HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT HEREDITARY

Two recently published "scientific" reports claimed that homosexuality is hereditary. The press has taken this conclusion as proof that the homosexual person has no control over his or her sexual preference. This is then touted as a reason homosexuality should be a protected civil right. But a detailed analysis of what was actually done to make these reports shows that this conclusion is not only unwarranted, but is in fact proven false by their own data.

The studies, showing the mistakes made by the researchers

Analysis of the genetics behind the studies:

Let us see if we can figure out what norms could have been used in either of these studies:

• If the expected norm was the actual prevalence of this DNA in the population, its value was not disclosed.
• If the gene is randomly distributed in the population, it should appear in roughly half of the DNA passed to offspring. But we have to remember that, with the exception of sex-linked traits, two sets of DNA appear in each individual, so Mendel's laws apply.
• We must assume that the gene is randomly distributed in the population. Otherwise, there would be evidence of homosexuality in certain bloodlines, as hemophilia and sickle-cell anemia have evidence of. But homosexuality seems to appear randomly within various bloodlines, so the gene must be randomly distributed too. (Note that some "bloodlines" have a higher prevalence due to a higher prevalence of a belief in liberalism in the family, so family histories are suspect).
• We can't assume that the prevalence of the gene is equal to the prevalence of homosexuality, or the study reduces to a case of begging the question (using a statement to prove itself). That is, of course, an invalid argument method.
• We can't assume 0 for the prevalence of the DNA in heterosexuals, or there is no source to supply the inherited gene.
• We can't assume 0 for the prevalence of the trait expression in heterosexuals, or again it is begging the question.
• We can't assume 50 percent for the prevalence of the gene in the population, because genes don't work that way. Remember that there are TWO versions of each chromosome in each person (excepting the X and Y chromosomes found in a male). If they used 50 percent, they tried to use social science norms for a genetics problem.
• Possible null hypothesis values for the prevalence of randomly distributed uncorrelated genes are normally 25 percent and 75 percent, depending on the type of gene and the method of assay used. Randomly distributed sex chromosome genes have a prevalence of 50 percent in a male, and either 0 percent, 25 percent, or 75 percent in a female (depending on the location and type of gene). A randomly distributed gene location with more than two possible traits will have different percentages.
• If a gene is NOT randomly distributed in the population for some reason, then the only possible valid method of assay is to compare the population with the gene to the population without the gene, looking for percentages with the trait within each population. The null hypothesis in this case is that both populations have the same prevalence of the trait. Such a comparison was not done in either study.
• If the activity of the gene is tested for, then the laws of sexual genetics apply. A randomly distributed dominant gene has a prevalence of 75 percent, and a randomly distributed recessive gene has a prevalence of 25 percent. A sex-linked trait will have a prevalence of 50 percent in a male subject, and will be either dominant, recessive, or totally absent in a female. This generally fits the reported methods in the first study.
• If a genetic probe is used, the laws of sexual genetics apply as for a dominant gene, whether the gene itself is dominant or recessive. This fits the method of the second study.
• One last item is particularly interesting. Proving that Homosexuality is hereditary also disproves Evolution and Natural Selection. This, in turn, will cause different factions of liberals to oppose each other.

Percentages are portions of each group having the gene.

Now turn it around the way it is supposed to be, and see what happens when the independent variable is the gene, and the dependent variable is the trait:

Percentages are portions of each group having the trait.

A randomly distributed dominant gene should appear in 75 percent of the population.

A randomly distributed recessive gene should appear in 25 percent of the population.

A randomly distributed gene should appear in 75 percent of a DNA probe assay of the population.

Any other numbers observed indicate that either the gene is NOT randomly distributed in the population, or that the sampling method is flawed.

Note that a control group is needed to be able to tell several of the cases apart.

Note that, without a control group, numbers not near 100% tend to disprove any causal claim. There are cases with the effect, but not the cause.

Note that, with a control group, numbers not near 100% disprove any causal claim. There are cases with the effect, but not the cause.

Applying genetics to the published conclusions:

Notice also that you can NOT select on the dependent variable (sexual preference) and expect to see the independent variable (the gene) vary in the exact manner of a causal effect. Such an experiment is designed backwards, and cannot possibly be used to prove causality. The independent variable must be actively varied and the dependent variable observed, in order to show any cause-and-effect relationship. But genes cannot be actively varied.

Notice that you can NOT use statistics intended for numeric data (each sample produces a number) when you have categorical data (yes-no or other non-numeric selectors). Statistics intended for categorical data must be used.

MISTAKES

Horrendous mistakes were made in these studies.

• EVERY such study published so far has selected subjects for the dependent variable (homosexuality). This means that EVERY study so far is based on a logically invalid sample collection method. The samples taken should be random samples of the general population, not sets of carefully selected subjects.
• Every study published so far has no control group. This means that there is nothing to test for a correlation or an association to.
• Many of the studies, including the two examined in detail, used the methods of social science, rather than the methods of genetics, to establish the numerical values of the null hypotheses. Thus, they are trying to correlate their observations to the wrong values. Genetics has special rules that must always be followed in scientific testing. Heredity does not follow the rules of behavioral science.
• A big soduk (kudos spelled backwards) to any "scientist" who is ignorant enough to try to apply the rules of social and behavioral sciences to any genetic study.
• Because of the small sample sizes, most of the "observed variations" were caused by the limitations of obtainable values due to the discrete nature of the observations. It would take a huge variation in the variables to make a statistically significant result from such small sample sizes.
• All of the studies, including these two, used statistics intended for numeric data, even though they had categorical data. Thus, they obtained totally useless values from those statistics.
• A big soduk to any "scientist" who is ignorant enough to use the wrong statistic in any study.
• Of those who have tried to duplicate the studies, not one has succeeded in getting the same results. The wide variations are due to the small sample sizes used.
• None of them showed their data or their work. They published only the results.
• It may be significant that both websites of the research projects examined in detail were taken down (or possibly moved to different URLs) shortly after publication of this page (which originally contained links to them).
• The fact that there are cases with the effect, but not the cause, disproves their claims of causality.
• If Homosexuality is proved to be hereditary, it would disprove Natural Selection, and thus, it would disprove Evolution.

Excuses given for using the wrong procedures in these studies:

These are the reasons often cited for the horrendous mistakes in these studies:

• The small sample sizes were used due to the expense of the DNA tests.
• The random samples needed to use the association method can be very large (~400 samples). The expense would be prohibitive.
• We followed the procedure for a causal link in our political science books.
• What's a crosstable?
• Chi squared??? What's that?
• What's Cramer's coefficient?
• But I want a correlation, not an "association". The media don't understand an association.
• We tried that. It didn't give the numbers we wanted.
• We used a 50% null hypothesis because it is supposed to be sex-linked.

Note these facts about the above excuses:

• Most of these studies were done by political scientists, who used the political science methods they learned in college.
• Very few political science courses in statistics cover how to deal with categorical data. The materials usually cover mostly environmental and social issues that use numeric values, such as pollution, population, and poverty.
• Many statistics books do not have the crosstable, Chi-squared, Cramer's coefficient, or a test for association.
• Many statistics books do not tell when to use each statistic, just how to calculate it.
• A sex-linked gene must be on the X or the Y chromosome. It can't be on any other chromosomes.
• Those funding the studies looked at the costs of tests for a minimum number of subjects when using numeric data. They would not provide any more money than that amount.

Final conclusions:

Most of these studies were obviously designed to reach a predetermined conclusion, regardless of the actual facts. The "scientists" involved set out to prove their political beliefs, rather than to find out the truth. Otherwise, they would have used the proper scientific methods and collected a truly random sample.

As they stand, these studies have absolutely no scientific value. Instead, the people who did these studies probably fit at least one of these cases:

1. They were horribly ignorant of the laws of genetics, proper scientific procedure, proper experiment design, and/or the proper use of statistics.
2. They were trying to save money on the studies by cutting corners.
3. They were trying to prove the result they wanted, instead of trying to find out the truth.
4. They knew their results were bogus, but intended to use them to fool politicians and the press.

Apparently they had political science books on how to prove social or environmental issues, and tried to use those without any expertise.

"Studies" of this kind are meant to promote a political dogma, not to scientifically prove anything.

Numbers not near 100% tend to disprove any causal claim. There are many individual cases in these studies having the effect, but not the proffered cause. They disproved their own claims with these cases.

Beware of ANY study done by a group that would benefit from one outcome of the study. Science must be done by disinterested scientists (scientists who do not want a particular outcome to be true.)

Links

• A proposal to do the science correctly.
• HOME
• BAD SCIENCE
• BAD UFO SCIENCE
• BAD MATH
• BAD STATISTICS

Epilog: The Civil Rights Entanglement of Religion and Homosexuality

Those who perpetrated these instances of bad science have as their goal a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuality. But such a law will never exist for very long, because any such law is discrimination against religion. Discrimination against religious belief is unconstitutional in the United States of America.

Consider the following facts:

1. There is a civil right of religious belief.
2. It is unconstitutional for government to pass any law having to do with any religion.
3. It is unconstitutional for government to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
4. Most religions prohibit homosexuality as a sinful act.

   For example, according to the Christian Bible, homosexual desires are caused by worshiping created things, instead of the Creator (Romans 1:25−27). This belief is protected by the Constitution. (If we assume that this is true, one might wonder if worship of the environment has caused the sudden increase in the number of homosexuals.)

   Also in this example, the Christian Bible tells believers to not associate with willful sinners (I Corinthians 5:11). This belief is also protected by the Constitution.

5. Most religions prohibit changing the religious texts.
6. Many homosexuals try to argue that there is nothing to religion. But all believers know that those arguments are hollow lies.
7. Discrimination against homosexuality is against the doctrines of Political Correctness. But Political Correctness is itself a religion. Democrats plagiarized it from the tenets of the Baha'i Faith. Because Political Correctness is itself a religion, government can not use the force of law to enforce it.
8. Any attempt to make homosexuality a civil right takes away the civil rights of other people with religious beliefs.
9. Any law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuality is unconstitutional, because such a law discriminates against at least one religion (the example above), not to mention every other religion that prohibits homosexuality.
10. Any Constitutional amendment attempting to prohibit discrimination against homosexuality makes the Constitution inconsistent with itself, because it would prohibit part of itself.
11. Demands that religion be abolished are also unconstitutional.
12. No person whose religion prohibits homosexuality can be forced to pay for or provide any of the following:
    • Any medical procedure or cost related to any illness caused by a sexually immoral act.
    • Any cost related to any marriage license for a sexually immoral marriage
    • Anything for a ceremony for a sexually immoral marriage.

    Government is forcing the person to pay for these if payment is made through taxation or through required insurance premiums.

There is only one solution to this dilemma: Since religions can discriminate against each other, the only way for homosexuality to be protected is for it to become a religious belief. The Political Correctness religion would do for this purpose.

Links

• Why religious people oppose homosexuality.
• A proposal to do the science correctly.