Why Homosexual 'Twin Studies' are Flawed!


#1

For your review, a critique of the paper: “1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality”.

homepages.inf.edu.ac.uk/timt/papers/twin_studies/analysis.html

Please scroll down and read: Specific Problems with the Twin Studies of Homosexuality contained in the above link.

Fundamental: In 1953 Sigmund Freud developed a baseline theory of three fundamental causes of homosexuality, all of which must be present for a high probability of homosexuality to occur; they are: 1) A physically frail individual; 2) Any traumatic experiences during childhood; 3) The child’s experiences with the parental situation.

It is Freud’s theory of the three conditions which have undergone individual modification, and not the removal of the triad, from various researchers in recognition that no single condition is the sole cause of homosexuality.

But it is my contention that the practice of cloning possess a theory which refutes that one’s genotype will determine the outcome of personality, character, values, ethics, or psychology, etc, which are the result of upbringing.

Critique:

  1. A major flaw in the twin studies is that there is such a big difference between Identical Twins (Monozygotic) and Fraternal Twins (Dizygotic) that the findings of twin studies cannot be generalized to the greater non-twin human population as a whole.

  2. Therefore, the findings of any twin studies are only applicable to twins, and not to non-twins.

“Roughly two thirds of identical twins are monochorionic, they share the same chorion, hence the same blood supply, during pre-natal development, one twin receives the mothers blood supply after it has passed through the other twin. The consequences of this on the later development of the twins can include gross phenotypic differences, even before post natal influences of the family are considered. Such a process can lead to an over-estimation of the proportion of variance attributable to the specific post natal environment of the twins.” (Gottesman, 1974) emphasis my own

“Considering the penultimate point, even monozygotic [identical] twins, sharing exactly the same genes, may display phenotypic [observable characteristics] differences due to their different prenatal environment. Things become even more complicated, however, when one considers that not all of an individual’s genes are active at any point in his or her life.”

Dr. Gottesman (1974) stated that "it cannot be over-emphasized tht it is environmental factors through such intracellular metabolic intermediates as hormones, vitimins and toxins that determine which genes get switched on and how long they function … Since only a small portion of the genome (perhaps 5-20%) is activated at any one time, the effective genotype upon which environmental factors are active is constantly changing." Emphasis my own

*3. *Homosexuality is not predetermined in any single gene.

She (Dr. Gottesman) therefore suggested that **“some of the similarity in specific traits is not so much because that trait itself is strongly predetermined, but because the twins were susceptible to environmental influence when they were in similar stages of psychological and maturational organisation. Such factors would lead to an overestimate of heritability estimated from twin studies.” **emphasis my own

“It is, in fact generally found that twin studies of a particular trait suggest higher estimates of heritability than do adoption studies (Plumin 1990). In addition … this may also be explained by nonadditive genetic variance, such as epistasis [where one gene suuppresses the expression of another], which covaries completely for identical twins, but contributes little to the resemblance of first-degree relatives.”

  1. In Conclusion:

This paper further explained errors in sampling (recruiting enough and proper twins) and stated that “by their very nature (e.g. small sample sizes, bias in recruitments, etc.) they [twin studies] cannot produce results which can be generalized to a wide population.” And “The studies summarized are of inconsistent quality, with biased and limited samples.” The result is that the genetic determination of homosexuality is so far unproved.

Yet , despite cogent examples of sampling error and misinterpretation of evidence, this paper incongruously concluded:

“These results give reason to believe that there is *some *constitutional component to male homosexuality.”

Overall, the **1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality **appears to offer more counter evidence that twin studies proved the genetic causes of homosexuality, than it does to prove the genetic basis of homosexuality; and actually appeared to be another generalization of Sigmund Freud’s initial thesis.


#2

Of course their flawed. Every study will be until we get to heaven. But so are the ones on your behalf because they still have not studied evry individual. This has been a common problem with statistics. There is no conclusive reason for the emergence of homosexuality in a person. Why does there need to be. It’s nobody’s business what someone’s personal sins are. Let’s all get back to the confessional booth and out of the psychologist’s office. This therapy is costfree and may end up putting alot of people out of business. One can hope.:smiley:


#3

[quote=goofyjim]Of course their flawed. Every study will be until we get to heaven. But so are the ones on your behalf because they still have not studied evry individual. This has been a common problem with statistics. There is no conclusive reason for the emergence of homosexuality in a person. Why does there need to be. It’s nobody’s business what someone’s personal sins are. Let’s all get back to the confessional booth and out of the psychologist’s office. This therapy is costfree and may end up putting alot of people out of business. One can hope.:smiley:
[/quote]

Jim the study COULD have been done in a more rigorous, scientific fashion and then the results might have been more reliable. However that they advertised for subjects in homosexual publications totally biases the study. At least one of the studies was done by a homosexual with an obvious agenda. You do not do research by starting with a conclusion and then trying to find data to support it. You start with a theory, get a proper sized sample and try to remove as many biases as possble through using random selection of subjects etc… If you have ever done sampling or statistics you know the study is flawed both by its small size and its bias in sample. The results are meaningless. Further as the critique noted, sharing the womb has very strong implications regardless of whether the twins are identical or fraternal. In cattle for example in the rare case of twinning, if the calves are heifer and bull then the heifer WILL be sterile. Period. She appears to be a normal female but will never cycle or conceive a calf. Somehow the sharing of blood in the womb makes the female of the pair sterile, every single time.

You are right it IS nobody’s businss what PERSONAL sins are committed until that sin is brought out into the public square through demands for recognition of the sin as an equivalent status of normal behavior, special rights, or infringing on others’ rights. I would love it if every homosexual would keep his/her sex life in his/her bedroom where it belongs.

Lisa N


#4

[quote=Lisa N]Jim the study COULD have been done in a more rigorous, scientific fashion and then the results might have been more reliable. However that they advertised for subjects in homosexual publications totally biases the study. At least one of the studies was done by a homosexual with an obvious agenda. You do not do research by starting with a conclusion and then trying to find data to support it. You start with a theory, get a proper sized sample and try to remove as many biases as possble through using random selection of subjects etc… If you have ever done sampling or statistics you know the study is flawed both by its small size and its bias in sample. The results are meaningless. Further as the critique noted, sharing the womb has very strong implications regardless of whether the twins are identical or fraternal. In cattle for example in the rare case of twinning, if the calves are heifer and bull then the heifer WILL be sterile. Period. She appears to be a normal female but will never cycle or conceive a calf. Somehow the sharing of blood in the womb makes the female of the pair sterile, every single time.

You are right it IS nobody’s businss what PERSONAL sins are committed until that sin is brought out into the public square through demands for recognition of the sin as an equivalent status of normal behavior, special rights, or infringing on others’ rights. I would love it if every homosexual would keep his/her sex life in his/her bedroom where it belongs.

Lisa N
[/quote]

I’m not disputing your case. Why don’t we ignore these studies and all of the opposite ones as well? The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, but must we keep on studying the cat? Compromise: Even though we know homosexual behavior is wrong can we reach out to teens and tell them that they are not (Lord, give me the words) bad for having the thoughts? I would rather see people live and not be ashamed from what they feel than to drive them to the commitment to change them. Remember Scripture says that if there is one devil tormenting the person they might still be in a preferable situation than if seven others came in to replace it. This is my thorn in the flesh.

I will never be able to completely express the point but I pray that you see its potential.:banghead:


#5

[quote=goofyjim]I’m not disputing your case. Why don’t we ignore these studies and all of the opposite ones as well? The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, but must we keep on studying the cat? Compromise: Even though we know homosexual behavior is wrong can we reach out to teens and tell them that they are not (Lord, give me the words) bad for having the thoughts? I would rather see people live and not be ashamed from what they feel than to drive them to the commitment to change them. Remember Scripture says that if there is one devil tormenting the person they might still be in a preferable situation than if seven others came in to replace it. This is my thorn in the flesh.

I will never be able to completely express the point but I pray that you see its potential.:banghead:
[/quote]

Jim I do agree, why go into paralysis by analysis and instead spend the energy on trying to reach confused and hurting people with some alternatives to dangerous and sinful behaviors. I suspect though that when one side publishes a study the other side feels they must gain back the advantage by either debunking the original research or doing their own research to prove the opposite. Unfortunately these studies are NOT carefully screened and many incredibly flawed studies and unsupported research have resulted in decisions that IMO are damaging to our society. I think the continued research is a bit of a defensive manuver. But I think you are correct, we (the Church) should focus on the human aspects.

Lisa N


#6

[quote=Lisa N]Jim I do agree, why go into paralysis by analysis and instead spend the energy on trying to reach confused and hurting people with some alternatives to dangerous and sinful behaviors. I suspect though that when one side publishes a study the other side feels they must gain back the advantage by either debunking the original research or doing their own research to prove the opposite. Unfortunately these studies are NOT carefully screened and many incredibly flawed studies and unsupported research have resulted in decisions that IMO are damaging to our society. I think the continued research is a bit of a defensive manuver. But I think you are correct, we (the Church) should focus on the human aspects.

Lisa N
[/quote]

Thank you. I feel I have reached a conclusion to my debate with you and both sides have won. I only wish I had the time and space to tell you other events in my life but it is probably not necessary.:slight_smile:


#7

[quote=Lisa N]Jim I do agree, why go into paralysis by analysis and instead spend the energy on trying to reach confused and hurting people with some alternatives to dangerous and sinful behaviors. I suspect though that when one side publishes a study the other side feels they must gain back the advantage by either debunking the original research or doing their own research to prove the opposite. Unfortunately these studies are NOT carefully screened and many incredibly flawed studies and unsupported research have resulted in decisions that IMO are damaging to our society. I think the continued research is a bit of a defensive manuver. But I think you are correct, we (the Church) should focus on the human aspects.

Lisa N
[/quote]

An intriguing reason I was told to pursue a PhD, was then to be able to sift through published dissertations checking for fudged data and plagiarisms. Some hardworking professors consider this sleuthing to be of valuable service.

Critiquing or critical reviews or exegesis is an important skill in order to discourage activists from espousing their hidden agenda’s and to maintain the scholarly integrity of the intellectual life in America. And basically, critical reading skills is good self-defense.


#8

[quote=Kevin Walker]An intriguing reason I was told to pursue a PhD, was then to be able to sift through published dissertations checking for fudged data and plagiarisms. Some hardworking professors consider this sleuthing to be of valuable service.

Critiquing or critical reviews or exegesis is an important skill in order to discourage activists from espousing their hidden agenda’s and to maintain the scholarly integrity of the intellectual life in America. And basically, critical reading skills is good self-defense.
[/quote]

Lisa

Help me on this one. I trust you.:thumbsup:


#9

[quote=Kevin Walker]An intriguing reason I was told to pursue a PhD, was then to be able to sift through published dissertations checking for fudged data and plagiarisms. Some hardworking professors consider this sleuthing to be of valuable service.

Critiquing or critical reviews or exegesis is an important skill in order to discourage activists from espousing their hidden agenda’s and to maintain the scholarly integrity of the intellectual life in America. And basically, critical reading skills is good self-defense.
[/quote]

But the studies in defense of a specific cause may always be flawed whether they support the conservative or liberal position. They will never be conclusive until the whole sample is studied and since time continues that will never be possible.


#10

I remember the extremely rigorous reviews by respected scientific publications when my parents wrote up the results of research. You couldn’t HOPE to publish if the data could not be verified, replicated and if your methodology was within accepted parameters.

Unfortunately to some extent the internet has made everyone who wants to publish a legend in their own mind. Someone who wants to know the actual authenticity of research needs to do their own sleuth work and most people, in fact even most legislators, judges, city councils are not willing to do the legwork to determine if the research is valid. It’s probably a function of the speed at which we expect information these days. It used to take months and months to be published while waiting for the publication’s review board to carefully assess the work done. Now anyone with a few letters after their name can publish on a website.

I am not sure what I’m saying here other than be skeptical of everything you read unless it’s in a well respected peer reviewed journal.

Lisa N


#11

[quote=Lisa N]I remember the extremely rigorous reviews by respected scientific publications when my parents wrote up the results of research. You couldn’t HOPE to publish if the data could not be verified, replicated and if your methodology was within accepted parameters.

Unfortunately to some extent the internet has made everyone who wants to publish a legend in their own mind. Someone who wants to know the actual authenticity of research needs to do their own sleuth work and most people, in fact even most legislators, judges, city councils are not willing to do the legwork to determine if the research is valid. It’s probably a function of the speed at which we expect information these days. It used to take months and months to be published while waiting for the publication’s review board to carefully assess the work done. Now anyone with a few letters after their name can publish on a website.

I am not sure what I’m saying here other than be skeptical of everything you read unless it’s in a well respected peer reviewed journal.

Lisa N
[/quote]

Beautifully said Lisa. Can I add a reiteration that this is true in both directions?:clapping:


#12

[quote=goofyjim]Beautifully said Lisa. Can I add a reiteration that this is true in both directions?:clapping:
[/quote]

Certainly. I am very quick to embrace a study that supports my own point of view. I think we need to be aware of our own preconceived notions when reading anything.

Lisa N


#13

[quote=goofyjim]I’m not disputing your case. Why don’t we ignore these studies and all of the opposite ones as well? The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, but must we keep on studying the cat?
[/quote]

Jim these are some pretty big stakes they’re playing for. If the homosexual lobby can convince lawmakers and the public in general that it’s genetic then things are going to change even faster than they are now. As we have seen at these boards alone, many people are already convinced that it’s genetic because they heard it somewhere in passing, saw a report on a flawed study on TV, or because they think they remember it from Psych 101 and it seemed to make sense. So then the people get convinced that it’s inevitable and then cop out. I can think of many momentous changes that took place because of flawed studies and influential best-sellers by writers with an agenda. The widespread use of hormone replacement therapy in my generation comes to mind. All based on BS. And it’s one of the reasons I am high-risk for cancer right now.

So we have every right and reason to vigorously rebut these studies where we can. Our purpose should not be to make kids feel better about themselves but to show them what is true and not tolerate what is not true to become the basis for rationalizing sin.


#14

[quote=caroljm36]Jim these are some pretty big stakes they’re playing for. If the homosexual lobby can convince lawmakers and the public in general that it’s genetic then things are going to change even faster than they are now. As we have seen at these boards alone, many people are already convinced that it’s genetic because they heard it somewhere in passing, saw a report on a flawed study on TV, or because they think they remember it from Psych 101 and it seemed to make sense. So then the people get convinced that it’s inevitable and then cop out. I can think of many momentous changes that took place because of flawed studies and influential best-sellers by writers with an agenda. The widespread use of hormone replacement therapy in my generation comes to mind. All based on BS. And it’s one of the reasons I am high-risk for cancer right now.

So we have every right and reason to vigorously rebut these studies where we can. Our purpose should not be to make kids feel better about themselves but to show them what is true and not tolerate what is not true to become the basis for rationalizing sin.
[/quote]

But we don’t need any studies to show any cause. As one that struggles with it, even though minimally, I need no other cause than Satanic influence and nothing else.

I may turn out to be full of surprises. Believe it or not I’ve felt this way about the origins of the condition since the beginning. Why do you think the first person, and the ones I feel most comfortable talking about it to, are priests? I am not homosexual but have the temptations. I do not seek the priesthood. I seek peace. I place myself at the hands of Holy Mother Church. There may come a day, I fear, that I will have to trust only God and His Mother. For right now I am comfortable with the Church’s direction. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t struggle to remain in it.


#15

[quote=goofyjim]But we don’t need any studies to show any cause. As one that struggles with it, even though minimally, I need no other cause than Satanic influence and nothing else.

I may turn out to be full of surprises. Believe it or not I’ve felt this way about the origins of the condition since the beginning. Why do you think the first person, and the ones I feel most comfortable talking about it to, are priests? I am not homosexual but have the temptations. I do not seek the priesthood. I seek peace. I place myself at the hands of Holy Mother Church. There may come a day, I fear, that I will have to trust only God and His Mother. For right now I am comfortable with the Church’s direction. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t struggle to remain in it.
[/quote]

Jim you are very rare in recognizing temptations and seeking the help of the Church. Unfortunately there are many people who feel the same temptations that have no where to turn. They are either unchurched or maybe unaware of the assistance and support available. As our society becomes more accepting of homosexuality as a “lifestyle” without recognizing the ramifications of that behavior, the fewer confused people seek any options or try to resist. I grew up in the “if it feels good do it” generation. Many people experimented with very powerful drugs because it was the thing to do, because society either ignored or at some point celebrated this “freedom.” Do we think on hindsight that such behavior should have been encouraged? Supported? Confused people need help that gives all sides of the dilemna.

Lisa N


#16

[quote=Lisa N]Jim you are very rare in recognizing temptations and seeking the help of the Church. Unfortunately there are many people who feel the same temptations that have no where to turn. They are either unchurched or maybe unaware of the assistance and support available. As our society becomes more accepting of homosexuality as a “lifestyle” without recognizing the ramifications of that behavior, the fewer confused people seek any options or try to resist. I grew up in the “if it feels good do it” generation. Many people experimented with very powerful drugs because it was the thing to do, because society either ignored or at some point celebrated this “freedom.” Do we think on hindsight that such behavior should have been encouraged? Supported? Confused people need help that gives all sides of the dilemna.

Lisa N
[/quote]

Don’t worry. It will work out for the good of all. My favorite book that I try to put in people’s hands is Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence. Small thing and can be read in about an hour unless you choose to meditate on it and not just read.

My hopes and signs from God are that my prayers have always been answered, and I do mean always. I have heard testimony from everyone that has asked me to pray for them. I have my gift from the Spirit of intercessory prayer. I will not stop.


#17

[quote=Lisa N]I remember the extremely rigorous reviews by respected scientific publications when my parents wrote up the results of research. You couldn’t HOPE to publish if the data could not be verified, replicated and if your methodology was within accepted parameters.

Unfortunately to some extent the internet has made everyone who wants to publish a legend in their own mind. Someone who wants to know the actual authenticity of research needs to do their own sleuth work and most people, in fact even most legislators, judges, city councils are not willing to do the legwork to determine if the research is valid. It’s probably a function of the speed at which we expect information these days. It used to take months and months to be published while waiting for the publication’s review board to carefully assess the work done. Now anyone with a few letters after their name can publish on a website.

I am not sure what I’m saying here other than be skeptical of everything you read unless it’s in a well respected peer reviewed journal.

Lisa N
[/quote]

Yes, that is why the internet has degraded into a poor research implement, you have to verify your sources all over again. The internet is useful for a quick general overview of material, but then you have to do the leg work to verify that material all over again.

The internet is merely a warehouse of information analogous to a library, so it is not good methodology to claim the ‘internet’ as an impeachable source, you must identify the exact site for your information and that could be very unreliable.

The 1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality is a good example of flawed information magically rendered infallible by its mere presence on the internet.


#18

[quote=Lisa N]Jim you are very rare in recognizing temptations and seeking the help of the Church. Unfortunately there are many people who feel the same temptations that have no where to turn. They are either unchurched or maybe unaware of the assistance and support available. As our society becomes more accepting of homosexuality as a “lifestyle” without recognizing the ramifications of that behavior, the fewer confused people seek any options or try to resist. I grew up in the “if it feels good do it” generation. Many people experimented with very powerful drugs because it was the thing to do, because society either ignored or at some point celebrated this “freedom.” Do we think on hindsight that such behavior should have been encouraged? Supported? Confused people need help that gives all sides of the dilemna.

Lisa N
[/quote]

Yes. You covered some of the problems with a ‘permissive’ society. So the continually debatated issue is when does toleration and permissiveness become bad?


#19

[quote=caroljm36]Jim these are some pretty big stakes they’re playing for. If the homosexual lobby can convince lawmakers and the public in general that it’s genetic then things are going to change even faster than they are now. As we have seen at these boards alone, many people are already convinced that it’s genetic because they heard it somewhere in passing, saw a report on a flawed study on TV, or because they think they remember it from Psych 101 and it seemed to make sense. So then the people get convinced that it’s inevitable and then cop out. I can think of many momentous changes that took place because of flawed studies and influential best-sellers by writers with an agenda. The widespread use of hormone replacement therapy in my generation comes to mind. All based on BS. And it’s one of the reasons I am high-risk for cancer right now.

So we have every right and reason to vigorously rebut these studies where we can. Our purpose should not be to make kids feel better about themselves but to show them what is true and not tolerate what is not true to become the basis for rationalizing sin.
[/quote]

Yes, very good post.

There is a mind control trick used by various groups with an agenda to fill and its called **THE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY - **If you say something long enough and often enough it will begin to be believed.

The communists call it Consciousness Raising - and its just replacing gossip for factual information. And it is being done by the defenders of entropic homosexuality on this Catholic forum and on these threads.

That is why it is important to supply counter arguments, counter evidence, and not to let up because there are really big stakes being played for by convincing the public that homosexuality is genetic.

By determing a genetic cause for homosexuality, the homosexual community can claim irresponsibility for their inept actions, and gain huge victories in law suits.

By claiming a genetic cause for any bad behaviour, that group can then petition for civil rights as if they were an actual ethnic minority (homosexuality is not a religion, race, or ethnic group, but they want to be legally treated as one).

So you can see the method behind the madness by certain activists to cite flawed data and by constantly screaming discrimination, to create a myth and make people think its true!


#20

[quote=goofyjim]But we don’t need any studies to show any cause. As one that struggles with it, even though minimally, I need no other cause than Satanic influence and nothing else.

[/quote]

Well if you read my post I wasn’t suggesting we combat studies with more studies, because that is not really the answer as you say But neither should we let these reports of studies go unchallenged and unexamined because they have so much influence, and not everyone has their spiritual house in order.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.