"My Son is Gay"

[agent_smith]

And statistically, the identical twin of a homosexual person is far more likely to be homosexual than a fraternal twin. So there goes your theory about it being 0% genetic.

Actually, that just shows the environment the children were raised in.
I bet if a study was done (which it won't be, for moral reasons) where twins are separated at birth, and it is recorded which ones become homosexual, there would be no correlation in the results.

 

[Francine]

Actually, that just shows the environment the children were raised in.
I bet if a study was done (which it won't be, for moral reasons) where twins are separated at birth, and it is recorded which ones become homosexual, there would be no correlation in the results.

It has to do with which twin got the hand-me-down G.I. Joe, and which one had to settle for the hand-me-down Easy Bake Oven.

 

[Smoke]

Actually, that just shows the environment the children were raised in.
I bet if a study was done (which it won't be, for moral reasons) where twins are separated at birth, and it is recorded which ones become homosexual, there would be no correlation in the results.

Actually, such a study has been done, and no, they didn't separate the twins just to do the study. And you lose your bet.

 

[Anti-World]

The piles and piles of studies showing that homosexuality is genetic is just drowning me, thank you for your persuasive arguments. (Heh...)

 

[McBell]

The piles and piles of studies showing that homosexuality is genetic is just drowning me, thank you for your persuasive arguments. (Heh...)

Kettle, meet pot.

 

[Darkness]

But... I'm not against homosexuality...

Bless you.

 

[agent_smith]

Actually, such a study has been done, and no, they didn't separate the twins just to do the study. And you lose your bet.

Source?

 

[Smoke]

Source?

Eckert 1986. The study suffers, as you might imagine, from the small sample size.

 

[agent_smith]

Eckert 1986. The study suffers, as you might imagine, from the small sample size.

Yes, a very small sample size from what I found. You can't draw a very strong conclusion on correlation of data from only 50 samples - especially when you consider how large the environmental factor might have been.

 

[Smoke]

Yes, a very small sample size from what I found. You can't draw a very strong conclusion on correlation of data from only 50 samples - especially when you consider how large the environmental factor might have been.

But it shows a correlation, while you predicted it wouldn't.

And now comes news that identical twins aren't really genetically identical, so even differences between identical twins may not necessary show any environmental influence.

 

[yossarian22]

Yes, a very small sample size from what I found. You can't draw a very strong conclusion on correlation of data from only 50 samples - especially when you consider how large the environmental factor might have been.

Sure you can, if you are willing to make sacrifices in confidence intervals and margin of errors.
You only worry when you have a sample size of <30

 

[agent_smith]

Sure you can, if you are willing to make sacrifices in confidence intervals and margin of errors.
You only worry when you have a sample size of <30

Much of that survey had a sample size of 26. Should I worry?

 

[yossarian22]

Much of that survey had a sample size of 26. Should I worry?

It depends.
If census data was used to determine the proportion of homosexuals and standard deviation, it does not matter all too much.
If they estimated the standard deviation from the sample, then they would have to switch over to a t-distribution to reflect the increased uncertainty.
Assuming they had decent statistical practices, they would reflect that uncertainty into the confidence interval.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, that just shows the environment the children were raised in.
I bet if a study was done (which it won't be, for moral reasons) where twins are separated at birth, and it is recorded which ones become homosexual, there would be no correlation in the results.

Actually, they have studied identical twin pairs, separated, with one homosexual member, and found a very high correlation between the two siblings. Will this affect your beliefs?

 

[Persephone]

You also have to remember that twins, even though they share the same dna, always grow differently- even in the womb. How else would two people with the same DNA have different fingerprints?

 

[yossarian22]

Actually, they have studied identical twin pairs, separated, with one homosexual member, and found a very high correlation between the two siblings. Will this affect your beliefs?

Well, given that such a statement is impossible, it certainly wouldn't affect mine.
Can't have correlation with categorical variables. Never mind that you did not mention what exactly was correlated.
I think I got your meaning though, but such a study would not be convincing unless you were able to prove that its not the environment. Hell, you could have simply proved that adopted kids have a higher chance of being homosexual.
Getting very meaningful results is damn near impossible in this area of the social sciences because of the inherent variability within the human race. Even with identical twins, you can't account for enough variables. In theory, you could raise the sample size to the point that other variables are drowned out, but that would probably take tens of thousands of subjects.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, given that such a statement is impossible, it certainly wouldn't affect mine.
Can't have correlation with categorical variables. Never mind that you did not mention what exactly was correlated.
I think I got your meaning though, but such a study would not be convincing unless you were able to prove that its not the environment. Hell, you could have simply proved that adopted kids have a higher chance of being homosexual.
Getting very meaningful results is damn near impossible in this area of the social sciences because of the inherent variability within the human race. Even with identical twins, you can't account for enough variables. In theory, you could raise the sample size to the point that other variables are drowned out, but that would probably take tens of thousands of subjects.

Yes, I didn't want to write at length to explain exactly what was being counted. You caught my meaning: If one male identical twin is gay, the chance that his twin, raised in a different environment, is also gay, is much higher than in the population at large.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

This implies that it is likely that male homosexuality has a strong biological component.

And no, adopted children are no more likely than non-adopted children to be homosexual, so that's not it. Brothers of adopted, heterosexual, identical twins are NOT more likely to be homosexual than the incidence in the population at large.

In any case, none of that was my point. My point was that tagent_smith was mistaken in his prediction. Since this data seemed important to him, I wondered if the fact that he was wrong would have any impact on his opinion. My prediction is that it will not.

 

[Autodidact]

You also have to remember that twins, even though they share the same dna, always grow differently- even in the womb. How else would two people with the same DNA have different fingerprints?

The point is that if your identical twin is homosexual, you are much more likely to be homosexual than if otherwise.

 

[DallasApple]

I get bashed for this and unnacepted and re-allocated as a Christian..I dont beileve we should act on all sexaul impulses...Like if I think its O>K because I want to have 100 men a week..I would think that is totally not healthy..

But I believe for "most" homosexials it is not a depravity..If they could "chose" they would chose to join the rest of the norms..

I believe they are born that way same as I was born heterosexual..Sure we shouldnt "promte it" ..But if you are...you are...We also shouldnt promote grotesque man woman stuff...

I dont beileve there is a darn thing wrong with same sex people loving each other...Loving someone deeply who is your same sex is not a crime..Including sex...

Blessings

Dallas

 

[yossarian22]

Yes, I didn't want to write at length to explain exactly what was being counted. You caught my meaning: If one male identical twin is gay, the chance that his twin, raised in a different environment, is also gay, is much higher than in the population at large.

Good, just wanted to be sure. There are a few ways that could have been meant. I dislike misrepresenting arguments.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

This implies that it is likely that male homosexuality has a strong biological component.

No arguments there. I worked on once I think. I'm not entirely sure because I was just a number crunching grunt.

And no, adopted children are no more likely than non-adopted children to be homosexual, so that's not it.

Never argued that they were. Poorly set up studies can lead to a multitude of possible conclusions. That is a common one from sociological studies involving separated twins.

Brothers of adopted, heterosexual, identical twins are NOT more likely to be homosexual than the incidence in the population at large.

I think you mistook my meaning.
A poorly set up experiment could simply confirm that the twin separated from his parents has a higher chance of being homosexual.

I wondered if the fact that he was wrong would have any impact on his opinion. My prediction is that it will not.

That's a fool's bet.
The one thing I really dislike about these studies are the morons who fund some of them. Money being wasted here (these studies aren't cheap) could be better spent in dozens of other fields.