What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[birddog]

As a Christian biologist, I believe queers likely have a predisposition to being a queer similar to those having a predisposition to any abnormality such as diabetes etc. The argument that research doesn't prove it may be valid, but not conclusive.

Most who have the homosexual predisposition do not develop the abnormality unless they are subjected to the correct environmental influences, plus that have to act on it or make a choice to do so.

I'm not a researcher, but just voicing a common sense opinion.

 

[PredFan]

Homosexual activists are much different than the homosexuals I know. My gay and lesbian friends are just like normal people. They do way they do, love who they live and are not in anyone's face about it. We have good times.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Maybe because there is a lot more to life than reproduction, and because the Bible- however epic it may be- was written by men, not God.

If the Lord didn't write the word, why are heterosexual couples the only kind of couple that can naturally reproduce? If same gender relationships were the Lord's intention, homosexual couples would naturally be able to reproduce just like heterosexual couples can.

So your god made me, but he didn't make me gay? Who did?

You did. God created us so that this planet could be replenished and since a male and female union is the only one that can reproduce without any help, what do you think that means?

God bless you two always!!!

Holly

 

[PredFan]

As a Christian biologist, I believe queers likely have a predisposition to being a queer similar to those having a predisposition to any abnormality such as diabetes etc. The argument that research doesn't prove it may be valid, but not conclusive.

Most who have the homosexual predisposition do not develop the abnormality unless they are subjected to the correct environmental influences, plus that have to act on it or make a choice to do so.

I'm not a researcher, but just voicing a common sense opinion.

I believe that in the question of nature vs nurture, it is both. I agree with you 100% that there is a biological propensity in some people to be gay, and it takes outside pressures at critical times to bring the trait to the surface.

All of the homosexuals I know, and there are several, have horrible family and childhood backgrounds.

 

[DriftingSand]

The Christian far right are the outcasts not the gays.

That's cool with me. Christians started out as "outcasts" and have always been outcasts. They were one of the targets of the ancient Pharisees; they were targets of the ancient Roman Empire; they were targets of the medieval Inquisitions during the Papal reign; they were the targets of the Bolsheviks under Trotsky, Lenin, and Marx; and they're the targets of today's secularists. There is no new thing under the sun. Christ promised that it would be so and the world has consistently proven Him correct.

It doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is a serious abnormality.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's not his "word". The "word" you are referring to was written by men not god. If you believe in god, then your god created the gays just like everyone else. Either he's all powerful or he's not. Which is it?

The Landlord and the Gays

I believe that the Lord created us all, but I don't believe that he had anything to do with our preferences being whatever they are. I believe that was all left up to us. Why would he have us go against what his word is?

So your god made me, but he didn't make me gay? Who did?

You did in the series of choices you made regarding your sexual activity.

You made yourself homosexual in the same way an alcoholic makes himself an alcoholic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I already told you.. Enviromental & social causes and the way you reacted to them caused you to think you were gay & then you acted upon the thoughts because you CHOSE to accept those thoughts and act upon them.

How is that illogical?
I gave myself same sex attractions? That's not logical. Are you confused about consent and non consent? It's a meme in threads like these.

it's not illogical, enviromental & social causes & the choices you made in reaction to those causes is what led you to start thinking you are gay, then you CHOSE to act on that thought. Apparently you likes it because you're willing to spread false information in order to propagate the lifestyle.

You have me on ignore or do you just refuse to acknowledge the asswhooping in logic & reason you're recieving from me?

"Lifestyle", "choices"? Why would anyone CHOOSE discrimination, hatred, and constant battles to be recognized as equal citizens under the law? No one THINKS they are gay, and I have posted more than enough information to show inborn variances as the "cause".

And one can show similar studies that indicate a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic.

That doesn't mean you or the potential alcoholic do not have a choice.

 

[Peach]

from "Born that way" theory

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.


How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.


Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.


Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.


Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.


Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.
2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.


How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."
But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.


What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.


Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.


With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}
From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}
From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}
From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}
As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books.

The Genome Project mapped genes, did not specify what links to what differing characteristics, And I altered the word "gene" to GENETIC yesterday. Read more, insult less.

Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality

 

[JimBowie1958]

As a Christian biologist, I believe queers likely have a predisposition to being a queer similar to those having a predisposition to any abnormality such as diabetes etc. The argument that research doesn't prove it may be valid, but not conclusive.

Most who have the homosexual predisposition do not develop the abnormality unless they are subjected to the correct environmental influences, plus that have to act on it or make a choice to do so.

I'm not a researcher, but just voicing a common sense opinion.

So what would happen to Type 2 Diabetes rates if society decided to accept it as 'normal', stop treating it and affirmed peoples right to be diabetic?

The rate of diabetese would sky rocket like it is doing now.

What we need is a restoration of good ole social norms and a little more rough and ruggedness in our kids lives so they will not think they have to have a pajama-and-slippers lifestyle to feel normal.

 

[GreenBean]

It's not his "word". The "word" you are referring to was written by men not god. If you believe in god, then your god created the gays just like everyone else. Either he's all powerful or he's not. Which is it?

The Landlord and the Gays

I believe that the Lord created us all, but I don't believe that he had anything to do with our preferences being whatever they are. I believe that was all left up to us. Why would he have us go against what his word is?

So your god made me, but he didn't make me gay? Who did?

So you believe that a Supreme Being made you a pervert, is that why you despise religion ?

You despise and detest that which made you into a detestable freak and an outcast of humanity, an abomination to sanity ?

I believe my dear funny little seawytch , that a good portion of your problems lie in what is known as autophobia - Self-hatred, self-loathing. Your inner being , striving to free itself of the sexually dysphoric pervert you grew to be has a lot to do with your issues ...There is hope for you, Seuxal Dysphoria is not a life sentence, others have broken free and gone on to live healthy and procuctive lives -you weren't born a freak , you don't have to stay one. Just a thought for you toponder .... Have a pleasant day Freak

 

[jillian]

What is perverted is bigotry and hate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Christian far right are the outcasts not the gays.

That's cool with me. Christians started out as "outcasts" and have always been outcasts. They were one of the targets of the ancient Pharisees; they were targets of the ancient Roman Empire; they were targets of the medieval Inquisitions during the Papal reign; they were the targets of the Bolsheviks under Trotsky, Lenin, and Marx; and they're the targets of today's secularists. There is no new thing under the sun. Christ promised that it would be so and the world has consistently proven Him correct. It doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is a serious abnormality.

Jesus loves you, DS, despite you being a fairysee.

 

[GreenBean]

The Christian far right are the outcasts not the gays.

That's cool with me. Christians started out as "outcasts" and have always been outcasts. They were one of the targets of the ancient Pharisees; they were targets of the ancient Roman Empire; they were targets of the medieval Inquisitions during the Papal reign; they were the targets of the Bolsheviks under Trotsky, Lenin, and Marx; and they're the targets of today's secularists. There is no new thing under the sun. Christ promised that it would be so and the world has consistently proven Him correct. It doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is a serious abnormality.

Jesus loves you, DS, despite you being a fairysee.

If you wish to use symbolism, and gnostic fairy tales why not go with the polar opposite of Jesus , it's more appropriate.

 

[Peach]

As a Christian biologist, I believe queers likely have a predisposition to being a queer similar to those having a predisposition to any abnormality such as diabetes etc. The argument that research doesn't prove it may be valid, but not conclusive.

Most who have the homosexual predisposition do not develop the abnormality unless they are subjected to the correct environmental influences, plus that have to act on it or make a choice to do so.

I'm not a researcher, but just voicing a common sense opinion.

So what would happen to Type 2 Diabetes rates if society decided to accept it as 'normal', stop treating it and affirmed peoples right to be diabetic?

The rate of diabetese would sky rocket like it is doing now.

What we need is a restoration of good ole social norms and a little more rough and ruggedness in our kids lives so they will not think they have to have a pajama-and-slippers lifestyle to feel normal.

As a very slender Type II diabetic, I KNOW genetics played a deciding role in my diabetes. My mother was a skinny Type I. As for the comparison, there is none. Being gay is not a disease. There is no way to "treat" gay humans. Obviously, if a gay person's religious beliefs prohibit the expression of the natural orientation, they may remain celibate. It will not change the orientation however.

 

[LockeJaw]

Sorry Jake...you can keep pretending your opinion means something is the way you see it but you're wrong.

Your opinion doesn't count, LJ, just as greenbeanSnow or JimBowie's opinions are equally worthless.

You and those who think like you are out of touch with mainstream America.

All you guys are doing now is mindless screaming in the dark.

Jake, I'm not posting opinion...I'm posting FACTS.

And you're even more of an outcast from mainstream society than gays are, commie bum.

 

[Plasmaball]

As a Christian biologist, I believe queers likely have a predisposition to being a queer similar to those having a predisposition to any abnormality such as diabetes etc. The argument that research doesn't prove it may be valid, but not conclusive.

Most who have the homosexual predisposition do not develop the abnormality unless they are subjected to the correct environmental influences, plus that have to act on it or make a choice to do so.

I'm not a researcher, but just voicing a common sense opinion.

still didnt stop you from posting this anyways. Overall your opinion is i think this way, i can't prove it, so ill claim common sense and move on.

 

[Plasmaball]

As a Christian biologist, I believe queers likely have a predisposition to being a queer similar to those having a predisposition to any abnormality such as diabetes etc. The argument that research doesn't prove it may be valid, but not conclusive.

Most who have the homosexual predisposition do not develop the abnormality unless they are subjected to the correct environmental influences, plus that have to act on it or make a choice to do so.

I'm not a researcher, but just voicing a common sense opinion.

So what would happen to Type 2 Diabetes rates if society decided to accept it as 'normal', stop treating it and affirmed peoples right to be diabetic?

The rate of diabetese would sky rocket like it is doing now.

What we need is a restoration of good ole social norms and a little more rough and ruggedness in our kids lives so they will not think they have to have a pajama-and-slippers lifestyle to feel normal.

what

 

[Plasmaball]

Sorry Jake...you can keep pretending your opinion means something is the way you see it but you're wrong.

Your opinion doesn't count, LJ, just as greenbeanSnow or JimBowie's opinions are equally worthless.

You and those who think like you are out of touch with mainstream America.

All you guys are doing now is mindless screaming in the dark.

Jake, I'm not posting opinion...I'm posting FACTS.

And you're even more of an outcast from mainstream society than gays are, commie bum.

nah...10 years from now you will be nothing, irrelevant. young people dont care and society will change. this issue is dead..

 

[LockeJaw]

this specific post wasn't about the genome project...See I told you. You just ignore what you don't want to know as fact. Dint even read it.

from "Born that way" theory

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.


How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.


Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.


Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.


Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.


Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.
2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.


How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."
But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.


What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.


Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.


With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}
From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}
From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}
From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}
As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books.

The Genome Project mapped genes, did not specify what links to what differing characteristics, And I altered the word "gene" to GENETIC yesterday. Read more, insult less.

Study Finds Epigenetics, Not Genetics, Underlies Homosexuality

 

[Peach]

I have read many summaries of the various studies, none exclude genetics as a factor. What you posted backs up EPIGENETICS, for example:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6) More on epigenetics:

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.