Couple of quick examples of misleading interpretations of legitimate science:

Their Reported Findings

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual
• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual
• 9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation")

They use this a evidence that there isnt a gay gene since identical twins would always be either gay or straight. No shit. What this is is very good evidence for a genetic component for homosexuality, but no one beleives it's one gene.



The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors are involved, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers

Or it could be used to support the hypothesis that fetal hormone exposure plays a role - this is a not unpopular theory.

---

On the other hand, the "science" behind the so-called changeability of homosexuality is not recognized as valid by the vast majority of the scientific and medical establishment, as they themselves admit! Shouldn't that raise some red flags?

---

_______________________________________________

"Oh, c'mon! Take a hypothetical: scientists report that there is no link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. Their research was funded by a tobacco company. And that alone wouldn't be a reason to dispute their findings?

You may well concur with their opinions/conclusion, but don't assume that there's good science to back it up."

Well, I ask you to do the same. Just because a tobacco company funds research that shows cigarettes aren't bad for you doesn't make the research faulty. for that, you have to look at the science itself. Likewise, just because these guys are biased against gays doesn't mean the science is bad.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Their Reported Findings

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were homosexual
9.2% of non-twin biological siblings reported homosexual orientations (Bailey and Pillard, 1991, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation")

They use this a evidence that there isnt a gay gene since identical twins would always be either gay or straight. No shit. What this is is very good evidence for a genetic component for homosexuality, but no one beleives it's one gene. "

I don't see how that argues for any part of homosexuality being genetic. It may not prove otherwise, but it doesn't say anything about their being genetics components to sexual preference.

"On the other hand, the "science" behind the so-called changeability of homosexuality is not recognized as valid by the vast majority of the scientific and medical establishment, as they themselves admit! Shouldn't that raise some red flags? "

It should, and they acknowledged the weakness.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Sure it does - the more genes shared between a gay man and another man, the more likelihood the other man is gay himself.

---

_______________________________________________

I dont think that article will help you much. I do oppose this "gay-gene" vs. free choise debate. It will - in best case szenario - lead to some its_not_their_fauld excuses. IMO thats not sufficing to stop familial quarrel.

IMO its more importend for your wife and her father to realize that their only choice is to respect their brother/son the way he is or to lose him. Either to lose him due to denial of contact by one side or to lose him into a sort of double life. The second possibility might anabel them to keep up appearances. But it will not anabel your wife and her father to participate at their brothers/sons real life. They will not participate at his relationships, his loves and haertaches and it probably will disable your brother in law to live long time relationships - according to my experience its hard to live a relationship while you have to hide it - and rather lead him from one ONS to another.

Cheers Torsten