Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

You actually don't know that this science exists? It is understandable that you might be confused in such a state of ignorance.Why don't you do a bit of reseach before making such statements?

From: WordPress › ErrorBailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexualJ.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, A genetic study of male sexual orientation, Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters* 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexualAs with all such complex things genes are not the whole answer. The nature of this study means that others would be needed to be sure the numbers are right. However, this is evidence that genetics is significantly involved.Why couldn't you find this? Again, before making the kinds of statements you make you would do well to do some research. Of course, I notice that you are still avoiding the science threads on the various sciences that you think are wrong so it isn't suprising that you wish to hold on to as many of your unfounded opinions as you can.ABE
From "Genome" by M. Ridley page 117"There is no room for doubt that homosexuality is highly heritable.""Homosexuality seemed to run in the female line. If a man was gay, the most likely other member of the previous generation to be gay was not his father but his mother's brother."(as an aside it seems to me that there would be some reduced chance of his father being gay for what might be obvious reasons)...X128, the tip of the long arm of the (X) chromosome. Gay men shared the same version of this marker seventy-five per cent of the time; straight men shared a different version of the marker seventy-five percent of the time. Statistically, that ruled out coincidence with ninty-nine per cent confidence....The problem for a gene for sexual orientation is that the version that causes homosexuality would quite quickly become extinct. ... Trivers argued that, because an X chromosome spends twice as much time in women as it does in men, a sexually antagoinist gene that benefited female fertiliity could survive even if it had twice as large a deleterious effect on male fertiliity.Note though:
"At present it looks as if it may have been confinded to those families Hamer studied."This means that while the Xq28 version IS evidence it may not be the whole answer by any means.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-22-2005 03:57 PM

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

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

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