And nobody has commented on this post yet?! Good grief, this Duprey guy is scary. Between him and the whacknut leftys, we'll never be able to come to a consensus.

The biological cause of homosexuality was widely researched in Europe in the 1980's. Definitive conclusions were reached that homosexuals are born and not made.

That research was documented fairly well in the book called "Brain Sex : The Real Difference Between Men and Women"

The book is available on Amazon.

Jake--

There is not--and never has been--any conclusive research to suggest that sexual orientation is biological.

Dorian:

Read the book. It footnotes the studies.

Also I went to the Nobel Conference on genetics 2 years ago. I heard a lecture by two of the top scientists in the US in this field. They showed exactly the chromosomes that determine whether you are a male, female or a homosexual.

Jake--

I appreciate the book recommendation, but I have read most of the available studies on homosexuality for a piece that I'm writing and I can assure you--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that there is no conclusive evidence that links homosexuality to biology. I'm certainly not suggesting that it's impossible; a "gay gene" might be discovered tomorrow. But a "gay gene" hasn't been discovered yet, nor has any consistent abnormality in the brains of gays as opposed to straights. There is no proof that it's biological.

I am intrigued as to the direction of your piece. Anyway, a thought meant to be constructive criticism to regard or disregard at your leisure:

There's a difference between stating "there is no proof" of a biological link and stating "there is no conclusive evidence" of such a link. I am not sure where your article is going, but are you unnessarily leaving yourself open to an attack by (1) ignoring the difference and (2) stating the first as your conclusion when your prior statements only support the latter?

Gay gene or not, I abhor the thought that anyone would abort for that reason or for the sex of the child either.

Dorian:

This is a description of the conference and here is a list of speakers. You better read the research of these people before you write your piece.

The past 30 years of research in behavioral genetics, cognition, and neuroscience have begun to clarify how life experiences contribute to individual development relative to biological makeup. Gustavus Adolphus College's 38th Nobel Conference, titled "The Nature of Nurture," convenes on October 1 and 2, 2002, to explore the forces that are most important in shaping a child's personality, gender identity, and language acquisition and learning ability, while also addressing such topics as the role of parenting and the effects of early stimulation on the brain and how the brain develops in response to changing life circumstances. We invite you to join us to hear seven distinguished authorities lecture on and debate "The Nature of Nurture."

Seven noted experts in the field have accepted the College's invitation to participate in the 2002 conference:

Eric R. Kandel
Center for Neurobiology and Behavior
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York
2000 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine

Avshalom Caspi
Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatric Research Centre
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, and
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Jerome Kagan
Department of Psychology
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Author of Galen's Prophecy and Three Seductive Ideas

Eleanor E. Maccoby
Department of Psychology
Stanford University, Stanford, California
Author of Patterns of Child Rearing and Psychology of Sex Differences

Thomas H. Murray
President, The Hastings Center, Garrison, New York, and Former Director,
Center for Biomedial Ethics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Author of The Worth of a Child

Robert Plomin
Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatry Research Centre
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London
Author of Genetics and Experience: The Interplay Between Nature and Nurture

Judith L. Rapoport
Chief, Child Psychiatry Branch
National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Author of The Boy Who Couldn't Stop Washing

wow, Jake totslly Von Beked Dorian's post. And whatls with "raised by a single parent" doing right alongside "raped" and "abused"? who the bleep is this guy and why is he polluting this site?

Jake--

I appreciate your continued interest in the sourcing of my piece on the "gay gene," but I will remind you again that I have already read the research on links between homosexuality and biology. I have clearly said that it is entirely possible that homosexuality is biological; on the other hand, there is absolutely zero conclusive evidence to prove that claim and, furthermore, there is only circumstantial evidence to suggest it. I'm not going to waste time cutting and pasting and typing all of the sources that you can investigate because you will see them in a few short days when I post my piece on the "gay gene." But, in the meantime, ask yourself this question: If the evidence presented that the Nobel conference was conclusive proof of homosexuality, why hasn't that "evidence" been mentioned in even one feature story at the New York Times? Why hasn't that "conclusive" evidence been mentioned in even one feature story at Time Magazine? I'm not talking about Googling the Nobel conference and pointing my to some broken-down reference to it amid an article about homosexuality; I'm talking about feature stories. Because shouldn't that be earth-shattering news?

LOL. I don't see where anyone "Von Beked" Dorian's Post.

"I read a book."

"I went to a conference and they had a picture on the screen."

Maybe for the left this "speaking truth to power" represents some kind of proof, but having read Dorian's work for a while, he is pretty meticulous.

If Dorian can't find it out there, I believe him.

If Jake has proof, like a link to a journal online, let him post it.

Short of that, nothing gets "debunked" in cyberspace.

I think the question is an interesting one, and most of us would like to know why homosexuals are homosexuals.

But you don't get a "case closed" for posting "I went to a conference, and I swear, all the proof was there. You gotta believe me."

(not feeling diplomatic today:) i think using science to back up your politics is bunk. people make choices and those choices do things to their brain. people who work out are generally happier and have more energy because they are feeding these chemicals into their brain. i am so sick of the world deciding that our supposed "biology" determines everything about the choices we will make. it can make one thing seem more compelling than the other, but the fact that i'm human and live in a society and recognize the value of others means that i don't necessarily act on every compulsion i have to get it on, or to punch someone in the face, or even, believe it or not, to eat all the ice cream.

i couldn't care less whether or not there's a "gay gene." (what good would it do us to know, so we can abort them or stop them from becoming priests?) men are supposedly genetically predisposed to promiscuity, right? that doesn't mean that i'm compelled to get into an open marriage because "he's just wired that way." he wants to spread his sperm, that's fine, but that neither means that all individuals have to say that's okay nor that society should accept it.

that doesn't mean being gay and being a cheating straight man are the same thing, and i don't mean to imply that at all. what i mean to say is that it's facetious to construct the argument on biology alone. the case for or against this kind of legislation should be based on social factors and reasoned arguments about how we want our society to be -- i was under the impression that's what this whole government thing was about.

or, you know, we could do what's "natural" and revert back to some biologically ideal primate-like state. because, you know, that penguin movie was really inspiring in that way.

but here's a question: if there's a "gay gene" responsible for all of this and our environments/decisions don't play a role in the matter, doesn't that create some problems vis-a-vis natural selection theory? and is the government then obliged to provide financing for special methods for gays and lesbians to reproduce in order to prevent human rights campaign from calling it genocide? just wondering.

"Some of my best friends are gay".

Yeah - Name one.

Why do conservative bigots always lie about this point. Most prominently - Ace of Spades.

Ace of Spades is a perfect gentleman, despite his failure to blogroll me.

Dorian - You're obviously not very well read. And I have hunch you know zero about science.

These articles HAVE been in the New York Times.

Of course, since you only read Fox News, and don't bother reading the New York Times - you obviously wouldn't know that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/science/10smell.html?ex=1127880000&en=866426ec9505aa3c&ei=5070

And they've also documented the fact that gay people are more likely to have their index and ring fingers be the same size.

Go ahead and dismiss science all you want. You have zero credentials in the scientific community so your assertions mean nothing. Your instant dismisal of articles to read just proves you are an ideologue and have zero interest in actually finding out the truth.

You pick and choose which scientists to believe. How sad.

By the way - I don't claim to have the answers.

But there is ample scientific debate about this, and the most recent evidence points to a hormonal influence in the womb that determines sexuality. That is why identical twins have such a high correlation of sexual identity.

Sexuality is very innate. Simple logic implies that sexuality is an instinct and not something that is learned. Why are straight men attracted to boobies? Is it because they were taught to like boobies? After all - it's just some skin and body fat. Or is it because they were wired that way?

So why is it so hard to believe that gay men were wired the other way?

Here's another interesting article on the subject. For those who are interested in the matter of course. We already know that Dorian won't read it.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=full

DL--

Are you kidding? Because I can't believe that you're seriously submitting one article about gays allegedly responding to different aromas than those to which straight people respond as your "conclusive" proof that homosexuality is linked to biology, and that it has been covered by the media. (Incidentally, I had already read that article.)

Where do I say it's "proof". I said I have an open mind on this matter and they should study it more. And there is a SUBSTANTIAL amount of evidence that leads one to believe that sexuality is determined by birth (which doesn't mean genetics by the way).

Then again - I'm not an expert scientist like Dorian Davis over here who doesn't even need to look at scientific research that contradicts his "opinion".

And why would you dismiss the aroma story?

You do realize that straight women are attracted to a male scent, don't you? And do you think that's because they were "taught" to like male body odour, or perhaps because it's instinct.

And they've also documented the fact that gay people are more likely to have their index and ring fingers be the same size.

So who else checked?

If there were a gay gene, and it had been found, there is no way, NO WAY, that it wouldn't have been all over the news. If there was biological evidence, it would have been all we'd heard about for months, maybe even the story of the year.

I think it's somewhere in between...not biology, but not a choice either. it's too confusing to be one or the other.

DL--

Aren't you getting into a hissy fit because you're afraid that if homosexuality isn't biological, it's easier to disrespect? I mean....seriously....who cares if it's not biological? Gays are still people. What's the obsession with conjuring up proof that doesn't exist (yet)?

Dorian -
Your last point = mine exactly. Biological schmiological. There are some cases in which scientific expertise can and absolutely should inform policymaking. But from a social and even political perspective, "it's genetic" is so far just a cop-out for both sides, and even if the science comes in ringing! it will still be a sorry excuse for an argument.

Dorian - Why are you afraid of finding out the truth?

That's what I care about. And that involves research.

Why are you arguing for ignorance?

Also - I never implied it was genetic either.

But Dorian is too darn freaking stupid to understand the difference between "genetic" and "hormonal" influences.

I guess he went to one of those stupid high schools that teaches intelligent design, rather than, you know - science.

Dorian,

I take it you have heard the argument before about why civil rights laws exist based on racial or sexual discrimination yet there should not be ones based on sexual orientation:

"People are born into their race or sex. Homosexuals are not born that way."

That, in a nutshell, is the reason why some homosexuals are so adamant in proving they are born that way. After all, if that's proven to be true, the above argument becomes moot.

I agree with you that people should all be treated as human beings, but unfortunately, there are people who exist who don't see it that way. But that's another topic.

As for the debate on whether or not sexual orientation is genetic or not, I'll just say this: It makes no sense to say that heterosexuality is how people are born and that homosexuality is a choice because, if you are born a certain way, you can't change it, except if surgical procedures are available to change the condition.

DL--

I'm not going to respond to your silliness in the last comment because I think that we both know I'm not "afraid of the truth." In fact, I have said at least twice in the comment section that there is a distinct possibility a "gay gene" exists. But what I said--and what you cannot accept--was that a "gay gene" hasn't been proven. At all.

No Dorian - What you have shown is that you are unwilling to acknowledge legitimate studies that suggest people are indeed "born gay".

That, my friend, makes you look like an imbecile. Sorry to be so harsh, but it's true.

You choose to put blinders on and ignore legitimate scientific studies. A real scholar, someone interested in learning the TRUTH, would read those articles and then read articles that try to tear holes in specific points brought up in the study.

You haven't refuted ANY of those articles with a study that shows why they are wrong.

Scientists like to find holes in their counterpart's arguments, and then what you end up with eventually is the truth. Think it's wrong? Then prove that it's wrong. Show why. Don't believe in the Big Bang? Well - you damn well better come up with a counter-proposal that explains WHY the study was wrong.

I'm sorry, but simply folding you arms and saying "Nah, nah, nah, I refuse to believe it" is the tactic of a simpleton.

I haven't made up my mind on this issue. But scientists have found a lot of evidence that implies people are born gay, and I haven't seen any new studies to the contrary that show why these recent studies are wrong. But if they come along, I'll certainly read them.