I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[White_MAGA_Man]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

 

[Hellbilly]

They are mistaken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bodecea]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

 

[martybegan]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

 

[blastoff]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

Wonder what the evidence was people are born heterosexual?

 

[bodecea]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

 

[martybegan]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

 

[bodecea]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

 

[White_MAGA_Man]

They are mistaken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No they're not!

 

[Taz]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

You can come out of the closet now.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

its everyone favorite homo commie children's activist

somethings seriously wrong with these mental defect left wing nazi activists

 

[martybegan]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

 

[bodecea]

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

I did not claim it was entirely DNA....but it shows a DNA component....like lefthandedness.

 

[beautress]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

I agree. It is 100% personal choice, not an inheritance. Most other folly also is not inherited but is the personal choice of the person engaging in it.

 

[martybegan]

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

I did not claim it was entirely DNA....but it shows a DNA component....like lefthandedness.

If it's not entirely DNA, then the study in question is pretty much spot on then, despite the OP's vulgar take on it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

Nature and nurture...people wish to go one way or the other..but it is clear that in most cases of human behavior..both play their roles.
The OP's agenda and prejudices are well known..thus any conclusions he brings are automatically suspect.

the one thing that is clear..is that some mythical figure named 'Satan' has nothing to do with it.

Politicizing the issue is stupid..but there you are.

 

[martybegan]

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

Nature and nurture...people wish to go one way or the other..but it is clear that in most cases of human behavior..both play their roles.
The OP's agenda and prejudices are well known..thus any conclusions he brings are automatically suspect.

the one thing that is clear..is that some mythical figure named 'Satan' has nothing to do with it.

Politicizing the issue is stupid..but there you are.

Sorry, but when one side wants to legislate not just tolerance, but acceptance, then they are also making it political.

And in reality, the nature vs. nurture thing has a real impact on how we view it. If it's an inherent property like being black, or a woman then it's link to civil rights actions of the past are far more strong than if it is just a chosen behavior.

We don't see people screaming for the civil rights of furries.

 

[bodecea]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

I agree. It is 100% personal choice, not an inheritance. Most other folly also is not inherited but is the personal choice of the person engaging in it.

If it's 100% a choice, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you? What do you recall leading to that choice?

 

[Fang]

It just says there isn't sufficient evidence. I think they are wrong. How could a guy choose to do whatever it is he does with another guy and not be born that way? With that said, I still assume it's possible environmental factors can play part since there isn't evidence either way.

 

[bodecea]

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

If it were entirely DNA it would be 100%.

I did not claim it was entirely DNA....but it shows a DNA component....like lefthandedness.

If it's not entirely DNA, then the study in question is pretty much spot on then, despite the OP's vulgar take on it.

No....the study would be spot on if DNA had 0% influence.