What science says about homosexuality

apersonsaperson · Jun 2, 2009

Hello, I would like to discuss homosexuality. Before I do so I would like to state that I understand this is a controversial topic and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I mean no disrespect towards anyone.

That being said I do not understand how people deny homosexuality as being scientifically proven to not be a "lifestyle choice". What proof do you need?

You mean besides the over 15 years of scientific studies that included brain scans (CT and MRI) that showed the brain of a gay person was actually structurally and functionally more like that of the opposite sex than their own?

In 1991, brain scientist Simon LeVay reported that the hypothalamus, which is involved in sexual behavior, tended to be smaller in gay men. Other researchers subsequently showed that the brains of gay and straight people appeared likely to respond differently to sexual images. The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindstrom of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which they used MRI to compare brain symmetry in straight and gay men and women. They found that gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size while gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

When they switched to PET scans, they found that in a part of the brain involved in processing emotions -- the amygdala -- and is connected to other brain regions gay men tended to be more like straight women, with a stronger link between the amygdala and regions involved in emotions. Gay women tended to be more like straight men, with stronger connections to motor functions.

There are other biological markers as well, with recent studies having been done at CSU Fullerton and Queen Mary, University of London, among many, many others.

In other words, you cannot dispute that there is a biological, genetic cause for homosexuality, no matter what your feelings are about it.

FlamingFemme · Jun 2, 2009

apersonsaperson said:
Hello, I would like to discuss homosexuality. Before I do so I would like to state that I understand this is a controversial topic and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I mean no disrespect towards anyone.

That being said I do not understand how people deny homosexuality as being scientifically proven to not be a "lifestyle choice". What proof do you need?

You mean besides the over 15 years of scientific studies that included brain scans (CT and MRI) that showed the brain of a gay person was actually structurally and functionally more like that of the opposite sex than their own?

In 1991, brain scientist Simon LeVay reported that the hypothalamus, which is involved in sexual behavior, tended to be smaller in gay men. Other researchers subsequently showed that the brains of gay and straight people appeared likely to respond differently to sexual images. The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindstrom of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which they used MRI to compare brain symmetry in straight and gay men and women. They found that gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size while gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

When they switched to PET scans, they found that in a part of the brain involved in processing emotions -- the amygdala -- and is connected to other brain regions gay men tended to be more like straight women, with a stronger link between the amygdala and regions involved in emotions. Gay women tended to be more like straight men, with stronger connections to motor functions.

There are other biological markers as well, with recent studies having been done at CSU Fullerton and Queen Mary, University of London, among many, many others.

In other words, you cannot dispute that there is a biological, genetic cause for homosexuality, no matter what your feelings are about it.

Nope, they can't. Which is why you hear nothing but deafening silence when you provide them with actual evidence.

Mercy Medical · Jun 2, 2009

Be prepared to have people come in and post with their own scientific evidence refuting these facts.

The fact of the matter is, human sexuality is a very, very, very complicated thing. It is not black and white. It never will be black and white regardless of how hard some try to make it that way. People need to stop forcing it like it is a black and white issue.

Penumbra · Jun 2, 2009

Note: I'm all for equal tolerance for homosexuality, for gay marriage, and I'm not Christian, and surely don't consider it sinful or evil.

But, to play devil's advocate, a notable Christian argument is that, due to original sin, all people are sinful by nature. Homosexuality, even if proven to be inherent from birth, would still easily be considered a sin by Christians then, and doesn't mitigate its status as a sin because according to their world view, we're all born in sin anyway.

So from the conservative Christian perspective, homosexuals are denying their own sin and refusing to stop doing it, even if it is inherent behavior.

So, they don't need to dispute that it is biological, even if some might try.

Everlasting33 · Jun 2, 2009

apersonsaperson said:
Hello, I would like to discuss homosexuality. Before I do so I would like to state that I understand this is a controversial topic and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I mean no disrespect towards anyone.

That being said I do not understand how people deny homosexuality as being scientifically proven to not be a "lifestyle choice". What proof do you need?

You mean besides the over 15 years of scientific studies that included brain scans (CT and MRI) that showed the brain of a gay person was actually structurally and functionally more like that of the opposite sex than their own?

In 1991, brain scientist Simon LeVay reported that the hypothalamus, which is involved in sexual behavior, tended to be smaller in gay men. Other researchers subsequently showed that the brains of gay and straight people appeared likely to respond differently to sexual images. The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindstrom of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which they used MRI to compare brain symmetry in straight and gay men and women. They found that gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size while gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

When they switched to PET scans, they found that in a part of the brain involved in processing emotions -- the amygdala -- and is connected to other brain regions gay men tended to be more like straight women, with a stronger link between the amygdala and regions involved in emotions. Gay women tended to be more like straight men, with stronger connections to motor functions.

There are other biological markers as well, with recent studies having been done at CSU Fullerton and Queen Mary, University of London, among many, many others.

In other words, you cannot dispute that there is a biological, genetic cause for homosexuality, no matter what your feelings are about it.

How does any of this prove that these changes were there in the womb and at birth?

apersonsaperson · Jun 2, 2009

Steelerbred33 said:
How does any of this prove that these changes were there in the womb and at birth?

The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

Pheromones are a genetic part of nature. There's a whole science to this. I don't mean to undermine your intelligence if you aren't already aware of exactly what pheromones are. I will providee a link which provides information on it, or you are able to google the term.

human pheromones information
Do Human Pheromones Really Exist? | Serendip's Exchange

apersonsaperson · Jun 2, 2009

Mercy Medical said:
Be prepared to have people come in and post with their own scientific evidence refuting these facts.

The fact of the matter is, human sexuality is a very, very, very complicated thing. It is not black and white. It never will be black and white regardless of how hard some try to make it that way. People need to stop forcing it like it is a black and white issue.

No, it is not black and white. People of the bisexual orientation are proof of this. But that does not mean we as humans are incapable of understanding it.

Everlasting33 · Jun 2, 2009

apersonsaperson said:
The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

Pheromones are a genetic part of nature. There's a whole science to this. I don't mean to undermine your intelligence if you aren't already aware of exactly what pheromones are. I will prove a link which provides information on it, or you are able to google the term.

human pheromones information
Do Human Pheromones Really Exist? | Serendip's Exchange

Well, yes there is a difference but there is not any evidence to conclude that it exists at birth. Also, does this apply to all gay men? What about women?

Vale Tudo · Jun 2, 2009

apersonsaperson said:
The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

Pheromones are a genetic part of nature. There's a whole science to this. I don't mean to undermine your intelligence if you aren't already aware of exactly what pheromones are. I will prove a link which provides information on it, or you are able to google the term.

human pheromones information
Do Human Pheromones Really Exist? | Serendip's Exchange

Irrelevant. Differences in adult gay men and heterosexual men prove nothing about biological differences at birth. Using yourlogic a women could be born to like a certain cologne because she enjoys the pheromones in it which is simply absurd. The only deafening silence you will hear in this thread is when people are asked to provide a shred of evidence of any genetic or biological evidence at birth.

Also, I find it interesting that so many argue that you can be born gay at birth, yet claim that you can't be born with other sexual orientations at birth. Either your sexual orientation is determined at birth or it isn't, you can't pick and chose which ones you think can be, and then say others can't. If sexual orientation is determined at birth than that includes all forms of sexual orientation, but nobody wants to even touch that issue because it undermines the "exclusive" argument for homosexuality it birth, which has zero eveidence to support it. I've never heard so many people argue that a person is born a certain way by making points about how they are as adults. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Copperpennies12 · Jun 2, 2009

I'm a new guy here and this is my first post so please be gentle.

If one is to examine homosexuality from a scientific perspective, shouldn't the discussion include more context. While I'm no biologist, I've had some basic biology in my education to include two college courses on biology. One thing that comes to mind is basic physiology; that is the function/purpose of organs.

If you consider the sexual reproductive organs, they are designed so that a man's organs not only complement a woman's but also has a reproductive value. The same cannot be said for the organs of two men or the organs of two women.

Also as part of the scientific context you must consider other "conditions" that are supposedly a result of biology or could be a result of biology. This includes criminality such as rape, murder, thievery, etc. There are also other sexual "orientations" to such as pedophilia, bestiality, maybe incestuous desires and so on.

Then you have medical conditions such as poor vision or blindness, Downs Syndrome, heart defects, and so forth.

There are also predispositions that are supposedly inherited such as alcoholism.

So, if you wish to justify the behavior of one group of people on the basis that biologically speaking, it's who they are, then to be ideologically and scientifically consistent you must do it for all. While you may have no problem doing it for people with medical conditions, what about the alcoholic? Does he gain immunity from prosecution for any alcohol-related crimes? Does the murderer get excused for any murder? Do brother and sister get to marry as well?

The obvious retort is that "well, those are crimes and people are victimized" but just as sodomy and other crimes that affected homosexuals were tossed out, why shouldn't the laws affecting other groups of people affected by biological conditions also be tossed out? The remaining retort is "there are still victims to account for." But then you enter the realm of morality and ethics which is highly subjective and so whose ethics and or system of morals trump everyone else's?

Also, what is the response to the conflict between what one feels urges to do vice the physiological design of their bodies?

Lastly, consider this quote from LeVay which seems to completely dispute the conclusions of the OP, "LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: 'Its important to stress what I didnt find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didnt 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 INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior.' " Simon LeVay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And there are many critics of LeVay questioning his examination of the hypothalamus as many of the brains of gays he examined died of AIDS. The problem being that AIDS can affect the size of the hypothalamus.

Caitlin.ann · Jun 2, 2009

They're never going to admit its anything but a "lifestyle choice"..I'd just give up.

buzzini · Jun 2, 2009

I think we have to understand what sin is first before going any further.

As the law Jesus gave us, love Lord and your neighbors are the good of all thing. On the other hand, loving self and this world is the evil of all sin. They are the basic law in spiritual world. Hence from this perspective, let's measure all things with these 2 laws.

Let's look at some examples here

Money itself is not sin, but how you use it. If you love making money to help others, even for your family, it's good. But if you love it for yourself, for your own enjoyment and so froth. it's evil. That's basic right?

Most people think loving myself is the basic rights. If you love yourself in order to be healthy, to carry out more good work and love others, then it's good. But if you were given the choice for yourself or others to enjoy service, caring, luxury, better seats...this is the test to see if you love yourself or love others. Surprisingly even christians think everyone should fight for he's own benefit.

Now concerning sex. If it is solely for your own pleasure and desire, then even straight sex can turn evil. If you think you are married, hence you can enjoy it without the concern of your mate, then even marriage sex can turn evil. If a homosexual couple love each others for other's sake, then according to Jesus' law, they are not in evil. The only issue is if the social moral accept it or not. They might not have the rights in public opinion, but they does no evil in God's eyes. For their love is not for their self sake.

lawtonfogle · Jun 2, 2009

apersonsaperson said:
Hello, I would like to discuss homosexuality. Before I do so I would like to state that I understand this is a controversial topic and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I mean no disrespect towards anyone.

That being said I do not understand how people deny homosexuality as being scientifically proven to not be a "lifestyle choice". What proof do you need?

You mean besides the over 15 years of scientific studies that included brain scans (CT and MRI) that showed the brain of a gay person was actually structurally and functionally more like that of the opposite sex than their own?

In 1991, brain scientist Simon LeVay reported that the hypothalamus, which is involved in sexual behavior, tended to be smaller in gay men. Other researchers subsequently showed that the brains of gay and straight people appeared likely to respond differently to sexual images. The researchers who conducted the new study previously reported that the brains of gay and straight men seemed to react differently to suspected pheromones -- odors thought to be involved in sexual arousal.

Ivanka Savic and Per Lindstrom of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which they used MRI to compare brain symmetry in straight and gay men and women. They found that gay men tended to have brains that were more like those of straight women than of straight men -- the right and left sides were about the same size while gay women's brains tended to be more like those of straight men than of straight women -- the right side tended to be slightly larger than the left.

When they switched to PET scans, they found that in a part of the brain involved in processing emotions -- the amygdala -- and is connected to other brain regions gay men tended to be more like straight women, with a stronger link between the amygdala and regions involved in emotions. Gay women tended to be more like straight men, with stronger connections to motor functions.

There are other biological markers as well, with recent studies having been done at CSU Fullerton and Queen Mary, University of London, among many, many others.

In other words, you cannot dispute that there is a biological, genetic cause for homosexuality, no matter what your feelings are about it.

Actually, the genetic cause can be disputed, as the differences could be teh result of nurture, not nature. Of course, there are two things to consider. First, likely it will involve mostly nature with some nurture (studies have shown that most things involve nature and nurture, with nature being the strong influence). Second, nurture still means it is not a choice.

lawtonfogle · Jun 2, 2009

Penumbra said:
Note: I'm all for equal tolerance for homosexuality, for gay marriage, and I'm not Christian, and surely don't consider it sinful or evil.

But, to play devil's advocate, a notable Christian argument is that, due to original sin, all people are sinful by nature. Homosexuality, even if proven to be inherent from birth, would still easily be considered a sin by Christians then, and doesn't mitigate its status as a sin because according to their world view, we're all born in sin anyway.

So from the conservative Christian perspective, homosexuals are denying their own sin and refusing to stop doing it, even if it is inherent behavior.

So, they don't need to dispute that it is biological, even if some might try.

Actually, the basis of that argument is this:

Just because some desire is natural does not mean it is right.

This is more than just the 'Christian response', this is the 'no duh' response. This doesn't mean homosexuality is bad, it just means that even if homosexuality is natural, it is not AUTOMATICALLY good.

moonkitty · Jun 2, 2009

Personally I don't care if homosexuality is biological or a choice someone makes. I think any adult should be free to have sex with any other consenting adult.

ke1985 · Jun 2, 2009

lawtonfogle said:
Actually, the basis of that argument is this:

Just because some desire is natural does not mean it is right.

This is more than just the 'Christian response', this is the 'no duh' response. This doesn't mean homosexuality is bad, it just means that even if homosexuality is natural, it is not AUTOMATICALLY good.

exactly!

ke1985 · Jun 2, 2009

Silverback said:
I'm a new guy here and this is my first post so please be gentle.

If one is to examine homosexuality from a scientific perspective, shouldn't the discussion include more context. While I'm no biologist, I've had some basic biology in my education to include two college courses on biology. One thing that comes to mind is basic physiology; that is the function/purpose of organs.

If you consider the sexual reproductive organs, they are designed so that a man's organs not only complement a woman's but also has a reproductive value. The same cannot be said for the organs of two men or the organs of two women.

Also as part of the scientific context you must consider other "conditions" that are supposedly a result of biology or could be a result of biology. This includes criminality such as rape, murder, thievery, etc. There are also other sexual "orientations" to such as pedophilia, bestiality, maybe incestuous desires and so on.

Then you have medical conditions such as poor vision or blindness, Downs Syndrome, heart defects, and so forth.

There are also predispositions that are supposedly inherited such as alcoholism.

So, if you wish to justify the behavior of one group of people on the basis that biologically speaking, it's who they are, then to be ideologically and scientifically consistent you must do it for all. While you may have no problem doing it for people with medical conditions, what about the alcoholic? Does he gain immunity from prosecution for any alcohol-related crimes? Does the murderer get excused for any murder? Do brother and sister get to marry as well?

The obvious retort is that "well, those are crimes and people are victimized" but just as sodomy and other crimes that affected homosexuals were tossed out, why shouldn't the laws affecting other groups of people affected by biological conditions also be tossed out? The remaining retort is "there are still victims to account for." But then you enter the realm of morality and ethics which is highly subjective and so whose ethics and or system of morals trump everyone else's?

Also, what is the response to the conflict between what one feels urges to do vice the physiological design of their bodies?

Lastly, consider this quote from LeVay which seems to completely dispute the conclusions of the OP, "LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: 'Its important to stress what I didnt find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didnt 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 INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior.' " Simon LeVay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And there are many critics of LeVay questioning his examination of the hypothalamus as many of the brains of gays he examined died of AIDS. The problem being that AIDS can affect the size of the hypothalamus.

Great post!

Not many people have responses to it or the others! Great job everyone

ke1985 · Jun 2, 2009

silverback, you joined in 2004 and just are now posting??!!! haha

Copperpennies12 · Jun 2, 2009

ke1985 said:
silverback, you joined in 2004 and just are now posting??!!! haha

Yeah, not sure what transpired between when I first registered and now but I'm gonna give the site a shot I think.

ke1985 · Jun 2, 2009

Silverback said:
Yeah, not sure what transpired between when I first registered and now but I'm gonna give the site a shot I think.

you definitely should...great posts!

What science says about homosexuality

Newbie

The Flaming One

Newbie

Traveler

Everlasting33

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Everlasting33

Guest

Vale Tudo

Guest

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency