http://www.soulforce.org/article/644

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904267%2C16143171%2C12836730%2C10763427%2C9549243?dopt=DocSum

You gave me a bunch of dead links and one page that was all based on one mans research that listed traits of homosexuals.Furthermore it was all based on theories and nothing backed up by any real science.


Sorry try again.



Even if people were born gay then how do you explain the millions of men and women that are straight now?Are you saying they were cured overnight?One day they are gay the next straight?Are you saying if someone is born gay and they are dating straight people then they need couseling to be gay again?

I fixed the links.

The fearmongering of the homophobia is strong and has been passed down from generation to generation.

But that doesn't make it right.

Just because some old guys who decided to write stories decided they found male gay sex offensive and the people who edited the stories agreed with them forming a book called a bible doesn't make it wrong to be homosexual either.

No one said EVERYONE is born gay. GAY people are born gay.

Jan. 28, 2005 - The genes a man gets from his mother and father may play an important role in determining whether he is gay or not, according to a new study likely to reignite the "gay gene" debate.

Theory not fact.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene


"Researchers say it's the first time the entire human genetic makeup has been scanned in search of possible genetic determinants of male sexual orientation. The results suggest that several genetic regions may influence homosexuality."


Possible and may influence does not equal scientific proof.It is a theory.It is not fact.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641

"Whether this is what is really happening for sexual orientation remains to be seen, but it is a provocative hypothesis," the authors wrote.

Again theory.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the "gay" genetic factors in circulation.


Unidentified is not fact it is speculation.


If this scenario turns out to be true, it could help explain the seeming paradox of hereditary homosexuality. Since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, many experts have wondered why, if homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, it wouldn't have been eliminated from the gene pool already.

Same story from above.No facts just theories.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

Just talk to a gay person and ask them.

It is about as factual as you will get.

They will tell you that they knew they were attracted to the same sex as early as kindergarten for some.

I didn't understand until I hit middle school. But yeah. Thats about right.

Are you going to answer my question?

If someone claims to be born gay and changes his or her life to a straight life should that person be sent into therapy so a doctor can change this person back to being gay again?

You have a bias, so you don't trust those studies, right?

Why shouldn't they act on their feelings? You're free to act on your feelings of attraction, right? To date someone you're attracted to, correct? Why shouldn't gay people do the same? Because it makes you uncomfortable?

How do you know all those people are now straight? How do you know they're not lying to make others happy and leave them alone?

Here is research from a institute that is devoted to gay studies.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

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.

Considering that alot of gay folks deny their true selves to please society and family most of the time it happens opposite of that.

They live a straight life to please everyone else and try to hate that part that they were born with because everyone tells them and shows them that it is wrong.

Then they grow older and realize that they will never find happiness in life if they continue to deny who they truly are. So then they "come out" and it is usually worse for everyone this way because they will hurt those who they "pretended" to be in a relationship with and if any children came from this union, it is terribly hard on them.

If society and families would stop torturing them and allow them to live as they rightfully should then none of this confusion and pain would happen.

If you are saying gays always stay gay and never go straight then you are living on some other planet.

Again, because you didn't seem to see my response to that statement. No one ever said EVERYONE is born gay. GAY people are born gay.

Those that decide later on in life not to live life as who they are do so for their own reasons, probably the biggest of those being that certain people make their life miserable with their constant small-minded, ruthless prying into their personal lives and refusal to believe that something is just not possible because THEY don't agree with it.

Noone said there is a gay gene.

Ok, but what about those that DON'T change for that reason, and actually do legitimately become straight.