Are gay people born that way or is it a choice?

[ptsdkid]

That was possibly the most unintentionally hilarious post I've read on this forum all week. Good job.

**This may make you smile as well; that post was totally intentional, especially where it proves my case that people are not born gay.

 

[TimmyBoy]

That is the biggest load of BS I have ever read. Prisons are full of creatures who, by their actions, have removed themselves from society and proven they have little or no value until their rehabilitation is complete. By placing such social predators into one contained environment, you get a whole new social order based on the barbarism that got them into prison to start with. Prisons in no way reflect society.

Calling prison "rehabilitation" is stretching it pretty far to say the least. It is human nature to survive. People in mainstream society who are outside prison will do what is necessary to survive. The people in prison will also do the same. A good example is prison gangs. The La Nuestra Familia (I believe this translates to "The Grand Family"), for example, was established to protect younger rural Hispanic inmates from other prisoners. In the microsm of the politics between governments, self defense was soon redefine as control of resources, in the case of prison, control over contraband like drugs. This gang, like many other gangs (and governments), eventually evolved into corrupt criminal syndicates. These gangs also seek to instill ethnic solidarity or pride within a particular ethnic group (hmm, sort of like nations of people). If you are a member of a gang and betray that gang or just simply refused to do what you are told to do, you could be executed. I think I also touched on how men, when their is no women, will create a class of women out of other men who do not exhibit good survival traits. In order to do well in society or to stay alive in prison, one must have the mentality of the survivor, the will to survive, be confident and to win. Human nature, for what it really is, is displayed openly in prison as well and it doesn't look so pretty sometimes; in mainstream society, human nature for what it really is, is hidden quite often. Just like any other animal in the animal kingdom, humans will kill each other or other animals in order to survive or to increase their survival potential.

 

[teacher]

This is a repost of my standard generic answer to this question...


If you think being gay is a choice that would logically imply that anyone can choose to be gay thus pointing out that you (insert generic homophobic cons here) have the ability to choose to be gay. That means you could get a woody for another guy if you so choose. This then makes perfect sense that you would conclude that gayitude is a choice. You have for whatever reason(s) decided not to preform the act of gayity.
The reason(s) may be religious, shame, compliance to the majority because of the need to fit in or gain status, you get to be the strong one, you feel having the god given right to control the remote because women use them improperly is more important than your attraction to hairy knuckles and the ensuing spat you and Billo would have ("Little House on the Prairie", "no it's my turn and I want queer eye for the poor bastard they picked"), she will cook and clean while you lay around and file your nails, you enjoy the knowledge that a woman can never understand football as well as you pretend to, a good excuse to have doilies, you like wearing her underwear, but the inability to produce at stiffie is not one of them.
Now we come to the only point that some will try to dispute in an vain effort to not be labled gay. The definition of gay. Is it:

Gay:The participating of sex with your automechanic Al.
or
Gay:The ability to become sexually aroused again by (name here redacted). Who is but not necessarily able to reciprocate.

The logic;

Can or do? I don't see the difference. Here's why? In my life never has there been a stirring of the beast at the site or thought of another man. Men are people I could (words mean things here) sit around a campfire drinking PBR arguing who the most dominate basketball player of all time is, Wilt or Mike, and never have the thought of "I want balls on my chin" cross your mind. (With the exception of jokes, mockery, the realization that eating a banana will never be the same, and conversations such as this). The FACT that I can't and never will feel "dandy" negates the view that gayness IS a choice. You are gay or you are not. You can (involuntarily have the spongy tissues of your [(insert your penis's name here), or can't, (remains an device for writing your name in the snow.)]

That was the logic portion. I challenge all to find fault in that. You can't so the matter is decided for ever and ever, Amen.

The smack;

So, if you are one who states that being gay is a choice, you, my Brad Pitt ogling while your wife does the same friend, have what we call, homosexual tendencies. You like hairy chests and Barry Manilo. Plaids and stripes gets you all in a tizzy. George Cloony makes you short of breath. You enjoy decorating for Christmas and window shopping. You wear an apron loudly justifying that you don't want to stain your Dockers. You buy flowers for your wife because you like how pretty they look. When no ones looking you switch from boxing to figure skating. You're a fag.


You see pstkid? You're gay.

 

[The Real McCoy]

What if homosexuality actually was determined by genetics and they managed to locate the gene responsible for it and parents starting aborting gay fetuses. Would the liberals turn pro-life?

 

[ptsdkid]

If you think being gay is a choice that would logically imply that anyone can choose to be gay thus pointing out that you (insert generic homophobic cons here) have the ability to choose to be gay. That means you could get a woody for another guy if you so choose. This then makes perfect sense that you would conclude that gayitude is a choice. You have for whatever reason(s) decided not to preform the act of gayity.
The reason(s) may be religious, shame, compliance to the majority because of the need to fit in or gain status, you get to be the strong one, you feel having the god given right to control the remote because women use them improperly is more important than your attraction to hairy knuckles and the ensuing spat you and Billo would have ("Little House on the Prairie", "no it's my turn and I want queer eye for the poor bastard they picked"), she will cook and clean while you lay around and file your nails, you enjoy the knowledge that a woman can never understand football as well as you pretend to, a good excuse to have doilies, you like wearing her underwear, but the inability to produce at stiffie is not one of them.
Now we come to the only point that some will try to dispute in an vain effort to not be labled gay. The definition of gay. Is it:

Gay:The participating of sex with your automechanic Al.
or
Gay:The ability to become sexually aroused again by (name here redacted). Who is but not necessarily able to reciprocate.

The logic;

Can or do? I don't see the difference. Here's why? In my life never has there been a stirring of the beast at the site or thought of another man. Men are people I could (words mean things here) sit around a campfire drinking PBR arguing who the most dominate basketball player of all time is, Wilt or Mike, and never have the thought of "I want balls on my chin" cross your mind. (With the exception of jokes, mockery, the realization that eating a banana will never be the same, and conversations such as this). The FACT that I can't and never will feel "dandy" negates the view that gayness IS a choice. You are gay or you are not. You can (involuntarily have the spongy tissues of your [(insert your penis's name here), or can't, (remains an device for writing your name in the snow.)]

That was the logic portion. I challenge all to find fault in that. You can't so the matter is decided for ever and ever, Amen.

The smack;

So, if you are one who states that being gay is a choice, you, my Brad Pitt ogling while your wife does the same friend, have what we call, homosexual tendencies. You like hairy chests and Barry Manilo. Plaids and stripes gets you all in a tizzy. George Cloony makes you short of breath. You enjoy decorating for Christmas and window shopping. You wear an apron loudly justifying that you don't want to stain your Dockers. You buy flowers for your wife because you like how pretty they look. When no ones looking you switch from boxing to figure skating. You're a fag.


You see pstkid? You're gay.[/QUOTE]


****If you refer back to my message in the basement--I said that we're going to have to tweak this 'choice' option that you're so hell bent on sticking with in making your case.
I still have yet to see the scientific proof that a baby is born as a gay as a result of having some sort of gay gene. If you find this proof, please present it here.
Until you find proof, I'll just have to rely on my common sense approach by referring back to the examples I gave earlier on this forum. One's environment, or one's traumatic childhood, or one's growth patterns as determined by parents etc will and do have an overriding and unescapable influence on that child's sexual orientation.
When a mother raises a young aggressive female as if she was a male, or had hoped that she would be male, by cutting her hair into a crewcut style, putting pants on her instead of skirts, letting her play with the boys instead of the girls, let her join the wrestling team instead of the cheerleading squad, then chances are great that she'll turn from just being a tomboy into a lezbo licker as she matures. You see, there is no choice here for the well-conditioned, environmentally conditioned or coerced female in that she will go out in public by assumming the butch or aggressive role in finding another female sexual partner.
Lets broach the trauma scenario...shall we? Lets say a heterosexual female gets brutally raped by a knife yielding man. As a bonus to help make my point that a traumatic environment can and does also enter the equation--we'll say that this rape victim was a married woman. With me so far? Case after case of married rape victims suffer acute PTSD, and even prolonged chronic PTSD, but the emotional scar is too difficult to handle with keeping and maintaining relations with their husbands--so almost invariably the woman breaks the marriage and eventually turns to another female for comfort and easy non-threatening sex. Her husband (no fault of his own) simply reminds the woman of the male attacker, and thus chances for a close relationship is all but impossible.
You see Teacher, God made man and woman in his image, and that image was to be born with the normal instinctive senses of a man, and of a woman. Since Adam screwed up in the Garden of Sin--those that turn to homosexuality--turn to sin, but they didn't originally choose to sin--their environment made them do it. Was it your environment that turned you into a bone puffer? Inquiring mindz want to know!

KidTim

 

[Duke]

It is not a matter of opinion, whether a person thinks that gay people are born gay; scientific tests have shown that homosexuality is a trait that humans are born with. Anyone who thinks that it is a choice clearly does not know what she/he is talking about.


Duke

 

[George_Washington]

This is a repost of my standard generic answer to this question...


If you think being gay is a choice that would logically imply that anyone can choose to be gay thus pointing out that you (insert generic homophobic cons here) have the ability to choose to be gay. That means you could get a woody for another guy if you so choose. This then makes perfect sense that you would conclude that gayitude is a choice. You have for whatever reason(s) decided not to preform the act of gayity.
The reason(s) may be religious, shame, compliance to the majority because of the need to fit in or gain status, you get to be the strong one, you feel having the god given right to control the remote because women use them improperly is more important than your attraction to hairy knuckles and the ensuing spat you and Billo would have ("Little House on the Prairie", "no it's my turn and I want queer eye for the poor bastard they picked"), she will cook and clean while you lay around and file your nails, you enjoy the knowledge that a woman can never understand football as well as you pretend to, a good excuse to have doilies, you like wearing her underwear, but the inability to produce at stiffie is not one of them.
Now we come to the only point that some will try to dispute in an vain effort to not be labled gay. The definition of gay. Is it:

Gay:The participating of sex with your automechanic Al.
or
Gay:The ability to become sexually aroused again by (name here redacted). Who is but not necessarily able to reciprocate.

The logic;

Can or do? I don't see the difference. Here's why? In my life never has there been a stirring of the beast at the site or thought of another man. Men are people I could (words mean things here) sit around a campfire drinking PBR arguing who the most dominate basketball player of all time is, Wilt or Mike, and never have the thought of "I want balls on my chin" cross your mind. (With the exception of jokes, mockery, the realization that eating a banana will never be the same, and conversations such as this). The FACT that I can't and never will feel "dandy" negates the view that gayness IS a choice. You are gay or you are not. You can (involuntarily have the spongy tissues of your [(insert your penis's name here), or can't, (remains an device for writing your name in the snow.)]

That was the logic portion. I challenge all to find fault in that. You can't so the matter is decided for ever and ever, Amen.

The smack;

So, if you are one who states that being gay is a choice, you, my Brad Pitt ogling while your wife does the same friend, have what we call, homosexual tendencies. You like hairy chests and Barry Manilo. Plaids and stripes gets you all in a tizzy. George Cloony makes you short of breath. You enjoy decorating for Christmas and window shopping. You wear an apron loudly justifying that you don't want to stain your Dockers. You buy flowers for your wife because you like how pretty they look. When no ones looking you switch from boxing to figure skating. You're a fag.


You see pstkid? You're gay.

Umm.....Yes, Teacher....thank you for that, er, "interesting" post. I'm sure it will be listed in every public school as required reading...

 

[Conflict]

It is not a matter of opinion, whether a person thinks that gay people are born gay; scientific tests have shown that homosexuality is a trait that humans are born with. Anyone who thinks that it is a choice clearly does not know what she/he is talking about.


Duke

I have no side on this issue as I am not gay or have nothing against gay people..

BUT....

Are you implying that homosexuality is purely an issue of genetics? I would love to see some type of scientific or comparable data that suggest such, before you proclaim that anyone whom may disagree is completely oblivious.

Thanks.

 

[vergiss]

I suspect being gay is like being left-handed. There's evidence of a genetic element, and certainly no one consciously chooses which hand they're going to write with or which gender they're attracted to, however the exact cause of both is still not totally certain.

 

[Conflict]

Calling prison "rehabilitation" is stretching it pretty far to say the least. It is human nature to survive. People in mainstream society who are outside prison will do what is necessary to survive. The people in prison will also do the same. A good example is prison gangs. The La Nuestra Familia (I believe this translates to "The Grand Family"), for example, was established to protect younger rural Hispanic inmates from other prisoners. In the microsm of the politics between governments, self defense was soon redefine as control of resources, in the case of prison, control over contraband like drugs. This gang, like many other gangs (and governments), eventually evolved into corrupt criminal syndicates. These gangs also seek to instill ethnic solidarity or pride within a particular ethnic group (hmm, sort of like nations of people). If you are a member of a gang and betray that gang or just simply refused to do what you are told to do, you could be executed. I think I also touched on how men, when their is no women, will create a class of women out of other men who do not exhibit good survival traits. In order to do well in society or to stay alive in prison, one must have the mentality of the survivor, the will to survive, be confident and to win. Human nature, for what it really is, is displayed openly in prison as well and it doesn't look so pretty sometimes; in mainstream society, human nature for what it really is, is hidden quite often. Just like any other animal in the animal kingdom, humans will kill each other or other animals in order to survive or to increase their survival potential.

By no means does this line of ideology reflect what a democratic republic should be, as our fathers taught us. Think about it.

Humans do not exist nor perish by the idea of power and force. There are many creatures on this plant which are much more powerful than we. We exist mostly by the virtue of cogniton (thought) and understanding (intellect). It is by our mind that we are dominant in terms of survival.... which is in significant contrast to the raw instinct within the animal kingdom.

 

[Conflict]

I suspect being gay is like being left-handed. There's evidence of a genetic element, and certainly no one consciously chooses which hand they're going to write with or which gender they're attracted to, however the exact cause of both is still not totally certain.

Now that is a much more reasonable approach.. but on the same hand...

Any human can be learned to use either hand... it is a practical matter....

 

[Duke]

I have no side on this issue as I am not gay or have nothing against gay people..

BUT....

Are you implying that homosexuality is purely an issue of genetics? I would love to see some type of scientific or comparable data that suggest such, before you proclaim that anyone whom may disagree is completely oblivious.

Thanks.

Sure!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality


Duke

 

[Kelzie]

Here is my much quoted post (by myself of course )

I'm not sure how many people are familiar with the controlled male twin study by Bailey and Pillard in 1991? Anyone? Anyway you can read the whole thing here but I'll also summarize it, since it is rather lengthy.

1. monozygotic twins (identical twins) have a 52% concordance of homosexuality

2. dizygotic twin (fraternal twins, which is basically the same thing as siblings) have a 22% concordance of homosexuality

3. adoptive brothers have a 11% concordance of homosexuality

Since I am such a nice girl, I will also anaylize, although I'm sure everyone can do it for themselves. I you share the same genetic makeup as someone and the same upbring, there is a 50-50 chance you will be a homosexual if they are. This is anywhere from 8 to 15 times the average population's 3-6% (although by all accounts it is a conservative estimate since many homosexual are afraid to admit it).

Moving on. If your sibling that was raised with you(since dizygotic twins share the same amount of genes as siblings) is a homosexual, your chances are 4 to 7 times that of the general population.

And if your adopted brother (no genetics, just same family) is gay, than the chances are a little less than twice to a little less than 4 time that of the average person.

15 times for identicals to less than 2 times for adopted in the same family smacks of a little more than personal choices and upbringing don't ya think?

Pretty undeniable that homosexuality is greatly influenced by genetics.

 

[teacher]

I still have yet to see the scientific proof that a baby is born as a gay as a result of having some sort of gay gene. If you find this proof, please present it here.

Never claimed proof sport. Just using logic. I can't choose to be gay. No sexual arousal for men can happen here. So if I can't choose to be gay, it stands to reason that someone who can get excited for the same sex has not made a consious chioce, it's hardwired. The fact that you feel it can be a consious choice tells me you can make that choice if you wanted. Just because you choose not to does not make you straight. Face it bro, you are bi.

Until you find proof, I'll just have to rely on my common sense approach by referring back to the examples I gave earlier on this forum.

You nor I have proof. Because I don't have proof does not bolster your point of view that has the same lack of proof.

One's environment, or one's traumatic childhood, or one's growth patterns as determined by parents etc will and do have an overriding and unescapable influence on that child's sexual orientation.
When a mother raises a young aggressive female as if she was a male, or had hoped that she would be male, by cutting her hair into a crewcut style, putting pants on her instead of skirts, letting her play with the boys instead of the girls, let her join the wrestling team instead of the cheerleading squad, then chances are great that she'll turn from just being a tomboy into a lezbo licker as she matures. You see, there is no choice here for the well-conditioned, environmentally conditioned or coerced female in that she will go out in public by assumming the butch or aggressive role in finding another female sexual partner.
Lets broach the trauma scenario...shall we? Lets say a heterosexual female gets brutally raped by a knife yielding man. As a bonus to help make my point that a traumatic environment can and does also enter the equation--we'll say that this rape victim was a married woman. With me so far? Case after case of married rape victims suffer acute PTSD, and even prolonged chronic PTSD, but the emotional scar is too difficult to handle with keeping and maintaining relations with their husbands--so almost invariably the woman breaks the marriage and eventually turns to another female for comfort and easy non-threatening sex. Her husband (no fault of his own) simply reminds the woman of the male attacker, and thus chances for a close relationship is all but impossible.

I see what you mean. But if I were raised in your family as soon as I escaped I would still look at a hot girl and Giddyup.

You see Teacher, God made man and woman in his image, and that image was to be born with the normal instinctive senses of a man, and of a woman. Since Adam screwed up in the Garden of Sin--those that turn to homosexuality--turn to sin, but they didn't originally choose to sin--their environment made them do it.

Religion is your proof? You talk about scientific proof at the begining of your post and in the same breath go to faith and the Bible? You're very poor at this debating thing. Your own words trip you up. I'm Christian. But at least I'm not so brainwashed as to be unable to see the glaring words of man in the Bible. What does Jesus say about being gay? Don't talk religion to me, I'll cave your skull in on that topic. Your latent bisexuality scares and shames you into taking the posistion that it must be a choice because otherwise you would have to fess up to your natural ability to grow wood for another man. Saying choice is your way of rationalizing the demons within you.

Was it your environment that turned you into a bone puffer? Inquiring mindz want to know!

I give a nice little rant about me not being gay and you turn around and say I'm gay. Not only is your argument weak but your insults suck and lack wit. Choosing not to have gay sex does not make you any less ABLE to. Dude, you're bi. Ask the gay men on this site. Conflict can tell you. They all say they did not choose to be gay. But that just fuc*ks your little world up, doesn't it?

 

[Vandeervecken]

I cannot even change what type of woman turns me on, what features do it etc, I most certainly could not choose to be attracted to other men. I see no reason why that would be any different for gays.

I do not think it relvent in a discussion of law and discrimination though.

 

[JOHNYJ]

It is complicated. I do believe that upbringing can have an effect on it.

 

[TimmyBoy]

By no means does this line of ideology reflect what a democratic republic should be, as our fathers taught us. Think about it.

Humans do not exist nor perish by the idea of power and force. There are many creatures on this plant which are much more powerful than we. We exist mostly by the virtue of cogniton (thought) and understanding (intellect). It is by our mind that we are dominant in terms of survival.... which is in significant contrast to the raw instinct within the animal kingdom.

Of course does this line of ideology should not reflect what a democracy should be, but it is the way American and many other societies are. It is also human nature. It was also this way under the extreme socialist governments like that of the Soviet Union. Survival potential also depends on the intellectual and emotional capabilities of the individual not just merely physical traits. Humans, whether we like to admit it or not, are animals with animal extincts who are programmed to do two things like most animals: survive and reproduce.

I also like to draw parrells with what attraction is and what causes attraction. Attraction is not a choice. Attraction isn't something that a male or female logically and intellectually reason themselves into. The female in human society, like the females in the animal kingdom will want to mate with the male who exhibits the greatest survival potential. This survival potential comes in many physical, emotional and intellectual characteristics. The female is much more choosier with who she will mate with because it is in her natural instinct to choose a mate that will produce offspring with a high survival potential, thus enhancing the survival of the species. A man who is confident, makes eye contact with a woman and refuses to look away is exhibiting traits of a survival potential. A man with makes alot of money, demonstrates survival potential, an emotionally stable man demonstrates survival potential, a smart man demonstrates survival potential. Taller people are more attractive to the opposite sex and this is a darwinist characterstic that enhances survival potential. Confidence. These are some of many characterstics that demonstrate survival potential and enhance attraction to the opposite sex. Like a guy who dresses really crazy and goes to a club demonstrates confidence and creates attraction in females towards him, because he is subtely saying, I am so confident that I can wear some funny or intriguing clothing and still be socially comptent. Confidence is a good sign of survival potential.

But because we as humans are hardwired to survive, sometimes we will do terrible things to each other in order to save our own asses as well. It also helps to explain attraction, power relations, what human politics is and how and why human societies interact in the way they do. It explains how governments first get started to assure mutual protection, enhancing survival potential and how they evolve into criminal syndicates to gain control of resources to also enhance survival potential much in the same way that a criminal gang gets started and evolves into a criminal syndicate which seeks to control resources in a local neighborhood or prison atmosphere.

 

[aps]

I cannot even change what type of woman turns me on, what features do it etc, I most certainly could not choose to be attracted to other men. I see no reason why that would be any different for gays.

I do not think it relvent in a discussion of law and discrimination though.

Ahh, Vandeervecken, that is exactly how people should look at being gay. Most heterosexuals do not think of their own sexuality in the sense of whether they prefer one sex over another. It is natural. An attractive member of the opposite sex walks into a room and there is a gut instinct of some attraction. It's the same for gay people with members of the same sex.

Environment can have an effect on your sexuality, but I believe that there is a difference between someone who is truly gay and someone who chooses to be gay. I have a friend who was raped and sodomized by a guy in college, she had a horrible relationship with her father, and then her husband cheated on her when they were married. She has since decided to be gay because she hates men. But her true instinct is to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. Man, I would hate to live a life where I was settling. Yuck.

Those who say that it is a choice are ignorant, and they clearly have never had a conversation with a gay person before regarding how that gay person feels about his/her sexuality and how they got to be gay. I don't know any true gay person who has said, "I made a choice to like the same sex."

 

[bandaidwoman]

Everyone is hung up on wether it is genetic or not. Homosexuality can have a biological basis without being genetic.

I have posted my data elswhere but here it is:

For example, congenital adrenal hyperplasia.. Up to 40-60% of these women have bisexual or homosexual tendencies, suggesting that the in utero (the hormonal environment during gestation ) can and may play a role in sexual orientation.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract

http://www.boskydell.com/political/outlooks.htm
http://health.ftmaustralia.org/library/96/1200.pdf

general lecture in reproductive medicine on
CAH http://home.epix.net/~tcannon1/Physioweek9.htm

These women are exposed to high levels of testosterone during their time in the uterus, many times it is corrected early and medications suppress the overactive adrenal glands.



Harking back to the twin studies: although not 100% accordance (except in one study) the percentages are impressive beyond the regular 2-5% of the general population.

AGE REPORTED CONCORDANCE
STUDY DATE RANGE MALE MZ TWINS MALE DZ TWINS SAMPLE SOURCE
Kallmann 1952 >20 37/37 (100%) 3*/26 (12%) Psychiatric, correctional and charitable agencies, plus direct contacts
Heston & Shields 1968 20-52 3/7 (43%) 1/7 (14%) Hospital Twin Register
Bailey & Pillard 1991 19-65 29/56 (52%) 12/54 (22%) Homophile publications
* Concordance rate varies from 3/26 (Kinsey scale 3-6) to 11/26 (Kinsey scale 1-6)
N.B. The data in this table represent only those cases where the sexual orientation of each subject is 'fairly certain', and is either predominantly homosexual or predominantly heterosexual.


MZ stands for monozygotic twins, and DZ dizygotic twins. (the former shares 100% of genetic material, the latter, 50%)




The lack of 100% accordance in genetically identical twins is true for many other biological phenomenoms ( cancer, diabetes etc.) because we now know epigenetic factors play a role (something not commonly known to non bioligists)


More on physical differences:

Inner Ear Difference In Lesbians
Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin found that the cochlea (a structure of the inner ear) in lesbians differs from the cochlea of heterosexual women. The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (March 1998).

The difference was detected using a test that measures a very slight sound that the cochlea makes when responding to a soft clicking sound. Results indicate that lesbians have click responses that are significantly weaker than those of heterosexual women, and are more similar to those of men. Generally, the cochlea in women is more sensitive than that of men.

Dennis McFadden, the lead author of the study, believes the cochlea of lesbians may be affected by hormone exposure before birth. It is presumed that an unknown site or sites in the brain that influence sexual orientation may be similarly affected.

While this study has yet to be replicated, it does suggest a biological component may be involved in the determination of sexual orientation.




Twin Studies
Studies of identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different homes have been performed and replicated. It has been found that in many cases of identical twins, that if one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. This lends credence to the theory that sexuality has a very strong genetic component, and is not purely determined by life experiences.







Sibling Studies
Psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Psychiatrist Richard Pillard of Boston University studied the sexual orientation of siblings raised together. They found that if one sibling is homosexual the chance of another sibling being homosexual is as follows:

52% for an Identical Twin
22% for a Fraternal Twin (non-identical twins)
10%(approx.) for adopted or non-genetic siblings
Again, this study suggests that sexual orientation has a genetic component.



Atypical Gender Behavior in Children as an Indicator of Sexual Orientation
Richard Greene of the University of California at Los Angeles reports that children who manifest aspects of gender-atypical play indicates a homosexual orientation 75% of the time. Richard Greene's observations suggest that sexual orientation is in place early in the life cycle.




Finger Print Studies
J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kumura at the University of Western Ontario at London ON Canada compared the number of ridges(finger prints) on the index finger and thumb of the left hand with corresponding digits on the right hand. They found that 30% of homosexuals had excess ridges on the left hand digits, while only 14% of heterosexuals showed the same characteristic.

Because fingerprints are fully developed in the fetus before the 17th week and do not change thereafter, this study may suggest a genetic link to sexual orientation that is determined before birth, perhaps at conception.

Although none are conclusive, these are the the latest in a growing scientific literature suggesting that sexual preferences may not be simply a matter of personal preference but part of our ingrained biology. The causes may be mutiple, ie: genetic, hormonal, epigenetic (I favor epigenetic and hormonal) and there may not be one single determinant, but the data continues to accrue that many homosexual behavior has a biological basis. Personally, the best data comes from the hormonal influences such as the congenital adrenal hyperplasia since large numbers and epidimeological data can be harvested. The twin studies, etc. all are still limited mainly by the size (, as in numbers,) of the study subjects.

Physicians and pediatricians are privey to this knowledge that not even family members realize.....most homosexuals know they are homosexuals long before puberty or around puberty but keep it hidden from society. My link also addresses a study by a psychologists that show how by analyzing toddlers at play, and their atypical behavior predicts homosexuality later in life. So in fact, this may be ingrained by the time they are toddlers. All my homosexual patients were raised in heterosexual family structures, many from bible thumping, southern households with very macho dads who have since disowned them. I see adults and teenager raised in homosexual households who are cleary heterosexual, so there is no correlation between "upbringing" . I keep careful demographic data on all 14,000 active patients due to clinical studies I have to do and such social parameters are kept track of in detail so I can corroborate what psychologists have been saying for a long time.
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM

http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/tou...mmer97/mueh.htm

 

[TimmyBoy]

By no means does this line of ideology reflect what a democratic republic should be, as our fathers taught us. Think about it.

Humans do not exist nor perish by the idea of power and force. There are many creatures on this plant which are much more powerful than we. We exist mostly by the virtue of cogniton (thought) and understanding (intellect). It is by our mind that we are dominant in terms of survival.... which is in significant contrast to the raw instinct within the animal kingdom.

I know that this is a bit off topic, but I just wanted to add one last note, just like in American capitalism, in prison, only the strong survive.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I know that this is a bit off topic, but I just wanted to add one last note, just like in American capitalism, in prison, only the strong survive.

Strength however is relative and subject to interpretation. Even the lowly rabbit can outrun any human. A fish is a simple creature with limited ability and potential, but it can breath in an environment that a human cannot. A sparrow is fragile and, compared to other creatures its lifespan is fleeting, but it can escape dangers that humans cannot. Nevertheless, humankind has used its superior intelligence to compensate so that it can traverse land, air, and water more efficiently and effectively in more kinds of enviroments than can any other creature. This is one thing that sets humans apart: humans have devised the means of living, working, and existing in environments beyond that which nature endowed it.

Not only has humankind been able to overcome its own environment and devise ways to live in it beyond what nature naturally endows, humankind has been able to correct many deficiencies that nature has produced. Mammals, other than humans, fish, and birds born with anomalies for their species cannot change them.

Humankind has learned to repair many of the anomalies nature has dealt it. A congenital hole in the heart or a cleft palate can be closed. Bad eyesight can sometimes be made 20 20. Overlarge breasts can be reduced. In some cases growth hormones can help a too small child achieve a more normal size. I have read that they may be close to coming up with a safe way to halt growth before a person becomes a seven-footer which can give them an edge in the NBA but otherwise is something of a handicap . Many premature babies that would at one time have been doomed to permanent defects or deficiencies if they lived at all now have a shot at a completely normal, healthy, life. And of course there are those people who for whatever reason do not wish to be the sex they were born to, and have the surgery to become another.

Now what if my biologist/psychologist friend is correct that homosexuality is an anomaly of nature? If it is, like any other anomaly of nature, I think most of us agree that it is just one of those things with no moral value placed on it one way or the other.

But what if humankind comes up with a way for homosexuality to in fact be a choice? How many gay people would choose to be straight if there was a safe effective method of accomplishing that? I have gay friends who are quite comfortable with their sexuality who say they absolutely would have accepted a 'cure' for their homosexuality. I have gay friends who say they honestly don't know. I don't know if any would say absolutely not.

Do you think it is morally wrong to change the way that you were created? Does that kind of discussion negatively affect acceptance of homosexuality in a sometimes homophobic society? Or would it be more wrong to discourage research that might lead to a way for people to actually choose their sexual preference?

I think the issue of whether gay people choose to be gay has been settled by most educated people. But I don't think the whole issue has yet been settled.

 

[TimmyBoy]

Strength however is relative and subject to interpretation. Even the lowly rabbit can outrun any human. A fish is a simple creature with limited ability and potential, but it can breath in an environment that a human cannot. A sparrow is fragile and, compared to other creatures its lifespan is fleeting, but it can escape dangers that humans cannot. Nevertheless, humankind has used its superior intelligence to compensate so that it can traverse land, air, and water more efficiently and effectively in more kinds of enviroments than can any other creature. This is one thing that sets humans apart: humans have devised the means of living, working, and existing in environments beyond that which nature endowed it.

Not only has humankind been able to overcome its own environment and devise ways to live in it beyond what nature naturally endows, humankind has been able to correct many deficiencies that nature has produced. Mammals, other than humans, fish, and birds born with anomalies for their species cannot change them.

Humankind has learned to repair many of the anomalies nature has dealt it. A congenital hole in the heart or a cleft palate can be closed. Bad eyesight can sometimes be made 20 20. Overlarge breasts can be reduced. In some cases growth hormones can help a too small child achieve a more normal size. I have read that they may be close to coming up with a safe way to halt growth before a person becomes a seven-footer which can give them an edge in the NBA but otherwise is something of a handicap . Many premature babies that would at one time have been doomed to permanent defects or deficiencies if they lived at all now have a shot at a completely normal, healthy, life. And of course there are those people who for whatever reason do not wish to be the sex they were born to, and have the surgery to become another.

Now what if my biologist/psychologist friend is correct that homosexuality is an anomaly of nature? If it is, like any other anomaly of nature, I think most of us agree that it is just one of those things with no moral value placed on it one way or the other.

But what if humankind comes up with a way for homosexuality to in fact be a choice? How many gay people would choose to be straight if there was a safe effective method of accomplishing that? I have gay friends who are quite comfortable with their sexuality who say they absolutely would have accepted a 'cure' for their homosexuality. I have gay friends who say they honestly don't know. I don't know if any would say absolutely not.

Do you think it is morally wrong to change the way that you were created? Does that kind of discussion negatively affect acceptance of homosexuality in a sometimes homophobic society? Or would it be more wrong to discourage research that might lead to a way for people to actually choose their sexual preference?

I think the issue of whether gay people choose to be gay has been settled by most educated people. But I don't think the whole issue has yet been settled.

I define Mother Nature as the universe. Man is inseperable from Mother Nature and Man is allowed and permitted to live at the good graces of Mother Nature. If, Mother Nature decided she no longer wanted Man around, she could quite easily destroy Man and bring Man to extinction. When I speak of strength, strength can be defined as how physically strong and how intelligent a particular species is. Man dominates and is strongest in the food chain due to his superior intellect. But Man is still an animal which is part of rather than seperate from, Mother Nature. When man does not respect Mother Nature's good graces or abuses Mother Nature, she will rebel and bring storms or earthquakes or global warming which in turn could threaten the survival of Man. Or, Mother Nature could arbitrarily send a meteor from space that is huge that could bring Man to extinction. She only allows the strongest members of a species to mate and survive and to live well, because the strongest, enhances the survival of the species and assures that the species may continue. Man, like most animals, is hardwired to survive and reproduce in the environment that Mother Nature provides to him. Man, is able to survive better because he was granted superior intelligence, thus that makes Man, strongest of the species on Earth.

As far as moral issues surrounding gay people, it is something I haven't given much thought to. I personally find the gay sexual orientation as rather disgusting, however I do have a gay friend and he is like anybody else who should be endowed with the same rights as anybody and not be discriminated against.

 

[Navy Pride]

The fact is no one knows for sure whether gays are born that way or not.......

 

[Vandeervecken]

The fact is no one knows for sure whether gays are born that way or not.......

It shouldn't matter anyway. Every group should have the same rights under our law.

 

[aps]

The fact is no one knows for sure whether gays are born that way or not.......

Were you born heterosexual? There's your answer about homosexuality.