Homosexuality is linked to genetics- evidence found
US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.
Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.
Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision".
Until 2007, CNN polls had found that a majority of Americans believed gay people could change their sexual orientation if they chose to; it was only last year that a majority for the first time said homosexuality was an inborn trait.
Christian groups such as Exodus International argue "that homosexuals who desire to change can do so". One prominent psychiatrist, Dr Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, found controversial evidence that therapy can cause some gay people to change to a heterosexual orientation, although the study concluded that a "complete change" was uncommon.
While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.
A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause.
"In the past decade, I think the pendulum has swung more toward biological theory and biological causes," said Richard Lippa, a psychology professor at California State University-Fullerton, who has studied hair patterns and other biological traits in gay men.
Sven Bocklandt, a geneticist at the David Geffen school of medicine at UCLA, is bewildered by the argument that people choose their sexual attraction. He said that virtually every animal species that has been studied - from sheep to fruit flies - has a small minority of individuals who demonstrate homosexual activity.
"I really believe the reason most humans are straight is the same reason that most crocodiles are straight, and the same reason most whales are straight," Bocklandt said. "Nature would not leave something so important for reproduction, for the survival of the species, to coincidence."
Less understood is the degree to which sexual orientation is determined by genes or environmental factors, such as hormones or immunological factors that may act on a foetus. What scientists call "the fraternal birth order effect", the fact that each successive boy born to the same mother has a greater chance of being gay, may be due to an increasing immunological response by a mother's body to each male foetus in her womb.
Long discredited are theories that parenting - one mid-20th century theory held that boys raised by a domineering mother with a distant father were more likely to be gay - has anything to do with sexual orientation.
Evidence of that, said Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois, comes from studies of genetically male infants born with malformed or ambiguous genitals. In many such cases, surgeons would construct a vagina, and instruct parents to raise the child as a girl, with no knowledge of his medical history.
As adults, those prenatally male/postnatally female people were virtually all attracted to women, Bailey said.
"If you can't make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, castrating him and rearing him as a girl, then how likely is any social explanation of male homosexuality?" he said.
Researchers are eagerly awaiting a DNA study of male siblings with at least one gay brother by Bailey and other scientists at Northwestern University due in early 2009, because it may shed light on the role genetics plays in sexual attraction.
By researching 800 sets of brothers, by far the largest study of its type, the Northwestern study is searching for the specific genes that influence some brothers to be gay and others to be heterosexual.
up yours, Catholic church
_________________
not a bug - a feature.
There have several studies like this over the years that have been discredited. It's junk science.
The biggest fraud was that deal at the Salk Institute in San Diego some years back where a "scientist" studied brains and found homosexual brains were different. Turned out the "scientist" was a homosexual himself, his findings were falsified and he lost his job as I recall.
Homosexuality was listed in the APA treatment guide until 1979 when it was removed through homosexual activism, not a consensus of psychiatrists. Nevertheless, many homosexuals continue to receive treatment for their malady from psychiatrists and benefit as a result. Religion doesn't enter into the treatment, just good science.
it would not shock me. u r definitly born gay. i mean u dont choose to like another man's penis and homophobes will NEVER be able to understand since they r so closed minded. it would be very ironic if homosexuality were genetic. all thos homophobes with genetic disorders would look like total a**holes (no pun intended) but really, u want homosexuality out of the picture, wats next? ADHD? AUTISM!?
_________________
add me on facebook
"Homophobe" is a word made up by homosexuals as a hate word against straight people. Using that word against straight people is exactly the same as calling a black man a ni@@er. Think about it... the word is not even descriptive. No one "fears" homosexuals... most people usually feel either pity or disgust for them. Interestingly, there is no word that homosexuals use to define people who are homosexual-friendly. That's a clear indication that "homophope" is a derogatory term and is just hate speech.
I don't think most people are closed-minded about homosexuality. They understand it, they just don't like it. They understand Darwin, and they know that the evolution of humanity will cease if homosexuals became dominate. Throughout history, humans have always stood against those who pose a threat to the evolution of the human race. It may be in our gentic makeup to oppose those who do not contribute to the gene pool. Survival of the fittest and all that.
I don't think most people are closed-minded about homosexuality. They understand it, they just don't like it. They understand Darwin, and they know that the evolution of humanity will cease if homosexuals became dominate. Throughout history, humans have always stood against those who pose a threat to the evolution of the human race. It may be in our gentic makeup to oppose those who do not contribute to the gene pool. Survival of the fittest and all that.
This sounds like someone who not only doesn't understand etymology, but doesn't understand "Darwinism."
This is the same type of jargon used by conservative groups in an attempt to reframe a subject to enhance a suspect argument. Homosexuality has been a steady part of humanity forever, and there's no reason to believe it didn't exist before civilization. And wow. There's still people. Apparently we don't really need social taboos or restrictions to protect straight people so they can overpopulate the earth.
It's seen in mammals, birds, and other creatures. Why so hard to understand it naturally exists in people? I find it an arbitrary to discriminate against homosexuals for that reason. To say it's genetic to stand up to homosexuals because they are somehow a threat is ridiculous and unfounded.
And let's face it--there's lots of straights who shouldn't be contributing to the gene pool but we aren't trying to limit their rights to live on this planet, but that's a whole other topic.
Though I don't necessarily think that study is totally accurate, it is no doubt that homosexuality has a tangible cause. First, why would anyone choose a "lifestyle" they know is going to get them harassed, beaten up, and possibly killed? Why especially would they choose the lifestyle if they didn't actually find the same sex sexually appealing? Second, why is homosexually commonly found in higher mammals? Elephants, cetaceans, and apes have all been shown to display homosexual and bisexual behaviors. Third, I am at the end of my human sexuality course for the semester. In our textbook ("Our Sexuality" by Robert Crooks and Karla Baur, for those of you that want a reference) studies have shown that gay men get aroused by male pheromones (sexual scent chemicals) much more than female pheromones and that female homosexuals get aroused by female pheromones. There is obviously SOMETHING that is at the bottom of homosexuality. Really it is the religious folks that want to spew their "evidence" that homosexuality is a choice and a sin while suppressing actual science (religious folk have been historically science-phobic). In fact, I believe we would already know the cause of homosexuality if it had'nt been constantly suppressed by the religious community. Think about it. In days gone by, it was the religious folk that thought blacks were subhuman. If you ever ask yourself why so many black and hispanic people are such religious christians it is because their ancestors were tortured, enslaved, raped, and force converted by christian slave owners and conquistadors respectively. The church was in the past the main voice behind segregation. But of course these days the religious often claim they are against racism blah blah blah. I can imagine in the next hundred years when gays are given impunity, the churches and synagogues will then claim they always thought homosexuality was ok blah blah blah. Isn't it funny how history repeats itself?? BTW, I am a straight male.
_________________
X
well then link us to a study (done according to the scientific method) that proves it (and that proves that the "benefit" was permanent).
I am dying of curiosity.
this statement is so absurd that I don't even know where to start... and how in your opinion would they ever become dominate? because they have so many children with each other??
if you believe that people choose to be homosexual then I guess it comes from your own experience of being a bisexual who "chose" the straight option. this is not uncommon, but in general, it just doesn't work like that.
_________________
not a bug - a feature.
well then link us to a study (done according to the scientific method) that proves it (and that proves that the "benefit" was permanent).
I am dying of curiosity.
this statement is so absurd that I don't even know where to start... and how in your opinion would they ever become dominate? because they have so many children with each other??
if you believe that people choose to be homosexual then I guess it comes from your own experience of being a bisexual who "chose" the straight option. this is not uncommon, but in general, it just doesn't work like that.
it wouldnt dominate. and without a doubt it is natural. so wat if we would cease to exist IF it did dominate. it wont. dont mean we should eliminate all of them. very hypocritic considering we have a little organization out for us.
_________________
add me on facebook
Thanks so much for saying this. I could never find the words.
As I have always suspected. No disrespect, gay people. It makes more sense that someone is born this way rather than chooses to be this way. Some say that the gay lifestyle is an indication of their "choice," but I think the gay lifestyle is an inevitability if you are born gay. It is an indication of your destiny.
Charles Manson was born to be Charles Manson.
Wolfgang Mozart was born to be Wolgang Mozart.
But are we slaves to our genes?
This is all nonsense. 'Homophobe' isn't a hate word against straight people, it's a hate word against those who irrationally hate & fear homosexuals. To draw an analogy between the use of the word homophobe & the use of racial slurs is to do something obscene - because it is wrong to denigrate someone based on racial grounds, but entirely correct to denigrate someone for promoting hateful ideas.
The only people I can think of who have claimed to stand 'against those who pose a threat to the evolution of the human race' are eugenicists & proponents of racial segregation, do you wish to be numbered in that company or did you have some other examples in mind? Also, you haven't explained why you think homosexuals pose this threat, & I'm quite sure you can't, because I'm quite sure the threat is not there. It has hard to imagine the mechanism by which homosexuals become 'dominate' (whatever that means?).
I don't know how you can feel comfortable countenancing this entirely unsupported claim & at the same time be unwilling to accept any of the mounting evidence that homosexuality is genetically determined. In fact, it seems most likely that it is in our genetic makeup to only care about passing on our own genetic material, without any regard for the genetic success of any other members of our species. In other words, it seems more likely that we would wish to oppose those who do contribute to the gene pool, & be indifferent to those who do not, as they aren't competition.
