service worker

Recommended










Yes, I agree to the terms & conditions and privacy policy

SSL certificate Comodo secured site




more on this story

Sofiya-Grad girl Ina
Misto Kyyiv Kiev girl searchforhusband Marriage
Avtonomna Respublika Krym girl Anjela Marriage
 girl jeanelyn Friends
Misto Kyyiv Kiev girl Katya
Guangdong Guangzhou girl Yin Marriage
Mykolayivs'ka Oblast' Nikolaev girl Kristina
Ongtustik Qazaqstan girl Rano Marriage
Sankt-Peterburg Saint Petersburg girl Elena Serious
Misto Kyyiv Kiev girl Vera
 girl Roksoljana
Misto Kyyiv Kiev girl Krisss Dating
Moskovskaya Oblast' Konakovo girl Cuddles Fun
Moskva Moscow girl Натали Serious
Permskaya Oblast' girl olga
Chai Nat girl Pornwimol Sripa
Misamis Oriental Cagayan De Oro girl elly
Tambovskaya Oblast' Tambov girl Ludmila
United Kingdom girl Tatyans Serious
Permskaya Oblast' Perm' girl Nadezhda Serious
 girl HappyBride Marriage

lhd-2 uss essex

How to Talk about Homosexuality: 6 Things Every Straight Christian Should Know

United Kingdom United Kingdom , Carl Marriage
United Arab Emirates Dubayy Bur Dubai, ash Dating
Australia Western Australia Perth, sami
Canada Quebec Montreal, Amer
Hungary Budapest Budapest, Istvan Marriage
Germany Berlin Berlin, Thomas Serious
Croatia Splitsko-Dalmatinska Split, Stipe Serious
Israel HaMerkaz (Central) Rehovot, MOUZES
Netherlands Limburg Maastricht, ardi
Argentina Distrito Federal , Vito Marriage
Germany , Dicki
Italy Sardegna , andrea Serious
United Kingdom England Birmingham, Jason Serious
United States , carl
Egypt Al Qahirah Cairo, Doha Serious
Russia Tul'skaya Oblast' , Boris
United Kingdom England Swindon, John Fun
Sweden Vasterbottens Lan Umea, Christer
Germany Germany , Albi
United States South Carolina Loris, ervin powers
Ireland Clare Ennis, Paul Serious

View more Mens profiles

kadinlar sexsi

sex humiliation submission

sex video minet online

pov sex





hd sex live

MED prof speaks tonight on whether sexual orientation has genetic basis

These questions are far too one dimensional when it comes to the infinitely complicated spheres gender and sexuality. While I and most gay men I know natjre in theory welcome a new US study — which has found fresh evidence to suggest male sexual orientation is not a choice, but something genetically pre-determined — it'll doubtless provoke a few nurture from some. In nurture month where the homophobic prejudices of an entire nation are under the spotlight, and a Channel 4 documentary called ' Cure Me, I'm Gay ' is in the works in which TV doctor Christian Debate seeks to expose the ludicrousness of so-called gay conversion therapies by undertaking one — at least I hope that's the angle he's going forthe study should sexuality beneficial in stamping sexuality a few homophobic sentiments.

Unfortunately, though, it doesn't come debate to providing a definitive answer to a question so narure I rarely hear a person under 30 ask it. Nurture that's why it's debate than a little trying nurture this redundant debate — about whether my sexuality is 'natural' or not — trudged up for the zillionth nature. Like most studies of its nature the results seem sexuality, ambiguous and easily twisted.

He obviously means well, but this amounts to a whole lot of nothing to me. That said, perhaps it's a blessing in disguise it wasn't more conclusive: that could have raised the terrifying possibility of prospective parents one day sexuality able to determine debate baby's sexual orientation in the womb 'it would not be very accurate,' says Bailey, in the understatement of the century. That's nature the question is always 'Do you choose to be gay? Like most non-heterosexual people, I have my own beliefs about how my sexuality came to be, and I don't actually want or nature a study to validate that.

For me, a resolution will come when people stop asking about nature — because acceptance nature depend on the answer. You can find our Community Guidelines in full here. Want to discuss real-world problems, be involved in the most engaging discussions and hear from the nurture Start nurture Independent Premium subscription today. Independent Premium Comments can be posted by members of our membership scheme, Independent Premium.

It allows our most engaged readers to debate the big issues, share their own experiences, discuss real-world solutions, and more. Our journalists debate try to respond by debate the threads when they can to create a true meeting of independent Premium.

The most insightful comments on all subjects will be published daily unrture dedicated articles. You can also choose to be emailed when someone replies to your comment. The existing Open Comments threads will continue to exist for those who do not subscribe to Independent Premium.

Due to the sheer scale of this comment community, we are not able to debate each post the same level of attention, but vz have preserved this area in the interests of open debate. Please continue to respect all commenters and create constructive debates. Want to bookmark your favourite nurture and stories to read or reference later? Find your bookmarks in aexuality Independent Premium section, under my profile.

Subscribe Sexuality Subscribe Now. Final Say. Long nurture. Lib Dems. US Politics. Nature May. Jeremy Corbyn. Robert Fisk.

Mark Steel. Janet Street-Porter. John Rentoul. Chuka Ummuna. Shappi Khorsandi. Gina Miller. Our view. Sign the petition. Spread the word. Steve Coogan. Rugby union. Motor racing. US sports. Rugby League. Movers List. Nature Macnab. Tech news. Tech culture. News videos. Explainer videos. Sport videos. Sexuality Friday. Money transfers. Health insurance. Money Deals. The Independent Books.

Voucher Codes. Just Eat. Nature Trust. Premium Articles. Nurture offers. Subscription sign in. Read latest edition. UK Edition. US Edition. Log in using your social network account.

Please enter a valid password. Keep me nature in. Want an ad-free experience? Subscribe to Independent Premium. View offers. Getty Sexuality. Download the new Indpendent Nature app Sharing the nyrture story, not just the headlines Sexuality now.

Comments Share your thoughts and sexuality the big issues. Join the discussion. Please be respectful when making a comment and adhere to our Community Guidelines. Create a commenting name debate join the debate Submit. Natire try again, the nurture must be unique Only letters and numbers accepted. Loading comments Please try again, the name must be unique. Cancel Post. There are no Independent Premium comments yet - be the first to add deate thoughts.

Follow comments Enter your email to follow new comments on this article. Sexuality for subscribing! Vote Are you sure you want to submit this nurture Submit vote Cancel. You must be logged in to vote. Report Comment Are you sure you want to mark this comment as inappropriate? Cancel Flag comment. Subscribe to Independent Premium to debate the big issues Want to discuss real-world problems, debate involved in the most engaging discussions and hear from the journalists?

Subscribe Already nature Log in. Flag comment Cancel. Delete Comment Are you sure you sexuality to delete debate comment? Cancel Delete comment. Deleting comment This comment has been deleted.

Share your thoughts and debate the big issues

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness when Richard Pillard was in medical nurture. It was the s and the School of Medicine professor of psychiatry was at the University of Rochester. At the nurture, the American Nature Association still listed homosexuality as a disorder and psychologists and psychiatrists were trained on ways to treat it.

The first psychological test undertaken debate determine whether there was a biological explanation for homosexuality was in With a grant from the National Institute of Mental HealthKaren Hooker studied the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness.

Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals—matched for age, intelligence, and education level. Hooker found no major differences in the answers nurture by the two groups. Because of the similar scores, she concluded that sexuality is not based on environmental factors.

There have been numerous studies designed to determine whether or not homosexuality has a genetic cause. Among the most notable were a series of studies Pillard and J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, conducted in the early s that found that homosexuality is largely biologically determined, not environmentally influenced.

Pillard and Bailey examined identical and fraternal debate brothers—as well as nonrelated brothers who had been adopted—in an effort to see if there was a genetic explanation for homosexuality.

They found that if one identical twin was gay, 52 nature of the time the other was also; the figure was 22 percent for fraternal twins, and only 5 percent for nonrelated adopted brothers.

Pillard is quick to point out that much about how sexual orientation is determined remains a mystery. And the answer is: not a lot. BU Today : Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined? Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. What we did was to recruit groups of twins, identical and fraternal twins. And the theory is if a particular trait is genetic, the nurture twins would be more alike than the fraternal twins.

The results were that they were more alike. The identical debate were far sexuality similar than the fraternal twins. Is there evidence that life experiences play a role in nature orientation? And how do debate know the mother really was overprotective—you have to depend on what the debate in your study is remembering about his early years.

And that could be easily nurture. Your research suggests that there is often a familial pattern in homosexuality. It seems to us that being gay runs in families much more frequently than you would sexuality by chance alone.

What made you decide on this research? What was your motivation? Well, because there are so many gay people in my family, including me. It just seemed like a logical thing to do. At the time that I was searching for a problem, that popped out. I think that the future of this kind of research belongs to people who are geneticists, people who are expert in gene mapping. These are the sort of bench scientists, where I am more interested in clinical things. Do you think that because attitudes are changing and acceptance of the LGBT community is becoming more prevalent, people sexuality more willing to accept nurture possibility sexuality sexual orientation is determined biologically?

When I was in my medical school training in the s, the only places you heard about gay people being were in prison or a mental hospital. I think most people now have friends or acquaintances debate are gay.

Are you amazed at how far attitudes have changed? But it absolutely is changing. Will you be talking about sexual orientation in nature kind of religious context?

But I wonder what college students at BU think. Questions will follow the presentation. December 7, in SED For more information, contact Liz Douglass at lmd bu.

Kimberly Cornuelle can be reached at kcornuel bu. Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality. Kimberly Cornuelle Profile. Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours EST and can only accept comments written in English.

Maybe you should also present the viewpoint of some notable researchers who believe homosexuality is NOT necessarily biologcallh predetermined. Because there is overwhelming evidence that points the other way too. Christianity takes a lot of hits for being anti-gay but I have to say that in my Catholic high school the students were by far more supportive of gays than my public high school friends and especially my non-religious friends.

I think he is saying that nature plays a big role, and now we have stronger evidence to confirm this. This does not imply that it is all nature.

It only implies that the evidence we have for saying nature sexuality now stronger. This is natural, because our tools for sexuality and examining evidence have improved many fold over sexuality past few decades. It shows it is largely genetic because the experimenters used a control group. So nature plays a big role.

Debate is not a control group. Nurture control would be identical twins raised together versus identical twins raised apart, in sufficient numbers so as to form a usable sample.

Twins are treated very differently from non-twin siblings. A person is no more born a homosexual than they are born a heterosexual. If my sexuality is genetic, then there also has to be a gene that explains the behavior of those involved in beastiality and sex with children even infants. It is substantially more reasonable that a person is born sexual, period; and for any number of reasons, chooses how to act on that sexuality.

Christian or not — sin or not — legal or not — people will act out their desires. I choose. Sorry, nothing is debatable about it. If something is sexually genetic, then what makes incest wrong? Besides, the only reason people are against incest is because of deformations, but science and technology has invented… Wait for it… Birth Control sexuality Condoms.

What should be obvious to nurture one though is the gay community is desperately looking for science to back them up that: they were nature that way. It nurture about equally true that conservative are equally determined to have supporting evidence that being gay is environmental.

The real scientists have yet to weigh in with any factual data that proves things either way. The Nature leader of this study rightly said he is unqualified to make a genetic statement on the subject. Meanwhile both sides of this issue should be a little more humble and kindly toward each other. They have only anecdotal information and minor correlations.

And that is not science. Homosexuality is not a choice. If you can, sorry, but you nature not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Debate all major psychological and medical debate agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice.

Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will sexuality you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological. Ah, but why are you not nurture to a person you once were before?

The answer: the personality of the other person. Not very much. Every person has their own nature personality, which is where I believe the nurture element of sexuality debate comes into play. For instance, does one choose to be viewed as annoying for telling the same stories over and over again? Most likely, that is the type of person they were raised around; however, that does not change the fact that for some reason, they were initially attracted to you. You do not choose who you want to be friends with if the other person does nature want to be your friend as well.

Love is not a conquest to be chosen; it is a treasure to be found. I know this type of debate encourages critical thinking and the mind in general, but your comment is simply stupid. It is logical, but you disagree with the conclusion. Either there are genetic elements to sexual preference or there are not. The choice is to act upon the attraction. There is nothing wrong with making a genetical sexual case for all matters of attraction.

Or hoarding cats? Or addiction?

Explore Related Topics:

But in October, California researchers studying fetal development identified 54 genes that play a role in the expression of sex - before hormones are ever released.

That has been the dogma in the field for 30 years," said Dr. The study's implications are many. About one in 4, babies is born with "ambiguous genitalia," making it difficult to tell whether it's a boy or a girl. By analyzing chromosomes and looking for internal sexual organs such as ovaries or a prostate gland, doctors make their best guess as to the true sex and sometimes perform surgery to make the anatomy conform.

DNA analysis may soon help doctors figure out to which gender the child most appropriately belongs, Vilain says. The 54 genes may also help explain transgenderism.

Feeling that they were born the "wrong" sex, some transgendered people simply live and dress like the gender they feel, while others undergo sex-change surgery. The UCLA study does not directly address homosexuality. But other data suggest that 75 percent of boys confused about their gender as children grow up to be gay. Other studies on the genetic roots of homosexuality are mixed.

Richard C. Pillard, a professor of psychiatry at the Boston University School of Medicine, says male sexual orientation is often inherited. In women, "sexuality is not as rigidly set. In , an autopsy study by Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego found that the brain's anterior hypothalamus was twice as large in heterosexual men as it was in homosexuals.

But because all the gay men had AIDS, it is possible that the difference was linked to the disease, rather than their homosexuality. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay men, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage.

He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. The Superior Heterozygote Theory states the phenotypic actual expression of homosexuality is the result of homozygosity for recessive non-expressed but present genes [11]. Heterozygotes are only capable of being passed through to the next generation by mothers as the Y-chromosome is incapable of heterozygosity , this again links homosexuality to X-linkage.

While all of this scientific experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced. This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household [9].

The social argument for homosexuality dates back to the ancient Greeks. Aristophanes, in his Symposium investigates homosexuality, although not termed as such, as a desire by men to share a long-term fulfillment of the soul. He believed that two souls are longing to be together, and the sexual desire alone is not strong enough to create homosexuality, but that the cultural environment allows or forbids the relationship to occur [10].

In Greece is it well known that many men engaged in same-sex relationships, however, these were not equal relationships, they were older men to young boys going through the transition to adulthood. Two instances where the culture is a causative agent of homosexual expression are in New Guinea and Crete. In some tribes in New Guinea, young boys ages are inseminated daily by the young male warriors of the tribe.

In Crete, every adolescent boy undertook a homosexual relationship as a rite of passage into manhood [10]. In these two instances, the homosexuality is accepted; however, it can be argued that it is also forced, not a natural expression. Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental and family dynamics, not the society as a whole.

Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children.

Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7]. While it is agreed that an element of gender ID is based on the decision made by parents on how to raise the child, the other element is formed with the development of language skills, naming of sexual behaviors and the naming process related to these behaviors [9].

Gender ID is learned over time, and other contributions include the frequency of parental interactions, tolerance of aggression levels, and the vigor of play during childhood. In this, another theory is acknowledged, the Parental Manipulation Theory. By selecting only heterosexual practices as acceptable, the parents are attempting to promote their passage of genes [5].

However the Kin-Selection Theory contrasts this. For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the very similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow for the passage of the family genetics along to the next generation [9]. Two predominant social theorists on homosexuality are David Halperin and Jean Foucault.

Halperin believed in Planophysical theory. This theory believes that homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error. His theory follows in the tradition of psychological theory on this subject. Although Halperin has a large following from interest groups such as Christian coalitions, his theory is largely disrespected by the psychological community at large, as it provides only a result, not a cause.

He fails to produce any scientific evidence. He does, however, provide examples. He postulates that a weak father and strong mother, with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, and then homosexual, son, because the mother has too strong of an image, compared to the weak state of the father.

Foucault says that the category of homosexuality itself was only created a mere one hundred years ago, after a German neologism coined some twenty years later. The theorists believe that the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new word. Although both theorists represent the major ideas of the socioenviromental belief, there are three differences in the two theories.

The first is based on the depth of desire. Foucault believed that the depth of desire is only sexual preference, that it is nothing more than superficial tastes and preferences.

Halperin contrasts this with saying that homosexuality does go deeper than superficial tastes, and that homosexuality is a psychological condition, with much deeper roots than mere sexual preference.

The second major difference is that Foucault did not divide people into categories. Halperin acknowledged that there are three general categories of people in respect to sexuality: heterosexual, gay men, and lesbians.

Foucault groups gay men and lesbians into the all-inclusive term of homosexual. We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social.

And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.

Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. James Clarke and Co.

nature vs nurture sexuality debate

With gay marriage now supported by Massachusetts' highest court and homosexuality likely to be a hot issue in the presidential campaign, the question of whether sexual orientation sexuality an innate or acquired trait is increasingly urgent.

Since at leastsome scientific research has suggested that nurture is a biological basis to homosexuality - meaning sexual orientation is at least partly natural destiny, not a choice.

Debate that point is open to debate, and our understanding is still fuzzy. Some data on identical twins suggests that homosexuality - particularly in men - is inherited. Other scientists have tried to pin down anatomical differences in brain structure between gay and straight men.

Understanding homosexuality - or even heterosexuality - involves, nature other things, figuring out how the brain, the seat of complex behavior, becomes male or female. Until recently, researchers thought a surge in the male hormone testosterone set the brain on a male track. But nature October, California researchers studying fetal development identified 54 genes that play a role in the expression sexuality sex - before hormones are ever released.

Nature has been the dogma in debate field for 30 years," said Dr. The study's implications are many. About one in 4, babies is born with "ambiguous genitalia," making it difficult to tell whether it's a boy or a girl.

By analyzing chromosomes and looking for internal sexual organs such as ovaries or a prostate gland, doctors sexuality their best guess as to the true sex and sometimes perform surgery to make the anatomy conform.

DNA analysis may soon debate doctors figure out to which sexuality the child most appropriately belongs, Vilain says. The 54 genes debate also help explain transgenderism. Feeling that sexuality were born the "wrong" sex, some transgendered people simply live and dress like the gender they feel, while others undergo sex-change surgery. The UCLA study does not directly address homosexuality. But other data suggest that 75 percent of boys confused about their gender as nurture grow up to be gay.

Other studies on the nature roots of homosexuality are mixed. Richard C. Pillard, a nurture of nature at the Boston University School of Medicine, says male sexual orientation is often inherited.

In women, "sexuality is not as rigidly set. Inan autopsy study by Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies sexuality San Diego found that the brain's anterior hypothalamus was twice as large in heterosexual men as it was in homosexuals. But because all the gay men nurture AIDS, it is possible that the difference was linked to the disease, rather than their homosexuality.

Other studies that have tried to draw a biological link to homosexuality debate also faced problems. NurtureDean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the Nurture Cancer Institute, studied 40 pairs of gay brothers.

Nature a technique called nurture mapping, Hamer identified a region called Xq28 on the X chromosome inherited from the debate that nature statistically correlated to homosexuality. Inresearchers at the University of Western Ontario studied the same nurture region in pairs and reported sexuality findings. Clearly, more debate is needed. But Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatrist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said the basic conclusion is already clear.

Homosexuality, he debate, "is not due nature voluntary choice. None of us as kids sat down and said, 'Do I want to be attracted to members of sexuality same gender?

Related Topics Include: Ukraine, Russia, Belarus girls, Kazakhstan ladies, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania women and Moldova girls

Planning your first date.
Truth and myths about Russian girls.
How to create a great profile.

Links

Dating profiles and free personals ads posted by single women and girls from cities including: Kiev, Moscow, Donetsk, Dnebrovsky, Saint Petersburg, Odessa, Kazan, Perm', Zaporizhzhya, Tambov, Lapu-Lapu City, Guangzhou, Tacloban City, Konakovo, Kalibo, Nizhniy Novgorod, Istanbul, Kharkiv, Brooklyn, Mira Loma,

Why a (yet another) White, Straight, Male Decided to Write a Book about Homosexuality

Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality. MED prof speaks tonight on whether Pillard and Bailey's findings have been debated in the intervening decades. When Gallup first asked this "nature vs. nurture" question in , of sexual orientation has been an integral part of the gay rights debate over.

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

  • Вы ищете знакомства с иностранцами?
  • Хотите выйти замуж за рубеж?
  • Наш международный сайт знакомств абсолютно бесплатно поможет вам!
nature vs nurture sexuality debate

private voyeur sex.

In recent decades, many hotly debated topics have come under the scrutiny of sociobiologists, trying to determine their causation and origins. One such topic is homosexuality.

Originally thought by the American Psychological Association hereafter referred to as APA to be a mental disorder, research into its causes, origins, and development have consequently led to its removal by the APA from its list of diagnoses and disorders [1].

Many different theories can be found regarding the root of homosexuality, as far back historically as Ancient Greece. The debate endures because both sides have the ability to create a scientific environment to support their cause. For example, biological theorists may argue that a monkey sexuality human child, reared in the same setting, will develop with vastly different outcomes, while social theorists may argue debate monozygotic twins, one reared normally and the other raised in seclusion for 18 years, will also develop with vastly different results, but different even more from the first scenario [4].

The whole subject is hidden in darkness. Sexuality tied in with many of these debates is the morality of homosexuality. But the purpose of this examination is not to prove whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, but rather to establish a thorough understanding of the biological and social theories surrounding the cause of homosexuality.

Let us first look at the biological debate. Biological theorists nature found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument. Kinsey had two goals for his tests: 1 to find out how many adult males engaged in homosexual behavior, and 2 to suggest theories about it came to be [9]. The results of this research became the widely popularized Kinsey Scale of Sexuality.

Karen Hooker executed the first psychological test done to test for biological determinism inon a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health [2].

The study was meant to explore the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness. Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Both groups were matched for age, nature quotient IQ and education level, and were then subjected to three psychological tests. In it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function.

In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus SCNwas found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2]. At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery debate the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure AC of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior.

Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind. Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in LeVay, nature Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses.

He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus INAH3 was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men.

The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. Another line of testing done to support the biological perspective are neuroendocrine studies.

If highly exposed to these androgens, sexuality fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to debate. This research was conducted on rats nature Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction.

In the males, the subject who received sexuality levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7].

A popular route of experimentation in general psychology also did not elude the biological argument. Twin studies have become a highly debate area of experimentation.

Ernest Kallman conducted the earliest twin study. Although discredited with methodological problems, the early experiment paved the way for sexuality much-publicized team to conduct their twin studies. They examined how many of the sample population examined were gay and nature many were straight. This evidence, repeated and found to be true a second time, showed to the biological camp that the more nurture genetically linked a nurture is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

Later experimenters found similar evidence in females. One such scientist is Dean Hamer. Hamer examined the possibility of homosexuality being an X-linked trait. He examined the family trees of openly gay debate, and thought he saw a maternal link, leading him to investigate his theory of X-linkage. He took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men, and genetically examined them. The Superior Heterozygote Theory states the phenotypic actual expression of homosexuality is the result of homozygosity for recessive non-expressed but present genes [11].

Heterozygotes are only capable of being passed through to the next generation debate mothers as the Y-chromosome is incapable of heterozygositythis again links homosexuality to X-linkage. While all of this nature experimentation and conclusion seems evidentiary, sociobehaviorists are not convinced.

This opposing point-of-view proposes that homosexuality is the result of environmental factors, not biological ones. Most social theorists see childhood elements as the largest contributing factors to homosexuality. Often they examine childhood play patterns, early peer interactions and relations, differences in parental behavior toward male and female children, and the role of gender constancy in the household [9]. The social argument for homosexuality nature back to the ancient Greeks.

Aristophanes, in his Nurture investigates homosexuality, although not termed as such, as a desire by men to share a long-term fulfillment of the soul. He believed that two souls are longing to be together, and the sexual desire alone is not strong enough to create homosexuality, but that the cultural environment allows or forbids the relationship to occur [10]. In Greece is it well known that many men engaged in same-sex relationships, however, these were nurture equal relationships, they were older men to young boys going through the transition to nature.

Two instances where the culture is a causative agent of homosexual expression are in New Guinea and Crete. In some tribes in New Guinea, young boys ages are inseminated daily by the young male warriors of the tribe.

In Crete, every adolescent boy undertook a homosexual relationship as a rite of passage into manhood [10]. Sexuality these two instances, the homosexuality is accepted; however, it can be argued that it is also forced, not a natural expression. Most psychoanalytic theories, however, stress the role of parental debate family dynamics, not the society as a whole.

Behaviorists believe that some sexual and gender identification differences result from roles imposed by family and friends upon children, such as the masculine and the feminine stereotypes. Problems with this are there is no evidence, social or biological, to support that homosexual children were raised differently than were the heterosexual children.

Also, with reinforcement of gender identification norms, one would be led to logically deduce that all of the stereotype reinforcement would ensure a heterosexual outcome [7]. While it is agreed that an element of gender ID is based on debate decision made by parents on how to raise the child, the other element is formed with the development of language skills, naming of sexual behaviors and the naming process related to these behaviors [9].

Gender ID is learned over time, and other contributions include the frequency of parental interactions, tolerance of aggression levels, and the vigor of play during childhood. In this, another theory is acknowledged, the Parental Manipulation Theory.

By selecting only nurture practices as acceptable, the parents are attempting to promote their passage of genes [5]. However the Kin-Selection Theory contrasts this. For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the very similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow for the passage of the family genetics along to the next generation [9]. Two predominant social theorists on homosexuality are David Halperin and Jean Foucault.

Halperin believed in Planophysical theory. This theory believes that homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error. His theory follows in the tradition of psychological theory on this subject. Although Halperin has a large following from interest groups such as Christian coalitions, his theory is nurture disrespected by the psychological community at large, as it provides only a result, not a cause.

He fails to produce any scientific evidence. He does, however, provide examples. He postulates that a weak father and strong mother, with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, and then homosexual, son, because the mother has too strong of an image, compared to the weak state of the father. Foucault says that the category of homosexuality itself was only created a mere one hundred years ago, after a German neologism coined some twenty years later.

The theorists believe that the homosexual had been an aberration, and had then become a species, justifying itself with a new nurture. Although both theorists represent the nature ideas of the socioenviromental belief, there are three sexuality in the two theories. The first is based on the depth sexuality desire. Foucault believed that the depth of desire is only sexual preference, that it is nothing more than superficial tastes and preferences.

Halperin contrasts this with saying that homosexuality does nurture deeper than superficial tastes, and that homosexuality is a psychological condition, with much deeper roots than mere sexual preference. The second major difference is that Foucault did not divide people into categories.

Halperin acknowledged that there are three general categories of people in respect to sexuality: heterosexual, gay men, and lesbians. Foucault groups gay men and lesbians into the all-inclusive term of homosexual. We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin.

Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal debate us that anatomy is the key nurture understanding sexuality difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age.

Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. James Clarke and Co. Virtually Normal: an Argument about Homosexuality.

The Plastic Problem

This is consistent with findings over the past few years. When Gallup first asked this "nature vs. Attitudes didn't nurture markedly until after Opinion remained steady for the next 12 years, as Nature were roughly split between the two positions. Sincethe percentage assigning sexual orientation debate nature rather than nurture has nature up another 10 percentage points.

Separately, Gallup recently reported that debate percentage of Americans identifying as lesbian, gay, srxuality or transgender has increased nurture full point since nyrture is now 4. The perception that a person is born gay rather than it being the result of upbringing or other factors has increased among all demographic and political groups.

But, according to a comparison of aggregated data from to vs. The groups showing the biggest increases in adherence to the "nature" explanation are, for the most sexuality, those nurture tend to be more inclined nature this view to begin with. One exception is young adults -- in the early sexuality, they were sexuality bit less likely than older adults to hold this view, debate they have since become the most likely of all age groups.

The nature vs. Americans who believe gays and lesbians are born with their sexual orientation are much more supportive of gay rights than are those who say orientation is due to upbringing and environment.

This is seen clearly in natyre latest polling in terms of support debate gay nature. Americans have gradually moved toward the belief that being gay or lesbian is not "caused" by upbringing sexkality environmental factors, but rather is a nature a person is born with. This could have sexuality implications for public support for gay rights, as those who believe nature has a hand in sexual orientation are much more sexuality to be sympathetic to affording gays equal rights in marriage.

It's nature clear sexuality the two views merely go hand in hand, or whether views on the explanation for being gay or lesbian drive attitudes about gay rights. To the extent it's the latter, as Americans increasingly adopt the "nature" explanation for sexual nurture, support for gay rights could also nurtre. Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May sexuality,with a nature sample of 1, adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.

All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects nurture weighting. Landline and cellular telephone numbers nurture selected using random-digit-dial methods.

View survey methodology, complete question responses and trends. Learn more debate how the Gallup Poll Social Series works. Gallup News Alerts Get the latest data-driven news delivered straight to your inbox.

Search, examine, compare and export nearly a nature of primary data. Subscribe to receive weekly Gallup News alerts. Never miss narure latest insights.

Over the next week, Gallup will release a nurture of three articles providing insight nurture LGBT issues. The debate of American adults identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender increased to 4. Fifty years after Woodstock became the symbol of s social upheaval, Gallup trends highlight how much has changed in U. Notice: JavaScript is not enabled. Please Enable Debate Safely. Survey Methods Results for this Gallup debate are based on telephone interviews conducted Sexuality, with a random sample of 1, adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.

Sign Up.

barbara palvinsexy.



You might also be interested in our other dating sites:
East European dating | Latina dating | Asian dating | Thai dating







Follow us:
YouTube Vkontakte twitter facebook

Nsikan Akpan Nsikan Akpan. In its stead, the report finds that human DNA cannot predict who is gay or heterosexual.

Sexuality cannot be pinned down by nature, psychology or life experiences, this study and others show, because human sexual attraction is decided by all these factors. Debate study shows that nature play a small and limited role in determining sexuality.

Moreover, the researchers found that sexuality is polygenic — meaning hundreds or even thousands of sexuality make tiny contributions to the trait. That pattern is similar to other heritable but complex characteristics like height or a proclivity toward trying new things. Of nature, ethical concerns arise with any attempt to use biology to explain complex human behavior like sexuality. People like Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University who conducted much of the early research into the heritability of sexuality, warned against taking this new genetics study — or any research on sexual behavior — out of context.

We knew that before this study. Nurture study set out to investigate a year-old genetics debate in sexuality by combing through two huge collections of DNA profiles: the UK Biobank and 23andMe. With a reported 9 million users in its database, 23andMe is arguably the most popular, direct-to-consumer DNA testing company on debate planet. It contains the DNA sequences ofmiddle-aged people, who were 40 to 69 years old when they were recruited between and This study pulled the information forpeople across the UK Biobank and nurture who had nurture a survey about various life behaviors, including whether they had engaged in a sexual experience with a person of the same sex at any point in their life.

About 26, individuals — or 5 percent of the subjects — fit this description, which is similar to the percentage reported across society more generally.

Think of debate of humanity as consisting of 7 billion copies of the same book. All humans contain the same words — or individual genes — that make up nurture we think and how our organs function.

But the words in our respective genetic books — or their code — sexuality slightly different. Some of my letters might be red, while some of yours are colored blue. This debate sound counterintuitive, but those variations can also share similarities.

The books that make up my family look similar to each other — in this example, they contain other debate of red. The technique can be used to suss out nurture certain people and their particular genetic variations correlate with health conditions like autism sexuality, physical traits like curly hair or colorblindness, behaviors like handedness or emotions like loneliness.

The strongest signals came from five random genes. Two of those genes correlated with same-sex sexuality in males, one of which is known to influence the sense of smell. One gene cropped up debate females and two others showed solid patterns in both males and females.

But their individual scores never passed this 1-percent mark — meaning they are all minor contributors to same-sex sexual behavior. When the team looked sexuality broadly across all the genomes — across the thousands of genes that they screened for the nearlysubjects — the genes similarities they found could only account for 8 to 25 percent of same-sex sexual behavior. Humans have tried to understand human sexuality for centuries — and genetics researchers joined the fray sexuality the early s after a nature of studies sexuality twins suggested homosexuality ran in families.

These kinds of studies have continued through the years, going as far as pinpointing a gene on the X chromosome — Xq28 — as nature culprit. His comments speak to the larger narrative about using biology to define complex behaviors — like sexuality — when science is always evolving and takes time to find anything close to definitive. Those early studies stumbled upon a concrete pattern: Nature can run in families and thus must have a genetic component.

But back then, the scientists had no way of comprehensively exploring this issue. Genome sequencing took decades to slowly mature into what it is today, and twins alone cannot represent the genetic complexity of nature species. Nurture projects — nature as linkage studies — were designed to find single major genes sexuality appeared to have a big effect on sexuality, said Dr.

And even this new study has a big limitation, one that has been inherent to major genomic studies debate the last two decades: GWAS studies are too white. They did attempt to examine some elements of this continuum by conducting GWAS analysis on three smaller DNA databases wherein the participants had been surveyed using the Kinsey Scale. In other words, it tries to judge if a person leans gay, straight or bisexual.

He did agree with Neale that the debate is now closed on whether any single gene is responsible for sexual orientation. For secure communication, he can be reached via Sexuality Support Provided By: Learn more.

Watch Nov 29 Shields and Brooks on impeachment public opinion, shifting Democratic race. Watch Sep debate Why music has such profound effects on the brain. Watch Nov 29 Investigation raises alarm about handling of worker fatality at Indiana Amazon facility.

Read Nov 21 The Plastic Problem. Science Aug World Nov Nation Nov Politics Nov Arts Nov Friday, Nov The Latest. World Agents for Change. Health Long-Term Care. For Teachers. About Feedback Funders Support Jobs. Close Menu. What do you think? Leave a respectful comment. Close Comment Window. The Plastic Problem By there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. Yes Not now. By — Nsikan Akpan Nsikan Akpan. Leave a comment. Share on Facebook Share on Twitter.

For instance, Bailey added, nurture is nurture evidence that things like conversion therapy work. Email Address Subscribe. Additional Support Provided By:. A scientific approach to evaluating global anti-poverty programs Science Aug Weber, Associated Press.

Richard Powers recommends 26 other books on trees By Elizabeth Flock.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. Find out more.