant, it will never be discovered.

[Bobalu]

now the he/she will have to have his Adam’s Apple surgically removed, only males have them.

Only those with testosterone develop a prominent Adam's Apple. Some females are especially sensitive to testosterone and since they have some of this hormone in their systems (through liver conversion or the adrenal gland) they can develop the Adam's Apple along with a degree of male-pattern baldness and hirsutism...these are unfortunate in a female.

Just as some females are unusually sensitive to testosterone some unlucky males are totally immune to its effects. This is called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. They generally develop very feminine characteristics.