Amazon.com Widgets

Is there a link between biology and sexual orientation?

  • Gay Male 30 yrs

    Look I realize that It can't be proven but it most definitely is predetermined to some extent. People said I was different and called me gay far before I ever acted on anything. Even as a child I be behaved predominantly as a female child. It was everyone else that forced me into conforming to standards that were not of my own desires.

  • Gay Male 30 yrs

    Look I realize that It can't be proven but it most definitely is predetermined to some extent. People said I was different and called me gay far before I ever acted on anything. Even as a child I be behaved predominantly as a female child. It was everyone else that forced me into conforming to standards that were not of my own desires.

  • Gay Male 30 yrs

    Look I realize that It can't be proven but it most definitely is predetermined to some extent. People said I was different and called me gay far before I ever acted on anything. Even as a child I be behaved predominantly as a female child. It was everyone else that forced me into conforming to standards that were not of my own desires.

  • There might be a link between biology and sexual orientation

    For whatever reason, there may be a biological link to alternative sexual orientation. There is the possibility that it is completely non-biological in origin, but it is possible that sexual orientation comes from somewhere in nature, fore example, a set of genes that should not be passed on for some reason or another could cause one to be homosexual in nature. There might be a link between sexual orientation and biology.

  • How could there not be?

    Sexual orientation all comes down to being attracted to different people based on their physical form and genetics. Even if you are homosexual, you only think someone is attractive because they have desirable genes to you. Our body releases hormones to determine our femininity or masculinity, it also releases smells to attract the opposite sex.

  • Studies have shown...

    Sexual Orientation can definitely be related to biology. There have been multiple studies conducted all over the world to prove this point. These studies can be anything from the pupils in your eyes, to the size and pattern of your brain. Twin studies have shown that a gay twin has a 52% chance of having a sibling with the same sexual orientation. Coincidence? I think not. In addition, sexual orientation can be identified by the amount of X chromosomes one may carry, which is passed on through the mother. The chromosome can be identified different among homosexual and heterosexual people. Some people may have the opportunity to choose their sexual orientation, but science has shown that there are traits in which this can all be a part of genetics.

  • It's not open for debate.

    There are biological differences between heterosexual and homosexual wo/men. That's a fact. Homosexuals have different brain chemistry in order to experience different attractions. I'm not 100% positive when the biological alteration occurs, but I'm inclined to believe it's determined *before birth* because twins studies show if one twin is homosexual, the other will be as well 50% of the time. Now, regarding genetics, that's different and less known. I'm not sure about genetics.

  • Absolutely

    I believe that there is a strong link between biology and sexual orientation. In fact, homosexual orientations are present in over 1500 species http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution (the fact of this does not make the action moral nor immoral).

    "Sociobiologists have proposed evolutionary explanations of homosexuality. Such hypotheses assume that the homosexual orientation is a distinct, reifiable trait, rather than an expression of universal sexual and emotional drives. For homosexuality to constitute an evolved trait, it must have a genetic basis. However, there is no reliable evidence that homosexual and heterosexual orientations are caused by genetic differences. On these and other grounds, we find sociobiological explanations of homosexuality to be implausible and unsupported by evidence. Evolutionary theory provides no guide to morality or ethical progress, nor for appropriate social attitudes toward homosexuality." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6687153

  • I think you mean "genetics"

    rather than the wider range of "Biology."

    Since attractions are rooted in hormones and chemicals within the brain, they are, by extension linked to biology.

  • Hormones and genetics factor into sexual orientation.

    While there has not been a discovery of a single "gay gene," there is some evidence that a number of factors can combine to influence sexual orientation. In particular, there seems to be a strong positive correlation between hormone exposure during gestation in a mother's womb and homosexuality in adult life.

    Posted by: LivingJimmy
  • Any "orientation" outside of "straight" is completely anti-evolution.

    I, for one, do not tow the line where evolution is concerned. However, for those who do, I can't see how they could rationalize its biology with all the so-called sexual orientations out there. No offspring can result from a sexual relationship that does not involve the egg and the sperm; and in evolution, a species will not survive if it does not reproduce. How can one call these various "orientations" natural, then? From an evolutionary perspective, any gene that prohibited procreation in some way would undoubtedly be undesirable - so even if there is a "gay gene," if humans were to have the greatest chance at survival, it would eventually be eliminated by natural selection, right?
    Still, we know homosexual practices have existed for most of history. Either evolution is taking forever to right the existence of this "gene," or engaging in homosexual behavior is a lifestyle choice. I tend to believe the latter.

  • Any "orientation" outside of "straight" is completely anti-evolution.

    I, for one, do not tow the line where evolution is concerned. However, for those who do, I can't see how they could rationalize its biology with all the so-called sexual orientations out there. No offspring can result from a sexual relationship that does not involve the egg and the sperm; and in evolution, a species will not survive if it does not reproduce. How can one call these various "orientations" natural, then? From an evolutionary perspective, any gene that prohibited procreation in some way would undoubtedly be undesirable - so even if there is a "gay gene," if humans were to have the greatest chance at survival, it would eventually be eliminated by natural selection, right?
    Still, we know homosexual practices have existed for most of history. Either evolution is taking forever to right the existence of this "gene," or engaging in homosexual behavior is a lifestyle choice. I tend to believe the latter.

  • The Gay Genome

    has yet to been found. This supports the "Exotic Becomes Erotic" theory that homosexuality is formed through one's development and experiences as a child as opposed to homosexuality being innate. Until this genome is discovered, there can be no certainty that children are "born gay" and instead become homosexual through exposure to different, unnatural things.

  • Nope,

    Not really. I have tried to find a genetic link, but can't. Studies claiming genetics I read all have flaws in them whether it be sample sizes, how they get samples, or LeVays brain study where he didn't even know which was which and only guessed! The only theories that have plausibility is germ theory, or some enviromental theory. You need to take all of this data with a grain of salt, because it's all politically motivated. And gay advocates have a LOT more leverage. This study says all studies find a link but are flawed and indirect linkages: http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch9.pdf The APA--usually pro gay material--found in 2009 there was no gay gene. They say it's inconclusive, showing evidence is lacking. (change from 1998 brief) http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97940/ Over the last few years, the gay gene evidence started to fall apart, and nurture (not nature) still stood through scrutiny.
    Wait, animals are gay! Wait, animals eat their husbands, wives, and can only have sex of they fight for it. Animals =\= human.
    Wait, Microsuck has a pub med link! 1984 when gay activists where storming offices of these people to gain support. In the 90s all evidence is in favor of nurture, the idea should have died then. Twin studies in early 2000s found no like age.
    I have never seen evidence of a gay gene.

  • the genome

    There has yet to be a "gay gene" discovered out of the entire genome. There have been theories proposed however nothing but speculation. Stronger evidence points to environmental impacts having a lot to do with sexual preference.

  • I think that bisexual and homosexual orientation is part of all of us, and temptation leads us to act on it.

    I don't think that biology plays a part in sexual orientation. I think we all have tendencies to think about and want to participate in all types of sexual behavior. Therefore, I think it has nothing to do with certain biological conditions or genetics. I think that sexual orientation is formed by social conditions and temptations and, throughout life, we make decisions as to what to act on, as our brains develop.

    Posted by: ToyMatt
  • I believe there is no link between biology and sexual orientation.

    God has created us to be one man, one woman. Anything outside of that is considered sin. We all are sinners, which is why Jesus had to die for us. Sexual orientation is a great struggle that has been seen openly in our generation for quite some time now. For many years, people have struggled with their sexual orientation, but only now has it been so openly discussed. I believe that only men and women should be able to be in a relationship with one another.

    Posted by: AmazingJunior58

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.