Identical twins, one gay, one ain't

It doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not.

What matters is that there are homosexuals and that they DO NOT choose to be homosexual but simply ARE homosexual. It can not be cured (despite what you've might've heard from those religious institutions). Think of sexuality as a spectrum: 0 being straight and 10 being homosexual. Everyone fits into that spectrum, some 0, some 10, but most of us at the bottom of the scale like 1 and 2, a few of us at 8 and 9, and some between 4 and 7. Those who are "cured" would most likely be found around the 4 to 7 range. Essentially, they are bi-sexual, tended to find their own gender more attractive, but can make a life with the opposite gender.

The point is, homosexuals are gay. They don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight. They just are. And we shouldn't punish them for it. Especially since being gay doesn't hurt anybody.

Your position seems to be 'they are, therefore they are'. Its illogical.

His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.
 
His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.
He can believe whatever he wants, but I'm bringing up a case of identical twins- pesky facts. Raised in the same womb. Again, you can't tell these two gals apart except one had a longer hair style when I met her.
 
His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.

This is what I said:

Sexual ORIENTATION, not preference, is not a choice.

Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. Straights do not choose to be straight. Bisexuals can choose to be in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship, but do not choose to be bisexual.

Don't confuse actions and behavior with what a person is. Just because someone is in a homosexual relationship doesn't mean s/he is gay, but, looking at some of the right-wing family values and conservative leaders recently, being in a straight relationship doesn't make a person straight.

Genetics doesn't matter.
 
His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.
He can believe whatever he wants, but I'm bringing up a case of identical twins- pesky facts. Raised in the same womb. Again, you can't tell these two gals apart except one had a longer hair style when I met her.

Actually I think it accounts for that quite well. According to the model he mentioned, the twins in question would likely be near the middle of the spectrum, say a 4, 5, or 6. Somebody who is a 6, for example, might weakly prefer the same sex. For such people environmental factors or other preferences are much more significant. One question is whether their social relations have led them to believe that bisexuality, or even homosexuality, is a viable option. Like many heterosexuals, some homosexuals don't believe in bisexuality as a distinct orientation.

However, somebody who is a 10 cannot, under any circumstances, be attracted to somebody of the opposite sex. So their choice is really between homosexuality and nothing.
 
Last edited:
His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.

This is what I said:

Sexual ORIENTATION, not preference, is not a choice.

Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual. Straights do not choose to be straight. Bisexuals can choose to be in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship, but do not choose to be bisexual.

Don't confuse actions and behavior with what a person is. Just because someone is in a homosexual relationship doesn't mean s/he is gay, but, looking at some of the right-wing family values and conservative leaders recently, being in a straight relationship doesn't make a person straight.

Genetics doesn't matter.

I don't think anybody can definitively say the last statement you made. But I'd agree that being in a homosexual relationship does not exclude the possibility that the person is bisexual. It's not like most people see a 3-person relationship as a possibility.
 
Maybe, while the babies were in the womb, the positioning of one blocked the other from hearing the Barry Manilow music when mom played it?

I don't care what anyone says about Manilow....My husband and I, over a decade ago, went to a concert of his at the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center...

It was a fantastic showing, goose bumpy for the both of us and the hubby really is not a manilow fan....at all, and he was pretty impressed, it was a great show and he was a great entertainer....very personal, very responsive to the crowd...

the only other setting that i felt similar on, was an Elton John concert, at the university of Connecticut Campus....where your seats were folding chairs in their auditorium....another goose bump situation because Elton really played to the audience and even went out among it...a very relaxed, fun on his part and ours, concert....

Weird....cuz i have loved alot of other concerts in my day....Eagles-3 times, Stones-twice, Fleetwood Mac, Chicago, santana, Yes, Alice Cooper, Billy Joel, Beach Boys, ELO, James Taylor, ...and the Lord only knows due to my youth at the time, the concerts I have forgotten :eek:

Who would have thunk that Barry would have made it up there in ranking, but he did, surprisingly so.

care
 
Last edited:
I don't think anybody can definitively say the last statement you made. But I'd agree that being in a homosexual relationship does not exclude the possibility that the person is bisexual. It's not like most people see a 3-person relationship as a possibility.

What I was saying is that genetics doesn 't matter when it comes to treating homosexuals as equal citizens witht the same rights and status as straight citizens.
 
Actually I think it accounts for that quite well. According to the model he mentioned, the twins in question would likely be near the middle of the spectrum, say a 4, 5, or 6. Somebody who is a 6, for example, might weakly prefer the same sex. For such people environmental factors or other preferences are much more significant. One question is whether their social relations have led them to believe that bisexuality, or even homosexuality, is a viable option. Like many heterosexuals, some homosexuals don't believe in bisexuality as a distinct orientation.

However, somebody who is a 10 cannot, under any circumstances, be attracted to somebody of the opposite sex. So their choice is really between homosexuality and nothing.
I understand the hypothesis, however there is nothing to back it up, certainly not the facts of this case. The twins grew up in the same family, same house, same schools. In fact they chose identical careers in their formative years, both achieving nearly identical results.

If the normal gal had married some fruity guy, then the hypothesis might have some validity, but she married a real old school type.
 
I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. One is normal, married, one child. The other is gay, "domestic partner", and has a kid through artificial means.

Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.



Twins are born, one has brown eyes and one has blue, therefore eye color is not genetic?

Twins are born, one is right handed and the other is a lefty, therefore hand dominance is not genetic?

Twins are born, one is a boy and one is a girl, therefore gender is not genetic?

Identical twins boys are born, one becomes a football player the other a figure skater.:eusa_eh:

Identical twins are born, one becomes a priest and the other becomes a politician, how could this possibly be? :eek:

You follow? :lol: Even twins are unique individuals.
 
Last edited:
wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME? Are you fucking kidding me? Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics?

good fucking lord, when did TWINS become CLONES?
 
I don't think anybody can definitively say the last statement you made. But I'd agree that being in a homosexual relationship does not exclude the possibility that the person is bisexual. It's not like most people see a 3-person relationship as a possibility.

What I was saying is that genetics doesn't matter when it comes to treating homosexuals as equal citizens with the same rights and status as straight citizens.

:clap2:
 
wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME? Are you fucking kidding me? Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics?

good fucking lord, when did TWINS become CLONES?

Yes, exactly...I guess I actually misspoke by using the term "identical" in my examples, but the point is the same....Of course twins are unique individuals.
 
Identical twins have the same dna...but that doesn't mean they are the same person or react to situations in the same manner.

IMO, we are all born with the capacity to go either way...or both ways, lol. It's probably just a matter of preference, like picking a chocolate chip cookie as a favorite snack as opposed to picking a potato chip.
 
I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. One is normal, married, one child. The other is gay, "domestic partner", and has a kid through artificial means.

Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.

Easy peasy.

Identical twins aren't as identical as you think.

http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfacts/a/twinfingerprint.htm

Identical twins generate a lot of curiosity. And a lot of misconceptions! Parents of multiples have probably not given a great deal of thought to their childrens' fingerprint patterns, but the general public has spent a lot of time wondering about this topic.



So, do identical twins have identical fingerprints? The basic answer is NO. Identical -- or monozygotic -- twins form when a single fertilized egg splits in two after conception. Because they form from a single zygote, the two individuals will have the same genetic makeup. Their DNA is virtually indistinguishable.

However, fingerprints are not an entirely genetic characteristic. Scientists love to use this topic as an example of the old "nature vs. nurture" debate. Fingerprinting, along with other physical characteristics, is an example of a phenotype -- meaning that it is determined by the interaction of an indivdual's genes and the developmental environment in the uterus.
 
Last edited:
This whole thread is nothing but stupid assertions ... even the OP. One major issue that most people forget: Identical twins are NOT exact copies of each other, they just share most traits.
 
What's the point of this thread? So what if homsexuality isn't genetic. So what if it is? Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice? Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual. Do you choose to be straight? No. So this thread is pointless. The End.
 
What's the point of this thread? So what if homsexuality isn't genetic. So what if it is? Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice? Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual. Do you choose to be straight? No. So this thread is pointless. The End.

If they didn't have the homosexuals to argue about it would be "missionary" versus "doggy".
 
What's the point of this thread? So what if homsexuality isn't genetic. So what if it is? Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice? Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual. Do you choose to be straight? No. So this thread is pointless. The End.
Translation: it can't be true because I don't believe it. *ppfftt*
 
If the normal gal had married some fruity guy, then the hypothesis might have some validity, but she married a real old school type.

So I assume that this "real old school guy" doesn't wear cardigans and khakis, cologne, and has nicely trimmed hair and clean shaven, and enjoys a fine cabernet savignon and watching sex in the city, but rather he wears Carhartts and steel-toe boots, smells faintly of motor oil, has greasy hair with scruffy beard, and likes drinking Pabst and watches Ultimate Fighting?

I bet he also belches, openly scratches his hairy belly, and watches Spike TV in the living room while wearing T-shirt and boxers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top