Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then why did you suggest references be posted in the first place?A list of studies doesn't prove anything.
Something you seemed to have failed to do yourself.My point is - if you are making a claim, then back up that point with a credible source.
It does strongly indicate a biological origin for homosexualityHis long list doesn't back up any claim he made. There are no details to demonstrate anything.
Isnt that exactly what you are doing?Sorry, but if someone continually ignores portions of a reply because it negates their stance, then that is considered trolling.
Should science be ignored if it produces results not to ones liking?No minds were changed. Are you saying the bible is ignoring science?
You provided an essay from a questionable source that on the surface appears to misrepresent the claims of the original study it is speaking ofIt looks as though you are ignoring the reference I provided, which is more recent and negates much of previous research on the subject.
You are really going with an essay by Whitehead? Really?Dude,
You are now entering troll territory with your posting style. Why should I do your homework for you? You started it and didn't back it up.
This is not my argument. I'm starting to doubt your intentions on this topic. However this page is from the first page of google results. The forums won't let me post a proper link to the page so I this is it in it's entirety:
Latest Twin Study Confirms
Genetic Contribution To SSA Is Minor
As in previous studies, identical twins usually differ for SSA.
By N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D.
Twin studies are favorites of mine because of the potential light they throw on the origins of same-sex attractions (SSA). The latest one (Santtila et al., 2008) is three times larger than any previous study - in fact, larger than all the rest put together.
Does this latest study teach us something new? Quick answer: No. It confirms the best recent studies, which tell us that genetic factors are minor; non-genetic factors are major.
The paper's title is "Potential for Homosexual Response is Prevalent and Genetic." This implies to the average reader that homosexuality is sometimes hidden, but commonly occurring, and that it is predominantly genetic. But we shall see this title is not representative of the study's actual findings.
This is the fifth systematically sampled twin study to look at SSA independently in men and women. Of the four previous studies, two were from Australia (Buhrich, Bailey & Martin, 1991; Bailey, Dunne & Martin, 2000), and two were from the USA (Hershberger, 1997; Bearman & Bruckner, 2002).
This latest study is from Finland. Using the very centralized records typical of Scandinavian states, they assembled a large, genuinely random sample of twins (6,001 female individuals and 3,152 males) for a study that was primarily on aggression. With that constraint, they were permitted only two questions about SSA: "What same-sex sexual contact have you had in the last year?" and (in essence) "If there was no prospect of anyone finding out, and you were sexually propositioned by someone of the same sex you liked, what would be your chances of accepting?"
Before we go further, let's address one small difficulty. Unfortunately, different studies use different measures for SSA. Some ask for total number of partners - this one asked only the frequency of contacts in the last year. Other surveys ask the frequency of same-sex fantasy. This one asked respondents to fantasize (perhaps for the first time) about what sexual contact with a same-sex partner might be like. The authors then say this is measuring "potential homosexuality," but you and I would probably conclude that such a measure is fairly clearly indicating something other than SSA. This measure obviously would include bisexual people, and casts the net so wide, that it also could well be testing for something like novelty, curiosity, or sensation-seeking, rather than actual sexual orientation. In this study, 32.8% of men and 65.4% of women replied "yes" to that question about fantasy, in contrast to 3.1% of men and 1.2% of women who described themselves as actually homosexually active.
The results were:
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Activity[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Genetics[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Shared Environment[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Nonshared Environment[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Men[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]27% (2.7-38)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]0% (0-18)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]73% (62-85)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Women[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]16% (8.3-24)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]0% (0-3.6)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]84% (76-91)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Potential[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Men[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]37% (12-47)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]0% (0-19)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]63% (53-73)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Women[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]46% (32-52)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]0% (0-11)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]54% (48-60)[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Table 1. Relative influence of various factors for the Santtila and Sandnabba (2008) data. Error ranges in parentheses are the 95% (2 sigma) error range.[/FONT]
The table shows that the estimated genetic contributions are a few tens of percent, but that the error ranges (in brackets) are quite large and this could possibly mean the genetic contribution is zero. This is exactly the same as has been found previously. They also show that the non-shared environmental contribution (i.e. environmental factors particular to the individual) greatly predominate - in other words they are the largest group of causes of SSA.
Are genetic contribution results of say 27% important? No. In the twin studies world the influence would be classified as weak to modest. And any influence is indirect - it is likely to be something like an innate tendency to be very sensitive to the opinions of others. However, even this weak or modest genetic contribution is probably greatly overstated.
Twin study researchers usually involve the siblings of identical twin subjects as much as possible, because they are genetically related to the same degree as fraternal twins, hence like substitute fraternal twins. This sibling/twin comparison is very interesting because it tests for any special twin environment. For example, did the twins influence each other to be SSA? Or did the genetic similarity between the identical twins and siblings cause some lesser SSA in the siblings also? In this case, the siblings were tested along with the identical twins and fraternal twins and the results were meaningless-- i.e., they did not yield results compatible with genetic influence in SSA. Although the authors do not specify exactly what the problem was, it must have been severe ("...attempts at fitting uni-variate and bi-variate extended-family scripts for categorical data were not successful...." which is scientese for the explanation I give above). This would usually be enough to destroy a study of genetic influences, but rather incredibly, the authors simply and blithely ignore the siblings for the rest of the paper, and use the twins only, to present a calculated genetic influence. Rather, no genetic influence at all is shown when all the data are included.
This is an unusual problem for the method, so the authors with the general approval of the scientific community, including the referees of the paper, implicitly say "Well, there is an inconsistency here that will take years to sort out but in the interim here is what the results would be using the traditional methods if we ignore this." This is some use to the researchers, though laymen may shake their heads at the procedure.
As usual in these studies, family upbringing ("shared environment") was consistent with a zero percentage influence, as shown in the table, but I contend again as I have in previous talks and articles that many family factors are hidden in the non-shared environment contribution, and highly individualistic and important to the people concerned. Thus for example, the influence of a distant father may well be critical for many individuals - but might not affect an identical twin at all.
The results, by my calculations, do in fact, reinforce one conclusion drawn from previous studies. That is, if one identical twin--male or female--has SSA, the chances are only about 10% that the co-twin also has it. In other words, identical twins usually differ for SSA.
In spite of the above-cited criticisms, some useful points emerge from the study. The sample is probably the least biased so far. The authors believe prenatal hormonal theories as a cause of SSA do not hold up, because they should lead to greater similarity between identical twins, not less similarity as we see above. Also, we see a continuation of an already-established trend -- the more recent and better-conducted the study, the smaller the detected genetic influence on SSA. In the meantime, the reader should continue to assume that genetic causal effects on SSA are minor, and that other, very individualistic factors predominate.
Reference List
Bailey, J.M., Dunne, M.P., & Martin, N.G. (2000). Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524-536.
Bearman, P.S., & Bruckner, H. (2002). Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1179-1205.
Buhrich, N., Bailey, J.M., & Martin, N.G. (1991). Sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sex-dimorphic behaviors in male twins. Behavior Genetics, 21, 75-96.
Hershberger, S.L. (1997). A twin registry study of male and female sexual orientation. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 212-222.
Santtila, P., Sandnabba, N.K., Harlaar, N., Varjonen, M., Alanko, K., & von der Pahlen, B. (2008). Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic. Biological Psychology, 77(1), 102-105.
If I had your passion for the topic, it would be easy to pull more.
And your lack of proper citations speaks for itself.
Sorry buddy,
I'm not going to get sucked into it. This is my only point and it still stands:
BigBadWlf claimed "All available evidence suggests..." and I was merely pointing out that "No, not all available evidence suggests that."
I have to address the absurd stereotype of gays and lesbians you are presenting here.it is a choice that is cultivated by our environment.
what are homosexual tendencies? If a boy starts playing with dolls and likes the colour pink does that mean he is gay? If a boy likes the look of dresses and thinks they are pretty does that mean he is gay? Or what if a girl doesn't like dresses and likes to play with trucks and do boy things. Does that mean she is gay?
Our culture labels quickly and pushes people into thinking they are that label. children do not have sexual tendencies and if they seem to take on one of these labels it just means they are drawn to them it doesn't mean they are gay. people are not born with sexual desires so they are not born with homosexual desires (or heterosexual desires for that matter). They are born as a boy or a girl and their sexual desires develop as they grow up.
Unfortunately no matter how you raise children the culture around them will label them in some way. you may think it is a positive or negative label but they will all get labeled and many will grow up believing that label. Parents do the same things. If a 5 yr boy is drawn to his sisters dolls the father is quickly ready to stop that behavior and push all kinds of "boy" things to him. Without knowing it the father has labeled the son by telling him that "playing with dolls are for girls". What if that desire to play with dolls continues and the father continues to push boy things. The child may grow up thinking that he is not a normal boy and he may react on these labels and actually become homosexual thinking he was born this way.
we need to respond to these desires in the right way instead of misguiding the child with a label scaring them to become heterosexual. We need to recognize them and show our children that they are not wrong and teach them how they can express these desires without getting a cultural label or teach them how to properly respond to labels they get. I'm not talking about boys wanting to have sex with boys, or girls wanting to have sex with girls (because children don't think about those things on their own) i'm talking about children being drawn to what we may label gay.
So lets have this singular example.
Please present a legitimately published peer reviewed scientific study from, oh say the last 20 years that provides demonstrable evidence that homosexuality is a choice.
And without anything to back this up its just so much hot air.This is my only point and it still stands:
You claimed "All available evidence suggests that sexual orientation is inborn just like race" and I pointed out that "No, not all available evidence suggests that.
ScienceDaily (June 30, 2008) Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins.
....Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.
In 2002, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics produced a report into the possible link between genes and behaviour, which included sexual orientation.
It concluded: "There are numerous problems with genetic and other biological research into sexual orientation which mean that any reported findings must be viewed with caution."
It said many of the genetic studies were too small to draw definite conclusions from.
Alan Wardle from the gay rights charity Stonewall said: "This is an interesting debate and there may well be a genetic element, but it's not conclusive.
"It does not really matter whether it is nature or nurture.
"The important thing is getting equality for homosexual people."
Genes are enablers, not constrainers. They create new possibilities for the organism; they do not reduce its options The new possibilities are open to experience, not scripted in advance. Genes no more constrain human nature than extra programs constrain a computer Genes, unlike gods, are conditional. They are exquisitely good at simple if-then logic: if in a certain environment, then develop in a certain way Dont be frightened of genes. They are not gods, they are cogs
(Valenstein, E. S. (1998). Blaming the brain: The truth about drugs and mental health. New York, NY: The Free Press, pp.140-141, 224).Most recent claims that a gene has been discovered that causes alcoholism, schizophrenia, [or] homosexuality have proven illusory genes do not produce behavioral or mental states. Genes carry the instructions and template for producing and assembling amino acids and proteins into anatomical structures. Behavior and mental traits; however, are the product of an interaction between anatomical structure and experience Even where there is compelling evidence that some behavioral or mental trait is influenced by genetic factors it is almost always a predisposition, not a certainty a predisposition is not a cause.
Secondary source…always a bad idea
What factors exactly? How are they identified as factors? What evidence is there to support the claim that these mystery factors play some role here?factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.
Secondary source…again
(Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human.
and evidence of these mysterious unnamed “factors”? well…noneNew York: HaperCollins, p. 250).
and this is about homosexuality? No it isn’tValenstein, E. S. (1998). Blaming the brain: The truth about drugs and mental health. New York, NY: The Free Press, pp.140-141, 224).
And evidence presented well tragically none. Opinions yes but just opinions.
You are confusing sexual acts with sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is a pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, both genders, neither gender, or another gender
To claim homosexuality is a function of will then you are saying that you could, here and now, choose to change your sexual orientation, take up life as a gay man, fall in love, find a mate, get married, buy a house, raise children with this man and be happy doing so.
Red hair appears in people with two copies of a recessive gene on chromosome 16 which causes a change in the MC1R protein. On which Chromosome has the recessive and dominate gene of homosexuality been identified & proven and what does it affect?All available evidence suggests that sexual orientation is inborn just like left/right handedness.
Now one could take a left handed child and through years of emotional and physical abuse train that child to write with his right hand….but that child would still be left handed no matter what external behaviors are observed
All available evidence suggests that sexual orientation is inborn just like race.
One’s religion is not a product of free will?
Again you could take a left handed child and through years of emotional and physical abuse train that child to write with his right hand….but that child would still be left handed no matter what external behaviors are observed.
It is important to note the vast numbers of s0 called “ex-gays” who latter recant their testimonies saying that they never changed sexual orientation and apologizing for lying to their friends and family and the public at large
As noted when researchers go hunting for such people they can’t find any it is also strange that ex-gay ministries lie Exodus claim to have helped change “hundreds of thousands” of homosexuals into heterosexuals but they can’t actually name any of these “hundreds of thousands” of people.
Please don’t misrepresent what I wrote…it is rude.
To lie and pretend to be heterosexual when one is not is dishonest
Just like being heterosexual has nothing to do with love or emotional commitment or family…its just animalistic sex drive…right?
To degrade and animalize a minority is standard procedure in justifying personal prejudice and discrimination
You most certainly implied it was…again attempting to associate a minority to a sex crime
You apparently don’t know anything about rape
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?