Skip to comments.Gay Is Not All in the Genes
Posted on 03/28/2013 8:33:24 AM PDT by Maelstorm
Why are some people gay? Most researchers who study sexual orientation think that both genetic and environmental factors play a role, but the relative contributions of each remain unclear. A new study of Swedish twins reinforces earlier findings that environmental influences--including the environment in the womb--may play a greater role than genes.
Scientists studying complex human behaviors often turn to twin studies. Researchers look at both identical and fraternal twins to see how often they share a trait--a parameter called concordance. The greater the concordance among genetically identical twins compared with fraternal twins--who share only half of their genes--the more likely that genetic factors are involved.
Earlier twin studies of sexual orientation have suggested varying degrees of genetic and environmental influences. But they have suffered from the limitations typical of all twin studies. These include small sample sizes and assumptions that identical and fraternal twins both have the same family environments; if identical twins are treated more similarly by their parents than fraternal twins, for example, this could be mistaken for a genetic influence. Recruitment biases are also an issue: Some studies have enlisted participants who openly identify themselves as gay, who may not be typical of the entire homosexual population.
To try to get around these problems, a team led by Niklas Langström, a psychiatrist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, recruited subjects from the Swedish Twin Registry, the world's largest. All 43,808 twins born in Sweden between 1959 and 1985 were invited to participate in a Web-based survey that comprised a wide range of questions about personal behaviors and experiences. The team ended up with a sample of 3826 twin pairs, of which 2320 were identical and 1506 fraternal. Of that sample, roughly 5% of men and 8% of women reported sexual activity with a member of the same sex at least once during their lifetimes. Then they plugged the survey responses into a standard mathematical model for comparing identical and fraternal twins.
The results, published online this month in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, confirm earlier findings that identical twins are more concordant for same-sex behaviors than fraternal twins are but only modestly so: In men, genetic effects appeared to explain 34% to 39% of the differences between the two twin groups, whereas in women, genetics accounted for only about 18% to 19% of the difference--a finding consistent with other research showing that sexual orientation in women is not as rigidly determined as it is in men.
As for what environmental factors might be at play, the authors point out that these might not be entirely social but could also be biological. For example, some studies have suggested that exposure to prenatal hormones or even the mother's immune system could influence the sexual development of a fetus.
J. Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who led earlier twin studies of sexual orientation, calls the new study "good, important, and one unlikely to be bettered in the near future." But Jonathan Beckwith, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, says that the new work fails to overcome a number of problems faced by previous twin studies. He notes that the final sample included only 12% of the males in the Swedish registry, leaving open the possibility of recruitment bias. And Beckwith says that the failure to control for family environment could inflate estimates of genetic influence.
Someone once did a study of a spike in homosexuals in Europe after World War in their homeland that supports your theory. Wish I could find it.
I married an identical twin. His brother was eventually revealed to be homosexual - which came as no surprise to me, even though he had had a live in girlfriend when I first met both twins.
Their parents’s marriage hade broken up when they were infants, and their father had not been in their lives much. Their mother treated them completely different from early childhood. One had been cosseted and spoiled and treated like a genius and encouraged to excel in school, the other had been treated as the man of the house and encouraged to be strong and self-reliant. One became homosexual, the other a womanizer. Guess which was which.
These genes studies are a waste of time and money.
Claiming atheism is exactly what my daughter’s “wife” has done.
It was something I realized long ago. In childhood, there was mostly revulsion between the boys and girls. You have to get over it - it can be a challenge. To really live up to being a dull fledged man or woman can be scary, especially for those with traumatic childhoods, etc. It is a choice one makes, to get on with it and face it.
I know a woman who had 4 sons and 3 of them are homosexual. I knew them from the time the oldest one was 3 and he already acted gay. What bothered me was that she encouraged them to act like sissies. They used to pin towels around their heads to pretend they had long hair and pranced around like little girls and she thought it was cute. Their dad was brutal and mean and punished them for acting like girls. It was a mess.
Snake in the Grass or Billie Jean?
I think there is a good case for homosexuality being an overexpression of Liberalism, itself merely an r-selected Reproductive Strategy, designed to best compete in an environment with a glut of resources (as opposed to Conservatism which is itself a K-selected Reproductive Strategy designed to successfully navigate a resource shortage). Check the two pages below I wrote on this.
All of that is based on earlier research I have amassed asserting Liberalism is a psychological adaptation to free resource availability, and Conservatism is an outgrowth of a psychology designed to confront resource shortage. Both have a genetic predisposition, and an element which is produced in response to the environment.
If this is correct, it will point to social factors which will increase homosexuality, since they will be the same factors which will increase the expression of an r-strategy (stressed single mothers (maternal stress in rodents during pregnancy and early rearing triggers a shift towards r, probably through epigenetic effects), no father, free resource availability at adulthood, cultural hypersexuality, lack of amygdala stimulation in life (such as by having to compete, work for reward, endure discipline, conform to group norms or be castigated, etc.) It will also explain why you suddenly have manly females who tend to desire feminine men, and effete men, who desire manly qualities in their mates. In animals it is called a reversal in sexual dimorphism which accomanies the r-strategy. Here, the gay r-man's desire for a manly r-female is just occaisionally, accidently overexpressed, as is the manly r-female's desire for an effminate male.
Today we have a hypersexualized environment where single moms are encouraged to work to raise their children alone, no one can be judged or castigated for anything, and Liberals try to see to it that no child ever sees their amygdala stimulated, be it through games of tag or dodgeball, or having to fit in with their peers, or simply seeing something deviant and acknowledging it. Combined with our national success removing any form of K-selection stress, all of this will increase homosexuality.
In short, the coming economic cleanse will probably clean a lot of this up, even without us working at it, by reintroducing the stimuli associated with K-selection and resource shortage, which will cause the population to adapt psychologically by becomming more K.
But once it does, we will need to work to maintain it. Letting a guy like George W. Bush get in as our representative, and just coddle Liberals for eight years is precisely the type of national amygdala-atrophying stimulus which will put us on the path we are on now. There was no castigation or amygdala stimulation of the left-leaners to drive them right, and as a result, today our moderates are leftists, our Leftists are fully detached from reality, and Homosexual couples adopting children is completely normal and fun.
Rome was very "open" as it began its collapse (due to an r-shift in the populace, in response to success). So these things swing back on their own. But when they do it involves a pain which could be avoided if we just prevented things from going this far in the first place, by being less tolerant of all r's to begin with.
there is nothing genetic about the behavior.
the only tenuous argument is that for a birth DEFECT and that is questionable.
homosexual conduct is an abnormal behavior. it is no different that any criminal fetish or sex with animals.
To AC, I refer you to my question in #33.
Do you have an answer to that?
Interesting. I have a friend now who is homosexual and he was at the end of a family of 8, his brothers were all the oldest in the family and he was surrounded by girls but he had a best friend and they did everything together and then the friend died when they were about 13. I have often wondered about that because I know the trauma caused in our family when my brother died as a teenager.
My husband’s cousin was 12 when he found out that the man he thought was his father wasn’t and that sure could have been the truama that affected him. I don’t know.
I think my mother was always a little biplolar but my brother’s death put her over the edge. I have a niece who also went over the edge after a trauma. I just observe and I would say that this homosexual is bipolar and narcissistic but I’m not a psychiatrist and this is the first homosexual I have known well and spent a lot of time with so I’m no expert.
He is very immature at 50 and still acts like a kind of mature Junior High kid. He was also unnaturally, IMO, close to his mother and when his mother was dying of cancer got on drugs and went totally out of control. He’s off them now but his family abandoned him when he got on the drugs and those bridges haven’t been rebuilt and probably won’t be.
What is ironic is that most pro-gay people are also pro-abortion.
I wonder if they feel that a aborting a child with a “gay gene” would be denying equal protection under the law.
Very profound observations and I can definitely agree with what you say.
I see this happening to my youngest grandson, liberal, single mother who has done everything she could to emasculate and denigrate his father. Who has encouraged every feminine behavior and punished male behavior and I don’t think all of it is concious. She has failed at everything she has tried even though she has a Master’s degree. Liberlaism really is a sickness.
The only thing in his favor is that he does have a loving father. We have also talked to him about homosexuality the same way we talk to the others and about sexuality and what behavior we expect from him. Luckily, our oldest granddaughter, his cousin, is a paragon of virtue and they all love her and want to emulate her.
I can’t say it is definitely genetic anymore than you can say it definitely isn’t. But there is evidence indicating that certain genes make the behavior more likely to arise. That is indisputable.
Acknowledging it has a genetic element isn’t saying it needs to be accepted, or giving anybody a free pass on behavior. There are almost certainly genetically predisposing factors towards violence, sociopathy, and Narcissistic personalities, as well as a range of other disorders that can yield criminality. That there might be a genetic predisposition, doesn’t mean they get to wreck society, destroy the family, or hurt innocent kids by adopting them. It doesn’t even mean the predisposition has to produce the behavior.
But it is important to find the truth, if you are to conquer the problem. God made a big puzzle, and if you want to have an effect upon it, you need to try to honestly understand it, and not assume you know how He made things, or why. Maybe He included a genetic predisposition to test certain people He wanted to see demonstrate virtue in the face of adversity. This is God’s show, and He made the rules our job is to understand it, and then try to help good win.
This is my input, and I think it is accurate, and could help in the battle. If correct, it does offer a wide range of anti-Liberal tools for us to use in our fight. To just give them up would be silly, IMHO.
If you have research showing clearly that there is no genetic link, lay it out, and let everyone else look and weigh the evidence themselves. As I showed in my post, there is a gene which is clearly associated with homosexuality, and wonder of wonders, it is the same gene that predisposes to Liberalism, and produces every element of the r-strategy. In all cases, it isn’t predetermination, but only predisposition.
Before castigating this work, go show it to a Liberal friend as if you believe it, and watch the reaction. Then ask yourself if God’s truth might precipitate a similar reaction to the Liberal’s rage.
it is an arrested development.
as the child developes his her identity, it graduates to discovering others like him/her. the opposite sex is the “not me”. girls are icky and boys are yucky and the like.
at some point there is a reinforcment of that behavior to the extreme. See the work of “sissy boy syndrome” and parental maunchausen (sp?) syndrome disorders.
instead of graduating to the opposite sex being attractive. Grown is stunted into a “me me me” loop. Homosexuals end up trying to mate with the person in the mirror.
I think I already knew that..........
did you do know there are people born with both male and female genitals?
face it wierd stuff can happen.
I think it is interesting, and might help in the future.
Your grandson will appreciate all of your efforts when he’s grown. There is nothing as appreciated as being shown the right path, when you were on the wrong (leftward) one. He’s lucky to have you, and he’ll realize it when he looks back.
It can’t be genetic since there is no “gene”.They have searched for over 35 years and tagged every gene there is and there is no gay gene.It is a completely learned behavior period.
I know of a man who was a Catholic. Married in the church. Had a large family, six beautiful daughters. Then one day he decided he was gay. He left his wife and daughters for his gay lover. But still was harshly critical of the wife for how she struggled to raise the girls alone after he left. She had to work many more hours to try to pay the bills, so he criticized her for not being at home, but he couldn’t find it in his heart to pay her enough in child support to make that possible. He chose to be gay.
Here is another instance of choice. A young woman had a huge crush on my son. He wasn’t that interested in her, other than as a friend. My son joined the Marines and left. This young woman couldn’t find any young men interested in her, so suddenly she found herself being courted by some women who went out of their way to look as masculine as possible. She just moved in with one of them.
>Assuming that homos are born (created) with the homo gene, why would God say, Do not practice homosexuality?
To be clear, I do not say they are born. Liberals aren’t born, but rather people are born predisposed to developing that way. Think of it as some being born with excessive temptation. Maybe God wants to test them. I don’t have it, and trying to picture why a guy would find other guys to be as pretty as girls is baffling. For some reason, God decided not to saddle me with that burden. Clearly, others are different.
It is like infidelity, lying, etc. If God didn’t want us doing them, why create a world where we could? He clearly could have. God has His reasons for what He does.
When we lose sight of that, and start trying to assume we know how he would do it, we can become deceived, and fail to understand how to fight our battle to the best of our ability.
I believe God created a world in which Liberals are designed to be defeated, in every way, over time. As I look at r and K-selection, I see a mechanism by which K-selection (Conservatism) will always win, in the end. To me, the mechanism is both fascinating, and uplifting, if you look at it closely. Best of all, understanding it offers an insight into just how God wants us to win, how he designed our victory to occur, and how best we can help Him to lead us to it sooner.
I strongly suspect he has a Jim McGreevy moment coming too.
God help us.
I can’t get to the original article because you need a log in but this gives a quick over view of what that study said.They looked into the gay gene for about 20 years and deconstructed many studies that supported the gay gene theory and concluded there was no evidence it existed:
I think they exist but gay genes or gay susceptibility genes are entirely irrelevant. I never hear anyone make this point, rather conservatives merely deny the “born this way” argument. This leads to unproductive quibbling about genetic science and counter attacks about the scientific “ignorance” of conservatives.
Genes or not, it doesn’t matter. There are also down syndrome and schizophrenia causing genes!!!! There are all kinds of bad genes that cause congenital PROBLEMS.
Retards (sorry slur, I’m a jerk, I was born this way) are born that way. Few would suggest that’s not a major problem for them and their families.
But serious medical science gave up on considering homosexuality to be a mental illness decades ago. Whether it’s genetic or not, that’s what it is.
Nowadays “sexual preference” is equated to taste in ice cream flavors not something that’s you know NOT QUITE RIGHT, and I am Hitler for suggesting otherwise. Mind you I advocate absolutely NO forced treatment what so ever but still, I am Hitler. I slur gays by suggesting they are not quite right in the head. I am “full of hate” for having this reasoned scientific opinion. I best keep it to myself.
Part of the problem is the stigma attached to mental illness in general. People get offended if you call them “crazy”.
1 or 2%, are telling the other 98% that they must atone.
Now THAT is crazy!
The pod people in the '93 version are particularly cocky and arrogant in believing it's "inevitable" they will take over the world, and anyone who refuses to immediately join them and be replaced with a pod person gets "targeted" by them shrinking a high pitched noise that signals to the others "he/she isn't one of US yet!" (which was also used in the '78 movie but not as prominently)
Look at this scene. '93 was eerily prophetic:
That is GWB’s ex-spokesman Nicolle Wallace who Mccain assigned to prep Palin for the 2008 campaign.
I guesss Bush and McCain picked her because she had so much in common with the MSM types.
They love her on MSNBC now.
Very interesting. I look forward to perusing your links when time permits.
OK, but it doesn't hurt to look (G-rated):
Heaven help us.
Just keep praying for your daughter -- and for the salvation of the "wife".
I am reminded of the last conversation I had with my girlhood best friend, who had fallen away from the church in young adulthood when she married a domineering secular guy. When in her 60s she had terminal cancer, I asked her what she thought would happen after she died; and of course she said, "You're just gone. That's all."
I said, "What if you're wrong? What if what you learned in Sunday School really was right, and your rejection of God will have eternal consequences? What if you don't get to say how it is, but there is a stronger force than you who will decide what happens to your soul?" At this point, tears were running down my face. "If there's a heaven, I don't want you to be missing from my eternal life, my friend!"
She said, "I'd go back to church, but my husband will kill me!"
To which I incredulously replied, "But you're already dying, girl! You've given up your religion for him for all these years. He can do this last thing for you, drive you to church."
Next I encountered them was at her funeral (we lived far apart). They both had formed a relationship with a church and pastor, and although her husband remained unconverted, he did arrange a beautiful, reverent Christian funeral for her that was very well attended.
I thanked him; and I thanked Him.
Bob Fosse -- amazing. thanks for the diverting moments!
Thank you so much for your moving story. It has given me some encouragement.
I have a total of four daughters and currently all of them have fallen away. One is indeed married to such a man, she spent this past week posting that red gay marriage logo on her Facebook page. She has three children. Another is busy with a new boyfriend, but he was raised right and there may be hope there. Her two kids are believers. Another is becoming very aware that she needs to start her toddler in church. She has even requested we do something as a family on Sunday even though her sisters are already committed elsewhere. My prayers for them are constant. My gay daughter lives in DC; the two oldest grandkids visited them there last week. I know the reason they want the kids to visit them is partly to show them the city and partly to indoctrinate them. Thanks for your encouragement.
Parents and parenting play a role. So probably do genes, hormones, birth order, abuse, seduction, chance, habit.
But a lot of parents who understood and tried to avoid all the stereotypes -- tried not to be smothering and overprotective or distant and emotionally unavailable or brutal and abusive or judgmental and hypercritical -- still ended up with homosexual children.
From that I conclude that it has to be more complicated than people assumed a generation or two ago.
It is more complicated however the “born this way” tack is totally rigid and ultimately there is a choice to act on homosexual desires and decide to live as a homosexual or whatever type of sexual person you desire. Its not just parents, its not all biology because biology is just the machine, its a combination of things. I know one person personally whose first sexual encounter was being molested as a young man by his uncle. Those that would dismiss this event as not contributing to his sexual orientation are in denial. Does that mean that all gays are molested no but its pretty clear that being sexually abused is more common for gays than the general population. I’m familiar with the hormonal research and morphology research and the genetic research and epigenetic research. The biological contribution for homosexuality is about as predictive as it can be for other behavioral traits which is somewhere in the range of 20-30% which suggests a strong environmental component. Also regardless the degree of causality of the biological component it does not explain the tendency of gay males especially towards obscenity,sexual exhibitionism, rampant promiscuity, and far too much tolerance for blurring the lines where underage males are concerned. I totally support being tolerant but this doesn’t mean the whole of society should be redesigned to elevate and norm homosexuality and other sexual “deviance” at the expense of decency and heterosexual norms.
I wonder how many homosexuals lose much of their attraction to the same sex as they get older? I have wondered if a percentage of people grow out of homosexual attraction.
You are definately right about the pro-gay “ad campaign” that we have all been subjected to for some 20 to 30 years. I was switching channels on my tv when I caught a minute of a sitcom. There was a young girl about 11 who was teaching her parents about gayness. It was very heavy handed propaganda and not funny at all. This reminded me why I stopped watching ABC, CBS and NBC years and years ago.
Was there a split in the family when your brother announced his was gay?
A little passive-agressive getting back at dad it seems.
That is a good point because couples almost always lose their sexual desires sooner or later with age if they don't die first for obvious reasons.
I can see that happening with the men more than the wimmin.
Wimmin bond together closely without sex much more naturally than men do. This is true with hetros too.
That reminds me now of a related point I haven't thought of for a while that National Review did a great article on it very long ago:
Men and Women are always very different (gender) emotionally psychologically and physically even with men gays and wimmin gays but in the debate in ‘civil rights for gays’ versus classic immorality/morality this points has been lost.
Unfortunately when Republicans allow the terms of the debate to be framed in that way they always eventually lose.
The point is that Gay men are far more self destructive than gay wimmin are for reasons that should be obvious. This fact has been completely left out of the current debate especially when presented to young adults who will not accept 'Its wrong just because it is'
Controlling, clinging mother.
Homosexual molestation or indoctrination at a young age.
They know what the recipe is.
o-yea. For a few years - eventually like all families do it smoothed itself out - then he died of AIDS.
it is disputable.
no it is not beyond debate. It is like blaming prison enviroment homosexual behavior as mere sex genes. there is no science or logic to that.
The USSC did not adress the immutable trait issue. they just take the born that way myth for granted. (see kagan)
These explanations were common before the gay take over but now all alternative views to the politcally correct view are censured and totally banned from discussion. This is one of the most distructive aspects of the gay movement. Freedom of speach is the first casualty of the gay movement.
Gay men are more promiscuous and thus disease ridden and more given to drug use (meth).
But I hear some lesbians have very violent relationships.
That is fixed by the new version of the VAWA Obama just signed.
What would be the effect of a gene that causes anyone (male or female) who possesses it to be extremely strongly attracted to females? I would posit that even if such a gene might be detrimental to the reproductive success of any female carriers, it might conceivably double the rate of reproductive success among male carriers. If it did so, it could be expected to be passed on through succeeding generations. Likewise a gene which causes carriers to be attracted to males might harm the success of male carriers, but boost the success rate for female carriers. Again, a gene which did so could be passed on through succeeding generations.
If one considers it likely that sexual attraction is not controlled by a single gene, but by many, one should expect that many individuals would not have a perfectly-balanced set of sexual-attraction genes, but many would have a set that is biased in varying degrees toward males or toward females.