Gays aren't "born that way" -- a lesbian says so

I don't know enough of the science. Do identical twins have exactly the same DNA? If so, then just using logic if you had any cases where one twin was homosexual and one was not, then you'd have to argue that none of those cases were genetic in order to preserve the notion that it's genetic. So I guess even identical twins where one is homosexual and one is not still does not prove that homosexuality is not genetic. The funny thing is that if there is a homosexual gene then natural selection seems to have failed. Unless the homosexual gene was passed down because the behavior was so frowned upon in the past, that they still participated in normal procreation to conform to normal standards. So actually, if the gene does exist, we should see homosexuality dying out since it it is now an approved behavior. That is homosexuals are no longer under societal pressure to procreate normally. Therefore, the prevalence of the gene should begin to fade. Hmm. Maybe I should be for gay marriage. The more they marry each other, the sooner they're gone. I guess the flaw in that argument is that many of them use their own genetic material to produce designer babies. So we'll probably see more homosexuals since the DNA is spreading using current reproductive technology.

I don't know that much science, either. I like reading about science and nature, but I'm no scientist.

Do identical twins have exactly the same DNA? If so, then just using logic if you had any cases where one twin was homosexual and one was not, then you'd have to argue that none of those cases were genetic in order to preserve the notion that it's genetic.

I don't think you could argue that. Nobody is saying it's 100% genetic. There are genetic factors that influence behavior, but they interplay with environmental ones.

One of the researcher teams quoted in the article was Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, to show that there wasn't a significantly greater concordance for identical twins than fraternal ones. But the team found an interesting wrinkle to this: Fraternal twins can be of the opposite sex. Boys who have a twin sister, it turns out, are twice as likely to be sexually attracted to boys, than one would expect. But only if they didn't have any older brothers! This argues that environmental factors are very important in developing sexual preferences.

Anyhow, the article is a bit underdeveloped, and the headline is wrong. Gays aren't "born that way" -- a lesbian says so: not quite. She was speaking for herself. Maybe she's bi; who cares?

But people are saying and it is an often repeated argument in favor of the homosexual agenda that they are born that way. If that is the case, then you can easily make the next argument that, therefore, sexual preference is intrinsic like skin color. So biases against homosexuality are like biases against skin color. I don't care whether environment plays a role, or people just make a choice. I believe both are true. Those “causes” of homosexuality don't support the case for reversing 4000 years of traditional heterosexual marriage. When people claim that there is at least some component of the community that was “born that way”, it sounds reasonable that their lifestyle should get the full support of the government because like skin color they can't change what they are. Of course even if the tendency is genetic, that still doesn't mean that it is a “good” inherited trait, but the fact that it was inherited (if it could be proven) absolves the recipient of the trait from having responsibility for conforming to what is “natural” for them. It fits in the model of alcoholism is a disease. Strangely, though, we still expect people to resist that genetic predisposition if it is one. The point is, is that if you could prove homosexuality is not genetic (in any cases), then engagement in the behavior does not have the excuse that “nature or G_d made me that way”. Anyway, sound like you know more about biology than I do. I'm just trying to apply logic.

But people are saying and it is an often repeated argument in favor of the homosexual agenda that they are born that way.

A lot of them probably feel that way. I wouldn't know. Of course, that doesn't make it genetic. I read somewhere that babies born in 1944 and 1945 in Germany were more likely to be homosexual, and in general prenatal stress is a factor, as are other early environment factors.

Nobody remembers being born, or the first couple of years of their life, for that matter. But I've heard enough of them say they never felt like they could choose to be heterosexual, they were always homosexual.

Ultimately the way homosexuals are treated and what they are allowed to do, doesn't really have much to do with science. Let's say next week they found one "gay gene" that correlates very strongly, almost 100%, with homosexuality, but only 20% of gay men have it. Do we test for that gene, and allow those 20% to marry each other, but ban the rest? And if no gene is found for lesbians, do we then treat them differently?

Ultimately these are political and moral questions, not science.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.