Are gays born as gays?

[Narse]

in the way someone was raised i think

 

[glenn1]

I think the answer to your question depends much on what you are referring to, thoughts or actions, and as others have stated, i think it important to maintain the distinction between the two.

I think that a predispositon towards attraction towards the same sex (homosexual feelings or thoughts as opposed to action) could certainly be genetically based. As long as one removes the social taboo and morality issue from the equation, a homosexual predisposition could easily be viewed as an issue of temperment, the same as a tendency towards being a morning or night person. Again though, tendencies neither control us, nor are they unchangeable. I might not be a morning person, but that doesn't mean i can't train/force myself to wake up in the morning. Likewise, a predisposition towards homosexual feelings does not mean that this will force this person to make the conscious decision to pursue a homosexual lifestyle. We all have free will.

Also, when considering the effect of upbringing vice genetics, i think that environmental factors can be the much more powerful of the two. The human mind can be "trained" and/or learn to act in various ways, either through active effort, or in effort to adjust to stimuli and situations presented to it. To present an example, a dog might not be vicious by disposition, but it can certainly be trained to be so, or learn to be so in response to its environment.

There is one problem which often comes along when the idea of a predisposition towards homosexual feelings being genetically based is being discussed. That is the natural thought process to think of genetic differences in Darwinian, natural-selection terms. It's important to remember that genetic traits in themselves have no morality. Someone with blue eye genes is not more moral for his genetics than someone with brown eyes. Likewise, a genetic predisposition towards homosexual feelings is not in and of itself a moral fault or genetic defect. One could make the argument (although i won't) that homosexual actions are morally corrupt, but that's a seperate issue than a predispositon. Thoughts are not actions.

 

[vi edit]

glenn1, you have a masters(?) in psych right?

Have you heard about the studies that I listed below about the tendencies of children w/ gender identity disorders turning out to be gay in their adult life.

I learned about that in my abnormal physc class. Prof said that in several studies, 2/3's of 3 and 4 year old boys w/ GID grew up to be homosexuals later in life.

Just wondering if you had any comments/concerns on that.

 

[glenn1]

hi vi_edit...

i have no formal schooling in psychology. Anything i posted was totally from my personal opinion, not any learned subject matter, for better or worse. It probably sounds pretty stupid to someone who was schooled in those disciplines

The studies you cited look interesting. I'm not a professional to be able to evaluate their worth or validity. One thing i am curious about though, is what is the definition for "sexual identity disorder?" Sounds like it might be a scientific way of saying, trying to sort out sexual preferrences and tendencies. In that case the results wouldn't be surprising. It would be similar to citing a study that said that "2/3 of children whose parents were dying ended up orphans," or "2/3 of people getting ready to take a shower end up wet." Again, i'm not a professional in gender issues, or psychology, or any related field. Heck, my background is military and business finance, so you can judge my opinions in light of that

 

[Eli]

I think it can be either. There are many homosexuals, who just like it because it's funner, or better, or whatever. But there undoubtedly those who are destined to be so.. It is a decision, though, at some point, in someone's plan...



<< &quot;lick some carpet or linoleum&quot; and &quot;stick their finger in the mouse trap.&quot; >>



ROTFLMAO!!!!!! *picks self up off floor*



<< &quot;Homophobe&quot; is a meaningless word made up by activists. I find slugs disgusting, but I'm certainly not a sluggophobe. Fear has nothing to do with it. >>


LMAO Russ.. You always have such an elegant, yet down to the point way of explaining things..

skunk- They don't want to be homosexual, they can't help it? I've gotta meet these people, because I find that extraordinarily hard to believe... Why don't they just go out and find a pretty girl? They don't get any satisfaction, or something?


MrPalco- You've got guts to come and say that in here. I would have said something similar, but I decided to try and keep the thread below the boiling point. Bravo. He's right, guys. Those of you who ignore the spiritual aspect of life, are only seeing half the picture.. :Q

 

[vi edit]

sorry for the conclusion glenn1 Maybe it's a user named glen that at least claims to have the masters degree in psychology. Anyway...Gender Identity disorder in children was basically described as a boy doing girl things, and girls doing boy things.

In the example of the study that I was reading about, the boys in the study prefered to wear their mom's/sisters dresses and preferred to play with dolls and play house, as opposed to the normal &quot;boy&quot; things such as wearing blue jeans and playing with &quot;boy toys&quot; like guns, blocks, balls, ect.

In the study(I forget the number of children), 2/3rds of the boys who exhibited the &quot;female&quot; behaviors chose males for their intimate partners.

To me, this is just too significant to just be strictly a &quot;nurture&quot; thing. There has to be some sort of genetic predisposition going on here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Russ, i don't want to read back to find the name of the person who complimented you on your openness on this issue, but wanted to say ditto here too.

I think if you ask gays this question, and who else better to ask, they say they were born that way. That pretty much settles it for me.

The issue here that I see is that your answer depends on your need to judge. Those of you who see homosexuality as a sin and not just something incomprehensible, must see it as choice. To condemn somebody born a particular way as a sinner makes you a hate monger and a bigot, a witch hunter and inquisitionist. Such people are not only sure they are right, they have GOT to be right.

 

[DABANSHEE]

Its obvious that most hetersexuals can't help but be attracted to the opposite sex, consequently most gays can't help but be attracted to their own sex. I remember being 7 years old &amp; in class there was one kid who was particully enfeminete, we all knew he'd end up gay &amp; he did end up gay.

I remember seeing a thing in Time magazine years ago, about some (I think) Belgium study about brain chemicals or Hormones or something, &amp; it said that whereas with 'straight' men, 10% had a feminine balance of chemicals, with gay men it was something like 80%. However with straight women, something like 10% had a male balance, while something like only 50% of Gay women had a male balance. The conclusion they came to was that this was because half the lesbians out their became lesbian as a reaction to being molested or something by a man when they were young, while the other half were born that way.

 

[Zucchini]

Homosexuality is probably hardwired. Many children are born with ambiguous genitelia, and doctors ussually turned these babies into females..obvious being far easier to do. Parents would raise these children as normal females, but later in life the children ussually felt something was wrong. This ruined many lives and kind of proved that gender identity cannot be changed by enviroment. I've only read articles and seen a documentary on this.. so someone else could probably explain it better

Also, we all start out the same u know... its not until late in development do we develop biological differences between the sexes. The brain is such a complex chemical machine, it seems very possible that sexual preference is not as cut and dry as people make it.

and as ppl have already said.. who in their right mind would choose to be gay. Its absurd, just ask yourself.. could you have genuine attraction to your own sex if it were not inate?

 

[Bryan]

My friend once told me that if he ever decided to turn gay, he'd go kill someone. They'd toss his butt in prison where he can have all the sex he wants, and cable TV too. :Q

 

[Shuxclams]

Yea a new topic...........LOL, gay is gay, yes there are some people that have had &quot;outside influence&quot; in the result of thier sexuality, but I firmly believe that the majority of people who claim to be gay are born that way.





SHUX

 

[Raspewtin]

If gays are &quot;born gay,&quot; I would assume that it would be genetic. To me, this makes little or no sense, b/c over time (assuming evolution is correct and works), individuals who have a predisposition NOT to pro-create would be selected out. Thus if being gay was genetic, IMO by now, there would be no more gays.

I've heard an argument that social dictates forced gays to enter into hetrosexual relationships, forcing reproduction. To me this arugment is double-edged. One, I can think of several cultures where this would not be true. Two, if it was true, gays owe their survival to social hetrosexual pressure. Based on this logic, once given thier freedom, they would quickly die out.

However, the strange thing is, that although it makes no sense for being gay to be genetic in nature, I see often social differences in gay individuals from straight individuals, often very early in development. Whether these social differences and values are related to sexual orientation is questionable, though. Thus, I'm certain it's at least three-fourths, a personal social choice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Raspewtin, Your survival speculation is bad science. A trait that tends not to reproduce itself, sickle cell anemia for example, has adaptive advantage in a malaria-ridden environment. Altruism, should not be a human trait, by your reasoning. It is not just survival of the individual, but survival of a breeding population that matters.

 

[Zucchini]

yes, that seems logical, but it could also be a recessive gene, not only homosexuals would be carriers. This would make it far less likely to be bred out of the population.

 

[chess9]

Raspewtin:

Until the last 30 years in this country, most gays married and had children. So they wouldn't have been selected out, assuming that is the mechanism at work. Even today, a large proportion of gays are ashamed of their feelings and try to compensate by marrying. Furthermore, the &quot;genetic&quot; propensity to be gay may be nothing more than a slight deviation in the chemical balance of the zygote, rather than something passed from the parents to the child. The etiology of &quot;gayness&quot; is still unknown.

 

[MrPALCO]

<< To condemn somebody born a particular way as a sinner makes you a hate monger and a bigot, a witch hunter and inquisitionist. Such people are not only sure they are right, they have GOT to be right. >>



Every man is born a sinner. This simply means that at birth, you do not have a Covenant with God.

Covenant is made with God by way of Jesus.

God has nothing but love and desire for those that have not yet made Covenant with him.

Hate for any Man, by Gods people, is not allowed, and is unwise.

Gods people hurt for those caught by the fruits of a life lived out of Covenant.

 

[Raspewtin]

MoonBeam:



<< Your survival speculation is bad science...It is not just survival of the individual, but survival of a breeding population that matters.

>>



Your point is interesting, although too weak to be so authorative (i.e. bad science), don't you think? I can't think of how a homosexual preference would lead to reproductive advantage. I seriously doubt a breeding population could support a sub-population of homosexuals after several generations, since over time, they would contribute smaller and smaller amounts to the gene pool. However what Zucchini and chess9 said are good points that would explain things.

 

[Moonbeam]

MrPALCO, I'll accept your correction in the hopes you are right. It is, however, quite clear to me that homosexuality is a natural phenomena having nothing to do with sin. Even Jesus, if he pronounced on this which I doubt, would be wrong. The notion that holy men aren't culturally imbeded is not accurate. One can be right in general and mistakened in the particulars. It is absurd for me to consider that the powerful message of Christ should be relegated to the antheap of history because each minutiae of purported doctrine MUST ABSOLUTELY be correct. The truth at the core is sufficiently powerful to weather a misunderstanding or two.

The fear of truth contamination verses flexibility according to new revelations is tricky, but dangerous on both ends in my opinion, naturally.

edited for Raspewtin:

My point was that your certainty about the extinction of homosexuality was invalid because there are lots of exceptions to your rule. I don't have the job scientifically to prove alternatives, only to hole (put holes in)your theory. An exception to a theory is an authoritative refutation, unless there's a hole here somewhere.

History provides me with little comfort that we can hate the sin and love the sinner.

The ground of your belief conditions everything:

Children are born perfect but with a capacity to be corrupted into an imperfect world that does the job. The task is to find the original self. Because there are many ways there are many ways.

 

[desy]

My mom who is a psych nurse will tell you its a disease, but I watched a program where they had isolated part of the pbrain where this type of activey comes from and had pretty much narrowed it down to genes.
So with that in mind I also watched a program where a pond of ducks had most of the females missing I can't remeber why and most of the ducks got involved in Homosexual activety.
No genetics don't just clean themselves up of errant or problomatic genes. Many genetic disesases still persist today after millions of years.
Conclusion homosexuality is the the product of genes and or environment. Like someones else said here I had a freind who as a child you just knew was going to be different. I honestly don't think as a child long before hormones kick in you could make that choice.
I also believe that those who are abuse can and do get confused on sexual orientation and those are the ones with therapy that you might be able to bring around.
I don't think it is a lifestyle choice by any stretch. Who would choose to be persecuted and ridiculed day in and out an live in constant scrutiny of an intoleratn population? Which is why there are so many gay suicides, the cross is simply heavier than they can bear.
Homophobes is a legitimate term I feel as it describes people who have and unwarranted hated for some they don't understand. The hatred is born of fear and has been used to justify many atrocities in human history not just persecution of gays.
To be honest when the religious purists pull out book of Matthew or other obscure one liners in the bible and use it to justify. They seem to be first ones to jump on capital punishment bandwagons and many other contradictory behavior outlined in the COMMANDMENTS. For them its seems the bible applies but only when it is conveinient, I guess its eassier to focus on others than analyze the devils within.

 

[chess9]

Balt:

Thanks for the quote. Interesting.

Does he have anything about bi-sexuality, which one would think would be even more extant, but seems instead to be a developing phenomenon? And wouldn't bi-sexuality comport more with our biological development inasmuch as males have fully functioning mammary glands? The sexes must have been one at some juncture, I would think. I recall reading a paper on this topic years ago, but drat if I can find it. (I know I have it in one of my gazillion file cabinets somewhere. I'll look for it if you don't have anything to offer or are disinclined to do so.)

 

[Raspewtin]

<< your certainty about the extinction of homosexuality >>



you must be reading something I didn't write, b/c I didn't say I was certain.




<< An exception to a theory is an authoritative refutation >>



You overestimate yourself, Moonbeam. You didn't prove an exception to the theory, just a parallel example that you thought was relevant. I never said this method of selection applied to all traits, you assummed that. Read more carefully.

A theory as broad and vague as I suggested is nearly impossible to disprove (or prove). An exception would be a majorly hetrosexual population, that supported a sub-population with a homosexual genetic predisposition over 1000s of generations. I know you can do better &quot;job&quot; putting &quot;holes&quot; in my &quot;bad science.&quot; Or maybe just stick to presenting your own ideas?

 

[kduncan5]

I've been reading this thread for quite awhile now (it's turning into a good long thread.....). I've heard the pro-genetics arguments, the pro-environmental arguments, and even the pro-spiritual arguments:Qwhew! But it really all comes down to the fact that regardless of the studies done, the theories produced, the research involved, nobody really knows for certain.

Myself, I think it could be genetic, could be a conscious choice, may even be a kind of rebellion. H*ll, spirituality, or the lack of, may even have something to do with it.....

Fact is, everybody has an opinion about it, whether educated or not. Who knows who is right? I certainly don't.

As long as they don't try to impose their lifestyle on me, I say live and let live. -kd5-

 

[MrPALCO]

<< nobody really knows for certain. >>



Saying that nobody knows for certain....is not correct.

Perhaps you do not know, if that is so, then state it as such.

 

[Moonbeam]

OK, Raspewtin, I'll go over it again. You said that you are 75% CERTAIN that homosexuality is a personal social choice. You said that...(individuals who have a predisposition NOT to pro-create would be selected out. Thus if being gay was genetic, IMO by now, there would be no more gays.) You later say: (I can't think of how a homosexual preference would lead to reproductive advantage. I seriously doubt a breeding population could support a sub-population of homosexuals after several generations, since over time, they would contribute smaller and smaller amounts to the gene pool.)

Now instead of saying that I seriously doubt you are right I pointed out that it is not just the OBVIOUS viability of the individual that counts, but the viability of the individuals in variable, perhaps unanticipated circumstances, such as the case of sicle celled anemia where the presence of malaria confers greater survivability to carriers. There are examples I didn't mention and others did. Also, it is not just a matter of whether the individual breeds, but whether his sisters and brothers do, since they carry the same genes. It is possible that early man could best survive in small groups with slow reproductive growth due to low efficiency in resource acquisition, and that homosexuality acted as a break on growth. It's possible that homosexuality results from multiple alleles, that grade from hetero to bi to homo. There are lots of things that could guarantee survivability of a homosexual gene, likely ones we can't see.

Your premise that homoxesuality disappears because homosexuals don't have childern is doesn't hold water and shouldn't lead scientifically to a 75% certainty about anything.

I could be wrong, but I think your reasoning is not sustainable in the light of additional possibilities. In other words when we can account for facts in more than one way, we can't say that one way is right. I don't have to give a specific alternative, only demonstrate that alternatives exist. The issue is, however, open for debate. I don't think all the data is in by a long shot.

If you are really interested, you can check out the bonobo chimp, our closest relatives. Homosexuality is there in spades, I believe. It's kind of odd to talk about them choosing it.

 

[Moonbeam]

One other thing. I suppose you all remember the day you choose to be heterosexual. I don't. I was born that way. I could never have choosen differently in a million years.