Can you change orientations?

---

Not worth learning, will it save a life? just to get society to stop hating them? nope? Biology is my favourite subject in the my whole entire school year, if the schools dont want to teach the lies then they wont.

OK NOT ON ANYONES SIDE,AND IF YOUR GOING TO KEEP ARGUEING CAN I MAKE SOME MORE KOOL-AID FIRST? Is There a "Gay Gene"?Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is ­ from the moment of conception. The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature? No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. How The Public Was Misled In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature. Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation." Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way." In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics. Gene Linkage Studies Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then: a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited. In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations. Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994: Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}Homosexual Twin Studies Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic." But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment: While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that: ... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously. "Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied: "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as: ...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means: It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is. Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters. Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites" There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another. Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives. Understanding the Theory There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows: 1. Heritable does not mean inherited. 2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment. How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies. The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying. So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc. Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality. Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.) Soon after, the article appears. It says: "...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..." But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting. What All Neuroscientists Know:The Brain Changes with Use Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players. Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players." A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different." You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing. Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings. Gene Linkage Studies: "Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By" Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome. You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous. After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly. With a Little Help from the Media Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..." Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?" Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball. In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor. What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors. From the American Psychological Association"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6} From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7} From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8} From Sociologist Steven Goldberg"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9} As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

In reply to:No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. Well, now stop trying to defilie science and religion!!

Than that just shows you are ignorant if you won't even take the time to learn some facts.If you truly think for one sec that being gay is a choice, answer this question for me, why would anyone choose to be ridiculed, treated as less of an equal, and possibly attacked and killed? NO ONE would choose that. And it’s plan ignorant to think anyone would.And would it save a life if people would understand this? Yes because, maybe it’s a shock to you, but there a lot of people killed every year for simply being gay. Something that’s really no ones business anyways. What does it matter to other people who someone loves??

I dont care anymore, just stop trying do defile science and religion!

Oh grow up.. than again I cannot expect much from a 16 year old I suppose. At least one that's to lazy to even google to know what the hell he is talking about.

I think what they're trying to get across is there may be inherited genes that can contribute greatly to homosexuality but its a combination of nature and nurture,in that it said there is no specific gay gene just inherited factors that can contribute "[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6} once again im not taking sides but yeah if your going to keep argueing atleast let me make some more kool-aid damnit

Actually the whole nuture thing has been thrown out the window. It's soley on genetics. Java posted some good links before and going to find them again.

Fine then if people are born gay then people are born homophobic, i did goolge too bad dantek already posted what i was going to! ty dantek btw.

hey im not on sides here

i did goolge too bad dantek already posted what i was going to! ty dantek btw. Yeah I am sure LOL. Quit relying on other people to gather your information and do it yourself. Sad today how lazy some teenagers are.And hatred is something taught and learned, not something you are born with.If you are going to debate at least try and sound educated. Thanks. Otherwise it's pointless.

Too bad, the being born gay is the same thing!

The Boston Globe published an article on February 7, 1999 which was reprinted by permission in the April 1999 NARTH Bulletin. It is an important article because it contributes to the growing body of evidence that homosexuality is not simply "genetic." Serious scientists have long known that a simply "genetic" cause for homosexuality was highly unlikely, but the mass media conveyed the misimpression of genetic causation to the general public. In the Globe article, prominent researchers admit the distinct limitations of the "born that way" theory. "Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer comments, "It is the same for every human behavior--environment matters for extroversion, smoking cigarettes, just about anything you can name."Interestingly, Dr. Hamer--himself a gay man--adds that science remains "just as clueless" as ever about the environmental influences on homosexuality. Dr. Hamer's statement is consistent with a position taken by most gay advocates, who flatly deny the existence of evidence that points to certain family and social influences on homosexuality. (Gay advocates almost invariably either say "I was born that way," or "How I became gay doesn't matter.") Only prominent gay writer Andrew Sullivan has publicly given credence to the Freudian model of homosexual development.Said the Globe: "The research project in 1993 that indicated many gay men shared a common genetic marker in the X chromosome was hailed as a momentous scientific discovery."The idea of a 'gay gene' offered an ironclad defense of homosexuality; if it was genetically predetermined, then being gay could not be cast as 'deviant' behavior, something 'correctable.'"Six years later, however, the gene still has not been found, and interest in--and enthusiasm for--the 'gay gene' research has waned among activists and scientists alike. And there is a growing consensus that sexual orientation is much more complicated than a matter of genes."Dr. Richard Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at Boston University School of Medicine who was involved in a study of twins and sexual orientation, has done research showing that sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."The Globe article goes on to quote Ruth Hubbard, a board member of The Council for Responsible Genetics, and the author of Exploding the Gene Myth, who says that searching for a gay gene "is not even a worthwhile pursuit...Let me be very clear: I don't think there is any single gene that governs any complex human behavior. There are genetic components in everything we do, and it is foolish to say genes are not involved, but I don't think they are decisive."In the Globe story, a gay advocate speaks of the "immense malleability of human sexuality." Interestingly, this observation seems to have been lost on the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations--which both claim that there is no evidence that homosexuals can change.

LOL yeah right.. being gay and hatred..so close rolls eyesHere's some good articles that if you want to be educated at all you can read.http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060224_gay_genes.htmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml

Yea...both are something people hate! well not but dont want. lower class.

First off not everyone hates Gay people, only those close minded uneducated people do.Secondly did you choose to be straight? Did you wake up one morning and go "gee I think I am going to be straight!!"And it's funny you keep telling me to stop defying science, but science is the main thing trying to prove we are born gay and it's not a choice.And if you are calling me lower class, you need to check yourself before you get checked.

well what those have been saying is that if there was a specific gay gene they would never find it,just that there are certain genes that when together make a gay man lol, but what ive noticed is that its all about male sexual orientation not a damn thing about women, so once again im not saying your wrong

and no i didnt just wake up and decide "hey im think ill be straight" sheesh i went down to the secretary of state and filled out the proper forms duh

Oh I know where you are coming from. I mean there are TONS of resources about the gay gene. I just find it ridiculous people think we choose to be gay. No one would choose this "lifestyle” where they are going to be ridiculed and made to feel like less of a person. It’s preposterous.

and no i didnt just wake up and decide "hey im think ill be straight" sheesh i went down to the secretary of state and filled out the proper forms duh OOhhhh!!!! THAT'S how you straight people do it LoL.