Customer Discussions > mp3 discussion forum

When listening to Elton John songs please realize he was not born gay ---nobody is (mygenes.co.nz)--and identical twins only having one homosexual among them proves it.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 155 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 31 Jul 2013 23:58:35 BDT
Ian says:
"It's not usually a conscious choice" - how do you know?

"but it's certainly not genetic or biological or inborn in any way." - Again, how do you know? Studies suggest that genetics have a significant effect on sexuality and that hormone levels in the womb may also have an effect; put those two together and sexuality may well be determined before birth.

""Gay" is a mindset and pattern of behavior, not an identity." - I have no idea what that means, would you like to explain it? Perhaps this time you could also include some evidence for your sweeping statements (but if you do please try to make it more credible than MoT's evidence - a website written by a geologist who cherry-picks evidence isn't very convincing).

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 00:10:54 BDT
DG says:
I know because studies have been completely inconclusive, and people change sexuality all the time (though, for some reason, going from straight to gay is FAR more socially allowed than gay to straight, which makes absolutely no sense, and it's really not that amazing, and I'm not making this up, I've seen it happen firsthand). No, studies do not suggest that genetics have any kind of significant effect on sexuality, and not even the most pro-gay scientists (which means they would have been looking especially hard, which also indicates a bias, which wasn't much of a benefit anyway) were able to find anything conclusive in decades of research. There's just as much evidence against genetic causality than for it, if not more. It's irresponsible and unconscionable, and frankly absurd, to imagine that a newborn (or in utero) child is "gay".

As for behavior vs. identity, it's as simple as that. The only thing that "proves" a person is gay is behavior and self-identification. There's no gene, there's no difference in DNA to speak of, it's simply that if someone claims they're attracted to someone of the same sex or behaves homosexually, they are labeled as "gay." Even stereotypes and mannerisms are just that -- behavior and interests, but nothing that can actually define or prove homosexuality besides how one behaves sexually or identifies themselves. There's ample evidence to all of this, but it's not my responsibility to do your research for you. I could just as easily ask you to find a single bit of conclusive evidence to the "born that way" theory, though I know you will find none, because none exists. Do the slightest bit of honest research of your own and you might be surprised what you find.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 00:28:31 BDT
Ian says:
"No, studies do not suggest that genetics have any kind of significant effect on sexuality,"

On another forum 3 posters have repeatedly referred to twin studies as evidence that genetics do not affect sexuality. However, twin studies show that identical twins are significantly more likely to have the same sexuality as non-identical twins or non-twin siblings. That looks like a genetic effect to me; can you offer an alternative explanation?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 00:35:49 BDT
DG says:
OH, thank you for reminding me, I totally meant to mention starting with identical twin studies at the end of my post, that's a perfect illustration of my point. Identical twins have identical genetic makeup, which means that if homosexual attraction were genetic, homosexuality in identical twins would show a 100% correlation. "Significantly more likely" is NOT 100% (and is also untrue), and as such, I can't believe the genetic causality myth is still even prevalent in the world today. (I mean, I know exactly WHY it's constantly being forced down the public's throat, that's certainly part of a pretty major agenda, but that doesn't explain why people don't realize how illogical it is.) Again, the onus of explanation is not on me, you're obviously capable of using the internet, so you can feel free to do your own research, as I have certainly done. Just, when you do, try not to search just for minute points that correlate to what you already think you know, but try to keep an open mind.

(Now I'm curious as to how you would have responded had I mentioned twin studies in my previous comment as I meant to, ha ha.)

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 00:53:02 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2013 01:01:28 BDT
Ian says:
"Identical twins have identical genetic makeup, which means that if homosexual attraction were genetic, homosexuality in identical twins would show a 100% correlation."

No it doesn't; that's not how genes work (and no geneticist has though that way since the middle of the last century). Genes influence us in combination with our environment but they are not absolute. We are now able to identify genes linked to various forms of cancer and heart disease; the possession of a dominant allele or 2 recessive alleles of such a gene does not mean you will develop the disease, it means you have an increased likelihood that you will.

You are correct to say that "significantly more likely is not 100%"; can you offer me some biology which is 100%?

Nobody has found a gene or genes for sexuality (there may or may not be one), but to claim that twin studies is proof of lack of a genetic effect is untrue. However, can you offer an alternative explanation for why identical twins are significantly more likely to have the same sexuality than non-identical twins or non-twin siblings?

EDIT: On what basis do you dismiss identical twins being significantly more likely to have the same sexuality as non-identical twins as "and is also untrue"? Do you have some evidence for that belief?

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 01:01:30 BDT
DG says:
Twin studies are ONE compelling evidence against genetic causality, not absolute proof (which word I didn't use).

Yet again, it's not my responsibility to provide an alternative explanation, but I will reiterate that identical twins are NOT significantly more likely to share sexuality than fraternal twins or non-twin siblings.

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 01:07:00 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2013 01:08:20 BDT
Ian says:
"Twin studies are ONE compelling evidence against genetic causality"

Show me, because I can find religious websites making this claim, but whenever I read the abstract of a twin study it says "the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects" or something similar. It's easy to make your claim, but I see no evidence to back it up.

EDIT: "I will reiterate that identical twins are NOT significantly more likely to share sexuality than fraternal twins or non-twin siblings." you can reiterate it all you like, but until you supply some studies which suggest that then you're just repeating a statement with no evidence to back it up.

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 01:11:19 BDT
Ian says:
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 homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, "A genetic study of male sexual orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry

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 homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), "Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation," American Journal of Psychiatry

Keep denying it if you like, but don't pretend your beliefs are based on evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 01:13:09 BDT
Ian says:
"Yet again, it's not my responsibility to provide an alternative explanation"

As I've posted the evidence that your assertion is wrong, it has now become your responsibility to supply an alternative explanation rather than making unsupported statements.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 16:28:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2013 16:30:53 BDT
DG says:
Yes, that's the key, most recent study, and as far as "significantly more likely," next you have to consider from where they gathered their "random" sampling of identical twins (ads in homophile publications hardly seem like the most ethical, honeset method of recruitment for a study like this), how these subjects are actually proven gay (like I said, it's entirely based on self-identification, which is hardly evidence... I could go around saying I'm Gandhi reincarnated and no one could prove otherwise), and of course how old this study actually is (coming on 25 years now, and no additions to the higher correlation theory?), as well as various other issues that arise when it comes to testing objectivity and bias (for example, if the subjects know the purpose or hypothesis of the test, it could affect their responses). Besides this, science is never reliable as it's constantly changing. Even if they find a "gay gene" (which they never will) there's no guarantee that the theory will hold forever, once someone new is found it will completely disprove the first.

It's not the MOST responsible study, but it makes some important observations, and the bottom line and the key takeaway is that, regardless of all this and all potential biases aside, if it were genetic, identical twins would have 100% correlation in sexuality.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 20:31:03 BDT
Ian says:
"if it were genetic, identical twins would have 100% correlation in sexuality" - repeating this nonsense just demonstrates that your knowledge of genetics is that of a primary school child (that's elementary school) or is around 70 years out of date.

"coming on 25 years now, and no additions to the higher correlation theory?" The date I gave you was 1993 - so you're arithmetic is about as good as your knowledge of genetics (and even if the latest research was 25 years our of date it'd still look modern beside your understanding of genetics).

The quote I gave in a previous post describing an approxiamtely 0.39 genetic efect was from a 2006 study which was designed to answer all the citicisms you just gave in that last post.

Can I suggest you go and get a proper education rather than just relying on nonsense fed to you by Dr NE Whitehead (the homophobic geologist) and organisations like NARTH. It might challenge some of the nonsense you want to believe and pretty much everything you've said in that last post shows you're not actually interested in the science of sexuality ("Even if they find a "gay gene" (which they never will) there's no guarantee that the theory will hold forever" - so even faced with evidence you'd still continue to deny it; no change there then!).

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 21:20:42 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Aug 2013 21:32:15 BDT
DG says:
Can I suggest that you don't jump to conclusions about a perfect stranger and assume that I have only done the research you seem to think I have? It might challenge some of the hypocritical and narrow-minded heterophobic assumptions you might be prone to make. And the "coming on 25 years" was in reference to the more well-known Bailey & Pillard study, which was almost 23 years ago, and which description seems to fit perfectly (not to split hairs, but you did bring that particular irrelevant jab up). Cheap shots left and right! True colors revealed. That didn't take long.

This is a waste of time. When you are unwilling to consider alternate viewpoints just because you don't personally like the person or organization they come from, it becomes useless to continue a discussion with you. And then to cite and spread pro-gay studies as if they were unbiased and conclusive is as irresponsible as the slanted scientists themselves are in their methods. I have personal experience with this issue from the inside and the outside and I stand by the statement made in the original post of this thread, and the science, flawed and faulty as it can be, agrees. Good luck with all your superior knowledge of genetics and arithmetic. Try to open your mind a little more and make fewer assumptions in the future, and a little humility and maturity couldn't hurt either. Cheers.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Aug 2013 22:17:23 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
DG, this is indeed a waste of time, most, if not nearly all Brits don't give a fig whether someone is homosexual, transsexual or has a cucumber and marmalade fetish. As a nation we all lost friends and family and/or property fighting against the Nazis. We won the freedom to be who you wish to be.
And as a secular society, we wish to move forward not be held back by inane bigotry.
Most here won't except alternate viewpoints, simply because we are not interested in the topic. It's redundant, homosexuality is a normal part of our society's fabric and apart from some innocuous (and very British) humour, we don't want to even discuss it, its merits or disadvantages. It is what it is, there are bigger fish to fry.

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 22:18:04 BDT
Celebelena says:
Being gay may not be to do with genetics (although it may in some cases) but instead hormone levels babies experience in the womb from their mother. So I think a person can be born gay and it have nothing to do with their genetics. I'm no scientist and I'm pretty open minded and I think maybe there are a whole host of possible reasons, some may be genetically based and others not. One thing I think for sure is that gay people are not straight people that choose to be gay, that is frankly absurd. Some process during their lives, either as unborn babies or very young children have determined their sexuality. I think it's pretty cool that there are many types of sexual preference. We live in an exciting and interesting world.

Posted on 1 Aug 2013 23:49:06 BDT
So,about MP3's then,I like 'em.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Aug 2013 11:01:52 BDT
Ian says:
MP3s are gay

Posted on 2 Aug 2013 15:11:08 BDT
DG says:
If they are, they weren't born that way. ;)

Posted on 2 Aug 2013 22:12:46 BDT
Leftin says:
When listening to Ben Elton sing, and Elton John crack jokes and puns, realise there's a parallel universe.

Posted on 2 Aug 2013 22:15:53 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
Some yanks weren't born stupid and yet they still manage to be so.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Aug 2013 22:32:30 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Aug 2013 22:33:12 BDT
DG says:
No one is born stupid, but some Brits still manage to become so.

(See how easy it is to turn that one around? Do try a *little* harder if you insist on being so petty. Jabs like that are just lazy. That kind of weak retort isn't much of a credit to your country.)

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2013 03:04:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 3 Aug 2013 03:15:17 BDT
Song a song of sixpence,a pocket full of rye.Four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie.When the pie was open the birds began to sing,wasn't that a dainty dish to set before the king? "No" said a large man from the RSPCA at the front door,"You're all nicked." Nobody is born stupid,it takes years of practice and a lot of patience to truly perfect it.(The Village Idiot). Courtesy of Night Owl Productions.

Posted on 3 Aug 2013 03:22:16 BDT
If X is the set of people who are homosexual and Y is the set of people who aren't how many times does X go into Y?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2013 05:07:50 BDT
Congratulations on your thoughts here . I didn't choose to be Gay either !!! To have ones parents not to accept you , not to consider your thoughts valid , worthless and solid/valuable . Even on their death bed not to accept you for what you are . In the 1960s to live in dreadful fear of being ' found out ' and to be jeered at ; only when the laws were changed we ' Gay ' people were able to hold our heads up and be counted . Not a choice I would want to take . Even then one had electricity shock treatment in the hope it would change ones proclivity . I wonder if you have ever thought that if there were no gays around the Airline Industry would come to a standstill , the theatre , opera and ballet would suffer due to lack of afficionadose ... some of THE most cultural among us would go back into hiding and the cogs in the wheel would come to a standstill and as such would cease to operate . I do so hope that before these people make these ridiculous accusations they sit and think before opening their respective mouths and making such crass comments .

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2013 06:15:11 BDT
Brass Neck says:
Depends if they're bi and how much energy/viagra they have?

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2013 06:18:32 BDT
Brass Neck says:
Your experience sounds horrendous JRS but aren't you in danger of stereotyping gay folk a little? Are ALL male cabin crew, actors, opera singers and male ballet dancers gay? Surprised you didn't mention hairdressers!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the mp3 discussion forum (370 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  mp3 discussion forum
Participants:  28
Total posts:  155
Initial post:  6 Jul 2013
Latest post:  18 Jan 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions