Where to start? A couple of cute girls, right? Hunks out there may be disappointed to know that one of them is homosexual. Lesbian. Don’t take my word for it.
Eight Major Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic
Excerpted from OTToday: 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, 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.
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.
“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.”
We are prompted to ask, “what post-birth factors?” For the definitive answer we need to go to that notable authority on the rising tide of homosexuality, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. An excerpt:
Hello, I’m Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. You can’t blame people for asking after the Smithsonian’s decision to add a special exhibit on the LGBT movement. The collection highlights everything from “Will & Grace” show props to a transgender pride flag. Sports, politics, and cultural memorabilia are all part of the propaganda, which — like most Smithsonian projects — is funded by taxpayer dollars. “It’s a good example,” said the director, “of the kind of work that we want to move forward with.” And that’s exactly what people should be afraid of. This is just another platform for the Left to rewrite history — and ignore the destructive side effects of homosexuality. Students are already bombarded with the LGBT agenda, do they really need to walk past exhibits treating its extremists as heroes?
No actual “post-birth factors” are revealed. He has had more to say:
At the Values Voters Summit over the weekend, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, had two words for LGBT and progressive groups who took out an ad in The Washington Post which stated that his organization’s “groundless demonization of LGBT people,” linking homosexuality with pedophilia, is contrary to the “highest ideals” of the nation: “They’re wrong.”
Perkins clarified his position in a post on the Family Research Council blog last year:
Obviously, homosexual attractions are not a “choice” in the vast majority of cases. But it should be insulting to people with same-sex attractions to claim that they’re compelled to act on those attractions. Homosexual or heterosexual, people are responsible for their conduct. Have we come to the point that we are nothing more than our sexual urges? And that’s essentially the point Governor Perry was trying to make. But unfortunately for him, there’s no room for an honest conversation in Obama’s America.
So, being homosexual is a “choice” in rare cases. According to the expert. Here is additional word from real experts, the people who do the science:
Homosexuality is Genetic: Strongest Evidence Yet
The study detailed an in-depth analysis of blood and saliva samples taken from 409 pairs of openly gay brothers, including non-identical twins, from 384 families. The only common characteristic shared by all 818 men was being gay.
Knowing this, the researchers theorized that any single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) consistently found among these men would have something to do with sexual orientation.
Interestingly, five uniquely presented SNPs did indeed stand out, expressed in two portions of the human genome.
“The most pleasing aspect is that the confirmation comes from a team that was in the past somewhat skeptical and critical of the earlier findings,” Andrea Camperio Ciani, of the University of Padua in Italy, told New Scientist.
Now the same team is working to compare these gene variants to heterosexual males, expecting that it will not be a common find among “straight” men.
Still, the researchers stress that regardless of genetic preference, genes are but a factor in the greater picture, taking into account that social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual’s sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born.
So, what about those two cuties pictured above, one gay, one straight? You’ve got me on that. The only answer I have is this:
Model Used in “Nobody’s Born Gay” Twin Ad Says He is Gay and Not a Twin
4 months ag0
Christian group Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) put up an ad in Richmond, Virginia showing identical twins, one straight, one gay, as a way to prove no one is born gay. But there was just one problem…
The “twins” they showed are actually one person, and he is an out and proud gay man, according to Richmond’s NBC Channel 12.
The South African model Kyle Roux, who does not have a straight twin, said that the billboard shocked him when he saw it and that he’d been told his image would only be used for corporate advertising and publicity materials. He wrote to Channel 12:
“It just seems like there’s no place in today’s world for an organization that is promoting this as being some kind of deviant or distasteful lifestyle, because I’ve lived my life openly gay and happy for my entire life.”
Chris Doyle, a PFOX board member, however, told Channel 12 that the photo is irrelevant. God is what matters here:
“The issue isn’t the photo on the billboard, but the actual science.”
I am so glad it is the “actual science” these people are concerned about and not some ancient writings being used to prop up their personal prejudices.
Full disclosure, I do the same thing. Let me explain. I sell stock images through various agencies. Eight years ago I realized what was selling were photos with people in them. So I advertised something like this, “Your model portfolio for free.” That is, I would take publicity photos and not charge. I only required in return a model release. When a photo of a person is used in a commercial application—selling a product or such—then a model release is required. The person gives permission for his likeness to be used to advertise a product or in a like manner. Here’s an example:
This woman is a professional dancer. The release she signed allows me to use this photo in all manner of publications. It can be an ad for an exercise program (even though she was not actually a user of that program), an ad for physical fitness, even an ad for a dating network. There are applications for which I or any of the agencies handling this image would not use. That would be, for example, a scandal sheet story about prostitution in Las Vegas. That would totally mis-characterize this woman and put her in an insulting reference. She did not sign up for that.
So, what about the model whose image was used to mis-characterize homosexuality? What about the people who concocted this humorous exhibit? It might be insulting if not for the total irony. It’s those parading their innermost darkness in public that give me and many others such merriment.
Keep reading. And may Jesus have mercy on your soul.