However, congenital factors are not necessarily genetic. There is a lot of variation in even the expression of one gene. Why else, would there be some variation in identical twins.
There is evidence that suggests, in pairs of identical twins (even those that are raised apart), an elevated incidence of homosexual behavior. It is not 100% concordance, but it is elevated.
We should also examine the case of girls born with CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia). CAH involves excess levels of androgens produced by the adrenal gland. These girls are masculinized in their behavior. About 40% are lesbian, versus about 5% in the total population. Occam's Razor would tell us the most likely reason is the exposure to androgens in the womb.
My opinion of Concerned Women of America, like a lot of other groups tied to television evangelism, is probably afflicted with "True Believer Syndrome", an inability to accept alternate explanations. Sort of like some of the leftist groups, but in reverse.
Occam's Razor has been dulled by fallacies of logic. Sharpened up, it would tell you the drive to mate in mammals and other sexually reproducing organisms is biologically heterosexual.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
My opinion of Concerned Women of America, like a lot of other groups tied to television evangelism, is probably afflicted with "True Believer Syndrome", an inability to accept alternate explanations.
An ad hominem fallacy you can't use on an atheist like myself...
Or to put it another way, the author did not set out with an open mind and go where the data led him. He had an agenda, and he set out to prove it.
I disagree with all of you who think this is a fine piece of work. It is not. It is not scholarly nor objective. I am a Republican and a conservative, but I will not surrender my scientific objectivity on this topic simply because many conservatives believe homosexuality is a sin. Lack of objectivity for purposes of proving one's preconceived notions hurts us all. I can't do it. It's wrong. Make all the moral arguments you want but do not try to twist science to say what it does not. That is what was done here and it is really objectionable.
Let me give you an example from the paper's discussion of Michael Bailey's twin study:
In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality. Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category. But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.35
"This finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic factors influencing homosexuality," writes Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, "because … in order for something to be genetically determined, as opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to approach 100 percent."
This is the art of the demagogue. Sure, physical traits such as height and eye color show heritabilities of 90% or more. But there is no expection of such a high value for a psychological trait such as sexual preference. You simply do not see heritability values that high when you are dealing with psychological traits. Doesn't happen.
Moreover, if there is no genetic influence on homosexuality, when a man who is a twin is gay, the likelihood that his co-twin is gay should be the same regardless of whether that co-twin is identical or fraternal. But that isn't what the data show. In fact Bailey's data does show a high heritability--which Satinover ignores. CWA does not tell you just how high it is, but you can figure it out from the numbers given. It comes out to a heritablity of 60%. If that held with repeat testing it would be on the high side for a psychological trait. Even if the heritability settled in at the range of 40% it would still be significant however.
What matters IMO is that at this time research does find that both twins are more likely to be homosexual if they are identical than fraternal twins. This require explanation, and the CWA people lose credibility by writing it off the way they do.
The also found the lesbians who were thin and skinny also had CAH, but the were androgen insensitive, meaning the androgens did not cause their bodies to become masculine/butch, but CAH did affect their minds.
This was an interesting condition that explained why some lesbians were butch and some lesbians were thin and skinny.