Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

Chiro got to you first but was dead on. It is this kind of research which suggests that genetics is not a key factor. Although it does create a nice way of creating probabilities of guessing whether a sibling might have the same sexual orientation.Identical twins share more than genetics, and the fact that they are not closer to 100% identical in orientation, though they are always 100% genetically identical, suggests it is rather something else which is the key ingredient.The difference between fraternal and adoptive brothers, tied to the identical findings, suggests that perhaps it is the chemical/hormonal environment during gestation that plays a part.Then again look at what we are saying... at best we have 50%. That's essentially flipping a coin. Given that twins often get treated the same way, and certainly will go through similar social environments at key stages, it could just be social impacts. That answer was pretty obvious... and funny! This does not compute for me. Do you understand/can you elucidate?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Read your edited post. Why couldn't they still be straight when they were engaging in their homosexual activity? It seems to me that would work both ways? Yes it doesBecause scientist say so. Upbringing and environment.

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

Weird. Because you said in your post was, So instead of making a statement about a legal position, you're stating your personal thoughts on it? I guess what you're saying is you wanted to say "Rights and freedoms SHOULD not be based on genetic disposition"?--If that's the case... I don't see how individual opinions about how policy should be made are relevant. If we're in general using a policy that you disagree with, then there's no reason for you to argue specifically on this thread. You could fight any number of fights (including disputing how we handle criminals whose behavior was the same but the "cause" we deem as different, splitting on "choice"), and you'll be fighting at a purely philosophical level.Seems to me the question here is on the practical level. In the US there's a legal system, it has some basic premises that are accepted. In the practical short-term, those premises don't change; in fact it's not just the legal system, but really the perspective of the culture that would need to be changed. So it seems to me you're advocating a position that isn't possible given the current system.--If we accommodate people who become handicapped (which we generally consider not to be their fault), then we should accommodate people who are gay. So I think Tal's analysis is right.And I don't think we SHOULD accommodate people who choose to be a certain way. Whether being overweight or not is a choice is debatable, and I think as we believe more and more obesity is controlled by genetic factors, we feel more accepting and accommodating. But for example, we don't provide seating that fits the proper size of those who are overweight. We generally get angry when we realize our insurance premiums get increased due to obesity.Yet we do accommodate those with "legitimate" causes to immobility, such as paralysis, cereberal paulsy, etc.--It's all about perception of choice and our view of what a "person" is. And that's exactly how it hinges on our perspective of personhood and free will. (And now I think I can convince you that "free will" is not good; I'll go search for the other thread when I come home).But I think I'm harping on a tangential point. I did want to at least address your response. And sorry for the weak post; I'm in a rush to get out of here. But if I don't post before leaving, I'll probably just drop it (like usual).Ben

Many traits have genetic and environmental causes. Hence the age - old nature/nurture argument. Most biologists today recognize that both genetics and environment are important. Besides, even if it is ALL environment, that still doesn't make it a choice. The best argument in my mind against it being a choice is why would anyone choose a behavior that in most societies is going to get them taunted, scorned, beaten up and in some cases killed, with very little if any benefit over the opposite "choice"? That is, all they are getting for their choice is sexual gratification. They could get that by making the opposite choice and be accepted by society.Besides, I wouldn't trust Dobson on anything having to do with science and human behavior. He is perfectly willing to "lie for Jesus" when it is convenient, regardless of the consequences Anybody that would promote "gay conversions" and subject women to the tragedy of being married to a man who isn't sexually attracted to them is fundamentally dishonest and not to be trusted.

quote:

---

If homosexuality is purely genetic, gay rights activists can use that to strengthen their gay marriage plight. It would put being gay on par with being white, when it is more on par with being fat.

---

Are you saying that there is no genetic basis to body type, and people's tendency (or lack thereof) for gaining and retaining body fat is not at least partially determined by genetics?
?

Upbringin and environment AND genes -- just where does ones choose those?And I haven't seen evidence for upbringing yet. Do you have any?

Ya actually, I think upbringing has something to do with it. I was pondering this question recently, glad you asked Pederasty - WikipediaPederasty was the greek practice of taking on a young male lover. This is not to be confused with pedophilia, Pederasty involves a teenaged boy of around 15-16.It was common and encuraged in greek culture. Infact, the Spartans were famous for the practice amongst their warriors. They belived that having male lovers among the troops cemented bonds, and made them fight harder.The practice was also common in Japanese Samurai culture and all over the world. It's a pretty interesting article.The point is, while I think there are genetics involved, culture can definetly be a factor.

Yes.There was a study done recently in which pairs of boys who were best friends and pairs of girls who were best friends were led into a room with 2 chairs parked close to each other. Their interactions were video taped.Without exception, in all of the girl pairings in all age groups, the girls turned the chairs towards each other so as to face each other or to allow physical contact.Also without exception for the boys except the six year olds which would not stay in the chairs, they put the chairs next to each other facing in the same direction and they would talk that way occasionally turning their heads to each other.When asked about the depth of their friendships, none of the girl best friend pairs would say that they would die for one another if nessary. About 50% the the boys said that their friendships where deep enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for.So from this I conclude that men form very deep bonding friendships with each other but when it comes to close contact, men are not comfortable with face to face close in type enguagements.So for you to describe yourself as some kind of robust all man's kind of dude but then also say that you like to get intimate sexually with broad shouldered hairy dudes tells me that you are either joking on this thread, or you are very confused about what your role is in a man to man no bullshit go to the wall for each other relationship.I'm not denying that you get off on other men's junk, but I also believe that that behavior strongly skews your perception of male to male relationships which is indeed an identity crisis.

So, when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual?I don't remember making such a choice, and I doubt the homosexual members here ever made one of the like either.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

That is actually a rather old study that I read about at least 15 or more years ago, and the findings had to do only with gendered communcation styles.

So, if two women want to get married, you'd have no problem with it, since it's "normal" for females to have such bondship? Somehow, I have a feeling you're going to make up some kind of excuse.

I think you are wrong about the flipping a coin. I'm not competant to be sure though.To read this correctly you have to consider the difference in outcomes between the 3 cases not the 52% for the one group. What this shows is that the identical genetic case produces TWICE the chances of maching orientation of non-identical similar upbringing and gestational environment.What isn't examined here is the birth orders of the fraternal twins. The older male sibs effect could be occuring there but it isn't separated out.This one study strongly suggests that it is not just (or even at all) social impacts that is why it is useful to compare fraternal and adoptive twins.As I understand there have been studies done (I don't have a reference) between identical and fraternal twins that were separated from birth or early on. The same results show up.The fact that fraternal twins have a correlation over adoptive children suggests environmental impacts that are not upbringing (I'm not aware of any studies suggesting upbringing actualy. The fact that separated twins follow a similar pattern also suggests that at least a significant part is played by genetics. There isn't anything further on this in the book; my understanding reading it in context is that there are a number of different patterns in the marker site. There are two of them that predominate: one is in 75% of homosexuals and another is in 75% of straights. There are apparently other studies confirming these results.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-22-2005 09:03 PM

Can be, maybe: Where is the cultural influence in the occurance of homosexuality today in western culture? I can't understand why you would think that these two examples have any explanatory power in the situation we are discussing.

I don't care what he has to say as much as why he says it. What input data does he use to come to whatever conclustion he comes to.I haven't seen any evidence supplied to suggest that choice has any significant effect on the orientation in our culture.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-22-2005 09:03 PM

Maybe I missunderstood. I haven't read the whole thread. I guess all I was trying to say is that homosexuality CAN be culturaly influenced. Meaning that cultural factors CAN affect someones sexual preference.As far as where do we see it today, well, I have personal testemony that I would rather not discuss ABE: And in context to my last post, NO! My personal testemony has nothing to do with pederasty!This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-23-2005 12:55 AM