At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
There is an extra hormone or something that makes a females into a males. It is thought that some mothers produce antibodies that attack the hormone, leaving some males not fully developed. It is supposed to be extremely common that the last boy born is most likely going to be the gay one if there is a gay in the family. The reason could be that the mother's antibodies against the male hormones grow too strong over the course of having many sons.
I've seen a book about it on TV recently and I've read some stuff too. Maybe this is the cause.
Although gallivant isn't wrong, he's not completely right either. Being a gay man positively correlates (slightly) with the number of older brothers a person has. This is not the case with women. I'm the second oldest of 6 boys and only 1 of my younger brothers is gay. If hormone antibodies were the sole cause, wouldn't all of my younger brother be gay?
It is difficult to say what, exactly, is the cause of homosexuality, but it seems to be a combination of biological and envirnmental factors. Identical twins reared apart are more likely to have the same sexual orientation than fraternal twins, which suggests a genetic cause; however, not all identical twins (reared apart or together) have the same sexual orientation meaning that there are environmental factors. Also, a sex-linked patern of sexual orientation has been observed.
To Fr_Chuck: why would we waste our time trying to "cure" something that doesn't need curing? Before we even try to cure homosexuality, we should eradicate cancer, alzheimer's, etc. And if we want to start treating behavioral differences, I can think of a few things that should be "cured" before homosexuality (temperment, intelligence, vulnerability to substance abuse, etc.).
Sorry but I find several views in this thread incredibly unnerving. Homosexuality is not a disease. It's not something to cure. That's like asking if there will ever be a cure for black people. It's disgusting and discriminatory. Please stop.
Although gallivant isn't wrong, he's not completely right either. Being a gay man positively correlates (slightly) with the number of older brothers a person has. This is not the case with women. I'm the second oldest of 6 boys and only 1 of my younger brothers is gay. If hormone antibodies were the sole cause, wouldn't all of my younger brother be gay?
Perfect example of how correlation does not imply causation.
And I agree, we don't need to find a cure for "gay".
Sorry but I find several views in this thread incredibly unnerving. Homosexuality is not a disease. It's not something to cure. That's like asking if there will ever be a cure for black people. It's disgusting and discriminatory. Please stop.
I don't think it's the same. Ethnicities have developed different features in order to thrive in their specific environments. Homosexuality is a defect. Opposite sexes are supposed to be attracted to each other so that they have children.
I do agree with you that it is not a problem considering that there have always been homosexuals. I heard about a large study that said every species has about the same percentage of homosexuals in it. It's something that just happens. It doesn't need to be cured, and it has always stayed in balance with everything else.
I definately disagree that homosexuality is a defect. It's been suggested that it has social benefits (as observed in bonobos), and of course it's not a black or white issue, homosexuals have children in heterosexual relationships, especially in human society where there is still a social taboo over homosexuality.
I believe it's an evolutionary trait, and in no way a defect, and it make a species stronger.
There are studies everywhere that involve environmental vs genetics. But none can say definately, one way or the other, what's truth.
The fact is, theoretcially, DNA can be altered to make everyone fall in line with the norm. As soon as DNA is more understood, it would be possible for the "Stepford" human to exist.
Everybody the same without any kinks in the DNA. Still what would life be without diversity?
I don't think it's the same. Ethnicities have developed different features in order to thrive in their specific environments. Homosexuality is a defect. Opposite sexes are supposed to be attracted to each other so that they have children.
I do agree with you that it is not a problem considering that there have always been homosexuals. I heard about a large study that said every species has about the same percentage of homosexuals in it. It's something that just happens. It doesn't need to be cured, and it has always stayed in balance with everything else.
I agree to an extent with what you are saying...however, to suggest it is a defect or abnormally is to also suggest there could be a way to fix it. If evolution has created a percentage where "every species has about the same percentage of homosexuals", would this not be a form of evolving for a reason. Only the strongest survive is the major theory of evolution....evolving to survive...and only the strongest organisms/animals/plants/etc. able to do this will or face extinction. Granted Homosexuals, by theory and popular opinion, can't procreate. By choice they can reproduce and maybe genetic material is passed on and may remain dormant till the right conditions exsist through the generations.
This also leads to question if the Homosexual does choose to have sex with the opposite sex, then does this make them bisexual (which I question the ability to love, sexually, same sex and opposite sex equally) or is it a homosexual giving in to the urge, unconsciously, for homosexuals to survive for possibly generations?
What would also be the reasons for for evolution to homosexual....maybe a form of population control?
Linear Mode
