ToTheCenter

Navigation

· Home
· Discussion Forum
· News Categories
· Staff Page
· Search
· RSS Feeds
· Ultimate Stat Page
· Links
· Contact
· Voice Your Opinion

News Feeds

Welcome

Homosexuality Should Be Considered Biological

Advert

Many different scientific researchers are getting closer and closer every day to proving that homosexuality is biological. I, for one, am completely convinced that the facts will eventually be undeniable and I can't WAIT to hear what silly arguments the anti-gay folk of the world will come up with next after they can no longer refuse the overwhelming amount of evidence that proves them wrong.

Let's remember that the religious right also once was adamant about the fact that black people were subhuman and it was okay to treat them like animals. Of course, it didn't take much for science to prove that, in fact, black people are just as mentally capable as any other color of people. This is going to be a lot like that. Unfortunately, just as there are many people who insist on being racist anyway, these same people will cling to their intolerance of gays as well.

We already have observed that the brain structure of homosexual men DOES differ from the brain of heterosexual men. Particularly in the hypothalamus (which is a part of the brain we already know influences sex drive).

To quote LeVay's study comparing the hypothalami of deceased homosexual and heterosexuals:

"Gay and straight men may differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that regulate sexual behavior. . . . It is very likely that there are fewer neurons in INAH 3 of gay men than in straight men. To put an absurdly facile spin on it, gay men simply don’t have the brain cells to be attracted to women."

But hey, that's just science.

We've also observed that homosexuals tend more often than not to be born into larger families, to families where there are other homosexuals (on the mother's side), and where the mother is more promiscuous and/or has sex more frequently than many women who do not produce homosexual children. This offers a very logical, Darwinian explanation for how the "gay gene," which seems reproductively useless, would persist throughout history: Although in men this gene carries the small possibility of making a homosexual male, in women the gene carries a greater possibility that the woman will reproduce more frequently. So the benefits outweigh the costs, because it still aids reproduction in the end, even if a small percentage of the babies end up being gay and unable to reproduce themselves.

Psychology Today magazine had a great article about that one.

For more supporting evidence, there are also numerous twin studies of homosexuals which have found the likelihood of both twins being gay to be as much as 100 percent to as little as 66 percent (by the way, that is HUGE), suggesting that homosexuality almost definitely must have some sort of genetic component. Just as lnd2008 said, it could be compared loosely to the genetics of hair color. Just as most twins will be born with the same color of hair, most twins will be born with the same sexual orientation as well.

Of course statistical studies don't "prove" anything so, for now I guess the religious right can keep pretending that the truth isn't going to catch up to them and contradict their beliefs.

Comments

Page 1 of 2: 12

#1 | seaman93555 on November 15 2008 11:24:04

Thanks for the great article - I have heard and read about these studies for sometime, yet I am most familiar with Kinsey's work, yet the latest scientific evidence seems to support Kinsey on this one!

Guess I will check-out the latest copy of Psychology Today for more information.

#2 | ethwc on November 15 2008 13:18:17

Interesting material.

However, whether genetic, consciously chosen, accidently arrived at, or other, homosexuals and lesbians are entitled to ALL of the rights and privileges of citizens of the US. This includes entering into contracts. I could care less how they arrive at their sexual preference, however, if our government is allowed to discriminate against them, it will also be allowed to discriminate against other segments of society. This must not be tolerated.

#3 | rwahrens on November 15 2008 14:46:12

...if our government is allowed to discriminate against them, it will also be allowed to discriminate against other segments of society.

Absolutely, because to continue to tolerate it is to continue to tolerate the deliberate violation of the Constitution. These kinds of situations are exactly why it was designed why it was, and why the courts were designed the way they were.

#4 | seaman93555 on November 15 2008 22:53:48

I have been aware of the correlation between identical twins, which was not mentioned - the correlation between fraternal twins is far more obscure. I had a twin sister and she was straight, yet understood my feelilngs and accepted me for who I was. (I lost her in 1982 in an auto accident) I have known a number of fraternal twins, where one was gay and one was straight.

Still of interest is the high correlation between identical twins and their sexual orientation. I do not believe it to be a choice, I never had a choice in being gay - it was who I was and I accepted it, after much soul searching and rejection of religious bigots (Mormon) telling me otherwise.

#5 | MplsVala on November 16 2008 11:50:48

Many different scientific researchers are getting closer and closer every day to proving that homosexuality is biological.

No, it has been a stone, cold scientific fact for quite some time. We are just having a lot of trouble getting religious types to accept it. As soon as we reached the point where we could calculate homosexuality rates by species, it was a lock. But that wasn't enough for the crazy religious folks, so we had to use convergent methods. And we still have mental giants like Palin talking about her best gay friend's "choice" and how well she is able to tolerate 'em.

The reason this is so difficult is that there are multiple causes of homosexuality in humans. And humans are really complicated critters.

where the mother is more promiscuous

This is complete bs. It is true that the odds of being gay go up for each older brother a child has, but this is linked to the depleation of the mom's hormones. Some women don't have enough for even one son, some moms have eight boys and still would have enough for more. Just depends on the biology. But this decline in hormone production occurs no matter how many sexual partners they have or how frequently they meet with them.

Just as most twins will be born with the same color of hair, most twins will be born with the same sexual orientation as well.

This argument is topsy turvey too. This was a big problem. Trying to explain why identical twins don't share sexual orientation 100% of the time if it is genetic was a tough one. It eventually boiled down to womb differences, in the ones we can explain. In cases where mom doesn't have enough hormones for both, the one closest to the arrival point gets enough to develop "normally" while the other ends up gay.

The religious right isn't swayed by science. They ignore it. (And surpress it whenever they can.)

how they arrive at their sexual preference

And Ethwc is entirely right here. In the case of humans, it is really none of our business how people handle their sexuality as long as it doesn't involve children.

#6 | rwahrens on November 16 2008 12:36:34

The next time you hear a Fundie talk about "choice", ask them what age they were when they made theirs. Ask them which adult in their life took them out and convinced them to be straight, or what class in school taught them straight sexual orientation.

It IS a biologically determined characteristic, and I don't need science to know that, not does any thinking, aware human being.

If it was a choice, don't you think humans would have figured that out millennia ago? Every culture would have different ways of teaching the "proper" orientation to their children, and there would undoubtedly be at least one culture with structured homosexuality, probably for some obscure religious cult or something.

IT IS NOT A CHOICE!

#7 | ethwc on November 16 2008 18:12:37

As one of the giants of analyzing ethics and "the good", it is interesting to note that Socrates was probably homosexual, or at least bisexual.

#8 | ethwc on November 16 2008 21:24:09

Please delete the words "at least" above. In retrospect, they seem to indicate some aspersion in regard to Socrates' life style. that was not my intent.

#9 | Oldfart on November 17 2008 19:51:40

Not only religious types are screwed up on this issue. I was just talking to a young man the other day who voted for Obama and is not a religious zealot of any kind but who believes that homosexuality is a matter of choice and that homosexual behavior is debased. I pointed out to him that animals of all kinds have all kinds of sexuality but he said, "We are not animals." I begged to differ with him but there is only so much one can do in the workplace. So I laid off him and didn't press the issue.

#10 | rwahrens on November 17 2008 21:53:24

His parents may have been, one never knows what may be in a person's background, or what nonsense they may have been exposed to...