You’re cold and clinical concerning a subject that is extremely important to myself and other readers.

That is an issue you have with the subject matter.  I can’t help that.   

Also you’ve avoided, once again, the chance to speak from your heart: Again, how about your position on civil unions? Will you tell me what it is?

  Bring up another thread that is related to it.  I’m done cluttering this one with unrelated subject matter.

Bring up another thread that is related to it.  I’m done cluttering this one with unrelated subject matter.

Back to the other table, eh Consi?  Do we need a thread entitled, “In which Consi can tell us how he feels about gay rights?“

I have no problem with your factual tone when discussing the law, and certainly found it interesting.  But you do seem to be hiding once that discussion is done.

There well may be a biological component to homosexuality.  You believe that there is obviously.  Believing it is likely is different than establishing it as fact by a preponderance of the evidence.

I wonder how you would explain the genetic concordance in the absence of a biological aetiology? I can think of no other cause and I would say that the preponderance of evidence suggests a biological origin. Do you have or know of an alternate explanation?

I can think of no other cause and I would say that the preponderance of evidence suggests a biological origin.

That is not what would be required.  One does not get to testify in court about what is “suggested.“  One gets to testify about what they know to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty.“  That is different, even for you, if your word choice remains “suggests.“

I do think it would be an interesting case though.  And it does remain a possibility, given the caveat that the concurring judge created.

New post for all to talk about homosexualitt

“suggested.”

Sorry, Consig, that’s the scientist coming out in me—scientists almost never speak in terms of absolute certainty about anything, and anyone who has ever written for a scientific journal couches their findings in terms of the probability (at least lower than p=.05 for significance). 

Given the findings of concordance for homosexuality in MZ and DZ twins, plus the evidence for horomonal involvement (among others), I’d guestiimate that the chance that homosexuality does NOT have a biological origin is something less than .01.—not absolutely impossible, but highly, highly improbable. I’m not up to the task of a meta-analysis at the moment, but Consig, scientists aagree that the origins are biological.

I’d love to go over to the discussion on homosexuality, and I’ll probably get time to do so on Monday, but this is thanksgiving weekend up here, and I have a turkey in the oven and family about to arrive for the weekend.

Happy Thanksgiving—moses and other Canadians.

Shelley:

I wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving. 

It would be helpful for me, and should there be any readers who are as dim-witted as myself, them as well, if we lose field specific jargon and stick to plain old dumbed down for Consi English.

It might be helpful if you were to preface your presentation by clarifying that MZ is not a popular hip hop singer but refers to a specific twin set.  Identical and fraternal is a much more familiar vocabulary.  The authors of the twin study you are referencing and the name would be useful, as well as a direct link to the study proper.  Given your expertise, it would be helpful if you explained what a concordance rate is.  I expect that we will also see bunches and bunches of numbers and decimals and percentages in charts that look like they are saying something important if only we knew what on on earth such things like “parameter estimate” and “confidence interval” meant we might glean something from them.  Some understanding of what you are talking about there could save much time.

Many thanks for your help and I look forward to discussing Bailey & Pillard, 1991, as well as its precursors and successors.

Consi: ... should there be any readers who are as dim-witted as myself

That reminds me of your second post when you said:

I’m but a simple farm boy from Nebraska

As Geekmom said:

you proved from the git-go that you ain’t no “simple farm boy.”

Back on thread ... as Shelley clearly explained at 7:29 on the 7th:

we would not see a 53% concordance rate in monozygotic twins and a 20% concordance rate in dizygotic twins for homosexuality.

Most of us are half way smart enough to realise ‘mono’ means one = identical and therefore Dizygotic means non-identical = fraternal, then again to check we could look it up and find that monozygotic twins are indeed identical.

Given your expertise, it would be helpful if you explained what a concordance rate is.  I expect that we will also see bunches and bunches of numbers and decimals and percentages in charts that look like they are saying something important if only we knew what on earth such things like “parameter estimate” and “confidence interval” meant we might glean something from them.

The bottom line of this is, as you well know, there are no absolute predictions and certainties in psychology.
Any conclusion will rarely be prefaced, or postscripted, with absolute terms … but you already know that, don’t you? 
Not that Shelley’s dumb enough to enter into your quagmire but when she does answer with ‘most likely’ or ‘the probabilities are that’, etc don’t go jumping on her saying ‘See? You’re only guessing’ or ‘But it’s not always the case, is it?’ cos then you would come across as a fuckwit which, I know, you are definitely not.
I gotta tell you, when I was first scrolling SEB and saw your second (I think) comment about being ‘a simple farm boy from Nebraska’ it made me smile and it was one of the many reasons I thought I could learn something here.
Thanks in retrospect. 
But let’s face it, there is absolutely NO information that Shelley can give you that’ll change your mind to enable you could say: Gay marriage will not threaten the fabric of our society.
Let alone: It would be good for society if there was no sexual discrimination.

LJ:

Sexy Sadie said: Hiding behind a cold, detached focus on “constitutional law” and specific court cases…is bound to generate ill will among many people.

This followed a tirade of comments about my desire to keep the thread away from thread drift.  So, I cave and offer a discussion with Shelley.  A discussion about the study she referenced and what science knows and doesn’t know about homosexuality.  A discussion that could serve to be educational for some readers and myself as well.  In response you say:

Not that Shelley’s dumb enough to enter into your quagmire…

Damned if I do, damned if I don’t.

LJ, I like Shelley.  So you need not try to head off such a discussion out of self-interest.  Your codependency issues   will not be implicated by a discussion betwixt Shelley and myself unless they are of such severity that you should seek immediate help. Your concern for both of us is touching though.

Your concern for both of us is touching though.

Bumping for Shelley.  Hope your thanksgiving went well.

Thanks for the good wishes, Consig. I’ll jump over to the other thread later, but for now, here’s a few thoughts:

Consig,

Twin studies provide extremely useful information because when we look at MZ (identical) twins (identical DNA) and compare them to DZ (fraternal) twins (DNA equivalent to ordinary siblings), we get to do something that’s otherwise very difficult to accomplish: We get to put a filter on a lot of environmental factors.

DZ twins share the same amniotic fluid, they play more closely than regular siblings who tend to be older or younger, they’re treated as a close unit by others, and they tend to share an extremely close environment. (You can argue about ‘how close is close’ if you like, but I don’t believe that there can be much dispute that fraternal twins share a closer environment than regular siblings).

If genes influence homosexuality, MZ (identical) who share the same genes should have a higher concordance rate (i.e., the extent to which twins will either be homosexual or heterosexual) than DZ twins.

Concordance rates will depend on the definition used for homosexuality. So, for example, if one defines homosexuality in terms of those who have ever engaged in any same-sex erotic activity, you’ll get much higher estimates of concordance than you will if you define homosexuality as exclusive sexual attraction to someone of the same sex.

You might also get higher concordance rates if you’ve used a convenience or snowball sampling instead of random sampling or something like a registry sampling (an accusation levelled at Bailey and Pillard 1991, but rectified in later studies). Having said that, when you look at a registry sampling, you run the risk that people will be reluctant to tell the truth or disclose their sexual orientation, and estimates can be lower than occurs in the population.

If you’re reluctant to accept the Bailey and Pillard study, you might take a look at Kendler, Thornton, Gillman and Kessler (2000) random sample – they found a homosexual population base of 2.3% and based on their twin studies, and a concordance rate of 32% for MZ twins. (They also found about a 3% refusal rate on the question of sexual orientation).

Really Consig, you can argue confidence intervals on a given study of concordance rates all you want, but the bottom line is that regardless of whether the concordance rates are 35% or 80%, there is concordance for homosexuality, so there is some kind of genetic involvement.

I’m almost sorry I wandered down the twin concordance path simply because I’m not really trying to make a genetic argument – in my mind, a biological explanation is unavoidable because of the accumulated evidence from all sorts of areas including the following:

1.  Virtually all twin studies suggest some genetic involvement (though no compelling evidence yet on a molecular level to indicate which genes might be involved) – However, NIH has recently funded a major gay-brothers study using cutting edge genetic technology based on the accumulated evidence. We’ll see.
2.  Widespread homosexual behaviour in non-humans (in everything from fruit flies to dolphins).
3.  The percentage of homosexuals in the population is consistent across cultures (something you would not expect if sexual orientation were a choice).
4.  The fact that behaviour and cognitive-behavioural therapies (and all other therapies) are entirely ineffective in treating/curing homosexuality. (If homosexuality were any kind of choice or a behavioural issue, this should be changeable.)
5.  The fact that homosexual men’s hypothalamus responds to pheromones from men but not women and heterosexual men’s hypothalamus’ responds to pheromones from women but not men suggests biology at work.
6.  There’s no credible data whatsoever to suggest that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle choice.’
7.  Handedness studies suggest that gay men and women are more likely than straight to be either left-handed or mixed handed. (Suggests prenatal process involvement since handedness is observable before birth.)
8.  Homosexual men appear more like women than men in terms of verbal skills, visual-spatial skills and so on (another argument for pre-natal hormonal involvement).
9.  Prenatal hormone studies in animals indicate that if we manipulate the prenatal exposure to testosterone/estrogen/progesterone we get atypical sexual behaviour in animals. (i.e., exposure to pre-natal hormones or a lack thereof organizes the brain in a sex-specific manner and we can manipulate this in animals).
10.  And while we don’t go about altering human pre-natal hormones intentionally to test the idea in humans, there are things like congenital adrenal hyperplasia that tells us that it works similarly in humans.

Together, the findings from a number of generally underfunded studies makes a compelling case for biology.

To me, the most parsimonious and comprehensive explanation for homosexuality is that prenatal hormones in combination with some genetic factor that has to do with the availability of androgen receptors or something of that nature (hypothalamus) is the most likely culprit in the development of homosexuality. I think that we don’t have a single explanation for homosexuality because there are a multitude of reasons why prenatal hormones might be compromised and why fetus’ brains might process these hormones differently.

There may be a lot of people who don’t like it, but the research has accumulated in such a manner that most scientists would say that homosexuality is biologically determined.

Tell me, Consig: how would your views change if there were some kind of unarguable proof (like finding a gay gene) that homosexuality was innate? Would anything change for you?

Shelley:

I appreciate your time on this topic.  I hope that the discussion is one that is ongoing and congenial.  I’m honored by your willingness to devote the kind of time such a discussion will demand. 

As to questions about what I believe, my opinion is of no consequence.  What is important is a thorough going through of the research that exists.  I want to get to the other material you present so that the analysis is exhaustive, rather than bullet pointed.  Let’s start with the twin studies though and work our way down the list.

I note that you’ve immediately provided a more recent study that reflects approximately a 40% reduction in the concordance rate that you started off quoting.  Without taking issue with the numbers in that study and knowing that you are a scientist whose duty to the public is to educate the public with accurate stats and figures as best we know them, why did you quote me the bigger number between the two studies you have cited thus far?  What was it about the study, other than the obvious 40% greater figure, that caused you to choose the earlier study’s figures over the more recent?

To make sure I understand the studies and how they are being reported, let’s talk about concordance rates some. It is my understanding that when a researcher does the stats for one of these big studies there are a couple of different ways to report the data.  There is pairwise concordance and there is proband concordance.  Unless rectified in the final reporting to the public, I think, and Shelley correct me if I’m wrong, proband concordance will reflect a higher rate.

I’ve read that the reason for this is that it is possible for both members of a twin pair to be probands, in which case that pair would appear twice in the study sample.  An example—if there is a sample of 3 pairs of twins and in 1 of those pairs both members are diagnosed with condition X then according to the pairwise method the concordance rate would be 1/3 or 33%, but according to the proband-wise method the rate would be 2/4 or 50%. 

Am I right about the reporting methods and how they are calculated Shelley? 

Before we get into the studies, you mentioned—methodology. You indicate that we might get higher concordance rates given how the study was put together. Is it fair to say that a study that has allows for a concordance-dependent ascertainment bias in compiling its participants is less likely to achieve accuracy in reporting?  And that we should be examining the methodology of each study we discuss before declaring the study as accurate? 
 
I also wanted to get something clear in my mind.  Sometimes folks talk about heritability as interchangeable with a genetic cause.  I’m not sure, but as I understand it, heritability is not a statement about genetic inheritance, but can be. What I’m trying to get at in a long-winded, convoluted way is that the term heritability is not always interchangeable with genetic inheritance.  Is that a fair statement?

Finally, before delving into the study of your choosing, I believe it would behoove us to agree on issues where there is no dispute.  So let me start with something I think you can agree with fairly easily:

A review of all the twin studies reveals that the trait of homosexuality is not heritable solely because of genetic factors because we do not see a Mendelian inheritance.

Agreed?

Consi: As to questions about what I believe, my opinion is of no consequence. 

Now that made me laugh out loudly.

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent’s position.

Consi, you remind me of a soothing snake mesmerising its prey before the strike.
We all know that any metaphysical speculation along the lines of Shelley’s

“Tell me, Consi: how would your views change if there were some kind of unarguable proof (like finding a gay gene) that homosexuality was innate? Would anything change for you?”,

no matter what facts were presented, would still be answered by you with an honest but definite No ... that is if Shelley could get you to answer it but you can’t do that because then you’d have to protect your position which can’t be done cos it’s got no legs. 
As I suggested in a previous thread somewhere, your views may only change if you have a son who turns out to be gay.
Don’t have sons Consi - karma will getcha getcha getcha.
I’ll watch the play with great interest.
Oh, by the way, you’re way behind.
No, no, no, no – don’t take your eyes off her épée and don’t bother lowering yourself to answer any of my foolishness – just know I’m watching with a smile on my face.
It’s terrific to see a master strategist at work. 

It’s terrific to see a master strategist at work.

I second that.  Clearly, Consi, nothing is going to change your mind - that is fixed in advance.  You are like a grand master chess player, but this game is not chess: we are talking about people’s lives.

I once opposed gay rights.  Experience and what I learned about the larger issue caused me to reassess.

Experience? Elaborate.

Experience? Elaborate.

Gay roomate, gay friends, turned out to be decent folk and not at all like stereotypes, also just saw more of life and the ups and downs, realized gay/straight does not define a person’s worth or rights.

LJ & DOF:

Every opinion is only as good as the foundation upon which it stands.  The foundation is the starting point for any discussion, not the opinion.

Every opinion is only as good as the foundation upon which it stands.  The
foundation is the starting point for any discussion, not the opinion

You may have been asked this question a number of times, but what would change your mind about gay rights if it turned out to be true?  The finding of a gay gene?  Gay-ness as a result of environmental estrogenes?  The discovery of solar gay-rays?  Having a gay child? Waking up one morning and discovering you were madly in love with someone of the same gender?

What would it take?  If there are no conditions for you ever changing your mind on the subject, why do you ask questions of anyone?  Do you feel a need to change other peoples’ minds against the rights of your fellow human beings?

While the discussion of biology and so forth is crucial to this issue, it does seem odd to me that the opinions and experiences of actual gay people are discounted out of hand. If every gay person says they didn’t choose to be gay, doesn’t this at least suggest the possibility that it’s not a choice, regardless of why that might be the case? Consi, I think you’re far too dismissive of anecdotal evidence here given that we’re talking about the experiences of actual people. I guess I don’t understand- when people like Brock or myself say we didn’t choose to be gay, do you just think we’re lying? Do you think you know better than we do what the experiences of a gay person are? Do you think our ability to self-reflect is clouded by some overriding agenda to be accepted, even though under your logic such a pressing need for acceptance could be easily sated by just choosing to be straight? I just don’t get where you’re coming from. I would really love to hear your theories on why I chose to become gay, cause I myself just can’t come up with any.

Guys I’m not trying to defend Consi position, cause we definitely differ here, but I will defend his actions.  Having substantive data to make an informed decision is important.

DOF: if you used your opinion to make judgments on how to trouble shoot your car without first getting information from another source, how easy would fixing your car be?  I am certainly not saying you are an idiot, cause your knowledge and life experiences vastly out-weigh my own.  But you in some cases, having strong valid certifiable data can help make an informed and correct decision.  I think that Consi may be trying to do the same.

Ulfrekr: using your logic one could easy talk to a fireman or a survivor of 9/11 and have them tell you it wasn’t the fire that brought down the towers.  In fact I am sure you can find a lot of people that would tell you it wasn’t the fire.  And some of them are intelligent people.  But doing so would not make sense.  Having a foundation of knowledge to make an informed decision is crucial.

I am for gay marriage, and I think anyone that isn’t is encroaching on our freedoms as Americans.  And is doing so most likely due to some religiously held belief.  But my decision comes not only from talking to gay people, but from other sources and life experiences as well.

Webs - I did acquire a lot of information before changing my mind about gay rights.  Every person has, whether or not they know it, a filter through which such decisions are made.  If “X” and “Y” turn out to be true, and “Z” turns out not to be true, then I have to change my opinion.  In some cases, the filter is clogged.

I am asking Consi if he can conceive of ever changing his mind on the subject and if so, what would make the difference.  Obviously the XYZ that were sufficient for some of us, have not been compelling to him.

Consig,

I really wish that I had the time to do a thorough search on this topic right now, but life, family, and job being what they are, I’ll just do my best to answer a few of your simple questions.

Knowing you are a scientist whose duty to the public is to educate the public with accurate stats as best we know them . . .What was it about the study other than the obvious 40% greater figure that caused you to choose the earlier study’s figures over the more recent.

Two points: The first is that homosexuality is not my area of expertise. You’re speaking as though I have a sworn duty have all of the facts and figures at my fingertips. If it were my area of expertise, I would indeed have such a responsibility. It is not, and I do not.

Why the Bailey and Pillard study? It is one of several studies that demonstrate that there is a genetic element to homosexuality, most people are familiar with it since it has been around forever, and (although it is not my area of expertise), I knew the numbers off the top of my head. When I had a few extra minutes, I took a quick look for some of the more recent literature so I could refer you to it and did so.

Second: You’re implying a level of dishonesty on my part and I resent the tone. I’m not on trial here, Consig, so leave the courtroom tactics at home if you want to have a discussion with me on the topic.

It is my understanding that when a researcher does the stats for one of these big studies

What big studies? None of these are big studies and a lack of statistical power is frequently an issue. No one has had the money or resources to be able to conduct the kind of big studies you refer to because of the real ambivalence about the topic (though some money has recently come down from NIH and those studies are not yet complete).

There is pairwise concordance and there is proband concordance. Unless rectified in the final reporting to the public . . . proband will reflect a higher rate.

Not necessarily. If possible (and appropriate), researchers will often report both figures because they provide different information. You appear to want to suggest that this is a ‘better’ way of calculating concordance rates and that proband concordance rates are somehow suspect. This is not correct.

Pairwise concordance is the ratio of concordant homosexual twins divided by the sum of the discordant and concordant homosexual twins. While pairwise concordance rates consider twins/siblings only in ‘sets’or pairs, proband concordance rates considers each person as an individual. It isn’t a form of double-dipping as you’ve implied. It gives you an estimate of the prevalence among twin siblings of probands, and it tells you the probability that a twin will be homosexual if his co-twin is homosexual. It is also the only way to examine the question when you want to factor in non-twin relatives (such as natural and adopted siblings), and it is necessary whenever you wish to examine and compare population prevalence. It is in wide use.

ascertainment bias in compiling its participants is less likely to achieve accuracy in reporting

Pshaw! This from a man who couldn’t figure out the difference between MZ and DZ twins and accused me of not keeping things simple?

Yes, an ascertainment bias can be problematic – particularly if you’re using pairwise concordance rates. You could conceivably only use the pairs in a way that reflects your “chosen” configuration.

The term heritability is not always interchangeable with genetic inheritance. Is that a fair statement?

The trait of homosexuality is not heritable solely because of genetic factors because we do not see a Mendelian inheritance. Agreed?

I believe that I pointed out that homosexuality is not my area of expertise. I’m also not a geneticist or a language expert and since you want to rely on precise expertise, you’d have to check elsewhere to ensure that you have the exact answer.

You seem to believe that I am making a genetic argument for homosexuality when I am not. I am suggesting genetic influence and a biological aetiology. My guess is that the best model of homosexuality will have to assume polygenetic factors and environmental effects.

You and I come at this from different angles, Consig. You’re a lawyer, and you think that if you pull one thread or find a single weakness in a study, the case for biology falls apart. I look at the body of evidence as a whole. Each study has individual strengths and weaknesses, but that’s how human research works. Those who study people take one small step at a time and add pieces to the puzzle bit by bit until we have a coherent picture. People are not fruitflies, Consig and the questions (and the answers) are extrordinarily complex. All studies have their limitations, but there is coherence in what we’ve got: There’s a ton of studies that implicate biology in sexual orientation.

Every opinion is only as good as the foundation upon which it stands.  The foundation is the starting point for any discussion, not the opinion.

Yes, and my starting point is with a multitude of studies that point to biology. However, I’m willing to consider any of the research (even flawed research) that points to homosexuality as a choice.

So, Consig, plese pint me to any of the empirical evidence that tells us that homosexuality is a choice?

There is one situation that would explain Consi: He’s deep in the closet.

...or deep in love with his religion.

...or heartless.

...or deep in love with himself.

He depends on words too much and sometimes I tire of words getting in the way of a noble affliction.

Personally I don’t buy for an instant that homosexuality is merely a “choice.“ To hold such a position is a cop-out for homophobia and bigotry, and everyone damn well knows it. It’s really not much different from creationists who deny and/or ignore the evidence for evolution simply because it conflicts with their fundamentalist religious beliefs.