NationStates Jolt Archive

Well once again, more evidence that homosexuality is biological at the very least. Personally I do find the psychology of sexuality fascinating and have found differences in some (side) findings I've had in my own research, with gay men seeming to use similar levels of aggression to straight women and lesbians similar levels to straight men (although since sexuality wasn't the main focus of the work, the sample sizes were tiny).

So what do people think? Are there still going to be those arguing for it being a choice? What are the implications of these increased findings on gay rights?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm

Scans see 'gay brain differences'

The brains of gay men and women look like those found in straight people of the opposite sex, research suggests.

The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.

Gay men and straight women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and straight men.

A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual preference was set in the womb.

Scientists have noticed for some time that homosexual people of both sexes have differences in certain cognitive abilities, suggesting there may be subtle differences in their brain structure.

This is the first time, however, that scientists have used brain scanners to try to look for the source of those differences.

A group of 90 healthy gay and straight adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.

When these results were collected, it was found that lesbian women and straight men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while straight women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.

In other words, structurally, at least, gay men were more like straight women, and gay women more like straight men.

A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.

In heterosexual men and lesbian women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.

The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and straight women.

The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.

'Fight, flight or mate'

Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.

"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.

The amygdala, he said, was important because of its role in "orientating", or directing, the rest of the brain in response to an emotional stimulus - be it during the "fight or flight" response, or the presence of a potential mate.

"In other words, the brain network which determines what sexual orientation actually 'orients' towards is similar between gay men and straight women, and between lesbian women and straight men.

"This makes sense given that gay men have a sexual preference which is like that of women in general, that is, preferring men, and vice versa for lesbian women."

This is welcome to add pressure on people to recognise gay civil rights.

I have to say though, even if gays were not born, but rather chose to be that way, they should still receive the same rights.

With further research it will probably be possible for doctors to tell if somebody will turn out gay by scanning the embryo in the womb, then the whole hardcore argument of "Should parents be allowed to abort babies because their gay" will commence.

This is welcome to add pressure on people to recognise gay civil rights.

I have to say though, even if gays were not born, but rather chose to be that way, they should still receive the same rights. Why anybody would choose to be insulted and abused throughout society is beyond me.

I'm bi. I became bi at a certain point of my life, and certainly wasn't bi in adolescence.

Regardless, it's completely irrelevant is homosexuality is biological or not - I have the right to choose my sex partners.

So what do people think? Are there still going to be those arguing for it being a choice? What are the implications of these increased findings on gay rights?

No implications, as being (let's oversimplify) "male-brained" or "female-brained" doesn't impair volition.

On a political/jurisdictional level, who cares WHY some people prefer to have sex with people of the same sex? The only thing that should matter is: by having homosexual relationships, do they inflict direct damage to other people? The obvious answer is NO. Hence, there should be no difference in how the law sees homosexual people/relationships and heterosexual people/relationships.

What are the implications of these increased findings on gay rights?

As Risottia already indicated there should be no implications. If being gay is a choice, genetic, a combination or something decided for us by God should be completely and utterly irrelevant where the rights issue is concerned.

Unfortunately "should be" and "is" are two different things :(

As Risottia already indicated there should be no implications. If being gay is a choice, genetic, a combination or something decided for us by God should be completely and utterly irrelevant where the rights issue is concerned.

Unfortunately "should be" and "is" are two different things :(

"Pessimism of reason, optimism of will" (Antonio Gramsci iirc)

No implications, as being (let's oversimplify) "male-brained" or "female-brained" doesn't impair volition.

On a political/jurisdictional level, who cares WHY some people prefer to have sex with people of the same sex? The only thing that should matter is: by having homosexual relationships, do they inflict direct damage to other people? The obvious answer is NO. Hence, there should be no difference in how the law sees homosexual people/relationships and heterosexual people/relationships.

I couldn't agree more personally. Unfortunately a lot of people in this world are not of that opinion.

It would be nice if these findings were no more newsworthy than any other psychological research findings, i.e. fascinating for telling us how our brains work and advancing our understanding of humanity but otherwise bearing no other implications.

Of course this is not the case, and unfortunatly any research around homosexuality tends to bring with it a whole host of social controversy from both side of the fence.

Personally I would like to see the journal article itself. But I'd play devil's advocate for the meantime...
A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual preference was set in the womb.
Okay. This is one scientist's interpretation of the data. Opinion on data =/ evidence. While expert opinion is certainly valuable, it isn't necessarily the truth.

A group of 90 healthy gay and straight adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain...
Something one should learn, association =/ causation. Hemispheric size symmetry or asymmetry may not necessarily shift gender preferences, for all we know, it could be the opposite.

The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.
After birth is not in the womb, right? Contrary to popular myth, brain development does NOT stop at birth. Brain development occurs in a continuum until well after birth. That's why the fontanels are still open, to allow for brain expansion, and that a baby starts having the capability to use muscles in some certain order. Myelination and creation of connections continues also well after birth, sometimes even up to the teenage years.

EDIT: HA! I found the study!

Okay, I'll stop the devil's advocate role here. Note, if anything I said above contradicts what is said below, disregard it, I don't want to go through that stuff again!

Savic I, Lindström P. PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2008 Jun 16; 10.1073/pnas.0801566105.

Sex difference in brain size has been shown to be present at birth (48), and some volumetric data suggest that sex differences in hemispheric asymmetry exist already in the human fetus (49, 50), although other studies failed to detect them (51, 52). Adult patterns of cerebral asymmetry (53), as well some features of regional sexual dimorphism, are detected already in children (54). Cerebral maturation continues after puberty, especially in boys (31), providing a substrate for effects of social/environmental factors. However, to attribute such effects to the present results would require a detailed comprehension of how specific environmental factors relate to the four groups investigated, and how they affect various cerebral circuits.
As to the genetic factors, the current view is that they may play a role in male homosexuality, but they seem to be insignificant for female homosexuality (55). Genetic factors, therefore, appear less probable as the major common denominator for all group differences observed here.
The present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial, including interplay between pre- and postnatal testosterone and estrogen, the androgen and estrogen eceptors, and the testosterone-degrading enzyme aromatase. It nevertheless contributes to the ongoing discussion about sexual orientation by showing that homosexual men and women differed from the same-sex controls and showed features of the opposite sex in two mutually independent cerebral variables, which, in contrast to those studied previously, were not related to sexual attraction*. The observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior. Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question. These observations motivate more extensive investigations of larger study groups and prompt for a better understanding of the neurobiology of homosexuality.
*This topic is getting me interested, though I'd like to see evidence/explanation on why what they had studied (hemispheric asymmetry and blood flow to the amygdala) is not related to sexual attraction. All I can say is, we need more studies, not just on the possible biological causes/influences on sexuality, but also on the social and environmental influences.

And oh, for my personal opinion, I usually don't believe it when it's claimed that "homosexuality is not a choice!" or "homosexuality is a choice!". My take is that sexuality probably a mix of biological, social, environmental, developmental influences... and an individual's recognition of his/her/its sexuality. [We don't exclude them asexuals here, y'know!] :D

I don't see why it matters whether people are homosexual due to biology or choice.

*This topic is getting me interested, though I'd like to see evidence/explanation on why what they had studied (hemispheric asymmetry and blood flow to the amygdala) is not related to sexual attraction. All I can say is, we need more studies, not just on the possible biological causes/influences on sexuality, but also on the social and environmental influences.


We need a lot more research in this, and LGBT Psychology is starting to get more research, but like I said previously, there does seem to be this unfortunate reluctance to touch certain aspects of it due to the controversy surrounding it.

The amygdala is an interesting one, it is associated with a large range of emotional and social processes. In particular aspects of social cognition, emotional conditioning (association objects/situations with particular emotions for example), emotional face recognition. Given it's role in emotion and social processes, it is very possible that it may be related to aspects of emotional attraction to others. Alternatively, if, as has been hypothesised, homosexuality is related to developmental hormonal imbalances then it's possible that the development of theses brain processes will similarly be affected as well as areas related to sexual attraction.

But yes, the relationship was entirely correlational but does not imply causation and the environmental (social, chemical or otherwise) and psychological processes most certainly do affect brain development. Ideally what you would look at doing is identifying these brain asymetries at a young age and study them longitudinally.

*wanders off to find a copy of that paper and see if she can find more research on the topic*

I don't see why it matters whether people are homosexual due to biology or choice.

Don't have time to respond to the rest of the thread atm, but to this I can offer a quick answer.

If it isn't pre-determined, and they choose it, they're choosing evil, just as surely if they rape someone or murder. Or lesser crimes if you don't feel so strongly about homosexuality but still oppose it.

If it isn't pre-determined, and they choose it, they're choosing evil, just as surely if they rape someone or murder. Or lesser crimes if you don't feel so strongly about homosexuality but still oppose it.

Just like left handed people choose to be evil. After all, choosing to use the sinister hand is obviously a sign that you worship Satan !

Or, to change just a single word in your post:

If it isn't pre-determined, and they choose it, they're choosing evil, just as surely if they rape someone or murder. Or lesser crimes if you don't feel so strongly about Christianity but still oppose it

as is already pointed out this could full well just be due to other factors (like being good at art = gay or something that doesn't make me sound like a complete git)

however what I'd like to see if how this would connect with those who become gay and switch back

I don't see why it matters whether people are homosexual due to biology or choice.

lets say you could "cure" homosexuality (which if this research starts to shape up as it promises may well be a route to one) that will matter and a very seriously

lets say you could "cure" homosexuality (which if this research starts to shape up as it promises may well be a route to one) that will matter and a very seriously

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

Because men aren't meant to be with other men, both nature and God don't exactly 'encourage it'.

Lesbians too. But as badly. They don't disgust me as much.

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

*shrug* - maybe some gays would want it ? And some stgraight people might wish the reverse.
In fact - a drug to change who or what you are attracted to can have some interesting and kinky uses.

Because men aren't meant to be with other men, both nature and God don't exactly 'encourage it'.

Lesbians too. But as badly. They don't disgust me as much.

People are meant to be with who they are attracted to. People are equal in their own right and just because you think that men aren't meant to be with men doesn't mean the rest of us ascribe to that narrow thinking.

If someone is gay, they're just as human as anyone else and if they love someone who is the same sex as them; good! At least they're loving their fellow man.

'God' didn't encourage anything because 'God' is a fabrication of man in that 'God' only exists because some people decided to make him exist in their twisted minds.

*shrug* - maybe some gays would want it ? And some stgraight people might wish the reverse.
In fact - a drug to change who or what you are attracted to can have some interesting and kinky uses.

Whatever happened to being happy with how you were born? I was born with my own problems and sure I'd like a magical drug to fix it but that's a long way off so I have to learn to be happy with what I have.

Sure it might have kinky uses, but when will the madness end?

We have to be tolerant of zealous and irrational beliefs, why shouldn't people learn to be tolerant of people who are transgendered, intersexed, gay, bisexual etc?

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

some people might want to and that is their choice no matter what you think :p

also not that I'm advocating it but parents may wish to perform such a process

People are meant to be with who they are attracted to.

bollocks

In fact - a drug to change who or what you are attracted to can have some interesting and kinky uses.

or hilarious pranks

Whatever happened to being happy with how you were born?

What - naked, helpless, crying a lot and being unable to read, think or speak ?
We grew out of it I think. Which is more or less the point of growing up: changing who you are.

As Risottia already indicated there should be no implications. If being gay is a choice, genetic, a combination or something decided for us by God should be completely and utterly irrelevant where the rights issue is concerned.

Unfortunately "should be" and "is" are two different things :(
Unfortunately, it's true. Darn far-right nutjobs...

some people might want to and that is their choice no matter what you think :p

also not that I'm advocating it but parents may wish to perform such a process

Even if it is, it seems destructive. We need to be encourage people to accept themselves as they were born. We have enough issues with people having body and other issues surrounding their image. It seems to me this would simply make it worse rather than making it better.

As for those parents. That's just sad. They are showing that they couldn't accept a child born of their loins unless it fit in their own image perfectly. If we start with that, where does it end?

Even if it is, it seems destructive. We need to be encourage people to accept themselves as they were born. We have enough issues with people having body and other issues surrounding their image. It seems to me this would simply make it worse rather than making it better.

I don't see why people shouldn't change who they are if they don't like it (also when did image become such an issue :confused:)

If we start with that, where does it end?

with death parents not letting their children have corrective surgery so they an hear...oh wait nevermind

What - naked, helpless, crying a lot and being unable to read, think or speak ?
We grew out of it I think. Which is more or less the point of growing up: changing who you are.

I'm talking about intangible qualities. Under our clothing, we're all just a naked as the day we came into the world kicking and screaming.

Learning to read, write and speak (thinking is optional it seems to me, since some people don't want to think for themselves and prefer to adhere to herd mentality) to me is something you learn as you grow up. It is different than something like who you are. It is something that helps you survive.

I'm talking about intangible qualities

If a sexual preference changing pill came out, sexual preference would no longer be intangible ;)

Desiring to change yourself is common. And yes, while I often pity those anorexic girls that cannot be happy with their weight, even if it is below 25 kg, it remains their life. Not mine. If they want to change themselves - so be it.

Thread derail complete. Eating disorders are nothing like the issue of sexual orientation, just fyi.

If a sexual preference changing pill came out, sexual preference would no longer be intangible ;)

Besides my previous statements, don't you think it would have a devastating effect on the world? It seems to be homosexuality is nature's way of coping with a booming human population.

Besides my previous statements, don't you think it would have a devastating effect on the world? It seems to be homosexuality is nature's way of coping with a booming human population.

Actually, evidence might support this, with higher chance of male homosexuality the more male children a women has.

As far as I'm aware they're not found similar effect with female homosexuality but then it has generally received less research attention.

Actually, evidence might support this, with higher chance of male homosexuality the more male children a women has.

As far as I'm aware they're not found similar effect with female homosexuality but then it has generally received less research attention.

Indeed, less research as been done into female sexuality in general. So it's not surprising.

The source of a thing being biological is not an end-all to arguments about homosexuality. While it is certainly fascinating - and worth further investigation if, for nothing else, than expanding our knowledge of human nature - not all biological things are desirable things. People are born missing limbs, bearing surface disfigurements, and even afflicted with mental disabilities. These are still people of course, due all the love and respect that others are, but no one would claim that these defects are desirable qualities - i.e. no run runs around shouting "I wish I weren't born with this leg." And no one tries to dispute that these are in fact defects. Yet they are natural/biological. Perhaps homosexuality is just that - a birth defect, possibly caused by hormones altering brain shape and form in utero (for some anyway, as I doubt homosexuality has one over-arching cause). Again I say, these people are still due respect and love, but still have a defect to be faced and overcome, not a lifestyle choice.

Pet Theory - I think perhaps another possible cause or sub-cause is the natural inclination in humanity towards pleasure, and when the normal/customary routes of seeking such go awry for whatever reason (bad experiences with family, lovers, abuse, etc), other routes to pleasure are opened/explored. Maybe this explains non-biologically caused homosexuality, or perhaps it could work in combination with biological inclination. Just a thought though, and as I said before, these things rarely, if ever, have one cause.

Causality question:

Does this mean having a different brain makes you gay, or does lusting after "X" change the structure of the brain?

Or does it simply mean that having sex acts while being exposed/not exposed to certain pheromones alters the brain?

Just a causality question.

Causality question:

Does this mean having a different brain makes you gay, or does lusting after "X" change the structure of the brain?

Or does it simply mean that having sex acts while being exposed/not exposed to certain pheromones alters the brain?

Just a causality question.

Answer: we don't know. But since we now know there is a difference, we can start looking into why.

Actually, evidence might support this, with higher chance of male homosexuality the more male children a women has.

As far as I'm aware they're not found similar effect with female homosexuality but then it has generally received less research attention.

The write-up I read in the paper suggested this latest study looked at both and found similar results.

Sadly if there is a different brain it may be claimed that this is an illness. There are so many mental conditions it is ridiculous but that wont stop a push for homosexuality to be included again. If there is a difference in the brain then the drugs industry knows what to taget as well as programmes. They can say that you were born with a mental defect and require support to live with this illness. It is far from the end when a gay bashing homophobe is looking for a reason

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

because some people never got past middle school mentally.

I'm sure many of us are wracking our brains, :headbang: trying to find a way to understand all of this gay and straight phenomena, :confused: Rather than attack the issue from a far, :sniper: I find a simple answer in my mind, because sexual preference hasn't ever been an issue, and same sex affection has been supported by some of the greatest of nations, I find we should all simply love who we love, :fluffle: there's nothing wrong with it, :eek: My nation supports same sex marriage, and so do I, nobody is getting angry over it, :upyours: we're all actually very content, :) in fact the only trouble I find is with the economy, which is undergoing treatment as of now.

My truth is that there is really no point in being worried about same sex marriage, love, or feeling insecure about it, because since the beginning of time we've had it, and the population is starting to become packed even so much for the entire planet, if we're going to worry about the future of the world, let it not be love that scares us, let it be war, we've gone and killed many of our own kind over these thousands of years, a shameful period because many times it wasn't all ways necessary.

I find women attractive, and I find that some men look stunning, I even make jokes about it with family and friends because I find the actor playing in No Country for Old Men as character (Antonio Chiguhr)(?)) to look attractive, but I don't feel like I want to spend my life with him, I am actually married to a beautiful woman and I am happy.

Two consciousness' just as two particles of matter anywhere in the universe so long as there isn't too high a gravitational pull; will tend to eventually become one, and one should not be expected to become bound to an other of the same biological spectrum, it has in fact Never reduced over all population, it has spread a level of unexpected happiness in the world, and even military strength, I was proud that California decided that they were not going to outlaw same-sex marriage.

If someone finds it wrong then they have no business in the situation and they should leave it a lone, yet we find people being chained to the back of cars in Texas and pulled a cross the desert until dead, and why? Because they were in love with an other man, Don't mess with Texas...what is more wrong? I've heard disgusting things about what my family in Iraq have been ordered to do to known civilians, if you won't believe me, believe the reports, believe that we have fired explosives at civilian vehicles, two of my good friends have now severe psychological issues because of this, And this is considered holy?

This has been done with graphic nudity in magazines, now we ask you a gain, what is worse, love or war, take your pick. My nation supports gay marriage and my only problem is the economy, everyone else is actually very happy.

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

LOL But wat if teh gayz want to find a cure fer strateness. :eek::D

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

Why would you want a nose-job?

Aesthetics.

Then again, gay men are known for their aestheticism, so maybe that point doesn't fly.

I personally do not care if homosexuals marry, but thats where it has to stop. A homosexual couple should NOT be able to adopt/raise children. Not that they aren't capable of raising a child, but it could have serious pyschological reprecutions such as the belief that sodomy is acceptable.

You know, all of this "scientific" proof can be negative in the future. Someone can interpret the data for sick and twisted means and show that because its not a choice, and occurring in nature, that its just a genetic defect that should be cleansed from the human populace.

God forbid that from happening.

Why do we need proof that being gay is genetic? Because there are still people out there who still think that being gayu can be changed. Take it from me I spent most of my life trying to hide it and even tried to hide behind a church and made my life miserable in the process. Now I accept it live my life to the best and love who I want to.

God forbid that from happening.

Does He? Or are you telling Him to?

so being gay changes the size of your brain. wow.

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

Cure? Think of the markets for modified sexual experience pills!

Introducing the....

X change pills - Have a wonderfully gay time! Have the children the normal way!

For only 6.66$!

Coming soon to a pharmacist near you!

Note:
- Might induce serious complications, including mental instability and enlightenment, if you're part of the following risk groups: Religious whackos, homophobes, male pigs, feminazis or pregnant men.
- Warning: When combining the product with Gay Bombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb) the results may be unexpected, unwanted and appear hilarious to a bystander!

That's just disgusting. Why would you want to "cure" something that isn't even a disease in the first place?

Why does it have to be a disease, is impotency a disease (and if it is I will delete this post) yet we treat that problem. Please bear in mind I am not saying we need to cure peoples gayness

How is that evidence that sexuality is determined in the womb? LOTS of things change your brain throughout your life. Did they look at their brains when they were infants, too?

Anyway, I'm with many others in thinking it should not have any impact on civil rights. Nature, nurture, free choice--it doesn't and shouldn't need to be explained or justified.

I am curious about what the bisexual brain looks like, though. Do I have a "gay" woman's brain or a "straight" woman's brain? Does it CHANGE?

Pet Theory - I think perhaps another possible cause or sub-cause is the natural inclination in humanity towards pleasure, and when the normal/customary routes of seeking such go awry for whatever reason (bad experiences with family, lovers, abuse, etc), other routes to pleasure are opened/explored. Maybe this explains non-biologically caused homosexuality, or perhaps it could work in combination with biological inclination. Just a thought though, and as I said before, these things rarely, if ever, have one cause.

Just to play devil's advocate to your theory, how does it explain the high numbers of homosexual men who were molested by other men in childhood?

i don't think it really matters whether or not it can be proven nor whether or not it is. i think what really matters is that people and governments need to learn to keep their noses out of other people's bedrooms and other people's lives.

=^^=
.../\...

i don't think it really matters whether or not it can be proven nor whether or not it is.
What's there to prove?

Animals have homosexual encounters, hence it is natural.

(but wait! Would that make bestiality natural too? :p)

What's there to prove?

Animals have homosexual encounters, hence it is natural.

(but wait! Would that make bestiality natural too? :p)

Not to mention polygamy, many types of animals have multiple partners, we should allow that as well.

Not to mention polygamy, many types of animals have multiple partners, we should allow that as well.

Why isn't it ? Salomo and Abraham had many wives, and aren't exactly considered bad examples...

If one can support multiple partners - why not.

Why isn't it ? Salomo and Abraham had many wives, and aren't exactly considered bad examples...

If one can support multiple partners - why not.
Are you saying the partners can't support themselves? :eek:

:D

Are you saying the partners can't support themselves? :eek:

:D

That IS a way of supporting them, yes :p

Biological you say? Poppycocks; homosexuality is for robots.

How is that evidence that sexuality is determined in the womb? LOTS of things change your brain throughout your life. Did they look at their brains when they were infants, too?

Nope, although as I said, this would be the next logical step and would give us a lot more evidence about causality. More profound structural differences in brain structure do tend to occur earlier in life though, which may be why it is believed to be related to pre-natal influences (and this fits in with prior findings


I am curious about what the bisexual brain looks like, though. Do I have a "gay" woman's brain or a "straight" woman's brain? Does it CHANGE?

Bah, what are you talking about, as far as sexuality research is concerned bisexuals don't exist :p
Actually in more seriousness, I suspect someone is looking at it, but what often happens in psychology research is you start by looking at the clear dichotomies (homosexual/heterosexual), then you compare them to the more dimensional elements.

I personally find this research interesting and important not because of any civil rights implications but because, as a psychologist, I wholeheartedly support research into individual differences and psychological processes. We should want to research things like this (among other topics) not because of the possibilities of changing it (or proving it can't be) but simply to further our understanding of human behaviour.

Biological you say? Poppycocks; homosexuality is for robots.

Hey I ain't no robosexual!

It's rather pointless to say where homosexuality comes from -

even if it is a choice, no one should discriminate against it.

Just a random thought if there is a difference in the brains and brains are contributed to genetic make up it may be possible to determine pre birth if you want a gay or straight child.

This may be a hereditary trait meaning that someone in china could choose a straight male all the way to a gay female.

Just to play devil's advocate to your theory, how does it explain the high numbers of homosexual men who were molested by other men in childhood?

Is this an urban myth? I do not know one gay man that this is applicable to.

Of course homosexuality is biological, it's caused by an inbalance in the level of oestrogen and testosterone during the development of a baby in the womb. So technically its natural but then again it's not exactly what nature intended is it? I mean, the homosexual population wouldn't exactly survive the test of time would it? Reproduction and all that.

Personally i don't care about peoples sexual preferences but i roll my eyes in pain when the government forces laws through to make well established religions accomodate homosexuality.

Is this an urban myth? I do not know one gay man that this is applicable to.

A recent review (Holmes and Slap, 1998) of the research on the molestation of boys, published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association showed that adolescent boys who were abused by men were up to seven times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

I honestly don't care how or why someone is homosexual.

Eventually, there will be technology to genetically change your orientation, or chemically change it, etc (they can already do the chemical method to rams and it's 100% reliable).

It could still even be a matter of choice. Eventually, it will be completely a matter of choice, due to technology.

It doesn't matter - we should treat homosexuals just as we do any other person, with all the same rights, because it's stupid to do otherwise - even if they made the choice to be that way.

Of course homosexuality is biological, it's caused by an inbalance in the level of oestrogen and testosterone during the development of a baby in the womb.

"Imbalance" (here) is a relative statement. Looking at it the other way, you could say that it's gay people who have it "right" and straight people who have the "imbalance."

So technically its natural but then again it's not exactly what nature intended is it?

True. Nature intends nothing at all.

I mean, the homosexual population wouldn't exactly survive the test of time would it? Reproduction and all that.

Strange, as far as we can tell homosexuality has been with us throughout human history, and exists extensively in a wide variety of other animal species, too... maybe nature isn't quite as simple as prejudiced amateur biologists want us to believe.

Personally i don't care about peoples sexual preferences

I don't believe you.

but i roll my eyes in pain when the government forces laws through to make well established religions accomodate homosexuality.

That's why. Governments have done nothing of the sort. What they have done (some of them) is grant equal rights to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals... and if that makes you roll your eyes in pain, then yes, you're prejudiced.

Pffft. You can't trust those socialist, baby-aborting, godless Swedes. Obviously this is a part of the liberal conspiracy perpetrated by Al Gore, Europe, Communists, Terrorists, Europeans, Canada and the sinful Democrats.

Pffft. You can't trust those socialist, baby-aborting, godless Swedes. Obviously this is a part of the liberal conspiracy perpetrated by Al Gore, Europe, Communists, Terrorists, Europeans, Canada and the sinful Democrats.

Awwww! Lookit the cute widdle troll!

I think he was being sarcastic, and flew over your head.

The source of a thing being biological is not an end-all to arguments about homosexuality. While it is certainly fascinating - and worth further investigation if, for nothing else, than expanding our knowledge of human nature - not all biological things are desirable things. People are born missing limbs, bearing surface disfigurements, and even afflicted with mental disabilities. These are still people of course, due all the love and respect that others are, but no one would claim that these defects are desirable qualities - i.e. no run runs around shouting "I wish I weren't born with this leg." And no one tries to dispute that these are in fact defects. Yet they are natural/biological. Perhaps homosexuality is just that - a birth defect, possibly caused by hormones altering brain shape and form in utero (for some anyway, as I doubt homosexuality has one over-arching cause). Again I say, these people are still due respect and love, but still have a defect to be faced and overcome, not a lifestyle choice.

Pet Theory - I think perhaps another possible cause or sub-cause is the natural inclination in humanity towards pleasure, and when the normal/customary routes of seeking such go awry for whatever reason (bad experiences with family, lovers, abuse, etc), other routes to pleasure are opened/explored. Maybe this explains non-biologically caused homosexuality, or perhaps it could work in combination with biological inclination. Just a thought though, and as I said before, these things rarely, if ever, have one cause.

A "defect"? What the hell? In what way is it a "defect"? "OH MY GOD YOU CAN LIVE A PERFECTLY NORMAL AND HAPPY LIFE, OR AT LEAST YOU COULD IF IT WASN'T FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME. YOU MUST BE ILL BECAUSE YOU AREN'T THE SAME."

Please, ignorant twits, take your appeal to nature and your "God" and stick them up your redundant collective ass.

Of course homosexuality is biological, it's caused by an inbalance in the level of oestrogen and testosterone during the development of a baby in the womb. So technically its natural but then again it's not exactly what nature intended is it? I mean, the homosexual population wouldn't exactly survive the test of time would it? Reproduction and all that.

Actually, yes. Yes they would.

Goes to show how ignorant you are of the whole issue of sexual orientation vs reproduction.

Because men aren't meant to be with other men, both nature and God don't exactly 'encourage it'.

Lesbians too. But as badly. They don't disgust me as much.

lol i think its hot wen 2 gurlz has secks so i fink mabye teh bibel dusnt say nufin abuot them
pls can has lesbien pornz??

Christianity disgusts a lot of people, but we let you get married and raise kids - sheer folly, I know.

Actually, yes. Yes they would.

Goes to show how ignorant you are of the whole issue of sexual orientation vs reproduction.

I think Utopian is trying to say that if it could be avoided by technological means (already possible in rams by simple means) then it would be seen as something "curable" or "avoidable" like deafness.

Most heterosexual couples would probably take "the cure" during pregnancy, in order to avoid the possibility of having a homosexual child.

Even those who were only slightly homophobic would take it.

This would sharply reduce the overall population of homosexuals over time - not completely eliminate them, but sharply reduce them.

In such a world, in certain countries, you might find it very hard to find a date.

It's not a good thing, and it's not something people "should" do, but it certainly is something people "would" do.

*snip*
You missed my point.

He claimed that homosexuals would not resist the test of time for lack of reproduction. I kindly pointed out that being gay does not make one infertile.

I am a gay man. Bring me a lesbian woman and we can breed just fine. we just won't be enjoying it near as much as straights would.

Even if the entire world magically turned gay overnight, the human race wouldn't go extinct in a generation. People who think so are very, very silly and ignorant.

You missed my point.

He claimed that homosexuals would not resist the test of time for lack of reproduction. I kindly pointed out that being gay does not make one infertile.

I am a gay man. Bring me a lesbian woman and we can breed just fine. we just won't be enjoying it near as much as straights would.

Even if the entire world magically turned gay overnight, the human race wouldn't go extinct in a generation. People who think so are very, very silly and ignorant.

Test tube babies FTW. :)

Either way, you're absolutely right. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's ability to reproduce. Liking the sexual act is another thing entirely.

no run runs around shouting "I wish I weren't born with this leg."
Oddly enough, some people (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070723-000008.html) do.

That's one of the stupidest things I ever heard. There are `brain differences` in people with autism and ADD and OCD and every other mental illness!!!

Test tube babies FTW. :)

Either way, you're absolutely right. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's ability to reproduce. Liking the sexual act is another thing entirely.

If the world goes with the technological leaps to produce "guaranteed heterosexual" babies (as we can already do with rams), then homosexuals will have to reproduce in order to keep their numbers up.

Assuming that homosexuals are, as many sources have indicated, 10 percent of the total population, then the only people having babies without "the cure" would probably be homosexuals. And then, only 10% of their babies would be homosexual.

Soon, the numbers of homosexuals in the world would plummet.

Like I said, it's not what everyone "should" do, but it is likely to be what people "would" do.

I'm quite sure nobody but the most bigoted ignorant fools would be willing to spend several thousand dollars on some "cure" to prevent the 10% or so chance that one of their children ends up being gay.

Sure, probably a lot of people in the US midwest who have never known a gay person would. But most normal people who actually have a gay or lesbian friend would certainly not bother.

It'll never be anything other than a marginal phenomenon. Also, I stand ready to point and shake my head in shame at the probable long-term conditions and problems messing with hormonal balances is likely to cause in these children.

I'm quite sure nobody but the most bigoted ignorant fools would be willing to spend several thousand dollars on some "cure" to prevent the 10% or so chance that one of their children ends up being gay.

Sure, probably a lot of people in the US midwest who have never known a gay person would. But most normal people who actually have a gay or lesbian friend would certainly not bother.

It'll never be anything other than a marginal phenomenon. Also, I stand ready to point and shake my head in shame at the probable long-term conditions and problems messing with hormonal balances is likely to cause in these children.

It doesn't cost that much. It's enjoying widespread use on rams (male sheep) to ensure further breeding. Maybe the equivalent of 10 dollars.

Saying it's a marginal phenomenon is denying the struggle you face.

It has no long term effects on the rams, other than making them hetero.

Most heteros don't mind having a gay friend - it's considered ok. But tell them their kid is gay... well, you have a different story there. At the very least they'll be anxious about it - and if you can relieve the anxiety for 10 dollars...

And have your children hooked to some kind of hormonal medicine for life, in order to suppress their natural attractions and transform it into desire to breed indiscriminately?

Just because it doesn't have long-term effects on rams doesn't mean it won't on humans. Humans are infinitely more complex creatures than other animals. The behavioral, psychological and intellectual issues that are of no importance for rams can be critical for human beings.

*SNIP*

Humans need something to balance us in nature. Homosexuality does it.

People complain that scientists are playing "god" when stem cell research is done Or could complain that euthanasia is playing god yet the same group could very well endorse a "cure" for homosexuality.

Awwww! Lookit the cute widdle troll!

Sarcasm dude.

Humans need something to balance us in nature. Homosexuality does it.

People complain that scientists are playing "god" when stem cell research is done Or could complain that euthanasia is playing god yet the same group could very well endorse a "cure" for homosexuality.

If given a choice, humans will often do the stupid thing. I don't think that the technological process will let up, and it will allow mass numbers of people to "eliminate" something that nature had in place.

If given a choice, humans will often do the stupid thing. I don't think that the technological process will let up, and it will allow mass numbers of people to "eliminate" something that nature had in place.

Humans do stupid shit because if we didn't make mistakes, we couldn't learn from them. What's the point in mistakes if we don't learn?

People messed with ecosystems in the past and now we're seeing the repercussions. This is just one of those. People need to learn that humans can't be all the same because that is unhealthy for our sanity.

It doesn't cost that much. It's enjoying widespread use on rams (male sheep) to ensure further breeding. Maybe the equivalent of 10 dollars.

Saying it's a marginal phenomenon is denying the struggle you face.

It has no long term effects on the rams, other than making them hetero.

Most heteros don't mind having a gay friend - it's considered ok. But tell them their kid is gay... well, you have a different story there. At the very least they'll be anxious about it - and if you can relieve the anxiety for 10 dollars...

"At the very least" many of us heterosexuals will not be in the least bit anxious, thanks. I care very deeply about whether my potential future children will be happy and healthy, but I care about their sexual orientations about as much as I care whether they have blue or brown eyes - which is to say, not one bit. I wouldn't pay so much as a cent to make sure my children are one orientation or the other.

"At the very least" many of us heterosexuals will not be in the least bit anxious, thanks. I care very deeply about whether my potential future children will be happy and healthy, but I care about their sexual orientations about as much as I care whether they have blue or brown eyes - which is to say, not one bit. I wouldn't pay so much as a cent to make sure my children are one orientation or the other.

I believe that you would be in the minority, and it would still result in far fewer homosexuals being born.

Sad to say, but I believe that a cheap method of preventing homosexuality at birth would become as common as the ultrasound to get a pic of the fetus.

"At the very least" many of us heterosexuals will not be in the least bit anxious, thanks. I care very deeply about whether my potential future children will be happy and healthy, but I care about their sexual orientations about as much as I care whether they have blue or brown eyes - which is to say, not one bit. I wouldn't pay so much as a cent to make sure my children are one orientation or the other.

I'm in the same boat as you.

I'd be more concern if my child would be born with a disease that would actually affect their quality of life. A disease that isn't yet curable by medical science.

Why isn't it ? Salomo and Abraham had many wives, and aren't exactly considered bad examples...

If one can support multiple partners - why not.

That is what I am saying

Why is everyone arguing holding the position that homosexuality is "acceptable", "tolerable", etc., i.e. that it necessarily a bad thing?

I think a higher populace gayness level would be better.

Well once again, more evidence that homosexuality is biological at the very least. Personally I do find the psychology of sexuality fascinating and have found differences in some (side) findings I've had in my own research, with gay men seeming to use similar levels of aggression to straight women and lesbians similar levels to straight men (although since sexuality wasn't the main focus of the work, the sample sizes were tiny).

So what do people think? Are there still going to be those arguing for it being a choice? What are the implications of these increased findings on gay rights?

In heterosexual men and lesbian women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.

The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and straight women.
Isn't nerve 'connections' in the brain formed during childhood? depending on how the child is intellectually stimulated?

just asking.

Isn't nerve 'connections' in the brain formed during childhood? depending on how the child is intellectually stimulated?

just asking.

They can be formed at different points, depending on the brain areas involved. I believe (but I would have to check) that because the amygdala is a 'primitive' part of the brain involved in basic functions, such as emotion processing, the connections tend to be formed very early, probably pre-natally.

I'm in the same boat as you.

I'd be more concern if my child would be born with a disease that would actually affect their quality of life. A disease that isn't yet curable by medical science.

I just believe that we're in the minority.

I just believe that we're in the minority.

Such behaviour can be changed as people learn to accept and lived in peace and harmony with those who are not like them.

Like hatred, bias, scepticism and distrust is taught.

They can be formed at different points, depending on the brain areas involved. I believe (but I would have to check) that because the amygdala is a 'primitive' part of the brain involved in basic functions, such as emotion processing, the connections tend to be formed very early, probably pre-natally.

that would be an interesting study. after all, wouldn't an infant is utilizing those basic functions while the higher functions are being developed? so wouldn't such connections of the amygdala also be affected by how the child was raised, environment, etc...

just making a side point discussion.

So what do people think? Are there still going to be those arguing for it being a choice? What are the implications of these increased findings on gay rights?

Of course. For many (reasoning) conservatives, after significant evidence (prior to this, I'm pretty sure) came out regarding pheromones (sp?) and sexuality, it showed that sexuality, is, often a biological reaction. This does not, however, necessarily suggest that people are born homosexual, but that it is possible that certain stimuli may 'create' homosexual tendencies. Additionally, merely because there is a genuine biological reaction, does not mean that it is not a choice, it suggests that it isn't a choice, but it is not proof.

Of course studies that continue to suggest that gays are actually (gasp) people too, should increase gay rights in general.

I believe that you would be in the minority, and it would still result in far fewer homosexuals being born.

Sad to say, but I believe that a cheap method of preventing homosexuality at birth would become as common as the ultrasound to get a pic of the fetus.

Of course, such a treatment would be very stigmatized by the impression of bigotry. Even people who are bigots might shy away from such a treatment because of such a stigma.

Of course, such a treatment would be very stigmatized by the impression of bigotry. Even people who are bigots might shy away from such a treatment because of such a stigma.

It's not like anyone would know you were getting it, aside from older relatives who would pressure you to get it.

It's not like anyone would know you were getting it, aside from older relatives who would pressure you to get it.

People would ask. It would be in your medical records. And when it turns out to have other long-term effects and your kid shows up with them years down the road....

People would ask. It would be in your medical records. And when it turns out to have other long-term effects and your kid shows up with them years down the road....

Doesn't have any long term effects in rams. Try again.

Doesn't have any long term effects in rams. Try again.

(a) Rams don't live as long as humans and have very different social structures. With rams, all we're looking for is males humping females. We have no idea how such a treatment would affect other aspects of personality or development.

(b) Things like this never translate directly to humans, even from other primates. A drug or treatment with certain effects in other mammals may prove very different in humans - and quite often does.

(a) Rams don't live as long as humans and have very different social structures. With rams, all we're looking for is males humping females. We have no idea how such a treatment would affect other aspects of personality or development.

(b) Things like this never translate directly to humans, even from other primates. A drug or treatment with certain effects in other mammals may prove very different in humans - and quite often does.

Most people are sheep, wouldn't you agree?

Most people are sheep, wouldn't you agree?

facepalm.jpg

facepalm.jpg

Demplublicents had to see it coming.

Most people are sheep, wouldn't you agree?

Cute.

But to give a serious answer: Metaphorically, yes. Biologically, no.

=)

Cute.

But to give a serious answer: Metaphorically, yes. Biologically, no.

=)

Seriously, it's possible that it would test out in human trials. You might think the odds are low, but I bet they aren't that bad.

So if it came out there were no problems, and was cheap (it is), I think people would do it. So many that it would have a major (order of magnitude) impact on the future homosexual population.

You can't fix stupid, however.