Sexual Orientation is Biologically Determined?

[arnisador]

A recent story adds more evidence that sexual orientation has a biological component--that people are "born gay" (though environment presumably still plays a role).

I'm convinced. I think the weight of scientific evidence is now strong enough to conclude that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not principally environment and certainly not principally choice.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by arnisador
A recent story adds more evidence that sexual orientation has a biological component--that people are "born gay" (though environment presumably still plays a role).

I'm convinced. I think the weight of scientific evidence is now strong enough to conclude that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not principally environment and certainly not principally choice.

I ask a young homosexual male while I was in college, how he knew he was gay?

He said follow me.

We then walked out of the lab and into the hallway where he said," See that Couple? ....., Whose butt did you look at?" I smiled and said hers, and he replied, I have always looked at his.

It can be genetic or biological, I for one do not know, I have only known myself

 

[rmcrobertson]

Let me quote my Developmental Psych prof, Elizabeth Bates: "The nice thing about being a human being is that we do not have to be slaves to our biology."

 

[Ender]

"Although homosexuality per se is not related to psychiatric problems, on those occasions that gays and lesbians do present with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that are typical of the opposite sex," Rahman says. Gay men, for example, may be more likely to suffer depression, anxiety and eating disorders than their straight counterparts, while lesbians may be more vulnerable to substance abuse than heterosexual women.

so it's a mental condition?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Ender
[Bso it's a mental condition? [/B]

Well it could be a mental chemistry issue, as well as body chemistry issue

 

[Touch Of Death]

I won't bother my head with the question of biology vs cultural. But I feel so much of what we are is based on our upbringing or lack there of, that the cultural issue is what we need to look at. A persons desire to force there agenda on you, be it hetero sexual or homo sexual, is definantly cultural. Appearance issues are definantly cultural. Sleeping around is cultural. The cub scouts and the Army are cultural. Your desire to exercise your opinion or you actions in any of these forums is a choice. There are consequences reguardless; some are biological and some are cultural.
Sean

 

[don bohrer]

What we fail to hear is the story's of gays that come out of the gay life style. These people were just as adamant about being gay as any other, but managed to make a life change..... why?

don

 

[MA-Caver]

I've a friend who works with helping those wanting to make the change from gay to straight. I'll query her and see if she has a viewpoint that I can cut/paste here.

My own opinion is that no-one is BORN gay...by the same token no one is BORN straight. Sexual preferences are taught/influenced during childhood. A child may grow up seeing the loving relationship between father and mother and thus be influenced by that. A child may also grow up to see a bad relationship between mother and father and be frightened/influenced by that. A child grows up and is molested by either same sex or opposite sex and thus influenced by that.
Basically the environment any child grows up in can greatly influence their choice of sexual preferences.
A gay person may have never been taught "normal" biological pairings when they were a child. He/she may have had feelings that were never properly discussed and thus grows up believing that this is the way I've been ALL my life. But how can that be possible since a 3 or 4 yr. old child doesn't have any concept (and more importantly...understanding) of sexual matters.
I've a number of Gay friends both male and female and careful questioning on their childhood has helped me formulate my hypothesis (above).
A child may not always become gay because of these influences but they are about 1% of the (gay) population.
The report of a Gay gene I found totally rediculous. It (to me) was a means to come out and say "See! I was made this way!"
If a person makes an informed choice to be Gay then I cannot nay say them. It is their individual choice to make...when they're of age to make it.
:asian:

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Let me quote my Developmental Psych prof, Elizabeth Bates: "The nice thing about being a human being is that we do not have to be slaves to our biology."

Or as Richard Dawkins said, Of course we're not slaves to our genes--we thwart them every time we use contraception.

MACaver, there are twin studies, brain anatomy studies, etc., etc., etc.--I think there's a lot of evidence for a biological component!

 

[rmcrobertson]

The danger of arguing that it's all a genetic/phyiological difference is that then it becomes possible to define "being gay," whatever that means, as abnormal, as a deficit capable of being cured.

The danger of arguing that it's all cultural is that then, it becomes possible to argue for silly ideas such as the notion that you're gay because your childhood was, to quote Marty Feldman, Abby Normal.

What never quite seems to get discussed in these discussions is that heterosexuality, whatever that means, is also both biological and learned. And considering how some straight guys behave...I'd suggest that we need a lot more research into that topic.

 

[Touch Of Death]

To help resolve this issue I recomend the song "what is and what is not gay" by the band King Missle.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by arnisador
Or as Richard Dawkins said, Of course we're not slaves to our genes--we thwart them every time we use contraception.

MACaver, there are twin studies, brain anatomy studies, etc., etc., etc.--I think there's a lot of evidence for a biological component!

It seems to make sense that there are biological components to homosexuality. I think that some people are "biologically" gay, as others are not biologically gay, and are conditioned through their environment.

What I don't like is how our society is still afraid of the subject, and is still afraid to call it what it is.

Homosexuality IS an abnormality. I am sorry, but it is. Biologically speaking the "purpose" of sex, and our sexual desires, is procreation. We may have our own personal needs, desires, and value's that we place on sex, but the fact is that biologically speaking, it exists for procreation.

So, to be attracted to the same sex whether due to your genetic make-up or not, is an abnormality. Just like having 2 sex organs, or an extra limb would be an abnormality. Let's call it what it is.

The "straight world" still seems very afraid to call it what it is.

Conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, generally don't want to come close to truly understanding the issue. So they wrongly (in my opinion) call sexual preference a "choice." They don't want to know about it because they see this abnormality as being "wrong." They often don't want to admit that it could be biological as well as environmental in nature because they would rather believe that homosexuals are making "a choice" to have a sexual preference, and that they choose wrongly. I believe that lifestyle is always a choice, but sexual preference is often not a choice.

"liberals" are no better. People more on this side of the fence work really hard to understand what homosexuality is all about, which is a good thing. The bad thing with people on this side of the fence is that they don't want to recognize it as an abnormality. They are not just tolerant, they are overly-sympothetic. They want to believe that it is just as "normal" to have homosexual relations as it is to have hetrosexual relations. This is simply not true.

So..."liberals" are afraid to call it an abnormality, and "conservatives" are afraid to recognize that it might not be a choice in many circumstances. Hmmm...what to do?

We'd do well to recognize a few things:

1. Sexual preference is not always a choice
2. Lifestyle is always a choice
3. Homosexuality is an abnormality

Then, I feel, the "straight world" can start being a little more tolerant and understanding, rather then overly sympothetic or intolerant. If a person was born without legs, for instance, would we descriminate that person for "choosing" to be without legs? Would we judge that person for the lifestyle they have to lead as a result of not having legs? Would we pretend that not having legs is "normal," and not open doors for them when they needed it, or continue to talk about "running" and shoe shopping when they cannot truly relate? Would we tell them how we feel their pain of not having legs, when it is clear that we still have both of ours? Would we chop off our own legs, so that they would feel more comfortable around us? Would we uncomfortably shy away from the subject, and pretend like the person has legs, when it is clear that they do not?

How about we do none of the above. How about we recognize that not having legs makes them different (because it isn't 'normal'), but that being different is O.K.? How about we recognize that they still have the power to choose how to live their life, even though they are different? How about we choose to recognize their differences, yet we choose not to judge them for these differences, or how they choose to live thier lives based off of these differences?

That might be a good start. Since this is the "study" perhaps my soapbox will give us all something to think over. :soapbox: :asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

You think heterosexuality is normal? And the normal purpose of sex is procreation?

Hm. In the first place, there's every reason to think that on biological grounds, sex is as much about bonding and about power as anything else.

In the second--well, there's the well-known fact that if somebody actually enforced our loopy laws about normal sex, about three-quarters of Americans would be in the pokey. (Get it...pokey.)

In the third, nobody who really looked at sex could argue that heterosexuality is "normal." Check out Freud, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life."

I agree with you about some of your other points--but that one...

 

[Ender]

From a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality does nothing to strengthen or further the species as Darwin has stated for survival of the fittest. Any mutation or imbalance must do either one of these, or face extinction. Also statistics show that being gay only represents a small portion of the total population. Around 10% at last estimate. Therefore, being gay has to be an abnormality.

So, that leaves us with the question if someone is born gay. Being born gay stems from either a genetic issue or a chemical issue. If it is a chemical issue it has to be some sort of a chemical imbalance because being gay is not normal. But any imbalance would be considered a defect, and the gay community went ballistic when Dr. Laura called it a biological defect. So that leaves a genetic issue, but really how can these genes be passed on? Even if 50% of all gays procreate, and actual statistics put the number at around 15%, it still has to be a recessive gene. Remember from biology that a recessive gene had at best a 50/50 chance of appearing in the next generation unless both partners are of completely the recessive gene. The Dominant/recessvce gene table)So looking at the math, you have 50% of gays procreating (a generous estimate) with only 50% of the offspring possibly being born gay. For example if you have 100,000 gays, only 50,000 will procreate, then only 25000 will be born with the “gay” gene. What will happen is that half of a half on down the generations will asymptotically approach zero. Homosexuality will become extinct.

My opinion is that it is a chemical imbalance. But if there is an imbalance, there can also be a way to “balance”. But the political and social ramifications to that would be astounding.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yes, they would. Self-appointed guardians of, "normalcy," dressed up no doubt in lots of pieties about "Western history," and "morality," and "the good of humanity," could get to decide who was biologically abby-normal, and corrrect matters. With a pill. With forced sterilization. With genetic testing and enforced abortion.

There's another name for "abnormality," if we're going to invoke evolution. It's called, "variation," and it is a large part of what drives evolution.

I'd argue that excessive aggression in men is an anti-survival trait, one that has caused not only endless individual misery, but which has imperiled the whole species. And judging by the "scientific," standards passed around here, it's abby-normal too.

Anybody want to join my campaign to fix the macho--in the sense of having yer cat fixed?

 

[Cruentus]

rmcrobertson:

I have to disagree with you on your views of sexual normalcy. Things like power, lust, bonding, etc., are all psychological and emotional reasons we put behind sex, not purely biological.

I am not touching with a ten foot pole the subject of what is psychologically "normal," because God knows I am sure that I am not psychologically normal by even a stretch.

But, I would argue that the Biological "reason" for sex is simple: procreation. Homosexuality violates this biological reason. Therefore, I say it is an abnormality, plain and simple.

Do I then suggest that people with this abnormality should be forced into "changing" or "correcting" themselves? No! Nobody should have their rights taken away, just as long as they are not jeprodising the safety of others. It is just as much a homosexuals right to do whatever they want in the bedroom as it is my right to do whatever I want in my bedroom. Legislating sexual morality, or trying to socially/medically "correct" a sexual preference in a forceable manner is immoral in itself.

However, I would say that if research continues, it would be nice to know the source of homosexuality (from a biological standpoint), and if it is biologically reversable. Should people be forced to change? Of course not, the choice should be up to the individual...

 

[Ender]

Well it has nothing to do with "self gaurdians of normalcy" or "morality" or "good of humanity" It has more to do with a standard bell curve and what lies in the first and second sigmas. anything in the 3rd sigma is considered abnormal or outlying data.

one can also argue that agressive behavior is one of the fuels that drives innovation. more inventions have trickled down into the general public because of development of weaponry. example: MRI, CAT scans, Satelitte techology or even basic metal working.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Other than Israel, I don't see where an enforcement of procreation would be an issue.(they need to outbreed the Arabs or be voted out of existence) I think the rejection of peoples lifestyle choices has more to do with peoples desire to control others.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Ender
From a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality does nothing to strengthen or further the species as Darwin has stated for survival of the fittest.

Playing devil's advocate, there are species such as ants with neuter members that perform a role--one can imagine the same for humans. I don't believe this to be the case--that there's a benefit--but it isn't as simple as noting the inability to reproduce, which is true of so many insects for example. Are insect drones 'abnormal'? Not by number--compare the number of infertile females to the number of queens.

Also statistics show that being gay only represents a small portion of the total population. Around 10% at last estimate.

This is a "political" number. The true estimate is 2-4% of men and 1-2% of women. (Three sigmas out leaves less than 1%.) There's a long story behind that 10% number, tracing back to Masters and Johnson.

Also, recall that the genetic component may be multi-factorial--there may not be (I'd wager there isn't) a single gay gene, but rather a cluster of genes.

As for normality, if one defines 'abnormal' as 'in the minority' then this includes men, left-handers, and the elderly. It's common to view sexuality on a spectrum. For example, roughly half of all men and a quarter of all women will engage in/experiment with homosexuality at some point (this includes sexual experimentation by children 'playing doctor' and such). It isn't a pure either/or.

 

[Ender]

well if half engage in experimentation, that would make it a choice.

and as far as left handed, blonde. or whatever recessive trait, the difference is that those are in the heterosexual environment where populations increase. Not the Homosexual, where they cannot (by procreation)