Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is NOT Genetic


#1

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.
“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

READ MORE: Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic | Life In HD

**This is an interesting study by Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Could the born gay crowd be wrong?


#2

Yes, a christian pastor citing gay studies, clearly an independent and unbiased source.
Think I’ll counter with some Time Magazine articles: New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality | TIME.com (already know I’m going to get plenty of negative remarks for the epigenetic thing)
Born Gay? - TIME


#3

Okay, Time v. a PhD. Case closed. If you would have cited Oprah earlier in the thread you would have won everyone over much earlier.


#4

I see someone needs to go back for re-education! :howler:


#5

The truth is incorrect.


#6

#7

And you are a liberal citing gay studies, clearly an independent and unbiased source. Why dont you look at the actual studies.

The largest one conducted in 2010 in sweeden found that only about 19% of sexual orientation is genetic and 66% comes from unique environmental factors (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences)


#8

Whether sexual orientation comes about by reason of genetics or “post birth factors” doesnt make a damn bit of difference. People do not choose their sexual orientation. It is part of what we all are. Every last one of you knows this - because not one of you “chose” to be straight. It is simply part of what you are.

All we can do is choose how to act with respect to our sexuality. We can choose to be celibate, or we can choose to be promiscuous. THOSE are choices, not the fundamental gender that spurs sexual attraction.

Studies like this may be interesting, but they provide no basis of justification for the haters.


#9

But one does choose who to have sex with.

And I swear to you that I never went to bed with and ugly guy.

…but I sure as heck woke up with a few.


#10

Actually it does

The problem with all the rhetoric is when you make up lies like “born this way” just to try to get people to your side no one will believe you if you ever find the real truth.

Go cry wolf somewhere else


#11

That sounds like a Willie Nelson song.


#12

I don’t “make up lies”, UNT. The origins of sexual orientation aren’t fully known, but I know this - it isn’t a choice. It makes a difference, I suppose, to those who cling to their faith that God could not possibly have intended to make people gay. But to the rest of us, what is crucial is that sexual orientation is not chosen, only sexual behavior. As such, the implications for PUBLIC POLICY are clear - mere sexual orientation deserves to be a protected classification with respect to nondiscrimination laws, just as race and gender are.

Honestly, while I can’t change the Constitution, I have my doubts that religion should be a protected classification. People choose their faiths, and should not be permitted to deliberately harm others on the basis of cockamamie interpretations of such faith. Spirituality is a wonderful thing, but organized religion is, historically, the source of much of the world’s strife.


Gay Couple to Sue Church of England to Force It to Perform Gay Weddings
#13

At that point, it didn’t matter to the ugly guy. He got his. :whistle::banana:


#14

You sure do post them alot of the time whether you make them up or not.


#15

What lies, CL? Be specific. Don’t weasel out, like you did the other day when you accused me of a “double standard” and refused, when called, to cite a single example.

I am sick and tired of being accused of this and that by the SoCons, without specifics, and then get hung out to dry by the moderaters when I fight back. If you make a charge, back it up with specifics. Or go crawl back in your hole.


#16

Really? You conceding the point with no counter argument? Awesome!


#17

Welcome to politics.


#18

You don’t recognize sarcasm when you see it?


#19

Got any evidence to back that up or just your poor analogy? People dont chose to be sober so that means being drunk isnt a choice too under your logic. My analogy isnt any more or less valid than yours and neither have any legitimate source of science. So if all you have is your “you didnt choose to be straight” shtick Im afraid your career as a scientist will be short lived. Keep crying wolf if you want but it will fall on deaf ears.

Honestly, while I can’t change the Constitution, I have my doubts that religion should be a protected classification. People choose their faiths, and should not be permitted to deliberately harm others on the basis of cockamamie interpretations of such faith. Spirituality is a wonderful thing, but organized religion is, historically, the source of much of the world’s strife.

So gays should get protection and Christians should have it stripped away.

If you ever wonder if people are just being over the top when they say that the “gay agenda” has a war on religion just look back at this post


#20

Hey I pointed out that that Right Wing seemed to be citing a biased, non-independent, and questionable source. Right Wing likewise has no serious counter to my articles, there is no argument to be had.