Miért elfogadhatatlan sokak számára a gondolat, hogy a melegség szociális hatások eredménye, nem pedig genetikai?

"hogy az adott ember igen is tehet a mássága ellen. Pedig nem."

Miért kellene tenni a másság ellen? Pont ezt sérelmezem. Nem azt tekintjük problémának, hogy nem tudjuk elfogadni egymást, hanem azt hogy nem tudunk tenni a melegség ellen. Miközben nem is kell tenni ellene. Ez az egész csak felelősséghárítás. Ha valaki zacsipacsizni akar, hát tegye! Senkinek nem árt vele. Nem kell áltudományos cikkek mögé bújtatni az egész problémakört.

"Ha a homoszexualitás a szociális hatások miatt alakulna ki, akkor mivel magyarázható az állatvilágban való jelenléte?"

Van olyan az állatvilágban, hogy egy faj hímjei nem hajlandók nőstényekkel párosodni? Vagy arra gondolsz, amikor néhány hierarchiában élő állatfaj hímjei a dominancia jeleként rámásznak egy másik hímre? Esetleg arra, amikor a hímek hónapok óta nem láttak nőstényt és egymást kezdik megdugni?

Ha látsz egy verebet, ami egy darab mohával párosodik, akkor vajon elkezded-e kutatni a herbofília genetikai okait?

"Áltudományokat említesz, közben egy olyan oldalt linkelsz, ami az állításait nem képes alátámasztani, csak egy odahazudott kutatásszámmal."

Még a legszélsőségesebb kutatás szerint is legfeljebb félig számítanak a genetikai hatások, félig meg a neveltetés. A genetikai hajlam nem determinál.

Továbbá a Bailey and Pillard’s Study-t is sokan kritizálják, mivel az adoptált testvéreknél nagyobb volt a meleg testvérek aránya, mint a sima testvéreknél, vagyis ez a meleg gén ellen szól.

Másrészt az egypetéjű ikreket általában ugyanúgy nevelik és nagy hangsúlyt fektetnek az életük során a hasonlóságra.

Összefoglaló:

"Problems with Bailey and Pillard’s Study

While the authors acknowledged some of the flaws with their research, they still were quoted in Science News as saying: “Our research shows that male sexual orientation is substantially genetic” (as quoted in Bower, 1992, 141:6). However, the most glaring observation is that clearly not 100% of the identical twins “inherited” homosexuality. If there was, in fact, a “gay gene,” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. And yet, in nearly half of the twins studied, one brother was not homosexual. In a technical-comment letter in Science, Neil Risch and colleagues pointed out: “The biological brothers and adoptive brothers showed approximately the same rates. This latter observation suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families” (1993, 262:2063). In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor, this result would be counter to the expected trend. Byne and Parsons noted:

However, the concordance rate for homosexuality in nontwin biologic brothers was only 9.2—significantly lower than that required by simple genetic hypothesis, which, on the basis of shared genetic material, would predict similar concordance rates for DZ [dizygotic] twins and nontwin biologic brothers. Furthermore, the fact that the concordance rates were similar for nontwin biologic brothers (9.2%) and genetically unrelated adoptive brothers (11.0%) is at odds with a simple genetic hypothesis, which would predict a higher concordance rate for biological siblings (1993, 50:229).

A more recently published twin study failed to find similar concordance rates. King and McDonald studied 46 homosexual men and women who were twins. The concordance rates that they reported were 10%, or 25% with monozygotic twins—depending on whether or not the bisexuals were included along with the homosexuals. The rates for dizygotic twins were 8% or 12%, again, depending on whether bisexuals were included (King and McDonald, 1992). Byne and Parsons commented: “These rates are significantly lower than those reported by Bailey and Pillard; in comparison of the MZ [monozygotic] concordance rate, including bisexuals (25%), with the comparable figure from Bailey and Pillard (52%)” (p. 230). They went on to observe: “Furthermore, if the concordance rate is similar for MZ and DZ twins, the importance of genetic factors would be considerably less than that suggested by Bailey and Pillard” (p. 230, emp. added).

Another factor that may have had a drastic affect on the results of this study (and other similar studies) centers on methodology. Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of homosexuals. Instead, the subjects were recruited through advertisements placed in homosexual publications. This method can be deemed questionable because it is highly dependent on the readership of those publications and on the motives of those who respond. Thus, it may lead to skewed results—for example, inflated rates of concordance in identical twins owing to preferential participation (see Baron, 1993). Hubbard and Wald observed:

The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. If being a fraternal twin exerts an environmental influence, it does not seem surprising that this should be even truer for identical twins, who the world thinks of as “the same” and treats accordingly, and who often share those feelings of sameness (1997, p. 97)."