Biological Difference As An Explanation For Sexual Orientation ?

[Crapshoot]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/

Brain responses differ in gay, straight men
Study: Homosexuals react to male sex hormones like women
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:19 p.m. ET May 9, 2005

WASHINGTON - The brains of homosexual men respond more like those of women when reacting to a chemical derived from the male sex hormone, new evidence of physical differences related to sexual orientation.

advertisement
The finding, published in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows differences in physiological reaction to sex hormones.

Researchers led by Ivanka Savic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones. These chemicals are thought to be pheromones, molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.

Whether humans respond to pheromones has been the subject of debate, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs the human pheromone receptor in the nose.

Biological basis to sexual orientation?
In the Swedish study, when sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains involved in sexual activity were activated in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men, the researchers found.

When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects brains reacted only in the olfactory regions that handles smells.

The result clearly shows a biological involvement in sexual orientation, said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

The research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Karolinska Institute and the Megnus Bergvall Foundation.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Interesting - by no means is this conclusive, but it seems to lend credence to what a lot of us suspect- that your orientation (or attraction perhaps) is hardwired, not some lifestyle choice.

[st.cronin]

In reading this, one must keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation. Cities with high crime usually have more police officers than cities with low crime. This does not indicate that police officers cause crime. This study (and others like it) offer a similiar trap.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that it is very hard to evaluate complex scientific claims concerning politically charged topics. People on either side of the debate (heaven forbid we have an important issue these days with more than two sides) care more about their position than the truth.

The few scientists and concerned individuals out there who actually want to find the truth tend to be used, manipulated, and drowned out by the ideologues who don't care about the truth at all.

Which isn't to say that we should not work to advance the frontiers of human knowledge. Just that it is very hard to do in areas such as this.

EDIT--That sounded like it might be a dig at st.cronin. It's not. My point is more general than a response to one poster.

[revrew]

Y'know what would help verify this study? If it was done on a random sampling of 5-year olds, or some other age that would theoretically predate sexual determination (insofar as homosexual vs. heterosexual) if indeed sexual preference is a matter of lifestyle choice. Results, then, would be kept secret until the youngsters reach adulthood and a known sexual orientation. If reaction to male pheremones pre sexual determination PREDICTED sexual orientation, then they'd have a darn good case.

Right now, the entire study leaves open the question--"Is the reaction a psychological conditioned response?" In other words, is it the chemical response to the pheremone that creates the psychological attration, or is it a conditioned psychological attraction that triggers the chemical response? Or, more simply, is he gay because his brain goes off at the smell of a man; or does his brain go off at the smell of a man because he's gay?

Without addressing that question, st. cronin is correct that this study proves little more than correlation. It does, however, open up some interesting questions, if the scientists are truly objective enough to seek the answers (such as the study I suggest above).

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

In reading this, one must keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation. Cities with high crime usually have more police officers than cities with low crime. This does not indicate that police officers cause crime. This study (and others like it) offer a similiar trap.

This was my take as well.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

In reading this, one must keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation. Cities with high crime usually have more police officers than cities with low crime. This does not indicate that police officers cause crime. This study (and others like it) offer a similiar trap.

So you are saying that cities with a high quantity of male hormones will have a lot of homosexuals?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by revrew

Y'know what would help verify this study? If it was done on a random sampling of 5-year olds, or some other age that would theoretically predate sexual determination (insofar as homosexual vs. heterosexual) if indeed sexual preference is a matter of lifestyle choice. Results, then, would be kept secret until the youngsters reach adulthood and a known sexual orientation. If reaction to male pheremones pre sexual determination PREDICTED sexual orientation, then they'd have a darn good case.

Right now, the entire study leaves open the question--"Is the reaction a psychological conditioned response?" In other words, is it the chemical response to the pheremone that creates the psychological attration, or is it a conditioned psychological attraction that triggers the chemical response? Or, more simply, is he gay because his brain goes off at the smell of a man; or does his brain go off at the smell of a man because he's gay?

Without addressing that question, st. cronin is correct that this study proves little more than correlation. It does, however, open up some interesting questions, if the scientists are truly objective enough to seek the answers (such as the study I suggest above).

I think you are making an unwarranted assumption. Just because sexual orientation may be formed later in life does not mean it is a choice. A 5 year old may have no sexual identity at all and could be totally unresponsive to pheremones. Further, there are more than two sexual identities. For those that don't fit into either category (but learn to suppress one), the early life study could be even more misleading.

The evidence from this is pretty good along with the vaious genetic studies that have been done. Are they conclusive? No. Do they put the burden on the choice/environmental people? I think yes.

[revrew]

Okay, I hear what you're saying. The 5-year-old thing was only meant, however, as a hypothetical example of the next step that needs to be done. If 5-years-old is too young, so be it. Perhaps a fuller study should test the same sample at 5, 10, puberty, 20, 30, etc. But I think we miscommunicated here.

My point was simply this: Even if there is "a biological involvement in sexual orientation" (said Sandra Witelson, quoting from the original article), which came first, the chicken or the egg? I'm hardly surprised or even plussed that a person of homosexual orientation would react to same-sex pheremones. That fact (and the result of this study) does nothing to address the question of causation, which is the bigger question many are asking.

What this study still can't tell us is this: does the physiological reaction cause sexual orientation? Or does sexual orientation trigger the physiological reaction? All this study does is tell us that orientation and reaction happen at the same time. Well, duh. The question is, which comes first?

I don't see this study puts any pressure at all on the choice/environmental proponents, because those proponents are concerned with the question of causation, not what physiological reactions happen (perhaps) after sexual orientation is solidified.

[chinaski]

I saw a interview with the chief researcher of this study with Wolf Blitzer, and she says basically says a lot more research needs to be done before people start throwing around absolutes. She said they plan on doing much more research on this, since this is literally the first ever study focusing on pheremone reaction. Im almost positive she mentions children being the next step in the research, for the reasons Rev points out.

Its in no way conclusive, but it definitely sheds some light.

I find it pretty startling that the male gay brain responds to male pheremones almost identically as the female brain. I never even really considered human pheremones into our sexuality equation. duh.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by revrew

What this study still can't tell us is this: does the physiological reaction cause sexual orientation? Or does sexual orientation trigger the physiological reaction? All this study does is tell us that orientation and reaction happen at the same time. Well, duh. The question is, which comes first?

What if sexual orientation IS the physiological reaction?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by revrew

Okay, I hear what you're saying. The 5-year-old thing was only meant, however, as a hypothetical example of the next step that needs to be done. If 5-years-old is too young, so be it. Perhaps a fuller study should test the same sample at 5, 10, puberty, 20, 30, etc. But I think we miscommunicated here.

My point was simply this: Even if there is "a biological involvement in sexual orientation" (said Sandra Witelson, quoting from the original article), which came first, the chicken or the egg? I'm hardly surprised or even plussed that a person of homosexual orientation would react to same-sex pheremones. That fact (and the result of this study) does nothing to address the question of causation, which is the bigger question many are asking.

What this study still can't tell us is this: does the physiological reaction cause sexual orientation? Or does sexual orientation trigger the physiological reaction? All this study does is tell us that orientation and reaction happen at the same time. Well, duh. The question is, which comes first?

I don't see this study puts any pressure at all on the choice/environmental proponents, because those proponents are concerned with the question of causation, not what physiological reactions happen (perhaps) after sexual orientation is solidified.

I still mean to quibble because I believe you are advancing some rather unusual theories of human physiology. I'm not a doctor (and I don't play one on TV), but I find it odd to think that a person's biology would radically change in response to a lifestyle choice. I would find it strange to think that a Christian, for example, would develop a better sense of hearing in order to listen to hyms being sung. That sounds like Lamarkian genetics to me.

Now, on the conditioned response perspective, you have a better point. It is conceivable that gays learn to respond to male pheremones because of their lifestyle choice. However, I think (using Occum's Razor) that this is the less likely relationship for a couple reasons.

First, it doesn't really explain the existence of bisexuals and other sexual identities well.

Second, your view relies on a rather strange view of choice. If a non-sexual teenager is sitting there thinking, "hmmmm . . . what sexual identity should I be?" They choose to be gay and then learn to unconsciously detect male pheremones over time. I agree with you that a test over time may help with this, but I still think it is hard to believe the choice triggers an unconscious conditioned response.

Because of those reasons, I'm inclined to say the study puts the burden on the choice theorists (also because of the blind seperated twin studies, albeit with small sample sizes, show a genetic link). I do, however, agree that more studies should be done over a larger time period (and I would include bisexuals, people who have only recently discovered their sexual identity, and people who have changed their sexual identity over time).

[Mr. Sparkle]

Like all of you, I agree there needs to be more studies before we can come to some semblance of a concrete decision, but from talking with the gay people I know, I tend to believe it is more genetic. They all spoke of how they "knew" they were different in regards to their sexuality, from a very young age. They said they kissed girls and whatnot, but it never felt right. They said that for as long as they could remember, they looked at guys the way they imagined straight men looked at women. I just don't see how a person could "learn" that behavior, but I am the farthest thing from a scientist.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by John Galt

...I find it odd to think that a person's biology would radically change in response to a lifestyle choice.

I think what he is saying is something along the lines of how psychologically your body can produce a physiological result. For example, say your favorite team won the Super Bowl. For the next month, any time you hear your favorite team's name endorphins would start flowing and you would feel euphoric. It wouldn't be fair to say that biology made you a fan of your favorite team. Rather, your body is responding to stimuli that are known to make you happy. With homosexuality, it may be that they respond more to male hormones because they associate that with positive sexual experiences, much like a female would.

I know that's a little muddled, but it makes sense in my head

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think what he is saying is something along the lines of how psychologically your body can produce a physiological result. For example, say your favorite team won the Super Bowl. For the next month, any time you hear your favorite team's name endorphins would start flowing and you would feel euphoric. It wouldn't be fair to say that biology made you a fan of your favorite team. Rather, your body is responding to stimuli that are known to make you happy. With homosexuality, it may be that they respond more to male hormones because they associate that with positive sexual experiences, much like a female would.

I know that's a little muddled, but it makes sense in my head

I answered that part in the second part of my post. It may be that was all revrew was saying, but it seemed to me that he was making a separate biological argument.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sparkle

Like all of you, I agree there needs to be more studies before we can come to some semblance of a concrete decision, but from talking with the gay people I know, I tend to believe it is more genetic. They all spoke of how they "knew" they were different in regards to their sexuality, from a very young age. They said they kissed girls and whatnot, but it never felt right. They said that for as long as they could remember, they looked at guys the way they imagined straight men looked at women. I just don't see how a person could "learn" that behavior, but I am the farthest thing from a scientist.

Agreed. I saw this with a family member. Looking back on it, there's no doubt in my mind that this was a genetic decision. Even at a very early age, the choices that were made were entirely consistent with the preferences of a gay person. The likes, dislikes - what is attractive, what is not - were down the line entirely consistent with "gay" choices. I wasn't old enough to see it then, but I can sure see the pattern now. And these were pre-puberty discussions. There's not a doubt in my mind that - at least for some - they are 100% genetically hardwired to be homosexual.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Ksyrup]

I tend to believe that most gay people are born that way, but that a certain percentage choose to be gay either consciously or subconsciously based on their life experience. I think that is a small percentage, though.

A boy my daughter has been friends with for about 3-4 years in a play group setting has show very odd likes/dislikes since early on. Stuff like: his favorite color is pink, he likes playing with female dolls, he generally prefers girl's toys over boy's toys, he wanted a Barbie birthday cake, etc. It will be interesting to see, as he grows up, whether it's just a faze, or an early sign of homosexuality. I know playing with dolls and the like is something that is not necessarily unusual for boys, but there's definitely a constant pattern that is interesting to observe.

EDIT: He's just about to turn 6, btw, so this has been going on since he was 2 or 3, at least.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

No, of course not. Because, you know....I'm not gay.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I tend to believe that most gay people are born that way, but that a certain percentage choose to be gay either consciously or subconsciously based on their life experience. I think that is a small percentage, though.

A boy my daughter has been friends with for about 3-4 years in a play group setting has show very odd likes/dislikes since early on. Stuff like: his favorite color is pink, he likes playing with female dolls, he generally prefers girl's toys over boy's toys, he wanted a Barbie birthday cake, etc. It will be interesting to see, as he grows up, whether it's just a faze, or an early sign of homosexuality. I know playing with dolls and the like is something that is not necessarily unusual for boys, but there's definitely a constant pattern that is interesting to observe.

EDIT: He's just about to turn 6, btw, so this has been going on since he was 2 or 3, at least.

I agree based on my life experiences that choice always enters the picture. If Freud was right, we are all bisexual by nature and we choose to repress one preference. I don't think that, but I do think a lot of the genetic link can be repressed (both ways - although people choosing to be "straight" is probably much more common). Any genetically determined behavior can be influenced by choice, but a genetic link does call into question the religous and some policy arguments against homosexuality.

[st.cronin]

I honestly don't understand the point of this. Imagine if somebody did a study on why some men are attracted to blondes, and others to redheads... who cares *why* we want to sleep with who we want to sleep with?

[Arles]

I am very interesting to see what comes of this type of research. I think the idea of sexual orientation is a perplexing one and I haven't seen a really compelling argument on either the environment or biological side of things. At this point, I'm guessing it's a combination of the two - but it's hard to tell which is more dominant.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm not a doctor (and I don't play one on TV), but I find it odd to think that a person's biology would radically change in response to a lifestyle choice.

I don't find this all that hard to believe. If someone were to stop working out and sit on their coach eating McDonalds every night, you would see some bigtime changes in their biology. Testosterone levels would fall (no working out, sedintary lifestyle and bad diet), their digestive system would adjust and their insulin levels could go haywire. Just look at type 2 diabetes (most cases are related to obesity) and other hypertension/heart ailments. If you still need convincing - go watch Supersize Me.

Now, on the conditioned response perspective, you have a better point. It is conceivable that gays learn to respond to male pheremones because of their lifestyle choice. However, I think (using Occum's Razor) that this is the less likely relationship for a couple reasons.

First, it doesn't really explain the existence of bisexuals and other sexual identities well.

Second, your view relies on a rather strange view of choice. If a non-sexual teenager is sitting there thinking, "hmmmm . . . what sexual identity should I be?" They choose to be gay and then learn to unconsciously detect male pheremones over time. I agree with you that a test over time may help with this, but I still think it is hard to believe the choice triggers an unconscious conditioned response.

This is a good point. I think it's hard to find some consistent environmental factors that would "make" a person choose to be gay. But, again, it's hard to determine either way on this issue of response to outside factors given the limited compelling information there is.

Because of those reasons, I'm inclined to say the study puts the burden on the choice theorists (also because of the blind seperated twin studies, albeit with small sample sizes, show a genetic link).

I think this study just shows that we are no closer to determining a real reason for why some people are homosexual (or bisexual) than we were before it came out. But, on that same token, I don't see how the environmental/choice side can say with any conviction their stance is correct.

I do, however, agree that more studies should be done over a larger time period (and I would include bisexuals, people who have only recently discovered their sexual identity, and people who have changed their sexual identity over time).

Agreed - and I am also very interested to see studies on reactions at a younger age. IMO, if they do not happen I don't know that you can completely diregard the biological impact, but if they do happen I think it will go along way in showing that biology may have a major role in determining whether a person is gay or not.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I honestly don't understand the point of this. Imagine if somebody did a study on why some men are attracted to blondes, and others to redheads... who cares *why* we want to sleep with who we want to sleep with?

It's just a first step, but if future studies of a similar nature tracking people throughout development show a common string of physical manifestations of being gay and present compelling scientific evidence of it being something you're born with, that influences the debate about homosexuality in a significant way.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

who cares *why* we want to sleep with who we want to sleep with?

I think this may be the reason why studies like this are done. Many continue to believe its a choice to be gay... or a demon takes you over and somehow makes you gay. If it was proven that someone had no real choice in their sexual preference, maybe gays would start to have a easier time in society.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by chinaski

I think this may be the reason why studies like this are done. Many continue to believe its a choice to be gay... or a demon takes you over and somehow makes you gay. If it was proven that someone had no real choice in their sexual preference, maybe gays would start to have a easier time in society.

I doubt that. If somebody proved that being promiscuous was a hard-wired desire, would that change how people see it? If somebody proved that pedophilia was a hard-wired desire, would that mean child molesters wouldn't go to jail? Etc.

I could be wrong.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I doubt that. If somebody proved that being promiscuous was a hard-wired desire, would that change how people see it? If somebody proved that pedophilia was a hard-wired desire, would that mean child molesters wouldn't go to jail? Etc.

I could be wrong.

It would mean that it could be looked at as a medical problem, rather than a lifestyle choice. So if someone didn't want to be gay, for whatever reason, they could get help. Or vice-versa.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I doubt that. If somebody proved that being promiscuous was a hard-wired desire, would that change how people see it? If somebody proved that pedophilia was a hard-wired desire, would that mean child molesters wouldn't go to jail? Etc.

I could be wrong.

You could be right; ive had this idealistic notion that biological proof would create something undeniable about homosexuality. The lines that always stick out to me from the anti gay crowd are that "they choose to be gay" and "homosexuality is a sin".. so if its proven that youre born with a female sexual receptor in your brain (whatever), it will hopefully create some acceptance.

If someone proved pedophilia was hard-wired, hopefully they could spot them at birth... and kill them... sorry just joking. Actually the pedophilia ref is a low blow, if it was hard wired why would we treat them any different legally? Just doesnt make sense to bring that one up. Being gay isnt illegal.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by chinaski

You could be right; ive had this idealistic notion that biological proof would create something undeniable about homosexuality. The lines that always stick out to me from the anti gay crowd are that "they choose to be gay" and "homosexuality is a sin".. so if its proven that youre born with a female sexual receptor in your brain (whatever), it will hopefully create some acceptance.

If someone proved pedophilia was hard-wired, hopefully they could spot them at birth... and kill them... sorry just joking. Actually the pedophilia ref is a low blow, if it was hard wired why would we treat them any different legally? Just doesnt make sense to bring that one up. Being gay isnt illegal.

I wasn't specifically thinking about legal treatment - I had in mind the way the desire/act is perceived. I suppose it's a bad parallel, but I can't think of a good one.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

It would mean that it could be looked at as a medical problem, rather than a lifestyle choice. So if someone didn't want to be gay, for whatever reason, they could get help. Or vice-versa.

I suppose that's a potential result, but is medical science at a point where genetic traits can be modified post-birth? Also, the terminology you use, that it's a "problem" for which they could find "help" is questionable.

A much bigger issue IMO is that credible scientific proof of a genetic basis for homosexuality alters much of the debate about how gays are perceived in our society. If it becomes clear that homosexual behavior isn't primarily based on individual choice, then it becomes much harder to discriminate against them for their actions. It also makes the conservative religious view of homosexuality being a sin more difficult to argue.

I suppose for some it wouldn't change things any - they object to the behavior whether it's genetically based or by choice, and if proven to have a genetic basis they'd probably equate it to people being born as child molesters or sociopaths or anything else they find distasteful.

EDIT - And what do you know, in the time it took for me to type up this response, someone has already played the child molester card as a possible parallel to homosexual behavior.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It also makes the conservative religious view of homosexuality being a sin more difficult to argue.

You think so? Most of the religious conservatives I know think that homosexuality is likely determined in some way by genetics but still feel that to act upon those feelings is a sin. I seriously doubt that any definitive scientific proof would do much to change that.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I wasn't specifically thinking about legal treatment - I had in mind the way the desire/act is perceived. I suppose it's a bad parallel, but I can't think of a good one.

I don't know that I agree with the premise, but certainly the predisposition to "sleep around" would be a better parallel to homosexuality than pedophilia. Still, I would put the act of cheating on a significant other as a much less desireable trait than being homosexual.

As to whether the answer to the questions on homosexuality will change the view of gay people, I would like to think that it will not take that. Hopefully, as people interact more and more with openly gay people they will see they are not that different from anyone else. A bigger problem than the choice/biology "magic pill" is trying to find a way for many that do not approve of the gay lifestyle to interface with actual homosexuals in a civil manner. That, IMO, would do much more for breaking down some of the ignorance about gay people than somehow showing that they were "just born this way". It is really a tough situation as there are many good people that have a hard time accepting homosexual life given their religious beliefs. Showing them that John down the street didn't have a choice about being gay would not be as effective as having them interact with John and see that he is not all that different from anyone else in that he loves his family, respects other beliefs and goes out of his way to help others. That would make it much harder for some of the religious people to view this group (as a whole) as sinners, IMO.

[chinaski]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I wasn't specifically thinking about legal treatment - I had in mind the way the desire/act is perceived. I suppose it's a bad parallel, but I can't think of a good one.

Ah i see, well there has to be something driving these people to do something so freakishly horrible. I dont see how a normal person just decides one day im going to rape a child. Something had to have happened to them that would lead up to such lunacy or they were born with this horribly twisted "sexual receptor". Either way, they are or were at one time a victim. So i dont think much would change perception wise.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

You think so? Most of the religious conservatives I know think that homosexuality is likely determined in some way by genetics but still feel that to act upon those feelings is a sin. I seriously doubt that any definitive scientific proof would do much to change that.

It certainly wouldn't change all religious conservatives viewpoints, but I think some would be troubled to find that it was genetically based behavior. It would change the argument from behavior that is done purely by choice to something that is hard-wired, and thus something difficult for them to "overcome". We would also hopefully witness the end of the ridiculous attempts to "cure" people of their homosexuality based on the presumption that it's a behavior of choice rather than hard-wired.

There's a difference of perception for most on fighting a natural impulse versus changing behavior that is purely choice.

[Karlifornia]

In 100 years time, society will look back on us, and pity us for knowing so little. This is just a beginning step. I am pretty sure that sexuality is something that you're born with, although it can be said that sexual abuse can enhance gay tendencies. I used to think this was true, but I have male friends that were sexually abused as youngsters (thankfully I never was) and are just as straight as myself. In the past 5 minutes I've just come to the conclusion that the sexual abuse theory is a cop out for people who are afraid of the notion that homosexuality is nature, not nurture. Wow. It's amazing when you have an epiphany.

[st.cronin]

Well, if somebody was 'choosing' a certain behavior, how could you cure that? Trying to cure implies that it is something sub-conscious, at least.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It also makes the conservative religious view of homosexuality being a sin more difficult to argue.

Reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg line: "Alcoholism is the only disease that people can be pissed off at you for having. 'Dammit Otto, you're an alcoholic!' 'Dammit Otto, you have lupis!' One of those two doesn't sound right."

RIP Mitch

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I suppose that's a potential result, but is medical science at a point where genetic traits can be modified post-birth? Also, the terminology you use, that it's a "problem" for which they could find "help" is questionable.

Medical science will be at that point some day. The first step in developing solutions to a problem like this one, is to define what the problem is. Once the problem has been identified, you can then begin the research and experimentation necessary to solve the problem. Problems like this one don't come along every day, so it certainly will test the problem-solving abilities of our best and brightest.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, if somebody was 'choosing' a certain behavior, how could you cure that? Trying to cure implies that it is something sub-conscious, at least.

Actually, the opposite is true. It's a lot harder to cure something that's sub-conscious, rather than something that is consciously chosen. For instance, let's say you're potty training a dog that pisses in your house whenever and whereever. If the dog is doing it consciously, whenever it gets the urge, you could train the dog to wait until you take it for a walk, or on a piece of newspaper. On the other hand, if a dog has some sort of innate reaction, say, it starts pissing when it gets excited, without even lifting a leg, do you think that would be easy to fix?

I'm sure there's a better example out there, but that came to mind.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Arles

As to whether the answer to the questions on homosexuality will change the view of gay people, I would like to think that it will not take that. Hopefully, as people interact more and more with openly gay people they will see they are not that different from anyone else. A bigger problem than the choice/biology "magic pill" is trying to find a way for many that do not approve of the gay lifestyle to interface with actual homosexuals in a civil manner. That, IMO, would do much more for breaking down some of the ignorance about gay people than somehow showing that they were "just born this way". It is really a tough situation as there are many good people that have a hard time accepting homosexual life given their religious beliefs. Showing them that John down the street didn't have a choice about being gay would not be as effective as having them interact with John and see that he is not all that different from anyone else in that he loves his family, respects other beliefs and goes out of his way to help others. That would make it much harder for some of the religious people to view this group (as a whole) as sinners, IMO.

That's a good sentiment Arles, but as with anything it depends on which gay person they interacted with, and their own tolerance for behavior different from their own. I wonder how much Joe Sixpack would find in common with a very out and flaming gay metrosexual.

I may be off-base here, but I think a lot of people that object to gays have as much problem with the stereotypically flaming personality and behavior as they do with the actual thought of gay sex.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It certainly wouldn't change all religious conservatives viewpoints, but I think some would be troubled to find that it was genetically based behavior. It would change the argument from behavior that is done purely by choice to something that is hard-wired, and thus something difficult for them to "overcome". We would also hopefully witness the end of the ridiculous attempts to "cure" people of their homosexuality based on the presumption that it's a behavior of choice rather than hard-wired.

There's a difference of perception for most on fighting a natural impulse versus changing behavior that is purely choice.

I would have to disagree with you. At the church I attend, there are various support groups for certain things. And although there isn't one for homosexuality that I know of, there are groups for many things that would be considered "hard-wired." Overcoming their specific problems is exactly what these groups aim to accomplish, and I suspect that they would (and do for the cases in which it comes up at various churches) approach a person wishing to overcome homosexual feelings in much the same way.

Most of the religious people I know (and I'm not claiming this to be universal, only my own personal experiences) feel that people are faced with certain obstacles to be overcome in their life and that they can do it with the help of God. In their minds, homosexual feelings (for a Christian who so wished to overcome them) would be very similar to a particularly bad temper or an addiction to pornography for example.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I would have to disagree with you. At the church I attend, there are various support groups for certain things. And although there isn't one for homosexuality that I know of, there are groups for many things that would be considered "hard-wired." Overcoming their specific problems is exactly what these groups aim to accomplish, and I suspect that they would (and do for the cases in which it comes up at various churches) approach a person wishing to overcome homosexual feelings in much the same way.

Most of the religious people I know (and I'm not claiming this to be universal, only my own personal experiences) feel that people are faced with certain obstacles to be overcome in their life and that they can do it with the help of God. In their minds, homosexual feelings (for a Christian who so wished to overcome them) would be very similar to a particularly bad temper or an addiction to pornography for example.

I suspect what you describe would be a common reaction among many churches where homosexuality is considered a sin.

That said, there are some among the religious conservatives that believe so strongly in the concept that homosexuality is a choice that they think people decide to become homosexual because they think it's hip or cool, and that the increase of representations of gays in our media by shows like "Ellen", "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is actually causing more people to 'choose' to be gay. Showing convincing scientific evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait would invalidate this kind of viewpoint, and I have a hard time imagining that it wouldn't affect the perception of homosexual behavior for at least some of those that previously held it to be a matter of choice.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I suspect what you describe would be a common reaction among many churches where homosexuality is considered a sin.

That said, there are some among the religious conservatives that believe so strongly in the concept that homosexuality is a choice that they think people decide to become homosexual because they think it's hip or cool, and that the increase of representations of gays in our media by shows like "Ellen", "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is actually causing more people to 'choose' to be gay. Showing convincing scientific evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait would invalidate this kind of viewpoint, and I have a hard time imagining that it wouldn't affect the perception of homosexual behavior for at least some of those that previously held it to be a matter of choice.

You may be right; as I said, I can only speak to my own experiences. And I would suspect that you're right that a number of religious people think the way you mention.

I think there is a tendency on this board, though, as well as in the rest of the world to lump people in these nice little groups and define them by the most vocal of them. In other words, you might be surpised by how many religious people have absolutely no hatred for homosexuals, are very educated about the impact of genetic traits, and yet still believe out of reasons of faith that to engage in homosexual sex is a sin. The most vocal so-called Christians are unfortunately the ones who are often intolerant and ignorant. That shapes people's feelings (including many on this forum it seems) of religious people.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

You think so? Most of the religious conservatives I know think that homosexuality is likely determined in some way by genetics but still feel that to act upon those feelings is a sin. I seriously doubt that any definitive scientific proof would do much to change that.

Interesting - I've always heard the "Its not natural" line of idiocy as the primary arguement. I agree that it wouldn't have much of an effect in the message, but it would severly hurt whatever little credibility these people have.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I suspect what you describe would be a common reaction among many churches where homosexuality is considered a sin.

That said, there are some among the religious conservatives that believe so strongly in the concept that homosexuality is a choice that they think people decide to become homosexual because they think it's hip or cool, and that the increase of representations of gays in our media by shows like "Ellen", "Will and Grace" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" is actually causing more people to 'choose' to be gay. Showing convincing scientific evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait would invalidate this kind of viewpoint, and I have a hard time imagining that it wouldn't affect the perception of homosexual behavior for at least some of those that previously held it to be a matter of choice.

I agree to a point, but I still think that's where dispelling this "flaming myth" would go a much longer way than other methods. If people see that most gay people aren't carbon copies of the sidekick in "Will and Grace" and many are "normal" in their behavior, it would cause numerous people to do a double take, IMO.

Similar to how people uncomfortable with catholics make most out to be Bible thumping zealots, I think many unsure about homosexuality make gays out to be flaming and obnoxious. This is done in both cases to make people more at ease about their stereotypes. But, it's often the case that real life is not all that kind to these stereotypes rooted in hyperbole and ignorance.

[revrew]

Been away from the board for a while and wanted to add to my friendly "quibble" with John Galt. As long as it's friendly, a good quibble now and then can be a good thing. Now, if we start flaming or shooting phasers (that's "The Trouble with Quibbles" --- groan, couldn't resist the pun, sorry)...

I don't think it's a stretch to theorize that a physiological/chemical/hormonal change can be measured after a mental, cognitive, or sense of identity change. For example, it has been clinically proven that a man's testosterone level rises by 20 points when "his team" wins, and drops by 20 points when "his team" loses. (For the record, I believe this is true in women as well. My wife's sexual drive (which even in women is driven by trace levels of testosterone) comes alive when her team wins, and she is cranky and moody when they lose. GO BEARS!) This is, in part, because the man identifies himself with his team and vicariously experiences victory. If testosterone or other hormones can be altered by how you identify yourself, I find it only natural to theorize that a reaction to a hormone (i.e. pheremone) could also be affected by a sense of self-identity (i.e. identifying oneself as homesexual in orientation).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by revrew

My wife's sexual drive (which even in women is driven by trace levels of testosterone) comes alive when her team wins, and she is cranky and moody when they lose. GO BEARS!

All of your kids have birthdays between October and May, don't they?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Arles

I agree to a point, but I still think that's where dispelling this "flaming myth" would go a much longer way than other methods. If people see that most gay people aren't carbon copies of the sidekick in "Will and Grace" and many are "normal" in their behavior, it would cause numerous people to do a double take, IMO.

Similar to how people uncomfortable with catholics make most out to be Bible thumping zealots, I think many unsure about homosexuality make gays out to be flaming and obnoxious. This is done in both cases to make people more at ease about their stereotypes. But, it's often the case that real life is not all that kind to these stereotypes rooted in hyperbole and ignorance.

Sure, I don't mean to generalize that all gay men are of the flaming personality type. On the other hand, it's not all a media-created myth either. Depending on where you find them, what age they are and how recently they've become "out", I think you'll find that the percentage of gay men with a flaming personality can be quite high. For example, in urban areas with gay-friendly neighborhoods, among younger men and especially among those who've recently come out of the closet, you'll find a significant percentage who fall into the flaming category.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by revrew

Been away from the board for a while and wanted to add to my friendly "quibble" with John Galt. As long as it's friendly, a good quibble now and then can be a good thing. Now, if we start flaming or shooting phasers (that's "The Trouble with Quibbles" --- groan, couldn't resist the pun, sorry)...

I don't think it's a stretch to theorize that a physiological/chemical/hormonal change can be measured after a mental, cognitive, or sense of identity change. For example, it has been clinically proven that a man's testosterone level rises by 20 points when "his team" wins, and drops by 20 points when "his team" loses. (For the record, I believe this is true in women as well. My wife's sexual drive (which even in women is driven by trace levels of testosterone) comes alive when her team wins, and she is cranky and moody when they lose. GO BEARS!) This is, in part, because the man identifies himself with his team and vicariously experiences victory. If testosterone or other hormones can be altered by how you identify yourself, I find it only natural to theorize that a reaction to a hormone (i.e. pheremone) could also be affected by a sense of self-identity (i.e. identifying oneself as homesexual in orientation).

I think every "quibble" we have ever had has been a friendly one even though we come from very different places regarding politics and religion.

I think the examples you and Arles use aren't quite analogous. And I understand why because I was biting off more than I could chew in how I stated my original point. Instead of saying that lifestyle choices don't change biology, I should have said that I find it odd that lifestyle choices affect sensory perception. And by lifestyle choices, I mean only the preference and not the subsequent actions. In that case, I still find your argument to be a little strained.

Of course, both of us agree more study would be warranted.

And ultimately, for me, I think the choice/nature debate doesn't really decide anything for most people. For certain religous folks, it is damaging (insofar as they seek to implement their beliefs through law), but not for most arguments. Similarly, even if it is a choice, I don't see why that means discrimination is acceptable (since religion is also a choice). But my last points are really neither here nor there.