Pick a side on gay issue!

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

As for the distinguishing reality? All you seem to be saying to me is “WE BREED, DAMMIT!”, and as I have noted before, so do fish, flies, and dogs, the difference being animals havent taken it to fetish/totem status, and non-breeding member are not treated as pariahs.

And fish and dogs don’t have governments either, or laws, or money, or weddings, nor do fish and dogs take 18 years to reach maturity.
But that isn’t your reason for mentioning animals, is it? You use the term “breeding” and compare human beings to animals to dehumanize and devalue people who have children, so that you can hold up same-sex relationships as somehow more human, as based on love, commitment, etc. However, this is no different than if we compared gay couples to a dog mounting a male dog and pointed out that the dog doesn’t expect special status for engaging in such behavior. In other words, you attempt to strip procreation and the family of all their human and emotional aspects, yet present sodomy as an embodiment of higher emotional impulses. You can’t have it both ways. In fact, you are actually reversing the emphasis from the way it exists in real life - an honest look at gay culture vs. the traditional family will reveal that.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

As far as I can tell the heart has one function, but has been co-opted in the past to speedily distribute drugs through a body, and sometimes concentrated nutrients. These functions are based on the obvious function, and potentially always existed, but only became real when someone did it.

Other parts of the body have primary and co-primary functions. Is the mouth for eating, breathing, talking… And if someone refuses to talk (frustrating it co-primary purpose) is this sinful?

It is clear, looking at the genitals they do have other functions, and clearly simply disaproving of the use does not mean that use (and therefore function) does not exist.

I’m glad you think this is stupid, it simply highlights the difference between opinion and empiricism.

This is why we need to understand such things in a rational way.

In your heart example we can see that the reason we have a heart is to circulate blood. That other ends may be achieved by using this system does not mean that function of the heart was intended for each desired use. If one wanted to kill someone by injecting a bolus of toxin through an artery that does not mean the intended function of the heart is to kill.

Similarly, that genital organs may be used for incorrect purposes in no way means their design was intended for such uses.

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by Digger71
Of course, the counter argument is that you prefer to believe gays have eros and friendship mixed up so that you can pretend gays are confused, and their feelings are different to yours (meaning yours are correct).

Everything I know about the subject informs me the feelings are the same. Denial of this fact by doctrine puts the doctrine in to question.

I am not denying that God made us in His likeness and image as enfleshed spiritual beings, endowed with rational, free will and emotive capabilities. However, in order of primacy, we are ordered first as rational beings, not emotional beings, i.e., the rationale is meant to properly control and manage our emotions/ feelings. What becomes “mixed up” is when this heirachical ordering is displaced when feelings are given the gavel, or if there is a constitutional disturbance/disorder (mental, emotional, and/or spiritual) that significantly biases or impairs a person’s ability to respond to the natural law directives/programming that God has given each person, or simple defiance/rejection of God’s norms.

Firstly, **feeling normally define reality ** in the human spehere, people act or refrain from actions based on their feelings bringing about changes in the environmnent in accordance with their will. If someone does not want to have children, for example, generally they wont either by active or passive intervention.

This is where we vastly differ. Feelings are designed to simply function as sources of feedback in response to stimuli about how our internal frame of reference is interpreting and applying meaning to external stimuli, data, and can act as a catalyst to engage a decision making process whereby one arrives at willful action. Erroneous interpretation (“define”) of reality can occur by insufficient information and our subjectively formed internal frame of reference (values, beliefs, constitutional disorder), i.e., denial or refusal of reality (reality= the full acceptance of the truth as revealed by God via natural and revealed moral law).

IOW – In your schemata, who calls the shots? Your subjective feeling experience or your rationale? Secondly, if your rationale does, then how is your rationale formed and informed and by whose standards? How you answer these questions largely determines which God or god that you are serving. I say serving because we are all creatures, and creatures are not omnipotent or self-sustaining and must necessarily bend the knee before one greater then themselves.

Feelings also act as a filter on perception, perception, being the doorway to the mind means feelings define your reality by filtration and interpretation.

I must correct you here: Feelings DO NOT interpret reality. Feelings DO subjectively flavor and influence one’s perception of reality. But ultimately, it is one’s cognitive function that interprets and assigns meaning to external stimuli. Your feelings are simply, and nothing more, than your emotional reactions ultimately sourcing from your cognitive processes (whether rational or irrational, i.e., not reality/truth based).

IOW – Feelings and subjective perceptions DO NOT determine what is reality, unless of course one is in denial of the existance of a caring God who is the Creator of all that is.

And indeed some do see it, and deny it, calling it a confusion of eros and friendship.

As a Catholic, the “it” of my reality is a person, the person of Jesus Christ.

 

[Digger71]

trustmc:

As for the congenital nature of homosexuality, I would submit that studies of identical twins with different sexual orientations disproves the inborn origin of this particular behavior.

Hello Mike,

I thought I would come back to you on the issues surrounding twin studies, because they certainly do prove the innateness of homosexuality.

Some facts, you can look them up if you want.

2% of the male population is gay.
48-55% of identical twins are both gay.
22% of non-identical twins are gay
11% of brothers are gay.

If there was not a strong hereditory component we would expect the normal rate to exist: that is if one twin was gay, then the other twin would have just a 2% chance of also being gay.

Of course, most people who think about the studies would expect that 100% of identical twins would would both be gay. But this is essentially an ignorant position. Not all genes are expressed automatically, some always produce an effect while others get triggered by environmental conditions. So identical twins may share the same genetic material but due to variations in environment not express it equally.

examples:
Type 1 Diabetes: If you’ve got the gene then each twin has about a 30% chance of developing diabetes.
Multiple Sclerosis: Normally your chance to develop MS is 1/3,000. If your identical twin has it it is 1/4.

Again if there where no genetic component you would expect normal incidence, not enhanced incidence.

Unfortunately, some of the fundamental assumptions in twin studies are mistaken, twins do not always share identical environments, in the womb there can be competition for food and oxygen due to sharing a placenta, the one who fights harder for these is in a different environment, environment triggers gene expression, QED… Outside the womb environment also diverges, environment triggers genes…QED.

The key point being that the assumption of 100% shared gens does not lead to 100% expression of genes. Thus, while some people would point to the ~50% rate of homosexuality as proof of a non-genetic cause, they simply do not understand how genes work or the effects of environment.

While the switching on of genes is not certain, once they are switched on their effects are inevitable.

Once you get diabetes, you have diabetes, no amount of moral fibre can stop it.

Once you develop MS you have MS. Again no amount of maral fibre can stop it.

So once the genetic component of homosexuality is activated, it is easily arguable that the outcome is inevitable.

What is the significance of this?

Inevitability and innateness would force a revisit to natural law. Arguments from design should be consitent, and if it can be argued that this is a result of design very good arguments need to be brought forward to deny it’s licitness. And, of course, the danger there is that denial of empirical evidence always damages the church and would bring in to question ofther doctrines based on design.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

What is the significance of this?

Inevitability and innateness would force a revisit to natural law. Arguments from design should be consitent, and if it can be argued that this is a result of design very good arguments need to be brought forward to deny it’s licitness. And, of course, the danger there is that denial of empirical evidence always damages the church and would bring in to question ofther doctrines based on design.

How so? If something is inborn, are you claiming that means it is not a disorder? Would you say that diabetes and MS are not disorders, then?
Or are you claiming that because same sex attraction may be innate, that homosexual activity is therefore inevitable? Do you believe that heterosexuals also have no ability to control their sexual behavior, or is it only homosexuals who are thus enslaved by their impulses?

 

[pnewton]

Digger71:

Hello Mike,

I thought I would come back to you on the issues surrounding twin studies, because they certainly do prove the innateness of homosexuality.

Some facts, you can look them up if you want.

2% of the male population is gay.
48-55% of identical twins are both gay.
22% of non-identical twins are gay
11% of brothers are gay.

If there was not a strong hereditory component we would expect the normal rate to exist: that is if one twin was gay, then the other twin would have just a 2% chance of also being gay.

Wrong. If environment is a factor, then one would expect brothers or twins to exhibit a higher correlation than the public. Since non-identical twins are only same sex 50% of the time, then one would expect that figure to be almost half, which it is.

Twins have a higher rate than brothers equally understandable, since the environment changes with time. Birth order, parents correcting mistakes in parenting and divorce could account for the difference between brothers and twins.

In any case, to expect the same rate of homosexuality in children raised together as the general popluation is absurd.

Even if evidence every surfaces that supports genetic dispostition to homosexuality, it will mean no more than excusing alcoholism on the basis of genetic disposition.

 

[Digger71]

BlindSheep:

And fish and dogs don’t have governments either, or laws, or money, or weddings, nor do fish and dogs take 18 years to reach maturity.

Each species is different. But some do have remarkably complicated social structures.

BlindSheep:

But that isn’t your reason for mentioning animals, is it? You use the term “breeding” and compare human beings to animals to dehumanize and devalue people who have children, so that you can hold up same-sex relationships as somehow more human, as based on love, commitment, etc.

Mind reading is a theatre trick. We are not in a theatre.

Please cast your mind back to my previous response. My original usage was to be cool an unemotional about the activity.

The poster I was responding to, and you to a certain extent, have refused to ackowledge and continue to misrepresent the feeling gay people have for each other. ‘Vous’ have reduced their feelings to nothing but sexual preference and assertions about sexual license.

I did state earlier that I would change my word usage when this was stopped. Unfortunately some posters cannot bring themselves to humanise the human beings, that is real live people who’s lives are so easily insulted.

In other words, you attempt to strip procreation and the family of all their human and emotional aspects, yet present sodomy as an embodiment of higher emotional impulses. You can’t have it both ways.

I am demonstrating what an unpleasant experience it is to have things you love, cherish and respect taken out of their full context.

Were I you I would reflect on the anger evidently felt and then start examining my own word usage to see whether it was time for the pot to do a colour check with the kettle.

 

[Digger71]

pnewton:

Wrong. If environment is a factor, then one would expect brothers or twins to exhibit a higher correlation than the public. Since non-identical twins are only same sex 50% of the time, then one would expect that figure to be almost half, which it is.

Identical twins demonstrate ~50% correleation, non-odentical twins demonstrate ~25%. Non-identical twins share the same 50% of the same genes. If genes were not involved the rate would be a straight, static 2%. That’s that.

pnewton:

Even if evidence every surfaces that supports genetic dispostition to homosexuality, it will mean no more than excusing alcoholism on the basis of genetic disposition.

You mix up being homosexual with the cultural artifacts evolved to deal with exclusion. Inclusion and normalisation would reduce and help eliminate those artifacts that are the totems of the anti-gay side.

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by Digger71
I thought I would come back to you on the issues surrounding twin studies, because they certainly do prove the innateness of homosexuality.

Some facts, you can look them up if you want.

2% of the male population is gay.
48-55% of identical twins are both gay.
22% of non-identical twins are gay
11% of brothers are gay.

If there was not a strong hereditory component we would expect the normal rate to exist: that is if one twin was gay, then the other twin would have just a 2% chance of also being gay.

Of course, most people who think about the studies would expect that 100% of identical twins would would both be gay. But this is essentially an ignorant position. Not all genes are expressed automatically, some always produce an effect while others get triggered by environmental conditions. So identical twins may share the same genetic material but due to variations in environment not express it equally.

Again if there where no genetic component you would expect normal incidence, not enhanced incidence.

The key point being that the assumption of 100% shared gens does not lead to 100% expression of genes. Thus, while some people would point to the ~50% rate of homosexuality as proof of a non-genetic cause, they simply do not understand how genes work or the effects of environment.

This PhD psychologist does not agree with your interpretations and conclusions:

The Importance of Twin Studies
N. E. Whitehead, Ph.D.

A constant stream of media articles–several per year–assures us that there is a link between homosexuality and biological features.

Individually some of these pieces are not very convincing, but the sheer volume of them suggests that they must amount to an overwhelming influence–or if not, further research will add to them and make it so. This is not true either, and we see shortly that twin studies refute it.

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too. But we know that only about 38% of the time is the identical twin brother homosexual. Genes are responsible for an indirect influence, but on average, they do not force people into homosexuality. This conclusion has been well known in the scientific community for a few decades (e.g. 6) but has not reached the general public. Indeed, the public increasingly believes the opposite.

So the results of identical-twin studies are critical in understanding the biological influences on homosexuality. Only for physical traits like skin color are identical twins 100% concordant; otherwise they don’t necessarily follow either their parents’ genes…or their parents’ admonitions! In this, homosexuality proves to be no different from such unrelated behaviors as violence, being extroverted, or getting divorced. All may be influenced by genes, but not overwhelmingly determined by them.

In summary:

1. No scientist believes genes by themselves infallibly make us behave in specified ways. Genes create a tendency, not a tyranny.
2. Identical twin studies show that neither genetic nor family factors are overwhelming.
3. Conclusion 2 will not be altered by any research in the future.
4. We can foster or foil genetic or family influences.
5. Change is possible.

narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

What is the significance of this?

Inevitability and innateness would force a revisit to natural law. Arguments from design should be consitent, and if it can be argued that this is a result of design very good arguments need to be brought forward to deny it’s licitness. And, of course, the danger there is that denial of empirical evidence always damages the church and would bring in to question ofther doctrines based on design.

Ah yes …the conclusions (i.e., the agenda). You must reach for a basis to “revisit”. i.e., redesign, reinterpret, natural law, rather than acknowledge that abberations from the normative do not change the normative, in order to discard God’s moral compass as defective, insufficient to not condone or to not make allowance for immoral behavior.

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

Some facts, you can look them up if you want.

2% of the male population is gay.
48-55% of identical twins are both gay.
22% of non-identical twins are gay
11% of brothers are gay.

If there was not a strong hereditory component we would expect the normal rate to exist: that is if one twin was gay, then the other twin would have just a 2% chance of also being gay.

Of course, most people who think about the studies would expect that 100% of identical twins would would both be gay. But this is essentially an ignorant position. Not all genes are expressed automatically, some always produce an effect while others get triggered by environmental conditions. So identical twins may share the same genetic material but due to variations in environment not express it equally.

examples:
Type 1 Diabetes: If you’ve got the gene then each twin has about a 30% chance of developing diabetes.
Multiple Sclerosis: Normally your chance to develop MS is 1/3,000. If your identical twin has it it is 1/4.

Again if there where no genetic component you would expect normal incidence, not enhanced incidence.

Unfortunately, some of the fundamental assumptions in twin studies are mistaken, twins do not always share identical environments, in the womb there can be competition for food and oxygen due to sharing a placenta, the one who fights harder for these is in a different environment, environment triggers gene expression, QED… Outside the womb environment also diverges, environment triggers genes…QED.

The key point being that the assumption of 100% shared gens does not lead to 100% expression of genes. Thus, while some people would point to the ~50% rate of homosexuality as proof of a non-genetic cause, they simply do not understand how genes work or the effects of environment.

While the switching on of genes is not certain, once they are switched on their effects are inevitable.

Once you get diabetes, you have diabetes, no amount of moral fibre can stop it.

So once the genetic component of homosexuality is activated, it is easily arguable that the outcome is inevitable.

Real quick since I’m net surfing again at work… But I have no disagreement here. What I object to is when people use a genetic argument to say that homosexuality is as genetically determined as, say, race or sex. It is immutable and cannot be influenced or triggered by environmental factors. One is just “born gay” as one is born caucasian or male.

I agree that homosexuality is more like diabetes. I’m a registered dietitian, and I work with a lot of obese people with family (genetic) histories of diabetes melitis to help them prevent the disease from manifestation. Like diabetes, I believe that homosexuality is also triggered by habitual, or conditioned, behavior that starts at an early age such as viewing pornography, masturbation and sexual activity, whether the person has been exposed to these or forced upon them.

Environmental factors that are present even in the womb play a part in triggering behaviors that lead to obesity and diabetes, which also have genetic origins, and the same can be hypothesised about homosexuality at this point. Just like there are identical twins who do not share the condition of diabetes, it is possible to have twins who do not have the same sexual orientation. But a twin does have a higher likelihood of diabetes if the other twin has diabetes. And this prevelance is always higher than the prevelance for diabetes among the general population given their shared history, upbringing, environmental stimuli and genetic makeup. Moreover, without a 100% correlation among twins, one can say that environment (nuture) is the biggest factor that shapes one’s orientation.

Irregardless of its origins, a legitimate question for society is still: Is it in the best interest of the individual or society to allow homosexuals to privately or publically express a homosexual desire? All societies have the express duty to regulate the bahavior of its citizens to foster the best environment in which the next generation of citizens can best preserve their cultural heritage. That homosexuals are the first self-defined “minority” of citizens that identify themselves, not by some immutable characteristic such as race or sex, but by their behavior, warrants that this debate be discussed with a sense of urgency.

We’ve already determined as a society that it is wise to prohibit or proscribe pathological behaviors that also have a genetic link, such as violence and alcoholism. A forceful argument can be made from a purely naturalistic perspective that homosexual behavior is maladaptive – that is, it prevents the continuance of society. The same can be said for each of the diseases you mentioned above. It would be fatal to allow the diabetic to indulge in the behavior that triggered his disease, as with the violent criminal and alcoholic.

Mike

 

[pnewton]

Digger71:

Identical twins demonstrate ~50% correleation, non-odentical twins demonstrate ~25%. Non-identical twins share the same 50% of the same genes. If genes were not involved the rate would be a straight, static 2%. That’s that.

No. Again, you are assuming that homosexuality is genetic in your reasoning to prove it so. If the environment was a factor, then children raised in the same environment, as in twins, would correlate higher.

Inclusion and normalisation would reduce and help eliminate those artifacts that are the totems of the anti-gay side.

But homosexuality is not normal. Never has been, Never will be. Don’t blame those you call “anti-gay.” Blame God. It’s His design.

 

[BlindSheep]

Digger71:

I am demonstrating what an unpleasant experience it is to have things you love, cherish and respect taken out of their full context.

Were I you I would reflect on the anger evidently felt and then start examining my own word usage to see whether it was time for the pot to do a colour check with the kettle.

Then you seem to have missed the post where, for the sake of argument, I went along with your characterizartion of homosexual relationships as being about love, commitment, etc. and asked you why you felt the government needed to be involved in such things.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

This PhD psychologist does not agree with your interpretations and conclusions:

narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html

Well the good doctor clearly dosnt understand genetics or 'penetrance, which is the chance of a gene expressing itself, which varies on a gene by gene basis.

This is why I included diabetes and MS as examples, in both cases the gentic factors are identical, but the chance of developing the disease is < 100% for both twins.
If the good doctor was correct in his assertion that:

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too

Then diabeties and MS would follow the same pattern. That is 100% incidence for expression in each twin if one twin should get the disease.

This was, however, already explained in my post. So the very least you should have done was read up on twin studies in general and look at other examples (such as twin studies of disease, twin studies of humour, etc) before dragging in NARTH and linking to an artcle which is immediately discredits that organisation.

 

[Digger71]

pnewton:

No. Again, you are assuming that homosexuality is genetic in your reasoning to prove it so. If the environment was a factor, then children raised in the same environment, as in twins, would correlate higher.
But homosexuality is not normal. Never has been, Never will be. Don’t blame those you call “anti-gay.” Blame God. It’s His design.

The gene in question, Q28rT I think, was found on the X chromosone of the XY chromosone pair. The chance of this correlation occuring by chance was 1/100,000. Far more than the 95% probability generally required, and much more than the 99.5 which is considered definitive.

As it happend the studies of adoptive siblings showed a mere 11% chance that a gay man would have a gay brother, so we could perhaps claim a 9-11% effect of environment if you liked.

With siblings it was found the incidence of homosexuality dooubled perolder sibling 2/4/8/12 etc I think 1/7th of homosexuality was ascribed to birth order. This suggest to me a different phenotype exists. Oh and hypermasculinisation seems to account for 20%.

The causes are still mysterious, but twin studies clearly indicate a genetic component, and genes once they atart expressing lead inevitable to their outcomes.

The real mystery is what in the environment sets them off.

 

[setter]

Digger71:

Well the good doctor clearly dosnt understand genetics or 'penetrance, which is the chance of a gene expressing itself, which varies on a gene by gene basis.

This is why I included diabetes and MS as examples, in both cases the gentic factors are identical, but the chance of developing the disease is < 100% for both twins.
If the good doctor was correct in his assertion that:

Identical twins have identical genes. If homosexuality was a biological condition produced inescapably by the genes (e.g. eye color), then if one identical twin was homosexual, in 100% of the cases his brother would be too

Then diabeties and MS would follow the same pattern. That is 100% incidence for expression in each twin if one twin should get the disease.

This was, however, already explained in my post. So the very least you should have done was read up on twin studies in general and look at other examples (such as twin studies of disease, twin studies of humour, etc) before dragging in NARTH and linking to an artcle which is immediately discredits that organisation.

As the good doctor did explain which you ignore in your contention:

Only for physical traits like skin color are identical twins 100% concordant; otherwise they don’t necessarily follow either their parents’ genes…or their parents’ admonitions! In this, homosexuality proves to be no different from such unrelated behaviors as violence, being extroverted, or getting divorced. All may be influenced by genes, but not overwhelmingly determined by them.

BTW – Your automatic slam dunk of any Narth sourcing because it respects and upholds the natural law design of man, is all but akin to your mantra that I previously confronted you with (and “discredited” your selective source screening) in service of your agenda:

Originally Posted by setter
Religious based = not admissible to debate. We are all familiar with this mantra.

BTW – I am wondering if you are going to respond to my #243 post to you in which I challenged your presuppostion of the proper ordering and preeminence of subjective emotional experience in defining one’s reality independent of absolute norms.

 

[fix]

Digger71:

Hello Mike,

I thought I would come back to you on the issues surrounding twin studies, because they certainly do prove the innateness of homosexuality.

Some facts, you can look them up if you want.

2% of the male population is gay.
48-55% of identical twins are both gay.
22% of non-identical twins are gay
11% of brothers are gay.

If there was not a strong hereditory component we would expect the normal rate to exist: that is if one twin was gay, then the other twin would have just a 2% chance of also being gay.

Of course, most people who think about the studies would expect that 100% of identical twins would would both be gay. But this is essentially an ignorant position. Not all genes are expressed automatically, some always produce an effect while others get triggered by environmental conditions. So identical twins may share the same genetic material but due to variations in environment not express it equally.

examples:
Type 1 Diabetes: If you’ve got the gene then each twin has about a 30% chance of developing diabetes.
Multiple Sclerosis: Normally your chance to develop MS is 1/3,000. If your identical twin has it it is 1/4.

Again if there where no genetic component you would expect normal incidence, not enhanced incidence.

Unfortunately, some of the fundamental assumptions in twin studies are mistaken, twins do not always share identical environments, in the womb there can be competition for food and oxygen due to sharing a placenta, the one who fights harder for these is in a different environment, environment triggers gene expression, QED… Outside the womb environment also diverges, environment triggers genes…QED.

The key point being that the assumption of 100% shared gens does not lead to 100% expression of genes. Thus, while some people would point to the ~50% rate of homosexuality as proof of a non-genetic cause, they simply do not understand how genes work or the effects of environment.

While the switching on of genes is not certain, once they are switched on their effects are inevitable.

Once you get diabetes, you have diabetes, no amount of moral fibre can stop it.

Once you develop MS you have MS. Again no amount of maral fibre can stop it.

So once the genetic component of homosexuality is activated, it is easily arguable that the outcome is inevitable.

What is the significance of this?

Inevitability and innateness would force a revisit to natural law. Arguments from design should be consitent, and if it can be argued that this is a result of design very good arguments need to be brought forward to deny it’s licitness. And, of course, the danger there is that denial of empirical evidence always damages the church and would bring in to question ofther doctrines based on design.

You accept that if it were possible to prove there were a genetic basis for same sex attraction it would be no different than finding a genetic basis for MS, or DM, or any other disease or pathologic condition? Then many here would agree.

That some conditions may have a genetic basis does not lead one to think it should be celebrated rather than treated.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

As the good doctor did explain which you ignore in your contention:

BTW – I am wondering if you are going to respond to my #243 post to you in which I challenged your presuppostion of the proper ordering and preeminence of subjective emotional experience in defining one’s reality independent of absolute norms.

First, thanks for toning down the virtiol in your posts.

In reverse order. Dont wonder, I am simply considering my answers.

Secondly…even twins that develop from the same egg can show phenotypic differences. The pre-natal environment can be different for each depending on whether they share the placenta (called ‘monochorionic’ I think) or each develop their own. The estimate I read was that some 20-30% of identical twins (that is, having an exact DNA match) appear to be fraternal twins. Given that environment triggers genes, and the environment is not always identical for each fetus, and we can see the differences in gene expression in the body we have a good cause-effect explanation going on.

These days much more care is taken to identify indentical or fraternal twins. Of course, these facts were unveiled doing twin studies.

Again I suggest you go beyond NARTH, it’s agenda makes it untrustworthy. Going to NARTH for accurate descriptions of homosexuality is like going to darwinismisrefuted to get accurate descriptions of evolutionary theory…nieve.

 

[Digger71]

fix:

You accept that if it were possible to prove there were a genetic basis for same sex attraction it would be no different than finding a genetic basis for MS, or DM, or any other disease or pathologic condition? Then many here would agree.

That some conditions may have a genetic basis does not lead one to think it should be celebrated rather than treated.

No, diseases are studied for the reason they gain notice and cause discomfort. Homosexuality has gained notice due to western cultural values, but does not have a pathology as such. So, while disease, homosexuality, left-handedness, musical skill and other exceptions have been studied, the presence of study does not make them illnesses.

Indeed, the direct study of homosexuality has led to it’s declassification as an illness. Empirical evidence over the years revealed no pathology and changes were made to reflect this.

(aside: Cue conspiracy theory reasons for the change)

 

[Digger71]

pnewton:

But homosexuality is not normal. Never has been, Never will be. Don’t blame those you call “anti-gay.” Blame God. It’s His design.

There is a species wide norm of 2%. 2% is normal for the species, and the species normally has 2%.

Families with more than 4 children are not the norm either. Are you suggesting these …‘families’ should be treated as if they deserve a lower status?

 

[fix]

Digger71:

No, diseases are studied for the reason they gain notice and cause discomfort. Homosexuality has gained notice due to western cultural values, but does not have a pathology as such. So, while disease, homosexuality, left-handedness, musical skill and other exceptions have been studied, the presence of study does not make them illnesses.

I would agree studying any trait does not make it pathologic, but your position seems to be that it is heritable therefore it is not pathologic?

That any gene may be expressed or not does not mean such things are necessarily good, neutral, or bad. Other factors must be considered. That is why I find the position that if same sex attraction is genetically linked or influenced it axiomatically means it is “natural”.

Indeed, the direct study of homosexuality has led to it’s declassification as an illness. Empirical evidence over the years revealed no pathology and changes were made to reflect this.

(aside: Cue conspiracy theory reasons for the change)

Please, few are so naive as to think any science is free from agenda or influence. Particularly, behavioral sciences are hardly apolitical.