I think its sort of set but children's sexual orientation can change when they are young. Also I think some choose to be gay just for a different social status or something...and others are naturally that way. And I dont see why people care so much if someone is gay! I have a gay friend who is a perfectly good person! And he's not whore-ish or anything. Not like being gay is a disease...
this sucks whenever I try to go to the link it gives me the internet cannot display this web page bullcrap, could someone copy paste it on this thread or my profile so that I can read it
Alright guys, one of these days I'm going to look for/conduct a literature review on the neurobiological basis for homosexuality just to review the kind of evidence that's out there.
I notice over the years that the media will jump on any notable article, and to this end there have been several studies over the years. I should go back and actually check the papers themselves to see for myself...but this paper is particularly important to me. Why? Because it's the first paper that studies sexuality in volumetric analysis of neuroanatomical components.
That's precisely the kind of thing I've just spent a year researching. This is my current speciality. I'm aware of the role of the amygdala and its functional connections, and hence the reasons behind Dr. Rahman's convictions. I believe that there is also a trend that points to definitive functional and perhaps neuroanatomical differences in terms of all kinds of domains of functioning, including sexuality, but like my own field of researching (which centers around mood disorders), I expect to also see conflicting findings that indicate the following:
a) Issues with the definitions, in this case, between 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' (refer to Kinsey's work and derivatives). b) Issues with measurement of neuroanatomic components, particularly if they should investigate the thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia which I'm pretty sure would be indicated in this kind of research. c) Sorting out other demographic confounds i.e. sex age education medication illnesses race etc. that may or may not affect the measurements in ways that we haven't completely defined.
This study is therefore promising but more work needs to be done- I'd say if this direction is to yield results, it's gonna take at least ten more years.
Oh, as a preliminary note, I will mention that if I recall right, this paper supports correlating functional findings in the same area, as well as the suggestion that hormonal levels in the womb can give rise to epigenetic changes in the foetal brain that may influence sexuality.
Still of course, that's not that strong...I'm more concerned about the sexual definitions at stake.
Bigbowla provided the fixed link at the bottom of the page, but hopefully this one also works. Warning: you may be confronted by the accompanying image :P
Better yet, read the abstract. The page the online copy is hosted on is here. You then need to go to Volume 34 (2003), then click Volume 34, Issue 8.
The paper in question is this one:
Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation Pages 1337-1382 Qazi Rahman, Glenn D. Wilson
You'll note that it was actually written way back in 2001. Yes. 2001. I had a flick through the whole paper and well, I totally don't have time to read it now, but I will get back to you on it.
