Article on biological influences for homosexuality

[Riley259]

The Boston Globe magazine had an article this Sunday on biological factors that may influence whether a person becomes homosexual. The article is clearly biased in favor of a biological explanation but if you read it carefully alot of the conclusions are tentative and speculative. In addition, inbedded in the articles are a few lines that sheepishly admit that most of the major research in this area (LeVay, Hamer and twin studies) was not replicable and seriously flawed (ex., small sample size, inconclusive, etc.). The author also points out a damning conclusion based on the concept of evolution: why hasn’t a gay gene (if it exists) been long wiped out due to the fact that an evolutionary mandate to heterosexually reproduce is in place. The obvious conclusion: homosexuality is largely determined by environmental, social and psycho-sexual factors and this is why it continues to show up in 2% of the population. The author’s response to this glaring reality was to pull some real speculative assertions out of his hat such as a virus operating in the womb that may trigger the same-sex attraction. Other speculations include faulty wiring of a gene copy. Gender nonconformity is mentioned early in the article and there’s no doubt that this is a factor in same-sex attraction but reliable sources (Neil Whitehead) suggest it only occurs in about 5% of cases and it’s just a predisposition to homosexuality not a foregone cause. Many of these individuals can reverse their attraction if worked with early enough in life and even as adults (although less successfully). The work of Nicolosi and Fitzgibbons is still the most valuable work on the subject but of course neither of these individuals are mentioned for one simple reason: lack of political correctness.

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

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I would say that, in some cases, certain genetics factors can make a person more susceptible to being homosexually attraced but they don’t determine it. For example, a boy who is frail or not quite…boyish, may not receive the affirmation and love needed by his father in order to make that identification and grow into his masculine identity. The less “boyish” traits follow the child over into the school yard where the masculine identity is solidified. Children are infamously cruel. Few things are worse to a developing boy than to not only be rejected by his peers but taunted and ridiculed as well.

I agree that predominantly, the causes of male homosexuality are not genetic but are environmental.

 

[lovethetruth]

The way it works is Nicolosi’s work never get a chance to be voiced. In fact in many ways it is forcefully silenced. And all this gets all kinds of exposure. It’s like brainwashing. Because slowly slowly they are trying to put little bits of information even if it is never proven, to the public to get them to turn their minds toward the very possibility of homosexuality being genetic. Which it is not. Yes, I read in Dr. Nicolosi’s book, A Parents Guide to Preventing Homosexuality www.narth.com that some factors in the boy’s personality kind of help along the process of gender identity disorder at a very young age. Such as being a sensitive person by nature. There are some boys and some girls who are just by nature, by their personality more sensitive than others. And yes it has shown how it can be a factor to seriously consider at. It is not a bad thing to be sensitive but when the male role model of dad or some adult the child trusts and bonds with and the physical touch and physical roughness that come natural to the boy are not in place there can be this, and lots of other things. Actually one example in the book was of a boy who was not very much into physical roughplay but Dr. Nicolosi worked with him not to force him to be something he could not be but to help him enter the male world. By having all boys at his birthday party. By having time with dad only and helping dad to be more responsive to the son in ways the son needed him. There needed to be built a trust between the two for any of this to happen. And yes peers are a very big deal too. Very very big deal. I have no problems saying that if the boy is having a hard time with the peers I’d move him to another school to give him another chance. Kids can be cruel. But you know a lot of parents don’t know this. And boys father sometimes just isn’t there or isn’t a father. Doesn’t know how to be a father at times.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I don’t think that there are clear answers yet on the biological issues.

By gay-gene, perhaps people are referring to a simple model, where by, let’s say, a genetic defect produces SSA, without which it doesn’t. Let’s admit, that would have tremendous implications for treatment, if such a simple model was operative.

But, such a model would also have to explain SSA in both genders. The model becomes more complicated.

No one should give up on the behavior models of SSA, but it’s not time to rule out the biological models, yet. I think much more research has to be done, more has to be done in studying DNA, and more knowledge is needed in cell physiology.

A lot of ideas in physical sciences have been overturned in the last 50 years. No one can conclude that there’s nothing more to learn in the realm of genetics. The genetic code has been known for only a few years, and there’s still and always will be a lot of basic research to be done, and it is slow, if it is worth anything at all.

This is not to disparage the behavior models, but it’s not time to give up on the biological model, no matter what one’s agenda.

Perhaps the behavior model would get a big boost, if a human being (heterosexual) were cloned, and the clone turned out to have SSA, or vice versa.

 

[Lizzie]

Riley259:

The Boston Globe magazine had an article this Sunday on biological factors that may influence whether a person becomes homosexual. The article is clearly biased in favor of a biological explanation but if you read it carefully alot of the conclusions are tentative and speculative. In addition, inbedded in the articles are a few lines that sheepishly admit that most of the major research in this area (LeVay, Hamer and twin studies) was not replicable and seriously flawed (ex., small sample size, inconclusive, etc.). The author also points out a damning conclusion based on the concept of evolution: why hasn’t a gay gene (if it exists) been long wiped out due to the fact that an evolutionary mandate to heterosexually reproduce is in place. The obvious conclusion: homosexuality is largely determined by environmental, social and psycho-sexual factors and this is why it continues to show up in 2% of the population. The author’s response to this glaring reality was to pull some real speculative assertions out of his hat such as a virus operating in the womb that may trigger the same-sex attraction. Other speculations include faulty wiring of a gene copy. Gender nonconformity is mentioned early in the article and there’s no doubt that this is a factor in same-sex attraction but reliable sources (Neil Whitehead) suggest it only occurs in about 5% of cases and it’s just a predisposition to homosexuality not a foregone cause. Many of these individuals can reverse their attraction if worked with early enough in life and even as adults (although less successfully). The work of Nicolosi and Fitzgibbons is still the most valuable work on the subject but of course neither of these individuals are mentioned for one simple reason: lack of political correctness.

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

Very interesting article.

Although I have not finished reading it all, I see that that authors admit that identical twins don’t inherit homosexuality. This is significant.

 

[Lizzie]

Please also note that the APA ‘voted’ that homosexualty was no longer a disorder.

What hard science was involved here? Why did this organization flaunt the scientific method of research and decide this by the vote of member opinions instead of using validated scientfic studies?

 

[lovethetruth]

I find it impossible to believe the evidence is ever in the intent to be open to any possibility that biological evidence would exist to show a person is somehow born with this “homosexual gene” as a man is born heterosexual in all his makeup as the next man who lives the life of a heterosexual. His body is the same in terms of maleness. Why he doesn’t feel like the heterosexual in sexual orientation is something real and those who put out these articles are serving an agenda that would banish all thoughts to truth in actual studies and men and women who have done this reparative treatment. Which by the way Reparative treatment is not here take this pill and you’ll be changed. It is a process by which a person is placed back in the necessary type of environment where he or she has a chance to allow nature to take its course. To become a man, to be a woman. Nothing else. Treatment deals with what goes on the emotional life of the person. These types of articles leave no room for finding out more information, they clearly STAMP OUT ALL ELSE in the name of scientific advancement as your God. It is a lie. And they are never open to the other type of work like Dr. Nicolosi. The APA is run by groups who would silence you if you did not support them. Which is why Dr. Laura Schlessinger was ousted by them when she went up against them and had Congress censure them when they were looking to make Pedophilia normal and remove it from the list of disorders too. Sorry but my own opinion of any article quoting some scientific garbage is, Pure JUNK, JUNK SCIENCE!

 

[mosher]

The Catholic Medical Association says otherwise:

cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

 

[Lizzie]

mosher:

The Catholic Medical Association says otherwise:

cathmed.org/publications/homosexuality.html

Your link is excellent. The CMA reaches out to help those who really need it in a caring way and by using scientific studies refutes the current suppositions that masquerade as scientific proofs.

An added plus is that the CMA reinforces the healthy Catholic position of promoting chaste behavior.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Lizzie:

Please also note that the APA ‘voted’ that homosexualty was no longer a disorder.

What hard science was involved here? Why did this organization flaunt the scientific method of research and decide this by the vote of member opinions instead of using validated scientfic studies?

Lizzie:

The change was made in the DSM- IV, and I don’t think that a bit of hard science went into the decision.

The APA made this change to the DSM-IV primarily due to pressure from homosexual advocates and their allies on the left.

A more important move they made is that Psychiatrists who treat Homosexuality or Object Choice Disorder now face sanctions, esp. if they advertise or claim to be able to cure SSA. They’re supposed to help homosexuals to live and be contented as active homosexuals.

What’s more damaging than the APA’s actions is that of many mainstream Churches, which have stopped preaching that Homosexual conduct is sinful and have even ordained homosexuals as Ministers and “Priests” who are not celebate or chaste but are sexually active. The worst case has been that of ECUSA which has decided to face expulsion from the Anglican Communion, and the loss of numerous parishes and possibly a couple of dioceses, rather than to defrock the sexually active homosexual whom they consecrated as Bishop just 2 years ago.

And, the “Hate Crimes Legislation” in some countries means that it is AGAINST THE LAW to preach that Homosexual conduct is wrong and that the act is an “Abomination to God”. Ministers and priests who do so face fine and imprisonment.

Please pray for those witnesses who are fined or imprisoned for preaching Biblical Truth. Pleae also pray for those churches which are so lost that they can no longer call sin “Sin”, but instead try to accommodate sin as a “Lifestyle Choice”.

And, please remember, but for the Grace of God…

Blessed are those who act to save the Innocent, Michael

 

[Mac6yver]

Lizzie:

Very interesting article.

Although I have not finished reading it all, I see that that authors admit that identical twins don’t inherit homosexuality. This is significant.

That is true, however, genes that activate to cause cancer or other ailments often do not in both identical twins.

 

[puzzleannie]

the article did not come up, but this entire discussion fails to make the distinction between a possible genetic cause, and any biological influence on the development of homosexual attraction, tendencies or behaviors. Biological influences include, besides a normal gene that carries such a trait in the DNA (which has never been identified), mutations of a normal gene, or in utero influences such as hormones, radiation, exposure to harmful chemicals etc.

So far hormonal influences seem the most promising line of investigation in animal studies. This in no way, if supported, indicates the presence of a “gay gene”. It also in no way precludes a combination of factors, including inborn predisposition, and developmental factors, including environmental physical, psychological, family etc. which trigger the full-blown manifestation of predisposed tendencies.

Diabetes is an example. We know the tendency to develop it is inherited (I don’t know if a gene marker has been identified), but one or a combination of environmental factors triggers the predisposition to develop into full-blown Type I or II diabetes: virus illness attacking the pancreas, gestational diabetes in the mother, diet etc.

 

[buffalo]

Mac6yver:

That is true, however, genes that activate to cause cancer or other ailments often do not in both identical twins.

Because the environmental pressures are different.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Mac6yver:

That is true, however, genes that activate to cause cancer or other ailments often do not in both identical twins.

That most of this is, is genetic loading. Genetic loading does not mean you will get the condition. Just that you are more likely to get it if the conditions are proper.THIS IS HOW THEY EXPLAIN THE NEGATIVE TWIN STUDIES LOL when I took the courses in school it seemed like “voo doo” to me and it still does. But, to receive your degree you must be able to “spit” the information back at the profs in tests and thesis material.

Now another study says that if you eat french fries you are more likely to get cancer. They use this same model of genetic loading and added the french fries to it. The problem is that the only true way to test this is to take identical twins feed one french fries and not the feed the other french fries while having every other aspect of their lives the same. No variation is allowed. Sounds impossible to do and it is impossible to do.

 

[Lizzie]

Traditional Ang:

Lizzie:

The change was made in the DSM- IV, and I don’t think that a bit of hard science went into the decision.

The APA made this change to the DSM-IV primarily due to pressure from homosexual advocates and their allies on the left.

A more important move they made is that Psychiatrists who treat Homosexuality or Object Choice Disorder now face sanctions, esp. if they advertise or claim to be able to cure SSA. They’re supposed to help homosexuals to live and be contented as active homosexuals.

What’s more damaging than the APA’s actions is that of many mainstream Churches, which have stopped preaching that Homosexual conduct is sinful and have even ordained homosexuals as Ministers and “Priests” who are not celebate or chaste but are sexually active. The worst case has been that of ECUSA which has decided to face expulsion from the Anglican Communion, and the loss of numerous parishes and possibly a couple of dioceses, rather than to defrock the sexually active homosexual whom they consecrated as Bishop just 2 years ago.

And, the “Hate Crimes Legislation” in some countries means that it is AGAINST THE LAW to preach that Homosexual conduct is wrong and that the act is an “Abomination to God”. Ministers and priests who do so face fine and imprisonment.

Please pray for those witnesses who are fined or imprisoned for preaching Biblical Truth. Pleae also pray for those churches which are so lost that they can no longer call sin “Sin”, but instead try to accommodate sin as a “Lifestyle Choice”.

And, please remember, but for the Grace of God…

Blessed are those who act to save the Innocent, Michael

This is a tragedy.

After your post, I spent time looking for any hard evidence by the APA that proves their suppositions. There is no biological evidence that proves the cause of homosexuality. They only hope they can find such.

The APA admits that homosexuals are at great risk for suicide, depression and drug abuse but, without any scientific proof*, blame this on society’s non-acceptance. (*True science uses the steps of the scientific method which includes the requirement that the experiment can be replicated to prove a theory.)

It is pitiful that the APA is sanctioning therapists who try to help homosexuals that want chastity in their lives.

 

[ega]

Firstly the ‘cause’ of homosexuality is not relevent. The fact is, it is a harmless activity that has been widely accepted in many societies. The cause doesnt matter. The search for a biological cause is a search to remove moral judgement. ‘I am gay because of biology’ means there is no moral culpability for that state. It makes the condemnation of religious types look primitive and superstitious.

Behind this is the concept that we alll face equal tempatation. That is, the choice to steal, for example is the same for all of us. However, this is clearly not true, I dont steal because I am never tempted to. Where is the moral virtue in that condition? How can I claim strength for not doing something that does not tempt me?

Think on that.

So to the issues.

We know of two definite phenotypes for homosexuality. Firstly, hypermasculinisation seems to be a factor. Too much testosterone in the womb is a feature of about 20% of gay men. It offends many peple to think some gays are more butch than straight men, but that means nothing. Evidence suggests that when men fall in love with women T. levels fall and when women fall T levels rise.

Why is this significant? It suggests that being in love makes men and women more similar. The hypermasculines may never achieve enough similarity to gain the same emotional state for the opposite sex. So, the primary judgement that we all face the same level of temptation fails, and the same opportunities fails.

Phenotype 2 is interesting. Each older brother a man has roughly doubles his chance of being gay, and reduces birthweight. This works for about 1 in 5 gay men. Most interesting. The theories are that the mothers immune system is working against the child. Currently no ones knows what the exact effec t is, except is is absolutely consistant.

It suggests prenatal experiences affect some boys to have an almost allergic reaction to women. Odd, but not impossible.

A third recently discovered correlation is that gay men, on the mother side, have more relatives, uncles, cousins, etc, than on the fathers side.

Now the suggestion here is that finding men attractive is genetic, and because the female relatives find men more attractive and have more children, the male offspring have a chance to inherit the same disposition.

What? DId you never imagine heterosexuality might be genetic?

Anyway, it happily explains why homosexuality stays around, it is a side effect of female success at reproduction.

That is interesting in itself. A biological basis for heterosexuality? A gene to make the other sex attractive? Hmmm, if such a thing were true then it would have to make you ask ‘what virtue is there in that’.

There are of course ‘the others’. Maybe they are culpable and are as tempted by women as by men and are just being wicked.

But do you really think this is so?

Really, really, really?

How can you believev this? Do you really believe that these people face the same choices you did?

Men, tell us about how often you have been tempted to run your fingers through the hairy chest of a builder. Women how often have you been tempted by the soft curves of a woman?

If you have never been tempted how can you claim virture?

 

[ega]

By the way. What evidence is there that homosexuality is a free choice?

What evidence is there that people who love their own sex are making the same choices as you?

What evidence do uyou have that we are all built the same?

I read people going ‘no evidence no evidence’, but the evidence they present is so far infinitely more than those claiming free will.

You can complain all you want, but your evidence is to be found nowhere.

Prove free will, we can go on from there.

 

[Riley259]

ega:

By the way. What evidence is there that homosexuality is a free choice?

What evidence is there that people who love their own sex are making the same choices as you?

What evidence do uyou have that we are all built the same?

I read people going ‘no evidence no evidence’, but the evidence they present is so far infinitely more than those claiming free will.

You can complain all you want, but your evidence is to be found nowhere.

Prove free will, we can go on from there.

The argument that homosexuality is disordered and sinful can be made much easier when you go after a person’s religious sensibilities. However, it’s a little more difficult when that person you’re trying to persuade (or in this case have a simple discussion with) is an atheist. The latter is the case with you ega. To break it down: Each gender is biologically made to compliment the other and reproduction (which obviously is an evolutionary mandate) can occur naturally only when a male and female have sexual intercourse and the female’s egg is fertilized by the male’s sperm. At the risk of being pedantic, this is basic biology and is what happens naturally. By definition, any other deviation from that process is unnatural and thus is disordered. Homosexuality is not supposed to happen and just because it exists doesn’t mean it is not disordered. Are people with same-sex attractions making a free choice to be that way? In most cases the answer is a resounding “no” but that doesn’t mean that the origin of the attraction is strictly biological. The evidence points to environmental factors being the biggest contributors to a child’s initial same-sex attraction but some biological factors may predispose that child and make him vunerable to developing same-sex attractions under specific environmental conditions. Those conditions are outlined very well by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and can be found on the NARTH website. When you introduce the consequences of homosexuality (disease, depression, emotional dysfunction, addiction) and the religious implications (violation of the natural law, closed to life, extreme sexual promiscuity, etc.) the case against homosexual behavior (as opposed to homosexuality itself which is morally neutral but disordered) then the arguments against it are a slam dunk. I sincerely will pray for your conversion my friend.

 

[Lizzie]

Riley259:

The argument that homosexuality is disordered and sinful can be made much easier when you go after a person’s religious sensibilities. However, it’s a little more difficult when that person you’re trying to persuade (or in this case have a simple discussion with) is an atheist. The latter is the case with you ega. To break it down: Each gender is biologically made to compliment the other and reproduction (which obviously is an evolutionary mandate) can occur naturally only when a male and female have sexual intercourse and the female’s egg is fertilized by the male’s sperm. At the risk of being pedantic, this is basic biology and is what happens naturally. By definition, any other deviation from that process is unnatural and thus is disordered. Homosexuality is not supposed to happen and just because it exists doesn’t mean it is not disordered. Are people with same-sex attractions making a free choice to be that way? In most cases the answer is a resounding “no” but that doesn’t mean that the origin of the attraction is strictly biological. The evidence points to environmental factors being the biggest contributors to a child’s initial same-sex attraction but some biological factors may predispose that child and make him vunerable to developing same-sex attractions under specific environmental conditions. Those conditions are outlined very well by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi and can be found on the NARTH website. When you introduce the consequences of homosexuality (disease, depression, emotional dysfunction, addiction) and the religious implications (violation of the natural law, closed to life, extreme sexual promiscuity, etc.) the case against homosexual behavior (as opposed to homosexuality itself which is morally neutral but disordered) then the arguments against it are a slam dunk. I sincerely will pray for your conversion my friend.

Good post!

I would like to add that almost all acknowledge that sexual behavior is a free will choice unless one considers the promiscuous who sank into sexual addiction…

 

[Riley259]

Lizzie:

Good post!

I would like to add that almost all acknowledge that sexual behavior is a free will choice unless one considers the promiscuous who sank into sexual addiction…

I agree totally that sexual behavior is a free will choice but the same-sexual attraction may not necessarily be a choice especially if it first emerged as a child. That doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed and reversed (the earlier, the more successful), it just means that the attractions toward the same sex are not always a choice in and of themselves.