Startling Study Says People May Be Born Gay

HealthDayNews ^ | October 6, 2003 | Amanda Gardner

[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."

[Muleteam1]

Your answer to question two is the same as mine would have been but, as I said, I can imagine explanations for the ever-increasing expression of homosexuality. As to your "book" of real causes, I agree totally with that same book. My real desire was to point out the fallacy in the argument that a genetic factor obviously detrimental to the continued survival of any species can be inherited across non-existent generations. What can be inherited are the environmental factors that adversely affect embryonic development, as well as childhood development. Again, our "book" is very clear though. One may be born with the proclivity toward kleptomania, but one does not have to act on it.

Muleteam1

[waRNmother.armyboots]

Anyone who truly understands causality or true science would gag on this.

[CodeMonkey]

You seem to define natural sexual behavior as some sort of subjective concept that differs from person to person depending on their preferences or personal attractions.

If there was a biological component that drove them to do that to the exclusion of normal sexual relations then there'd be no option but to call it natural for that person. Not saying we have to like it, but to call it unnatural would not be correct as nature made them way by hardcoding into their DNA an attraction toward that deviation from the norm.

There is also a fundamental difference between homosexual behavior and necrophelic behavior. You can't even compare it to pedophelia as the two are in most cases mutually exclusive. Homosexual behavior simply means you prefer your own sex to the opposite. Beyond that it implies nothing about other orientations you may have. I'm sure you could find someone who is into every possible form of deviant sexuality.

It am not refering to what "feels natural", or an individual "orientation" but rather to the "natural function" defined by design and God's created intent for sexuality.

If a man looks at a sexy woman and feels no lust, but does when he looks at another man then that naturally how he is. Of course even if there were irrefutable proof of a gene that defines sexuality you'd most likely still deny it because that goes against the Bible.

The Bible's stand from begining to end..is that the only "natural" sexual relationships are heterosexual, and that all homosexual relations are "unnatural".

If it occurs in nature then it is natural. There are homosexual animals, how do you reconcile that with the Bible? We're the only known animals that possess sentient thought which is a prerequisite based on your argument for "choosing sexuality." How then does a gay animal choose to be gay if it cannot consciously make that choice?

Why is it that the "environment" of prison is known for producing homosexual conduct among men who claim to be hetero?

I've never said that someone couldn't consciously choose to do so. People consciously choose to do unnatural things likes that. We're the only animal that actually has the capacity to commit suicide for no other reason than a desire to not live anymore. In many cases too that homosexual conduct such as raping other men is a way of diminishing the masculinity and power of other men so as to assume dominance.

No one can answer all of these things conclusively but we know they involve both environment and choice.

For many, yes they do. I won't argue that many probably choose to be homosexual because it is a form of rebellion in their minds. However, for many it has to be biological because there is no good explanation for why a regular straight guy would prefer to have a man for a partner than a woman.

[WackyKat]

I am firmly convinced that genetics is a major factor in sexual determination. One of my friends who is a lesbian has bodily features that are so obviously male that she alone constitutes a very strong proof of genetic disposition.

I absolutely agree. In fact, I don't see how anyone can observe the body types, the facial features, and the mannerisms of many gays and lesbians and deny that there is a strong genetic component in many cases.

Most of the opponents of the genetic argument seem to be religious people who view homosexuality as a sin that was chosen by the person. To admit that it is genetic would be to admit that God creates homosexuals, which is totally unacceptable in their worldview.

[mvpel]

What decision?
I'm a man and I love women. Always have, always will.

So if you didn't decide to be physically attracted to women, what makes you think that every last gay person made a conscious decision to be physically attracted to the same sex?

[Jorge]

"The Bible's stand from begining to end..is that the only "natural" sexual relationships are heterosexual, and that all homosexual relations are "unnatural"."

If it occurs in nature then it is natural. There are homosexual animals, how do you reconcile that with the Bible? We're the only known animals that possess sentient thought which is a prerequisite based on your argument for "choosing sexuality." How then does a gay animal choose to be gay if it cannot consciously make that choice?

First of all there are animals which kill and eat their young. Would you just dismiss this a "natural" child rearing behavior?

Secondly "choice" is only one element that I refered to in when it comes to sexual behavior. But it is of course the element we are responsible for.

Finally your statement "If it occurs in nature then it is natural" is not true according to the the definition of natural sexual behavior I have already posted.

There is a vast difference between Nature as God created it and nature which is corrupted by sin.

Homosexuality and other sins are merely manifestations of the corrupt sin nature in man since the fall.

This was never God's intention, and has nothing to do with the natural biological design of human sexuality.

[mvpel]

Your response doesn't answer the question of why would a man who is naturally attracted to women freely engage in something as painful and unnatural as anal sex with another man instead of pursuing a woman.

Some African cultures practice "dry sex" - women take various alarming steps to dry out the natural moisture in order to please their men.

And besides, if you've never tried it, how do you know it's painful? Ever heard of KY Jelly?

[philetus]

You got my answer.
Go peddle your "gay is normal" crap to someone else.

[webstersII]

"I am firmly convinced that genetics is a major factor in sexual determination. One of my friends who is a lesbian has bodily features that are so obviously male that she alone constitutes a very strong proof of genetic disposition."

That's a really silly anecdotal story which you are trying to use as some basis for proof.

I had a friend who, like your friend, had "bodily features that are so obviously male" that we would have really wondered about her if we hadn't met her husband and kids. She was very athletic and she played several different sports (of course softball was one of them). She was not at all feminine but she certainly wasn't a lesbian.

And, yes, she got hit on quite often by lesbian women. It was a running joke, and she was good-natured about it, but she got tired of some of them being so aggressive and insistent that she was really a lesbian, that she was just closeted, blah, blah, blah.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

My wife is afraid of spiders. Do you suppose it is genetic?

[webstersII]

"Some people are born gay. I don't see why is so hard to accept. (actually I do see why. it goes against certain belief systems)"

A belief system is what you are espousing when you say that some people are born that way. It goes against your belief system to think otherwise.

[Jorge]

Jorge "You seem to define natural sexual behavior as some sort of subjective concept that differs from person to person depending on their preferences or personal attractions."

If there was a biological component that drove them to do that to the exclusion of normal sexual relations then there'd be no option but to call it natural for that person.

Anyone could claim there's some biological component to any behavior and therefore any behavior becomes "natural for that person" in your view.

Eating ANYTHING, including poisons and all forms of unnatural substances would be "natural" according to your definition.....as long as there was some "biological component" involved.

With all due respect this is absurd.

The biological design of the human sexual function is obvious.
Male, penis-sperm, female vagina-egg...fertilization, baby.
Anybody can understand this.

The idea that wherever sex organs can fit and a person enjoys having them, ultimately defines what is "natural for them" is the warped.

[WhiteGuy]

well now..............

This should piss a bunch of people off.

[webstersII]

"Show me a 5 year old that is sexually attracted to men and I'll show you an abused child."

That's what I call a moment of clarity.

Children that young may identify with one gender more than the other but that doesn't have anything to do with sexual preference.

[CodeMonkey]

And besides, if you've never tried it, how do you know it's painful?

Something instinctively tells me that it is and I've known a few gay guys who said as much.

[CodeMonkey]

Anyone could claim there's some biological component to any behavior and therefore any behavior becomes "natural for that person" in your view.

I said if there is a biological component. That isn't up for interpretation. It is a matter of objective reality. Either the component exists or it doesn't. If the person doesn't have it they're truly deviant. If it does then they are to be pitied because their deviant behavior is built into their DNA.

The idea that wherever sex organs can fit and a person enjoys having them, ultimately defines what is "natural for them" is the warped.

I said that if a genetic defect causes them to have that orientation then it is nature, not nurture, that makes them that way. It is thus natural for them to be that way. I don't see why that is so hard to grasp. They didn't choose to be that way.

[CodeMonkey]

First of all there are animals which kill and eat their young. Would you just dismiss this a "natural" child rearing behavior?

For that species, yes. You have a very flimsy stance on nature. On one hand you say that God made nature the way it is and on the other hand you decide that you, Jorge, are the one fit to judge what is naturally occuring outside of the parameters of objective observation. If a species eats its young, then based on a theological argument, is that not how God made that species? You believe that God made every facet of nature, well did God stop at defining how each species interacts with its young?

Secondly "choice" is only one element that I refered to in when it comes to sexual behavior. But it is of course the element we are responsible for.

If there is no biological component in sexual orientation then it is purely based on choice. If that is the case, you could choose to find a goat more attractive than any woman alive. But, you don't. I've known homosexuals who have never been interested in the opposite sex. I find it hard to believe that a perfectly healthy man or woman wakes up one day and decides.... "hey it'd be a nice change of pace to go find another member of my sex to have be with!"

There is a vast difference between Nature as God created it and nature which is corrupted by sin.

The natural world left untouched by man and only by natural processes is not touched by sin. It is acting according to natural design. If a gay animal thus occurs in nature then that is a natural occurance. It doesn't mean that that is typical of the species. Even still, you can't make your dog or cat gay. If you don't believe me, try getting to unneutered dogs or cats of the same sex to mate. It ain't gonna happen unless one or both of them is homosexual.

This was never God's intention, and has nothing to do with the natural biological design of human sexuality.

Whatever. If it occurs in nature then it was part of the natural design. Do you not find it odd that a being that can create a universe as complex as ours is caught off guard by minor behavioral differences in its creations? That's as absurd as the idea that a mere latex condom can thwart the will of God. If it was God's will it'd happen regardless of your intentions and actions.

[scripter]

there is no evidence to support the claim that anyone is born gay.

You're right, Jorge. No evidence exists to support homosexuals are born homosexual. In fact, all the evidence, even evidence from pro-gay researchers (who were forced to admit it) support what you say. All the evidence states environment is the major contributing factor to homosexuality.

I would imagine you've seen the following links on the subject, but for those who haven't:

• Finding a Needle in the Ocean 
• Homosexual Researchers Debunk 'Born Gay' Urban Legend  FR 
• Is Homosexuality Genetic? 
• Is Sexual Orientation Fixed at Birth? 
• Lust, Violence & Genetics 
• Is There a "Gay Gene"? 
• The Gay Gene? 
• The Biological Research on Homosexuality 
• The Fading "Gay Gene" 
• The Gay Gene: Going, Going...Gone 
• The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science 
• A Change In Thinking 
• What Causes Homosexual Desire and Can It Be Changed? 
• Facing The Truth About Homosexual Behavior 
• What Is "A Homosexual" 
• Gender Identity Disorder 
• Where Did the Gay Gene Go? 

Unfortunately, many don't really want to know the truth about what is really the major contributing factor behind homosexuality. This Categorical Index of links may prove informative as well.

[WackyKat]

Homosexuality and other sins are merely manifestations of the corrupt sin nature in man since the fall

Zoologists have observed homosexual behavior in many animal species. Is the behavior of an animal in the wild "unnatural"? Are those animals "sinners"?

[scripter]

For a better perspective on the issue of homosexualtiy and genetics, read the links in post 78. Environment is the major factor in determining homosexuality.