Posted: May 07, 2016 12:25 am
igorfrankensteen wrote:"Headline grabbing propaganda" in this case, otherwise known as "inconvenient facts the thread starter wants to ignore."
Tiny differences. How they could account for the 20% concordance figure is....fanciful, to put it lightly. I seek the truth whereas you, apparently, seek maintenance of the statue quo: that homosexuality is derived from genetics. I don't care about the social ramifications, I just want the truth. We have to see, we have to know.
Bearman and Brückner (2002) criticized early studies concentrating on small, select samples[7] and non-representative selection of their subjects.[8] They studied 289 pairs of identical twins (monozygotic or from one fertilized egg) and 495 pairs of fraternal twins (dizygotic or from two fertilized eggs) and found concordance rates for same-sex attraction of only 7.7% for male identical twins and 5.3% for females, a pattern which they say "does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context."[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation