[Always Right]

With little variation, monozygotic twins have a correlation of about 1 in 2, dizygotic twins only 1 in 5. Again, you're making a blatantly dishonest representation.

What is so dishonest. A greater than 1 in 5 rate for homosexality is quite significant. That's a greater than 4 times increase in the normal rate. You are the one being blatantly dishonest by saying 'only'.

[tdadams]

What is so dishonest. A greater than 1 in 5 rate for homosexality is quite significant.

Exactly. Thank you for making my point!

If non-twin siblings have an orientation correlation of 1 in 20, dizygotic twins have a correlation of 1 in 5 and monozygotic twins have a correlation of 1 in 2, that is statistically significant.

There would seem to be an indisputable, if unknown, biological element involved in sexual orientation.

[John O]

What is so dishonest. A greater than 1 in 5 rate for homosexality is quite significant. That's a greater than 4 times increase in the normal rate. You are the one being blatantly dishonest by saying 'only'.

A significant increase that can still be totally explained by nurture