Identical twins, one gay, one ain't

evince said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but genetics isn't one of them. Identical twins are for all intents and purposes genetically identical. So why do many on the left insist that homosexuality is genetic?
 
Tabasco said:
Yes, but genetics isn't one of them. Identical twins are for all intents and purposes genetically identical. So why do many on the left insist that homosexuality is genetic?
Click to expand...


Because it is not a choice, genetics are not the only natural way of being gay.

There are hormones involved in puberty.

The facts are that we dont know exactly why some people are gay or bi.

The animal world displays gay and bi behavior, they do not chose these things.

There is no reason why anyone who is gay or bi should be discriminated against even if they did choose it ( which they dont).

When was it you chose to be hetro, tell us your story?
 
evince said:
Because it is not a choice, genetics are not the only natural way of being gay.

There are hormones involved in puberty.

The facts are that we dont know exactly why some people are gay or bi.

The animal world displays gay and bi behavior, they do not chose these things.

There is no reason why anyone who is gay or bi should be discriminated against even if they did choose it ( which they dont).

When was it you chose to be hetro, tell us your story?
Click to expand...

Did you bother to even read what I said?

Since you apparently did not, I will repost it for you:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Dis liking Curry is a chemical reation to your taste buds or digestive sytem, where did you get that system?
 
Damocles said:
I only posted one of the studies, but yes. Many of the tests were done on twins to test for the different brain functions. They sought out twins like your friend who has a twin who was not homosexual.
Click to expand...
The one I know is straight. Her identical twin is gay.
 
Proof! Indisputable!

Has anyone considered that one twin might be gay, and is suppressing that? Or that homosexuality is generally genetic, but may be influenced by circumstances in some cases?

Moreover, who gives a flying potato. Why does it comfort you to "believe" it's a choice? Does it make it easier for you to hate gay people?
 
Onceler said:
Proof! Indisputable!

Has anyone considered that one twin might be gay, and is suppressing that? Or that homosexuality is generally genetic, but may be influenced by circumstances in some cases?

Moreover, who gives a flying potato. Why does it comfort you to "believe" it's a choice? Does it make it easier for you to hate gay people?
Click to expand...
Well, apparently the evidence does not support female homosexuality being linked to genetics, while it does for males it only notes a proclivity. However these hormone tests appear to be supported by even more evidence.

To me it doesn't matter. I've just been explaining how Identical Twins might have this particular circumstance.
 
evince said:
Dis liking Curry is a chemical reation to your taste buds
Click to expand...

Incorrect. While taste itself is a chemical reaction, how we perceive taste is not. It is influenced greatly by environmental and psychological factors. The same is true when it comes to attraction. One man prefers tall blondes, while another prefers short brunettes. While attraction is a chemical reaction, the preference is not. Understand?

The same is true for homosexuality. The mechanism behind sexuality/attraction is genetic, but preference is not. Gay people aren't gay because of genetics. It's a tired old argument, and you'd be wise to abandon it.
 
Tabasco said:
Incorrect. While taste itself is a chemical reaction, how we perceive taste is not. It is influenced greatly by environmental and psychological factors. The same is true when it comes to attraction. One man prefers tall blondes, while another prefers short brunettes. While attraction is a chemical reaction, the preference is not. Understand?

The same is true for homosexuality. The mechanism behind sexuality/attraction is genetic, but preference is not. Gay people aren't gay because of genetics. It's a tired old argument, and you'd be wise to abandon it.
Click to expand...

You are making a scientific claim. Show me the evidence.
 
When I was young, I loved the cranberry sauce that was served at Thanksgiving and Christmas Day family dinners. Always gave myself an extra big helping. Then one dinner when I was about 13 or 14, I took a spoonful and discovered I now hated the stuff.

Anyone know about that phenomenon? I think I saw a movie where a dad treats his daughter to a sweet drink that she used to love, and discovers that she grew out of liking it. That's the only thing I could think of that's similiar to my cranberry sauce episode...
 
Threedee said:
When I was young, I loved the cranberry sauce that was served at Thanksgiving and Christmas Day family dinners. Always gave myself an extra big helping. Then one dinner when I was about 13 or 14, I took a spoonful and discovered I now hated the stuff.

Anyone know about that phenomenon? I think I saw a movie where a dad treats his daughter to a sweet drink that she used to love, and discovers that she grew out of liking it. That's the only thing I could think of that's similiar to my cranberry sauce episode...
Click to expand...
So you weren't born disliking cranberry sauce (which is the absolute "berries", by the way).
 
The fact that identical twins can be born with as much as a 25% difference in weights shows that there are differences in the two at birth.

Which means that one being born gay and the other born straight is not impossible.

Whether it is genetic or something that happens in the womb, this does not say anything about whether or not people are born gay.
 
The fact that identical twins can be born with as much as a 25% difference in weights shows that there are differences in the two at birth.

Which means that one being born gay and the other born straight is not impossible. ....
Click to expand...
Non Sequitur
 
Southern Man said:
Non Sequitur
Click to expand...

What? Maybe you should check the definition of the word? (especially as it applies in your Logical Fallacies list)


If there is as much as a 25% weight difference between identical twins, then one got something the other one didn't, even if it just amounts to volume.

Since there is an obvious difference (easily measureable) in one area, there being differences in other areas (especially areas that might be effected by hormonal influences in the womb) would not be impossible at all.

It follows quite nicely.
 
"This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises."
 
Southern Man said:
I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. One is normal, married, one child. The other is gay, "domestic partner", and has a kid through artificial means.

Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.
Click to expand...

Because it's been observed in nature? Ted Haggard was married and is gay and so was Larry Craig.
 
Southern Man said:
"This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises."
Click to expand...

Ok, the premise is that one identical twin can be as much as 25% larger.

It follows that one twin got something that the other did not. Otherwise, they would be the same size.

Since one got something the other did not, and you cannot identify or limit what that something is, you cannot conclusively say that there was not a significant hormonal difference in what they got.



Can't make it much simpler than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top