Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Koodauw, Jun 26, 2006.
An interesting read. Seeing as how sexuality us discussed here a lot, I thought I would share.
I have one younger brother, two sisters, one older, one younger.
This is an interesting article. I don't know though...it seeems a bit far-fetched to me even with evidence. Granted, I only know about 5 gay men, so what do I know?
I have 8 sisters.
I have an older brother, and a younger brother, and a much older half brother, and i'm as straight as straight can be...... It think this is bogus.
I'm quite happy at the moment so I don't have any bothers I do have a younger brother though.
Damn, you beat me to it.
Don't let it bother you.
The thread title is now fixed.
Brother=bother -- Freudian slip?
Hey! That's my alma mater! (mind you my stats classes never covered this stuff)
It's an interesting study, and I like how the conclusions have a 'grain-of-salt' approach... they clearly state that the results only refer to an increased possibility and not as an absolute reason... (unlike that Milk/Birthweight study a month or so ago).
What a weird article, I don't beleive it.
I have 2 brothers who are twins.
What, both of them?
your user name gives me nightmares
So if my younger brother is actually gayer than me, shouldn't someone tell his wife?
I'm too lazy to read the whole article. I read the first sentence. I have two older brothers. I'm not gay, I love pooty too much. However, I am comfortable with my effeminate qualities. My oldest brother is a homophobe. The next oldest is as liberal (or moderate) as I am.
So your oldest brother is in the closet? Interesting counter to the theory.
Yahoo has a long history of posting could've-been-just-a-coincidence type of pseudo-science articles . Last time it was something like "Brownies cause baldness, experts say". Basically some "scientists" interview a couple of brownie eating people and it turns out a good number of them are bald. Yay! we got a "clear" connection now, brownies = baldness !
No, being a homophobe means he's scared of gay people and feels threatened by them. Although recently he's been working with a known 'couple' in town who do wonderful work on a kids' with cancer camp. He seems to have become a little more compassionate about them...though that word is hardly in his vocabulary.
This is a discussion that ultimately will go nowhere and which can only end badly, methinks.
Let's posit for a moment that the researchers are correct, that a propensity toward being gay is a partially a result of changes in a mother's biochemistry following each gestational cycle she goes through. (Lotta big words there!) If this is true, it begs the question: So what? Even if said changes increase the likelihood of a male child being 'born gay' from 3% to 5%, that's still a tiny fraction (1-in-20) of all male children... and that's assuming that each mother has more than one male child.
Are they proposing to limit the number of male children that each woman can have, so as to limit the number of gay males? Or are they going to try to figure out exactly what combination of maternal biochemistry, genetics, and environment causes male children to become gay, so that they can either (1) learn to control womens' biochemistry and try to reduce the number of gay children or (2) try to INCREASE the number of gay children? Are we going to try to turn women into Tleilaxu-style birthing tanks, so that we can absolutely control how children turn out from a genetic and environmental standpoint?
I understand that scientists like to figure out how things work, but I gotta tell you that my gut reaction to this is that they've found a quirk of statistics (like how the "random" number 37 seems to come up a lot more frequently than it should) and they're trying to create a hypothesis that matches up to their data so that they can make it look like they've discovered some profound fact.
I'm not gay, myself, so I really can't speak to whether the "choice" to be gay is really a choice, or whether the biological/genetic component is merely a headstart in one direction or another which is then influenced by one's upbringing/environment. I will say that while genetics do play a profound role in establishing your starting point in this world, most of what follows is a result of environment and personal choices.
P.S.: If anything I've said offends you, please note that that was not my intention. I'm just trying to apply a bit of logic to the whole discussion, which, as I noted above, will likely end badly.
Eight. Seven older, one younger. And ... no ... (although one of my older brothers is). Four sisters.
I don't feel like reading the article...but I have three sisters and 0 brothers.
Are they all from the same parents?
I have one older brother, one younger one and a sister. I'm the gay one.
what a wierd article....
.......i have one older brother and im gay, but i dought that means anything i know tons of gay men who have no brothers or only older sisters or they are the oldest siblings so that just cant be. sexuality is born and not learned period.
I have 5 older brothers... having a bunch of older brothers would put totally AGAINST homosexuality... us guys are gross... and i think this study is bunk... there is no scientific value in it... just like saying that women with younger sisters are more likely to get struck by lightening... HA
That is exactly what the research is saying. It's saying that there is biological bias based on how many males the mother has borne before the male in question. I say, it makes sense because it supports the whole homosexuality as a population limiter theory. The more males, the more likely that the next one will be a non-breeder so not to over populate.
Figuring out whatever things with science is good, but this is iffy, because what if parents will be able to control the likelihood of homosexuality in their child. That would be a bit wrong.
None of the posters can refute this study based on personal experience alone. We're talking about a few percentage points- that's much too little to notice by looking at your own family.
It's not a matter of whether you like or dislike the conclusions. You have to do a well controlled scientific study to find out the answer.