There is a biological cause to homosexuality

A brief history of the debate I am not sure how many people have actually followed the debate on homosexuality, so I will give a brief summary. In 1973, the APA removed homosexuality from its list of diagnostic disorders despite academic protest. Daryl J Bem, later in 1997 presented a theory known as exotic becomes erotic to the APA. Earlier, in 1991, three studies where published and these studies really got the debate to lift off. Dean Hamer in 1991 published a study finding a “gay-gene” in Xq28. Hamer’s study had no replication and got criticism in 1993 (I will show this in a minute). LeVay 1991 claims the hypothalamus in homosexual men was smaller in homosexual men—in women it is also smaller so it is easy to conclude its genetic—however after intense scrutiny he re-evaluated his study in 1994 and argued his study does not prove a biological cause to homosexuality. Byne and Parsons, 1991 (actually used against me in a forum on this website) uses a twin study—twin studies, I find, are the strongest studies on this issue—argued a genetic cause for homosexuality. In 1993, Byne and Parsons published a review and argued no genetic cause for homosexuality, based on the evidence, likely exists. Despite Byne and Parsons, in 1998 the APA concluded homosexuality was natural. The APA said there was “substantial evidence” for a “genetic or inborn” factors at play with homosexuality. Lets skip my favorite years in the middle and shoot to the most recent. In 2008, the APA changed their view (odd, considering their board is full of homosexuals themselves…). Now, they argue there is “no consensus” on the reasons why people are homosexual, and that no findings have emerged to permit scientists to claim any one factor or factors that cause homosexuality [1]. 1. Twin studies and other data As I said, twin studies are some of the strongest evidence in the debate of nurture vs. nature, so I will use them. In twin studies, I would like to note a placenta effect exists. For example, identical twins have about a 25% chance they have the same placenta. The placenta regulates what blood goes where, so 75% of the time the children have a different placenta and, therefore, will have large differences in their genes. In one study, using both identical and non-identical twins, usually 15% of the kids will have the same placenta. This gives an artificial—fake—boost in genetic factors by 15%. For example, if you have a study and it says homosexuality is 50% genetic, using the placenta effect it should really be 35%. Obviously, this does not always apply, but for any study likely note the contribution is usually slightly overstated due to the placenta effect, and that a few percent should be subtracted every time we hear these numbers [2]. NE Whitehead in his book My Genes Made Me Do It, published in 1999 but is being updated constantly in the Internet, has done a meta analysis of 10,000 studies. In chapter ten, he finds that using these studies we only see 10% of homosexuality is genetic. But, as he explains, “[s]aying a trait is, e. g 10% “genetic” is nothing extraordinary. There is at least a 10% genetic effect in anything humans are and do, simply because without bodies we can’t act in the environment at all. Everyone experiences “Genetic” effects because we all have bodies. ” He further argues the genetic effects are likely indirect and weak, at best. The largest and most respected studies actually have found the concordance rate (where if one sibling is gay so is the other) find only an 11-14% concordance rate exists, and remember the placenta effect. So it is likely even lower—meaning homosexuality has no genetic cause [3]. N. E. Whitehead did another review in 2011 where he looked at the seven largest twin studies, and concludes no genetic cause for homosexuality exists. Many of the studies find a 22% concordance rate—which is considered weak, and remember the placenta effect—oh, and also note the authors note methodology might be off (like a poll for an election) and they add a margin of error. The majority of errors is about 5%, so when counting for these problems the amount homosexuality is genetic is getting weaker by the minute. Note I have only talked about the genetic margin of error, what about other errors, for example environmental factors? The mean of the studies finds non-shared environmental factors, the ones the kids don’t share (lets say one was bullied in school or the father disliked him, but not the other), these might influence homosexuality. By the way, my examples might not necessarily be the cause, they are merely clarifications. The mean of these studies finds 64% of homosexuality is caused by non-shared environmental factors. Studies from 2000 onward find a 63% non-shared environmental factors cause homosexuality. After the margins of error are taken into account, we see they are statistically equivalent. Many pro gay researchers have found a mere 11% concordance rate in their studies, supporting the N. E. Whitehead study in his book, and his conclusion in his 2011 study [4]. Bailey et. al. , a pro-gay researcher, in his 2000 study argued, “ours did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for [sexual orientation]. ” Mustanski et. al. wrote a study in 2005, co-authored by our favorite Dean Hammer! Again, a homosexual himself. That study looked at the entire human genome, interestingly enough no gay gene was found. Pro-homosexual authors and homosexual authors are concluding no gay gene exists (in humans), really telling me scientific objectivism is occurring. The science is turning in my favor (it always was), but now its clear, and the APA was even forced to calm its view [5]. 2. Explaining twin studies I need to explain what 11% concordance means, because many people simply don’t know what I am talking about. So if you are wondering, it does not mean 11% of kids are gay, however it means if one twin is gay, there is an 11% chance the other twin is gay, too. CONCLUSION: Using the best evidence available to modern science, I see it hard to conclude a gay gene exists and harder still to prove it has a biological cause. I await my opponents response. 1. Used mainly as a reference to the APA, the source cannot be counted as super biased as I only used the quotations: . http://www.narth.com... 2. . http://www.mygenes.co.nz... 3. N. E. Whitehead, B. K. Whitehead, “My Genes Made Me Do It”, Huntington House Publishers, (1999-present). 4. N. E. Whitehead, “Neither Genes nor Choice:Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors”, Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011). 5. . http://www.drtraycehansen.com...