Posted on 06/01/2013 5:59:38 PM PDT by Coleus
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”
Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.
For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.
The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.
“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”
A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.
In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.
“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”
“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.
Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”
Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.
The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”
“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”
Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”
I think you are right.
I’ve heard some liberal/gay activist types talk about why so many lesbians have been married to men or involved with men in their pasts. And the reason stated was that, since society pressures us so much into certain behaviors, that these lesbians felt pressured to be involved with men to conform to society’s expectations.
What will the libs call us now, “Gay Deniers”?
I think they are. At the same time, I don't think their condition has a thing to do with genetics. If it was genetic, you'd see families with a high incidence of homosexuality, and others with none at all.
In my observation, homosexuality is a mental thing. Sure, some people can be indoctrinated into it through force, but sexual preference is pretty basic to personality. Some folks are just born with crossed wires, ya know?
It seems to naturally follow that any gene that trends toward non-reproduction would eventually be depleted from the genome after some number of generations. Certainly after millions of generations.
Like... if there was a sterility gene. Seems that over time it would be less and less likely to pass itself to new generations.
FWIW, I was in Target today and saw a group of 4 or 5 teen boys.. They all looked SISSY; like little Justin Biebers and I thought to myself WHAT THE F*** HAS HAPPENED TO BOYS??!!!!! Where are the boys’ fathers?? Oh wait, their father probably loves Justin Bieber too! LOL
What about the hermaphrodites?
There was an article about one “woman” here, recently, whose clitoris was a partially-developed penis, or something like that.
That assumption works on the condition that homosexuals are allowed to vanish out of the gene pool. However, until recently, many married and maintained heterosexual relationships, reproducing, even, before coming out. This would be more relevant in stigmatising societies.
I am reminded of a medical article I read many years ago.
A young man from way back in the hills was drafted for WWII.
His mother died when he was born and he had no women in his life at all. He grew up around men, never seeing a woman.
When drafted they noticed something strange about him so they gave him some tests.
1. They showed him pictures of naked women. No reaction.
2. They showed him pictures of naked men. No reaction.
They did not know what to think of it when another doctor, made aware of the boy’s upbringing, tried something different.
3. They showed him pictures of a cow. WOW! Instant reaction.
I hope these scientists are independently wealthy, because they are about to be consumed by the pro-sodomite forces running rampant in the global system.
Homosexuals better hope it is not genetic cuz there will be an abortopalooza if homosexuality can ever be determined in the womb. What a conundrum that will be for liberals. Although they don’t seem to be too concerned about gender selective abortion. I guess the rite of abortion trumps all other political correctness.
been saying this for at least ten years here, since i knew of’these studies.
to clarify, i have’been saying “being gay” is not genetic, because if it were, both identical twins would have to be gay, 100% of the time.
I see the same thing all the time. I’m pushing 60 and can intimidate nearly any young man I see any more, and I’m not exactly Chuck Norris. I feel like telling them they should be ashamed to be scared of me.
That is because they didn't have a "romantic attraction" they were only told they did.
There are four types of love; agape, eros, storge, philia. Roughly charity, sexual love, love of friends, love of family.
Although they have done their best to kill it, love of family is still understood but charity and love of friends have been successfully scrubbed from societal understanding.
So when you are female and have a best friend who is female for whom you have warm affection you are told that you must have a "girl crush" at best and that you are lesbian at worse.
If you are a male it is the same if not worse.
bookmark.
Thanks for posting. Even the worst studies don’t show a possible correlation of more than chance. Meaning that you have the predictability of a coin flip of whether one twin will be or not. It doesn’t mean there isn’t biological contributors of course and I believe there are but its more like other complex traits like adultery and there are studies that show exactly that.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002484.html
There are good reasons for encouraging what the ‘progressive’ sexual proponents label heteronormative society as there are also good reasons for encouraging what would be called monogamynormative society. It benefits through helping stabilize relationships and encourage the formation of biological families and move sex away from selfish aims and reign it in with a sense of responsibility. It also helps to minimize disease both mental and sexual something we have seen a rise in. Its not that there will not be exceptions but the rule is what keeps exceptions from becoming so great they destabilize social structure at a great cost. The same people pushing gay marriage also held up birth control and contraception as substitutes for morality and responsibility and we see how that has worked out. We have more broken families and more kids raised in environments where they are likely not to know or live with their father and these kids are far more likely to use illegal drugs, be depressed, and end up in prison. Now we are moving another step towards the abyss. Now we are openly encouraging the production of families where children will have a biological donor or surrogate rather than a father and a mother. We are producing a society where larger number of children by design will have less biological connections and that has shown to be a dangerous thing increasing risk of abuse for those kids no matter how well intentioned the circumstances may be. This also sets up what will be a need for an even greater role of government in family life. Now we will have the government redefining the very nature of normal familial relationships and forcing through law the norming of less stable family structures to satisfy pop cultural political correctness with the goal to make even suggesting that Men should marry women is bigotry and fully expect them to go the next step to make heterosexual marriage ‘uncool’ its wont be too far of a leap from what they’ve already been doing for the past 40 years.
So in the end the Feminists and leftist sexual progressives get what they wanted all along which is the end of the patriarchy and an end to the traditional family which they see as the basic structural unit of not just the patriarchy but also the capitalist system.
The clitoris is the same structure as the penis. Add testosterone and it grows large.
The human genotype contains all the structures for both male and female... both genders have all the same parts. They differentiate because of hormonal influences and the single sex controlling gene.
penis = clitoris
ovaries = testes
As an example, male breasts are identical to female breasts. Add estrogen and then they look identical. Males can even nurse children. Breast size does not equate to milk producing ability. Some medications have the side effect of causing lactation in the male... a frightening side effect to be sure.
I know... it's all rather weird and startling. Mother Nature has a sense of humor perhaps.
now the he/she will have to have his Adam’s Apple surgically removed, only males have them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.