Replies

I don't know that much science, either. I like reading about science and nature, but I'm no scientist.

Do identical twins have exactly the same DNA? If so, then just using logic if you had any cases where one twin was homosexual and one was not, then you'd have to argue that none of those cases were genetic in order to preserve the notion that it's genetic.

I don't think you could argue that. Nobody is saying it's 100% genetic. There are genetic factors that influence behavior, but they interplay with environmental ones.

One of the researcher teams quoted in the article was Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Brückner, to show that there wasn't a significantly greater concordance for identical twins than fraternal ones. But the team found an interesting wrinkle to this: Fraternal twins can be of the opposite sex. Boys who have a twin sister, it turns out, are twice as likely to be sexually attracted to boys, than one would expect. But only if they didn't have any older brothers! This argues that environmental factors are very important in developing sexual preferences.

Anyhow, the article is a bit underdeveloped, and the headline is wrong. Gays aren't "born that way" -- a lesbian says so: not quite. She was speaking for herself. Maybe she's bi; who cares?

But people are saying and it is an often repeated argument in favor of the homosexual agenda that they are born that way. If that is the case, then you can easily make the next argument that, therefore, sexual preference is intrinsic like skin color. So biases against homosexuality are like biases against skin color. I don't care whether environment plays a role, or people just make a choice. I believe both are true. Those “causes” of homosexuality don't support the case for reversing 4000 years of traditional heterosexual marriage. When people claim that there is at least some component of the community that was “born that way”, it sounds reasonable that their lifestyle should get the full support of the government because like skin color they can't change what they are. Of course even if the tendency is genetic, that still doesn't mean that it is a “good” inherited trait, but the fact that it was inherited (if it could be proven) absolves the recipient of the trait from having responsibility for conforming to what is “natural” for them. It fits in the model of alcoholism is a disease. Strangely, though, we still expect people to resist that genetic predisposition if it is one. The point is, is that if you could prove homosexuality is not genetic (in any cases), then engagement in the behavior does not have the excuse that “nature or G_d made me that way”. Anyway, sound like you know more about biology than I do. I'm just trying to apply logic.