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

[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! 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?

The species defaults to heterosexuality, because if it didn't there wouldn't be a species anymore.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Awfully convenient standard you are applying there.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Let's remember that at one time...thanks to religious superstition...lefthandedness was considered evil and children were FORCED to switch hands for things like writing under pain of physical punishment or even ostracism.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Awfully convenient standard you are applying there.

How so? Convenient to NOT ignore studies on identical twins and that 40% figure?

 

[Fang]

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?

That's how I see it. I never chose my sexuality. I just was what I was. I can only assume it's the same for everyone? I don't know.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Awfully convenient standard you are applying there.

How so? Convenient to NOT ignore studies on identical twins and that 40% figure?

Not ignoring it, but sorry, 40% isn't exactly iron clad proof.

And again, what is the sample size of identical twins raised separately? How different were the upbringings?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

I disagree..it is the resistance on the anti's--that makes it political...acceptance should be a given..IMO.

I'm not really sure that civil rights..racial or gender driven...really enter into the argument of nature vs nurture at all.....except when some conclude that women or people of color have certain negative traits that are inherited..and thus disqualify them from top tier rights.

Now one can argue about cultural identification....and gender choice...but I think that is a bit separate from Civil Rights..and the struggle for a basic common denominator of invested social rights..such as the franchise..equal pay and the like.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Awfully convenient standard you are applying there.

How so? Convenient to NOT ignore studies on identical twins and that 40% figure?

Not ignoring it, but sorry, 40% isn't exactly iron clad proof.

And again, what is the sample size of identical twins raised separately? How different were the upbringings?

40% vs. 5% thruout the rest of the population......let's conveniently ignore that?

 

[martybegan]

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.

I disagree..it is the resistance on the anti's--that makes it political...acceptance should be a given..IMO.

I'm not really sure that civil rights..racial or gender driven...really enter into the argument of nature vs nurture at all.....except when some conclude that women or people of color have certain negative traits that are inherited..and thus disqualify them from top tier rights.

Now one can argue about cultural identification....and gender choice...but I think that is a bit separate from Civil Rights..and the struggle for a basic common denominator of invested social rights..such as the franchise..equal pay and the like.

Why should acceptance be a given? Many religions consider it sinful? Are you saying that those religious people should be forced to accept something they see as sinful?

I don't care what people do with their own lives, My issues are about forced acceptance, and misusing the courts to get things via unconstitutional means.

 

[OldLady]

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.

The report he cited is a review of the literature, not a study in itself, that was published in 2016. Paul McHugh is a well respected, brilliant psychiatrist, but any "review" of the available research is susceptible to bias, and his is clear in the introduction to the report (see OP's link). He is right that neither school of thought is 100% right--nature and nurture both play a role, and there is no reason for either side to ignore that.
However, the report most likely did NOT intend to give people like the OP a reason to spout what he is now saying, either.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Awfully convenient standard you are applying there.

How so? Convenient to NOT ignore studies on identical twins and that 40% figure?

Not ignoring it, but sorry, 40% isn't exactly iron clad proof.

And again, what is the sample size of identical twins raised separately? How different were the upbringings?

40% vs. 5% thruout the rest of the population......let's conveniently ignore that?

I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions.

And I think homosexuality is lower than 5%, I'd guess more like 1-2%, with another 1-2% being in the bi category.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or choice is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The right to make that choice is protected by the Constitution.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How so? Convenient to NOT ignore studies on identical twins and that 40% figure?

Have you actually provided proof of what you claim? I haven't seen any therefor your claims are actually baseless and irrelevant.

 

[martybegan]

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or choice is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The right to make that choice is protected by the Constitution.

And Religious Freedom isn't?

 

[bodecea]

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

Awfully convenient standard you are applying there.

How so? Convenient to NOT ignore studies on identical twins and that 40% figure?

Not ignoring it, but sorry, 40% isn't exactly iron clad proof.

And again, what is the sample size of identical twins raised separately? How different were the upbringings?

40% vs. 5% thruout the rest of the population......let's conveniently ignore that?

I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions.

And I think homosexuality is lower than 5%, I'd guess more like 1-2%, with another 1-2% being in the bi category.

LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia

But if we take your figure....40% vs. 1-2% is even MORE significant.

 

[bodecea]

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or choice is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The right to make that choice is protected by the Constitution.

And Religious Freedom isn't?

Religious freedom is fine....but religious freedom doesn't mean that a religion can control others thru our secular laws.

 

[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!

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.

I agree. If DNA determined gayness, there would be less than a 2% chance the other twin would be heterosexual. The only reason that could be is because after conception, and in the helter-skelter way genes can cross over, only 2% of genes do that later. 40% is way over the top and predicates a social or personal choice, not DNA.

 

[miketx]

They are mistaken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, you choose to get butt rammed.

 

[miketx]

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?

They aren't you quote fake pro fag news.

 

[martybegan]

Awfully convenient standard you are applying there.

How so? Convenient to NOT ignore studies on identical twins and that 40% figure?

Not ignoring it, but sorry, 40% isn't exactly iron clad proof.

And again, what is the sample size of identical twins raised separately? How different were the upbringings?

40% vs. 5% thruout the rest of the population......let's conveniently ignore that?

I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions.

And I think homosexuality is lower than 5%, I'd guess more like 1-2%, with another 1-2% being in the bi category.

LGBT demographics of the United States - Wikipedia

But if we take your figure....40% vs. 1-2% is even MORE significant.

not really.