Boys with older brothers 'more likely to be gay'

[WhiteTara]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/ugay.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixnews.html

Boys are more likely to grow up gay if they have older brothers - because of biology, rather than upbringing.

Ten years ago researchers made the startling discovery that the more elder brothers a boy has, the greater chance he has of being homosexual.

For each additional brother that precedes him, a boy's likelihood of growing up gay increases by a third.

snip

Dr Bogaert did not conclude what biological factors influence the sexuality of homosexuals with elder male siblings, but previous research has shown that genetics and the womb environment can have a major impact on sexual preferences in both men and women.

Certain parts of the body are affected by the male sex hormone testosterone during foetal development. Clues from the shape of ears, fingers, eyes and arms all indicate that lesbians are on average exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the womb.

:rofl: more

[Breeze54]

1. What the hell?

I have three sons and none of them are gay.
I have three brother's and none of them are gay either!

Where'd these people buy their degree's?
Wally-mart? :rofl: two-fer-one?

[leQ]

2. i have 4 sisters and 3 of them are gay, but my younger brother wasn't -n/t

[Teaser]

4. You didn't pay attention in science class did you?

What you're telling me is an anecdote.

What these scientists are reporting is statistics. Your anecdote does not impact their statistics. It's irrelevant. Utterly.

There's remedial reading all over the web on this if you actually want to post informed opinions from now on.

[Atman]

8. Not to mention the fact that some of them probably ARE gay

And perhaps not quite so comfortable letting everyone in the family know.

[Breeze54]

9. ---->

You take yourself entirely to seriously.
Statistics are like assholes; everybody has one!
And more to the point?
Who gives a rats ass if gays have older or younger brothers?
What's the point? How does this 'statistic' help human kind?
:shrug:

[Atman]

28. It's a warning not to let your little brother peep on you in the shower!

What's the point? How does this 'statistic' help human kind?

Let this be a warning to all you manly men! Cover up that thang before you go parading around in front of your little brother! If he turns "soft" you know mom will blame YOU for it!

BTW, I have one older brother and one younger sister -- so naturally, I turned out bi.

[Breeze54]

32. lol!

Funny! lmao!
My son's friend has three Mom's and he's NOT gay. Go figure! :rofl:
I guess we could kid around about this all day!
I think this only 'proves' that the religious right are wrong...again!! ;)
I mean if 'gayness' happens in utero...
( I'm getting confused now, with all the different reports and studies.)
There are a ton of them out there.

[ktlyon]

52. With smaller families being the norm, the gay population will decline

bible thumpers need to have fewer children to protect us :bounce:

[wiley]

72. I enthusiastically support that idea!

[patcox2]

49. By discovering co-factors, it may be possible to find causes.

There is a big political element to the search for a biological cause for homosexuality. It deflates the fundie position that homosexual is a choice, and because it is a sin, a choice for which people should be condemned.

Thats what science does, it finds things out a little at a time, so any one little bit of information could be the piece of the puzzle that actually leads to a breakthrough.

As far as statistics being lies, well, thats only to those who don't understand statistics. To people who understand statistics, they cannot lie. Your refusal to understand them because in your opinion they are always lies dooms you to be susceptible to use statistics to sell their lies to those who are ignorant of statistics.

[Breeze54]

60. MY "refusal??

Are you okay there? Statistics are a work in progress, imho.
They change depending on whom is manipulating the data!

"Your refusal to understand them because in your opinion they are always lies dooms you
to be susceptible to use statistics to sell their lies to those who are ignorant of statistics."

What a mouthful! I am "selling them lies" ?? Give me a break buddy!
"in my opinion.." When did I say anything like that?
Don't put words in my mouth or assume to much!

My sister has a degree in Statistical Research and Analysis and she always says,
"They're just numbers and are subject to interpretation!" In other words, they are
interpreted differently by many and can be manipulated to say anything you want them to say!

Be wary of statistics!

[patcox2]

62. Your sister should then know that the manipulation is visible to

those who are knowledgeable. Only those who are not knowledgeable about statistics would be unaware of the manipulation, thats why I was saying that instead of writing off all statistics the better route is to become conversant with the methods and rules so you can judge the quality of the inferences drawn when you see statistics cited.

Besides that, the numbers cannot be manipulated that much, the errors are in the experiment design, in the assumptions about ruling out co-factors or other possible causes, in the sample frame, and things like that, the numbers are the numbers.

[Lindacooks]

88. It helps because it points to a biological basis for sexual orientation.

And it's 'too seriously', not 'to seriously'.

And statistics are the way the sciences of math and biology work.

Sheesh.

[readmoreoften]

15. too bad it's junk science

these same scientists are looking at the length of lesbian forefingers (they are supposed to be shorter) to prove that lesbianism is caused by masculinity via testosterone in the womb.

1) a good number of lesbians are not masculine
2) I have not met A SINGLE LESBIAN who's forefinger is shorter than her ring finger. So, are they not "really gay"?

This garbage is the new phrenology. It is junk science. There's tons of junk science out there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. The good people at the National Academy of Sciences...

disagree with you.

[L A Woman]

38. Are you sure they are GOOD people?

Why are they studying this? Is there a disease that only affects gays and lesbians - in the way that sickle-cell anemia affects mostly people of African descent - that would make it necessary to study the reasons for homosexuality? I don't think so. Are they also studying reasons some people have blue eyes?

Why not just say, "Wonderful - 10% of people are gay. They are not hurting anyone. They are just people with different sexual/romantic leanings. They are part of God's work" - and leave it that?

I would be suspicious of anyone who thinks it is priority to study such a thing, particularly when we have a lot of REAL problems that need to be solved.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Pure research.

There's research that goes towards curing sickle-cell anemia.

There's research that goes towards learning things that nobody knew before.

They're both intrinsically good, they're both worthy of support.

And yes, the people at the NAS are good and they're the best scientists around.

[L A Woman]

45. Intrinsically good?

Are they also studying why some people are greedy and some aren't? Somehow I doubt it, since the people who incorporated the NAS (Congress) would KNOW that a "cure" would be right behind the research, just as it will be in this case.

And I can't imagine that the NAS has so much extra money to spend that THIS prioritizes life-threatening illnesses - or scientific discoveries that would greatly improve our society. Sounds to me like this study was undertaken because funds were appropriated specifically for it. By whom? WHY?

"Because nobody knew it before" is not an answer. We don't know most things. Why is this a priority?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Yes. Intrinsically good.

The NAS is made up of scientists, not congressmen; and their journals are reviewed by scientists, not congressmen.

The NAS, as far as I know, is not funding the research, merely publishing the results.

The study was undertaken, presumably, because a scientist was interested in the biological basis for homosexuality, which is a perfectly valid topic.

You're idea that some corrupt mad scientists are out looking for a "cure" for homosexuality is pretty loony.

[L A Woman]

78. It's best to use the word "loony" in lieu of an intelligent argument

I don't recall saying anything about "mad scientists." The point is that you don't know who funded it and you aren't even asking. It is hardly loony to suggest that we question these things in a culture where those in control spend the majority of their time and money digging for ways to keep gays in the closet - and many of them would not hesitate to throw us in a gas chamber if they could. Surely you must be aware that these studies are often, if not usually, funded by groups with specific agendas. (Tobacco companies didn't fund tobacco studies that came to the conclusions they wanted?????)

Have Democrats dumbed ourselves down to level of today's journalists, so that we just nod our heads like sheep? Not asking questions is loony. Criticizing those who do is reprehensible.

[daleo]

43. There has been research on eye color

For example, how many and which genes go into producing different types of eye color?

I guess there are two ways of looking at research like this. One is that it treats sexual orientation using a disease model (analogous to "men with older brothers are more likely to develop diabetes", or something like that). The other is that it tends to normalize sexual orientation, and de-mystify it (analogous to "men with older brothers are more likely to bat left handed", interesting but no big deal).

I tend to think the primary (long run) effect is the latter, but I know lots of people wouldn't agree.

[AngryAmish]

54. Why are they studying this?

Fundies for years are saying "It's a choice" when homosexuality is discussed. They say gay folks don't deserve human rights because no other "behavior" is a protected class under the law (they forget that religion is a behavior but that is another discussion). If there is a biological reason then it goes a whole long way to silencing the "it's a choice" argument and may indeed help allow everyone in this country basic human rights.


I think your fear (and please correct me if I am off base) is that the specific biological basis for homosexuality will be discovered and embryos will be selected based upon being not-gay or children will be treated against their will to be straight. Those concerns are valid but I am in the camp that science must march on and certain things can be outlawed in the future if harmful.

I have heard many times that some gay folks agonize over the realization that they are gay. Would they voluntarily take a drug that made them straight? I can't answer that.

[54anickel]

24. Damn! You made me look at my fingers!!! So what's it mean when

the forefinger is shorter than the ring finger on the right hand and just the opposite on the left?

Now that I'm looking at my hands, I'm thinking I want to have a palm reading - which hand do they use for that?

[lumpy]

80. Don't look at the palm of you hands....

hehehe

[patcox2]

50. Testosterone does not necessarily cause one to be "masculine."

But it can cause a woman to be "slutty." All women have testosterone, but higher levels are associated with elevated sex drives.

In utero exposure is something else entirely. The formation of your gender is not entirely genetic, the womb environment is in fact responsible for forming a large part of your gender characteristics.

There is nothing "junk" about this science, which, in the end, is trying to prove that homosexuality is not a sinful "choice" but rather an unalterable personal characteristic like height or gender, which would be nice.

[TrogL]

66. Elevated sex drive does not equal "slutty"

[NMMNG]

92. You may not have met me

But my forefingers are shorter than my ring fingers and I am a lesbian.

[pnwmom]

106. And what is your definition of junk science?

Science with conclusions you disagree with?

[Breeze54]

23. This is OLD news anyway!

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin3/020527a.asp

Study analyses chances of homosexuality
Statistical analysis applied to fraternal birth order effect

by Jessica Whiteside

May 27, 2002 --

Roughly one in seven gay men may owe his sexual orientation
to the fact he has older brothers, say U of T researchers.

more at link....

snip-->

Published in the February 2002 issue of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior,
the study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council,
the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Foundation and the Ministry of Health. <--snip

[Igel]

34. The claim is that it's not new.

It disconfirmed one possible hypothesis.

The hypothesis is now highly unlikely to be true.

It makes homosexuality for some men likely to be developmental in origin. Not social, not genetic.

[Breeze54]

37. Thanks. n/t

[AngryAmish]

98. If it is developemental

(that is a big if because it seems that lots more research must be done) but assuming it is developmental then every male has it in their DNA to be gay -- it all depends on womb enviroment to express those traits.

Then another question is what is the evolutionary basis for this? It is widely assumed that mankind lived in kin groups based upon male co-lineage, ie females left the group when sexually mature. Would having a gay little brother confer some evolutionary advantage? if so, how?

[Igel]

101. Not necessarily.

Could just be that the genes permit it in some. But it's possible. It's like a lot of other things where developmental factors can cause a trait to surface. Most are negatives.

Not everything that evolution produces is necessarily an advantage. It's possible for a change to produce a net advantage while producing some disadvantages. For examples, adult women's having regular periods is a huge disadvantage in terms of the necessary food and nutrition; but it increases the rate of reproduction, yielding a net advantage. It may be that some hormonal changes that make it more likely for second or later male children to be gay result from changes the woman's body finds helpful. Dunno; I assume that when the exact predisposing factor (or factors) is found that an answer will be possible.

But if you really, really wanted to find an actual advantage (as opposed to an evolutionarily 'unintended' side-effect), consider that sexuality isn't a yes-no trait. Having a bunch of men around that aren't going to be sexual competitors might increase the survivability of the group without creating as many fights for dominance. One man can sire a lot more kids than a woman can birth. But the incidence of the trait is small, and might be inconsequential.

[pnwmom]

108. Identical twin studies seem to indicate pretty clearly that

it's caused by a combination of factors occuring before and after birth, since in only half of gay men with an identical twin, the other twin is also gay.
It could be caused by a combination of all three -- a genetic predisposition, something in the womb, and early experiences. And different factors may play a role in different people.

[Maraya1969]

95. Hey you don't have to be so mean about it. The person was just

talking about something, not trying to make a claim. There are all sorts of combos and that does not negate the study. My gay girlfriend had two older gay brothers and 4 younger straight siblings. I always thought that was interesting. And then I heard about another family with 7 sisters and they were ALL GAY.

[w4rma]

27. It's only an average of 10% of folks who are gay, I believe.

This study seems to say that more of those 10% have older brothers than not.

[Divine Discontent]

114. I doubt it's even that high

imhgo. I always felt like an outsider. found very few gays in school (even after graduating and seeing who wasn't unmarried to opposite sex 20 years later) and I'd put it at 4-5%. I've read some study that said that's about right, also. I'm sure there's a lot of bi people though.

[Divine Discontent]

113. HEY EVERYONE! hi! I'm sorry but your COMMENT is a farce Breeze54

Every scientific study that comes out doesn't have to apply to your family, genius. I found your post disturbing for a DU member, I hope you were being sarcastic, but it doesn't appear so.

I know MULTIPLE gay men who are the youngest of the sons in their family, and a majority of the gay men I know also youngest sons, and, finally, - I am the youngest son of five boys - and DING DING DING - we got a winner! I'm 100% gay. This doesn't mean that every family with 4, 5, or 7 boys is going to have gays in them. Some are going to have 3, some will have none.

And it's "degrees", not degree's. plural forms of words don't get the apostrophe, just to help out.




www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- check it out!

[DiverDave]

3. how much money did they spend on this crap...sheesh

I have an older and younger brother, not gay either.
Casting of the bones type of research, if you ask me...

[AngryAmish]

7. C'mon that is just silly

If there is a statistical correlation between having older brothers and homosexuality then that could be an insight on the biological bases for homosexuality. Please point out to me where in the article it says that everyone who has an older brother is gay? It doesn't. Because things are true for a population does not mean it applies to every member of a population.

We know that smoking is harmful to health. But some people are never effected by smoking. If we point out one family of brothers who smoked all their lives and are still quite healthy at an advanced age would it be fair to say that research into smoking related diseases are "casting of bones" research because there are exceptions to the general case? Of course not.

[DiverDave]

67. chill, chill

I guess I should have qualified that statement.
From the OP, that is my take.
Look, you can find ANY conclusion from data that is from a large enough population pool.
So, sorry I offended you, I thought this was DU, not JAMA.

[bdamomma]

5. hey does bush have an older brother??

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. No, he is the oldest

[Breeze54]

13. Not that I know of but he does

have a deceased little sister.
The bush family didn't give her a funeral and instead went golfing!
Explains a lot!

Who knows? Maybe he does have an older brother! That family likes secrets!

[BBG]

112. No, but Jeb does...

eom

[David__77]

10. Gay with an older brother here...

And my partner has one older brother too. And my best friend. Hmm...

[TheWraith]

11. Are people who own cats more likely to get married?

This sort of correlation is what's traditionally referred to in science as a "statistical anomaly," or in layperson terms as "bullshit." Scientists are much like philosophers--they can "prove" anything given enough time and paper. In this case, you may have a small random correlation in their study group, which gets turned into "older brothers cause gayness." In reality, it's highly unlikely that there's any kind of link between the two things, but it's like the old joke about statistical analysis. Three statisticians go out hunting. The first one misses ten feet to the left of the target. The second one misses ten feet to the right. The third starts jumping up and down shouting "I hit it!"

[AngryAmish]

12. Birth order and homosexuality research has been around for years

Peer reviewed and all that stuff. It isn't controversial.

If it was a statistical anomaly the anomaly would be done away with with a large enough N and better survey techniques.

[TheWraith]

19. The problem is with statistical correlation itself.

Oftentimes, it's simply meaningless. So what if people who own cats are more likely to get married? Does that mean that owning cats causes people to marry? I doubt it. In this case, by focusing in one only one scientific model--statistics--they ignore the larger picture. Did they ever consider the possibility that an only son is less likely to admit it if he's gay, because of the implied responsibilities of being a first son? Or if younger brothers are more comfortable being openly gay because their elder brothers take on the traditional masculine role of continuing the family? Or the effect of changing social attitudes as time progresses?

That's my problem with statistical analysis. It looks at small correlations and draws conclusions about cause, which I don't see as being warranted.

[L A Woman]

35. I am just happy that we are looking for ways to fix homosexuals

:sarcasm:

I agree with you totally, but more important than the flawed science is the fact that the only reason anyone would study such a thing is to find a way to FIX it.

[Breeze54]

39. That's

what I was thinking too but I got told off, sort of...
I don't see the point and I'll bet some fundies financed this research.
I mean what are they doing? Looking for a 'cure'??
:crazy:

[Seabiscuit]

48. Not looking for a 'cure'; Just an excuse to treat it as a "disorder".

[Divine Discontent]

115. very interesting...

I kinda agree with you, imhgo

bless you... :)

[Seabiscuit]

47. Be suspicious. Be very suspicious.

Statistical correlation simply put does not have anything at all to do with causality.

Even the "more likely" phrase is a pile of crap because it wrongly suggests the existence of causality.

[pnwmom]

107. What they did do was look separately at two groups of gay men with

older brothers.

They compared gay men who lived in homes with older brothers who were born to the same mother,
with gay men whose older brothers lived with them but were step-brothers or otherwise not blood-related through the same mother.

In the first group, the likelihood of being gay increased with the number of older brothers.
In the second group, it didn't.

That led them to the conclusion that it was something about having had the same biological mother that is behind the correlation -- not just living in the same house with older boys. One possibility is that some mothers may be producing some type of immune response (like an Rh factor) to sons, that increases with each male pregnancy.

[951-Riverside]

14. I have an older brother I'm not gay

As Mr. Smithers said after injecting himself "I LOVE BOOBIES!"

[Tesha]

16. So you're a part of the 95% or so that isn't gay anyway.

Individual anecdotes prove nothing.

Tesha

[readmoreoften]

17. Guess my anecdotal experience is shit out of luck.

Not a single gay friend of mine has an older brother. Oddly enough, I've known three pairs of identical twins and in each pair one has been gay.

[Boomer]

18. Holds true in my family

My cousin has three older brothers and he's gay.

I could see an evolutionary advantage to increasing the chances of gay males after an excess of straight ones. For the vast majority of human existence, when we were living as hunters/gatherers, a population explosion led to famine, and outstripping of resources, not to mention all that fighting for women. So having gay men would allow strength in numbers for the group without leading to an unsustainable jump in future population size.

Of course, the study only addresses gay men. I'm an only child (female) and gay. And my cousin's only sister is also gay. Sounds like an entirely different dynamic could be at work there!

[daleo]

20. Suppose 2% of the male population is gay (if no older brothers)

Then:
- with one brother, 2.6%
- with two brothers, 3.5%
- with three brothers, 4.7%
- with four brothers, 6.2%
- with five brothers, 8.3%.

So, even if this is true, the odds of being gay are not that high, even for men with lots of older brothers. I don't know if the one-third increase is one-third of some base or .33 percentage points, as the short Telegraph article is not that clear to me.

An interesting corollary is that the percentage of gay males in the population should go down as family size goes down (e.g. there should be less gays in generations after the baby boom, since large families are not so common). I have my doubts whether this is true.

Another interesting corollary is that religious groups that encourage large families (e.g. Mormons) should have higher percentages of gays than the general population.

[Up2Late]

21. There was another "study" like this a few months ago.

I think it was posted in LBN.

[Bill McBlueState]

25. yep, this is how science works

You design an experiment. You use statistical methods to determine the likelihood that a correlation exists. If you find evidence for a correlation, then you attempt to explain it.

Anecdotes from posters on an internet message board really don't play a role. And whether your conclusion agrees with "common sense" isn't important. If all science did was verify our preconceived notions, what would be the point of putting so much money and effort into it?

[PittPoliSci]

26. so i guess that means that if you're the youngest of 4 brothers...

you are automatically gay?

[Atman]

30. Not "automatically"

You still have to submit an application. Buy really...what's the satisfaction of being accepted just because you're a "Legacy Gay?"

[NMDemDist2]

36. ROFL

but then do you still get a toaster with your membership card?

[Igel]

33. Poor at stats?

Somebody worked out the possible odds above. Trivia task, actually.

So, no, not just poor at stats.

[w4rma]

41. No. (Example: 6%, 8%, 10,2/3%, 14.2%, 19%, etc.)

Don't they teach staticstics in political science?

[PittPoliSci]

89. uhm, lighten up?

and furthermore, who cares?

[Sequoia]

29. There goes the wedding celebration!

[sadiesworld]

31. No wonder those Cartwright boys could never keep any women around.

[patcox2]

42. Dubya has older brothers.

One more piece of the puzzle.

Says "fabulous" more than any heterosexual male in history.

[Javaman]

44. I have known more Older Brothers to be gay rather than younger

"Clues from the shape of ears, fingers, eyes and arms all indicate that lesbians are on average exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the womb."

Perhaps this moron should explore the exciting field of phrenology.

[karlrschneider]

51. My own small sample agrees with that. Every gay man I know

(well enough to know their families, I'm talking about 18 people here) is either the oldest or the only child. Don't really know any lesbians but I guess they weren't part of this 'study'...

All of which means pretty close to nothing, I guess...
:eyes:

[Seabiscuit]

46. I'll have to alert my youngest brother - I'm sure he'll be delighted!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

53. This could be very good news...

Maybe the ultra-rightwing rabidly homophobic types that breed like rabbits will start using birth control.

[Megahurtz]

64. Lol!

:D

[bunny planet]

55. wonder if the Baldwin brothers have seen this.

[Lisa]

56. I bet Stephen Colbert mentions this on his show this week!

I believe he has more than half a dozen older male siblings.

[superconnected]

58. Yeah, because stastically there are more kids with siblings than

only children.

and the more male children you have the more likely one will be gay.

But that doesn't mean that having brothers actually contributes to being gay - which this article is saying.

The article sounds like BS to me.

[msmcghee]

61. You are wrong . .

. . . like several others who have posted to this sad thread - that so vividly shows that liberals can be just as scientifically illiterate as anyone else.

You said, "But that doesn't mean that having brothers actually contributes to being gay - which this article is saying."

Please tell me where in the article it says anything like that. It actually says the opposite. I'd also like to see your statistical analysis of only-children vs. gayness.

[superconnected]

65. actually since you misread my post

I think I'll give up on any further hint of integrity from you.

[msmcghee]

73. You are the one claiming that the article is BS.

You said "But that doesn't mean that having brothers actually contributes to being gay - which this article is saying."

The article does not say that having brothers "contributes to being gay". It says that having older brothers from the same mother increases the probability that a child will be gay.

I don't mean to pick a fight. But, if you think the article is wrong, be sure you understand what it says first, and then state your objection clearly. Otherwise you just add to the general misunderstanding about homosexuality.

Integrity has nothing to do with it. I didn't accuse you of dishonesty and I don't think you can justifiably accuse me of that. Use words carefully. They have weight.

[Ilsa]

59. There is also concern that this phenomenum may be an

indicator for autistic children as well. I certainly wonder, because I had testosterone supplements early in my pregnancy that resulted in an autistic son. He also has that long finger-length deal going on.

[Raiden]

63. I don't think I understand these findings...

If a family has more boys, wouldn't that automatically increase the chance that eventually one child might be gay. I mean if gay people constitute approx. 1/10th of the population, wouldn't that mean theoretically if you had ten boys that one would be gay? So it seems to me that all this research shows is that the more boys you have, the greater the likelihood that you will (eventually) have a gay son. If you have no brothers, then the likelihood of having a gay brother really isn't that great (obviously)--so of course the more brothers one has, the greater the possibility of having a homosexual brother...If that is the case, then this research really isn't saying much LOL

I understand that the article is saying that womb environment *may* contribute to homosexuality...but I don't know what to make of it.

[msmcghee]

69. That's the point of the study . .

. . that the incidence of homosexuality is much greater than in the general population (app. 8-10%) - for boys who have older brothers (and who share the same mother).

It shows that for boys who have only older sisters, or who are only children - that their likelihood of being gay is no different than for the general population.

The study points to a biological explanation - rather than a sociological one as had been previously hinted at. That's because it follows the mother. The theory seems to be - that for each boy baby a mother produces, the chance of a subsequent baby being gay is increased by app. 30%.

It seems that something is happening in the wombs of pregnant mothers who have had one or more sons previously - that affects the sexual orientation of that baby. Apparently, each son born changes the mother's womb (or her body, anyway) in a way that increases the likelihood that future children will have a gay sexual orientation.

[Stuckinthebush]

70. No, the research is saying

That there is a significant correlation between homosexuality (in males) and multiple OLDER brothers. The researchers have found a highly significant correlation with a large sample. Since there is a significant correlation, the researchers must then explain the relationship. That relationship is that if a family has many sons, it is more likely that the younger son or sons will be gay...not the older sons. If a family has fewer sons or is small, then it is less likely that then youngest son will be gay.

So, the researchers have found an interesting correlation. They are NOT saying that being a younger son causes one to be gay. They are saying that there is a relationship between younger brothers in large families and homosexuality.

Now, the researchers attempt to explain the findings. It COULD be that something is going on in utero that causes a biological change. So they present their methodology, and their findings, along with the statistical analyses and significance levels. Then they present their conclusions to peers. Peers then review the research methods and analytical methods, determine if it is worthy for publication. In this instance, peers said, "Yes". Now, the normal scientific method is for other scientists to come behind them and either replicate the findings or not. Also, other scientists may delve deeper into these scientists' explanation of the findings.

There is no ultimate goal to fix homosexuality, but these findings if confirmed are important in that they MAY point to a biological basis for homosexuality. This is important because it pulls the rug from under the hate filled masses who wish to define homosexuality as simply deviant behavior derived at through CHOICE. This in turn has serious implications for how we view homosexuals as a society. Not as individuals who choose to be gay but individuals who ARE gay from birth. Of course, none of this even gets at the question of bisexuality, but that is a different topic!

The statistics are sound in this study. The methods are sound. The conclusions are up for debate. That is exactly why we have peer reviewed research published in international journals.

[msmcghee]

74. Well stated. n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

82. Thank you!.......................

.........reading some of the posts int his thread bashing statistics makes me think I walked in to Dr. Zaius' academy of science bashing. If someone wants to have a discussion about how this can be misused, so be it. So do I. Just don't use some juvenile blanket statement of how statistics lie. As a gay man, I'm all for rubbing it in the fundie's faces that being gay isn't a choice BECAUSE I KNOW FIRST-HAND THAT IT ISN'T. I, for one, want to get passed the bullshit choice argument and I can't think of any other way to do it other than science/medical research.


Dr. Zaius

[nsd]

91. Good post. Nicely stated. /nt

[Iniquitous Bunny]

68. We have a family of 4 boys.

We have a blended family- 3 are mine and one is his. Um, if this is more likely to make any of them gay, my answer is:

SO WHAT?

We don't view sexual orientation in terms of good or not good.

[Stuckinthebush]

71. Society does

Unfortunately we still live in a society that says homosexuality is wrong and deviant. This belief is justified on the basis that homosexuality is a choice. Research such as this indicates that homosexuality like heterosexuality is pre determined and is, therefore, not a choice. It is harder to condemn a person for something he was born to be.

[Lady President]

75. At least we can blame the womb

Thankfully, if there is a biological factor involved in being gay, we can trace to a defective womb environment. I wouldn't want some manly Fundy being blamed for turning his son gay. Nope, those weak women just need better womb-filters.

:sarcasm:

[WhiteTara]

77. that is what had me rolling on the floor

our vaginas are very powerful, and sometimes malevolent too...making those gay babies in our defective wombs. :rofl: some more.

[PassingFair]

84. I don't get it either.

How can birth order "mutations" (sorry) be blamed
on the WOMB?

The research would seem to reinforce the idea
that homosexuality is socially predicated, NOT
biologically.

This is silly.

[Bill McBlueState]

86. mutations? blaming?

One conclusion that could be drawn is that the uterus somehow changes chemically with the birth of more and more boys, so that later-born sons are more likely to be gay.

First, the authors of the study don't call this a "mutation," nor do they try to "blame" anyone or anything. Second, the above conclusion sounds exactly like a biological explanation for homosexuality rather than a sociological one. Maybe you have a different interpretation in mind?

[PassingFair]

87. Sorry, I didn't think the sarcasm thingy was necessary.

WTF would the uterus have to do with DNA?

Wouldn't the uterus change "chemically" with subsequent girl births, too?

This doesn't make ANY kind of scientific sense.

Makes more sense as a social cause, little brothers having
much to look up to, or TOO much to look up to.

[nsd]

90. The authors' suggestion isn't that there's been ...

any change in DNA. Rather, it's that the chemical environment of the womb has been changed by pregnancy, and that this environment affects the embryonic and fetal development of the next baby. (The genes aren't the only things that matter.) The chemical environment changes in a different way when a baby is a girl than when it's a boy, and so, the authors would argue, this is why only pregnancies resulting in male babies affect the subsequent baby in this way, while pregnancies resulting in female babies do not.

The authors haven't demonstrated this idea is, in fact, true, but it's a plausible explanation for their finding. Other types of experiments will have to be done to figure out whether their explanation is right.

[Bill McBlueState]

97. the new research is evidence for a biological cause

It doesn't "prove" a biological cause, but scientific experiments don't generally "prove" anything. They only provide evidence for and against various hypotheses.

The new result being reported is that the correlation between birth order and orientation is only significant for children with the same biological mother. This is evidence in favor of a biological explanation -- if it were environmental, you would expect to observe the correlation among all sets of children who grew up together, regardless of their heredity.

I'm not a geneticist, so I can't speak to the precise mechanism by which orientation might be determined biologically. But it seems plausible that the chemical balance of the uterus might change in a way that depends on the number and gender of fetuses that have been in it, and that the chemical balance might somehow affect orientation.

The article makes it clear that this study is only partially complete. As with any scientific study of this nature, you first test to see whether a correlation exists, then you do further work to shed light on why the correlation exists. They've determined the whether but are much less sure of the why.

[AngryAmish]

100. Uterus has everything to do with DNA

Forgive my armature biology but here goes...

Everyone gets the same DNA from Mom & Dad. But if everyone gets the same DNA why isn't every child an identical twin of their siblings. Because when each child is developing different genes are expressed and within a gene there are different outcomes depending on the individual and their environment. DNA just makes proteins. Sometimes there is no need to make a protein (a woman who doesn't get pregnant does not need a lot of proteins based upon pregnancy). Sometimes there is.

If the environment of the womb makes it necessary to make a certain protein then those traits will be expressed. I hope this helps and I hope someone with a better background can explain it better than I.

[WhiteTara]

102. oh the womb is just a renegade

and will be giving out those homosexual genes because It's tired of all that testosterone swimming around inside It ans so it pumps out gay guys for spite. Yeah, that's it.
:rofl:

[AngryAmish]

103. Again, these genes are inside of everyman (maybe)

Under certain conditions these genes may get expressed.

[WhiteTara]

109. those genes inside "everyman"

just get mangled when mixed in with that evil womb juice of aminotic fluids? :shrug:

edited for missing words.

[AngryAmish]

116. OK, I give up

You win. You obviously think there is a grand conspiracy to blame mothers for making men gay. There is not. Perhaps there is a grand conspiracy to make 7 a prime.

[IndianaGreen]

76. So the Pope's demands of Catholic large families is creating more "homos"?

Excuse while I roll on the floor laughing...

:rofl:

What happened to homosexuality being a "lifestyle choice"?

[lumpy]

79. # 350,000 in a deluge of studies that

prove absolutely nothing. Wearing pantyhose lowers the sex drive...in either gender. Wearing a bill cap backward causes hair to grow on the back of the neck. Red hair indicates that your great great grandmother ate a lot of carrots......

[HuffleClaw]

81. but but but !!!! being gay is a CHOICE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

jeeeeeezus (ok, so it was the pastor) told me so!!! these scientists are doing the work of satan!!!!

[IndianaGreen]

83. If being gay is a choice, then so is being straight

How many people wake up in the morning and then have to decide their sexual orientation before even having their first cup of coffee?

[fjc]

85. The laughing icon in the original post says it all.

[killbotfactory]

93. Finally!!!

A reason for religious conservatives to advocate contraception instead of their "abstinence only" talk!

[Nutmegger]

94. Sexual orientation of men determined before birth

A man's sexual orientation appears to be determined in the womb, a new study suggests.

Past research by Dr. Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catherines, Ontario and colleagues has shown that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. But it has not been clear if this is a prenatal effect or a psychosocial effect, related to growing up with older male siblings.

To investigate, Bogaert studied 944 gay and straight men, including several who were raised with adopted, half- or step-siblings or were themselves adopted. He reasoned that if the relationship between having older male siblings and homosexuality was due to family environment or child-rearing practices, it would be seen whether or not a man's older brothers were biological or adopted.

Bogaert found that the link between having older brothers and homosexuality was present only if the siblings were biologically related -- this relationship was seen between biological brothers who were not raised together. The amount of time that a man was reared with older brothers had no association with sexual orientation.

Full article: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-06-27T043817Z_01_SIB716625_RTRUKOC_0_US-SEXUAL-ORIENTATION-MEN-DETERMINED-BEFORE.xml

[Maraya1969]

96. Another study

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1514807

[Mojorabbit]

99. My hubby is the oldest of four boys

and his youngest brother is gay. Who knows, there might be something to it.

[Sequoia]

104. Think the anti-gays can be told to ask God about it

instead of blaming the devil?

[Julius Civitatus]

105. The headline and intro are MISLEADING

Boys with older brothers 'more likely to be gay'

Boys are more likely to grow up gay if they have older brothers - because of biology, rather than upbringing.

That is a MISLEADING intro to the article. It gives you the impression that if a boy has older brothers, then he "GROWS UP GAY." As if someone "becomes" gay by nurture. That is wrong and false.

Interestingly enough, the article later offers the actual scientific fact: It has to do with the production of testosterone during fetal stages, and how it changes with the number of male babies a woman has.

[Ilsa]

110. Okay, our fundie friend and his wife have 6 or 7 boys and one baby girl.

They plan on having two or three more. I can't wait to see how those younger boys turn out.

[Strathos]

111. I'm the oldest in my family and I'm gay

No other homos in the family either. That I know of, but I'm pretty sure they're all straight and guess what, they love me and that's all that matters.