Good information on 'Born Gay' Studies

[SaturnV]

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.

"...make it clear that there is an important genetic component."

They were twin studies. Surveying members of the general population is hardly a "very controlled setting"

[Guest LadyC]

you don't know a whole lot about how studies are conducted and the ways they can be manipulated, do you? look up information on the infamous bemiss report to give you a more general understanding.

[artsylady]

This was the link posted, but it doesn't work, as Lady C said

Full text can be viewed here:

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

I would like to see this site as well so I can see the source.

Studying twins or homosexuals socially does not prove a genetic link.

"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."

The study of identical twins proves that there ISN"T a genetic link. If there was, all gay twins would BOTH be gay and they aren't. They share the same DNA as identical twins, so if it's genetic, they would both be gay.

[artsylady]

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

Here's the full link if anyone's interested.

I'll examine it later. Gotta run right now.

[Floatingaxe]

Look at this: The author of that article!

Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution:

Towards a Equilibrium Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality

by Edward M. Miller, PhD

Department of Economics and Finance

University of New Orleans

New Orleans, La. 70148

What kind of an expert would he be?

[georgesbluegirl]

I talked about the study earlier in this thread...it's not that it's a genetic link, but still one that would be caused by forces not under control by the individual. An interesting middle ground between nature and nurture, which I think is fascinating. Not to say that every gay man is homosexual because of this - clearly not. This is probably just one of many factors that contribute to it. I mean from an evolutionary standpoint...it makes perfect sense.

[Guest LadyC]

well in any case, here's the bottom line. whether you believe it to be genetic, or environmental, or some combination of the two, we are all born as sexual beings, and we all have the exact same choices.... to either act on our sexual impulses according to our flesh, or to rein in our carnal desires and obey God. heterosexuals and homosexuals are no different in that regard.

[Floatingaxe]

I talked about the study earlier in this thread...it's not that it's a genetic link, but still one that would be caused by forces not under control by the individual. An interesting middle ground between nature and nurture, which I think is fascinating. Not to say that every gay man is homosexual because of this - clearly not. This is probably just one of many factors that contribute to it. I mean from an evolutionary standpoint...it makes perfect sense.

Oh of course! From an evolutionary standpoint!

[Floatingaxe]

no dear, the burden of proof rests on the unbelievers, not on the believers. always has been that way, no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise. it is for the very reason that God can NOT be proven a myth that unbelievers desparately want believers to prove that He is real. you (unbelievers in general) want the assurance that living without God is going to be worth it.

we (believers) don't have to prove that living WITH God is worth it. we already have that assurance in our everyday lives.

Just as in any other logical argument, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive statement, e.g. Christianity is true. If you wished to make a legal claim against me, it is you that must provide sufficient evidence to justify your claim. It would not start with me trying to prove your claim is unjustified.

So let's see... LadyC says "Christianity is true". FaithQuestions says "I do not believe the claims of Christians." Who is making the positive statement? Clearly you.

The burden actually lies with the person wishing to start the argument. We are perfectly happy with our belief in God. You came to a Christian chat room wishing to show us there "is no god." Therefore, the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. You must not be completely settle on your belief. Otherwise, I would think you would not be on a Christian message board wishing to argue the case. What pleasure do you get out of it? Why do you even care if people believe in something you believe does not exist? I personally would not care. I think there is something inside you that knows God does exist. You are actually trying to quiet your own inner voice. Is it not strange that until recently, every culture on Earth knew there was a god? They just disagreed on who He was. This foolishness of no God is a relatively new concept.

[SaturnV]

I talked about the study earlier in this thread...it's not that it's a genetic link, but still one that would be caused by forces not under control by the individual. An interesting middle ground between nature and nurture, which I think is fascinating. Not to say that every gay man is homosexual because of this - clearly not. This is probably just one of many factors that contribute to it. I mean from an evolutionary standpoint...it makes perfect sense.

It also shows another interesting mechanism of biological change