Study Supports View Sexuality Is Hard Wired

It might be worth mentioning that, unless we think we get our personality from some extra-bodily source, every single behavior we have is theoretically detectable with neurological studies. At the moment, our resolution on brain scans is relatively gross and so we cannot record many very detailed neurological differences, but every single thought we have only happens in one place -- the brain. One day, we might see studies like this as similar to a report that people generally hold things with their hands. How else are they going to hold them?

Anyway, I find such studies interesting on an intellectual level, but I never see their great importance for morality or civil society. I have a few gay friends and they remain my friends and worthy of respect whether they are gay from birth or gay through experience. Still like them either way, and still think they deserve to be treated as full citizens either way.

Personally I think nature and nurture are involved, and as usual a study like this is being overhyped to claim conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence. It surprises me that one of the researchers said this, for instance:
"Savic said she believed the brain differences were forged in the womb or infancy, probably as a result of genetic or hormonal factors. She said she could not explain why the differences were more pronounced in homosexual men than in homosexual women."

When there was apparently nothing in the study to address that hypothesis. The changes could have taken place from early development, or may have occurred later (which would support environmental influence.)

I'm not making a claim either way, mind you, and my hunch is that there are biological tendencies which might be expressed under certain external influences or remain unexpressed in others. I just wish people wouldn't make claims about what is proven when it's not really proven.

There are quite a number of studies that back up the biological and innate origin of sexuality (both hetero and homosexual), though we still lack a complete picture of the determining factors. No clear genetic origin has been established though there is evidence to support "maternal effects" in the womb of the mother in the case of male homosexuality.

By contrast those who assert that homosexuality is "learned" or "a choice" have no credible scientific evidence to back this assertion up. The closest they have is a limited indication that in a small minority of individuals, sexuality is somewhat "flexible", an indication that that they have blown out of all proportion against the vociferous objections of the researcher that published the results.
In such a case as in the case of creationists disputing evolution, they lack any merit to be invited to "debate". They will doubtlessly ignore or condemn the study as the work of biased liberal godless scientists, but this does not count as "debating". To debate you have to come to the table with something approaching the same way of obtaining and validating facts. These people do not. There are people of good faith and limited understanding that may honestly believe, as many honestly believe in the bastardized version of creationism that is ID, that there is actual merit and strong debate on both sides, but that does not lend the position any credibility.

Paca, I completely agree with you that it should be no more than a scientific curiosity whether sexuality is a choice or not. In a rational society it wouldn't be. However, the truth is that there are many people who oppose homosexuality based on ancient cultural/religious beliefs. Proof that sexuality is inborn helps to break down such prejudice because many people will have a difficult time condemning someone for something that not only hurts no one, but they have no way of preventing or changing.

This is old news. I remember seeing similar results announced over 15 years ago. It didn't exactly settle the matter then.

Out trolling for some Silhouette comments this morning, Patrick?

At any rate, we winter in FTL and we have a large circle of gay acquaintances there. Those folks all pretty much subscribe to the "from birth" theory.

The latest one making the rounds was that it was extra estrogen being absorbed by the embryo......and more gay men are lower in the birth order since women tend to produce more estrogen in later pregnancies........or some such thing.........

Doesn't matter to me, they're all pretty entertaining guys and always have plenty of liquor and other attitude adjusting materials laying around.

So If I have opposing information, I am a troll..

*jots in notebook*...intolerance isn't limited to the right I see...

lol...sexuality may be hard-wired, but that wiring can be rewired by the environment. It is supported by an industry that relies on that F-A-C-T.

I know of one set of identical twins, girls, who I spoke about yesterday, who factually exist. They were brought up in a household that rambled from heterosexual parents, to homosexual and back to hetero again at the end. One is a butch dyke and the other hetero and living with a boyfriend.

Aside from the AI industry that banks on sexuality being malleable, that very knowledge and fact that brings food to your table every single day, if you have only one set of identical twins like the ones I know of, where one comes out homosexual and the other hetero, you cannot rule out environmental influence in determining sexual-preference. In fact it is proven.

If it is found that homosexuality is innate, it must be realized that from these twins, it can be affected after birth to different outcomes. So if innate, environment trumps the original drive. We see this in prisons were as late as adulthood, people "convert" to homosexuality and often stay that way when "on the outside".

Sexuality is malleable. It is a fact. Pretending it isn't is as laughable as christians pretending evolution isn't viable. It's just laughingly sad and pathetic the levels of denial people participate in to avoid having to restructure the foundation of what they once were so sure of...groomed to believe..

The religion of the homosexuals and other sexual fetishes is just that, a set of beliefs and fixations that fly in the face of factual evidence that the sexual drive is for reproduction as it's paramount function. "Getting off" is secondary to that primary function. What the homosexuals want via the stamp of normalcy they seek is to move human sexuality's primary function to the same level as the secondary function.

What is the danger in that? Malleability over time, over generations. I've seen the social-contagion factor of homosexuality at work. Monkey see, monkey do isn't just a saying. I've also seen aggressive recruitment and conversion of heteros to homosexuality by homosexual predators. In fact they consider it a sport. Their vernacular for the sport is, I believe, called "tricking".

Why do they have a word for it? Why do they have a specific derivative of "tricking" for young male hetero "targets" called "chicken" [meat for their consumption]? It is because their culture factually includes predation, sexual predation and conversion of others to their particular fetish. Why? I suppose for more potential partners. Promiscuity demands a constant fresh supply of meat..

You're just fun to harass, Sil, largely because you are so intellectually "un-malleable"!

I will throw you one anecdotal bone for your viewpoint........we met a 20'ish gay man not too long ago and he said he was gay because it was so much easier finding sex. So, score one for "environmental"!

The nature/nurture argument is irrelevant, because knowing one way or the other doesn't tell us what to *do* about it.

...as you keep demonstrating, Silhouette, with your reliable face plants when it comes to proposing sensible policies. Sexuality is malleable, though we don't know exactly how, so therefore being rude to gays is the only prudent policy? Promiscuity is bad, therefore we should oppose institutions like marriage known for reducing it? WTF?

BTW, that's not what "tricking" means. And I haven't heard "chicken" used to mean anything but poultry or cowardice in 20 years. Except in your posts.

"Why do they have a word for it? Why do they have a specific derivative of "tricking" for young male hetero "targets" called "chicken" [meat for their consumption]?"

Wow...you are seriously losing it, dear. "Tricking" means the same thing to gay people as it does to straight people, as does "chicken". Prostituting oneself and birds yummy with dumplins, respectively.

And this: "It is because their culture factually includes predation, sexual predation and conversion of others to their particular fetish. Why? I suppose for more potential partners. Promiscuity demands a constant fresh supply of meat.." ... is just disgustingly overt bigotry. It becomes clearer with every sad comment you make that you bring up agrilcultural sexual practices so often because you actually think of gay people as animals. That doesn't make gay people disgusting or wrong -- it makes YOU disgusting and wrong.

A gay trick is a one-night (or shorter) stand, whether or not any money was involved. The word doesn't imply the other participant was straight, or underage, or fooled into something.

And "chicken" MAY mean the white meat that often comes with dumplings. It may also mean a young gay man. It may also refer to gay men who do a lot of upper-body building, but ignore the lower body (the famous "Chelsea Chicken" type comes to mind). So Sil has stated she knows at least 10 lesbians, and now she knows two twins. These do not make a representative sample, and as always, it's helpful to remember that our experiences shape the way we understand the world. This includes everybody. So Sil, back the heck off, because your experiences, as unfortunate as they may have been, are not "the truth."

Sil. Ohmygoodness. Sil.

LOL!!!

Actually, I suspect Silhouette's suffering from a bit of over-generalization. Whether she has her details right or not, there is, in fact, a sexual sub-culture that traditionalists consider deviant (or merely bizarre?), whether practiced by gays or straights.

Conversely, Sil also doesn't seem to know that traditionalists are both gay and straight. (Think monogamy here, Sil, and ordinary evenings at home with a television and a spouse / significant other) .

What Sil (and she's not alone here) seems to be doing is applying sub-cultural behaviors to a wider population. Just as generalizing tends to lead us astray in politics, so to does it here.

>sexuality may be hard-wired, but that wiring can be rewired by the environment. It is supported by an industry that relies on that F-A-C-T.

Ah. Yes. And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Excuse me, my RELIGION is Judaism and I have never had the slightest desire to reproduce

Heterosexuals also use the terms "chicks" so I guess your whole poultry argument is a bust. Two things about this debate always makes me wonder 1) in a world of over 6 billion people that is dangerously unbalancing the ecosystems of the planet why would anyone be so obsessed with making sure everyone procreates. Are you concerned that our species numbers are in decline? 2) Why do those who are against same-sex relationships always seem to have so much anger behind what they are saying? It's a sad state of affairs when someone is so desperate to make themselves feel important that they need to run around condemning everyone else. Lastly, to address Silhouette's "promiscuity demands a constant supply of fresh meat" comment, heterosexuals are just as promiscuous as gays, and I am assuming you are referring to gay men (because lesbians are the least sexually active of all- look it up). Surely you've noticed the existence of heterosexual pornography on the Internet (there's actually quite a bit of it if you haven't noticed) And as far as sexual predators the figures are around 82% of child molesters are heterosexual. Life is short live and let live. You won't save the world by spreading irrational fear and spewing your anger on the least protected social minority. Global warming is a bigger threat than any of this nonsense, but I bet you still drive your car.