Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: scripter
However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations

This is a false conclusion in and of itself, the higher incidence could just as likely be due to environmental influences (which are highly shared among identical twins during their formative years, as genetic) To say this indicates defacto a genetic influence is an utterly false assumption.

Homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality is not a birth defect, its a mental disorder.

12 posted on 03/16/2007 7:28:32 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: HamiltonJay
This is a false conclusion in and of itself, the higher incidence could just as likely be due to environmental influences (which are highly shared among identical twins during their formative years, as genetic) To say this indicates defacto a genetic influence is an utterly false assumption.

They may be referring to linkage and association. Checkout the summary to Satinover's The Gay Gene?.

18 posted on 03/16/2007 7:37:37 AM PDT by scripter (Duncan Hunter in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: HamiltonJay

With regard to "twin studies" ...

There are, I believe, a couple hundred identical twin who were separated at birth. These people have been studied to the point of exhaustion. But, given the low incidence of homosexuality, these twins don't constitute a large enough sample to say anything definitively about genetics versus environment.

Looking at fraternal twins separated at birth is the same thing as looking at siblings separated at birth. You can get a larger, and statistically meaningful sample, using fraternal twins or siblings separated at birth, at the cost, obviously, of inexact genetic matching.

Leaving aside the problems with "separated at birth" studies, studies of fraternal twins/siblings who are separated at birth tell us that genetics influence sexual orientation, but are far from controlling, which means that the results of these studies are rejected out of hand by those insisting, alternately, that homosexuality is either 100% or 0% genetic-based.

The argument that homosexuality is 100% genetic-based is about a lot more than the sinfulness of homosexuality. If homosexuality is less than 100% genetic-based, then gay-adoption is problematic.

To the extent that we influence the adoption decision, we would want children to be raised by both a male and a female role model, preferably (1) their birth-parents, or (2) close relatives such as an aunt or uncle in a traditional marriage (as traditionally was provided by naming such people as the god-parents of your children), or (3) by a non-related couple in a traditional marriage or a single close relative such as an aunt or an uncle.

Only after exhausting the above possibilities, should you consider adoption by a single non-relative to raising the child in a group home with male and female role models provided "by committee."

In terms of the culture war, this is what elections are all about (which is not to diminish the importance of free-market economics and a government with the strength and resolve needed to defend us against criminals and foreign enemies).


59 posted on 03/16/2007 9:16:54 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson