June 16, 2008

Is There a Gay Brain? Imaging Study Finds Anatomical Clues

Swedish researchers are reporting today that brain patterns in homosexual people resemble those seen in heterosexual members of the opposite sex, a finding that will add to the debate about the origins of homosexuality.

In the new study, to be published later today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists at the Karolinska Institute describe brain scans taken of 90 people, 50 heterosexuals and 40 homosexuals, split evenly by gender.

They found that the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual women were more symmetrical than the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women. A similar difference emerged when the researchers looked in particular at the amygdala, a brain region associated with emotional reactions. Heterosexual women and homosexual men had more connections between their right and left amygdala and more connections with other brain regions than did homosexual women and heterosexual men.

Scientists have spent decades looking for brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual people and since the early 1990s have been finding anatomical distinctions in regions associated with sexual behavior. The new study suggests broader brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual men and women, even in regions not linked to sexual attraction. —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. I’ll have a look at this report, and I’m sure it will be interesting. Perhaps the investigators paid attention to patterns of variability within the classes they identified; I hope so. I would expect some differences among people who are attracted to same-sex individuals who are more or less masculine or feminine, and to some extent, hetero people whose orientations vary across the masculinity-feminity scale. And, of course, the sensory modality of the stimuli offered in fMRI studies should be expected to influence what lights up the brain.

   — Joe Erwin    Jun 16, 12:53 PM    #

2. Is there someone I can sue to stop all this sepculation about why I am who I was born to be? Seriously, I’m fed up with being the topic of reserach, local gossip, and the national propensity toward sex in general. I’d really just like to be left alone to live my life, and have the rest of you finally get a life.

   JR

   — JR    Jun 16, 03:25 PM    #

3. Gossip is one thing, actual research is another. While it can be distasteful to be under such a microscope, perhaps this genuine scientific research will go some way towards making it clear that being gay is not a “choice” or a “lifestyle,” but a simple reality.

   — pablo    Jun 16, 03:33 PM    #

4. Excuse me – it is the anomoly not the individual. If you are so secure in who you are…then I suggest YOU get over it and let the rest of us practice our science. The greater question is “Why do you feel the need to define yourself in terms of your sexuality?” Your comment – “…who I was born to be” suggests that perhaps you’re the one who has yet to accept your sexuality as a component of your being rather than the end product.

   — EMD    Jun 16, 03:34 PM    #

5. I’m with you JR. Afterall, science isn’t going to convince the bible-thumpers that there is nothing wrong with being gay.

   — jason    Jun 16, 03:37 PM    #

6. I heard that the same scientists found striking similarities between Heidi Montag’s brain and an inflatable balloon. Further research among celebrities found a correlation between Amy Winehouse and a fried egg.

   — Superficial    Jun 16, 03:38 PM    #

7. Hold on a minute. Even my students in introductory statistics know that finding an association or correlation between two variables does not automatically mean causation.

   — Sue    Jun 16, 03:43 PM    #

8. I’ll join EMD inasmuch as, being a gay psychologist and sex researcher, I am absolutely fascinated about why I’m different (as well as comfortable with it). I don’t know about the researchers mentioned in the above study, but the field of sexology is rife with gays and lesbians, many of whom explore the etiology of orientation, homosexual and otherwise. If you’re not comfortable with the pursuit of knowledge in this area, it’s probably best not to pay attention to it.

   — Steve Forssell    Jun 16, 03:49 PM    #

9. See cover article at http://www.asfar.org/zine/pdf/v7n3rev.pdf. The trouble is that even well-constructed and legitimate research can be appropriated by the media and various interest groups and used to support their own agendas. Sometimes the researchers even encourage this, for publicity. Can’t blame the research itself, but it’s very hard to prevent this phenomenon, when the research touches upon a controversy.

   — Antsy Kuhnwisse    Jun 16, 03:55 PM    #

10. I am very much in favor of scientific research: it is after all the search for truth, is it not. What I find troubling, from a journalism point of view, is the truly questionable, headline that would only be laughable were it not atop a story from an ostensibly thoughtful publication.

    — Don Moore    Jun 16, 04:12 PM    #

11. It has been said that “science isn’t going to convince the Bible thumpers…” This is not entirely true. Christianity is somewhat diverse in its reception to science. The Catholic Church, for example, accepts evolution. This is also true of a number of Prostestant denominations. The scientific fact that persons who are sexually attracted to members of the same sex may have brain structures that are different from those who are attracted to persons of the other sex will also be responded to differently amongst Christian denominations. This will have particularly powerful implications if its is shown that the brain structures develop in utero, as opposed to changes that might occur because someone chooses to be attacted to members of the same sex. The former, would remove the claim of “choice” or life sytle. This would raise profound theological questions about the nature of “sexual” sin. Undoubtedly if the research is robust, it would require those denominations that value the input of science to review their thinking about homosexuality. One can’t be “sinning” if you aren’t making a conscious decision to go against God’s law. It, of course brings up huge questions about whether there is true theological support for the notion that homosexuality is “sinful”. It would be hard to argue for homosexuality as sin if it is a routine consequence of genetics, environment, and chance events in the development of individual’s brains. Those Christians who are sincerely interested in understanding how God acts in nature will be forced to rethink their views. This should be a positive development. On other hand, those who are already convinced that the Bible can/should be read literally probably won’t be impacted by any scientific result. However, this group is a numerical minority in the United States. Certainly, I argue it is the duty of those who are not Biblical literalists to be sure that their voices be heard in these questions also.

    — Dr. Joseph L Graves Jr    Jun 16, 04:44 PM    #

12. Why am I straight while many of my colleagues, friends, and family members are gay? I don’t know. I certainly don’t find myelf “under the microscope” simply because someone is trying to give explanations that might save us from the worst excesses of homophobia. If this study is correct, we do not choose our sexual orientation. Lots of us, gay and straight, have been saying that for years. I am fascinated, not threatened by this line of inquiry, nor is there any reason why my gay daughter older should be—and I doubt that she is.

    Landrum Kelly, Ph.D.
    PFLAG supporter

    — Landrum Kelly    Jun 16, 04:47 PM    #

13. “Is There a Straight Brain?”

    Perhaps the title could have been phrased differently in order to emphasize that both gays and straights are “normal” in some essential and important sense.

    Landrum Kelly

    — Landrum Kelly    Jun 16, 04:55 PM    #

14. I’m sure that “Bible Thumpers” was not intended to include all Christians. Obviously, there are Christians who accept science. “Bible Thumper” refers to fundamentalist or fanatic Christians who, it is true, will never accept science that is not in accordance with their beliefs.

    — Socrates    Jun 16, 05:11 PM    #

15. Frankly this research is troubling for me because once again we allow society to discriminate and now based on a medical model! Yes let’s deal with homosexuality like we have so wrongly done with persons with a disability for decades and say that there is now proof that anatomically they (gays) are different from the “norm” That is what will be said because the majority of the population is hetrosexual.

    Research is if fine, it is to be applauded but there are dangers and this one will not be any different!

    — TH    Jun 16, 05:28 PM    #

16. One of the things that makes sex interesting is the incredible variety.Of course, to conduct a scientific study one has to be able to isolate variables and determine correlation between and among them. This study, which appears both exciting and valuable, may have the side effect of furthering the myth of a clear and simple dichotomy in sexual orientation – gay or straight. This disregards bisexuals, persons who orientation varies over time through phases of their lives, those who may encounter same-sex and opposite-sex stimuli in the same day, straight men who simply like to have sex with other men, groupies, those who respond sexually to the person and not the gender. If you think such variation does not exist, you haven’t asked the right questions. In any event, the lack of a clear and abiding, simple dichotomy makes homophobia all the more ridiculous.

    — congenital    Jun 16, 05:30 PM    #

17. 1. The brains can be different, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that homosexuals are born that way. homosexuality can still be a “choice” i.e. brains can show a damage, a deviation from norm.
    2. It would be also interesting to see “gender” in the brain, in cases where individual says that his/her “gender” is something different than the sex.

    — Michael Pyshnov    Jun 16, 05:58 PM    #

18. As a bisexual, I find studies like this somewhat alienating. Is my amygdala only partially like a straight man’s amygdala?

    While I’m not surprised to see that there can be a biological component to sexual orientation, I don’t think it’s the only path to queerness. Surely some of the many GLBT people out there would actually choose their orientation. (Yes, a politically inconvenient opinion, I know. I don’t care.)

    The question we all should be asking: In the end, does it even matter?

    — Dina    Jun 16, 10:24 PM    #

19. Still grasping for anything…

    Dr. Simon LeVay, in 1991, had strong personal and political reasons to pursue his research The “Hypothalamus Study”. LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. According to a 1992 Newsweek story, he stated: “. . . if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether”. In 2001 Simon LeVay, admitted that the study was inconclusive.

    In 1993 Dr. Dean Hamer at the NCI reported that a “gay” gene seemed to be maternally linked and could be found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome. But Hamer’s study was discredited as both biased and corrupt. Even an article in the same-gender sex magazine, New York Native, was titled: “Gay Gene Research Doesn’t Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.” And the NIHO alleged that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (that he ignored data that didn’t support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined).

    In October 2003, Dr. Qazi Rahman, Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson said they found sex differences in the eye blink in response to loud noises. The authors found that women blinked more readily than men, and that lesbians blinked less readily than other women. They used small samples, and found no difference between homosexual men and heterosexual men. Yet they gave the impression that their findings indicated that homosexuality is a pre-born condition. And they themselves introduced cautionary notes in the study: “Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variations between heterosexuals and homosexuals may be due either to biological factors or to the influence of learning.”

    — Julie    Jun 16, 10:27 PM    #

20. What about bisexuals or others who fit at different points along the Kinsey scale?

    Also, from my university stats course I seem to remember that a sampling of 90 people is not enough to make a definitive statement on anything.

    I think it’s interesting to view the physiological reasons for sexuality, as long as it’s not then used to “cure” people/fetuses…

    Oh, and of course, there’s the nurture point of view to be taken as well – how much of brain development is related to how we were raised/how we developed based on societal patterns?

    The more interesting study would be to look at the brains of a whole bunch of infants and then look at them again as adults – and I mean a WHOLE bunch – like tens of thousands, not fewer than 100.

    — Alex    Jun 17, 07:28 AM    #

21. I work with a guy who is gay, and is quite smart. So I would say he has a “Gay Brain…”

    — GT    Jun 17, 08:17 AM    #

22. What are clearly needed are longitudinal studies from childhood on in the same individuals. That would be more difficult, of course, but it would be needed in order to show definitively to what extent changes derive from genetic rather than environmental factors.

    The worst comment above was perhaps this one (#17):

    “The brains can be different, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that homosexuals are born that way. Homosexuality can still be a ‘choice’ i.e. brains can show a damage, a deviation from norm.”

    The first sentence is alright, but then there is an error, a true leap of logic. Some persons, that is, are going to hang onto the idea that “different” means “inferior” or “defective.” This is the real leap of logic (the ultimate foundation of all prejudice) that is going to be the hardest to fight in the popular mind. No matter how compelling the empirical evidence, some will find a way to rationalize it away.

    It is true that this study “proves” nothing, but, since there is no inductive proof, science never “proves” anything. This study is yet another nail in the coffin of those who insist that sexual orientation is primarily a learned behavior. That they will continue to insist otherwise is a testament to the power of willful ignorance.

    The weight of evidence is increasingly in support of the thesis that there are genetic factors that are operative in the development of sexual orientation—gay, straight, or something in between the two poles of the continuum. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the gay orientation is somehow “defective” as opposed to being merely “different.”

    This is a battle that must be fought. Truth and social justice require it, and these are hardly meaningless ideals.

    Landrum Kelly, Ph.D.
    www.philosophicalquestions.org

    — Landrum Kelly    Jun 17, 08:40 AM    #

23. Regarding all the Bible Thumper comments, I am an academic and a Christian (yes, it is possible). My Christianity does not fight with science, it simply says that despite what my body or instincts tell me to do, I have a choice to act otherwise. I don’t have to live off of chocolate (no matter how much I want to), I don’t have to constantly have a drink or a cigarette or other drug of choice. I can choose also to be in a monogamous relationship instead of promiscuous sex. And I can choose to have a traditional heterosexual marriage no matter what else I may be inclined to explore. Rising above our instincts makes us human. If you choose to do so based on Biblical teachings, there are specific ways you will go. If you choose to do so based on other teachings, you will go another way. Science is interesting and to be explored, but we do not necessarily have to use scientific findings to govern our lives.

    — Lucy    Jun 17, 08:55 AM    #

24. As I read these comments, some of them appall me. It’s amazing the ignorance that comes through from some who have read this article. I understand the reasoning for research because we always want to explore differences. Why are my eyes sometimes green when my parents have blue and brown eyes? We wondered how eye color came about and did research.

    My biggest issue with this study is that we, as the LGBT community fight so hard to be considered equal and this reserach is being done because being queer is considred to be abnormal. However, we are making a big deal out of a small study. As another commentor noted, 90 individuals is not a significant number as well as this study does not appear to take into account the continuum of sexuality or of gender. Do you believe in a gender binary? I don’t.

    — Kelly    Jun 17, 08:55 AM    #

25. Kelly (#24), I do not believe that studies focusing on the two poles of the continuum necessarily imply that there is nothing in between.

    There might be good reasons for focusing on the poles if one is going to be looking for differences, at least on a prima facie basis. If the general idea is correct, we might see degrees of change for those along the continuum. (That is a question for subsequent research.)

    The real value of this line of inquiry is that it invites others to replicate this study—possibly with larger sample sizes, possibly controlling for other varialbes.

    I see this as a promising line of further research—hardly definitive, but certainly promising.

    Landrum Kelly

    — Landrum Kelly    Jun 17, 09:12 AM    #

26. jason: “After all, science isn’t going to convince the bible-thumpers that there is nothing wrong with being gay.”

    Although many in the RCC are invincibly ignorant sometimes, the leadership has said that there is no immorality in being a gay person, whatever explanation empirical science may prove at some point that demonstrates the reality of homosexuality.

    It is the behavior that the RCC objects to, much in the way objections are made to immoral behavior between heteros—behaviors like fornication and adultery.

    And always: “Let him (she) who is without sin….”

    — Green Eyeshade    Jun 17, 09:34 AM    #

27. Lucy (#23) says that “My Christianity does not fight with science, it simply says that despite what my body or instincts tell me to do, I have a choice to act otherwise. . . . I can choose to have a traditional heterosexual marriage no matter what else I may be inclined to explore. Rising above our instincts makes us human. If you choose to do so based on Biblical teachings, there are specific ways you will go. If you choose to do so based on other teachings, you will go another way. Science is interesting and to be explored, but we do not necessarily have to use scientific findings to govern our lives.”

    Nor do we have to rely blindly on biblical teachings when they fly in the face of empirical evidence, a la the six-day creation and the story of Noah and the flood.

    The question is not whether one is going to be a believer or a person of science. The question is whether one’s beliefs are going to admit of modification in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    I see no virtue in trying to live up to an ideal based on pre-scientific documents and fragments thereof. The Bible is neither a history book nor a science book.

    If you insist that the Bible trumps all other sources of knowledge, Lucy, then you are a “Bible thumper,” whether you know it or not. Your particular variant of Christianity is likewise at war with science, whether or not you know that as well.

    Some of the greatest tragedies I have seen have resulted from gays’ trying to live up to someone else’s standards of what a “monogamous marriage” ought to entail. It does not necessarily entail or imply traditional heterosexual union when such is clearly contrary to one’s nature.

    Landrum Kelly
    PFLAG Supporter

    — Landrum Kelly    Jun 17, 09:38 AM    #

28. I’ve got a friend that only finds Asian women attractive. Maybe he has an “Asiansexual Brain”. To some extent I’m sure who we are attracted to is hardwired but why do we only care about the wiring of gay vs straight? Why won’t we look at the wiring of sexual predators or mass murders. I’m not questioning the methodology, just the motivation behind the question. For me this falls into the “who the heck cares?” type of research.

    — John who is not an expert on anything    Jun 17, 10:00 AM    #

29. Why the assumption that this means sexual preferences are inherent? We know from other studies that brain patterns can change over time. Perhaps that is what is going on here. A longitudinal study is what is needed.
    However a more important question is: What difference does it make? We should, on principle, in all public policies, eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    — Marvin    Jun 17, 10:15 AM    #

30. Bible thumpers of the kind that the original comment above was referring to don’t accept evolution. They will never be convinced by fMRI images.

    The neurobiology of human sexual behavior is very interesting from a host of perspectives to a lot of people. If you don’t think so, don’t read it.

    — Ba'al    Jun 17, 10:34 AM    #

31. “Who the heck cares?” #28

    “What difference does it make?” #29

    It is easier to fight discrimination based on sexual orientation if one has the facts on one’s side. This research settle nothing, but it is part of a more general quest to understand ourselves. Surely self-understanding still matters, regardless of our sexual orientation.

    Landrum Kelly

    — Landrum Kelly    Jun 17, 10:35 AM    #

32. It was not so long ago that most persons believed that persons of European descent were brighter than persons of African descent. Now almost no one believes that. True understanding does help in the struggle against all forms of social injustice—and against the discrimination that is at the foundation of such injustice.

    Landrum Kelly

    — Landrum Kelly    Jun 17, 10:43 AM    #

33. As a queer woman who is attracted to men (sometimes) and women (most of the time), and who is now extremely attracted to a beautiful intersexed woman, I find studies of this sort interesting and worthwhile even though I am certain that all that science will ever be able to establish is that despite brain differences between different types of people, we all have the same capacities for love, intelligence, ethical behavior, etc.

    As for religious views . . . any god, gods, goddesses (I was raised catholic but feel pantheistic) wants humans to be happy as long as they do no harm to others. Do unto others as you have done unto you—is it really that hard? And Christians especially should focus on loving their (gay) neighbors instead of pointing fingers on whether we can and/or should control our instincts and as to how we should lead our lives, which are otherwise exactly like yours. We don’t ask straight people what they do in their bedrooms; what business is it of anyone’s what we do in ours? Jesus himself would never discriminate.

    Peace to all,
    E.

    — Elle    Jun 17, 11:25 AM    #

34. “One can’t be “sinning” if you aren’t making a conscious “ecision to go against God’s law”

    I don’t feel Dr. Graves Jr. is getting the point of sin in the Bible. Christianity never says the impulse itself, whether gay or straight (there’s lots of prohibitions in the Bible of straight sex too) is wrong, it is the acting upon such impulses in improper contexts. So even if someone was proven to have a different brain structure, that would just mean they were more inclined to have those impulses. Acting on them would still be wrong according to a Christian viewpoint.

    However, by that same token, Christians who are following God’s word are indeed called to love everyone, to turn the other cheek, while loving and perhaps witnessing when possible. It saddens me that so many people claim to be Christian just to negatively attack others instead of looking at the whole picture, because believe it or not, there are both sides present in this religion.

    — Jen    Jun 17, 11:51 AM    #

35. As a “Bible-thumper”, I will throw a couple of comments into the fray.

    It is correct to say there are a multitude of prohibitions in the Bible re: heterosexual sex. It is also correct to say that the Bible prohibits homosexual sex, just as the Bible prohibts incest and certain other sexual practices.

    It is incorrect to say that Jesus did not/does not discriminate and it is incorrect to say that Jesus did not/does not judge. Likewise, nowhere does the Bible indicate that human being are not to exercise judgment.

    There are a myriad of biblical passages that demostrate discrimination in the Bible. They are in fact to numerous to mention here. Having said that, it is essential to understand that the basis for discrimination is NEVER something so basic as gender, skin color, and the like. Discrimination is ALWAYS based on conduct. In other words, I will not associate myself with certain individuals because of activities they do or do not participate in. All of us make these kinds of discriminatory decisions everyday. We go to the fitness center or don’t go. I don’t hang out in bars because I don’t drink alcohol. That is a form of discrimination. However, I also work in a culture where many people do drink alcohol. In no case am I biblically justified in acting un-Christian toward those who drink. Likewise, in no case am I justified in acting un-Christian toward practicing homosexuals, regardless of how I feel about any particular activity.

    Similar things can be said about the concept of judgment. I must exercise judgment, so must all of you; and you do, even if you choose not to recognize that is what you are doing. For example, Landrum Kelly maintains, rightly, that one of our concerns should be social justice. Extrapolating from that position, we could say that Landrum Kelly has made a judgment that those persons who do not practice social justice according to Landrum Kelly’s standard of measure are not nice human beings. Similarly, if I don’t jump on the global warming bandwagon will Al Gore, then I am, according to the prophets of global warming apocalypse, an evil person.

    What the Bible warns about concerning judgment is hypocrisy in the exercise of judgment. Jesus warned that we are to take care in judgment because the same measure that we use to pass judgment on another will be applied to us. This is why much of society takes evil glee in celebrating the fall of one televangelist after another. Those individuals have set up a standard of judgment, then have been found to not measure up to their own standard. That is hypocrisy and that is what is condemned in scripture, not the exercise of judgment in and of itself. No less a person than the Apostle Paul spoke on one occasion and said, “I am not there, but I have judged already,” and he instructed the Corinthian congregation to take certain steps in dealing with a sexual practice going on in the local assembly.

    It also explains why our society in general does not apply like standards of measure to both religious leaders and political leaders. We want our politicians to be morally less than they should be because if they are, that allows us to be less than we should be.

    For those of you who hold fast to science – I am not your enemy. Though I do not agree with everything put out under the banner of science, neither do I stand in the pulpit on any Sunday and condemn the practicioners of science. I believe in science, especially when I need medical treatment or want to use a computer. I would like to suggest though, that just as you want me to read the research and get the facts, that you do the same. If you want me to read and open my mind to the facts of science, how about you opening your mind and get the facts of what the Bible actually says before you go off half-cocked, fighting against something that may be incomplete or an inaccurate recounting of what the Bible actually says.

    The blessings of God be to you all and have a good day. I await your response.

    — 2B    Jun 17, 01:28 PM    #

36. Let me see, I am wondering what in the world a craving for chocolate has to do with instincts? Maybe I could rise above the “instinct” to breathe? Or maybe it would be better if a newborn rose above the instinct to suckle? What a lot of trouble we would save ourselves, what with living and having sex, and worrying about whether or not the air we breathe is clean. My, my.
    I know, of course, that instincts or no instincts, no one race or gender is smarter or better than another. I also know that no sexual preference is better or more “right” than any other. I know that. I also know that people invent reasons to “know” otherwise, by using books that contain claims based totally on faith and not at all on anything even close to a fact to defend beliefs based on ignorance. This is behavior based on fear. What are the people who oppress others afraid of? Losing their ability to oppress? Yeah! That must be it: They’d have to rely on merit instead of oppression. It must be sad for a person to have to invent reasons why he or she is better than someone else. It seems to boil down to: how I use my genitals is superior to how you use yours, and my feelings of love are better than yours. I’d say “think about it” but I’m not sure all readers would share with me what it means to “think.”
    Ta.

    — Rosan    Jun 17, 02:51 PM    #

37. Re: #17: There was study conducted in the 1990s of both MtF transsexual wymyn and FtM transsexual men which looked at the size of the corpus collosum. The former were found to have a corpus collosum close in size and (presumed) weight to those of natal females while the opposite was the case in the latter (more like those of natal men). Thus, this very early study of admittedly a small sample provides some evidence that those whose gender varies from their genital sex may be experiencing this because the structure of their brains is more like those of the gender they perceive themselves to be.

    By the way, gender is not “gender,” but a relatively easily detected social construction visible in all human societies and cultures. It does not directly correlate to genital sex, i.e., male or female. Also, so far all humans appear to know which gender they are at very young ages, generally between 3 and 6. Those whose gender identity doesn’t directly match their genital sex also know this at the same stage of life.

    It would now be interesting to see how various transfolk of various sexual orientations fall along the “gay brain,” scale.

    — Luccia    Jun 17, 03:52 PM    #

38. For all you idiots with PhDs who have asserted that the study will probably conclude to prove that homosexuality is inborn , I have news for you. YOUR WRONG !!! What the study in fact says is human brain is “plastic” in other words, it physically changes and adapts to one’s thoughts and practices ultimately forming neurophysical connections. Human brain does nothing more and nothing less than to respond to our wishes sort of like a geenie who follows his/her master’s wishes.ultimately following ones proclivities and life style.. YES you heard me right most homosexuals are a product of their environment and their pervasive thought and behavior patterns. HUman brain goes into a sort of autopilot state. — Hate to break to you but it does not take a PhD to understand the results of the study. Want more proof of my proposition —- see brain plasticity research .

    Good bye and good luck

    — Solomon    Jun 18, 04:14 AM    #

39. Solomon, research on brain plasticity indicates that we are products of both genetic and environmental factors.

    Nothing in such research defends the tabula rasa concept, i.e., the theory that we are infinitely malleable and that there is no such thing as human nature. Rigid views have indeed been refuted, but no viable research has demonstrated that our brains are as plastic and malleable as you apparently want to believe.

    Now go do your homework, wise man, and then report back to the class on what you find.

    Landrum Kelly
    www.philosophicalquestions.org

    — Landrum Kelly    Jun 18, 11:04 AM    #

40. Jason #5 makes a valid point. The rest of us intelligent people want to push the scientific method to finally shut down those who spend their lives with “head-in-the-sand” syndome. There is nothing in this world to fear, BUT FEAR ITSELF.

    — mimi    Jun 18, 04:59 PM    #

41. I would argue that some of you actually need to READ the bible before you make some of ths statements you make. For instance I am a scienctist and a very strong Christian. What’s funny is that we get a finding in science and then INTRPRET it one way and if that way is contrary to the bible then the bible must be wrong. What about the interpretation. Any scientist in here needs to go back to your grad school days and remember data is data but what is written is your intrepretation. I find no opposition of the bible to science at all. But what it will always come to is that I believe the bible is God-breathed word, period. Therefore if something a scientific interpretation is contrary to the WORD then guess what, God is not wrong the intrepretation is flawed. Forgive me if I find it plausible that man can be wrong. I am a Bible believer and proud of it. Whether being gay is learned or not is to me irrelevant. This reseach I am sure is fascinating and should add greatly to the great complexity of the human brain.

    — Dr. Washington    Jun 19, 03:35 PM    #

42. The late John Boswell said it perfectly: “No one ever asks what causes heterosexuality.” I’m sure, however, that many gay people, like me, wonder why anyone could or would make such an odd sexual choice. And whoever said that heterosexuals don’t define themselves by their sexuality is out of his or her mind. Go to the movies; watch television; walk through a park. Try to imagine, from a gay person’s point of view, the degree to which heterosexuality is “in your face.” Another commenter also got it right: no amount of research, however reasoned and intelligent, will change the minds of bible thumpers and similar people who are incapable of rationality. So let’s give it a rest, shall we? We need to evolve a code of manners that keeps religion in the churches and the homes of those who believe in it. Apart from that, the bible thumpers could take their cue from the way gay people behave when confronted with nearly everything in popular culture: we keep our mouths shut.

    — Michael    Jun 20, 10:38 AM    #

43. I can’t wait for the fetal test. I am sure that my “bible-thumping” mom would approve of my aborting a fetus who is gay, even though she doesn’t approve of abortion.
    Also, what happens to people whose brains aren’t “gay” but still prefer people of the same sex? Are they fair game to be “cured”?

    — Anna    Jun 20, 01:18 PM    #

Previous: Medical College of Georgia Terminates Relationship With Foundation
Next: NAACP and ACLU Concerned About New Admissions Standards at Nevada Universities