ZEB, I read what you wrote and looked at the source. I’m not inclined to check all the references and overall the web-site itself seems to be anti-gay. I doubt validity of some of the facts presented and the manner in which it is done. I’ll try to be brief though
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Zeb,
Throught the thread you seem to make quite a bit point about dangers
(real or imaginary) of anal sex. I don’t think it is applicable.
That’s odd in one of your other more recent posts you were worried about the dangers of anal sex:
I’ve recently had an encounter where a girl liked it hard all ways possible - vaginally and, to my suprise, anally. I wonder how dangerous it might be for her even though she digs it so much.
It seems that on that thread you are not so sure if it is “dangerous” or not. And I think you are smart in asking such a question.
[/quote]
You are correct - I don’t know for myself the exact risks of anal sex. My belief is that gentle sex and lots of lubrication is relatively safe. I base this belief on personal accounts of both straight and especially gay people.
…not all gays have anal sex.
Well, this is enough, in a way, to exclude risks of anal sex from any argument and make most of the statistics presented irrelevant. I we do let other people who engage in risky activities to get married, don’t we? We don’t dicriminate on sexual practices of future couples either.
However, because I like stats, let me touch some of the problems in presentation of facts. But I’d ask you not to concentrate your effort on this part, but more on the part of how these possible dangers are applicable at all.
Any sex is “dangerous”. Giving gay stats without comparing them with straight stats is worth little. Women get UTI and yeast infection from vaginal sex. So what?
2.Oral-anal transmission can be eliminated by educating people better. Any anal play can lead to that. Mouth is a very dirty place anyway. Say no to oral sex?
3.Lesbians should be better educated on the need for safe sex among them - especially when sharing toys. Also overall women are more prone to getting STI, so when one dates them and is more prone to them, the rate will naturally be higher.
4.As forlife mentioned before, most of the negative psychological effects are probably that - effects of unacceptance.
Somehow you conviently left out an important bit about riding motocycles. Compared to driving a car it’s way more like sticking a head in Lions mouth than gay sex compared to straight. There is a huge (1:1000 if I rememeber correctly) chance of DYING in a year.
I don’t think it really matters why people are gay. And yes, you ARE discriminating against them. Drunks/druggies are allowed to married.
Zeb, you seem to be very dedicated to the issue. Please describe what you think will be a likely scenario in case the following will be set on a federal level: civil unions (for ANY two humans) grant all rights that are available to married couples. Also describe worst-case realistic scenario. If possible, compare to the outcome if civic unions are not allowed.
P.S. As for allowing polygamist to marry - I haven’t heard any arguments against it based on their sexual practices. What ARE the arguments against polygamy? (FYI: I’m against it, but never really though of it hard). As for incest - well, there is a much higher chance of deficiencies in children. Case closed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Did terribleivan break one of Gods laws by mocking you?
Show me which one.
There are many, but here are a few random scriptures for you:
Isaiah 28:22
Now therefore be ye not mockers, lest your bands be made strong: for I have heard from the Lord GOD of hosts a consumption, even determined upon the whole earth.
Mark 12:31
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Luke 6
But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you…
For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them…
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil…
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.
Comparing the disparaging, mocking, hateful comments in this thread against the above standard illustrates the hypocrisy pretty clearly.
[/quote]
You conveniently left out “judge righteous judgement” haven’t you?
No hypocricy here fella, just you and your constant defence of an unhealthy act. And, because your point has no validity, you go further down the “I call foul” road. Doesn’t speak well for your tired arguments now does it?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Don’t quote anymore Bible passages. If you do I will start to quote them and you won’t like what they say about how YOU live your life.
[/quote]
I think you’re confused. I don’t care what the bible says about how I live my life. I’ve probably read the bible more times than you have, in fact. I see it as an evolving historical and allegorical account written by men, nothing more.
My point in quoting from the bible is to illustrate the hypocrisy of some of the “Christians” participating in this thread. To claim to follow Jesus (who taught love above everything else), and then spew out hateful and disparaging comments at gays is to be prove yourself a hypocrite rather than a true follower of Christ.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I have refuted it multiple times.
[/quote]
You haven’t refuted it once. You turned to a red herring argument and completely ignored the logical fallacy that I pointed out.
There you go again. Here’s the fallacy, since you didn’t seem to grasp it last time.
You can’t logically say that:
Not all of A = all of B
Therefore none of A = part of B
Obviously:
Part of A can = Part of B even when
Not all of A = all of B
Get over the illogical sophistry already.
[quote]You see here’s the difference:
Black = genetic
Women = genetic
Homosexual = An action[/quote]
Compare the above to the fallacy I just pointed out, and maybe you will figure it out. Just because 3 things are different in one aspect doesn’t logically imply that they are different in all aspects.
Think about it Zeb…I know you can!
Misogynists and racial bigots didn’t want their children to grow up in a country where women could vote and blacks could marry whites. However, the bigots eventually died and younger, more enlightened generations came onto the scene and felt differently. The same is happening with gays as well.
I guess it’s time to set you straight on this inflated number. You do realize that the number of people opposed to gay marriage has DECREASED over time, right? And I’m not only talking about other countries. It is true here in the U.S. as well.
For example, the Pew Research Center recently found in March, 2006:
[b]"Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue. Half of Americans (51%) continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, but this number has declined significantly from 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. Opposition to gay marriage has fallen across the board, with substantial declines even among Republicans.
These are among the results of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 1,405 adults from March 8-12. The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.
"[/b]
Imagine that…
MORE Americans now favor gay marriage than ever before.
MORE Americans now favor gays serving openly in the military.
MORE Americans now favor allowing gays to adopt children.
Maybe there’s some hope for our country after all.
It’s time to stop spewing outdated statistics. Opposition to gays has fallen across the board as people begin to recognize the discrimination and bigotry that has been perpetrated in the past.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sorry Bub that does not qualify as marriage!
[/quote]
If numerous social benefits were observed from government-sanctioned domestic partnerships, that supports the argument for allowing similar unions in our own country.
Enough with the catastrophizing about how the country would be destroyed by sanctioning gay unions…you are a Henny Penny that runs around squawking about the sky falling when in reality allowing gay unions would ultimately benefit our society (as it has benefited other societies).
Personally, I don’t care whether you call it marriage or a civil union…I just want equal rights (i.e., the right to “marry” the person I love).
[quote]ZEB wrote:
No honestly all kidding aside I just think you’re goofy.[/quote]
I’ve just noticed that whenever we get to the end of a particular line of discussion, and you are logically cornered with nowhere to retreat, your natural response is to start blustering and name calling:
“LOL! You are soooo goofy! Do you really expect me to believe that?? Ha ha ha!”
As if your bluster somehow changes the fact that you don’t have a logical response to the point being made. I’m not falling for it, and I don’t think most others reading this thread are either.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
And I want a definitive answer to my polygamist and those who practice incest question.
[/quote]
I gave you a definitive answer. I think that each case (polygamy, incest, whatever) should be objectively studied to determine whether or not it causes significant harm. I’m not an expert on polygamy or incest, so I can’t tell you whether these cases would produce harm or not. If they would, then marriage should be disallowed…if not then there is no harm being done and people shouldn’t stand in their way.
It boils down to a very basic premise:
Government policies should be driven by facts rather than fiction.
[quote]skor wrote:
ZEB, I read what you wrote and looked at the source. I’m not inclined to check all the references and overall the web-site itself seems to be anti-gay. I doubt validity of some of the facts presented and the manner in which it is done.[/quote]
I think that one mistake that is sometimes made with these Internet debates is to attack the source when the facts cannot be attacked.
This is pretty much what you have done. Do you think that you will find facts which make the homosexual act look bad from a gay source? Actually, on occasion you do, and I have posted them right here on this very thread.
I have also posted numerous data from the CDC an unbiased major health organization. You can see this site for yourself.
Some find it difficult to believe that homosexual men are responsible for about 65% of all new HIV cases.
The statistics that I posted from the site that you didn’t like will pretty much echo what the CDC has to say.
Next time attack the facts not the source.
Pleae reread the part of my post which speaks directly to the risks of this practice. There is literally no such thing as safe anal sex according to the Center for Disease Control.
Where would you get such an idea? 60% of all homosexual men have anal sex and about 65% of all new HIV cases are homosexual men! Do you think that those stats are coincidental?
Think again.
There is literally no comparison between the heterosexual population to the homsexual population when it comes to STD’s, HIV and other communicable diseases. The homosexual population is only about 3%! And they still lead the way in virtually all major categories listed above.
Honestly, I think being a drug addict or alcoholic might even be a safer lifestyle. Although I have not confirmed that belief …yet.
Wow…I’m sorry please don’t be offended. But you sound like you are eithe young and naive, or a starry eyed liberal.
What do you think that this country has been doing for the last 20+ years? Millions have been spent on “education.” Yet, it seems to matter not in the gay community. They are having anal sex and unprotected anal sex at a higher rate than at any time in the past 20 years!
Remember these statistics?
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting “always” using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.[2]
The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals twenty-five years old or younger.[3]"
In fact many are not even telling their partners that they are infected. Talk about dishonorable.
"Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
? A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with hiv “continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV.”[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, or vaginal sex failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.[5]
A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.[6]"
If you have counter statistics please post them. Otherwise, allow the statistics above to sink in.
Once again, education has failed over the last 20+ years. Do you have a plan which will actually make a difference? No one else has been able to make homosexuals, or lesbians understand the dangers of their practice.
Do you have any statistics to back that assumption? Or are you once again buying into the politically correct line of thinking?
It’s easy to blame society. But I think the homosexual mental and physical health problems are far deeper than that.
For example it was discovered that even in countries where homosexuality is well accepted. And there are domestic partnership laws homosexuals still have serious mental health problems:
"…does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less than one might imagine. The Netherlands authors were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people because they thought tolerance to gay people was greater in the Netherlands than almost all other countries. Another test country is New Zealand. Although suicide attempts were common in the New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as US results, New Zealand is much more tolerant of homosexuality than the United States, and legislation giving the movement ?rights? is powerful, enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Ross (1988) in his cross cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the US, could find no significant differences between countries ? i.e. the greater hostility in the United States did not create greater mental problems.
Oh but it matters a great deal. I have never spoken to even ONE homosexual who stated that they did not “choose” to be like this…they just are. That says a lot to me. First, it says that this is something that occurs to them either by nature or nurture. In other words, something happens in their childhood which turns them this way. Some studies indicate that many have been molested at an early age. Other studies show that they grew up with a dominant mother figure and a weak father figure. And yes, it could be a combination of certain genetic traits combined with various things that happen in their childhood.
However, you and I don’t know that raising children in this environment will lead to them being gay as well. It is the politically correct line to say “they are born that way.” Yet there is ZERO proof that this is the case, and in fact more evidence which leads one to think it may in fact be the way they are raised.
If this is the case we should NOT be rushing to sanction gay marriage for this and many other reasons!
Well as long as you’re not comparing apples to oranges. LOL
Does the government sanction alcohol to alcoholics? Does it sanction giving drugs to drug addicts?
Am I being discriminated against because I cannot join the Marines because I am in my 40’s? I can pass the fitness test. So what stops them from allowing me in?
Is it discrimination?
And if it is discrimination is the government allowed to discriminate in some cases?
And is every sort of discrimination bad?
Think.
Have you (or anyone else) noticed that when there is no opposition to a cause that that cause seems to pass freely through?
I am also strongly opposed to abortion. And I support other conservative causes as well. I am NOT one of the silent majority who quietly opposes such things but only speaks out at the ballot box.
By the way, both homosexual marriage and abortion would be voted down if there were national referendums!
So who is behind the push on both of these issues?
Think.
Honestly skor I don’t think that we will ever see any such law come to pass. There is a very strong push against homosexual unions. We are organized well funded and ready for a fight. Currently there are 20 some states which have laws on the books prohibiting homosexual marriage or civil unions of any kind.
With in 5 years I think there may only be one or two states which actually allow any sort of civil unions between two people of the same sex. Then again there may be none.
I’m waiting for forlife to give me his opinion as to why we should not sanction marriage for polygimsts and those who practice incest. He has dodged the question as he thinks he knows where I am going with it…
Naturally, why would anyone object to any sort of union once two people of the same sex can marry. Is it fair to reject the marriage of a brother and sister? Three people? An animal and a human? (The animal cannot consent but if the animal is owned by the person it need not consent…at least that’s what the argument could be).
This is not the slippery slope argument, which is actually valid. This is the “fairness doctrine.”
If homosexuals are allowed to marry how do we justify denying other unions which stray from the norm?
We can’t.
And does it matter if we allow any sort of marital union that one can think of?
How does this ultimately impact us as a society?
([quote]FYI: I’m against it, but never really though of it hard).[/quote]
Don’t worry about it, as soon as the Polygamist lobby begins to better organize and feed the politically correct and the liberal media their talking points over and over again, you will be for it.
Forgive me that is not fair for me to make that assumpion. YOU may not be for it, but many others will. When there is no, or little opposition the craziest things can slip past…Two men getting married for example.
After all…
how can anyone deny the marriage right to three people who are really in love? Hey…wouldn’t that be discrimination?
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
No hypocricy here fella[/quote]
I think any objective person can read your comments in this thread and conclude that you are mocking, disparaging, and hateful toward gays. Given that such behavior is directly against the teachings of the person you claim to worship, you are indeed a hypocrite.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It is the politically correct line to say “they are born that way.” Yet there is ZERO proof that this is the case, and in fact more evidence which leads one to think it may in fact be the way they are raised.[/quote]
Wrong.
Brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals:
In 1990, D.F. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males’ brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed [the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart.
Also in 1990, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was significantly larger in homosexual subjects than in heterosexuals.
Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual men. LeVay concluded that “homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior”?.
LeVay S., Science, 1991
In 2005, Wysocki asked 80 homosexual and heterosexual men and women (20 of each) to sniff two samples of human sweat and choose the odor they preferred. Wysocki?s team made four comparisons: sweat from gay men versus straight men, gay men versus straight women, straight women versus lesbian women, and gay men versus lesbian women. Wysoci found that homosexual men had a strong preference for the natural scent of other gay men, which heterosexuals found unattractive. Wysocki concluded: ?Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to the body.?
In a second study published also in 2005 (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), a different team of researchers used positron emission tomography scanning to examine the brain?s response to two hormone derivatives, AND and EST, which have been proposed as human pheromones ? powerful scents known to convey sexual signals in many species. The scans showed a different pattern of brain activity in response in heterosexual and homosexual men, particularly in a brain region known as the hypothalamus that is involved in sexual arousal. The brain activity of gay men turned out to be much more similar to that of straight women, suggesting that sexual orientation rather than gender was the determinant.
Other biological differences:
In 1990, researchers at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada examined the occurrence of left-handedness in heterosexual and homosexual women. Brain organization in left-handed people is known to be slightly different than in right-handed people. For example, left-handed people tend to have their language area centered in the right hemisphere of their brain; it is generally accepted that the area for language is in the left hemisphere. Even though only thirty-five percent of the general population is totally left-handed, the scientists found that sixty-nine percent of homosexual women were totally left-handed . As a result, they suggested that homosexuals have a different brain organization than heterosexuals. Referring to studies in which women with higher than normal levels of masculinizing hormones such as testosterone were more likely to be left-handed and gay, they hypothesized that atypical sex hormone levels during pregnancy may have affected lesbians? early fetal development.
In 1994, Hall and Kimura studied the fingerprint ridges heterosexuals and homosexuals. After the sixteenth week of pregnancy, fingerprints are known to be unchangeable, so if there were any significant fingerprint differences in the two groups, one could argue that sexual orientation may be determined before birth. In fact, Hall and Kimura did find that the difference between the number of ridges on the left hands of homosexual men was greater than that of heterosexuals. Citing that individuals with higher left-hand ridge counts perform differently on sexually dimorphic cognitive tasks than do those with higher right-hand ridge counts, the researchers concluded that there must be an ?early biological contribution to adult sexual orientation?.
Twin studies
In 1991, Bailey and Pillard studied three all male groups: identical twins, fraternal twins, and men with adoptive brothers.Of the 170 relatives examined, 52% of the identical twins were both gay, 22% of fraternal twins were both gay, and 11% of the adoptive brothers were both gay.
In 1992, Bailey and Pillard followed-up their experiment on homosexual men by studying identical twin, fraternal twin, and nongenetically related adopted sisters. As expected, their results mirrored those found in their gay brother study. Whereas only six percent of adopted sisters were both lesbian, sixteen percent of fraternal twin sisters and forty-eight percent of identical twin sisters were both lesbian . Clearly, the basis for a similar argument for predetermined homosexuality in women has been laid.
In 1993, Whitam, Diamond, & Martin found that 65% of identical twins were both gay, whereas only 29% of fraternal twins were gay.
Genetic differences
In 2004, Camperio-Ciani studied 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall. The female relatives on the mother’s side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father’s side. This suggests that women who pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile. In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother’s and the father’s side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.
In 2006, research published in the journal ?Human Genetics? found that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women. Scientists looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. They found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways – half go one way, half go the other. The research “confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved,” said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles. “When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
However, you and I don’t know that raising children in this environment will lead to them being gay as well. [/quote]
Actually, research has shown that being raised by gay parents has no bearing on a child’s sexual orientation:
[b]Gender identity. In studies of children ranging in age from 5 to 14, results of projective testing and related interview procedures have revealed normal development of gender identity among children of lesbian mothers (Green, 1978; Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, & Smith, 1986; Kirkpatrick, Smith, & Roy, 1981). More direct assessment techniques to assess gender identity have been used by Golombok, Spencer, and Rutter (1983) with the same result; all children in this study reported that they were happy with their gender, and that they had no wish to be a member of the opposite sex. There was no evidence in any of the studies of gender identity difficulties among children of lesbian mothers…
Gender-Role Behavior. A number of studies have examined gender-role behavior among the offspring of lesbian mothers (Golombok et al., 1983; Gottman, 1990; Green, 1978; Hoeffer, 1981; Kirkpatrick et al., 1981; Patterson, 1994a). These studies reported that such behavior among children of lesbian mothers fell within typical limits for conventional sex roles. For instance, Kirkpatrick and her colleagues (1981) found no differences between children of lesbian versus heterosexual mothers in toy preferences, activities, interests, or occupational choices…
In summary, the research suggests that children of lesbian mothers develop patterns of gender-role behavior that are much like those of other children…
Sexual Orientation. A number of investigators have also studied a third component of sexual identity: sexual orientation (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Bozett, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989; Gottman, 1990; Golombok et al., 1983; Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989; Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986; Rees, 1979). In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents. For instance, Huggins (1989) interviewed 36 teenagers, half of whom were offspring of lesbian mothers and half of heterosexual mothers. No children of lesbian mothers identified themselves as lesbian or gay, but one child of a heterosexual mother did; this difference was not statistically significant. In a recent study, Bailey and his colleagues (1995) studied adult sons of gay fathers and found more than 90% of the sons to be heterosexual. Because the heterosexual and nonheterosexual sons did not differ in the length of time they had resided with their fathers, the effects of the exposure to the fathers’ sexual orientation on the sons’ sexual orientation must have been either very small or nonexistent. [/b]
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It is the politically correct line to say “they are born that way.” Yet there is ZERO proof that this is the case, and in fact more evidence which leads one to think it may in fact be the way they are raised.
Wrong.
Brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals:[/quote]
Brain differences?
LOL…That does not prove that it’s genetic!
You must know that.
Please tell me that your not that biased as to not understand the difference.
LOL…That does not prove that it’s genetic!
[/quote]
Brain differences point to a biological difference beyond simple choice. But if you don’t like that evidence, feel free to ignore it. There’s plenty of evidence directly pertaining to genetic differences between gays and heterosexuals. Here you go in case you missed it earlier:
Twin studies
In 1991, Bailey and Pillard studied three all male groups: identical twins, fraternal twins, and men with adoptive brothers.Of the 170 relatives examined, 52% of the identical twins were both gay, 22% of fraternal twins were both gay, and 11% of the adoptive brothers were both gay.
In 1992, Bailey and Pillard followed-up their experiment on homosexual men by studying identical twin, fraternal twin, and nongenetically related adopted sisters. As expected, their results mirrored those found in their gay brother study. Whereas only six percent of adopted sisters were both lesbian, sixteen percent of fraternal twin sisters and forty-eight percent of identical twin sisters were both lesbian . Clearly, the basis for a similar argument for predetermined homosexuality in women has been laid.
In 1993, Whitam, Diamond, & Martin found that 65% of identical twins were both gay, whereas only 29% of fraternal twins were gay.
Genetic differences
In 2004, Camperio-Ciani studied 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall. The female relatives on the mother’s side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father’s side. This suggests that women who pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile. In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother’s and the father’s side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.
In 2006, research published in the journal ?Human Genetics? found that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women. Scientists looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. They found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways – half go one way, half go the other. The research “confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved,” said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles. “When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Thanks for interjecting some sense, but it is very unlikely that forlife will be able to grasp the simplicity of “choice”.
[/quote]
Sexual orientation is not a choice (read the above studies since you apparently missed them earlier).
However, even if it was a choice, your point would still be moot.
Should black men be prohibited from the CHOICE to marry white women?
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Don’t quote anymore Bible passages. If you do I will start to quote them and you won’t like what they say about how YOU live your life.
I think you’re confused. I don’t care what the bible says about how I live my life.[/quote]
Everyone knows that. You only want to use the Bible when you THINK it suits your purposes.
