On the causes of sexual orientation

I saw an article about homosexuals brain's being structured like those of the opposite sex that came out a few days ago. There appears to be even more evidence about the strength of biological causes for homosexuality.
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex (NewScientist

I heard someone else made a similar comment in response to this actually. I simply don't know enough about neurology myself to say with certainty that these brain patterns can't be a developed result of being gay. The article does mention however:

quote:

---

... Savic and her colleague, Per Lindstrm, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth.

​

"That was the whole point of the study, to show parameters that differ, but which couldn't be altered by learning or cognitive processes," says Savic.

---

so the claim they are making is that it's very likely that these patterns were set by birth.

Sexual Antagonism: A genetic theory of homosexuality (Slate)
Posted Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 8:04 AM ETThe theory explains that male homosexuality could persist due to the increase in inclusive fitness to those with genes for it.

quote:

---

...the female relatives of gay men produce children at a higher rate than other women do... among these female relatives, those related to the gay man's mother produce children at a higher rate than do those related to his father.

---

quote:

---

It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other. The gene for male homosexuality persists because it promotes”and is passed down through”high rates of procreation among gay men's mothers, sisters, and aunts.

---

The theory has some implications about how we would think about homosexuality including the ideas that it would be sustained by NS, that homosexuality would not be a choice as the genes code for attraction to men, and that it would be beneficial to society as a whole.

quote:

---

...you can't culturally eradicate the gay minority. It's sustained by genetics and natural selection.

---

quote:

---

We're talking about genes for "androphilia," i.e., attraction to men. The importance of the genes lies in what they do not to men but to women, by increasing reproductive output so powerfully that these women compensate for the reduced output among their male relatives. You can't isolate gay men as a puzzle or problem anymore. You have to see them as part of a bigger, stronger, enduring phenomenon.

---

quote:

---

The study's press release concludes that "homosexuality should not be viewed as a detrimental trait (due to the reduced male fecundity it entails), but, rather, should be considered within the wider evolutionary framework of a characteristic with gender-specific benefits."

---

quote:

---

...the benefits aren't really confined to women. They protect society as a whole. The authors' computations indicate that as a society's birthrate falls, female carriers of androphilic genes account for a larger share of the output. In short, the genes provide a "buffer effect" against extinction.

---

The actual research paper is available for free here: oi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002282]-->Sexually Antagonistic Selection in Human Male Homosexuality (PLoS One)
Published: June 18, 2008The above Slate article states that the theory does not account for female homosexuality which has been attributed to nongenetic factors in a recent study, however, if we look at the article regarding that, we still see that biological and environmental factors are said to be involved, resulting once again in the conclusion that homosexuality isn't a choice. This article is actually just another about the same study as the one I posted in Message 21. Sexual Reorientation: The gay culture war is about to turn chemical (Slate)
Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 8:29 AM ET

quote:

---

Study after study found differences between gay and straight brains. Homosexuality came to be viewed less as a lifestyle and more as an orientation, too deeply rooted to be freely rejected. Gay activists embraced and trumpeted these studies. Public opinion shifted.

---

quote:

---

In overall symmetry and amygdala activity, the brains of gay men resembled the brains of straight women, whereas the brains of lesbians resembled the brains of straight men

---

quote:

---

It's not just a matter of preferring men or women. The broader implication, one expert argues, is that "in gay men, the brain is feminized."

---

Remember that as stated in the article in New Scientist about the study, that parameters were chosen that were likely to be set at birth, and not likely to be changed during the lifetime.Sexual Reorientation: The gay culture war is about to turn chemical goes on to state:

quote:

---

If the study's design rules out learned influences, and if the results in women rule out genetics, that leaves what the authors call "hormonal influences" or noncognitive differences in the infant environment. According to the Guardian, the same research team has "begun another study to investigate brain symmetry in newborn babies, to see if it can be used to predict their future sexual orientation." If it can, that will scratch postnatal factors off the list, and the search will narrow to hormones in the womb. Already, the authors point to evidence that homosexuality may be caused by "under-exposure to prenatal androgens" in males and "over-exposure" in females.

---

The research paper that this is based on is available here: PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects (PNAS) but to see more than the abstract you must pay for the paper.

Given what I know, characterizing it as an aberration caused by developmental difficulties, is quite subjective, and quite possibly even factually incorrect. It's been a few weeks since I've looked at them, but do any of the articles I cited say anything that supports the idea that male homosexuality is an "aberration caused by developmental difficulties"? If the existence of homosexuality has actually been beneficial to humanity, as the theory claims, then would it be accurate to describe it as an "abberation"?
Would chemotherapy even change male homosexuality if it has a large genetic component?
Do you subscribe to eugenics?

You could call it eugenics. I don't think eugenics necessarily has to be an unethical thing, but it certainly can be as it was with the Nazis. Probably, and no, unless they intervene in the reproductive process somehow to specifically control what traits they pass on. If he was, then I support eugenics beacuse we won the Super Bowl this year.Anyway, there are serious ethical issues to consider when you get into human genetic engineering.I also hope you aren't suggesting trying to "cure" homosexuals who have no desire to be "cured".

That's not the question, Hoot.Are you for trying to make gay people straight, even if they are perfectly happy being gay?