Evidence shows Homosexuality probably due to biology
 

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/release...tivation.shtml

Study from the University of Chicago shows differing levels of glucose metabolism in the brain a significant difference between homosexual and heterosexual men.

Yeah, this would be good as a pilot study.

Their sample group was 8 homosexual and 8 heterosexual men. I can't think of any study that would consider 16 subjects to be a large enough group to give any kind of conclusive evidence.

The article didn't really specify how strongly the results pointed either way. It seems like science with a thinly veiled agenda.

If the study could be administered to a larger test group, I think it could provide some fairly conclusive results.

I agree. It's also a good way to get more funding, so they can have a larger test group.

I hope they do more testing for this group.


I believe that homosexuality is in most cases biological. I dont think most homosexuals would willingly "change" from being a heterosexual with all of the negativity, biases, discrimination, and sometimes violence that goes with "coming out" and being homosexual, if they werent in fact that way their whole life.

However I do know of a few who have chosen to be gay (they told me this!). Why they have done this....I've never been able to get a straight answer (no pun intended).

Well, every once in awhile, you'll see a church parading someone around that claims to be a "rehabilitated homosexual". If their claims are accurate, it would also seem to point that at least some choose this lifestyle rather than having it chosen for them.

It would be a really interesting world in which there were some physiological test to determine if someone was a biological homosexual. It would really raise some interesting questions.

Finally make homosexuals a protected minority under FLSA, Equal Opportunity, etc?

Recommend therapy/counseling for non-biological homosexuals?

Wouldn't you think it would be easy for someone who chose to be a homosexual to revert back to heterosexuality. Why would they need rehabilitation?

I'm not so sure that many people make an informed decision to be gay, so much as have had that lifestyle forced upon them. I'm thinking of four men who I know who were abused as altar boys.

I also know of two sets of identical twins (women), and one of each set is gay. In both cases, one or both parents treated the one like a boy from childhood.

I will be interested to hear the final results of a study that includes many more than 16 people.

Some shrinks need to get paid:D

Oh, I think it should be paid for by public funds...;)

This research was done at my school. That means there is no room for error and we are one hundred percent right.

-Rudey
--If it was done at any other school then there would be a chance it would be wrong but not at MY school hardy har har.

I'm a lesbian, but I don't know why...

Dude me too...but i'm into the hot ones in porn and not the flannel wearing ones.

-Rudey
--wooooo snoop-d-loop

Even the "conversion groups" have had some "issues" they've conveniently swept under the rug. The most famous "ex-gay" (the one w/ the former lesbian wife) was found at a gay bar, and his leadership of one of those groups (allied with Focus on the Family) was taken away from him. Allegedly, they're one big happy ex-gay family now, but it cast some serious doubt on the ex-gay movement. If there can be relapses like this (for him, it had been 14 years), then their claims are not accurate.

Information on John Paulk from Christianity Today

If there can be relapses?

Not that I totally disagree... but geez, you can say that about any behavior. Sure, in some cases, what they say is probably accurate. "Rehabilitation" as they call it might actually work for some. On the other hand, I'm sure there are relapses.

Just because some people take up smoking again after having not smoked for years doesn't prove that you can't quit smoking.

Never said that. It was just an antecdote.

It merely suggests that homosexuality may not be entirely a lifestyle decision, instead inferring that there could be a biological tie...much like for a recovering smoker, the act of smoking and the intake of nicotine could trigger a dormant biological craving all over again.

Hijack...


There was a Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode based on a story like this...possible the same one, on of course there was a murder.

If it's biological - are people going to try to fix it? A test before birth to test the predisposition? An operation to "fix" it? Is this ethical?

If it's not biological - then is homosexuality just something that should be treated? "rehabilated"? Is this ethical?

I worry when people are too anxious to determine what "causes" homosexuality. I think that it will not help acceptance... but that it will just give these "conversion" people more to work with.

The one study that came out several years ago, about the biological propensity of homosexuality in men, correlated the size of part of the hypothalamus to homosexuality. This means that men who are homosexual, in most cases, are wired that way from birth. It is not treatable. What will probably begin to happen in the not-so-distant future is that people will use genetic tests to see if a fetus is predisposed to be homosexual, and that is indeed an ethical question.

I seriously doubt that there people who choose to be homosexual in any significant numbers. I do not believe that attempts at behaviour modification will be successful. No one taught me to look at woman's breasts, and I know that there is not a chance in hell that behaviour modification, unless it is of the Clockwork Orange variety, will ever get me to stop.

A great irony, as I see it, is that people who are so opposed to the existence of homosexuals are actually envouraging homosexuals to live a lie, get married, and pass on their homosexual genes. If they simply left these people alone, homosexuals, as a percentage of humanity, would reproduce in smaller numbers and decline.

So if it is biological can a parent change it?

Lots of things are biological that we actively change.

-Rudey
--Oh the ethical questions technology brings.

If its linked to the hypothalamus, then there is no existing technology that can change it. The hypothalamus is in a part of the brain that I believe would be considered inoperable, with current technology.

The bigger question about technology, genetics, and homosexuality, is, "how can we alter genes so that there will be twicw as many women as men, with all women bisexual?"

looks above *cough threesome fetish cough*


russell, what you are doing is changing the level of explaination. It is quite possible that the size of part of the hypocampus creates a disposition to homosexuality. However, this doesn't explain what causes homosexuality... it would be niave to think that changes in the brain do not cause changes in human behaviour. *some where in Waterloo, a psychology professor smiles knowing he got his point across to at least one student in his cog sci course*

The question then becomes - what causes the increase size of the hypocampus? If it's genetic - germ-line or even somatic therapies are in the wings. It is not as far away as we like to think. Then rudey's point becomes a very important one.

It is true that technological "solutions" brings up a lot of ethical questions. But then we need to think about the "problem" we are trying to solve. Is it really a problem that requires a technical solution? or perhaps it is our society which needs to change...

I believe that the first application of science will be genetic screening, and that in and of itself raises ethical questions.

As far as using genetic therapy, I do believe that is further away because we are talking about altering the core of the brain. The problem with genetic therapy is that only a few genes are linked solely to one trait. Most genes are linked, in a matrix, to many traits. Altering one thing will usually alter something else as well.