Monday 2 December 2013


Compiled by Noor
Snippits and Snappits 
December 2, 2013 

One way to test a hypothesis is to find similar test subjects. Twin studies have frequently been used to test genetic theories. The latest twin studies regarding homosexuality are giving more evidence that homosexuality is not DNA determined. 

The argument is simple enough. If a person is born a certain way, who are we to judge what they are? A person born with black skin is that way because of his or her genes. We’ve been told that homosexuality is gene-directed. A person’s DNA determines sexual attraction and identity even though the sexual organs in same-sex relationships do not line up with the genetic makeup of people of the same sex.

One would think that sexual normalcy would coincide with sexual reproduction. It’s a rational and scientific judgment to make. Homosexuality stops the transfer of DNA to a new generation. One would think that science alone would be enough to conclude that same-sex sex is genetically counterproductive.
Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. 

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, and then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.” 

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. 
“No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.” 
The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors. 
Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

According to the studies presented, the above does not quite work.

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other. 

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other.
“These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says. 
The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. 

The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females ~ lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.
In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.
“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”
“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.
Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counselling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes.
“Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”
Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case ~ generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic ~ so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed.
“The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”
Let us assume that DNA does determine sexual preference. 

What if a case could be made that DNA determines if a person has sexual desires for children? 

Would this then mean that the ensuing behaviour would have to be legitimized by state legislatures and anti-discrimination laws would be put in place?

Where do we stop with DNA-determined behaviour? Why are some DNA-determined behaviours good and others bad? 

Consider the following and ask yourself this question: Why are scientists working to overcome these genetic irregularities but not homosexuality which is genetically counter productive?:

~ “Scientists say they have found a gene that predicts whether prostate cancer will develop into its most lethal form.”

~ “A research team at two Mideast universities has developed a new way to genetically alter cells in living mice; offering new possibilities in the war against cancer and other diseases.”

~ “Some of us, it seems, were just born to be bad. Scientists say they are on the verge of pinning down genetic and biochemical abnormalities that predispose their bearers to violence. An article in the journal Science . . . carried the headline EVIDENCE FOUND FOR POSSIBLE ‘AGGRESSION’ GENE.”[1]

~ “Apparently healthy men with normal weight and cholesterol levels are at three times higher risk of a heart attack if they have a common variation of a particular gene, researchers say.”[2]

~ “Salk Institute scientists say they have uncovered a gene that triggers certain forms of Leukemia, a discovery that may lead to the development of a screening test within the next few months.”[3]

~ “Researchers have found a brain chemical that boosts the craving for fat ~ and a way to block it without affecting the appetite for healthier foods.”[4]

~ “Why do gamblers often bet more after a losing hand? Or investors throw good money after bad? The answer may lie in the science of the brain.”[5]

~ “Is racism simply human nature or something learned from society? Neither, says a team of psychologists who, despite criticism, argue that racism represents an accidental side effect of evolution.”[6]
So even if genetics 
is the determining factor 
among people who engage in same-sex sex, 
this would not mean that
the behaviour is either genetically normal 
or a candidate for special legal protection.

A gay fantasy. Two....

Mark Ellis Source: OrthodoxNet

1. Dennis Overbye, “Born to Raise Hell?,” Time (February 21, 1994), 76 

2. Amanda Huted, “Gene variant could mean higher risk of heart attack,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution (October 15, 1992), C3. 

3. “Gene discovery could lead to leukemia screening test,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution (October 3, 1992), E8. 
4. Tim Friend, “Brain chemical may feed craving for fat,” USA Today (October 29, 1992), 1A. 
5. Faye Flam, “Study: Reckless gambler, blame your brain,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (March 22, 2002), A18. 
6. Dan Vergano, “Racism may have evolutionary link,” USA Today (December 11, 2001), 11. 

Tip of the Hat to RJ @ Mami's 


  1. Very disappointing to see the Ugly Truth descending into the crass, red-necked, boof-head notion than there is no moral distinction between adult homosexuality and pedophilia. Just in case there is anyone else out there still too dumb to understand the difference: a homosexual relationship can be between consenting adults, pedophilia/pederasty cannot be! This red blooded heterosexual is the father of a gay man, I would sorely like to meet the author of this article so I could punch his fucking lights out.

    1. with your statement you prove only that yourself are a mockery for the human mind.
      whats your point? trying desperate to excuse homosexuality?
      Thats not nature, thats only a passion, and like all passions its hard to admit and much harder to cut...


If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.