James Shaw

It is a stupid biased video that mixes science with superstition, and it is obviously intended to mislead. Rac, you lose again, you fool. You are dealing with rational minds.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Eight Major Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/03/8-major-studies-of-identital-twins-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/
"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.”




Twin studies—
the strongest evidence
"In a nutshell, if you take pairs of identical twins in which one twin is homosexual, the identical co-twin (a monozygotic (MZ) twin) is usually not homosexual. That means, given that identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No-one is born gay. The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors" -- http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

Rac; have you ever been to jail, no one in there is guilty. That is the same with sinners, its Gods fault they were born that way. Same old story the devil has used for years. But elephants don't fly.

slocumeddie Loc: Inside your head, again

Can you explain how one twin can have a birth defect, while the other twin is born healthy ???

Rac, I ask you again.....why is this so important to you ???

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Eddie, Good first question, not sure what a birth defect has to do with whether there is a gay gene or not :roll: . Either way does not matter to me, if homosexuality is genetic or not, there's more evidence that is it not....at least at this point of time. I'm glad you unlike a couple of others are asking intelligent questions, I don't know the answer myself. By the way, it's not important to me. Maybe someone on here that is knowledgeable about this will chime in.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Just ask Bill and Pat

OldDoc Loc: New York

This guy, Whitehead, is preaching to the already convinced, and it is important to them because if homosexuality is genetically determined, then God (and his/her followers) cannot condemn homosexuals since they were made that way. OTOH, if homosexuality is a matter of choice, then one might well be expected to bear the consequences of a "bad" choice. So...what evidence is there one way or the other. We have Whitehead's reports, none of which are published in credible scientific journals. We also have several studies of monozygotic (identical) twins that shows at least a 50% concordance on homosexuality, true of separated monozygotic twins as well as those raised in the same household. OTOH, the incidence of homosexuality in the general population, as well as in fraternal twins, is 1/5th of that. This indicates a strong genetic component, with an overlay of as yet undetermined postnatal factors, some of which may also play out through genetic mechanisms. Science vs. what you want/have to believe.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

It won’t be long until we hear lawyers arguing in court that pedophiles aren’t immoral they’re simply born with a partiality to children. My guess is that science will support their cause as science has no moral compass by its very definition.

James Shaw

Hey dummy. You assume that you know how gene expression works. You haven't a clue. as it is not fully known bu those who study it in detail.

Identical twins can exhibit major differences. One can be psychotic the other not. One can have juvenile arthritis the other not. The genes may be identical but their expressions may be different, and that can account for those differences. And there are reasons why the same gene may be regulated differently.

You have proven yourself a fool, Rac, but once again. You continue to try confuse others with your stupidity, like claiming that, "Homosexuality has no genetic cause?" Your question mark shows that you do not know. You are just pushing your biased agenda with more misleading information.

Why not try an open-minded, balanced and rational approach, Rac.

Finally, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that homosexually has no genetic cause. Go fish Rac. You are a fool preaching to the choir. Your bias is obvious.

OldDoc Loc: New York

Interesting comment on several fronts. You seem to imply that the lack of a moral compass in science is a bad thing, but my interpretation is just the opposite. Science tries to find the objective truth of an observation, rather than starting with a conclusion (dictated by a "moral compass" ) and rejecting observations that do not support that compass heading. Knowing the truth is always, always, better than acting on false information.

I am not a lawyer, but have spent considerable time in court, and have yet to hear a lawyer argue morality, as opposed to arguing points of the law. So, if the science eventually documents a genetic component to pedophilia, it will be up to the lawmakers to decide what to do about that information. Taking into consideration that pedophilia creates harm to the children (as contrasted with homosexuality), I suspect that there will not be much change from today's laws in this respect.

James Shaw

Hey Dr. Pepper (Dr. Prophecy of what courts will do), of course Science has no moral compass. That is why Science and Faith are separate, and should be. Anyone who thinks that science should have "a moral compass" is misled by their belief/faith. Morals have nothing to do with limiting the breath of Science and they should not!

You sound like you do not trust science, that you fear Science and that it should be brought back into arm of the church? Man how narrow minded can you get.

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

You're knee-jerk reaction shows your ignorance. A pedophile does harm. Being homosexual does no harm.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

No, I didn't intend to imply that at all only stating a fact as I understand it.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

I said nothing about faith or the church James. I was talking about the legal profession and what I believe they will attempt to do regarding pedophillia in the future. Disagree if you'd like but please don't try and redirect my comments.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

I don't disagree with your statement at all Rix I'm only suggesting how our honorable legal profession will respond to all this.