ASIDE from apparent Biblical injunctions...

[EnemyPartyII]

Society has no right to tell two adult people what to do in the privacy of their own homes, morality can not be legislated (hence my support of gay marriage). However, when innocent children are involved, I do think they need to be protected.

Protected from what, exactly?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I was trying to explain to her that this is impossible to do - one cannot do this when society's social principles are rooted in religion.

And I'll respond as I have prewviously to this claim... nonsense.

Can you give a self contained logical reason why murder may be considered a bad thing using only secular terms? Absolutely.

Theft? ditto

Assault? How many would you like.

Even other so called "victimless crimes" like prostitution, gambling and drug distribution can be argued against in purely secular terms.

Homosexuality, or, indeed, ANY sexual activity that is conduicted with the fully informed consent of all those involved, I would contend, have no secular arguement against them. At least, I have never seen any coherent ones that hold up to scrutiny or are logically consistent. I'm more than open to the suggestion that I am mistaken, but until someone can come up with an argument that can't boil down to "The Bible SEZ!" I'll not see any reason to believe that Christ has a problem with my behaviour.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So what you are saying is that there is no absolute truth?

I believe that there most certainly is an objective, absoluyte truth. However, whether any human will ever understand it is much more debateable, and the chances of any two humans agreeing on exactly what it is even more so.

And before you say "the Bible is the absolute truth!" well, maybe... but until you can explain how just about every different person who reads it comes away with a different, personal take on what it says...

To sumarise...

Yes, there is an absolute truth, an objective reality, if you will.

What makes you so sure that you are interpreting and understanding it correctly though?

 

[PinkTulip]

I believe that there most certainly is an objective, absoluyte truth. However, whether any human will ever understand it is much more debateable, and the chances of any two humans agreeing on exactly what it is even more so.

And before you say "the Bible is the absolute truth!" well, maybe... but until you can explain how just about every different person who reads it comes away with a different, personal take on what it says...

To sumarise...

Yes, there is an absolute truth, an objective reality, if you will.

What makes you so sure that you are interpreting and understanding it correctly though?

This makes no sense. How can reality be absolute and objective, but people's interpretations of the Bible are subjective. How can this be when reality is objective? Are you saying the world is not with personal feelings, influences, etc? Do we not have free will and personal opinions?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This makes no sense.

Yes it does, try reading it again maybe.

How can reality be absolute and objective, but people's interpretations of the Bible are subjective.

Quite easily... imagine, if you will for a moment, a world with no people... but its still there, doing its thing. Thats reality, whatever is going on without human observation. So, put humans in the picture... you have one at the North Pole, for him, reality is cold and snowy. Another human, on the equator, believes reality is green and steamy. They both have subjective views, both views are wildly different to each other's, and both are different to what the actual reality is, that it can be both snowy AND green, given a big enough world view.

So, Bible's the same. Even if it is the absolute undiluted written word of God, 100% true and accurate... (I don't believe it is, different discussion for different time) even if... we KNOW that no two people will read it exactly the same way...because humans interpret reality through their SUBJECTIVE point of view.

Hey, lets make it REAL simple, forget the Bible for a moment... colour blindness... a man with red/green colour blindness cannot distinguish between red and green... in his reality, red and green are the same thing. But is he wrong? Not in HIS mind... then take a normal sighted person... you, perhaps... can distinguis red from green? good for you. But you can't see ultraviolet as a colour... its out there, bees and birds can see it... but does that mean there is something "wrong" with your take on reality?

Not at all, if you accept that we all have a SUBJECTIVE view, and the OBJECTIVE reality will trundle along quite happilly regardless of what our subjective view is.

You can scream at the heavens that there is no such colour as ultra violet, which is true for you, but it isn't true for the absolute truth.

Make sense now?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Do we not have free will and personal opinions?

WE do... and they colour our interpretation of all things. They do not, of themselves, effect truth though.

 

[PinkTulip]

Yes it does, try reading it again maybe.Quite easily... imagine, if you will for a moment, a world with no people... but its still there, doing its thing. Thats reality, whatever is going on without human observation. So, put humans in the picture... you have one at the North Pole, for him, reality is cold and snowy. Another human, on the equator, believes reality is green and steamy. They both have subjective views, both views are wildly different to each other's, and both are different to what the actual reality is, that it can be both snowy AND green, given a big enough world view.

So, Bible's the same. Even if it is the absolute undiluted written word of God, 100% true and accurate... (I don't believe it is, different discussion for different time) even if... we KNOW that no two people will read it exactly the same way...because humans interpret reality through their SUBJECTIVE point of view.

Hey, lets make it REAL simple, forget the Bible for a moment... colour blindness... a man with red/green colour blindness cannot distinguish between red and green... in his reality, red and green are the same thing. But is he wrong? Not in HIS mind... then take a normal sighted person... you, perhaps... can distinguis red from green? good for you. But you can't see ultraviolet as a colour... its out there, bees and birds can see it... but does that mean there is something "wrong" with your take on reality?

Not at all, if you accept that we all have a SUBJECTIVE view, and the OBJECTIVE reality will trundle along quite happilly regardless of what our subjective view is.

You can scream at the heavens that there is no such colour as ultra violet, which is true for you, but it isn't true for the absolute truth.

Make sense now?

I can see what you are saying, and I do agree there is an absolute truth. I think the term "objective reality" is an odd term, but that doesn't matter.

 

[PinkTulip]

WE do... and they colour our interpretation of all things. They do not, of themselves, effect truth though.

Free will is an interesting concept. Maybe we can debate it in a different thread.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Free will is an interesting concept. Maybe we can debate it in a different thread.

Sure. Be interested to sometime. If you set up the thread and send me a PM about it, I'll join in later... bed time now

 

[david_x]

So what, you just discard all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic?

The only possibility would be a multiallilic trait with incomplete varying penetrance and randomly appearing in races than have not been involved sexually for thousands of years. Rediculous, very very unlikly. (Evolution is more likly)

 

[Der Alte]

So what, you just discard all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic?

Blatantly False Homosexual Propaganda!

There is NO, ZERO, NONE "all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic" Virtually everyone on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions posts this copy/paste rubbish at one time or another. "There are gazillions of studies proving that homosexuality is genetic." I have asked repeatedly for examples of such "evidence," most members simply ignore the request, 1-2 have posted bits and pieces, less than 6 "studies," and I have repeatedly pointed out how these quotes are grossly misrepresented and do NOT prove anything about homosexuality being genetic.

As a matter of fact, the most well known study in this area, Bailey and Pillard, proves just the opposite, That homosexuality CANNOT be genetic.

Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may be, is NOT genetic. Since monozygotic/identical twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual then very, very close to 100% of the other twins should be homosexual, NOT between, 52%, B & P study, and 42% Australian study.

EPII if you have "evidence" bring it on.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual.

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#sotmtsoh

Bailey-Pillard

In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.

Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.
Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homosex1.html
​

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Blatantly False Homosexual Propaganda!

There is NO, ZERO, NONE "all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic" Virtually everyone on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions posts this copy/paste rubbish at one time or another. "There are gazillions of studies proving that homosexuality is genetic." I have asked repeatedly for examples of such "evidence," most members simply ignore the request, 1-2 have posted bits and pieces, less than 6 "studies," and I have repeatedly pointed out how these quotes are grossly misrepresented and do NOT prove anything about homosexuality being genetic.

As a matter of fact, the most well known study in this area, Bailey and Pillard, proves just the opposite, That homosexuality CANNOT be genetic.

Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may be, is NOT genetic. Since monozygotic/identical twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual then very, very close to 100% of the other twins should be homosexual, NOT between, 52%, B & P study, and 42% Australian study.


EPII if you have "evidence" bring it on.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers​

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual​

• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual​

• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual.​

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991​

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html​

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.​

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.​

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html​

The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).​

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."​

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#sotmtsoh​

Bailey-Pillard​

In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.​

Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.​

Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.​

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homosex1.html​

It becomes clearly apparent to anyone that reads your frantic copy and paste, poorly constructed defenses that you do not even read what ylour posting. For instance you in one breath quote Narth, a discredited group of pseudo Psychologist to the other extreme. Look carefully at this link you provided.

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twi....html#sotmtsoh

Burrow down to his personal resume and you will see that Tim and his er ah friend Pete are quite stunning in their Kilts at there biyfriends gay civil ceremony . Here are some other nice photos of Tim and Petes wedding.
http://www.mynameisgordon.com/pete_and_tim/

Enjoy

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The only possibility would be a multiallilic trait with incomplete varying penetrance and randomly appearing in races than have not been involved sexually for thousands of years. Rediculous, very very unlikly. (Evolution is more likly)

Gee... like genes for hight huh? YTep, completely unbelievable *rolls eyes*

 

[david_x]

Gee... like genes for hight huh? YTep, completely unbelievable *rolls eyes*

That brings up a good point actually, inuits are all very short. Etheopians are all very tall. Inuits never randomly have a tall child, Etheopians never have very short children.

Plus heigth is an evolutionary advantage, homosexuality is a disadvantage.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Plus heigth is an evolutionary advantage, homosexuality is a disadvantage.

Um... not if its a recessive semi-coding gene... like sickle cell anaemia...

get the sickle cell gene from both parents, and you die... but get it from only one parent, and you have immunity to malaria. The evuidence suggests that genes relating to homosexuality are similar.

 

[david_x]

Um... not if its a recessive semi-coding gene... like sickle cell anaemia...

get the sickle cell gene from both parents, and you die... but get it from only one parent, and you have immunity to malaria. The evuidence suggests that genes relating to homosexuality are similar.

So homosexuality should disappear in a few generations. Great!

 

[BigBadWlf]

Blatantly False Homosexual Propaganda!

There is NO, ZERO, NONE "all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic" Virtually everyone on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions posts this copy/paste rubbish at one time or another. "There are gazillions of studies proving that homosexuality is genetic." I have asked repeatedly for examples of such "evidence," most members simply ignore the request, 1-2 have posted bits and pieces, less than 6 "studies," and I have repeatedly pointed out how these quotes are grossly misrepresented and do NOT prove anything about homosexuality being genetic.

As a matter of fact, the most well known study in this area, Bailey and Pillard, proves just the opposite, That homosexuality CANNOT be genetic.

Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may be, is NOT genetic. Since monozygotic/identical twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual then very, very close to 100% of the other twins should be homosexual, NOT between, 52%, B & P study, and 42% Australian study.


EPII if you have "evidence" bring it on.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers​

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual​

• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual​

• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual.​

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991​

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html​

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.​

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.​

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html​

The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).​

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."​

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#sotmtsoh​

Bailey-Pillard​

In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.​

Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.​

Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.​

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homosex1.html​

AS posted earlier…and ignored by you.

Bailey and Pillard did NOT come to the concussion in the research you cite
From the conclusion of J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991:
"childhood gender nonconformity does not appear to be an indicator of genetic loading for homosexuality"
which is nothing like what you are claiming they say.

Worse for your claim both Bailey and Pillard have engaged in numerous other studies where they find evidence that sexual orientation is in fact in-born:

J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard Human sexual orientation has a heritable component . Human Biology1998 Apr;70(2):347-65
"Family, twin, and adoptee studies indicate that homosexuality and thus heterosexuality run in families."


J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard et al A Family History Study of Male Sexual Orientation Using Three Independent Samples. J of Behavioral Genetics. V29 number 2, 1999.
"Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is both familial and somewhat heritable and that some cases may be caused by an X-linked gene. However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner, typically via advertisements, and hence suffer from the potential methodological flaw of ascertainment bias due to volunteer self-selection. In the present study we assessed the familiality of male homosexuality using two carefully ascertained samples and attempted to replicate findings consistent with X-linkage in three samples."

J. M. Bailey, R. C. Pillard, M. C. Neale and Y. Agyei Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of Gen Psychology Vol. 50 No. 3, March 1993
"Heritabilities were significant"



J. M. Bailey, Bell A.P. Familiality of female and male homosexuality Behavioral Genetics V. 23, No. 4, 1993.
"We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial.


K. M. Kirk , J. M. Bailey, M. P. Dunne and N. G. Martin Measurement Models for Sexual Orientation in a Community Twin Sample . Behavioral Genetics V. 30, NO.4, 2000.
"Analysis… providing stronger evidence for the existence of additive genetic influences on this phenotype than in a previous analysis (Bailey et al., 2000)."

 

[BigBadWlf]

Blatantly False Homosexual Propaganda!

There is NO, ZERO, NONE "all the evidence that suggests homosexuality is genetic" Virtually everyone on the pro-homosexual side of these discussions posts this copy/paste rubbish at one time or another. "There are gazillions of studies proving that homosexuality is genetic." I have asked repeatedly for examples of such "evidence," most members simply ignore the request, 1-2 have posted bits and pieces, less than 6 "studies," and I have repeatedly pointed out how these quotes are grossly misrepresented and do NOT prove anything about homosexuality being genetic.

As a matter of fact, the most well known study in this area, Bailey and Pillard, proves just the opposite, That homosexuality CANNOT be genetic.

Here is proof beyond any doubt or argument, now or ever, that homosexuality, whatever it may be, is NOT genetic. Since monozygotic/identical twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual then very, very close to 100% of the other twins should be homosexual, NOT between, 52%, B & P study, and 42% Australian study.


EPII if you have "evidence" bring it on.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers​

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual​

• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual​

• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual.​

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991​

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html​

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.​

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.​

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html​

The distribution of sexual orientation among cotwins of the monozygotic probands appeared to be bimodal. In other words, most subjects classified themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, with very few giving evidence of significant bisexuality. This finding is in agreement with other recent studies (e.g. Buhrich et al. 1991).​

According to their data, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities of homosexuality were calculated using these results under a wide range of assumptions of the population base rate and ascertainment bias. Under all conditions considered, heritabilities were substantial (h2 was between .31 and .74 in all cases). However, "the rate of homosexuality among nontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142), was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simple genetic hypothesis and other published reports."​

http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#sotmtsoh​

Bailey-Pillard​

In December of 1991, Michael Bailey of Northwestern University joined Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine in publishing a study of homosexuality in twins. Their conclusion is that sexual orientation is something one is born with.​

Bailey and Pillard surveyed homosexual men about their brothers, and they found some statistics that were rather unexpected. Of the homosexuals who had identical twin brothers, 52 percent of those twins were also homosexual. 22 percent of those who had fraternal twins said that their twin was gay, and only eleven percent of those who had adopted siblings said that their adopted brothers were also homosexual.​

Bailey and Pillard attributed the differences in these percentages to the difference in the amount of genetic material shared. Since identical twins have the same genetic code, they are far more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. In the same way, it is obvious that fraternal twins have more in common genetically than do their adopted siblings.​

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homosex1.html​

where are the references to peer reviewed published studies showing that sexual orientation is a choice? Well there are no studies showing this

where are the references to peer reviewed published studies showing that sexual orientation is the result of how one was raised? Well there are no studies showing this

where are the references to peer reviewed published studies showing that homosexuality is the result of one's relationship with one's father? Well there are no studies showing this

where are the references to peer reviewed published studies showing that homosexuality is the result of one's relationship with one's mother? Well there are no studies showing this

where are the references to peer reviewed published studies showing that homosexuality is a mental illness? Well there are no studies showing this

where are the references to peer reviewed published studies showing that homosexuality is the result and social and/or familial attribute or condition? Well there are no studies showing this

 

[BigBadWlf]

That brings up a good point actually, inuits are all very short. Etheopians are all very tall. Inuits never randomly have a tall child, Etheopians never have very short children.

Plus heigth is an evolutionary advantage, homosexuality is a disadvantage.

I will ask you for evidence for these claims even though I know you will not actually respond

 

[BigBadWlf]

So homosexuality should disappear in a few generations. Great!

Again…you might want to learn a little something about genetics before making laughable statements like this