Good information on 'Born Gay' Studies

[Guest LadyC]

he wasn't trying to be helpful to me, silly.

your assertion that God is non-existence is equally a "positive" statement. one that can not be proven.

funny, if the burden of proof is on the believers, why have scientists been trying SOOOO long to prove He doesn't exist?

God proves Himself to those who truly seek to know. if YOU really want to know if He exists, just ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He will.

[Floatingaxe]

Secular wisdom is no wisdom. Therefore no truth is in it. Your views in this matter hold no weight.

Possibly the most obtuse thing I've ever read on this board. If you wish to make such a puerile statement, first provide evidence for your worldview that is beyond reasonable doubt.

obtuse? nope, it comes straight from the Bible. perhaps YOU should provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt for YOUR worldview.

oh wait, you can't. scientists have been trying to disprove God since the beginning, and they still haven't succeeded.

Puerile? I think not. Secular wisdom is not wisdom at all. Only the wisdom that comes from the Creator is true wisdom. Man's wisdom is folly at best.

[artsylady]

"Or maybe fear of social repercussions from people like yourselves kept him from coming out?"

If he was able to father a child, he must have at one time liked it, right?

[Floatingaxe]

Or maybe fear of social repercussions from people like yourselves kept him from coming out?

Yes, righteous people! Hallelujah! We aren't to be feared. We forgiven ones will show them the way to freedom from sin! Jesus Christ!

[artsylady]

It's not like we're stupid for believing homosexuality is wrong. What if a pedophile thought you were stupid for believing pedophelia to be wrong. You do realize that they want their rights too and have their parades as well, don't you?

The pro gay people don't really want to THINK about the issue, or contemplate anything. They just want to beleive what the gay people tell them - 'Oh poor me, I'm born that way" even though there's no proof.

Well, what about these thing?

Do you have any comments on the fact that many gay men are also creative and work in creative fields? Or on rock stars turning to bisexuality? Or what about the "gaydar"? Or the fact that some men like other men who seem to act and speak like women? And some women prefer women who act and dress like men? Or what about the fact that homosexuals have been treated and are now heterosexuals?

Did you bother to read ANY of the studies on the NARTH site? There are some VERY good ones.

Give us some good thoughtful responses to this, instead of beleiving what you've already decided that you WANT to beleive. You're really not arguing intellectually. We just keep hearing the same old things about prejudice, yada yada yada.

[SaturnV]

From:

Edward M. Miller. Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Towards a Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior No. 29 (February 2000) No. 5, 1-34

This is not the place to go into great detail on the evidence for a genetic role in homosexuality (surveys are in McKnight, 1997; and Pillard and Bailey, 1998), but family and twin studies (Bailey and Martin, 1995; Bailey and Pillard, 1991; Bailey, et al. 1993) make it clear that there is an important genetic component. Pillard and Weinrich (1986) found evidence for the familial nature of male homosexuality by showing that brothers of male homosexuals were four times as likely to be homosexual as brothers of controls. Kallmann (1952) reported an incredible 100% concordence for homosexuality in monozygotic twins. Other studies, such as that by Whitam, Diamond, and Martin (1993) found much lower concordence rates. Bailey and Pillard (1991) found that monozygotic twins are concordant for homosexuality 52% of the time, and dizygotic twins only 22% of time time, a statistically significant difference that points to a large role for genes. A similar study of lesbians found 48% concordance for monozygotic twins and 16% for diszygotic twins, again suggesting an important genetic component (Bailey, et al. 1993). A later population based study found somewhat lower concordence rates (Bailey and Martin, 1995) but still pointed to substantial heritability. In the above Bailey et al. studies, the half or more of the monozygotic twins who were disconcordant in spite of identical genes and similar rearing, suggests that some environmental factor (which may be prenatal, or essentially random, as in Miller, 1997a) plays a role.

Full text can be viewed here:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.htm

Note that which genes contribute may not be known, but using twin studies, it still can be determined that some heritable trait does play a role.

[Guest LadyC]

sorry, but the full text isn't found at that link. i've read about that study before though. it wasn't conclusive by any means. the best it can do is exactly what is claimed in what you quoted.... SUGGEST. not prove, suggest.

[Floatingaxe]

That's where the generational curse plays its card. The devil can cause illness, so he can also cause the most basic of changes in a person's biology to create a condition of the mind and physiology that it mimics a bona fide genetic disorder! We are such saps to believe it s a legitimate "disorder"!

[SaturnV]

Well, no scientific article will ever use the word "prove." "Strongly suggests" is about as strong a term as one will ever see in that regard.

Strange that the link won't work, but the rest of the article is about how sexual selection is probably a factor in the propegation the genetic component of homosexuality, and why it isn't selected against. I included that quote because it is a nice summary of the evidence.

Edited March 27, 2007 by SaturnV

[Guest LadyC]

it can only suggest because the findings, however impressive they may sound, were in a very controlled setting and the results weren't statistically significant. that's a scientific term that is used to indicate whether the suggestion represented is born out with enough numbers to make it a probability.