1 posted on
05/26/2009 8:24:46 PM PDT by
Maelstorm
To: Maelstorm
Homoesexuality is as natural as an other birth defect.
2 posted on
05/26/2009 8:26:59 PM PDT by
Tempest
(Honk if I'm paying for your bonus.)
To: Maelstorm
Is this another stupid government grant study???
To: Maelstorm
Fifteen year ago I argued with a good friend, a twin expert, that homosexuality isn’t genetic. She is one of the totally PC PhDs in Psychology. She told me I didn’t understand research. I have worked on several research projects and her comment hurt our 30+ years friendship. I was right and she was wrong. Too bad I am not close with her anymore or I would have a terrific ‘I told you so’ moment.
To: Maelstorm
It confirms the best recent studies, which tell us that genetic factors are minor... So therefore, there is a genetic link to homosexuality.
Minor as it may be it does exist.
Thanks.
7 posted on
05/26/2009 9:09:09 PM PDT by
trumandogz
(The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
To: Maelstorm
What's interesting is that the pro-gay crowd always hype the minor factors without even understanding just how minor they are (linkages and associations). Scientists on both sides of the issue have always acknowledged a
genetic component to homosexuality, yet that
genetic component cannot be expanded to imply homosexuals are
born that way. That is, born with their same-sex attraction.
Unfortunately, that won't stop the pro-gay crowd from misrepresenting the data and overstating the minor factors as something of any significance. No, they'd rather hype the insignificant as, apparently, the actual data is too difficult for them to grasp.
The data continues to state homosexuals are not born with their same sex attraction and that environment is a significant factor.
9 posted on
05/26/2009 10:32:11 PM PDT by
scripter
("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
To: Maelstorm
I don’t understand how anyone could believe that there is not a genetic component.
It exists in other species. Mother nature does not make “mistakes” this often, sorry.
I don’t claim to know the “reason” why, by the way.
Besides, a guy like me would have to have a genetic component to be attracted to another male.
There is nothing within my control, NOTHING, that would change my preference. I simply could not be sexually attracted to a male.
This is merely introspection I know. But I just can’t see it happening any other way.
This is leaving aside the molestation/rape factor which does influence things.
At the end of the day, I don’t care who loves who and what they do consentually.
I don’t want the definition of marriage changed, however. Equal rights, fine, but the term “marriage” should not include same sex couples.
10 posted on
05/26/2009 11:08:24 PM PDT by
Boucheau
To: Maelstorm
These "Twin Studies" are always statistical in nature (as the article clearly suggests). I note no reference to the Margin of Error. I suspect it could be as high as 10%. Hence the <10% genetic correlation is probabaly itself just an anomaly that someone failed to correct for in the interest of reporting some level of gentic correlation.
12 posted on
05/27/2009 8:20:15 AM PDT by
jboot
(Let Christ be true and every man a liar.)
To: Maelstorm
These "Twin Studies" are always statistical in nature (as the article clearly suggests). I note no reference to the Margin of Error. I suspect it could be as high as 10%. Hence the <10% genetic correlation is probabaly itself just an anomaly that someone failed to correct for in the interest of reporting some level of gentic correlation.
13 posted on
05/27/2009 8:20:19 AM PDT by
jboot
(Let Christ be true and every man a liar.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson