Isn't Homsexual-Genetics based on Circular Reasoning?

Question

In simplicity, 'Circular Reasoning' is to assume a truth, and confirm that assumption with evidence that is also only true if the assumption is.

There is a theory that homsexuality is genetic. Not to the fault of anyone, but such a theory can hardly be proven by tangible evidence. However, some have "discovered" evidence based on circular reasoning. For instance:

- Because a certain percentage of todays population is "genetically" homosexual, this same percentage of people were homosexual throughout time, (and perhaps repressed by social standards). However, this assumes, not proves, homosexuality is genetic.

- X% of all identical twins to homosexuals are homosexual. However, most twins are close and influence one another. Hardly tangible evidence.

- There is homosexuality in nature. However, most animals thrive on instinct and competition. Failure to find a suitable and willing mate could lead animals to unnatural sexual behavior.

Epidavros, respectable point. However, these tests of "similarities" are by fallible men. Perception can have a great effect on the outcome of these tests.

Answer 1

You've provided some thoughtful points, but you're close to the line in terms of political correctness. Brace yourself for some abusive answers.

It's the old nature vs. nurture argument, revisited. Never easy to figure out. Behavioural genetics, if at all valid, is certainly incredibly complex.

If there is a genetic component to homosexual behaviour, then a productive line of inquiry might be to explore how it is maintained in populations, rather than being quickly selected against. There are many good anthropological studies of complex social-sexual behaviour in primates. Chimpanzees demonstrate many homosexual behaviours, especially during their sexual maturation, but for the most part, do procreate as adults. So this might explain how ephemeral homosexual behaviour hasn't been selected against. It may have arisen, in the first place, as merely an offshoot of group-bonding activities.

Answer 2

Hi again; if you will refer to my earlier answer to your previous question, I did not say it was genetically CAUSED. It occurs due to prenatal influences, which may include alcohol, tobacco, and other chemicals which cause birth defects.

Genetic science (DNA testing) has been used to TEST and VERIFY that some people have two different kinds of DNA in their bodies.

I think that, in fairness to the homosexuals (let's say the very, very few homosexual, okay?) who do not want to be homosexual and are dissatisfied with their desires, we should try to find out exactly what it is and what causes it.

IF homosexuality can be reversed, and IF a few people want to have it reversed, who are we to stand in the way of their hap-piness...?

IF, in the course of learning how to do that, we discover that there is a true difference of some measurable kind between those who are truly born homosexual and those who were not but have only been led to think that they were, how does that harm anybody?

Is there any strong scientific reason why the current POLITICAL view that:

" ALL homosexuals are born that way and CANNOT change but MUST stay that way forever "

must be true...?

Answer 3

Twin studies are not circular reasoning in genetics - they are demonstrably provable.

In a twin study you study two goups of twins - identical and fraternal. Of course, you expect environment to have an effect, so you need the fraternal twins because they are not genetically identical.

If a characteristic is not genetically determined, you would expect the environmental effects to be equal in both fraternal and identical groups. You can then test whether the results support this hypothesis, and get a gauge of the degree of genetic determinancy.

So twin studies are absolutely not based on saying x% of twins are whatever. Its more x% of fraternal twins are whatever, y% of identical twins are whatever and if x% is not equal to y% then the probability that this difference is just due to chance is p%. Generally if p% is less than 15% then a genetic link would be assumed.

Answer 4

Well, it's far from scientific evidence, but circular reasoning is about as good as theist arguments get (ie not very convincing).

Answer 5

Um..what the hell are you talking about? Are you a homophobe or something?