Identical Twin Brothers: One Gay - One Straight - A Dialogue About Same-Sex Marriage

Identical Twins - One Gay and One Straight, on Prop 8

A Conversation Between Identical Twin Brothers, About Same-Sex Marriage...

Alongside a multitude of important and even critical issues, that we face as a Nation today - there stands as a raging sentinel... the topic of same-sex marriage! Never before in the history of the world, have we stood at such a pivotal place in time, where a potential decision, could destroy the next generation of society.

The subject of same-sex marriage, also has the potential source of conflict, if we as a society allow it - to divide us from even our very closest of family members. That issue, is whether or not same-sex marriage should be legalized in the United States? There are compelling arguments from both sides of this debate. Perhaps you have not determined exactly how you feel, about legalizing same-sex marriage? There are some that believe, that changing the definition of traditional marriage, which is only between a man and a woman - will not affect their world. Therefore, they are willing to tolerate, that which a small sect of society are demanding.

Right now, you might be thinking to yourself, that I am being sensational about the impact of same-sex marriage, on not only society at large, but on the most intimate of family relations. I assure you, that I am not.

I want to share with you a dialogue, between two brothers who happen to be identical twins. Of great interests, is that one of these identical twin brothers are gay, and the other identical twin brother is straight. This conversation that I am about to share with you, is in regards to Prop 8, and the legalization of same-sex marriage, in California. This is an actual discussion that took place between these two identical twin brothers, that I have been authorized to share.

I will not go into detail, as to how this conversation was made known to me. Out of respect for both of these gentlemen, who are each others identical twin, they will both remain anonymous. But the facts, the passion, and the truths that this conversation reveal - should cause genuine concerns in all of us. We should all feel privileged; that we are being allowed to peer into such a personal encounter between these identical twin brothers, so that we might see, with greater clarity... that which could rock our world!

Note: Please understand, that these two identical twin brothers, were not concerned with grammar, punctuation, etc., as they communicated privately with one another. I have decided to also, not be concerned with these details; only to add very minor additions, for easier reading. I realized that I could not go to the identical twin brother that allowed permission for this to be published, and ask him to edit the conversation. This would have been tampering, with the very essence of this exchange. I could not let him do it for himself, nor is it possible or right, to have him do it for his identical twin brother. So the IM style of which it was created, will remain intact. I have also refrained from the use of any text links, placed within the dialogue between these twins. Reference links will be at the bottom of this Hub, for your consideration...

Identical Twin Brothers - Same and Different

The division of One...
The division of One...

Gay Identical Twin Brother:

This whole Prop 8 is something that has been a huge controversy for many. I understand people's view that they want marriage to only be between man and a women. I really hate to be blunt and apologize in advance for hurting anyone's feelings, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion and this is mine. Just because [legalizing] same-sex marriage, would [mean I would] be able to marry, doesn't mean that a marriage between a man and a woman is put in jeopardy whatsoever. I thought the big premise of marriage was to be based on love, devotion and death [do] us part? The one thing that make me sad if this proposition does pass, [is] that same sex couples will not have the same liberties that heterosexual couples take for granted. I want all of you staunch republicans to think for a minute, what if it was your son or daughter whose loved one, was on their deathbed in the hospital, and they could not be with the one that they have lived with and loved for however long. What gives anyone the right to deny someone else!

the right to be with their loved one in the last hours they will have together[?] I know that there will be many responses to the extent, of well my child would never be gay...... Just to let you know its not something you choose. There is no guarantee, even if you think you know your children "so well" that they might be hiding something from you because they are so deathly afraid of disappointing you. I only say this because this is the view I had on life until I was 18 years old.

Just think about it and if you feel strongly about something I have said, I have no problem discussing this with you.

Proponents of Prop 8 make many misleading assertions in their new television ad.

Here’s what’s fiction and what’s fact:

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.

Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.

Fiction: Same-sex marriage would be taught in public schools.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it. A Sacramento Superior Court judge has already ruled that this claim by the proponents of Prop 8 is “false and misleading.” In fact, the “case” that is cited in the ad is from Massachusetts…the proponents knew what California law said, so they used another state, again to mislead voters.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it's about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn't grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren't supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

=========================

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, we should not eliminate fundamental rights for ANY Californians. Please vote NO on Prop 8.

The polls currently say this proposition will PASS, but it's by a narrow margin that we can come back from.

If you have friends in CA, please repost this message and let the truth be heard!

Identical Twins and Their Differences - Discussing Homosexuality?

Who - When - Where - How - Why - ???
Who - When - Where - How - Why - ???
"You and I are genetically 110% the same. We have the exact same DNA, down to the nitrogenous bases that compose the nucleotides chains which all add up to form DNA. What I am getting at is every fiber of our being, separately as two individuals..."
"You and I are genetically 110% the same. We have the exact same DNA, down to the nitrogenous bases that compose the nucleotides chains which all add up to form DNA. What I am getting at is every fiber of our being, separately as two individuals..."
Many questions about gender identity continue to be asked...
Many questions about gender identity continue to be asked...

Straight Identical Twin Brother:

You are fighting so hard for a right that initially didn't pass in the first place, and only came to be because of an appeal and a decision of a judge. And furthermore it has only been a "right" for what? A few months? The vote of the people was overturned, and that's what's wrong. I am not a fan of politics but if you realize that we live in a nation and our greatest right is to vote. This "right" has only come about because of a back door hole in the system. It's like a murderer that is sentenced and put on death row. But, he has his right to an appeal, with a good enough lawyer and some time, he a cold blooded killer can be set free pending the appeal. What happened in the supreme court with prop 22 is no different. There is a reason this prop didn't pass the first time around, the great country that we live in, and I am not saying I agree with everything that goes on politically because I do not, but the way that everything is set up and the way the country has been running for years, the people's majority vote wins. As much as I care about you [brother], I love you more than anyone, there is more behind this story than you are presenting here for both sides of the argument, and you need to take a better look at all of it.

Gay Identical Twin Brother:

First off, the sad thing is that it has to be referred to as a "right"! Heterosexual couples take for granted the simple liberties they have as man and wife. I am not saying that everyone needs to agree with same sex marriages, because I know that they are narrow minded individuals that will never accept it. That is the great downfall of this country, people cannot accept others for their differences. After all, is it not what this great country's found principles? Land of the free?

Second, I am absolutely appalled that you have compared homosexual people with a cold blooded killer. It honestly makes me sad that you are so shallow and narrow minded. If you want to marry a women, go right ahead, but why should that stop a homosexual couple whose love is no different than between a man or a woman from having the same rights as heterosexual married couples. From all of the [religious] views on this subject, I feel as if the church seems that their prestige and reputation are on the line if this Proposition does not pass. In my opinion, and you will disagree, but I will say it anyway. Your church is supposedly accepting and welcoming of all different kinds of people, supposedly as well as all other churches, don't think it is hypocritical for you to preach how you welcome people's differences yet you want to bash any one who is not [religious] every chance you get.

Furthermore, you keep commenting on, that you don't agree with everything that happens in politics, I do not either; My problem lies in that you are basically saying that you as a heterosexual male should have superior rights when it comes to wanting to marry someone that you love? Leave politics out of this and think of it from a different standpoint, as my brother! My own twin brother for that matter, are you saying to me that you feel that when I find that person that I want to spend the rest of my life [with], I should be denied the same benefits that you will share with your wife one day?

Identical Twin Brothers - Gay versus Straight, and Answers...

Identical twin brothers, and understanding each other...
Identical twin brothers, and understanding each other...

Straight Identical Twin Brother:

First off I want to say, [that] I am sorry for the way you felt about what I wrote. I was in no way, shape or form, comparing a homosexual person to a cold blooded killer. I was comparing the action of the appeals process, that's it.

I really have no desire to make an argument with you about this subject. But there are a few issues that I feel that you need to be more open to. I am sorry that you feel my narrow mindedness has caused me to feel the way I do, but it is not that at all. I am not trying to take away your feelings, but I really want you to look at something, and it will be very hard not to get emotional about it, because it directly involves you and me.

You and I are genetically 110% the same. We have the exact same DNA, down to the nitrogenous bases that compose the nucleotides chains which all add up to form DNA. What I am getting at is every fiber of our being, separately as two individuals, is collectively an exact copy. There is no deviation, yet we have chosen two very different life styles. How can this be if we are genetically the same? Granted there are outside influences that change the way we think, but to say that being gay is not a choice is not correct either? You really have no foundation to support that statement. In the example of you and I being identical twins, WE ARE LIVING PROOF that it is not genetically oriented, in other words, Homosexuals are not born homosexual. Therefore being homosexual is nothing other than a choice. When you look at the facts, there is no other conclusion.

I know that you firmly disagree and will fight to the death on this, but I would encourage you to take a better look at the facts of what I just said, and really think about it logically. I know you extremely well, I can almost predict the next move you make sometimes, please try to understand where I am coming from. I do not love you any less, nor have I ever treated you any differently because of your sexual preference. I love you [brother] with all my heart and I truly do want the best for you always.

You asked me if I felt I had superior rights as a heterosexual male engaged in marriage with a woman, over that of a same-sex couple. I do not doubt that love can exist in both types of relationships. I think the “rights” are what everyone is fighting about. And honestly I have no problems with same-sex couples having the same tax rights and other beneficial rights, you have as a married heterosexual couple. But you have to go back to the basics. Being homosexual is an alternate life-style no matter how you look at it, so why, if you are worried about the same rights to reach “equality”, are you fighting for same-sex unions to be called marriage? I am totally okay with the equal rights of it all, but [keeping from] calling it Marriage, is what I am trying to preserve. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and our most important job in that union, is to become parents. There is no other way to bear children other than between a man and a woman, and that’s why I am referring to homosexual relationships as an alternate lifestyle.

Again, there is no other option there, it is alternate. Hence leading to the reason why this alternative should not be defined as marriage. I am all for equality, [for] the right of every American citizen, but keeping marriage defined as between a man and a woman takes no rights away from same sex couples. And I believe that the definition of marriage should only be stated in its proper form.

That is my stand, and I will always stick to it. I will not ever try to push my opinion on others; everyone is entitled to their own. I am also for prop 8 for my children’s benefit. I am going to give you some links [that] I want you to look at and please read them with an open mind. You have to remember that there is always a ripple affect to any action. It’s like the laws of physics, to ever action [there] is an equal and or opposite reaction. If the proposition is shot down, and those that agree with that stance, will stop at nothing to make homosexuality a norm. It has already started to happen back east, and it makes it mandatory for same sex marriage to be taught in the schools.

In ways I can already see your rebuttal to this statement. That in no way, is beneficial to anyone. It doesn’t help kids learn about homosexuality in any way, because everyone to this point has learned about it, with no formal education on it. I want my kids to accept everyone for who they are and love them the same too, I however do not, and would not [want] them while in acceptation of them, agree with the things that they are doing. You can love someone unconditionally, and totally, 100% disagree with the choices they have made. Isn’t that the case with me being a [religion] church member?

I really do not want to argue with you on this anymore. I can’t state any clearer on [why] I feel the way I do. I love you [Brother], I will always accept you for the amazing and wonderful brother and person you have always been to me. With in the next few weeks we will know the outcome of all this, whether it goes pro or con, we will still love each other the same as we always have and nothing can ever change that. We both know that each of us are here for one another at the drop of a hat, and [that] we will always be able to say, yes, that’s my twin brother and I love him more than anything.

I love you [Brother].

Your other half always,

[Brother]

Write-On! Acknowledgments, Requests and Last Words:

Thank you, to my dear friend, who allowed me to publish this very intimate and personal correspondence, between him, and his beloved identical twin brother. I am sure that after you, too, having read it... are deeply moved. There is no question, of the enduring love that exists, between these twin identical brothers; one gay - one straight.

I also need to make sure and state, that the photos that are used in this Hub, in no way imply that the persons pictured, are either gay or straight. These pictures are used under the terms of, Creative Commons. I thank the many talented photographers, who share their work with the community.

I understand, that all who read this Hub, about Identical Twin Brothers, One Gay - One Straight, may not necessarily agree on this issue. However, if you have found this information to be helpful and informative, I would request that you give this Hub, a BIG THUMBS-UP!

About comments: You are invited to share your respectful comments. However, all comments will be moderated, and aproved... before being posted.

Write On!

This article is not to be copied and/or re-used without permission!

“In a nutshell, if you take pairs of identical twins in which one twin is homosexual, the identical co-twin is usually not homosexual. That means, given that identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No-one is born gay". ~ Dr. Neil Whitehead

Proposition 8 in Plain English - What is Prop 8?

More by this Author


Please feel free to leave your respectful comments about Same-Sex Marriage... 66 comments

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

Marriage should be left to the churches, synagogs and mosques. They should be free to marry whomever they wish in accordance with their beliefs. The state should perform or allow or legalize civil unions only and get out of the marriage business. In that way everyone would be treated equally before the law as required by the Constitution.

This is a very divisive and unnecessary issue fed by a lot of misinformation and fear mongering.


Write On! profile image

Write On! 7 years ago from United States Author

Ralph -

I agree, almost.

But, what about churches that support "same-sex" marriage? We would still have the same issue going on among different faiths. As much as I would like to see this work, in the way you suggest - for those who are opposed to same-sex marriage, we oppose it taking place whether inside or outside of the church.

It is the definition of marriage, that we are desiring to preserve. So, unfortunately, the way the system is currently set-up, it is going to require the law to preserve traditional marriage.

What are you thoughts?

Write On!


In The Doghouse profile image

In The Doghouse 7 years ago from California

Write on,

What a very emotional post, on a very emotional issue. Prop 8 seeks to define marriage in the way that it has been traditionally defined from the beginning of time, as between one man and one woman. With efforts against Prop 8 and those wishing to redefine marriage, I can only wonder what outcome that will have on the family unit?

If we must redefine the term marriage, does a redefinition of the terms "husband and wife" then come next on our agenda? For that matter, how can we then define the terms "mother and father"? Are we aiming for a completely genderless society in the name of equality and rights? Wouldn't it just be better to allow rights to "alternative" lifestyles as well and keep the definition of marriage as it has been traditionally?

If we become a genderless society by definition then what are we to term the basic unit of society, which is the family? It seems like a great confusion of gender and roles will also confuse our youth as to the familial unit.

These and many more questions have plagued me because of the issue of semantics that are being fought over. I believe that we simply must give this issue the priority it deserves and not deem it "unnecessary".

Thank you for the thought provoking post.


ediegold 7 years ago

This topic is very difficult. The option that the state has the ability to marry people and now wanting to marry same sex is a a disgrace the family unit.


ajcor profile image

ajcor 7 years ago from NSW. Australia

Thank you writeon for this incredible post - I am a twin so I understand the closeness this relationship brings but thankfully I have never to make a stand on such a huge issue within my close family realm - and a big thank you to inthedoghouse for your listed possible future ramifications which are plain scary to us all as a society upon which marriage is such a valuable cornerstone. So while I most certainly agree with every person on this very earth having the right to enjoy equal rights; (particularly the right to have their nearest and dearest at their hospital bedside) I also have to agree that keeping the institution of marriage out of the equation will help ensure that the social pundits with their political correctness garbage, stay out of the equation also. Anything to keep the political correctness brigade out of the equation!!! cheers


Whiteonwhite 7 years ago

WriteOn! Great Hub, You can obviously tell that these twins have a great love for each other. Being a twin, I fully understand having "another Half" or a clone. This is a very tough subject and and even tougher one when it becomes between twins. It is a great reference for those people that think being homosexual and genetics have a connection, but they do not and it is proven in this instance.

Thanks for sharing your friends story, he must be in a hard place..

Keep up on great Hubbing. VOTE YES ON PROP 8 RESTORE MARRIAGE!

Great quote from a Conn judge opposing same-sex marriage:

The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry."


Write On! profile image

Write On! 7 years ago from United States Author

@Drew -

If you would like to repost your comment, and leave out the expletives, which are offensive to me; and would be to my readers -- I will be happy to approve your very passionate comment.

Write On!


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 7 years ago from North America

I found your article on Digg already and Dugg it.

I think identical twins are not 100% identical, because my father was one, but the twin died in utero, contributing some of his DNA also to my father. He ended up with two different strings of DNA and termed a chimera by physicians. How about super-identical twins - is there such a thing or is that a fantasy?

Thanks for the Hub.


a helpful insight 7 years ago

Here is some further definition of a chimera. As stated in the article, since your dad was a single birth, he doesn't really qualify to be a twin, he would be: "Those who were not twins are thought to have blood cells from a twin that died early in gestation."


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 7 years ago from North America

Exactly right - he was found to have two strains of DNA, as well as extra teeth, a small extra lobe of lung and an extra tiny stomach.


some more helpful hints 7 years ago

Yes, this can happen. People with two types of DNA are called chimeras after a mythical creature with a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail (individuals are also called mosaics). These people have two different sets of DNA in different parts of the body. How does someone become a chimera? There are a number of ways this can happen: First, it is possible to become a chimera if developing fraternal twin embryos fuse together to become one embryo. (Think of this is as the reverse of identical twins where a single embryo splits into two.) This happens very early on when the embryos are just unspecialized cells, so a healthy baby can still be made. Fraternal twins do not have the same DNA, so a mixture of two embryos will give a chimera. Second, chimeras can arise when developing fraternal twins share a blood supply. This happens when the twins (who have different DNA) share a placenta and cells from their blood mix. The twins will be chimeras only in terms of their blood since other cells in the body are not affected by the blood supply. Third, sometimes chimeras can happen through an error in the way cells divide in the developing embryo. (These people are technically called mosaics but the concept is similar.) Cells split into two to make more of themselves – something embryos need to do a lot of to grow into a baby. For this, cells need to double their DNA and divide it between the two new halves. Sometimes this goes wrong and some new cells end up with different DNA. If this happens early on, the tissues that come from these cells end up with a different genotype.


Whiteonwhite 7 years ago

Patty- After reading your post, I just wanted to help clarify a few things for you. I am a Pre Professional studies major and I have had the opportunity to take a Genetics class and actually learned about this how thing, and paid particular attention to it because I am an identical twin. Identical twins are called Identical for good reason. Identical twins are created from the joining of one egg and one sperm that splits, creating two exactly identical fetuses. They have the same genetic make-up, thus the same DNA because they are from one sperm and one egg fertilization. Now there is only one possible way for identical twins to have some different DNA in the early parts od utero. A mutation ahas to occur in order for the DAN to be altered. There is less than a 1% chance for this to happen to one and not the other, again because of the same genetic make-up. The only other way identical twins are found to have varaiton in DNA is when tested at around mid life, So areound 40 to 50, twins that have been exposed to different extreme enviornemnt elements, which can change DNA over time, have altered the DNA to small amounts only, however it stil is a change, even though it is as rare as the first.

Fraternal twins however are as much the same as any two siblings. They have separate DNA, and are fromed from two eggs being fertilized by two separate sperm, thus the reason for the differeces in the twins. What makes them twins is not the genetics, it is the fact that they were a multiple birth. That's the only reason. So in case of your father, he was not an identical twin, nor even a twin for that matter because of his single birth. His "twin" that died while still in gestation, more than likely did donate some extra DNA to your dad, seeing the multiplicity in some body features and organs.

I talked to my professor about this, and she told me that there is no way for a set of identical twins to be considered or deemed Chimera, if that were the case they wouldn't be Indentical Twins.

I hope this clears up some confusing regarding identical twins and individuals considered to be chimera.


Hilda Perez 7 years ago

I just want to say thank you for posting this discussion. It really illustrates how emotionally conflicting this issue can be for families. I have always believed that Prop 8 has the power to fundamentally change the structure of society and not in a good way. History has shown that societies have been based on the family unit since the begining of humankind, when men and women bonded together for mutual love, protection, and survial, not just indiviually but for the species as well. The creation of a family unit helps to bind together tribes, clans, villages, towns, etc,; once that cohesive bond is weakened, the links of the familiy unit start to break apart.

I believe that every person has a divinely gifted right to make their own choice and live life as they choose. However a gay person does choose an alternative lifestyle, and that means marriage, whether religious or civil, should not an option. Marriage is fundamentally an institution in place for the creation of family, as such gay marriage does not fit the critieria of the word marriage.

Thanks, again for sharing, and I know how hard this issue must be with someone who has such a close relationship with you.


Slightly Concerned 7 years ago

I understand that many of you are passionate about this issue. But, I think there is a lot of confusion going on. To Ralph's Comments at the top, do you mean to say that no state instutition should perform marriage of any kind? Even if between a man and a woman? This doesn't seem right to me, because what about people who are not religious. Would you not give them the right to marry?

For those who are saying that same-sex couples would diminish family values. Let me first say that family can be defined in so many ways. There are some families that don't have both a "Mom" and a "Dad." One of my closest friends didn't grow up with a father. It was just she and her mother, and she is one of the brighest, strongest, most intelligent people I know. What about families where the grandmother raises the child, or the Uncle or Aunt. These are all examples of what a stong family can be. Not to mention a family with two Dads and two Moms. These families can be very strong, and will not dimish "family values," but instead show that sometimes breaking out of the norm can produce a quality life for the children. Be careful in saying that the only good family is one that has a mother and a father, because that will hurt those who don't fit into your standards.

I also want to respond to "In the Doghouse's comment that if you allow same- sex couples to "marry" then we will become a genderless society. There is so much I would like to say about this with so little time. For decades now, women have been trying to break the stereotypical "gender" roles that society has put on us. We are working 9-5, we are voting, we are running for President. Your definition of gender is probably not one that many women woud accept. i don't think we need to have a genderless society, but I do think that we need to look passed our genders, and accept people for who they are and what they want to become regardless of gender.

I also want to comment that the so-called "Sanctity" of marriage has not been kept in this country for quite some time. If you want to keep traditional marriage so sacred, you should be fighting to not allow people to get divorced.

Finally, i have to say that the "one twin is gay and the other is straight" argument DOES NOT PROVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE. You're DNA does not determine who you fall in love with. There is so much about the human brain that we do not understand. There are chemicals, and hormomes that control so many aspects of our lifestlye, that simply saying DNA determines sexual orientation is down-right ignorant. If anything, I would say that this argument proves that homosexuality is NOT a choice. Because these two men were raised exactly the same way, with the same parents, and the same friends, the same school, and the same religious upbringing. That proves to me that homosexuality IS something you are born with. You can try to deny it, but there have been homosexuals throughout history. Ancient Roman Emporers, Generals, and Policital leaders were thought to be gay. There is evidence as far back as ancient Egypt that shows homosexual activity. Homosexuality is not just a trend for boys and girls who hate their mothers. It even occurs in some animal species. it is a naturally occuring phenomina, and there love is no less equal than those of a straight couple.

It's ok to change traditions. We need to change with the times. Slavery was a tradition, abusing women was a tradition, hanging people on a cross was a tradition. Acceptance should be our new tradition.

Thank you for reading this, and allowing this comment to be posted. It is important to hear both sides of the argument, and I welcome your replies.


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The states should only perform civil unions. Marriage should be left up to the churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. They should be allowed to marry or not marry whomever they wish.


In The Doghouse profile image

In The Doghouse 7 years ago from California

Write on,

If I may respond to the comments of Slightly Concerned, as they have been addressed in response to my comment and concerns, please allow this comment to be published. If I am out of line in my reply feel free to delete it.

Slightly Concerned,

My comment concerning a genderless society was one in which a redefinition of the word marriage was concerned. I did not state anything about what I believed, I simply posed questions for us to ponder. I believe the point I was trying to make was in the semantics of redefining terms as we know them.

The term marriage is based in an issue of biology, simply the merging of two individuals as one, the result is the ability to use that God given power which is procreation. The act of two uniting in marriage is biologically the reason that we are able to multiply and replenish the earth. This is the plan. There is no other way biologically speaking for procreation to occur other than between a man and a woman. Any other way for procreation is an alternative way.

In the early usage of the terms for marriage, it was not ultimately used until a consummation of a betrothal occurred. It was used in accordance with the act of procreation. One may argue that it is imbecilic to think that sex is only for procreation, and in our "advanced" society today many have actually forgotten the true reason for the union of husband and wife as that of replenishing the earth. This is a biological truth, whether we like to admit it or not.

Gender plays an important part in biology, it is not a term used in bigotry. Understanding the part gender plays in the act of reproduction are IMHO something that must never be confused.

Anything that is different than that is termed alternative. Let us not be too quick to redefine even our existence.

My beliefs are faith based, which for some are not reason enough, but in the name of tolerance to ALL, perhaps an agreement can be met that does not impose upon my beliefs as well.

This is something that needs far more communication and less propagandizing.


whiteonwhite 7 years ago

In response to Slightly concerned........ Thank you for your comments, but I have to say that you contradicted yourself. If you feel being gay is something you are born with, which I can respect, and understand how you see it that way, but how do you take genetics out of it? As quoted from your comment,

"There are chemicals, and hormomes that control so many aspects of our lifestlye, that simply saying DNA determines sexual orientation is down-right ignorant."

These chemicals and hormones that you are speaking of are only present because of the genetic make-up each of us has as humans. You cannot disput the solid facts, because there is nothing else that can even produce these hormones in humans. Its roots are solidified and formed from your body's genetic blue-print, aka your DNA. Granted extreme environment exposure can affect the production of these, and maybe a few other things, but they do not soley determine their presence alone.

This post, isn't here to keep debating the fact of whether you are born gay or not, it is here to protect the sancity of marriage between a man and a woman. This here is just a stand that a guy has made to his brother with the opposing view point. Maybe he was just trying to help his brother to see both sides of the story like it sounds he has tried to do for himself.

Many that are pro prop 8 are accused of being close minded, which I agree some are, but it doesn't stop there. There are people that are against prop 8, that have absolutely no intention of hearing anything else but what they want to. Wanting to keep marriage between man and a woman isn't being narrow minded, its the way we were created to be and is solidified in the facts of biology.

No matter how accepting we as a nation and world can become, you cant ask people to give up what they believe and feel is right, simply because you cant act for them, they will always have their choice.


Write On! profile image

Write On! 7 years ago from United States Author

I can't tell you all, how pleased I am with the very respectful dialogue that has occurred here, in regards to these identical twin brothers, one gay and one straight. 

I also want to thank those, who have contributed to the education about identical twins, and homosexuality; to those of us who may not be aware of just how interesting and unique  it is, to be an identical twin.

When we apply what we have learned about identical twins, and homosexuality - it definitely causes the nature/nurture issue to come to the fore-front.  However, this Hub was published in the defense of traditional marriage and sustaining it.

There are many reasons, as to why a person might practice homosexuality. Regardless, preserving traditional marriages and family, within society is the best decision that anyone of us could make for the future emotional health and well-being of society at large.

We may have our differences with one another, even those who are the very closest to us, but that still does not validate a necessity to change what is best for the individual.  Every child born into this world, comes forth through a biological process that cannot be refuted. 

Each child, regardless of gender - is entitled to both a father and a mother.  Biology witnesses to the natural and "best" way to perpetuate its kind. 

Isn't is interesting, that in a global society that is more and more insisting on everything being "green" - that we would distort the most natural phenomenon of them all - the "natural" family...

Write On!


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 7 years ago from North America

Whiteonwhite - Thanks - I have differing info from OSU genetics studies; and med dept where I earned the degree; so I'll keep an open mind and ask the departments for newest research links; there is still the idea taught that identical twins are not 100% identical - perhaps it could be mutation as you say. No matter to me either way, but I wish now I'd taken more genetics courses, what with bioengineering growing by leaps and bounds. Good thread!


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 7 years ago from North America

I just recalled a recent public lecture at the Univ. - couple years back - given about identical twins and non-100% identical DNA, but can't recall details. Soemthign about the separation itself producing a difference in the two DNA structures, or one of them Well, it's something to look into further. Thanhsk for a good discussion here.

I agree with Ralph on the civil unions. Let the religious institutions decide for themselves.


Sally's Trove profile image

Sally's Trove 7 years ago from Southeastern Pennsylvania

I will echo both of Ralph Deeds' comments, and add that the state has no business in regulating anything about *marriage*, which is a semantic term that has its roots in religion.

Over the years of our country's (the US) development, the word to describe the union of two people in a life-long relationship never changed from *marriage* to something else. I think most people (leaving out overt homophobes) agree that there is a need for rights and protections for people who commit to each other for life, regardless of gender.

Now, I believe we are in a ridiculous debate. I propose, state by state, that we grant the rights to civil union, and leave *marriage* out of the wording of the law, completely. In other words, change the wording of *marriage license* to something else. As for the churches, let them each decide the parameters of *marriage*. And that will be the right issue for the gay and straight communities to deal with.

Write On!, I don't agree with you on this topic, but I admire you for bringing it to the forefront in this forum, in this way.

Best regards, Sally


Write On! profile image

Write On! 7 years ago from United States Author

Sally -

It is always good, that we can agree to disagree, on some things.

Unfortunately, even amongst various religions, there is no unity on doctrine. So, how could churches possibly ever come to agree on "marriage" if left unto themselves?

It seems as though this whole thing has really gotten out of hand. Therefore, it appears that a line must be drawn, to protect traditional marriage, as it has been understood for millenia. Once that is taken care of... alternatives to Marriage, can then be determined by society.

Who -- in all of world history, would have ever seen this coming???

Write On!


Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds 7 years ago

The various religions wouldn't need to "come to agree on marriage." Each could do whatever they want about marriage. Civil unions would govern the relationships which we now call marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, etc. Marriage would simply be a traditional religious rite which would have only religious significance and the observance of a family custom which would ordinarily follow a civil union performed by judges or other designated officials. After the civil union the couple would, if they wish, have a regular church wedding, reception and honeymoon as most people do today.


brownskin 7 years ago

I fear that too many people are seeing the pro prop 8 advocates as close-minded and bigots. I would like to make an example that may seem sligtly far-fetched to some but i hope many can see the similiarities. The example is that of smoking marijuana and if it should be legalized or not and I would like to do this leaving out all health issues on the subject. There are many of this nation that smoke marijuana and do it in no harm to anyone and truly feel is it a right of there own to live that life style. There are also some that claim it is part of their religion (more than just the Rasta's..there are many). Now they have pushed to allow marijuana to be legalized in which they have succeded in some nations, but never once here in the state of California nor in the United States. Why is that? Because this is a democratic republic and we support the vote of the people. Does this make those that think it should not be legalized bigots against those that TRULY believe it should be a part of life and a part of their religion? NO.

The law is determined by us..all of us, not just elect few. The people voted for gay marriages to be counted as civil-unions (in which they have all the rights of married couples) and not marriages even though other nations allow gay marriage (such as Canada). Just as the people voted to keep marijuana illegal even though there are nations in which it is legal.

There are some that believe prostitution is of no consequence to others and it harms no one. For that reason the state of Nevada allows it legally, but not here in California. Some believe it is no harm and should be tolerated, some see otherwise. What determines that is the vote of the people and here in California the people voted already. This is America, we respect the vote of the people. Obviously those 4 judges do not.

This issue has nothing to do with bigotry. I am for prop 8 and I have gay friends which I love and care for. I have friends that feel it is wrong to be gay but have some gay tendencies just like I have friends who are tempted to drink but they believe it is wrong too and dont do it. This issue is 100000000% based on the fact that many of us see too many repercutions and consequences that can follow is prop 8 does not pass effecting society in the future. That is all..no bigotry involved (yes some are, but that is not the main issue here). Am I a bigot to believe the people in Amsterdam should not smoke marijuana? NO. Am I a bigot to believe people should not practice prostitution even though it's legal in Nevada? NO. Am I a bigot because I believe marriage should be defined betweem a man and a women? NO.


Slightly Concerned 7 years ago

No matter what your personal views are on same-sex marriage, this simply comes down to basic human rights. "Separate but equal" is not equal. This is a civil rights issue. If one person is allowed to marry and have that be recognized in the United States, then ALL people should have the same right. Marriage is a right, and it is a right that all persons should have. If you believe that marriage should not be recognized by states for any person that is a different issue. The fact is that religious marriages are recognized by states and by the federal government. So, everyone should have that right. Period.


brownskin 7 years ago

But it does not limit ANYONE's right to marry. Everyone has the right to marry, just a member of the opposite sex. So it does not limit that right at all.

I will tell you laws that do limit that right. An uncle cannot marry his niece, even is he says he is 100% in love with her. A brother cannot marry his sister, even if he is 100% in love with her. A 15 year old cannot marry his 15 year old best friend. So prop 8 really does not stop that right of any adult to marry, just identifies who the can marry, just like some laws do already.


brownskin 7 years ago

I just wanted to say one more thing in response to Write On's comment: "I can't tell you all, how pleased I am with the very respectful dialogue that has occurred here, in regards to these identical twin brothers, one gay and one straight. "As I read that I realized that my comment was probably the most heated and least respectful of the dialogue and I noticed that much of the dialogue has ceased, which I enjoyed reading so much. I also noticed I kind of changed the subject..so people feel free to jump back to what was being discussed and skip my comments because i was really enjoying all that you had written.


JindaW 7 years ago

Just throwing this out there. Identical twins are not identical but have very similar DNA. Just type in "identical twins not identical." Here is quote from one article. "The researchers studied 19 pairs of monozygotic, or identical, twins and found differences in copy number variation in DNA. Copy number variation (CNV) occurs when a set of coding letters in DNA are missing, or when extra copies of segments of DNA are produced." This explains why one twin can be born with a disorder like Parkinson's. Epigenetic modification can also explain further diffrences dictating which genes are switched on and off.


Andrew 7 years ago

Well thank you for clearing this all up for me. I'll just "decide" to be straight tommorrow! I don't know why I ever thought life would be easier choosing to be Gay!!


observer 7 years ago

I searched for this type of record and found what i was looking for so first i want to say thanks for posting this. Secondly, i wanted to say a train of though a friend of mine presented to me. He was asked one day in one of his classes at a hospital about his position on wether homosexuality is genetic or not. He responded with this:

First, one must accept that the human body is a complex and very well designed working system that assures the survival of our race, like any other creature. With this in mind examine the idea of homosexuality. A homosexual couple can not reproduce together no matter what. A man and woman are required to biologically produce offspring. From here we can conclude that the human body would never generate a trait that would kill off the species. I know the phrase "kill off" sounds harsh and I in know way am trying to send a negative perspective on homosexuality. It is simply illogical to say that homosexuality could be a gene or trait of any sort. This of course does not mean that homosexuality must then be a choice. I beleive that not all of our personality traits can be found in our genetic code, and that our personality is mostly a result of influences and events that have molded us. I hope this train of thought was useful, I found it very interesting and logical and now use it as my main reason for why the "gay gene" is an impossibility, that along with twin cases such as the above.


Write On! profile image

Write On! 7 years ago from United States Author

Observer -

Thank you for sharing your insights. It makes perfect sense, and science supports it as well.

Write On!


EYEAM4ANARCHY profile image

EYEAM4ANARCHY 7 years ago from Las Vegas, NV.

Saying that everyone has a right to marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex is like saying everyone has religious freedom so long as the religion they choose to practice is Catholicism.


pencil2pen profile image

pencil2pen 7 years ago

What a great interview! I have long known about the "twin study" and this is another example of it. Thank you for posting this. In addition, why is the government involved with supporting "marriage" in their laws first place and there are rights with taxes etc. in public policy? BECAUSE children are involved and it is important to the state to have a stable society for children. This is the basis for laws when they are made. The studies have shown that a stable society for children comes from having a father AND a mother in the home. These a just the facts. I used to be the President of United Families CA, check out http://unitedfamilies.org/ for more facts.


C. Taylor 7 years ago

It's interesting to me that no one who disagreed with him never bothered to answer Ralph's last post. Seems like people are being stubborn and just want to believe what they want to believe, without interest in changing.

If you eliminate marriage from the government's hands entirely, and leave it only up to the specific religious and spiritual associations, ANYONE can choose to recognize or NOT recognize ANYONE ELSE's marriage. They can believe exactly what they want to believe without a government entity telling them that they are wrong. Additionally, via everyone having civl unions, EVERYONE, regardless of sexual orientation, can have the same legal rights married couples have now. No one's rights are restricted, and no one's beliefs are encroached upon by the government.

So riddle me this: if that's the case, and you still won't support this, are you really trying to protect your own view of marriage? Or are you just trying to punish those who want to live differently than you do?


Write On! profile image

Write On! 7 years ago from United States Author

C. Taylor -

Our Constitution/government was created to protect the voice of The People, in a free society.  As much as we need to limit government, they do have a very positive roll in a moral society.  In this case, where the majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriage, and choose to only recognize and maintain marriage between only a man and a woman - the government is a good thing. 

Marriage is under attack by an overall small sect of our society.   At this point, IF we were to take government out of marriage all together - that institution of "traditional" marriage would be left completely unprotected.  This is exactly what the gay community is seeking for now.  If they can't have legalized marriage, then nobody can.  Instead, gays want to take marriage away from everyone... allowing any Church of the whatever to then marry them...  This is nothing but a backdoor approach to having what society at large is not willing to grant them.

Therefore, we need the government to protect the institution of marriage, as the majority in a moral society desire it to be.  IF through a free election in the future, The People choose differently... then so be it.

There are many reasons that the government got into the marriage business, in the first place. These reasons are still a part of a healthy and moral society -- and are for the good of the whole.

Write On!


oscarwms profile image

oscarwms 7 years ago from PA

Thank you for such a great and informative hub. Indeed our sexual orientation is a act of chioce not by birth. I'm a twin. As a teen I use to sruggle with homosexual feelings but chose not to act upon them. I found great fulfillment in Gods way. One man one women. God bless.


Write On! profile image

Write On! 7 years ago from United States Author

oscarwms -

As a twin yourself, I thank you for your comments that confirm what is discussed in this hub.

Write On!


sneakorocksolid 7 years ago

Hey good Hub! This an issue gays and liberals are bound and determined to shove down our throats. The rights issue is fine give them their well deserved rights but don't with the Bible. A Bible rewrite should never be on the table. If gays are given the rights they want, with no hidden agendas, then the pursuit of legal action against any church for this or any related issue should be prohibited. Peace.


fireball34 profile image

fireball34 7 years ago

Gay Marriage should be a federal Mandate, and not left up to state voting. The United States way of life is in the right to Vote. In most cases I would agree with this. But in the case of legalizing Gay Marriage, this should not be left up to popular opinion. I base my logic and argument on the example our forefathers have set in other civil right issues.

“The rule of the majority shall never overrule the right of the Minority!”

That is why African Americans are no longer slaves, and Women have the right to vote. If we had continue to let the states decide this civil rights issues base on the feelings of the majority we would not be the Great Nation that we are today! The greatest gift God gave mankind was the gift of freewill, and if someone wants to use their freewill to marry someone of the same gender, that is their God Given Right and Hopefully one day their American Right as well.


Bill 6 years ago

I happen to BE homosexual!

I am "choosing" the reference "be", due to the fact that I have no control over who I am sexually attracted to. A great deal of you seem to think that you choose to practice your sexuality like it is some form of religion. When you were growing up and began to hit puberty and noticed that you were interested in sex. At that point did you make a conscious decision to be attracted to men or women, no I think not. You just happened to be attracted to who you were attracted to and that was that. Unfortunately if you happen to be one of the individuals who were attracted to members of the same sex, you felt as if you needed to hide who you are in order for acceptance.

The negatively and naively placed comments on this post are hurtful. Cause, for one feeling as though they must hide themselves to fit into a world that does not care to understand.

Now to get to the whole point of this ridiculous argument. Human rights are human rights and we all deserve them. There just happens to be something that everyone on both sides is forgetting. They can be provided to everyone in different ways and accomplish the same thing.

If religious people would prefer to keep their very religious term "marriage". Let them have it! I don't think that love, respect and commitment for your spouse needs to be coined marriage for it to mean the same thing. What does one do if they are not religious but would still like to make that ever so strong commitment? They get a civil union! It comes with all the perks of marriage and you can still trample on it if you feel that is necessary.

I should be so lucky to find the person that I will spend the rest of my life with. When I do however and I decide to make that commitment, read my vows and proclaim the way I feel for the one I love. I will do that no matter what it happens to be called. I just so happen to live in Canada so it will be marriage. If it would settle all the debating though I would gladly hand back the term and replace it with something that is my own. I am going to get in real trouble here from everyone that is fighting for the term marriage for same sex couples, but hey it has to be said. Marriage is between a man and a woman it has and always will be. You cannot just simply change the definition of a word to make it more equal. Hence spitting in the faces of people who have a belief system in which that word is rooted. You just simply expand the definition of a non religious term to be inclusive of changing times.

Now there are plenty of homosexuals that happen to be religious and follow a faith whose members do not back them. The religion itself may but the followers do not. I do not happen to be religious myself but that is what allows me to see that no matter what religion you look at, they all have the same basic core. Be a decent, honest, good person and that is what really matters.

In closing, don’t sweat the little things and even the people that are fighting for equality can be reasonable.


Write On! profile image

Write On! 6 years ago from United States Author

Bill -

Thanks for taking the time to express your personal feelings on this issue.

Write On!


Wait a minute 6 years ago

I find it alarming how quickly everyone is agreeing that this case proves that homosexuality is not related to genes, and thus has to be a choice. Do you honestly think this single case proves anything? There are countless possible factors that could be going on here to muddle this study. One needs only to look at actual statistical data on this subject to find out that the vast majority of identical twins do in fact share the same sexual orientation, even those that were separated at birth.

Anyway, this demonstrates a basic lack of understanding concerning the very complex issue of genetics, since certain genes can be activated in the early stages of development. Nothing in genetics is as simple as people in this thread seem to think.

But even apart from the genetics issue, sexual orientation itself can not be proven. One brother saying he is gay and the other saying he is straight is not reliable enough. Think of the people who don't disclose their sexual orientation until much later in life.


Write On! profile image

Write On! 6 years ago from United States Author

Wait a minute -

The ultimate verdict is still out, and that's a fact. As you stated so well, and the reason that we can still NOT determine nature or nurture on this issue... "sexual orientation itself can not be proven". Therefore, it is risky business to make a call either way, that would change what has traditionally been acceptable when it comes to marriage and family.

Write On!


stevediaries profile image

stevediaries 6 years ago from Northampton - UK

Im gay raised by my mother in Brazil in a very open mind home,my twin brother are also gay but we were separated as babies and he was raised by my militarist father in America opposite way than me ,i turn to be the straight acting one and my brother the camp one and we are both gay ,i read a lot about it and if someone is gay the chances of their twin be gay too is raise by 70% ,something that is impossible with genes dont play a role in it ,it doest mean that twins with different sexual preferences will not occur ! One thing is know for sure,is not a choice and even if was i want it to be respected and want people leave Jesus in the Church not into my civil rights !


Write On! profile image

Write On! 6 years ago from United States Author

Thank you or taking the time to comment, Steve.


Brian1614 6 years ago

In response to "observer," the human body has created many genes that would "kill off" the human race. There are genes that make a woman barren, or have a uterus that is deformed. Men also can carry genes that make their sperm incapable of impregnating a woman. With these examples, it is not illogical to assume that humans would naturally develop homosexuality as a gene that would prevent them from having children.


Nick 6 years ago

Ok, so I'm a 19 year old commerce student from New Zealand and I'm gay. Kind of a world away from California but I would still like to chip in. In New Zealand gay marriage is legal, however the legal term used is a "civil union", same rights as a marriage but different name. Although its called a civil union its practically always referred to as a marriage. It seems to work for everyone. It also allows hetrosexual defacto couples the option to have all the rights of a marriage without all the things they associate with a marriage. (I dont really get that bit but its there..)

This entire argument seems to be fixated on two key points; changing the meaning of marriage; and what the children will be taught.

I don't seem to be able to grasp why changing the terminology of marriage changes its entire meaning. I think the problem is that everyone has a mental picture of a marriage in their heads. It just differs between people, like what shade of green a tree is. Some might see it as one and others may see it another, or you could be color blind and its just grey.. Regardless your just arguing over whether your view is right or not. WHO CARES, its flipping well green! The tree's colour isn't going to change just because you accept that someone else is calling that tree moss green while your calling it lichen green. So you legalize same sex marriage, all of a sudden your own marriage just depreciated in value?! Makes little sense to me. Personally as a gay guy, I don't want to get married or civil unioned. Its not my thing. Maybe ill change my mind when im older, who knows. I just hope my generation will let things like this pass. I know that in my year at school 95% of people were tolerant of me and im sure they wouldn't care if i married another guy. They may not understand why im doing it, but what does that matter?

I personally believe that the laws of a country, and the religions for it should be totally separate. Not to be rude but countries with entrenched religious views influencing legal issues seem to have higher chances of civil war and persecution. America is one of those countries. I know you'll hate this but.. Middle Eastern countries are in the same boat as you. The Muslim religion and others in the area have such a bearing on what people can and cannot do legally. Which is plain wrong. Laws are there to protect and define what we can and cannot do because we are human, not because of how we choose to view the world. Religion is a choice, a major choice but still a choice. Homosexuality is not. It may be genetic but so is being blonde. If it is a choice it is a very deep, unconiscious one. I do not know any gay person who would tell you that one day when they were 12 they decided "Hmm i think i'll like boys not girls, that seems like it'll be fun!". Your outside your mind if you think otherwise, maybe in a country like mine that's quite open minded but certainly not in other places around the world. Older people make it too hard for us. If older generations butted out and let younger ones decide for themselves what is acceptable or not in the world we have to live in, then the story might be different.

As for the children. I don't think that accepting homosexuality needs to be taught to anyone, it should be a general social norm. This way when a gay couple is out in public and a child see's them it can be explained not judged upon by the parents and thus influencing their child's view. So the parent doesn't like the lifestyle, they're not living it, its not their concern. If your child see's their first very person from another country you say oh they're a so-and-so. You don't say "urgh" real loudly and point your children in the other direction. What message is that sending?! Inform young teens of what homosexuality is when your doing sex ed. That way the closeted gay kid who's completely s***ing themselves about their strange feelings will feel a little less like a freak and it might make them a little happier. Its not like informing them will change them. The kids aren't going to run out of health class proclaiming that when they grow up they want to be a homosexual. As i said its not something anyone would consciously opt into.

The last bit I have to say was asked of me by a friend who was also gay and who died not long ago. "Nick we're gay, we can't make babies, so we can't make gays, only straight people can do that. So why do they hate what they made?!"

Even if it is some kind of external factors that make someone gay, that's still not the gay persons doing.

People being gay is 100% the doing of straight people. If god made you and accepts you if you are responsible. Then why cant you accept us if we behave in a responsible way?


Write On! profile image

Write On! 6 years ago from United States Author

Interesting thoughts, Nick. Thank you for taking the time to express them in such a respectful manner.

Write On!


dawnM profile image

dawnM 5 years ago from Camarillo, CA

First I want to say hats off to you for writing such an articulate article about a very tough subject. I am a marriage counselor, non-traditional because I work primarily with couples sexual intimacy problems. In my work I have come across many married couples that would not define the tradition of marriage as the religious sect would.

Many married couples in the eye of religion would be shunned upon for behavior that is not acceptable, so with that said, what is the definition of marriage these days? There is a rise in divorce, cheating, and dishonesty, leaving children and families heart broken.

The flip side there is also many wonderful married couples who have children and work very hard at their marriage. I feel in general that many people do not take marriage seriously enough the value of marriage. The value of family and children being brought up by two parents in a loving home. What are the statics on homosexual unions? Do we know? Are they more likely to stay together for longer than an average man and woman? I feel as though the entire institute of marriage according to the law needs to be revamped, and revised. The biggest problem is that you have the government involved in a civil union and then you have the religious aspect. This is what makes it so difficult. The biggest problem I see comes in the form of adoption, if they legalize gay marriage; does the gay couple have the same right to adoption as a man and women? This is for me the only part where I get stuck on, the rest of it I have personally no problem with. If two people want to get married legally I see no problem with that, but I still feel that a baby should be adopted by a man and a woman first. Not to say that a gay parents will not love the child just as much, but because of society and the acceptance. It is a hard decision, never the less!


Write On! profile image

Write On! 5 years ago from United States Author

dawnM -

Thank you for your very thoughtful comment.

Write On!


theSTRANGER 5 years ago

Just an observation here, but wouldn't the example of these identical twin brothers solidify the belief that you're not born gay but choose to be? Also, couldn't it be argued that when a choice is to be made, there is a correct and incorrect one based on the context? I say yes!

In this instance, both are human beings whose basic goal, if we look at nature itself, should be to have attraction towards the opposite sex and to procreate. This would make homosexuality the incorrect choice.

I understand the "love" or the desire part, but there are people in the world that desire animals, children or even inanimate objects. These are clearly the wrong choices. How is homosexuality any different than those? I don't believe it to be. I feel it falls under the same category as any mental illness or disease, and that's a hard pill for anyone to swallow if they are told something that they enjoy is wrong.

I personally don't mind what anyone does as long as it does not infringe on my little piece of the world. Since no one is perfect, I will except your flaws if you except mine, but you need to first recognize that it is a flawed way of life!


jackscott profile image

jackscott 5 years ago from Bodrum, Turkey

Some people may think my way of life is flawed. I do not. Since I have always paid my taxes I do not think it unreasonable to expect to enjoy the same rights as everyone else with the same protection under the Law.I'm pleased to say this is now the case in Britain.

The men I have slept with have given informed consent. Children and animals cannot. There lies the difference.

http://www.perkingthepansies.com


Heywood 5 years ago

I am surprised at the civility of these posts. Usually when this subject comes up, people are ready and willing to (figuritively)cut throats.

Marriage has been established as a right by the surpreme court several times since the 1880’s, it’s not a recently manufactured right. It’s a fundamental right. The only clear motivations for the prohibition of gay marriage(that I can see, at least) are religious and ethical beliefs. We have a 1’st amendment that prohibits the implementation of religious values into our government.


independentwriter profile image

independentwriter 5 years ago from the Snowy Northeast

This is not an issue of basic human rights. The people of California voted in a referendum to keep gay marriage illegal. Four activist judges went against the will of the people. Separate but equal isn't always fair, but this is life and it's not fair. The last time I checked Science proved that homosexuality is a choice. If this weren't true wouldn't the earth be populated by just one gender!


The Mad Aunt profile image

The Mad Aunt 5 years ago from Wales

I really don't understand why this whole 'same sex marriage' thing is an issue. Why do gay people want to be part of an outdated tradition like marriage? Wasn't marriage organised to ensure that women did not sleep around and give birth to fatherless children? It was imposed on society by some religion or other to ensure women remained chaste until after marriage to their man. This is such an old fashioned dictum that I would be surprised if any gay person of today would be interested.

I don't know is anyone realises this, but you don't need a piece of paper to say I love you to your partner.


Joseph Morales 5 years ago

I dont understand... if people think that sexuality is defined by "they were born that way" how could two boys with COMPLETELY identical dna be different.. Im for gay marriage just as much as I am for freedom of religion... but just because I would allow it doesn't mean I would stop to the seek the truth.


Chantel 5 years ago

Write On, this was a good hub and I agree with you for the most part but I do not believe that homosexuality is a simple choice. I do believe that personal choice, both conscious and unconscious, is involved as a part of the equation though. I believe that it is also partially developmental.


Chantel 5 years ago

What I forgot to mention that much of what I wrote in my comment about what I believe about homosexuality is from personal experience and going through a period of confusion.


johnnyslaughter profile image

johnnyslaughter 5 years ago from New Jersey

holy crap... I have a twin brother and hes straight and im gay. Its cool to know there are more people like that


moemon 4 years ago

Wow this is really interesting stuff. I love reading scientific experiments that utilize information gained from twin studies, so this is really interesting to me. Thanks a lot for sharing and a huge thanks to the identical twin, it can be hard to publicize private things like this. But I just have to say my two cents as I have a lot of things that popped up as I was reading this. Since the “straight identical twin” said way more in the conversation above, I have more beef against what he said.

First off: Identical twins are NEVER EVER 100% the same exact genetic makeup of each other. Having a M.S. in Genetics and doing research at my University studying chromosome dynamics that are required for successful meiosis, I know that even mono-zygotic twins have at least a small percentage of a difference in their genetic make-up. And whether it is 1% or 0.001% difference, that difference can potentially be a HUGE difference in a child's life. But even if you are assuming that twins are 100% the same genetically (which I've stated before to be virtually impossible), differing environmental influences throughout their lives affect which genes are switched on or off through a process called epigenetic modification. (Environmental influences can be anything from chemicals, diet, the parenting environment, stressors, biological factors, the list goes on and on). ON TOP OF THAT, it is possible that genetic mutation can occur in one twin and not in the other. Just because twins are identical does not mean that everything about each other are perfectly symmetric to each other's lives. Thus their worlds can have slight (or even major) differences as shown from the individuals in their correspondence above. (Here is something to think about: What if your twin was right handed and you were left handed, who made the decision to write on what hand? Is the manner in which you write really a choice?) When people make the argument that some people are "born gay", that is slightly true and slightly false. People are NOT born gay, BUT they are born with certain genetic factors that give them a HIGHER PROBABILITY of being gay, thus people make the argument that they were born the way they were, which is true in a sense. Let's take the case of the two individuals above, and let's say with the genetic make-up of both individuals they are set to have a gene that gives them a 50% chance of turning out gay, but environmental factors at an early stage (say prenatal and/or postnatal) dramatically increased one individual's chance of turning out gay, then you would have a higher probability of one turning out gay one with a lower probability of one becoming straight (and it could be the case that both are gay or both are straight). The mechanics of biology is extremely complex and extremely sensitive and cannot be dumb down to simple logic as “we are twins, you are gay, I am straight, there for you chose to be gay”. So the logic that the "straight identical twin" goes through with arguing that being gay is a choice really bothers me with his lack of knowledge of what he is really talking about. You have to take into account biology and psychology; things like genetic birth, environmental factors, and the manner in which one is raised. After all, when you are pre- or postnatal, you really can’t just “choose” your sexuality.

I also did not like how he compared the appeals process of murder and gay marriage. The “gay identical twin” was right on this one, they ARE NOT THE SAME (and I really don’t like that “scare tactic” that the straight identical twin used by using murder as an example), even in the appeals process they are not the same thing. What makes them different is that murder is NOT protected under the constitution as it is taking away another’s “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”, whereas gay marriage IS protected under the constitution as giving people “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. (Thus is the reason why some people against gay marriage try to refute that this law will take away their rights—as to avoid a blockage from the justice system). The court of appeals protects people of their NATIONAL RIGHT given, and stated, in the bill of rights. BUT I think the true conversation of the court of appeals overturning the people’s decision is more to the point of what has more authority over the other, The constitutional rights or the people’s majority? The dilemma was similar to the civil rights movement, and (at one point) even though the majority of the nation wanted separated but equal rights, there was this question of what has more authority, the courts to over-rule or the populace stance for separate but equal? Although, I do think this is a tricky subject as I can see his point; this is supposed to be a free country where our voices matter, and how can it matter if it can simply be over-ruled.

Although I won’t argue with the straight identical twin’s semantics. But if he is going to throw a term around like “alternate lifestyle” he better equate it to “people who does not live the way he does”, because I see people who live in Asia living in an “alternate lifestyle”, as western lifestyle and eastern lifestyle are different from each other. Because if he is going to tell us what “normal” is, then brother, you’re going to need more than a lifetime of trying to figure out what IS “normal” in life. And it is true that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But what also baffles me is that if we are arguing about “preserving” an “institution”, then man, you are far away from preserving it. I’ll give you just one word, “Divorce”. The lines “Till death do us apart” was an initial definition of what marriage was all about, an eternal union. But, we have legally ignored that part of the institution of marriage and ACCOMODATED for those who wanted out.

But the “straight identical twin” does mention something worth thinking about. Men+ women produce children naturally, not men+men or women+ women. I wonder about this too. and although not all Men+women couples can produce children, it goes without saying that men or women on their own cannot produce children. Maybe it’s worth looking into as to why the LGBT individual exists if not to procreate.


Who made the "choice"? 4 years ago

Perhaps both twins DO have the same sexual orientation.

I know several older gay men who did not come to terms with their sexuality until later in life. Most suppressed their feelings because of the pressures they felt to conform.

If choice is involved in bending a genetic determination perhaps the straight brother is choosing to express heterosexuality rather than gay brother choosing to express homosexuality.


Moemon 4 years ago

Wow this is really interesting stuff. I love reading scientific experiments that utilize information gained from twin studies, so this is really interesting to me. Thanks a lot for sharing and a huge thanks to the identical twin, it can be hard to publicize private things like this. But I just have to say my two cents as I have a lot of things that popped up as I was reading this. Since the “straight identical twin” said way more in the conversation above, I have more beef against what he said.

First off: Identical twins are NEVER EVER 100% the same exact genetic makeup of each other. Having a M.S. in Genetics and doing research at my University studying chromosome dynamics that are required for successful meiosis, I know that even mono-zygotic twins have at least a small percentage of a difference in their genetic make-up. And whether it is 1% or 0.001% difference, that difference can potentially be a HUGE difference in a child's life. But even if you are assuming that twins are 100% the same genetically (which I've stated before to be virtually impossible), differing environmental influences throughout their lives affect which genes are switched on or off through a process called epigenetic modification. (Environmental influences can be anything from chemicals, diet, the parenting environment, stressors, biological factors, the list goes on and on). ON TOP OF THAT, it is possible that genetic mutation can occur in one twin and not in the other. Just because twins are identical does not mean that everything about each other are perfectly symmetric to each other's lives. Thus their worlds can have slight (or even major) differences as shown from the individuals in their correspondence above. (Here is something to think about: What if your twin was right handed and you were left handed, who made the decision to write on what hand? Is the manner in which you write really a choice?) When people make the argument that some people are "born gay", that is slightly true and slightly false. People are NOT born gay, BUT they are born with certain genetic factors that give them a HIGHER PROBABILITY of being gay, thus people make the argument that they were born the way they were, which is true in a sense. Let's take the case of the two individuals above, and let's say with the genetic make-up of both individuals they are set to have a gene that gives them a 50% chance of turning out gay, but environmental factors at an early stage (say prenatal and/or postnatal) dramatically increased one individual's chance of turning out gay, then you would have a higher probability of one turning out gay one with a lower probability of one becoming straight (and it could be the case that both are gay or both are straight). The mechanics of biology is extremely complex and extremely sensitive and cannot be dumb down to simple logic as “we are twins, you are gay, I am straight, there for you chose to be gay”. So the logic that the "straight identical twin" goes through with arguing that being gay is a choice really bothers me with his lack of knowledge of what he is really talking about. You have to take into account biology and psychology; things like genetic birth, environmental factors, and the manner in which one is raised. After all, when you are pre- or postnatal, you really can’t just “choose” your sexuality.

I also did not like how he compared the appeals process of murder and gay marriage. The “gay identical twin” was right on this one, they ARE NOT THE SAME (and I really don’t like that “scare tactic” that the straight identical twin used by using murder as an example), even in the appeals process they are not the same thing. What makes them different is that murder is NOT protected under the constitution as it is taking away another’s “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”, whereas gay marriage IS protected under the constitution as giving people “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. (Thus is the reason why some people against gay marriage try to refute that this law will take away their rights—as to avoid a blockage from the justice system). The court of appeals protects people of their NATIONAL RIGHT given, and stated, in the bill of rights. BUT I think the true conversation of the court of appeals overturning the people’s decision is more to the point of what has more authority over the other, The constitutional rights or the people’s majority? The dilemma was similar to the civil rights movement, and (at one point) even though the majority of the nation wanted separated but equal rights, there was this question of what has more authority, the courts to over-rule or the populace stance for separate but equal? Although, I do think this is a tricky subject as I can see his point; this is supposed to be a free country where our voices matter, and how can it matter if it can simply be over-ruled.

Although I won’t argue with the straight identical twin’s semantics. But if he is going to throw a term around like “alternate lifestyle” he better equate it to “people who does not live the way he does”, because I see people who live in Asia living in an “alternate lifestyle”, as western lifestyle and eastern lifestyle are different from each other. Because if he is going to tell us what “normal” is, then brother, you’re going to need more than a lifetime of trying to figure out what IS “normal” in life. And it is true that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. But what also baffles me is that if we are arguing about “preserving” an “institution”, then man, you are far away from preserving it. I’ll give you just one word, “Divorce”. The lines “Till death do us apart” was an initial definition of what marriage was all about, an eternal union. But, we have legally ignored that part of the institution of marriage and ACCOMODATED for those who wanted out.

But the “straight identical twin” does mention something worth thinking about. Men+ women produce children naturally, not men+men or women+ women. I wonder about this too. and although not all Men+women couples can produce children, it goes without saying that men or women on their own cannot produce children. Maybe it’s worth looking into as to why the LGBT individual exists if not to procreate.


adam 4 years ago

Twins are identical genetically but no one is identical in their development from the time of conception and on. To overlook development of human beings and say that because two beings are genetically the same it, then, it must be a choice to be gay is an incorrect assumption in logic. Failed logic is usually the root of most peoples issues with differences in people. I don't know whether gay people choose to be gay or through development (both chosen and non-choice) they become gay. That is not for me to comment on. What I do know is that all people deserve equality in our great country. thanks for reading! -adam, heterosexual male


nedptera 4 years ago

Sexuality is driven by hormones. Take a look at your fingers. Heterosexual men tend to have longer ring fingers than index fingers. The overwhelming majority of lesbians also have this same feature. So what? Testosterone causes the difference in finger length. Gay men and straight women tend to have equal ring and index finger lengths.

This is a fact that should not be ignored. The amount of testosterone a fetus is exposed to can greatly affect their sexuality. It's always possible that one twin was exposed to a slightly higher or lower level of testosterone than the other. Two people on the beach rarely get equal grains of sand in their shorts, so why would you believe that two babies in the womb would always be exposed to the exact same level of hormones? Identical twins can have all kinds of differences. One can be left-handed while the other is right-handed. One can have blue eyes and the other has brown eyes. Despite these differences they are still considered as genetically identical.

The claim that the same DNA should equate to carbon copies is ridiculous. Twins are NOT clones. They are separate entities.


xethonxq profile image

xethonxq 4 years ago

This is a fantastic hub. I couldn't get enough as I was reading it and wished there was more from each brother. I, of course, totally side with the gay brother being that I'm a lesbian myself. I do not believe people choose a gay lifestyle...I believe we are born with it. I also don't know if I would ever want genetics to prove it because there will inevitably be some idiots out there that will choose not to have a child because they will be gay and some test told them that. Anyway...that's my two cents worth. Thank you for the hub Write On!


freethinkin 4 years ago

The straight brother is ILLOGICAL in thinking that his gay brother chooses to be gay just because they have the same genetics. Proof: 2 identical thins are born. One twin is interested in sports from an early age, the other twin is not. Ask them why, and the answer is "I was born this way."

Most, not all, gays I know say they they were born gay. I tend to believe them since they are the person having the experience.

Finally, the Bible has been changed so many times over the years that no one knows exactly what it originally said about anything. Spend 20 minutes on the web just searching and reading about this from Bible scholars who have spent years researching it and THEN tell me you believe it.

I only believe that Jesus said" Love one another". Now that is something to believe in !!! :)

Thanks for the discussion folks, all of you.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working