Skip to comments.Gay Is Not All in the Genes
Posted on 03/28/2013 8:33:24 AM PDT by Maelstorm
Why are some people gay? Most researchers who study sexual orientation think that both genetic and environmental factors play a role, but the relative contributions of each remain unclear. A new study of Swedish twins reinforces earlier findings that environmental influences--including the environment in the womb--may play a greater role than genes.
Scientists studying complex human behaviors often turn to twin studies. Researchers look at both identical and fraternal twins to see how often they share a trait--a parameter called concordance. The greater the concordance among genetically identical twins compared with fraternal twins--who share only half of their genes--the more likely that genetic factors are involved.
Earlier twin studies of sexual orientation have suggested varying degrees of genetic and environmental influences. But they have suffered from the limitations typical of all twin studies. These include small sample sizes and assumptions that identical and fraternal twins both have the same family environments; if identical twins are treated more similarly by their parents than fraternal twins, for example, this could be mistaken for a genetic influence. Recruitment biases are also an issue: Some studies have enlisted participants who openly identify themselves as gay, who may not be typical of the entire homosexual population.
To try to get around these problems, a team led by Niklas Langström, a psychiatrist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, recruited subjects from the Swedish Twin Registry, the world's largest. All 43,808 twins born in Sweden between 1959 and 1985 were invited to participate in a Web-based survey that comprised a wide range of questions about personal behaviors and experiences. The team ended up with a sample of 3826 twin pairs, of which 2320 were identical and 1506 fraternal. Of that sample, roughly 5% of men and 8% of women reported sexual activity with a member of the same sex at least once during their lifetimes. Then they plugged the survey responses into a standard mathematical model for comparing identical and fraternal twins.
The results, published online this month in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, confirm earlier findings that identical twins are more concordant for same-sex behaviors than fraternal twins are but only modestly so: In men, genetic effects appeared to explain 34% to 39% of the differences between the two twin groups, whereas in women, genetics accounted for only about 18% to 19% of the difference--a finding consistent with other research showing that sexual orientation in women is not as rigidly determined as it is in men.
As for what environmental factors might be at play, the authors point out that these might not be entirely social but could also be biological. For example, some studies have suggested that exposure to prenatal hormones or even the mother's immune system could influence the sexual development of a fetus.
J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who led earlier twin studies of sexual orientation, calls the new study "good, important, and one unlikely to be bettered in the near future." But Jonathan Beckwith, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, says that the new work fails to overcome a number of problems faced by previous twin studies. He notes that the final sample included only 12% of the males in the Swedish registry, leaving open the possibility of recruitment bias. And Beckwith says that the failure to control for family environment could inflate estimates of genetic influence.
What is ironic is that most pro-gay people are also pro-abortion.
I wonder if they feel that a aborting a child with a “gay gene” would be denying equal protection under the law.
Very profound observations and I can definitely agree with what you say.
I see this happening to my youngest grandson, liberal, single mother who has done everything she could to emasculate and denigrate his father. Who has encouraged every feminine behavior and punished male behavior and I don’t think all of it is concious. She has failed at everything she has tried even though she has a Master’s degree. Liberlaism really is a sickness.
The only thing in his favor is that he does have a loving father. We have also talked to him about homosexuality the same way we talk to the others and about sexuality and what behavior we expect from him. Luckily, our oldest granddaughter, his cousin, is a paragon of virtue and they all love her and want to emulate her.
I can’t say it is definitely genetic anymore than you can say it definitely isn’t. But there is evidence indicating that certain genes make the behavior more likely to arise. That is indisputable.
Acknowledging it has a genetic element isn’t saying it needs to be accepted, or giving anybody a free pass on behavior. There are almost certainly genetically predisposing factors towards violence, sociopathy, and Narcissistic personalities, as well as a range of other disorders that can yield criminality. That there might be a genetic predisposition, doesn’t mean they get to wreck society, destroy the family, or hurt innocent kids by adopting them. It doesn’t even mean the predisposition has to produce the behavior.
But it is important to find the truth, if you are to conquer the problem. God made a big puzzle, and if you want to have an effect upon it, you need to try to honestly understand it, and not assume you know how He made things, or why. Maybe He included a genetic predisposition to test certain people He wanted to see demonstrate virtue in the face of adversity. This is God’s show, and He made the rules our job is to understand it, and then try to help good win.
This is my input, and I think it is accurate, and could help in the battle. If correct, it does offer a wide range of anti-Liberal tools for us to use in our fight. To just give them up would be silly, IMHO.
If you have research showing clearly that there is no genetic link, lay it out, and let everyone else look and weigh the evidence themselves. As I showed in my post, there is a gene which is clearly associated with homosexuality, and wonder of wonders, it is the same gene that predisposes to Liberalism, and produces every element of the r-strategy. In all cases, it isn’t predetermination, but only predisposition.
Before castigating this work, go show it to a Liberal friend as if you believe it, and watch the reaction. Then ask yourself if God’s truth might precipitate a similar reaction to the Liberal’s rage.
it is an arrested development.
as the child developes his her identity, it graduates to discovering others like him/her. the opposite sex is the “not me”. girls are icky and boys are yucky and the like.
at some point there is a reinforcment of that behavior to the extreme. See the work of “sissy boy syndrome” and parental maunchausen (sp?) syndrome disorders.
instead of graduating to the opposite sex being attractive. Grown is stunted into a “me me me” loop. Homosexuals end up trying to mate with the person in the mirror.
I think I already knew that..........
did you do know there are people born with both male and female genitals?
face it wierd stuff can happen.
I think it is interesting, and might help in the future.
Your grandson will appreciate all of your efforts when he’s grown. There is nothing as appreciated as being shown the right path, when you were on the wrong (leftward) one. He’s lucky to have you, and he’ll realize it when he looks back.
It can’t be genetic since there is no “gene”.They have searched for over 35 years and tagged every gene there is and there is no gay gene.It is a completely learned behavior period.
I know of a man who was a Catholic. Married in the church. Had a large family, six beautiful daughters. Then one day he decided he was gay. He left his wife and daughters for his gay lover. But still was harshly critical of the wife for how she struggled to raise the girls alone after he left. She had to work many more hours to try to pay the bills, so he criticized her for not being at home, but he couldn’t find it in his heart to pay her enough in child support to make that possible. He chose to be gay.
Here is another instance of choice. A young woman had a huge crush on my son. He wasn’t that interested in her, other than as a friend. My son joined the Marines and left. This young woman couldn’t find any young men interested in her, so suddenly she found herself being courted by some women who went out of their way to look as masculine as possible. She just moved in with one of them.
>Assuming that homos are born (created) with the homo gene, why would God say, Do not practice homosexuality?
To be clear, I do not say they are born. Liberals aren’t born, but rather people are born predisposed to developing that way. Think of it as some being born with excessive temptation. Maybe God wants to test them. I don’t have it, and trying to picture why a guy would find other guys to be as pretty as girls is baffling. For some reason, God decided not to saddle me with that burden. Clearly, others are different.
It is like infidelity, lying, etc. If God didn’t want us doing them, why create a world where we could? He clearly could have. God has His reasons for what He does.
When we lose sight of that, and start trying to assume we know how he would do it, we can become deceived, and fail to understand how to fight our battle to the best of our ability.
I believe God created a world in which Liberals are designed to be defeated, in every way, over time. As I look at r and K-selection, I see a mechanism by which K-selection (Conservatism) will always win, in the end. To me, the mechanism is both fascinating, and uplifting, if you look at it closely. Best of all, understanding it offers an insight into just how God wants us to win, how he designed our victory to occur, and how best we can help Him to lead us to it sooner.
I strongly suspect he has a Jim McGreevy moment coming too.
God help us.
I can’t get to the original article because you need a log in but this gives a quick over view of what that study said.They looked into the gay gene for about 20 years and deconstructed many studies that supported the gay gene theory and concluded there was no evidence it existed:
I think they exist but gay genes or gay susceptibility genes are entirely irrelevant. I never hear anyone make this point, rather conservatives merely deny the “born this way” argument. This leads to unproductive quibbling about genetic science and counter attacks about the scientific “ignorance” of conservatives.
Genes or not, it doesn’t matter. There are also down syndrome and schizophrenia causing genes!!!! There are all kinds of bad genes that cause congenital PROBLEMS.
Retards (sorry slur, I’m a jerk, I was born this way) are born that way. Few would suggest that’s not a major problem for them and their families.
But serious medical science gave up on considering homosexuality to be a mental illness decades ago. Whether it’s genetic or not, that’s what it is.
Nowadays “sexual preference” is equated to taste in ice cream flavors not something that’s you know NOT QUITE RIGHT, and I am Hitler for suggesting otherwise. Mind you I advocate absolutely NO forced treatment what so ever but still, I am Hitler. I slur gays by suggesting they are not quite right in the head. I am “full of hate” for having this reasoned scientific opinion. I best keep it to myself.
Part of the problem is the stigma attached to mental illness in general. People get offended if you call them “crazy”.
1 or 2%, are telling the other 98% that they must atone.
Now THAT is crazy!
The pod people in the '93 version are particularly cocky and arrogant in believing it's "inevitable" they will take over the world, and anyone who refuses to immediately join them and be replaced with a pod person gets "targeted" by them shrinking a high pitched noise that signals to the others "he/she isn't one of US yet!" (which was also used in the '78 movie but not as prominently)
Look at this scene. '93 was eerily prophetic:
That is GWB’s ex-spokesman Nicolle Wallace who Mccain assigned to prep Palin for the 2008 campaign.
I guesss Bush and McCain picked her because she had so much in common with the MSM types.
They love her on MSNBC now.
Very interesting. I look forward to perusing your links when time permits.
OK, but it doesn't hurt to look (G-rated):
Heaven help us.