Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Do you think homosexuality is biological (you are born that way) or it is a learned behavior (a choice)?
Biological 8 (50%)
Learned behavior 3 (18.8%)
Undecided 3 (18.8%)
Other 2 (12.5%)
Total Votes: 16
Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones
Topic Started: May 9 2005, 06:58 PM (843 Views)
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Do you think homosexuality is biological (you are born that way) or it is a learned behavior (a choice)?

*****


Gay Men Respond Differently to Pheromones

Quote:
 
WASHINGTON - Gay men's brains respond differently from those of heterosexual males when exposed to a sexual stimulus, researchers have found. The homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone.

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada.

Witelson, who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.

The study, published in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the    National Academy of Sciences, was done by researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden.

They exposed heterosexual men and women and homosexual men to chemicals derived from male and female sex hormones.

These chemicals are thought to be pheromones — molecules known to trigger responses such as defense and sex in many animals.

Whether humans respond to pheromones has been debated, although in 2000 American researchers reported finding a gene that they believe directs a human pheromone receptor in the nose.

The Swedish study was one of a series looking at whether parts of the brain involved in reproduction differ in response to odors and pheromones, lead researcher Ivanka Savic said.

The brains of different groups responded similarly to ordinary odors such as lavender, but differed in their response to the chemicals thought to be pheromones, Savic said.

The Swedish researchers divided 36 subjects into three groups — heterosexual men, heterosexual women and homosexual men. They studied the brain response to sniffing the chemicals, using PET scans. All the subjects were healthy, unmedicated, right-handed and HIV negative.

When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects' brains reacted only in the olfactory region that handles smells.

But when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men, the researchers found.

The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior, the researchers said.

And when estrogen, the female hormone was used, there was only a response in the olfactory portion of the brains of straight women. Homosexual men had their primary response also in the olfactory area, with a very small reaction in the hypothalamus, while heterosexual men responded strongly in the reproductive region of the brain.

Savic said the group is also doing a study involving homosexual women but those results are not yet complete.

In a separate study looking at people's response to the body odors of others, researchers in Philadelphia found sharp differences between gay and straight men and women.

"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odors and in the perception of and response to body odors," said neuroscientist Charles Wysocki, who led the study.

In particular, he said, finding differences in body odors between gay and straight individuals indicates a physical difference.

It's hard to see how a simple choice to be gay or lesbian would influence the production of body odor, he said.

Wysocki's team at the Monell Chemical Senses Center studied the response of 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and heterosexual and homosexual women to the odors of underarm sweat collected from 24 donors of varied gender and sexual orientation.

They found that gay men differed from heterosexual men and women and from lesbian women, both in terms of which body odors gay men preferred and how their own body odors were regarded by the other groups.

Gay men preferred odors from gay men, while odors from gay men were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbian women in the study. Their findings, released Monday, are to be published in the journal Psychological Science in September.

The Swedish research was funded by the Swedish Medical Research Council, the Karolinska Institute and the Magnus Bergvall Foundation. Wysocki's research was supported by the Monell Center.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Sorry, I'm in a bit of a hurry so I haven't read the entire article. But I wanted to say that I'm firmly in the "biological" column. I have many reasons for this, but one big one is this:

I'm heterosexual. There is absolutely no way I could choose to engage in homosexual behavior. The whole idea is completely revolting. Therefore, how can I possibly believe that someone else made that choice? The only thing that make sense to me is that the opposite is true - namely that they can't choose to be heterosexual anymore than I could choose to be homosexual.

In addition, there are many people who don't want to believe they are homosexual and try to live heterosexual lives, but fail. Ultimately, the either admit their homosexual desires or they avoid both altogether. But they obviously don't want to be homosexual.

Finally, why would anyone choose a lifestyle that the majority of society frowns upon at all levels ranging from quiet avoidance to outright hate crimes?

Having said that, while I don't believe that homosexuality is environmental or a choice, the behaviors that many homosexuals engage in certainly are.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
The bottom line is, that like every nature vs. nurture argument, that it is a mixture of the two. You may have urges, but that alone will not make you gay. You still need to learn about what you are supposed to do with those urges. Behavior is just as much experiance as it is hormones.

For example, take somebody who is raised along with a number of siblings of the opposite sex. They are much more likely to be masculine because their whole upbringing gave them primarily examples of how young males react to a situation. My room mate follows this to a certain degree (she isn't anything close to gay, but she isn't a girly girl either).

Another example would be feral children that were raised in the wild. It is nigh on impossible to teach them to be human, because they learned their behavior from whatever raised them. Their biology had nothing to do with their being feral and just as easily could have made them human.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
My money is on it being a Learned behavior - and a lot to do with people wanting to be different and to draw attention to themselves , and perhaps a bit do with rebelling against the expectations of family and the community.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
doctortobe
May 9 2005, 07:30 PM
The bottom line is, that like every nature vs. nurture argument, that it is a mixture of the two. You may have urges, but that alone will not make you gay. You still need to learn about what you are supposed to do with those urges. Behavior is just as much experiance as it is hormones.

I think you're probably closest to the mark Doctor.

I will not be surprised if a genetic component is found in homosexuals. However, I don't think it will prove to be the case all of the time. I think there will be instances where no genetic marker(s) play such a role in some people.

Here's a thought that's bugged me for years. If at some point a genetic marker(s) is/are found for homosexuality, could it/thye come to be viewed as a birth defect? Would prospective parents in the future want their unborn children tested for such a marker. Would they want it "repaired" if such an option is possble?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
If a genetic marker is indeed present, then that would open up a whole can of worms. While it would fit the textbook example of a genetic birth defect, there would be many people in the world that would not want homosexuality classified as a disease. Given time, it would be possible to repair the genetic code. The question is would society allow it? At the very least, you would have the gay activists claiming that people were attempting to commit genocide on the gay community.

I would leave it up to the parents myself.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Swidden
May 10 2005, 01:36 AM
doctortobe
May 9 2005, 07:30 PM
The bottom line is, that like every nature vs. nurture argument, that it is a mixture of the two.  You may have urges, but that alone will not make you gay.  You still need to learn about what you are supposed to do with those urges.  Behavior is just as much experiance as it is hormones.

I think you're probably closest to the mark Doctor.

I will not be surprised if a genetic component is found in homosexuals. However, I don't think it will prove to be the case all of the time. I think there will be instances where no genetic marker(s) play such a role in some people.

Here's a thought that's bugged me for years. If at some point a genetic marker(s) is/are found for homosexuality, could it/thye come to be viewed as a birth defect? Would prospective parents in the future want their unborn children tested for such a marker. Would they want it "repaired" if such an option is possble?

Or - even worse - sometime in the future - in an attempt to control fertility - the absense of such a hypothetical marker be regarded as birth defect and geneticists engineer the race to make most everyone gay.

There is no evolutionary reason for homosexuality , or any evolutionary benefit.

I'll leave my bet where it is.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

somerled
May 10 2005, 03:25 AM

There is no evolutionary reason for homosexuality

There is also no evolutionary reason for heterosexuality.

Remember Darwins Theory, enviroment determines evolution, not the other way around.


I think you meant to say "there's no procreational reason for homosexuality"
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

I choose biological


Also in any nature vs nuture argument there is no fine line between the two, but a scale, where on one end you have humans that will be gay no matter what their upbringing.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
captain_proton_au
May 10 2005, 06:29 AM
somerled
May 10 2005, 03:25 AM

There is no evolutionary reason for homosexuality

There is also no evolutionary reason for heterosexuality.

Remember Darwins Theory, enviroment determines evolution, not the other way around.


I think you meant to say "there's no procreational reason for homosexuality"

:rotfl: :loling: Without heterosexuality you wouldn't be here. And all higher lifeforms on this planet would long since have become extinct.

I would say that is a pretty strong argument for an evolutionary basis for heterosexuality.

And my statement is exactly what I meant to say. The procreational reason is part of that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
I am of the opinion that homosexuality is primarily biological. Sure you could probably come up with various exceptions that involve learned behavior (there are a couple in this thread), but for the most I believe a person is born predisposed towards homosexuality.

Swidden
 
If at some point a genetic marker(s) is/are found for homosexuality, could it/thye come to be viewed as a birth defect?

I am sure some people will view a homosexual child (with marker) as containing a birth defect. I however, don’t think one could necessarily jump to the conclusion that because only a small portion of people have this marker, that they are defects. Who is to say that God didn’t want them born that way (religious approach). Who is to say evolution isn’t slowly swinging that way (i.e. it is a part of the natural order for our species). In other words, we are on the slow road to extinction (this could be the religious or scientific approach).

Regardless, I don’t think homosexual people will want to be viewed as defects. They will probably want to be classified as human beings. Have the same protections as heterosexual people.

Also considering prejudices against homosexuality, I have little doubt that some parents will want to alter the baby (“fix the defect”) if the opportunity becomes available. This isn't to say some parents won't believe it is just a defect (no prejudices). There of course may be parents who love their child in spite of the defect or may believe that it isn’t a defect at all.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
captain_proton_au
Member Avatar
A Robot in Disguise

somerled
May 10 2005, 06:52 AM
captain_proton_au
May 10 2005, 06:29 AM
somerled
May 10 2005, 03:25 AM

There is no evolutionary reason for homosexuality

There is also no evolutionary reason for heterosexuality.

Remember Darwins Theory, enviroment determines evolution, not the other way around.


I think you meant to say "there's no procreational reason for homosexuality"

:rotfl: :loling: Without heterosexuality you wouldn't be here. And all higher lifeforms on this planet would long since have become extinct.

I would say that is a pretty strong argument for an evolutionary basis for heterosexuality.

And my statement is exactly what I meant to say. The procreational reason is part of that.

Again, I think you're getting your terms mixed up.


A species propagates because some members are heterosexual


But a species does not evolve because some members are heterosexual
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
It's obvious to me that homosexuality is biological. First, there are homosexual animals who cannot make that conscious choice. Second, as stated by another poster, the very idea of sexual contact with someone of the same sex is absolutely revolting to me. It is impossible that I would ever make that choice even if all the women on Earth disappeared tomorrow. I would be celebate. Third, I have studied Bio-psychology and saw a study that showed hormonal imbalances in rats during the third trimester of development have shown homosexual tendencies. And finally, I cannot understand how someone would choose to be alienated from their family and friends to be who they are.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Generic Redshirt
Member Avatar
Captain
One thing I would like to mention is that several people on this thread are saying it must biological because it alienates them from there famaily therefore they must not have chosen it. But if that is who they are surely there are some who would chose to be who they are rather than simply fit in with there famaily. From what I've read here I am probbaly now leaning toward it being biological but I don't think this is because of this reason. If you mothers had said you'd better be gay would you simply role over and accept this or would you distance urself from ur famailys and have a hetrosexual relationship.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
captain_proton_au
May 10 2005, 04:29 AM
There is also no evolutionary reason for heterosexuality.

Remember Darwins Theory, enviroment determines evolution, not the other way around.


I think you meant to say "there's no procreational reason for homosexuality"

Actually I would argue that there is an evolutionary reason for heterosexuality. The reason is procreation itself. At some point in the past life on this planet required a method of reproduction that was not asexual. We may not know why evolution went this direction, it is most likely why it did.

The only other reason is to say that God snapped his fingers x millenia ago and we appeared fully developed in our present state.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus