Born Gay? Mum's to blame..Canadian Study.

[thewizeard]

Gay men may be born and not made, a Canadian study published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Tuesday has concluded, adding that having several elder brothers increases the likelihood of a man being gay.
Although the link has long been established, the study of 944 men in Canada indicates that the link appears to have nothing to do with whether a man is brought up with his elder brothers, and is therefore psychologically influenced by them.
Instead, the increased chance of being homosexual seems to be the result of whether or not the mother has already given birth to boys - in other words, a biological link from the womb rather than psychological links from childhood.
"It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis for homosexuality."
But it remains a mystery why for every elder brother a boy has, his chances of growing up gay increase by about a third.
Bogaert looked at gay men who had not been raised with their elder brothers, but still found that there was a link between homosexuality and the number of elder male siblings they had.
One explanation, Bogaert suggests, could be a maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses. Mothers may produce antibodies against a male foetus's Y chromosome while in the womb, and these antibodies have an accumulative effect on subsequent pregnancies, which could affect the sexual orientation of boys.
Marc Breedlove, of Michigan State University, a colleague of Bogaert, wrote a commentary in the journal: "[Sigmund] Freud thought a distant, emotionally cold father might prevent a boy from identifying with dad and steer him to homosexuality. How much stranger it will be if, instead of the father's psychological rejection, it is the mother's immunological rejection that inadvertently but actively makes her son gay?"
The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Enditem

~~~bron http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-06/27/content_4755290.htm

Well, I happened to come across this article this morning , being the youngest of 3 brothers (and two sisters) I still have not noticed the "urge" but there you go..

[Busyman™]

Gay men may be born and not made, a Canadian study published in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Tuesday has concluded, adding that having several elder brothers increases the likelihood of a man being gay.
Although the link has long been established, the study of 944 men in Canada indicates that the link appears to have nothing to do with whether a man is brought up with his elder brothers, and is therefore psychologically influenced by them.
Instead, the increased chance of being homosexual seems to be the result of whether or not the mother has already given birth to boys - in other words, a biological link from the womb rather than psychological links from childhood.
"It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis for homosexuality."
But it remains a mystery why for every elder brother a boy has, his chances of growing up gay increase by about a third.
Bogaert looked at gay men who had not been raised with their elder brothers, but still found that there was a link between homosexuality and the number of elder male siblings they had.
One explanation, Bogaert suggests, could be a maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses. Mothers may produce antibodies against a male foetus's Y chromosome while in the womb, and these antibodies have an accumulative effect on subsequent pregnancies, which could affect the sexual orientation of boys.
Marc Breedlove, of Michigan State University, a colleague of Bogaert, wrote a commentary in the journal: "[Sigmund] Freud thought a distant, emotionally cold father might prevent a boy from identifying with dad and steer him to homosexuality. How much stranger it will be if, instead of the father's psychological rejection, it is the mother's immunological rejection that inadvertently but actively makes her son gay?"
The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Enditem

~~~bron http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-06/27/content_4755290.htm

Well, I happened to come across this article this morning , being the youngest of 3 brothers (and two sisters) I still have not noticed the "urge" but there you go..
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/t113623-.html

[vidcc]

I'm sure they are getting closer to finding the defining evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Much like global warming, cigarettes causing lung cancer or evolution I am sure the evidence will be rejected or resisted for a long time after.

[Busyman™]

I'm sure they are getting closer to finding the defining evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Much like global warming, cigarettes causing lung cancer or evolution I am sure the evidence will be rejected or resisted for a long time after.
Too bad the above study (which so far is the most compelling) is about hormones. The above study says nothing about women either.

I remember reading a "study" way back about gay men having more of something their brains (can't remember what). It was later deemed bullshit.

[j2k4]

All this time, I thought that (with regard to gays) Mum was "the word".

Bill Clinton said so, didn't he? :huh:

[Everose]

Why do they spend research money on this?

Wouldn't it be better to spend on a disease they want to cure?

[Busyman™]

So j2, how many many older brothers do you have? :smilie4:


Keep in mind that the study is a merely a statistic but a concrete one. The most concrete one. Cheese's quote came from the most recent 60 Minutes episode. It also had 2 sets of twins where one was gay and the other wasn't.
One boy (I think they were 8) had G.I. Joes and camouflage in his bedroom. The other had doll babies, bed netting, and pink all over the place.

I remember one fella saying that after the first born, each subsequent boy has a 33% more chance of being gay.

It's all stats though. The causes are all theory. Genetics have been ruled out

[Busyman™]

Why do they spend research money on this?

Wouldn't it be better to spend on a disease they want to cure?
:shifty:

:devil:

People spend research money on everything, Evey.

Question:

If you already had 2 sons, would you spend money to choose the sex of your next child?

[Everose]

Yes, I know they do, Busy, but I don't consider various sexual preferences a disease, and it made me wonder what they intend to do with any information they think they might have?

And besides.....it really bites that they always do research like this on males first. Wait a minute though..........I guess that is really just saving the 'best' for last.

Answer:

If I already had two sons, there would not be a 'next child.' :P

[vidcc]

Yes, I know they do, Busy, but I don't consider various sexual preferences a disease, and it made me wonder what they intend to do with any information they think they might have?

I'm not sure those doing such research would class it as a disease or even if they are trying to. I guess if they found the "gay gene" then it could be "corrected". I'm pretty sure some in todays society would consider it a genetic flaw that needs fixing.
However if they did find it then it would show that homophobia is nothing more than bigotry and not a "sin" once and for all. So I guess such research is important for society even if only limited in value scientifically. But then the more we know about genetics, even if it seems Irrelavant, the more chance we have of finding cures.

[longboneslinger]

even if it seems Irrelavant, the more chance we have of finding cures.
True. What's deemed useless to one may have staggering implications elsewhere. They are all pieces of the puzzel called the 'human genome'. For every genetic link identified, the map becomes clearer....
As for 'caused by genetics' that's like the so called fat gene. Just cuz you got it dont mean you gotta be fat. I'll wait on emperical evidence before I decide if I give a damn if someone is 'born' gay.
I'm more worried about being called a 'homophobe' when I disagree with something a homosexual does or says. Not being called it, just the attitude that assumes that it's ok to attack someone with pseudo-scientific words rather than to defend ones opinions/actions with a logical and well reasoned rebuttal that is supported by facts and not hyperbole and more pseudo-scientific reasoning. That said, I couldn't possibly care less who anyone has 'relations' with.
Later taters,
bone

[Busyman]

I'm sure they are getting closer to finding the defining evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Much like global warming, cigarettes causing lung cancer or evolution I am sure the evidence will be rejected or resisted for a long time after.
Too bad the above study (which so far is the most compelling) is about hormones. The above study says nothing about women either.

I remember reading a "study" way back about gay men having more of something in their brains (can't remember what). It was later deemed bullshit.

[vidcc]

@busy

:huh:

[Busyman]

@busy

:huh:
Agreed. I don't even know what I did. :idunno:

[j2k4]

So j2, how many many older brothers do you have?

Nary a one.

How about you?

[Busyman™]

So j2, how many many older brothers do you have?

Nary a one.

How about you?
An only child.

I soaked up all the masculine goodness.:snooty:

[j2k4]

Nary a one.

How about you?
An only child.

I soaked up all the masculine goodness.:snooty:

Masculine...goodness? :huh:

Okay. :whistling

[vidcc]

I soak up all the masculine goodness.http://www.giveupalready.com/images/smilies/gay.gif :unsure: :blink:

worthy of a second comment:O

[manker]

I soak up all the masculine goodness.:snooty: :unsure: :blink:

worthy of a second quote :O:lol: :lol: