"Sigh . I knew once I started digging I would unearth NARTH lies ... Let 's start with their claims on the `` twin `` studies , shall we ? From the ACTUAL article they pretend to quote ... Biometric modeling revealed that , in men , genetic effects explained 0.34-0.39 of the variance , the shared environment .00 , and the individual specific environment 0.61-0.66 of the variance .... In men , the full twin model suggested heritability estimates of 39 % for any lifetime same-sex partner ( 95 % CI:00-59 % ) and 34 % for total number of same-sex partners ( 95 CI : 00-53 % ) , whereas unique environmental factors accounted for 61 % Genetic and Environmental Effects on Same-sex Sexual Behavior : A Population Study of Twins in Sweden Also , quoting the author of the study : Â “ Overall , genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors ( that is , not societal attitudes , family or parenting which are shared by twins ) accounted for around 64 per cent . In other words , men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways , not just one pathway.Â ” Homosexual behaviour due to genetics and environmental factors Queen Mary , University of London With no surprise , NARTH lied and tried to down-play the genetic results , whereas the ACTUAL STUDY CONFIRMED genetic contribution to sexual orientation . ================================================== ===================== Addition : I saw NARTH quoted `` townhall.com `` , which is absolutely absurd for any scientific pretense . They reference : `` Prager , D. ( 2005 ) . '' College Taught Her Not To Be a Heterosexual. `` Available on the web at : Townhall.com. `` They did n't give a direct link to the article , and when I looked at the article I realized why ... Dennis Prager : College taught her not to be a heterosexual - Townhall.com The article IS NOT scientific by any pretense . Dennis , an editorialist , interviews ONE WOMAN and from there proclaims this individual 's experiences as `` typical `` and proof of his conclusions on millions of college women . And the funny thing is that Dennis reaches this conclusion IN SPITE OF what this woman actually tells him . This woman describes her life experience , and her interpretation of how she came to be where she is today . Dennis , in his thorough lack of knowledge on homosexuals , presumes to contradict her experience . It 's obvious he had reached his opinion long before the interview , and nothing the woman said was going to sway him . And NARTH ACTUALLY CITES THIS in their `` research `` ? ? ? Yet another reason why I think `` NARTH `` should NEVER be confused with legitimate science . They are an organization formed for political purposes and backed by people with political purposes . Political purposes which EXCLUSIVELY revolve around being anti-gay ..."
"You have not proven any lies .... Sorry , you have not . The studies were done in different countries . AND , since the APA is now also reporting the lack of genetic evidence , obviously there are no lies involved . ARe you aware that in May of this year , ( you should catch up ) the APA has begun changing the language in their papers , related to therapies , causes of homosexuality ? These are professionals , belonging to the APA , including their former presidents and leaders ... Sorry but you are wrong , the paper includes studies from different countries on twins , the facts are it is an `` environmental `` cause not a genetic cause ...... that is what the studies are showing and even the APA is beginning to change it their writing suggesting reparative therapies will work , depending on the cause ... See this : APA 's New Pamphlet on Homosexuality De-emphasizes the Biological Argument , Supports a Client 's Right to Self-Determination"
"I started digging I would unearth NARTH lies ... Let 's start with their claims on the `` twin `` studies , shall we ?"
"You have not proven any lies .... Sorry , you have not"