Posted on 10/06/2003 4:07:01 PM PDT by AntiGuv
MONDAY, Oct. 6 (HealthDayNews) -- The origins of sexual orientation may be evident in the blink of an eye.
In what is the first study to show an apparent link between a non-learned trait and sexual orientation, British researchers have discovered the way peoples' eyes respond to sudden loud noises may signal differences between heterosexual and homosexual men and women that were developed before birth.
The authors, whose study appears in the October issue of Behavioral Neuroscience, say about 4 percent of men and 3 percent of women are gay. Scientists have long sought to determine whether sexuality is learned or biological.
"We have several decades of research which suggests rather strongly that human sexual orientation is to some degree biologically determined," says study author Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in the School of Psychology at the University of East London. "The problem with those types of studies is that we can't disentangle the effects of learning."
The question then became, "What kind of task could be used that is not influenced by learning or socialization?" The answer came in human startle responses, which are involuntary and instinctual.
Specifically, Rahman and his colleagues decided to use pre-pulse inhibition (PPI). When humans hear a sudden noise, they respond by blinking. If that loud noise is preceded by a quieter noise (the pre-pulse), the response to the second, loud noise is weaker. In other words, it is inhibited.
The researchers compared responses to a loud noise both alone and after a quieter noise to see what the degree of inhibition was. Participants were 59 gay and straight men and women.
In the heterosexual women, the PPI averaged 13 percent and, in heterosexual men, 40 percent.
Lesbians, however, had a PPI of 33 percent, closer to the straight-man end of the spectrum, while gay men averaged 32 percent, slightly lower than that of straight men but not statistically significant.
The findings are consistent with other studies, which have found that certain traits in lesbians are highly "masculinized," while the same traits in gay men are almost the same as in straight men.
While it's difficult to make generalizations about gay behavior on the basis of these findings (for example, "all gay male thinking is like that of women"), it is possible to build a case for the origins of sexuality, the authors say.
"On the basis of these results and in conjunction with the bulk of the literature in the last three decades or so, the evidence points to some prenatal factor or factors [in determining sexual preference]," Rahman says.
The findings could have implications for a number of social issues.
"Actual sexual orientation and sex-related research is now being accepted as a legitimate national investment in terms of research," Rahman says. "We have problems with STDs [sexually transmitted diseases]. Understanding sexual behavior is clearly important to that."
The findings may also help illuminate sex differences in mental health issues. "Although homosexuality per se is not related to psychiatric problems, on those occasions that gays and lesbians do present with psychiatric problems, they often show disorders that are typical of the opposite sex," Rahman says. Gay men, for example, may be more likely to suffer depression, anxiety and eating disorders than their straight counterparts, while lesbians may be more vulnerable to substance abuse than heterosexual women.
"Maybe having an understanding of brain basis of sexual orientation in healthy individuals may give us some clues in what is going wrong in the brain circuitry underlying certain psychiatric problems," Rahman says. "In the future, we may be able to tailor treatments more specifically."
It's important not to draw too many generalizations. "It's not that the gay brain is like the heterosexual brain of the opposite sex. It seems to be a mosaic of male and female typical traits," Rahman says. "Because we're looking at humans, thing are always more complicated that you would expect."
The evidence is specious at best! But I will say we're all born into sin, so I guess from that perspective it could be.
I am quite sure there may be accompanying traits to homosexuality that could benefit a community as do courage, audacity, or risk-taking. However, courage, audacity, and risk-taking are not solid roadblocks to inheritance if the courageous individual survives to produce offspring. The genes of a homosexual person are not carried forward because there are no offspring to carry them. Since there are no offspring, both the homosexual characteristic and any accompanying beneficial factors become a moot argument.
>>homosexuality is in some instances congenital, not (or not entirely) genetic -- i.e., caused by accidents or conditions in fetal development, not inheritance from parents.<<
Fetal development is of course guided by inheritance. A species whose physiology causes succeeding males in its family to have an increasing chance of not producing offspring is a species carrying a deleterious genetic inheritance. As such, the causal gene would eventually pass out of the population or would be expressed less and less in American society where few families have more than three children anymore. On the other hand, if the homosexual characteristic is caused by some accident during fetal development, as well it could in a few cases, one would not expect rate of homosexuality to be as high as it is. There is no evidence that homosexuality is declining in America, but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it is increasing. If genetics or accidents do not play a significant part in this increase, there must be some other reason. It is my belief that external cultural environment serves more to preserve this human characteristic than any other thing. In other words more people choose this lifestyle than those who are physiologically inclined to it.
Muleteam1.
>>>So what you're really pissed off about are the actions of a vocal and shrill minority, right?<<<
No, I am righteously angry about a shrill and and vocal minority that has garnered huge support from governement and media, so that their moral relativist (actually it's absolutist, but a mirror image of any and all religions, as well as a photo negative of common sense and health) version is shoved down kids' throats in SCHOOLS, enshrined in laws forwarding their agenda, and all over Teev and every type of media.
Homosexuals could do whatever they do in private without forcing others into seeing it, smelling it, hearing it, etc etc. But they don't want to be privately "enjoying" their same sex acts. They want to change the moral climate of the world. That is why they and their promoters have enacted so many laws in their behalf - from "hate crimes" laws to "hate speech", to laws that mandate a flaming cross dresser can't get fired, to laws that tell someone renting an apartment under his house that he must rent to a pair of homosexuals even if it is against his moral principles.
Kids in schools in more and more states are taught that homosexual acts a benign and even morally superior. On and on.
Again, just in case you didn't understand me, although same sex behavior personally nauseates me just hearing about it, and I am saddened that so many people choose to act out such desires, I truly wouldn't care if they kept it private. But they don't, it is undeniable that they want to change the moral climate of the country. And that is where I and many others draw the line.
In many, if not all cultures, family plays an important role in a person's social status. Having children was and is often a measure of a man's masculinity and a woman's femininity, and having numerous children could be seen as a sign of being a successful member of the community.
Thus, even a person who found no pleasure in heterosexual sex might submit to it in order to obey the family matriarch, satisfy the demands of the tribal gods, prove his virility, or produce warriors to strengthen his clan.
Also, an explanation should be given to explain the obvious ever-increasing rates of occurrence of this abnormal behavioral expression?
It may be that it is not the rates of occurence that are increasing, but rather the outward display of homosexuality that is on the rise. Homosexuals may have been 4% of the population since the dawn of mankind, but perhaps 3% of them just kept their real desires to themselves for most of history. Some change in modern culture now leads that 3% to be more open about it.
Although I can imagine viable explanations for the second question, I cannot imagine how genes can be passed between generations when there are no generations.
I believe there are other genetic conditions that render a person extremely unlikely to reproduce, yet they still remain in our population. For example, Down's Syndrom is caused by genetics, yet a person with DS is unlikely to ever pass on their genes to offspring. Maybe some rare, particular combination of "straight" genes leads to homosexuality?
Could we please have the source of your data here?
Muleteam1
There is none; it is a hypothetical figure. I was not trying to present a fact, I just picked a ballpark figure to try to illustrate my point. Specifically, that the increased noticeability of homosexuality in our culture does not necessarily indicate a change in the proportion of homosexuals in our population.
Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have clarified that a bit more in my first post.
No, that is just you interjecting your opinion. It is your opinion that there is some form of contamination that has caused certain species to eat their young. Did it ever occur to you that eating the young was part of the design of that species to help control its numbers? That is very common among rodents. Imagine how many rodents would be alive if that didn't happen.
My response above is that some animals eat their young, and by your definitions this is "natural". Therefore would you also say that if some humans eat their children we MUST call this "natural" child rearing behavior?
No. It is not something that has commonly occured as it does in say... gerbils. Gerbils often eat their young. Humans do that as some sort of perverse ritual perhaps but that is the extent of it. Thus we have to protect children from parents that would eat them.
Amen, er, ditto. I also believe people are born gay, although I believe it is abnormal. Let's just call it a defect. There might be some cases where environment is a factor, but most of them are born that way imo.
Amen, er, ditto. I also believe people are born gay...
You folks really need to check out the links in post 78, which state the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment. From here:
It is important to note that serious research on the biology, innateness, or genetic determinants of homosexuality has only just recently begun. Exactly opposite to what the public is being led to believe, the research that has been done thus far suggests that genetic factors account for, at most, but a small proportion of the risk. J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard, two of the major researchers most widely cited as having demonstrated that "homosexuality is genetic," were forced to admit otherwise by the results of their own research. They themselves wrote:Then from hereThese studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment.... Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.{1}Footnotes{1} J. M. Bailey et al., "Heritable Factors Influence Sexual Orientations in Women," Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no. 3, pp. 217-23. Note the title. Even though the authors admit that any possible heritable factors contribute only 25 percent to a homosexual predisposition, the article is titled as though trumpeting a headline discovery. It was picked up that way by sympathetic media outlets.
The boy (for example) who one day may go on to struggle with homosexuality is born with certain features that are somewhat more common among homosexuals than in the population at large. Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the "intrauterine environment" (hormones). What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them.If you were to read the other links it would appear obvious that current research states nobody is born gay, and that the major factor in determining homosexuality is environment.What are these traits? If we could identify them precisely, many of them would turn out to be gifts rather than "problems," for example a "sensitive" disposition, a strong creative drive, a keen aesthetic sense. Some of these, such as greater sensitivity, could be related to - or even the same as - physiological traits that also cause trouble, such as a greater-than-average anxiety response to any given stimulus.
No one knows with certainty just what these heritable characteristics are; at present we only have hints. Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas) we would certainly soon clarify these factors - just as we are doing in less contentious areas. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited.
That seems hardly conclusive.
Simon LeVay made a interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."Levay is often trumpeted as someone who found a gay gene. Here's what Levay said of his own research:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."The above pulled from here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.