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.
And Blockland and Geffen and Bailey and Pillard and Blum and Byne and Parsons and Bearman and Bruckner and Bailey and Dunne and Martin And many many others doing independent twin studies and all coming to the same conclusionsLeVay, if I'm not mistaken.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the study of genetics and how genes workIf it was inborn, there would be a direct correlation and the study could be repeated with the same results.
Then cite them.And Blockland and Geffen and Bailey and Pillard and Blum and Byne and Parsons and Bearman and Bruckner and Bailey and Dunne and Martin And many many others doing independent twin studies and all coming to the same conclusions
Do explain.You might want to familiarize yourself with the study of genetics and how genes work
Your exaggeration isn't very impressive unless it's backed by evidence.There are thousands of legitimately published studies providing evidence that sexual orientation is inborn.
The e are however no studies showing that homosexuality is a choice or the result ofhwo one was raised, or the result of ones relationship with either parent, or childhood sexual trauma, or any other familial factor. If you know of such a legitimately published study then please reference it so we may all read it.
There are thousands of legitimately published studies providing evidence that sex
ual orientation is inborn.
The are however no studies showing that homosexuality is a choice or the result ofhwo one was raised, or the result of ones relationship with either parent, or childhood sexual trauma, or any other familial factor. If you know of such a legitimately published study then please reference it so we may all read it.
You'll always be my sock, though with the training this one will be used less.Oh, and by the way, the reason I and not Jawsmetroid is responding is because I AM Jaws. He's a sock of mine. Or am I a sock of his? Jaws came first... but whatever.
You do not seem to have a grasp of the basics of genetics. If you want to make claims about genetics you should at least have a basic understandingDo explain.
Giving me something you've written doesn't do me any good unless you are an authority on the subject, and even if you were you're biased. That's not evidence, neither is citing a bunch of names. Or giving some list. Giving some list doesn't give me access to the material.You do not seem to have a grasp of the basics of genetics. If you want to make claims about genetics you should at least have a basic understanding
\
having a specific gene or set of genes does not mean that said gene(s) are active. For example type 1 diabetes generally has a genetic origin (a faulty gene on chromosome 6 if memory serves) yet in identical twins there is only a 32% correspondence meaning that if one win has type 1 diabetes there is only a 32% chance that the other twin has type1 diabetes too. The various twin studies you are dismissing show a rather consistent 52% correspondence with homosexuality, a very significant correspondence and one of the highest correspondences known among identical twins. The highest correspondence is eye color which has a 98% correspondence.
Wow a non-peer reviewed vanity press published essay who could doubt the factual basis of THAT?I beg to differ.
"Homosexuality: Biologically or Environmentally Constructed." 6 Nov. 2006 <http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html>.
Jones, Stanton L., and Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity P, 2000.
Try looking
Thousands? Really? On this planet?
Evidence? I could claim the same for the slew of studies you gave me.Wow a non-peer reviewed vanity press published essay who could doubt the factual basis of THAT?
Which of the studies I presented was not published in a recognized scientific journal after passing peer review?Evidence? I could claim the same for the slew of studies you gave me.
I'm telling you that the sources I cited are legit, and all you've done is claimed that they are not. I can do that too, and until you provide evidence for your claim, neither one of us is getting anywhere. You also didn't even bother to give anything other than a list of things. No links, no indication of what they might be about, just a list.Which of the studies I presented was not published in a recognized scientific journal after passing peer review?
So you are now saying that you cannot claim any of the studies I presented were not published in a recognized scientific journal after passing peer review.I'm telling you that the sources I cited are legit, and all you've done is claimed that they are not. I can do that too, and until you provide evidence for your claim, neither one of us is getting anywhere. You also didn't even bother to give anything other than a list of things. No links, no indication of what they might be about, just a list.
Giving me something you've written doesn't do me any good unless you are an authority on the subject, and even if you were you're biased. That's not evidence, neither is citing a bunch of names. Or giving some list. Giving some list doesn't give me access to the material.
I could easily claim that. And then we're at war with nothing but claims in our arsenal. You really want to go there?So you are now saying that you cannot claim any of the studies I presented were not published in a recognized scientific journal after passing peer review.
you do realize this was not a published study at all dont you?
I don't really care. You haven't provided any reason for me to buy what you've said about genetics, or why your studies are legit. Why should I?It is a research topic submitted by Thompson and Devine for a class, specifically Nature of Human Nature course. At Miami university in Oxford Ohio, a community college.
Your first and third 'facts' are irrelevant to homosexuality. Your second 'fact' is backed once again by a list that has no verification. Provide verification, and debunk the criticism those studies have received. They're not exactly new.Again verification of what are pretty well known facts isnt that tough. Or maybe you just want to throw mud at facts by implying that they are not.
Fact 1: Genetic origin of type I diabetes and twin correspondence
American Diabetes Association
Hyttinen V. (2003)
Todd E. (2007)
Fact 2: Twin studies showing 52% correspondence with homosexuality
Bailey and Pillard (1991)
Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000)
Hershberger, Scott L. (2001)
Bearman, P. S. & Bruckner, H. (2002)
Långström, Niklas (2008)
Fact 3: twin eye color
Laszlo Z. (1997)
Zhu G. (2004)
Posthuma D. (2006)
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?