Being gay is a state you are born in, says indirect research

Yo!

After seeing the various replies to some of the threads I have been active in ( www.abovetopsecret.com... ), regarding whether being gay is a choice, or state some are born in, I thought I would make a new thread with some fresh input and views.

So are gay people born gay or not?

The answer to this is not as easy as saying yes, even though indirect evidence leads most to believe that yes, gay people are indeed born in the state of being gay, allthough at young ages we are of course not yet sexually active.

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

This article explains some of the indirect evidence that makes people think that being gay is a state you are born in.
Some snippets from the article.

The sheep thing:

The Corvallis herd includes a group of rams that scientists delicately refer to as "male-oriented." These animals consistently ignore females and bestow all their amorous attentions on members of their own sex.

Researcher Charles Roselli says a decade of study suggests sexual orientation is largely hard-wired into the sheep's brains before birth. Now, he's trying to figure out how that happens, zeroing in on genes and hormones. In a bold test of his ideas, he hopes to engineer the birth of gay rams by altering conditions in the womb.

Sheep aren't people, but the Oregon work adds to a growing body of research that bolsters biological explanations for sexual orientation across species — including humans.

The effect that hormones can have before birth:

But rats, hamsters, ferrets and other lab animals flip-flop their sexual behavior when scientists manipulate the hormones they're exposed to before birth. Such experiments would be unethical in people, but some rare medical conditions offer human parallels.

A high proportion of girls with a disorder that causes them to secrete male hormones before birth grow up to be lesbian. About 40 case studies have shown boys who are surgically altered and raised as girls because of genital deformities are overwhelmingly attracted to females once they reach puberty — indicating sexual orientation is determined very early in life and is difficult to alter.

The twin research:

Twin studies provide evidence that homosexuality runs in the family

When Vince Healy finally came out as gay, his disapproving Catholic family was familiar with the story. His older brother had been living with a man for several years. It didn't make things any easier, the 45-year-old Ballard man recalled.

"I was very unhappy at the prospect of being gay," he said. "I kept thinking: I must be a late bloomer."

As the youngest of three brothers, one of whom is straight, Healy illustrates the two most robust findings in the science of homosexuality: It runs in families, and the number of older brothers a man has can increase his chances of being gay.

About 3 percent of American men and 1.5 percent of women describe themselves as gay or bisexual, according to the National Institutes of Health. Those percentages are three to five times higher among people who have a gay brother or sister.

The gay gene:

But genes clearly are not the only factor, or identical twins would always share the same sexual orientation.

"That means there's a significant environmental contribution," said Sanders, who is leading a five-year, $2.5 million project for the National Institutes of Health to try to identify the genes involved.

Earlier research has pointed to several possible gene regions, but those studies were small and not definitive. With DNA from 1,000 pairs of gay brothers, Sanders' project will be much more powerful.

It's very unlikely to uncover a single "gay" gene, he said. As in most complex traits, multiple genes and environmental factors probably work together.

Fraternal birth order:

But when he looked into scattered reports that many gay men have older brothers, he was astounded. The findings now have been confirmed by more than a dozen studies, including several of his own: Every older brother a man has increases his chances of being gay. A man with four older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than a man with none. Blanchard estimates one out of every seven gay men owes his orientation to this "fraternal birth order" effect.

It's possible to argue for social explanations — bullying by big brothers, indulgent mothers. But Blanchard believes it's biology. Gay males with older brothers weigh less at birth than heterosexual males with older brothers, hinting that something different is happening to them in the womb.

Now some of you may be wondering what is the point?
Why is it important that gay people are, or are not born gay?

The social and political implications of the research are impossible to ignore, leading to unease on both sides of the gay-rights debate. If science proves homosexuality is innate, is there any basis to deny gays equal treatment — including the right to marry? But if scientists unravel the roots of sexual orientation, will it some day be possible to "fix" people who don't fit the norms or abort fetuses likely to be born gay?

What greatly surprised me, is that researches into this subject do not happen much in the US, because of the "political pressure cooker" making it hard to get funding.

Much of the cutting-edge research is being conducted in other countries, because the political pressure cooker in the United States makes it difficult for scientists to get money, said Brian Mustanski, who juggles studies of the genetics of homosexuality with his main work on HIV prevention at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

But controversy can't obscure the facts, he said.

"It's pretty definitive that biological factors play a role in determining a person's sexual orientation."

I know that on ATS many people still believe that being gay is a choice or lifestyle, and not a state someone is born in. This ignorance results in opinions that may have been different if these ATSers would know how "being gay" really works.
With this thread I just hope to take some ignorance away, or at least start debate in which the truth can be persued.

Originally posted by Jakko

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

quote: But genes clearly are not the only factor, or identical twins would always share the same sexual orientation. "That means there's a significant environmental contribution," said Sanders, who is leading a five-year, $2.5 million project for the National Institutes of Health to try to identify the genes involved.

Jakko, good topic. Don't think I'd use this quote, though. I mean Sanders immediately jumps to the conclusion that there is an environmental factor, without giving an explanation why. I don't think it has to necessarily be environmental, there could be other reasons for that particular behavior. But the biggest reason is that one of the identical twins can get diseases while the other can't. I'm married to an identical twin who has diabetes. His twin does not. They both eat the same food/amount, and in fact my husband weighs less and exercises more than his brother, but still has diabetes. And diabetes isn't caused by environmental factors.
See what I mean?

Yeah I understand.
But isn't the thing with genes and diseases that a certain disease can also skip generations? The factor that influences whether or not a disease is skipped a generation could be entirely random...

Jakko, my apologies. My husband just finished explaining it to me and I only had it half right. Sexual orientation can be formed in utero, as can things like diabetes. Many studies have shown this to be true. That would be an environmental cause. Hope this makes sense.

No matter how you look at it, though, it still is true that sexual orientation is beyond a person's control, whether it was inherited or happened in utero.

Oh no problem at all.
The word environmental can mean just about everything in this case.
I think this is also why the guy jumps to this word, because it can mean basicly all other possibilities.

It is very strange to think about the implications hard evidence would have on the church. You think they would change they stance when science comes with hard proof that gay people are born gay?

Hi Jakko: Unfortunately, I don't think most would. After all, they have rejected the science of evolution. Why would they believe the science of gays being born that way?

Originally posted by forestlady
Jakko, good topic. Don't think I'd use this quote, though. I mean Sanders immediately jumps to the conclusion that there is an environmental factor, without giving an explanation why.

What do you mean that Sanders jumps to a conclusion without giving an explanation? Did you read the quote or just jump to a conclusion?

But genes clearly are not the only factor, or identical twins would always share the same sexual orientation.

"That means there's a significant environmental contribution," said Sanders, who is leading a five-year, $2.5 million project for the National Institutes of Health to try to identify the genes involved.

seattletimes.nwsource.com

How could Sanders be more clear?

If sexual orientation were purely genetic, then all twins would be of the same sexual orientation, but they are not.

Unless you know something no one else knows, there must be an environmental factor in sexual orientation.

being gay is I believe formed in utero.
The sexual center of the brain is different, wrong size
sexes have different size centers (dooh!)
so they have the wrong size for their sex
its therefore not their fault when people like to play a God hates you came....and no God does not hate you.
thats BS too

I never said that being gay is genetic. I know better. But there are alot of many other factors at play that determine whether the baby will be gay or not. For instance, many scientists think that if the pregnant woman undergoes significant stress during her pregnancy, that it disrupts hers (and by extension, the baby's)
hormone levels, which effects the sexual orientation of a child.

Yes, Grady, I read the quote. And I amended my response in my very next post, not realizing that events in utero can be construed as environmental. My question for you is this: WHY must there be environmental factors? Can you give some links or evidence? I would truly like to know why you think this.

Originally posted by junglelord
being gay is I believe formed in utero.
The sexual center of the brain is different, wrong size
sexes have different size centers (dooh!)
so they have the wrong size for their sex
its therefore not their fault when people like to play a God hates you came....and no God does not hate you.
thats BS too

JungleLord, thank you, I'd forgotten about the results of that study. Scientists do know that homosexual's brains are different from heterosexuals.

Originally posted by forestlady
WHY must there be environmental factors?

If it's not genetic then what is left?

Environmental is a very vague description, but it does include everything that is not genetic.

If it is not genetic, then it must be environmental, in utero or ex utero.

How much more clear can anyone put it?

That's the importance of twin studies. Identical twins have identical DNA.

[edit on 2007/5/17 by GradyPhilpott]

they were also from the same womb
it in utero, hormonal effects from the mother
cheers

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by forestlady
WHY must there be environmental factors?

If it's not genetic then what is left?
[edit on 2007/5/17 by GradyPhilpott]

What is left are alot of other causes. There are far more factors than just genetic and environmental that determine who and what we are.

Originally posted by forestlady
What is left are alot of other causes. There are far more factors than just genetic and environmental that determine who and what we are.

Please tell us what those might be.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by forestlady
What is left are alot of other causes. There are far more factors than just genetic and environmental that determine who and what we are.

Please tell us what those might be.

There are too many unknowns about why people are the way they are. In the case of my husband and his identical twin, my husband has diabetes, is left-handed and is one of the most generous, big-hearted people I've ever known. His brother is not diabetic (even though he has more lifestyle reasons to be), is right-handed and is one of the most miserly, tight-fisted people I've ever known.
How does one explain these differrences in twins who have the exact same DNA? Is it some sort of DNA anomoly we have yet to discover? Or is it something else that we don't even know about?
It is frequent in the case of identical twins for one to be right-handed and one to be left-handed, one to have Diabetes II, and the other not, for there to be personality differences, and to have a different sexual orientation. We don't know WHY these things are, we just know they are.
If being gay was due to environmental factors, why then aren't ALL identical twins of the same sexual orientation?
Simply put, there are things that happen that cannot be directly attributed to either genetic or environmental factors - they simply are unknowns.
Hope this answers your question.

forestlady, in the this field of study, there are only two kinds of factors--genetic and environmental.

Some might want to add a spiritual component, but such is not empirically available, so it doesn't count.

Identical twins have the same DNA, but no matter whether they live in the same home or not, no matter how much their parents may try to treat them the same, their environments are different.

We all have different a different experience. That is what is meant by environmental.

Grady, I am aware that probably the majority of scientists would agree that there are only 2 factors, genetic or environmental. But that's a pretty limited view isn't it, considering how complex the process of Life is, isn't it?

For those scientists who have studied such things, there are those that will tell you there are other factors. Why? Because there are things that neither genetics or environment can explain. I think you're assuming that we know all there is to know, but we're a long way from that. Before DNA, we had no idea what it could do. There may well be other facots just as important yet to discover, we just don't know about them.

But either way, it is still not a "lifestyle choice" to be gay. It is not a choice that is made; homosexuals simply are the way that they are. Penguins, giraffes and many other species of animals are born gay; why is that so hard to believe that humans are? We are after all "animal", ya know, animal, mineral or vegetable?

At any rate, whether anyone believes it's environmental or genetic, the same truth holds - that gay people did not choose to be gay. How many of them have to say that before you will believe them? But if it makes you feel better or superior, then, hey, by all means, believe fabrications. After all, you DID choose to be heterosexual didn't you?

Of course you are right about that we don't know quite a lot about exactly what causes what forestlady.
A lot of the time we can not really tell whether something was genetic or environmental. I personally think this may have to do with the way the two influence eachother. Certain environmental events only triggering a certain state when the genes were vulnarable to it in the first place.

This still does not explain why identical twins are not exactly the same sexual orientation, as they have been through the same environmental phase in the womb. It could also be the case that the mothers body in which the twins grew, "treated" the two embryo's differently.

Interesting stuff tho.

Maybe is something with hormones because most of the sexual drive develops in puberty. Could also be effect of food we eat. Many possibilities... I guess gays would like to hear it's something we are born with while others will say it's learned and treat it as an error.

Well, i see gays are really attracted and in love with each other so there is something natural in it after all.

Originally posted by 64738
Maybe is something with hormones because most of the sexual drive develops in puberty. Could also be effect of food we eat. Many possibilities... I guess gays would like to hear it's something we are born with while others will say it's learned and treat it as an error.

Well, i see gays are really attracted and in love with each other so there is something natural in it after all.

Well I am glad you think it's somewhat natural. ;+)

I personally don't really have a problem with this, but just so you know, in general it's regarded rude to call gay people "gays" in the same way it's rude to call black people "blacks".
Just so you know, I realize you didn't mean it rude at all.

I as a gay person don't "like to hear it's something we are born with" per se.
I just like to hear the truth.

From the moment I found out I was gay, I have been doing research to get ahold of this truth. What caused me to be gay? Can I change it? Is it something psychological? Is there therapy? Is it my parents fault? etc etc etc

After a long time I found out that it's not psychological. There is something in my brain that is physically different from how it works in the brains of straight guys.