Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Having Brothers Increases Gay Probability?

A WSJ aricle reports a study that suggests a correlation between boys with older brothers and homosexuality. Below is an excerpt:

A study released this week tracing some instances of male homosexuality to the "older brother effect" is more than another entrant in the race to find the biological roots of sexual orientation. The mechanism it points to fits with emerging research on the powerful effects of conditions in the womb.

The theory dates to 1996, when scientists reported an odd correlation. For each additional older brother that a boy has, his chance of growing up to be gay increases by one-third. The correlation doesn't explain all homosexuality -- many of the estimated 7 million gay men in the U.S. have no older brothers, and most younger brothers are straight. But if the conclusion is right, a rough calculation shows that "about 1 million American men are gay or will grow up to be gay because their mother had sons before them," says psychologist S. Marc Breedlove of Michigan State University, East Lansing, who studies sexual orientation.


Anonymous said...

Here are my comments: First, pay close attention to this sentence, "One suspect was sibling dynamics. Perhaps later-borns are so desperate to differentiate themselves from their brothers that they elect, consciously or unconsciously, to be gay." Key word there being ELECT. Not born, not genetically predisposed, not forced, but chosen.

"Instead, the biological fact of being the second (or later) occupant of the same womb make it more likely that a boy will grow up to be gay. Somehow, the prenatal environment fosters homosexuality in later sons. The older-brothers study adds to the growing research concluding that some people are born to be gay, although none are definitive." None are definitive. Just because there is a correlation between homosexual boys and the fact that they had older brothers does not make it fact. There are too many outliers here also that are not mentioned. Time between birthings, age of the mother (both of which can play a role in the growth and development of babies). Psychological evaluations of the boys are not mentioned either (while I don't believe in these per se, the younger brothers could just be mentally disturbed).

"and no "gay gene" has been found" nor any combination of genes, this is what I keep saying. I don't think there is any way it is genetic due to nature (i.e. the point is to reproduce) and therefore if homosexuality is genetic it is because of a mutation, which would then make homosexuals mutants.

"Indeed, a 1991 study of 41 brains found that in gay males a tiny region behind the eyes, in an area crucial for sexual function, is smaller than in straight men." This is funny, homosexual men may have smaller brains.

One final thought: In thoroughbreds, the color white should not exist. However, there have been three all white thoroughbreds (genetically, i.e. they actually had a white coat color gene) and the other horses were afraid of them because they were not normal. This is a natural instinctive response. Abnormality in a species usually spells trouble (i.e. poor genes, birth defects, etc.), we are programmed to think this so that individuals with bad genes do not reproduce and pass them along, which would hurt the species and the herd (or pack, group, pod, etc.). Homosexuals claim that their disorder is natural, but they want us to suppress our natural instincts to accommodate their "natural" instincts. Hypocrisy I say, hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Ahhhhh a conservative trying to use science and reason!!! Thats soooo cute!!! But aren't you missing ugly pants night at the country club?

Anonymous said...

Yes, obviously the last post was from a conservative perspective, and regardless of its political point of view, it did bing up some very interesting points worth considering. In fact, his points might have been so good that you have absolutely nothing to say to refute them. Instead, you offer a snide little country club barb. Come back when you have something intelligent to bring to the table.

Anonymous said...

I dont think there is a gene that makes guys attracted to big boobs so its gotta be unnatural.

Anonymous said...

Being attracted to curves is something that all men, and creatures are in fact attracted to. It is not a gene, but rather the innate desire to procreate.

Anonymous said...

anything larger than a handful is too much.

Anonymous said...

What a pathetic way of wasting time that could be better spent procreating... Let's just reach the point of no return above the earth's carrying capacity for humans and go extinct already, so that I don't have to listen to people like this bitch and waste their time on minute matters such as homosexuality.

Anonymous said...

Yes, homosexuals are MUTANTS. But so is every human being-mutations are what cause differentiation and evolution within a species.

And you conceded to the fact that the brains of homosexual men are different from the brains of straight men, so obviously science is getting closer to explaining the physical differences between the two groups.

You say that you don't think there is a gay gene because the point in nature is to procreate. You are right. It could then be argued that gay individuals are "unfit" in a straight world, and natural selection will get rid of people with this constantly reappearing mutation.

When you say homosexuals want you to "accomodate" their natural instincts, I don't understand what you are referring to. If you mean asking for an equal opportunity for marriage, I do not see how you will be affected by the choices of strangers. If your natural instincts are similar to those of the horses you described, what do you propose to do the the "white" (ie. gay) outliers? Kill them? Because you make it seem that tolerance is out of the question.