In response to your March 13th question to me, I did enjoy the paper and feel it will be useful as a reference when arguments come up.

First off let me post the part of my article here so people can see what I wrote:

“Today most medical institution in the world has come to the consensus that, while we do not know for certain what is the cause of homosexuality, or more broadly: sexual orientation, we know from studies done, such as the twin studies by J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard that the basis of sexual orientation is mainly biological and not environmental (environmental meaning effects from upbringing, experience, or trauma). These institutions have documented and done multiple experiments that conclude sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable. All of these test and studies have been completely repeatable. For homosexuality, these medical institutions find it to be, as the American Psychological Association says, “a normal, natural and positive variant of sexual orientation that is not a mental disorder.” ”

Ok first off the study done did not show 50% it talked about 55% and that was just one study done. There has been multiple studies done on “homozygous twins” (not monozygoous) that show a range of 55% to 75%. Now what is conclusive is that if homosexuality was not biological and genetically based these numbers wouldn’t even be a quarter as close. We have multiple studies done within the US and within the Europe that prove that sociological environments play no factor in a persons sexual development. We also know that birth order, in-utero environments, and hormones also play into the fact that can contribute to ones sexual orientation.

As for genetics I am not an expert on genetics; my field is in psychology. I am not completely prepared to answer such questions because I do not know enough to give you a fair, and accurate evaluation of the the whole entire field of genetics. Another thing you should consider is that just because you read one thing off the internet does not make you an expert either. I had studied the many different twin studies for over a year before I decided to even write about them. I chose this twin study because it is well known and links others to the many other studies done throughout Europe. You can certainly have your doubts, however discrediting scientific inquiry and fact simply because you read one small thing about genetics as compared to understanding the whole field is arrogant. The only piece of genetics outside of these studies that I vaguely know about is that when it comes to the study of sexual orientation in genetics with flies, certain codons can be activated or changed that can alter the sexual orientation of the subject.

Your post is somewhat bias to a degree because I state that “sexual orientation is biological” you classify is down to only one sexual orientation while opting out of all others in your conversation. That is not how it works. Homosexuality, and bisexuality, are no different than heterosexuality. All three are normal, natural, and positive variants of sexual orientation. The only difference is who the person is attracted to. That is it. To pull one out of the group is inaccurate as well as condescending. By doing so you are asking one aspect of the whole to explain itself when there is no reason for it to do so.

I do not know your entire motives but they seem more bent on discrediting my person based off of my knowledge of fundamentalist Christians and the beliefs they hold true and share, regardless of the consequence of their actions. You state: “However, it is the lustful act of same sex intercourse which is considered wrong and sinful.” In psychology we do not view all sex as “lustful.” While some sex can be only “lustful” not all sexual intercourse is. It is more appropriate that we view sex as an expression of love when in the confines of a relationship; an expression of intimacy. Which is what happens in the case with many same sex couples. To call an expression of love “wrong and sinful” simply because it is different than what your beliefs state and then force that opinion onto a researcher and scientist, is, for lack of a better term, passing judgment on something you know little about a core break in the tenets of your faith. Similar to how you state I know little about Christianity even though I read all 13 different bibles, an studied ancient Hebrew culture, traditions, and ideologies. I also studied how the Abrahamic faiths have been used throughout history to wage massive wars, crusades, and genocides against other nations, races, ethnicity, other religions, and in modern times (within the last 40 years) those who are not heterosexual. Back to the point, by trying to force a single and narrow minded, religious orientated opinion onto a person who does not even remotely share your beliefs is severely distasteful and in many ways discredits yourself entirely. To continue on and then tell me how to write because it doesn’t agree with what you want, finishes that job completely. The idiom “digging your own grave” is a proper analogy of your final paragraph towards me.

If you wish to go into a religious debate about which churches are responsible for the death of millions of innocent LGBT throughout the decades, and the millions of homeless LGBT youth on the streets right now a this very moment, I am more than willing to do so outside of this site, at a university, in front of an audience. We can happily debate the merits of the facts verses what you wish to believe to be true. Thank you and take care.

Attempting to find various responses to questions I have myself or have heard from others which I feel deserve merit.

This article reminded me of one of them. In the article, you state that studies on twins confirms that being born homosexual is biological.

If that is the case, how come the rate is only 50% chance of being homosexual if one identical twin was homosexual?

Identical twins are almost always the same sex. Excerpt from an article I found on google as I don’t have my previous research links on this handy.

“Monozygotic twins are genetically identical (unless there has been a mutation during development) and they are almost always the same sex. On rare occasions, monozygotic twins may express different phenotypes (normally due to an environmental factor or the deactivation of different X chromosomes in monozygotic female twins), and in some extremely rare cases, due to aneuploidy, twins may express different sexual phenotypes, normally due to an XXY Klinefelter’s syndrome zygote splitting unevenly”

source: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Twin (further sources at bottom of that link)

With that being said, I ask again, how does that study clearly show that being born homosexual is biological? It does not seem that conclusive based on the fact that identical twins are almost always the same sex outside of environmental factors or the deactivation of different X chromosomes. That would lead me to believe the roughly the same percentage would be shown in the twin study when they are genetically identical. Please explain in more depth why it is so conclusive given the information I presented.

Also, I think you should note that you seem to be discussing Christianity beliefs wrong (and I fully understand why as most Christians have no idea what the true religion preaches these days…it saddens me). What you discuss as Christianity is more of an extremist group. Keep in mind, their are roughly 2-3 new Christian religions born everyday because people pick and choose what they want to believe to adhere to their lifestyle. Loving a person, regardless of sex, is not wrong, in any way, according to Christianity. It is encouraged as one of the main points of Christianity even though many Christians are truly poor examples. However, it is the lustful act of same sex intercourse which is considered wrong and sinful. Please, in any future articles, refer to that correctly. While most Christians may not understand that difference, some of us do. Unfortunately, the ones who typically speak out the most about Christianity tend to know the least about it.

I hope this encourages a fruitful discussion even though our views seem to differ.

This common annoyance is similar to how some scientist say “fact of evolution,” rather than “theory of evolution” when speaking to the public. Semantics is a powerful way to kill a speech and confuse an audience. If this paper had to be for my constituents in the APA I would have included what you have stated. Again, for all intent and purpose doing so for a class that doesn’t fully understand the basic principles and ethics of science, not to mention vocabulary, it is best left explaining it as what they perceive to be true about scientific vocabulary, not what we scientist know to be true.

Again thank you for your critique, and did you enjoy the paper and found it to be a good arguing reference others can use?

Environmental causes aren’t solely effects from upbringing, experience, or trauma. Environmental causes can be biological as well, such as hormone baths in utero, contact with viruses or chemicals in the natural environment and so on. What you refere to as environmental effects are best referred to as sociological causes.

I am glad to be writing for TWO and I look forward to bringing you more essays and blogs. Take care and thank you everyone.

Young people are required to be taken from parents who neglect or abuse them. Parents who make no arrangements for that child by another adult family member or friend, can and should be brought up on charges.

These gay children are essentially GOOD kids. They are not using drugs, they are not violent, they are not endangering any members of the family or their material comforts.
So it’s especially egregious that the ONLY motive that makes these parents abandon their children is their sexual orientation because it’s not a factor that the child is uncontrollable or hurting anyone or themselves.

I don’t have a problem with reporting parents who abuse their gay child and being forced into PFLAG style counseling, instead of making the gay child responsible for changing into something they can’t be and never will be.

After all, when parents have children that are different. Such as a genius, a lefty, a prodigy in something like sports or the arts, their first impulse isn’t to KEEP them from being that way or punish them for it.

It’s the same with being gay and the sooner they are educated in how to respond to a gay child CORRECTLY, the less likelihood they will bury that child in a cemetery.
Who tells these parents their child is suddenly not worthy of their love and support over something that they should EXPECT in the first place?

Most parents complain that children don’t come with instructions. The point is there ARE instructions, but some instructions are WRONG. Such as what comes from religious doctrine and not personal experience with their own child.

Besides, how DUMB do you have to be that you can have ONE or two gay kids out of a handful of them and believe that what you’ve done as a parent has ANY bearing on the child choosing to be gay when they didn’t ALL turn out that way?

DUH.

Because it allows the bigots to absolve themselves of any guilt or responsibility when they deny us rights and/or harm us. They can do as they please to us and say it’s our fault. If we’d only stop being gay they wouldn’t have to keep doing (ABC, XYZ) to us.