Study says genetics does have a role in sexual orientation

[Odell]

In a psychology class I am taking from a “catholic collage” the course book provides a study that (Baily & Pillard, 1991) Shows that pairs of monozygotic male twins (whose gens are identical), pairs of dizygotic, or nonidentical, twins (whose genes are no more alike than those of any pair of brothers), and pairs of adopted brother (who are genetically unrelated). To participate in this study one brother had to be gay. As it turned out, the other brother was also gay or bisexual in 52% of the identical twins pairs but in only 22% of nonidentical pairs and 11% of adoptive pairs.

The book says the report is by a “respected research group” Is there any surveys contrary and does anyone know if this study is so called “respectable”?

 

[marymary1975]

Just use plain common sense. They are telling you that homosexuality is genetic when 48% of two people who have exactly the same genes, hence they are genetically pretty much the same, are pairs in which one is NOT homosexual. If we are talking about something of genetic origin and people with identical genes…shouldn’t it be 100% for it to be genetic? Or at least 99.9%? The fact that they are bringing your attention to the increasing number in twins versus non twins, while bypassing the fact that almost half of the twins were pairs in which one is NOT gay and that if we are talking about genetics then it should be the same for for all the twins, shows you that they are manipulating the information.

 

[Thomas_Peter]

In a psychology class I am taking from a “catholic collage” the course book provides a study that (Baily & Pillard, 1991) Shows that pairs of monozygotic male twins (whose gens are identical), pairs of dizygotic, or nonidentical, twins (whose genes are no more alike than those of any pair of brothers), and pairs of adopted brother (who are genetically unrelated). To participate in this study one brother had to be gay. As it turned out, the other brother was also gay or bisexual in 52% of the identical twins pairs but in only 22% of nonidentical pairs and 11% of adoptive pairs.

The book says the report is by a “respected research group” Is there any surveys contrary and does anyone know if this study is so called “respectable”?

I would be very suspicious of this research. If this were true, trust me, they would be trumpeting this all over the media and every group sympathetic to the homosexual agenda would be demanding these researchers be awarded the Noble Peace Prize!

 

[Odell]

Just use plain common sense. They are telling you that homosexuality is genetic when 48% of two people who have exactly the same genes, hence they are genetically pretty much the same, are pairs in which one is NOT homosexual. If we are talking about something of genetic origin and people with identical genes…shouldn’t it be 100% for it to be genetic? Or at least 99.9%? The fact that they are bringing your attention to the increasing number in twins versus non twins, while bypassing the fact that almost half of the twins were pairs in which one is NOT gay and that if we are talking about genetics then it should be the same for for all the twins, shows you that they are manipulating the information.

Well sense you put it that way

The book did have a small section on can the study be interpreted another way. It said “Sexual orientation could arise as a reaction to the way people respond to genetically determined but nonsexual aspect of personality. The influence of prenatal hormone levels could also influence sexual orientation by shaping aggressiveness or other nonsexual aspects of behavior.”

 

[Odell]

marymary since this is a discussion in an online class. Would if not be beneficial to use an analogy such as all genetics being 100% Like monozygotic twins genetic make up means they have the same eyes, same hair color 100% of the time etc. Any other analogies come to mind?

 

[M1Garand]

Just like the lower animals we all have the genetic predisposition to kill, rob, steal, cheat and rape but most of us through free will choose not to engage in these things. This is what separates us from the lower animals.

What I find strange is that there is far greater scientific evidence that links homosexual behavior to early childhood abuse yet this is ignored while this one study is accepted. In fact the preponderance of the evidence used to be that it is a mental illness. It was declassified as a mental illness because the psych community was politically pressured to declassify it.

 

[marymary1975]

Well sense you put it that way

The book did have a small section on can the study be interpreted another way. It said “Sexual orientation could arise as a reaction to the way people respond to genetically determined but nonsexual aspect of personality. The influence of prenatal hormone levels could also influence sexual orientation by shaping aggressiveness or other nonsexual aspects of behavior.”

I have heard a lot about that point…the hormones too but I don’t buy that argumemt too much because the fact that certain behavior has a hormonal origin (and take into account that then if it’s hormonal is not the same as genetic, genetics is written on your DNA while hormones aren’t) does not mean that said behavior should be accepted. For example, rape, men and hormones. There are argumemts that say that rapists have high levels of testosterone therefore they can control themselves. Do we have to give rapists a green light just because their hormones? No, they have a brain…and the common opinion for everyone in the case of rape and hormones is learn to control yourself. Why is it different when it comes to homosexuals? Isn’t it pick and choose? That is why I don’t trust thosw studies too much because they are manipulating the information. With those studies you have to read it in detail, ask questions about them and don’t let the author drive your conclusion.

 

[_Abyssinia]

There seems to be conflicting studies in regards to the role genetics or enviromental influences have on sexual orientation

I am not sure if this in reference to the study you are referencing but Bailey and Pillard say on page 1094 in A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation

The sampling method employed in this study falls short of the ideal genetic epidemiological study, which would involve systematic sampling from a well-specified population. In particular, although all recruiting advertisements stated that [subjects] were desired regardless of the sexual orientation of their relatives, there is no guarantee that volunteers heeded this request

Page 1090 it is written

Buhrich et al reported a twin study of sexual orientation and related behaviors…They found a strong familial resemblance, but had insufficient power to determine whether that correlation was due to genetic or environmental factors or both.

On page 229 of Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised, William Byne and Bruce Parsons write

the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2 percent—significantly lower than that required by a simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for dizygotic twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2 percent) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0 percent) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biologic siblings

Page 230 they write that Bailey and Pillard did not have

a systematically ascertained sample of twins. Subjects…were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual-oriented periodicals and, therefore, may not be typical of the homosexual population at large

 

[marymary1975]

marymary since this is a discussion in an online class. Would if not be beneficial to use an analogy such as all genetics being 100% Like monozygotic twins genetic make up means they have the same eyes, same hair color 100% of the time etc. Any other analogies come to mind?

There are also many scientific papers that support that identical twins suffer from the same diseases so you can use that as analogy too. For example, with regard to chron’s disease which may be genetic but is also caused by outside factors, that study showd that when the disease was purely genetic both twins had it 100% of the time, but in cases of outside factors involved then 55% of the time the other twin has it. There also is the case of autism, it was present in both twins 99% of the time.

Now there is an argument that identical twins genes are not 100% identical but still they are pretty close up there so if something is truly genetical is going to be on the 90% at least. 48% is waaaaay too far off.

Personally I think that this study what it really says is that homosexuality is mostle to outside factors but that when one twin gets it (just as it was in the case of chron’s) there is a higher likelihood that the other twin will get it but a lesa likelihood in the case of fraternal or adoptive siblings.

 

[RPRPsych]

In a psychology class I am taking from a “catholic collage” the course book provides a study that (Baily & Pillard, 1991) Shows that pairs of monozygotic male twins (whose gens are identical), pairs of dizygotic, or nonidentical, twins (whose genes are no more alike than those of any pair of brothers), and pairs of adopted brother (who are genetically unrelated). To participate in this study one brother had to be gay. As it turned out, the other brother was also gay or bisexual in 52% of the identical twins pairs but in only 22% of nonidentical pairs and 11% of adoptive pairs.

The book says the report is by a “respected research group” Is there any surveys contrary and does anyone know if this study is so called “respectable”?

All this data shows (and I’ve ploughed through tons of psychiatric genetics papers) is that there might be a genetic component to some instances of homosexual orientation. The words in italics are important, because:

1. Any finding of this sort may be a “chance finding” due to the large number of statistical tests done. It has to be replicated. If this cannot be done consistently, it’s not significant.
2. There’s no mention of potential environmental “confounding factors” that could lead to more than one affected person in a family. (A good example from my field is the finding that female relatives of alcoholics often have depression; you could explain this in terms of genetics, but having an alcoholic parent or brother is depressing in its own right!)
3. Genes code for proteins, not behaviours. At best, genetic variants might influence the development of brain structures that may influence sexual orientation and behaviour. They do not “cause us to be gay” any more than a gene can cause me to murder, drink milk, or become a member of ISKCON.
4. Even if issues 1, 2 and 3 are resolved, a genetic predisposition does not destroy human free will. Alcoholism has a fairly strong genetic basis in some cases (I won’t bore you with the details) but that doesn’t mean that someone who’s hooked can never quit, or is genetically predestined to remain alcoholic for life.

 

[tskrobacz]

Genetics has a role in everything and in one way or another we are all born intrinsically disordered!

 

[Odell]

All this data shows (and I’ve ploughed through tons of psychiatric genetics papers) is that there might be a genetic component to some instances of homosexual orientation. The words in italics are important, because:

1. Any finding of this sort may be a “chance finding” due to the large number of statistical tests done. It has to be replicated. If this cannot be done consistently, it’s not significant.
2. There’s no mention of potential environmental “confounding factors” that could lead to more than one affected person in a family. (A good example from my field is the finding that female relatives of alcoholics often have depression; you could explain this in terms of genetics, but having an alcoholic parent or brother is depressing in its own right!)
3. Genes code for proteins, not behaviours. At best, genetic variants might influence the development of brain structures that may influence sexual orientation and behaviour. They do not “cause us to be gay” any more than a gene can cause me to murder, drink milk, or become a member of ISKCON.
4. Even if issues 1, 2 and 3 are resolved, a genetic predisposition does not destroy human free will. Alcoholism has a fairly strong genetic basis in some cases (I won’t bore you with the details) but that doesn’t mean that someone who’s hooked can never quit, or is genetically predestined to remain alcoholic for life.

In regards to #3 “at best, genetic variants might influence sexual orientation, and behaviour.” To me this is what the study would be proving, that our genetics shape our orientation. You would not necessarily disagree with the premise of the study in that it “might influence” and not that it causes? The study does not out right say it causes conduct just the orientation.

 

[smichhertz]

I don’t necessarily discredit the idea that genetics might play a role.

I mean, they think that genetics might affect things like obesity, alcoholism, etc.

So perhaps genetics might make one more or less susceptible to homosexuality, but that certain isn’t the only factor.

Honestly, I think the whole debate about whether or not it’s genetics is completely pointless. If tomorrow it were proven that obesity was solely cause by genetics, would that make it any more healthy? No. Down’s Syndrom is caused by genetics, does that mean we shouldn’t treat it or help the patients and instead leave them to their “lifestyle”? Of course not.

Determining how much genetics is a factor in homosexuality is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is immoral.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Some “scientists” tend to engage in studies that they then skew to favor whatever their own disorder is. I’ve heard that Kinsey who is still quoted today as an authority was into every sort of perversion, and that he conducted his studies in places like homosexual bars, and then extrapolated that data to the rest of the US. There was another one whose “studies” have all been debunked as false who was a homosexual activist whose “partner” had just died of AIDS.

There is a disturbing trend nowadays for even conservatives and Christians to believe that there is a genetic role, and this is usually due to having a loved one in the family who reports being homosexual and “feeling” they were born that way. These people will cite blurbs of “proof” that can be traced right to those disordered flawed “scientists.” I proved that science was bad to one person, and she shot back, “I don’t care. So and so says he was born gay and I believe him.”

 

[SuperLuigi]

In a psychology class I am taking from a “catholic collage” the course book provides a study that (Baily & Pillard, 1991) Shows that pairs of monozygotic male twins (whose gens are identical), pairs of dizygotic, or nonidentical, twins (whose genes are no more alike than those of any pair of brothers), and pairs of adopted brother (who are genetically unrelated). To participate in this study one brother had to be gay. As it turned out, the other brother was also gay or bisexual in 52% of the identical twins pairs but in only 22% of nonidentical pairs and 11% of adoptive pairs.

The book says the report is by a “respected research group” Is there any surveys contrary and does anyone know if this study is so called “respectable”?

It’ll be interesting to see if this study is countered or repeated.

 

[Rau]

Some Catholics appear to have a need to reject any notion of SSA as intrinsic to an individual, fearing that if genetics played a big part - ie. if one is “born that way” - then this challenges the validity of natural law, or suggests God makes mistakes.

Frankly, why does the detailed cause matter ? I take the view that SSA is not a choice (though homosexual relations is a choice). I take the view that it probably involves a biological element, be it a defect, disease or otherwise. It may be reinforced by upbringing. But I don’t see any of this as challenging or threatening any aspect of catholic belief.

I hope the causative factors are isolated given SSA is a great cross for many and their may be an opportunity to help those who seek help.

 

[M1Garand]

Some “scientists” tend to engage in studies that they then skew to favor whatever their own disorder is. I’ve heard that Kinsey who is still quoted today as an authority was into every sort of perversion, and that he conducted his studies in places like homosexual bars, and then extrapolated that data to the rest of the US. There was another one whose “studies” have all been debunked as false who was a homosexual activist whose “partner” had just died of AIDS.

There is a disturbing trend nowadays for even conservatives and Christians to believe that there is a genetic role, and this is usually due to having a loved one in the family who reports being homosexual and “feeling” they were born that way. These people will cite blurbs of “proof” that can be traced right to those disordered flawed “scientists.” I proved that science was bad to one person, and she shot back, “I don’t care. So and so says he was born gay and I believe him.”

He also conducted sexual experiments on young children. The Kinsey report gives statistics on how long it takes small children to orgasm which cannot be obtained absent molestation. Kinsey was a deviant but is one of the prophets of the modern culture of death along with Sanger, Darwin and their ilk.

 

[Orogeny]

If there is a “gay gene”, I wonder what the left will say when an in-utero test for that gene is developed so that parents can decide if they want to abort rather than having a gay child?

Peace

Tim

 

[Mount_Carmel]

In Matthew 19:12 Jesus mentions, " … For there are some ‘eunuchs’, which are born from their mother’s womb … "

In those times the word eunuch was more encompassing than it is today, as it included most conditions, physical and otherwise that had folks not conforming to mainstream sexual ‘norms’.

 

[FaustinaJulia]

In such a study as this, there is no way to separate the environmental influences from the genetic (unless a gene is known and can be looked for on a physical examination basis). It stands to reason that if two children (expecially twins) are raised in the same environment at the same time, that they will often be exposed to the same things to one degree or another. I think that there may be some inherited susceptibility to certain influences which would nudge a child towards a certain response such as SSA, but that it would be unlikely without some form of abuse or other trauma to otherwise manifest on its own. This still does not make SSA normal or a naturally occuring personality trait. In fact, the very opposite and it should be treated not applauded since no one recovers if everyone thinks the disease is just fine and dandy.