From Another Site: What If Your Child Is Gay?

[Conuly]

There is a school of thought that says hormones (exposed to as a fetus) could play a role in sexual orientation. Technically, that would be considered an environmental factor, though it's usually not what fundies think of when they say "environmental factors".

I did consider that, but I wanted to avoid saying 'psychological' again. At any rate, exposure to hormones in the womb isn't really something you can change after the fact.

[emmiedahl]

Can you please back up your beliefs with studies? I am very curious as to why this is the accepted "norm" but I can't find any basis for it.

There are several studies that have indicated a genetic basis for homosexuality. I have read journals estimating that 50% of sexual orientation is actually genetic. More info here: http://www.bmj.com//content/330/7498/10 ... =full-text I encourage you to look up current research on a gene called Xq28.

In addition, something can be biologically based without being genetic. It is likely that the other 50% of orientation lies in this area. Support for this idea can be found in several studies.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... e-sex.html Gay people have brain structures more similar to the opposite sex. These are significant differences in size, not something that can be affected by upbringing or behavior. Many, many studies have looked into the same thing and found the same results. The main difference is in the hypothalamus, the part of your brain responsible for other elements of sexuality and gender.

A study performed on rats at Stanford found that homosexual behavior would emerge in rats if they were given certain hormones at certain points in their development.

The APA has found that sexual preference "emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience", which suggests that orientation is determined before sexual choice is really possible.

Further, homosexual behavior is common in other animals, which suggests it has a physical basis. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... study.html

[valsa]

At any rate, exposure to hormones in the womb isn't really something you can change after the fact.

Exactly. People act like it's either "you have the 'gay gene'" or "your father was too distant and you looked at porn too young". It's likely that genetics interact with in utero hormones (both nature and nurture) but none of that can be changed.

[emmiedahl]

CC3, if you cannot find any basis for the idea that being gay is NOT a choice, then I don't know how you are on freejinger. Obviously google is unavailable to you :roll:

[valsa]

I don't know if Emmie posted this but: Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955753)

Abstract

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Took me 5 seconds.

[emmiedahl]

No, I did not get that exact study, although it kind of relates to the one about the rats. Mammalian fetal development is pretty much uniform in the first few months, but it is definitely more conclusive to show a study of actual humans. So, thanks.

[CC3]

There are several studies that have indicated a genetic basis for homosexuality. I have read journals estimating that 50% of sexual orientation is actually genetic. More info here: http://www.bmj.com//content/330/7498/10 ... =full-text I encourage you to look up current research on a gene called Xq28.

In addition, something can be biologically based without being genetic. It is likely that the other 50% of orientation lies in this area. Support for this idea can be found in several studies.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... e-sex.html Gay people have brain structures more similar to the opposite sex. These are significant differences in size, not something that can be affected by upbringing or behavior. Many, many studies have looked into the same thing and found the same results. The main difference is in the hypothalamus, the part of your brain responsible for other elements of sexuality and gender.

A study performed on rats at Stanford found that homosexual behavior would emerge in rats if they were given certain hormones at certain points in their development.

The APA has found that sexual preference "emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience", which suggests that orientation is determined before sexual choice is really possible.

Further, homosexual behavior is common in other animals, which suggests it has a physical basis. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... study.html

I read those studies but they were found inconclusive. Thanks anyway.

[emmiedahl]

No, all but one of those studies *were* conclusive. The only inconclusive one is the one about the so-called gay gene Xq28--it needs further study which is happening right now.

Science indicates heavily that sexuality is in-born, as does common sense. Do you have any scientific evidence that it is not? Or do you prefer to put your fingers in your ears and say la-la-la-can't-hear-you, developing hateful attitudes with no basis in reality?

[emmiedahl]

btw, CC3, if you have heard of these studies, why did you say

I am very curious as to why this is the accepted "norm" but I can't find any basis for it.

There is significant basis, which you admitted you have seen. More lying for Jesus?

[MonkeyMomma]

I read those studies but they were found inconclusive. Thanks anyway.

Alright, so now I'm dying to know - what more conclusive evidence do have that sexual orientation is a choice, not influenced by genetic or hormonal factors? Preferably from a peer-reviewed source, please.

I'll sit over here and not hold my breath while I wait.

[ElphabaGalinda]

Alright, so now I'm dying to know - what more conclusive evidence do have that sexual orientation is a choice, not influenced by genetic or hormonal factors? Preferably from a peer-reviewed source, please.

I'll sit over here and not hold my breath while I wait.

CC3, I would also like to know, when did you decide to be straight? I tried very hard to be straight and I honestly wanted to change but it doesn't work. It really doesn't. And realizing that it doesn't work made me realize that there's no reason at all I should change. You can't produce any studies supporting your view, and you can't even use common sense to support it.

ETA: Even if it was a choice, how is it a wrong one? And who in their right mind would choose to be discriminated against?

[CC3]

btw, CC3, if you have heard of these studies, why did you say

There is significant basis, which you admitted you have seen. More lying for Jesus?

I looked up those particular studies on my own. So yes I have heard of them. I don't think they are significant at this point. The study is not conclusive, I thought you had some other studies I didn't know about. The accepted norm means the current pervasive thinking on how homosexuality occurs. I would like to see something conclusive i.e. hard facts. I am curious if it is nature or nurture. Or if it is a mixture of both.

Please explain what this has to do with Jesus or lying? I have never brought Jesus into this discussion. Exactly how am I lying? Because I searched out studies on my own and asked you for your information. What has lying have to do with Jesus? I understand this is a snark board, but asking a question and trying to learn from where and how others arrive at their beliefs hardly qualifies as deceitfulness.

And if you respond, try to accept not everyone is looking to slam you or anyone else on the board.

[emmiedahl]

The hard facts are that gay people are anatomically different from straight people.

The hard facts are that you can create a gay animal by small changes in hormones during development, changes that happen naturally sometimes in human beings.

The hard facts are that homosexuality occurs in every culture and in most forms of mammalian life.

What kind of hard facts do you need? Really, what would need to happen to convince you that this is biological.

[CC3]

No, all but one of those studies *were* conclusive. The only inconclusive one is the one about the so-called gay gene Xq28--it needs further study which is happening right now.

Science indicates heavily that sexuality is in-born, as does common sense. Do you have any scientific evidence that it is not? Or do you prefer to put your fingers in your ears and say la-la-la-can't-hear-you, developing hateful attitudes with no basis in reality?

The gay gene study is inconclusive. The study using MRI and PET scans were done on only 90 subjects. The emotional similarities between straight women and gay men could possibly caused by societal issues as well as lesbians and straight men. Obviously, there are going to be some cross over similarities .And because other mammals have homosexual actions doesn't mean anything as far as human testing. So I am still looking. Insulting me won't help anything, because it doesn't matter to me. And saying I am a liar for Jesus, well that is just a low shot trying to get a rise out of me or anyone else who agrees with me. I'm sure Jesus can handle the insults of humans.

[valsa]

The gay gene study is inconclusive. The study using MRI and PET scans were done on only 90 subjects. The emotional similarities between straight women and gay men could possibly caused by societal issues as well as lesbians and straight men. Obviously, there are going to be some cross over similarities .And because other mammals have homosexual actions doesn't mean anything as far as human testing. So I am still looking. Insulting me won't help anything, because it doesn't matter to me. And saying I am a liar for Jesus, well that is just a low shot trying to get a rise out of me or anyone else who agrees with me. I'm sure Jesus can handle the insults of humans.

I'm repeating Emmie's question:

Really, what would need to happen to convince you that this is biological

[formergothardite]

Where is the proof that people aren't born gay, CC3? Solid peer reviewed studies please.

[emmiedahl]

CC3, most of these studies did have small numbers of subjects when you look at them individually, but most have been repeated over and over and over finding the same result. What do you make of that?

Also, you did not address that fact that we can create a gay animal reliably simply by changing the maternal hormones slightly during pregnancy.

I still am curious: what would it take?

Let me guess: you don't think there is evidence of evolution either... just a guess because denying a large body of diverse and collectively conclusive proof seems to be second nature to you.

[Avalondaughter]

If I had a gay child, I don't think s/he would even have to "come out" in the traditional sense. Life would go on pretty much as normal, her/his partner would be more than welcome in our home (because it's OUR home, damn it, not just MY home) and I'd be sobbing at the wedding regardless. I wouldn't care if all my grandbabies were adopted, or of the feline or canine persuasion. But I'm an evil liberal atheist who considers herself an ally- meaning, an out-and-proud heterosexual willing to accept any GLBTetc. I wouldn't care if a son was "flaming" or if a daughter was "butch." Because, well, who the fuck really cares? I don't and I don't see myself even having kids in the near future.

As for the last poster complaining about "making it public"? They're pushing it in your face for a REASON, jackass.

This! I'm child-free, but if I had children, I'd much rather see my child happily partnered with a person he or she loved than miserable and closeted and afraid.

Some people go through life never finding happiness and true love. I sometimes wonder if these homophobes just resent gay couples that are clearly happy (then again, they also resent non-fundie hetero couples who are clearly happy...)

[Conuly]

This! I'm child-free, but if I had children, I'd much rather see my child happily partnered with a person he or she loved than miserable and closeted and afraid.

Or not partnered. "True love" is not necessary for a happy and fulfilling life. Some people are uninterested in sex, or uninterested in romance, or uninterested in either of those things - and that's just fine. (For that matter, some people are interested in either of those things, but not very interested in long-term monogamy. So long as everybody involved is okay with this, that's fine.)

[CC3]

Let me guess: you don't think there is evidence of evolution either... just a guess because denying a large body of diverse and collectively conclusive proof seems to be second nature to you.

You aren't a very good guesser, emmie. I think you would just enjoy muddying the water.

[formergothardite]

I really want to see this proof that people aren't born gay.

[emmiedahl]

You aren't a very good guesser, emmie. I think you would just enjoy muddying the water.

Then show me your awesome proof that homosexuality is a choice.

[debrand]

CC3, like the others, I am curious what type of studies are needed to convince you either way.

Maybe I missed it, did you post peer reviewed studies that show homosexuality is a choice? I've tried to keep up with this thread but I might have missed a post of yours.

[CC3]

Then show me your awesome proof that homosexuality is a choice.

Go back and reread what I have already posted. Of course you may show me your awesome replicated proof showing homosexuality is genetic, biological, and/or hormonally caused conclusively.

[debrand]

Go back and reread what I have already posted. Of course you may show me your awesome replicated proof showing homosexuality is genetic, biological, and/or hormonally caused conclusively.

Do you remember what page you posted the proof that homosexuality is a choice?