Identical twins, one gay, one ain't

Damocles said:
True. However, gay activists are most upset over this. While genetics play a part in male homosexuality, it only lends a proclivity not a certainty. What is most effective is the way they are effected by hormones in the womb.

This will lead, IMO, to people attempting to regulate hormonal balances and effectively "inoculate" in the womb against homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Which, IMO, is entirely their right. If parents don't want a gay child they can do whatever they want short of the torture of de-programing to prevent it.
 
One baby to another says
I'm lucky to have met you
I don't care what you think
Unless it is about me
It is now my duty to completely drain you
 
Damocles said:
True, but to repeat again.

The smaller amount can cause differences other than just birth weight according to the study.

This time I bolded the important bit that you continue to ignore, along with your specious idea that it is a "simple" thing that will simply pass along exactly the same thing to two fetuses. If such were the case, there would be no difference in birth weight. We already know that one may be getting less nutrient (birth weight) and that the results of the study show that different levels of hormones in utero can change how a person's brain works.....
Click to expand...

Again, what you still ignore is that two placentas may have different quantities of blood vessels, yet the concentrations in the blood will be identical. Therefore the smaller placenta my yield a smaller fetus, yet the concentrations will be the same as its larger twin. And again, there is no correlation between homosexuality and body size.

So unless your study addresses this issue with identical twins, It's really not pertinent to the discussion.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, what you still ignore is that two placentas may have different quantities of blood vessels, yet the concentrations in the blood will be identical. Therefore the smaller placenta my yield a smaller fetus, yet the concentrations will be the same as its larger twin. And again, there is no correlation between homosexuality and body size.

So unless your study addresses this issue with identical twins, It's really not pertinent to the discussion.
Click to expand...
One more time.

I am not ignoring the ratios (concentrations) aspects. According to the studies involving twins, more than just birth weight is different because placental differences are more pronounced than you are attempting to describe here. (for instance, one twin being closer placentally to the output of one hormone gets more of that one than the other twin, while the other twin gets slightly more of another that it is closer to productionally in the mother than the other.)

But even if all that were exactly the same as you attempt to maintain although even the pages from doctors describing the differences in twins, the lower amount of hormone (or higher) effects the twin as much inside as lower birth weight is obvious outside, like a fruit tree that gets less water and thus doesn't produce blooms and therefore no fruit while it's genetic "twin" on the other side of the lawn with the unkinked hose gets plenty of water and produces blooms and thus fruit....

Can you comprehend that the difference may not only be obvious on the outside (weight) but also on the inside (differences in how their brain works and personality)? Or is it only possible for you to understand differences that you can see?

If a child needs "this much" hormone to be "outgoing" but along with less nutrients gets less of the hormone and winds up "shy" for instance. Differences between twins begin with a different experience for each as soon as the cells split. Most of the time the differences are not quite as pronounced as sexuality, but sometimes they obviously are.
 
Damocles said:
One more time.

I am not ignoring the ratios (concentrations) aspects. According to the studies involving twins, more than just birth weight is different because placental differences are more pronounced than you are attempting to describe here. (for instance, one twin being closer placentally to the output of one hormone gets more of that one than the other twin, while the other twin gets slightly more of another that it is closer to productionally in the mother than the other.)

But even if all that were exactly the same as you attempt to maintain although even the pages from doctors describing the differences in twins, the lower amount of hormone (or higher) effects the twin as much inside as lower birth weight is obvious outside, like a fruit tree that gets less water and thus doesn't produce blooms and therefore no fruit while it's genetic "twin" on the other side of the lawn with the unkinked hose gets plenty of water and produces blooms and thus fruit....

Can you comprehend that the difference may not only be obvious on the outside (weight) but also on the inside (differences in how their brain works and personality)? Or is it only possible for you to understand differences that you can see?

If a child needs "this much" hormone to be "outgoing" but along with less nutrients gets less of the hormone and winds up "shy" for instance. Differences between twins begin with a different experience for each as soon as the cells split. Most of the time the differences are not quite as pronounced as sexuality, but sometimes they obviously are.
Click to expand...

"[C]loser placentally to the output of one hormone"... I think your making this up now.

Your argument: "..on the other side of the lawn with the unkinked hose gets plenty of water..." supports my argument of different volumes, and does not support your argument of different concentrations.
 
Southern Man said:
"[C]loser placentally to the output of one hormone"... I think your making this up now.

Your argument: "..on the other side of the lawn with the unkinked hose gets plenty of water..." supports my argument of different volumes, and does not support your argument of different concentrations.
Click to expand...
No, the water is the same in "concentration" (ratios), however because there was not enough one tree simply would not produce blooms.

Even though minerals in the water were exactly the same between the two, one tree was very much effected by getting simply less, even though the "concentration" of the minerals was the same. It was able to survive and grow, but not produce blooms.

If such an obvious change can be observed as birth weight, then clearly other differences can exist because of the volume, even if the "concentrations" were the same. Insisting that nothing at all could change but birth weight is simply being obtuse.

So, basically...

(recapping the "argument")

1. We have produced links that showed that there are differences in just how the child is connected to the placenta (if it was shared).

(Your 'answer' was that it would be the 'same in concentrations' totally contrary to what the actual links said).

2. We have posited that your insistence that the "concentrations" would be the same and extrapolated that differences can include more than birth weight because of the difference in volume. While, by ratio, it may have the same concentration, it may still be necessary to have the correct volume to have the exact same development in such things as how the brain acts. Just because the difference isn't observable with your eyes only doesn't mean that it cannot exist.

(your answer? That I hadn't addressed the "concentrations" in your previous post, although I have at least three times now and even noted that I said (ratios) a different word that meant the same thing.)

3. You keep insisting that different individuals would be exactly the same regardless of a number of studies that show you are simply wrong, only because you want homosexuality to have no other reason than that of "choice". You asked me to explain, I have shown you what types of studies and the results they have been getting that show why stuff like this can happen.

Now, I will state again, this should be heartening news for the Christian Warrior as it allows that Homosexuality can indeed be cured, if you get there before birth.
 
Damocles said:
No, the water is the same in "concentration" (ratios), however because there was not enough one tree simply would not produce blooms.

Even though minerals in the water were exactly the same between the two, one tree was very much effected by getting simply less, even though the "concentration" of the minerals was the same. It was able to survive and grow, but not produce blooms.

If such an obvious change can be observed as birth weight, then clearly other differences can exist because of the volume, even if the "concentrations" were the same. Insisting that nothing at all could change but birth weight is simply being obtuse.
Click to expand...
Now I see your position more clearly, and I apologize for not seeing it earlier. However, I did address this earlier, in post 34, directed at you: "The twins are [n]early indistinguishable as adults, not just looks but physical talents and abilities, which again, defies your thesis of differing concentrations of certain key chemicals."

Using your analogy, the non-blooming tree would be stunted in other ways. Both of these women bloomed rather nicely. ;)
 
Southern Man said:
Now I see your position more clearly, and I apologize for not seeing it earlier. However, I did address this earlier, in post 34, directed at you: "The twins are [n]early indistinguishable as adults, not just looks but physical talents and abilities, which again, defies your thesis of differing concentrations of certain key chemicals."

Using your analogy, the non-blooming tree would be stunted in other ways. Both of these women bloomed rather nicely. ;)
Click to expand...
No. Using my scenario, the tree that can no longer bloom can grow equally as well as the other tree simply by the addition of water, it just will never be able to bloom because it initially did not receive the proper nutrients in early development. The volume necessary for it to develop the capacity to bloom was not reached at the right time of development. While it was getting the correct minerals, it didn't get enough. It is stunted in only that.

The reality is, in development of people as well as other organisms volume can often be as important as concentration.

This, of course, assumes your position that the concentrations would be the same, even though links provided state differently, is true. The reality is slight differences in the concentrations of hormones would exist, and apparently can sometimes be enough to effect these people this way.
 
Damocles said:
No. Using my scenario, the tree that can no longer bloom can grow equally as well as the other tree simply by the addition of water, it just will never be able to bloom because it initially did not receive the proper nutrients in early development. The volume necessary for it to develop the capacity to bloom was not reached at the right time of development. While it was getting the correct minerals, it didn't get enough. It is stunted in only that.

The reality is, in development of people as well as other organisms volume can often be as important as concentration.

This, of course, assumes your position that the concentrations would be the same, even though links provided state differently, is true. The reality is slight differences in the concentrations of hormones would exist, and apparently can sometimes be enough to effect these people this way.
Click to expand...

Your hypothesis is much too convenient in support of your position. Trees that don't receive sufficient water to bloom one year grow normally in subsequent years, unless the drought is so severe that it becomes stunted, and as such would be stunted in many obvious ways, not simply lacking flowers.

And again I assure you, both of these gals have fully blossomed in all outward appearance as well as physical abilities.
 
Socrtease said:
So it's not genetic? Then it is at least hard wired, shown by the differences in the brains. For what ever reasons, genetic, hormonal, or traumatically induced, it is still not a choice.
Click to expand...

It's most likely congenital, or "in the womb", as Damo outlined in an earlier post in this thread. It's been found that male homosexuals more likely are later births among a series of sons, often relatively close together. This changes the hormonal environment such that, given other factors, homosexuality may result.

As Damo also cited, female homosexuality appears not to be determined by genetics.
 
Thorn said:
It's most likely congenital, or "in the womb", as Damo outlined in an earlier post in this thread. It's been found that male homosexuals more likely are later births among a series of sons, often relatively close together. This changes the hormonal environment such that, given other factors, homosexuality may result.

As Damo also cited, female homosexuality appears not to be determined by genetics.
Click to expand...
Weird, eh? However it doesn't change that their actual brain activity (unlearned activity) more closely matches that of a heterosexual male than that of other females. Something changed them significantly at some point in their early development that created a far greater chance of homosexuality than there is present in most people.

It appears that they still didn't have a Choice Day.
 
Southern Man said:
Your hypothesis is much too convenient in support of your position. Trees that don't receive sufficient water to bloom one year grow normally in subsequent years, unless the drought is so severe that it becomes stunted, and as such would be stunted in many obvious ways, not simply lacking flowers.

And again I assure you, both of these gals have fully blossomed in all outward appearance as well as physical abilities.
Click to expand...
I think you ate taking analogies too seriously, but the way they create no-fruit crabapple trees uses pretty much exactly the scenario that I provide. While they are indistinguishable from a normal crabapple tree, an insufficiency during early development of the tree creates one that will not bear fruit. (although those do bloom).

I was creating a realistic analogy that might help you to better understand what I was saying.

Volume often is as important as concentration in early development.
 
Damocles said:
I think you ate taking analogies too seriously, but the way they create no-fruit crabapple trees uses pretty much exactly the scenario that I provide. While they are indistinguishable from a normal crabapple tree, an insufficiency during early development of the tree creates one that will not bear fruit. (although those do bloom).

I was creating a realistic analogy that might help you to better understand what I was saying.

Volume often is as important as concentration in early development.
Click to expand...
I think your hypothesis, although basically sound, is based on an analogy of development where a large difference in chemistry is forced or observed, and is not applicable to identical twins with no such developmental history.
 
Southern Man said:
Wouldn't a post-natal development cause be much more likely?
Click to expand...
No, these tests were specifically done to test brain functions that are formed in utero or in very early development. Specifically they were aiming to reduce the "learned trait" hypothesis and were significantly successful in it.
 
Damocles said:
No, these tests were specifically done to test brain functions that are formed in utero or in very early development. Specifically they were aiming to reduce the "learned trait" hypothesis and were significantly successful in it.
Click to expand...
On identical twins?
 
Grind makes an excellent point.

Homosexuality not being a choice does not necessarily imply that homosexuals are genetically predisposed to be homosexual. Like Grind, I am disgusted by foods which contain curry, and yet my immediate family loves them. I didn't make a conscious decision to dislike curry; in fact, I've even tried to like it, but I cannot. Does this mean I am genetically predisposed to dislike curry? Nonsense.

I think the same can be said of homosexuality. Is it a choice? In most cases, no. But is it genetic? Probably not. There are numerous additional factors (i.e. environmental factors) which influence our behaviors and preferences throughout our lives.

Genetics certainly play a role in instinctive behavior, but in the case of sexuality, I contend that our instincts drive us to mate with a person of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation. In other words,all people are biologically predisposed to be straight.

Note: I am not interested in debating whether homosexuality is "immoral" or not, as this in no way pertains to the matter at hand.
 
There are many factors that can be in effect here.

Two people are not the same person. Idential twins can be very different from each other for many reasons.

Gay people are NOT lying to you when they say they did not choose to be gay.

I never even thought about choosing my sexuality did you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top