Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yguy · 06-13-2003, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
If homosexuality was mainly environmental, you wouldn't expect genetically unidentical siblings to have homosexuality rates that are 1/3 or less of identical twins; you would expect the rates to be similar

Why, since the unidentical twins could be expected to be the same environment differently, more so than identical twins?

Autonemesis · 06-13-2003, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
There are certainly plenty of heterosexual relationships which fit that description superficially which I would call perverted, since any dominance by one partner or the other is the result of seduction or intimidation, which are both forms of the same thing. I think the man should be dominant, but only by the woman's full consent - like the soldier who has so much respect for his CO that he'll willingly follow him into hell.

Loren Pechtel · 06-13-2003, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Nothing recent, as I haven't had access to that particular one-eyed monster for years. The most recent example would be an episode of "Touched by and Angel" where the Angel says to a homosexual something like, "What makes you think God would send you to Hell for being gay" - the implication being that it would be like sending him to Hell for being black. If you remember the series "Dynasty", the character Adam Carrington was pictured as a really courageous and together guy for "coming out".

So? They are saying accepting what your sexuality is is a good thing. They are not saying that *BECOMING* gay is a good thing.

Dr Rick · 06-13-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Why, since the unidentical twins could be expected to be the same environment differently, more so than identical twins?

because:

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Since each twin was presumably raised under the same roof with its sibling, it follows that they shared similar environmental influences.

yguy · 06-13-2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
because:

Sorry, Doc - I am utterly at a loss as to how your conclusion follows from my quote. It appears to me the figures are substantially consistent with the idea that environmental influences tend to prevail in this regard.

yguy · 06-13-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
So? They are saying accepting what your sexuality is is a good thing.

Guess a pedophile accepting his sexuality is a good thing too then, huh?

Vorkosigan · 06-13-2003, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Guess a pedophile accepting his sexuality is a good thing too then, huh?

What does that have to do with this? Provocative, emotional horse manure is not an argument. There is nothing objectionable about consenting adults having sex; pedophilia is rape.

Vorkosigan

Dr Rick · 06-13-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Sorry, Doc - I am utterly at a loss as to how your conclusion follows from my quote. It appears to me the figures are substantially consistent with the idea that environmental influences tend to prevail in this regard.

How could you conclude anything of the sort from data that is so inconclusive.

yguy · 06-13-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
How could you conclude anything of the sort from data that is so inconclusive.

You gotta be kidding me. If the data is so inconclusive, how could one conclude anything at all from it?

scigirl · 06-13-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
This appears to be your strongest evidence:

Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be confidently rated, 34 (48%) of 71 monozygotic cotwins, six (16%) of 37 dizygotic cotwins, and two (6%) of 35 adoptive sisters were homosexual.

If you want to know if something is purely genetic and NOT influenced by the environment, than you would expect monozygotic (identical) twins to have a concordance of 100% since they share the exact same DNA, and dizygotic twins (who are related just like any brother or sister) to have a concordance of less than 100% since they share on average, only half of the DNA.

If something was purely environmental, such as caused by the mom smoking during all her pregancies, than you would expect the rates of concordance of identical and fraternal twins to be the same.

In this study, out of every identical twin studied that was gay, there was a 50% chance that the identical twin was also gay. However, out of every fraternal twin that was gay, there was a 16% chance that the other fraternal twin was also gay. When they looked at adopted (non-related) sibs, if one was gay, there was only a 6% chance that the non-related sib was also gay.

What does this mean? This is strong evidence that being gay is influenced by genetics.

Now is it one gene, like sickle cell anemia? No, because you would expect the identical twin condordance to be closer to 100%. Most likely it's multifactorial.

Quote:

In fact, if homosexuality were mainly genetic, one would reasonably expect the correlation to be much higher, I should think.

So, how much genetics background do you have, I'm curious? For the record, I honored in medical genetics just last quarter, plus I have a master's degree in molecular biology. Oh and the people who did that study - they just might actually know about genetics too - maybe they even took a class on it.

scigirl

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.