> It's been a few years since I studied this topic in a college genetics class, and I'm afraid that the studies and statistics I had (and still have, if I dig up my notes from the class) are probably out of date. I'd be interested in seeing new studies, if anyone knows of any. I suppose I could just go to Google or Dogpile and look for myself, but I'd also like to see what other people come up with.
>
> Ell"No flame wars, please"myruh

Sorry about taking so long coming up with something for you to review, Ell. ^_^

Regarding the "10% of the population is gay" mythos: the ten percent figure is drawn from Alfred Kinsey's daring 1948 study, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male". He reported 10% of males were "more or less exclusively homosexual" for a period of at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. For females, Kinsey reported a range of 2-6% for more or less exclusively homosexual experience/response.

These figures were disputed by subsequent studies. Since then, there have been many sexuality studies, a number of which make an attempt to correct for the distrust involved with self-disclosure. The surveys suggest that the incidence of men in the American population who are self-described as "exclusively homosexual" is closer to 1-4%, not 10%. This figure is higher in Kinsey's study because one-quarter of his sample included institutionalized males (bringing up a problem of skewed results if some people may have been molested/abusive.)


Trip and gabby wrote:
> > As far as people changing their orientations: really? Could you ever change to homosexual? Of course not. You are what you are.
>
> You would be entirely correct if genes caused behavior. As of yet, there are no known behaviors dictated by genes. Same source as my next bit.


Really? Perhaps your reading has been somewhat selective.

I have a background in the neurosciences. There is a general consensus, within the field, that genes do have a significant input in directing behaviour. For example: by selectively adding -- or removing -- certain gene sequences in animals, we can create worms which *behave* very, very lethargically (relative to normal worms); and also recreate a strain of mice which, in nature, is sometimes called "waltzing mice" (their behaviour is to waltz around in circles because the genes which regulate balance are impaired). Now, humans share very similar genetic traits with animals (specific homologous structures which correspond, in a one-to-one relationship, to similar organs between different species... whew). The basic similarity exists on a molecular level even if it's not visually apparent. So if we alter a set of genes that produces a basic behaviour change in a cat or a pig, logical extrapolation would suggest that changing the same genes in a human may produce similar effects. The reason why we can't know for sure, beyond reasonable doubt, is that it is simply unethical to confirm by doing such experiments on humans.

Yes, I am saying that a tendancy to be attracted to the same sex *may* have an inborn origin from one's genes. Psychologists know that a child's awareness of psychosexual orientation becomes established by the age of two. This is early enough that it's likely part of a natural biological development. But just because a given tendancy is biologically inborn does NOT automatically make it "normal" or "natural" or, for that matter, make it morally acceptable. A child born with a birth handicap may have an inborn trait -- yet it's fraudulent to claim that the handicap is "perfectly normal" for him or her. And homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is sufficiently complex to be multifactorial. Genetics, hormones, environment, and social conditioning all come into play.


> > >> Last I checked, there were more than a hundred separate studies suggesting that there is no genetic cause for homosexuality, and none (well, one since proved in error) suggesting that it is genetic. Other studies (ON ANIMALS) show that it is not difficult to change orientation.
> >
> > I've never heard of these studies, though homosexuality has been observed throughout the animal kingdom.

*WHAT* studies on animals show it's easy to change orientation? If it's simple animal-training techniques for behavioural modification, well... humans really don't appreciate being 'starved' or receiving even light electrical shocks in sensitive places. :-(


> >
> > This is misinformation. I have to wonder what your source is -- the American Family Association, perhaps? While scientific studies are ongoing, a heavy percentage of mainstream (read: unbiased) scientists do believe that it is genetic, whether or not there is a single "gay gene".
>
> Actually, I was thinking of a recent study conducted by scientists from the Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences at the University of Western Ontario and the Department of Genetics at Stanford Medical School, which concluded that data do not support the presence of a gene influencing sexual orientation. Reported in the Boston Globe, if that matters. An article published in Science magazine stated: "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."


Well, we're working on it. I am not unduly perturbed by the 'fault' which you seem concerned about... i.e., "Scientists always claim one thing one day, and the exact opposite the next; therefore, you can't trust the findings of science." Not so. Science is a truth-seeking *process* which, to use Biblical terminology, requires the passage of time and many, many hands to winnow the wheat gleanings from the chaff -- that is, to properly locate the kernels of factual truth being uncovered by research. I expect the Human Genome Project is going to require generations of study before we even understand a fifth of the methods by which our DNA regulates our bodies. Time and patience are the allies of the serious scientist and scholar. In the meantime, reporter-journalists culling the science magazines will report anything "of interest" to the general public -- even hand-waving studies which have not been properly peer-reviewed, and which therefore shouldn't be reported "as fact" in the first place.

Wolf "Syntax and structure are inherent, but griping is acquired" spirit