[tdadams]

Studies in twin data suggest the opposite.

I have to laugh when I see people post "twin studies" to argue that there's no biological component to homosexuality when any honest interpretation of twin studies suggests exactly the opposite. With monozygotic twins, the chances of both being homosexual are 1 in 2. For non-twin siblings, the chances are 1 in 20.

Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.

[Always Right]

I have to laugh when I see people post "twin studies" to argue that there's no biological component to homosexuality when any honest interpretation of twin studies suggests exactly the opposite.

I have to laugh at the way you read my post. Where did I say no biological component?

[lentulusgracchus]

Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.

While I continue to be impressed by the number of psychologists and psychiatrists who resist the official Party Line of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association (yes, two APA's -- and there's actually a third! the American Psychotherapy (sp?) Ass'n.) which has been essentialist for a while now, I still think the essentialist argument needs to be met head-on: so what?

Gayness is maladaptive, and society ought to be concentrating on gays' admitting that fact, and on agreeing to ameliorate it -- by, for one thing, working to reduce contacts between predatory gay adults and teenagers, and taking "skinned chicken" off the menu.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

All are still genetically male or female. They are sterile. XO (Turner syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XXX (poly-X syndrome), and XYY (Jacob syndrome). No matter how many X chromosones there are, any individual with a Y chromosone develops into a male. These abnormalities are so few, only one in several hundreds of thousands occur (about 0.022% of the human population - do the calculus).

Keeping in mind people with the previously listed syndromes are sterile, they cannot pass those genotypes or phenotypes to offspring.

So much for the "gay" gene - - it does not exist.
I object to voodoo science based upon personal idolatries of vanity. This idolatry of perversion is a totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion.

Instead of making the open declaration it is a human anatomical perversion they enjoy, the idols of vanity and impoverished ego require the invention of some religion to justify it.

Homosexual acts are no more a genetic trait than identical acts practiced by heterosexuals. (You know which ones I'm talking about.)

[Clint N. Suhks]

Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.

You don’t know very many MZ twin studies do you? There are at least a dozen. 1. You are probably citing the Bailey/Pillard 1992 study which was discredited by Bailey himself for the biased non-random sample. . 2. The Hershberger 1997 registry study had a 0% concordance rate for males and the Bailey/Martin 2000 registry study had a 0% concordance rate for females. 3. Since you know so much about “understanding objective scientific studies” perhaps you can tell us why in real science is replaceable except when it comes to twin studies?

[John O]

(I only pinged those involved in the discussion. As I attempt to fill in some holes and/or touch some untouched bases please ping those who you think would be interested. I have a whole chain of responses coming but will only ping you to this one. Excellent points made by all previously except for tdadams. (Sorry tdadams but you seem to dance around all the questions without ever answering any. Change that, you did answer one but claimed that you answered it five times previously. You either need to learn to be more precise and concrete in your wording or to be more thick skinned when people accuse you of obfuscation)

On to the posts!

With monozygotic twins, the chances of both being homosexual are 1 in 2. For non-twin siblings, the chances are 1 in 20.

Anyone who can say that supports a finding of "no correlation" is either completely incapable of understanding objective scientific studies or is simply and unabashedly dishonest.

The point that I have never seen raised in any of these twin studies is that identical twins raised by the same parents are normally raised far more similarly than fraternal twins or non-twin siblings. That is, the nurture part of the equation can still be counted on to such a large degree that the nature part cannot be established. (After all, the identical twins wear the same clothes, have the same experiences, have the same expectations etc. It's highly likely that if one is molested the other will be also.)

Now if someone's done a study of sets of separated identicals raised in similar households (that is each twin raised in a household similar to yet separate from his twin) and sets raised in dissimilar households then maybe we'd get some better data. As it is however, with identical genetic material, if one was 'gay' I'd expect the other to be also. This is not the case in any study.

If any one knows of some such study I'd be inetersted in seeing it.