Is Homosexuality psycological or biological?

Good question. In the lab rat and monkey experiments the hormones were injected into the mother... so I would guess it naturally would come from the mother somehow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WellCookedFetus: If the hormones come from the mother, this merely pushes the nature versus nurture argument to another area.

The percentage of homosexuals in the US seems too high for the cause to be prenatal environment, which relates to maternal body chemistry. Body chemistry tends to be genetic in origin.

Xenu: You are correct, our genetic heritage is pretty much the same as it was in prehistoric times.

Your interpretation of the lack of genetic change since prehistory is faulty. If genes for homosexuality existed in prehistoric times, they should exist in almost all modern cultures. Yet, homosexuality seems to be a behavior found mostly in the US and other affluent technological cultures, not in the third world cultures nor in the really primitive cultures like Australian aborigines.

Application of the Wilson theory to gay behavior seems very suspect to me. If homosexuality occurs more often in certain cultures, that seems to be evidence for an environmental cause rather than a biological cause. Note that kin altruism seems to occur in almost all human cultures, suggesting that Wilson theory might very well be applicable to such behavior.

All posters: Anecdotal evidence is very suspect. I often hear stories about some gay who acted gay from early childhood. Such stories are poor evidence for a biological origin of gay behavior, yet are often told to support the notion of a biological cause.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On no it does not! what the mother does and eats greatly effects the feti!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We're in agreement of the hormone thing it seems. Yes there is evidence that homosexuality correlates with certain hormones within the mom.

What I'm trying to say however is if homosexuality was a "bad trait" to have in terms of natural selection then it would have been weeded out, even if it was hormonal. Why? Because although hormones may cause the change, it is the genes that allow for such change to happen, because they are the genetic map. Sorry if I was unclear.


Dinosaur,

I haven't heard of any evidence that homosexuality exists primarily in "affluent technological cultures". Do you have any Dinosaur?

If this is the case, then I'd ask, is it because homosexuality isn't present or is it that it's socially shunned? For example I did a quick search on the australian aborigines that you mentioned. Although, no major scientific research is being taken place here, I came up with a number or sources that talked about how homosexuality wasn't "culturally acceptable". Here's an example of what I found...

http://members.tripod.com/reconciliation/chhomophobia.htm
http://members.tripod.com/reconciliation/chreligion.htm
(although on the "respected" tripod site, the paper has a number of sources)
http://www.stdservices.on.net/std/social_aspects/aborigines.htm

From reading tidbits here and there, there seems to be a problem with aborigines admitting they have HIV in fear of being branded as gay. Perhaps some of our Australian members could tell what they've heard too.

So perhaps homosexuality is found across the globe, but just not expressed, or made public, in certain societies.

 

A hormone anomaly cannot be "weeded out" because it is out side interference. The gene may say "should like men" but then from out side a hormone or hormone mimicking chemical comes in and acts out the opposite instruction "should like women" no matter what the gene said there is nothing that can be done.

 

let me intrude with another question:

is heterosexuality psychological or biological?

 

spuriousmonkey,

both

WellCookedFetus,

But it is the genes that determine what the hormones do. I'll try to explain this simply. There are variations in the genes that are the map of sexual preference. Some variations need a lower level of the hormone to switch sexual preference. Some variations would need higher. If homosexuality was a evolutionary "bad trait", then the genes with the lower tolerance would be weeded out. So yes hormones control what's going on, but the genes determine tolerance levels to hormones.

You could muck things up with outside chemicals that would push pass even the high tolerance level. I agree with you on this. But keep in mind homosexuality has been around for centuries, at least Greek times, way before we started polluting the planet .

 

What causes homosexuality?

I read about the scientific research conducted on identical male twins where one was homosexual. Interesting results about the size of the hypothalamus differentiation in them would say homosexuality is of genetic origin. There were studies done some time ago in mice. Overcrowding in cages brought out homosexual tendencies in the mice, and this would allude to environmental causes. My theory is that the human race is STILL in the process of evolution, and we do become adapted to our environment. Biologically, genes do play an important role in sexual identity, but so does the environment. The human race is advancing rapidly. We can clone now, so why bother reproducing with the opposite sex (other than it's fun)? Isn't this another side of survival of the fittest? Spiritually, male and female have been separated during evolution to become the hunters and the gatherers. The evolutionary male has always hunted, killed, and cooked his meat? (What man today doesn't want a B-B-Q pit? What man at the dining room table on Thanksgiving doesn't carve the turkey?) Times change, people evolve. On a spiritual level, the male persona and the female persona are blending again. We are still in the last days of creation. Evolution will continue until there is a perfect blending of the human race. Then there will be an androgynous human being of only one color, one race that covers the Earth. Then we will be created in God's image.

 

I'll try not to take that as a insult! *wonders if you know that I am a 3 year undergrad of dual majoring Biotech/chem*
I am quite aware that genes do not work in on/off but by varying levels, operons are not the only way to control genes and proteins manufacturing and folding are also control gene expression in a more analog manner. Even so only 2-3% of the population is gay as such evolution has done a good job, and any further increasing in the accuracy of sexual preference setting would have very little pressure on it.

also smonkey its insulted very easily

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and considering s/he is in grad. School you might want to run for your life.

Medicine*Woman,

Studies with identical twins showed that if one twin was gay there was a 52% chance the other was too. This is far above fraternal twins, siblings, and population. This is not near 100% so it is not genetic. the best answer is genetic predisposing and exposure in utero.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

 

Xenu: I have no evidence about the prevalence of homosexuality in any culture. I have heard estimates of between 3-10 percent for the USA. I suspect that the extremes of this range are due to bias. My intuition suggests that 3% is too low and 10% is too high.

I do not remember reading about homosexuality among the American Indians, the Samoans (remember Margaret Meade?), the Hawaiians, Medieval cultures, Modern Hindus, Arabs, orientals, et cetera. et cetera. ancient Egyptians, et cetera. I assumed that the affluent Western European cultures would be similar to the USA, but have not actually seen any data on them. From various history courses and from reading about other cultures, the Greeks, Sodom, and Gomorrah are the only ancient cultures that I have seen mentioned as having homosexual activity. Those cultures were affluent for their era.

Others: Does anybody here have any good statistics for any cultures? In the absence of real data, I can only guess from what I have read.

The hormonal argument seems to me to confuse the issue here. Aside from people who take some type of drugs or live in some strange environment, biochemistry is highly dependent on genetics. A lot of what we eat is broken down into simpler chemicals from which our unique proteins and other organic chemicals are synthesized. Vitamins, NaCl, and a few other compounds are exceptions, but the more complex organic chemicals are almost entirely determined by our genes.

There is controversy over the interpretation and significance of twin studies. The number of twins raised separately from early infancy is very small. The number actually found and studied is even smaller. I do not think that much, if any significance can be assigned to these studies.

As far as I can tell, we are left with very little hard evidence. There are many anecdotes individuals who showed evidence of being gay at a very young age. Anecdotal evidence is not valid. It is based on potentially erroneous and/or biased memories. I dismiss it when used to prove some point about casino gambling, sexual prowess, and most any other subject.

This leaves us with arguments based on what seems reasonable. From my point of view, it seems contrary to species survival. On that basis, it should be relatively rare. 3-10% of the population of the USA seems too high for it to be a natural phenomena. Genetically derived homosexuality should have statistics more like hemophilia, unless you want to claim that our modern gene pool is significantly different from that of 10,000 to 100,000 years ago.

The more important issue is whether there is any basis for gay bashing and other anti-social attitudes toward gay people. I see more reason to be worried about people from whom I can contract typhoid fever, TB, or some other disease. When I can get AIDS from a gay breathing on me, I will become homophobic.

 

It rare enough that it does not effect breeding in fact many homosexual still have children, actually a better disorder to compare to is hermaphrotisum, one out of 2000 babies born here in the states is sexually ambiguous or has both male and female genital features.

also Romens were gay

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

WellCcookdFetus: You are right. Compare it to hermaphroditism instead of hemophilia. You posted that 1 out of 2000 are hermaphrodites. That is .05% (.0005), which is way less than the 3-10% figures claimed for homosexuality.

I agree with you: Perhaps .05% of the USA population might be gay due to genetics. How do you account for the rest?

 

I didn't say genetic only now did I?

 

Re: What causes homosexuality?

Just because the genders are not partaking in their 'natural' roles of hunting and gathering, doen't mean that the sexes are blending together. How many people do you know that are neither male nor female?

And evolution doesn't just finish when the species reaches a perfect state; the environment is continually changing and so evolution continues to cope with these changes. It's not black and white, the relatioship is very dynamic.

And as for there being 'androgynous human being of only one color, one race that covers the Earth... created in God's image'
.... well that's just being ignorant. And it's thoughts like that that got Hitler in trouble.

And as for homosexuality, the true topic of conversation; I think that the environment definantly plays a part. When a male homosexual couple raises a child (male), the child has a much greater chance of also being homosexual. So obviously the surroundings and influences of the people around him are playing a part. So maybe some people are born with it but others just develop it through life. Just like when males have been in love with a female before but then then 'realise' a while after that they are gay. It does happen. I guess is something we need to research further in order to fully undersatnd it.

 

Why is the question never put to heterosexuality? Why don't we ever hear some bold conservative asking what the *causes* for heterosexuality are? for right-handedness? for reading?

Give yourself a full 10 minutes and browse through the animal kingdom. There are some 400 or so species in which rampant homosexuality has been documented. The world is CHOCK FULL of gaylords- gorillas, mackaques, lizards, gazelles, rams, fish all sorts of birds and reptiles. There's androgyny, transvestitism, incest, transexuality, and pedophelia.

Homosexuality pales when compared to the wild orgies going on in this planet so OF COURSE its natural. It's everywhere, friend.

 

Hormones and the Mother

 

I disagree with the pill because( as you seem very well aware of) sexuality is determined 12 week after conception: by this time the women has long since known she pregnant and has been off the pill.

Also studies of ultra sound show that is has no adverse effects on the baby, it would only sound like a loud high pitch tone, also ultra sound does not “boil” adult organs why would it do that to baby organs?

 

Re: Hormones and the Mother

I have two highly intelligent young daughters, 3 and 1. Both had two ultra sounds before they were born. How can you explain their intelligence (for instance, random people are kind of shocked at how smart the oldest is because she speaks very very well for someone just shy of 3 years old) if their brains have been boiled? I would guess the risk of a baby's "brain boiling" during an ultrasound is very very low, if not just a figment of your imagination.

 

Hormones/ultrasound

You are right, sexuality is determined about 12 weeks following conception. Believe it or not, some women DON'T know they are pregnant and CONTINUE to take the pill for too long a period after conception. Ideally, a woman would be completely off the pill for at least 6 months to 1 year before planning to conceive. As we all know, sometimes it doesn't happen this well-planned way. The surge of hormones does affect the fetus.

Studies on ultrasound have shown it can cause hearing loss in the fetus. MRI of the brain shows blister-like lesions from ultrasound. Ultrasound is a convenience for the physician. It is not in any way practical, with the exception of a history of high-risk or deformed children, especially considering all the new syndromes that have been discovered in the past 30 years. Unfortunately, prenatal ultrasound is abused by doctors and their patients. Routinely, no more than 2 scans per pregnancy is the standard. Even that is too much. What's more important, a photo scan of the fetus or a healthy one? As a midwife, I look at this as an unnecessary and possibly harmful procedure. Nature's way is best.

 

Re: Re: Hormones and the Mother

I'm happy that you have two healthy children. I am glad that ultrasound didn't cause any harm. I guess I should have stated that it has been known to happen. For example, if the fetal head is closest to the scan device, or the technician zaps it with too much sound, etc. MRI studies have shown where ultrasound causes blisters on the fetal brain. Most doctors are reluctant to scan any more than two times. Many OB/GYNs are leaving the specialty because of high malpractice insurance and lawsuits that have been brought about from brain-damaged babies. I'm not saying that every prenatal ultrasound causes brain-damage. I'm just saying that the risks outweigh the benefits.