Monday, October 20, 2008

Born Gay?

Born Gay is an article that holds preliminary findings about the homosexuality and its genetic influence. This post is mainly to support the comments on this older post that suggested that homosexuality might be in fact hereditary.

In short, in one study it was found that male homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual mother, and that female homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual father.


Moey said...

thanks! nice read!

bambam said...

hey .... thats from more than a decade and a half ago, back when they were running a bitching 286 with 1024kb RAM !

Devil's Mind said...

Hmm, I don't see your point Bambam... True it's an old article... Maybe you can find a more recent paper that either supports or negates what is being said?!

Otherwise, being old does not make it more -or less- credible.

a different perspective said...

I read the article, and I totally get how it can be passed on genetically.

My take on it however is that its not totally genetic. It is more like being good at basketball. Your genes could dictate many attributes that can help you at basketball like your height for example. But, then life events can make you a good player (practicing, nutrition...etc.)

Likewise, your genes might play a factor in your sexual orientation, but there is probably other environmental factors too. Society can influence people's pleasure level in sex and their likes and dislikes, so it makes sense that it can influence their sexual orientation too.

Also, most people lie in the middle. Most people are not tall or short and they're not gay or straight. There is all shades of grey too.

These findings are interesting from a scientific perspective but, I question how important they are to the gay rights movement. Whether it's biological or psychological, gays should be accepted. And even those who are bisexual and have the choice of being with either gender, and they chose to be with same sex. It is also their choice, and they should still be accepted.

I never heard anyone question whether it is biological or environmental to prefer missionary position, doggy style or any other position. You can prefer any and practice any (or all), no one gives a damn. Likewise, it is irrelevant whether your sexual orientation is biological or environmental. You should be able to practice any or both.

Devil's Mind said...

Yes, I agree with you A Different Perspective, genetics alone are not the whole picture.

There are way too many factors that influence sexual orientation, including genetics, physiology, environment, social constructs, and gender stereotypes.

One thing that gets ignored as well is that sexual orientation has two dimensions, 1- physical intimacy, and 2- romantic intimacy. For example, some people would romantically love people of the same sex, but only sleep with people of the opposite sex. Such cases are rarely considered.

This reminds me of an old post where I argued for the social construction of sexual orientation which stirred lots of discussion. In conclusion, the is no one factor that hits or misses... Many factors are tangled up, and do contribute to sexual orientation to varying extents.

As for how much should those scientific studies affect the political argument of the LGBT groups, I agree, it should not. LGBT rights should be given regardless of why those phenomenons occurs.

a different perspective said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Observer said...

Well said differet perspective :) I liked it!

Devil's Mind said...

PS: A comment by "A Different Perspective" has been moved here, because the comment is a response to forementioned post