posted
I'm sorry, I really am. I don't want to start another homosexual thread. And I'm not actually in the mood to debate. This is just information I'm putting out there. Take it as you will. But when I read something that I feel is factually erroneous, I am compelled to correct the misconception.
These arguments aren't intended to say that homosexuality is a choice. In most cases, I don't believe it is. My contention is that homosexuality is mostly environmentally driven by a number of factors both psychological and biological.
There really is no one gene that makes you gay. And even if you have a few genes or pre-birth hormonal influences that point you in that direction there is no indication that it guarantees you will be homosexual. Behavior is very complex, and while there may be genetic influences, behavior is never soley determined by your genes.
The three main studies taken up by the media that seem to say that homosexuality is biologically immutable actually don't say that:
The Levay brain study
quote: LeVay performed a study on the brains of two groups of men: 1) homosexuals and 2) men LeVay presumed were heterosexual.
The presumed heterosexuals were not determined to be so before they died. The sample size was small: only 16 presumed heterosexual men and 19 homosexual men.
From Levay himself:
quote: First, the observations were made on adults who had already been sexually active for a number of years. To make a really compelling case, one would have to show that these neuroanatomical differences existed early in life preferably at birth.
On a personal note, I would like to know where the presumably heterosexual cadavers were gotten from. If they were prison inmates, what could be happening is that they have larger than normal clusters of cells that lead to criminal behavior. The cadavers of the homosexual guys were ones that had died of complications from AIDS. The presumabely heterosexual males did not have AIDS.
The Twin Studies
quote: . Bailey and Pillard studied fifty-six sets of identical twins and fifty-four sets of nonidentical twins. They found a correlation of 52% in identical twins, meaning that for every homosexual twin the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual. For nonidentical twins, the rate of concordance was 22%, thereby showing only one in five twins had a homosexual brother. The concordance for non-twin brothers was only 9.2%.
Why should non-twin siblings differ any less than non-identical twin siblings unless environment is involved? Also, there are many other behavior differences in identical twins and to a less extent non-identical twins that have to do with their interaction with each other and nothing to do with genes.
quote:The most interesting question, however, is that if there is something in the genetic code that makes a person homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual, since they have the exact same genetic code?
quote: What if Bailey and Pillard are correct, in spite of the flaws in their study, and there is a 50% heritability rate of male homosexuality? Neil Whitehead tabulated other twin studies on other topics and those traits’ heritability:
Whitehead noted that phenylketonuria is a genetic disorder dealing with enzymes and that it was added to the table to show the contrast between a “genuine genetic condition and a behavioral trait.”
The article I'm talking also talked about flaws in the study and shows an example of how twin studies should be conducted. On of the big problems is that they didn't even take into consideration if the rate of homosexuality in twin pairs is any different than the rate of homosexuality in the general population.
The Gay Gene: Dean Hamer
quote:There are several concerns with Hamer’s study. First, there was no control group from the general population. If the same sequence from the X chromosome that appeared in the homosexual men also appears in the general population of non-homosexual men, then the gene is insignificant. Hamer also did not test the heterosexual brothers of the homosexual men to see if they had the gene, but some of the data from those heterosexual brothers did have the gene sequence. This would tend to show that the particular sequence would not be as influential as Hamer’s study would suggest. Furthermore, seven of Hamer’s pairs of homosexuals did not have the gene sequence at all. It is not known whether the same sequence is carried across from one set to another. In other words, Hamer did not check to see if the sequence was the same for all the homosexual brothers as a whole.
quote:Why should non-twin siblings differ any less than non-identical twin siblings unless environment is involved?
Degree of relative? You know, like if your mom had a genetic disorder, you chances are higher than if it were your grandmother.
52% chance if your identical twin is gay 22% chance if your non-identical twin is gay 9% chance if your brother is gay.
Seems significant to me.
And to the people who say that if it is genetic, then identical twins should both be either gay or straight, all I have to say is "mirror image." My dad has an identical twin. My dad is left handed. According your genetic theory, my uncle should be also, yet, he isn't. Their hair on the crown of their head swirls in opposite directions, they each had a wart on their knee (one on the left, one on the right) (oh, and this was when they were 60!) There are so many differences between (180 degree differences) that it wouldn't have surprised me at all if one were gay and one were straight.
I wonder if they have ever broken down twins like that before. I'd love to see a study that separates mirror image and regular identical twins.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:22% chance if your non-identical twin is gay 9% chance if your brother is gay.
Kayla, two fraternal twins are related to the same degree as two brothers. Degree of relative doesn't apply.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetically non-identical twin brothers and brothers born at different times are related in the same exact degree. Non-identical twins are often a control in determining of the behavior was the result of twinning influences rather than genetics. In this case, it does in fact appear that being a twin influences the outcome. This was not well reported in the media.
posted
Technically, that is right. For strict genetics, anyway. However, if it has anything to do with hormones during gestation, then that might explain the difference. If there is a surge of hormones one day, and one twin is on the receiving end of that (often times, one twins placenta is larger, attached more strategically, etc.) that could cause the difference. So, if there are cases where it is absolutely genetic and cases where it isn't as clear, the difference might still be biological based on gestation development that become immutable. Non-identical twins would have a higher probability of gestational anomalies than non-twin brothers.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's true that fraternal twins don't share any more genetic material in common than do any other pair of siblings, but they do share the exact same prenatal environment, which regular siblings do not. The mother's hormone levels, illnesses, etc would be the same for both of them at all points of development up to the moment of birth. If environmental factors like that were contributors to sexual preference, those statistics that Kayly cited could still be accurate.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of that Amka, I wonder what about test tube twins that are born years apart.
I would be interested in seeing the correlation between "twins" that were born years apart and non-identical twins born at the same time.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the environment = prenatal evironment, is that still a nuture issue?
I mean, you weren't marked by the universe for the trait, but influenced to be. What consequences would that have?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
It discusses how much the environment in the womb can affect the baby's development and his future risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. It was already known that things like cigarette smoking and alcohol could have huge impacts on the fetus, but it seems like other things such as diet has an effect as well.
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: On a personal note, I would like to know where the presumably heterosexual cadavers were gotten from. If they were prison inmates, what could be happening is that they have larger than normal clusters of cells that lead to criminal behavior.
Larger than normal cluster of... whaaa? Phrenology was disproven over a hundred years ago. Are nuerons the clusters of cells you refer to?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, the human kidney grows most rapidly between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation, and if the fetus is malnourished during this critical window, the kidney's structure and function may be permanently altered.
That is what I'm talking about. Changed permenantly. I'm not talking about environmental matters like living conditions, parental attention, nutrition, all of which I'd consider to be nurture, but what I am talking about is the nature aspect of it. I beleive that homosexuality is either in the genes or is a manifestation of something during the gestational environment, neither of which a person has any control over (for themselves, anyway.) Kind of like having blue eyes. Or being blinded before birth due so prenatal stress.
Holding someone responsible for being born with damaged kidneys is irrational. Or telling them that it's okay to be born with damaged kidneys, as long as they don't alter what is considered to be "normal" behavior because of it. Like Mooselet. Remember that he had that surgery where they disconnected his uretha from his penis and had the urine coming out below his belly button? (Forgive me, Moose, if I got part of that wrong.) Anyway, what if he'd been born that way and there weren't the medical advances that we have now. Would you seriously tell him that, while it is okay to be born that way, he still needs to use the bathroom the way everyone else does, or not to use the bathroom at all. To alter his behavior would be a sin. That just seems wrong to me.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty close, Kayla. They never disconnected anything -- they just opened the bladder to leak out the hole, and there were valves (little flaps) mostly blocking the urine from going through the urethra, and with the hole opened up, there was rarely enough pressure built up to get past those valves.
But to push that analogy, the follow-up surgery was in fact designed so allow Mooselet to urinate just like other kids. So if a surgery were developed to prevent homosexuality, should it be the parents' choice for the child to have such an operation? Clearly, Mooselet's situation is not comparable, because his life was in imminent danger, but the question remains. It's probably been discussed in another thread, though. Like everything else.
Oh, and Mooselet might be gay. He's always wanting to kiss me. He kisses Mama, too, though, so maybe he's bisexual?
posted
I believe the evidence supports Kayla's conclusions, but I cannot say that that evidence is conclusive.
On a personal note I do not even believe that it would matter if we COULD come to a conclusive scientific position on homosexuality, except that if it were to go the way I believe it would go, protected class status would be sure to follow.
Also I think if you look at the big picture of human civilization you'll see other indicators suggesting a primarily genetic influence. It seems to me that homosexual populations are greatest in those societies that have a history of repressing sexual expression (for moral or whatever reasons) so far as to make all forms of it that are outside of marriage to be evil. In these cultures homosexuals have had to feign heterosexuality just to live decent lives (depending on your definition), and more often than not, with these societies, that would include procreation.
Whereas, in a culture that does not believe sex to be taboo, homosexuality, when it occurs, is more likely to be expressed, thereby lessening the probability that those genes would be carried on.
That is why I think homosexuality has been growing in numbers over the last few hundred years. And why it occurs much more often in societies that have a Victorian-esque background than most third world countries.
Of course THAT theory is completely untestable nowadays, but there you have it.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if a surgery were developed to prevent homosexuality, should it be the parents' choice for the child to have such an operation?
What if we backed-up another step? If it were determined that there were certain factors that could occur during pregnancy that may increase the likelihood of homosexuality in their child, factors that the mother could control, how many would?
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
The likelihood that homosexuality is due only to gestational factors during pregnancy is pretty low, though.
However if it were possible, I imagine everyone would avoid it and then in another seventy years or so all questions about how society should adapt to its presence would be moot.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it may come out that it's a variety of factors, including genetics, gestational environment and nurturing.
I believe I read in Discover years ago that they believed there were numerous genetic markers that could lead to obesity - slow/fast metabolism, ability to process fat, etc. Having a lot of the markers going the right (or wrong) way, would lead to obesity.
According to the article I linked to,
quote: Infants whose mothers were severely undernourished in the first two trimesters of pregnancy are more likely than other infants to be obese as adults.
It also seems that parents can set up certain dietary habits that can be carried through life that will also lead to obesity.
It seems like people keep looking for the magic bullet, the one thing that will explain it all, and I don't think it's going to happen.
Caleb, how would you feel about parents having surgery on their children to correct homosexuality? It seems like it would be a touchy legal matter. If your child was born a dwarf, but surgery could ensure that he would grow to an average height, most parents would do it. But what if the parents wanted surgery done that would ensure that their average child would grow up to be very tall (NBA career), should that be legal?
BTW, Caleb, I found your idea on why homosexuality may be increasing very interesting.
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is correct is that there is no magic bullet.
And when I said environmental factors, you will noticed I said both biological (including in that the gestational period) and psychological.
Caleb, what are the psychological implications your mother experienced by not having her parents sleep in the same room? What was the relationship of her mother to her children, and how did that affect how she raised you?
Now, this is only for the sake of argument. I'm not attaching any moral implication to any methods of raising you that may have resulted in tendancies or increased genetic ones that were already there. It is just like the obesity thing. Genetic markers, sure, but what were the parent's eating habits and how did they feed their children?
My point is that there is no behavior that is determined completely by genetics, or biological factors. On the same level, there is no behavior determined completely by nurture. I have a dear friend who grew up in a very unstable and non-religious household. She is in the tenth year of a good marriage, is very spiritual, and a responsible parent. She is the only sibling of three to be that way. The other two have followed the pattern of her mother.
The evidences of the twins vs non-twin siblings show there might be some gestational influence but note that it certainly does not set things in stone. Only 22% of those siblings who had homosexual brothers became homosexual themselves. Why did or didn't they? What is the difference?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whereas, in a culture that does not believe sex to be taboo, homosexuality, when it occurs, is more likely to be expressed, thereby lessening the probability that those genes would be carried on.
That is why I think homosexuality has been growing in numbers over the last few hundred years. And why it occurs much more often in societies that have a Victorian-esque background than most third world countries.
Are you saying that third-world countries are more open/less reppressive about homosexuality than American culture is?
At least when it comes to latino culture, I would not agree that this is true.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to lump societies that don't get all skittish about sex into one big group, and somehow my purile brain came up with "third world countries"... you're right that that's not accurate at all.
What I mean to suggest is that societies in which it has been historically impossible to be homosexually active without threat to house and home are more likely to have propogated the genetic trait (assuming, again, that it is genetic in the first place).
Which is to say, really, that I believe homosexuality would hardly even be anywhere if throughout the last thousand years or so it had been possible for them to be themselves. It's my ironic little theory that the more Christianity (and other religions) restricts the freedom of homosexuals, the more homosexuality's genes will continue to be passed on.
Amka -
quote:Caleb, what are the psychological implications your mother experienced by not having her parents sleep in the same room? What was the relationship of her mother to her children, and how did that affect how she raised you?
Amka, I think this question is sort of fair and sort of not fair. I mean, my parents slept together all the time. I don't consider the living conditions I had while growing up to be significantly different than those of any other kid of similar economic class. In fact, I'd say that my family is basically a microcosm of the American family experience, whereas we fit well into almost every statistic you could use to describe the average American family: right down to the 2.5 kids.
As far as my mother's childhood is concerned, I don't like trying to guess at what kind of psychological effect that might have had on her, if any. I'm not a liscensed psychologist, and frankly, I can't imagine that she would have been drastically effected by that fact. So to suggest that she was affected by my grandfather's lack of heterosexual intimacy (which is something a zillion children have experienced over the last few hundred years) so much so that psychological changes in her body could have had an ill effect on ME, whether gestationally or parentally (making up words now), INSTEAD of coming to the more obvious conclusion that my grandfather's sexuality and my own are related by virtue of our family tree... well I think it's quite a stretch.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep thinking that you might have received genes via your grandfather which made you more prone to be homosexual, but there were other factors that may have contributed
What those might have been - .
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, I don't think she was suggesting that your grandfather's lack of intimacy caused a physiological change in your mother. Rather, I believe she was suggesting that it might have had a psychological effect that could have been passed down the way family habits, traditions, and abuses are often passed down unconsciously through a family line.
I mean, sharing a trait with a near ancestor doesn't mean that the genes had to be involved. My great-grandfather was an aspiring filmmaker. His daughter idolized him and put on plays with her own children and church group, so my father grew up wanting to act and direct, even getting to know my mother in a production of Brigadoon. Drama was a big part of my upbringing, and surprise, surprise, I went to film school. Not because I was consciously imitating my great-grandfather, but because his behavior simply had repercussions throughout the generations that came after him. At no point did I assume that there must be a "film gene" floating around in the nuclei of my family's cells.
BUT there may well be a genetic predisposition to artistic, creative pursuits that was passed down along exactly the family line I described. Who knows. The point is that a shared trait across a family connection does not immediately imply that genetics are the primary factor connecting the two.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
True enough, Geoff, but considering the age at which I was aware of my sexual predisposition--exactly the same time that my body became aware of sexuality at all, during puberty--coupled with the fact that my grandfather's sexuality was not even questioned really until after his death... it's hard for me to imagine that Harold's lack of intimacy with Naomi established any kind of behavior patterns that would manifest themselves in me, especially knowing that those "patterns" were really nonexistent. Aside from that lack of intimacy (which, again, many children experience; from families in which sexuality is not openly apparent or expressed--Quakers for example--to single-parent families in which sexuality among parental figures is nonexistent), I'm not aware of any patterns or psychological byproducts that my mother's family went through.
We theorize that my grandfather was a closeted homosexual, but that theory is not followed by a list of family problems and behaviours that would indicate any kind of pattern. Not from where I'm sitting.
Plus, if that were the case, my brother and all of my cousins would be at risk of this same pattern, and as far as I'm aware I am the only one to have received this gift. It seems ten times more likely to me that homosexuality is a recessive kind of genetic trait that keeps popping back up because gays have never been allowed to accept themselves until recently.
Basically, I fully reject the idea that my own homosexuality is in any way related to the environment in which I was raised. I base this on my own experience, having seen nothing in my family that was particularly out of the ordinary. I would think that to diametrically change my gender attraction--the flip it so as to be the exact opposite as what I was born into--would take a catechlismic kind of event or pattern that I surely would have noticed.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Basically, I fully reject the idea that my own homosexuality is in any way related to the environment in which I was raise
Wow, that's a strong statement. But I guess you feel that way about weight and financial behavior and other personality related traits? I found it quite extraordinary that OCD had a 0 correlation. I guess my parents perfected a system for creating it in each of their children. I know there is ongoing research on OCD in families.
Also, the study was a fairly small sample. One hundred ten sets of twins isn't very many.
An interesting side note: In Japan, the reverse proportion of twins are identical/fraternal as compared with the United States. I think in the US 3 out of every 10 sets of twins is identical, and in Japan 3 out of every 10 sets of twins is fraternal.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you feel that your heterosexuality counts as a "personality related trait"?
I would say that the line seems blurry. Your question seems to imply that you don't think so, but if your reason is because you think it's genetically predisposed, then that's rather circular, isn't it?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The boundaries of what personality involves are not well defined. I wasn't trying to tick you off, Caleb. Though you should have seen what I almost posted...
Rather, I was amazed that they found OCD to have a zero correlation, when it is commonly treated with drugs. Edit: Indicating that it is biochemical :end Edit
As for sexuality being a personality trait, is any way that people eat a personality trait whether it results in the desired norm (thin) or obesity? I don't know. I do automatically challenge anyone who denies that people have a choice about how they act, no matter how hard the choices seem. From this you might assume that I believe homosexuality is a sin, but not a greater sin than many of my own.
posted
I admit that I thought your post was a little insulting.
When you said "wow, that's a strong statement" it sounded to me as if you looked at my honest and personal evaluation of my personality and said "I doubt it."
I mean, why "wow"? As if having a STRONG opinion about this subject for which I've spent thousands of hours in painstaking study and soul-searching was some kind of surprise. It's like you disagree with me so much about whether or not homosexuality is an environmentally-created trait that you simply couldn't accept my version of my own story, and instead of calling me a liar you had to show your disbelief by pointing out how surprised you are that I can say that with any surety.
And the next sentence didn't really make me smile, either.
But then I'm so used to being attacked about this issue that I may have seen something that wasn't actually there.
Maybe you said "Wow" because you honestly had never heard the phrase "I was born this way" before. Maybe the only gay people you've ever met are ones that answer this question by saying "I think I feel this way because of the way my parents raised me", or perhaps simply "I don't know."
Or maybe you said "wow" and it didn't really mean anything. You said you weren't trying to tick me off so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say I must have been misinterpreting. Sorry.
quote:I do automatically challenge anyone who denies that people have a choice about how they act, no matter how hard the choices seem.
I don't know anybody who would disagree with that. Keep in mind, though, that this discussion is about homosexuality--the condition--and not about homosexual sex. For my own part I came to all of my positions on homosexuality long before I ever actively expressed it.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the "Wow" pertained to your view of the role of upbringing in determining behavior. I guess I'll just leave it at that before I say more stuff that makes you mad.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, I made a point of saying that I reject the idea that MY homosexuality was due to any environmental factors. I did not wish to speak for everyone. That is why your "wow" seemed personally offensive to me.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to bump this, but on the further subject of whether OCD could be genetic ... Now I know this doesn't mean all OCD is genetic. There is ample evidence that the low seratonin complex of disorders can be aggravated by poor diet, lack of exercise etc. What I am saying is that that the comparison of heritability twin data is suspect.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I don't understand what you're saying.
They believe to have found a gene mutation that results in OCD. How does it follow these findings that the twin data is suspect? How does one contradict the other?
Caleb, who hopes he isn't missing something obvious.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think homosexuality is a combination of genetics, prenatal hormones and enviromental.
A few years ago a study came out that had shown homosexuality may be linked to an excess of testosterone in the womb (for a male child) or andgestrone (I think that's what it is, for a female child).
My father is a closet homosexual, so is his youngest brother. I am bisexual. I don't think any of my cousins are lesbians. But then again---i do have a girl cousin a few months old, and two brothers that are prepubescent. Who knows what they will come out to be.
As for the "once a homosexual, always a homosexual" I really don't buy that crap. I understand the gay rights movement's reasoning behind it (to keep people from trying to "convert" them). Adolescents and teenagers experiment with homosexuality sometimes (I knew and know plenty right now), its how they learn about themselves sexually. Not all of them do it but some of them do---it's just a part of the learning process---some of them are gay, some not.
As for a predominance of homosexuality in the modern era---that's also bull. Homosexuality has always been around. It was just kept under wraps, ignored in the history books, swept under the rug---just like abortion. I know that many churches like to say these two things are phenomenons of the modern era signalling the end times, but they are full of it. They've been around since before time.
As for it being sin---no. It's not a sin. I don't believe in God in the christian sense, but why would Deity make someone that way and call it evil. Nothing about the love between two people is evil (unless, of course, people are getting hurt because of that love). No one is getting hurt or damaged because they happen to love another of the same sex.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
