Speaking from the standpoint of someone with advanced degrees in chemistry and biochemistry, I would like to say that we must tread carefully when doing studies to try and "prove" (something we don't do in science, we can only really disprove theories) that homosexuality is a genetic thing. While we can show that gay men respond differently than heterosexual men to phermones, or faces or any other number of stimuli, it doesn't support the notion that it is genetically linked. At most, it supports the hypothesis of Pavlov's Dog and Classical Conditioning. (you know the story how when a dog was fed a bell was rang, then after repeating this many times the dog will salivate at the sound of the bell even in the absence of food).

I think it makes sense that the results here are due to classical conditioning I like men and associate in my reward circuitry interaction with an attractive man. This isn't something that necessarily occurs from birth (they didn't test this) it is more likely that I associate attractive men with sexual pleasure, therefore, my brain responds.

After reading the entire journal article, rather than a journalist's interpretation, an important part of their statement was left out of the quote you have. The authors state

"Our findings suggest that sexual preference modulates face-evoked activation in the reward circuitry"[1]

This indicates classial conditioning response. Sexual orientation creates the response, not vice-versa. Therefore this paper really has no consequence in the arguement of homosexuality being a choice or not.

[1]Kranz F., Ishai A. Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Curr. Biol. (2006) 16:63-68.

01 17 06

Hey there: I found your blog via Fetching Jen's post. Here is a statement from the article you cited that points to my reluctance to accept the analysis:
"To test this hypothesis, the researchers used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), a non-invasive technique that permits the localization of regions in the human brain activated during cognition and experience. The researchers scanned 40 subjects (10 heterosexual women, 10 heterosexual men, 10 homosexual women, 10 homosexual men, mean age 26 ± 3 years) that were classified as hetero- or homosexuals on the basis of their self-report. While in the MR scanner, the subjects either passively viewed faces or pressed one of three buttons to indicate whether a face was Attractive, Neutral, or Unattractive, and reaction times were recorded."

Only forty subjects used in the whole study? And we are to apply such analysis to homosexuals worldwide from what forty people said? I think that is flawed methodology and arrogant of the researchers in the least. Now, there is merit to such research, but one of the BIGGEST issues I have with psych (particularly pysch analysis of gay issues) is that of methodologicaly.

Next, having done some NMR myself, I don't understand how the spin flipping of process of particles can read minds. In NMR there is a response among the fermions to an applied magnetic field and they flip their orientation. What I am trying to figure out is what the NMR is measuring in the subjects. I am not sure about all of that...
Another issue is that there aren't other reasons explored for the findings in the article. Still an interesting read.

01 17 06

David D's assessment makes sense.

You'll note that nowhere in my post did I make a claim that this study proves anything about being born gay or that this study's results are somehow transferable to all gays and lesbians the world over. In fact, I don't care whether gays are born that way or not, because it really makes no difference. In a free and democratic society, homosexuality should not be a determinant of whether or not you have the same rights or receive the same respect from your fellow man. I just thought it was interesting news, and passed it along. :)

Andy- I understand why you posted and am not attacking you. I am merely commenting on the article itself. The research is very interesting. But in a free and democratic society it would be more worth while to beable to prove homosexuality isn't a choice and that's why so many scientists would like to prove it's genetic. For if it truly "just a choice" there would be no reason to stop society from restricting "the choice" to be gay. We would have no ground to stand on in saying it truly is discrimination.

For were being gay a choice, then all the christo-bigots would be right in saying "doesn't this lead to choosing to marry a dog or many people?" (Mind you i think these people are nuts anyhow) We have many laws that abrogate the right to choose something, drugs, prostitution, polygamy, murder, theft. And society has no moral objection to those laws.

Mahndisa, I think that I have a coherent and scientific response to your inquiry into the principles of MR and how spin relates to psycho-physiological issues, however, I am not a neuroscientist, but I have friends who are. I will discuss and repost either here or on your site.

01 18 06

DavidD: I am looking forward to a response. I study nuts and bolts physics, but am also not a nueroscientist. In terms of using forty people in the study, I have issues with that. However using NMR as a tool to extract such information is intriguing and I would like to hear about it. Thanks.

01 18 06

Hello there: I read the article in entirety and can saw that the NMR measured "neural activation patterns" in the subjects. And it did so by measuring whether certain circuits were turned ON or OFF, now THAT is consistent with the spin flip paradigm of NMR and I think I understand a little more what they were measuring. Although these activation patterns are affected by personal experience and as DavidD pointed out, the Pavlovian trained circuitry responses. Intereting article.

Firstly, I suppose I'm one of the "Christo-bigots" you were referring to. Whether that's preferable to "homophobe" I haven't really decided. :) However, regarding your statement(s):

"For if it truly "just a choice" there would be no reason to stop society from restricting "the choice" to be gay. We would have no ground to stand on in saying it truly is discrimination.
For were being gay a choice, then all the christo-bigots would be right in saying "doesn't this lead to choosing to marry a dog or many people?" (Mind you i think these people are nuts anyhow) We have many laws that abrogate the right to choose something, drugs, prostitution, polygamy, murder, theft. And society has no moral objection to those laws."

What about people who are genetically disposed to be murderers? Or are genetically disposed to being thieves, or addicts? According to your argument, we should overturn the very laws you mention since their genetic predisposition is not a choice, correct? The point being, genetic predispostion doesn't make a bit of difference in your argument because it still doesn't affect whether or not something is right or wrong. You still choose to act or not act on that predisposition. It is because of this that the argument for a genetic cause means very little to me as it wouldn't change the fact that to act on one's homosexual tendencies, genetic or not, is wrong.

Mike- Thank you for your comment.

Whether or not homosexuality is genetic is irrelevant. Mike and I agree on something. I think I'm having an acid flashback.

However, it's not a crime, and it's not a danger to society. Killing someone and stealing from someone are a danger to society (although, in this country we sanction the death penalty and we did, you know, steal a lot of things from people to become America), but homosexuality is not even comparable to those things.

The only thing that homosexuality has done wrong, is to be written into Judeo-christiano-muslim mythology. Because, guess what y'all? Queer people have been revered in cultures that Judeo-christiano-muslim mythology calls savages. Check out some native american history or new zealand aboriginal culture for starters. There are many more, but so not even the point.

If anyone reading this site can explain why homosexuality is 'immoral' from a secular (for the dim, that means a non Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or other deity influenced viewpoint), please enlighten me and I'll send you a dollar.

You first....You tell me how you propose anything to be wrong without Jewish or Christian laws? It can't be done.

Well, the Greeks, the Chinese, Japanese, Romans, and many, many other societies functioned and continue to function without the benefit of the teachings of the bible, torah, or koran. The reason that societies create sanctions for bad behavior is to prevent behavior that harms other people: stealing, hitting, killing, lying, etc. You'll never agree that people can lead moral, happy, and well adjusted lives without the benefit of knowing your 'truth' so I'll just end my discussion there.

You'll never agree that people can lead moral, happy, and well adjusted lives without the benefit of knowing your 'truth' so I'll just end my discussion there.

Not necessarily true. Do I believe you are happy? Yes. Do I think you could be happier? Probably. I love the phrase, "your truth," don't you? The fact that all of these civilizations have the same basic laws implies there is "A" truth, does it not? Secondly, all of those Civilizations have, in fact, been impacted by the Bible. The Romans and Greeks, well, if you know your Bible then you understand that they are in there. The Apostle Paul spent his whole life ministering to Greeks and Romans. The Chinese were greatly impacted by a man whose biography I'm reading right now by the name of Hudson Taylor who started the China Inland Mission in the 1800's. The Japanese have been influenced for hundreds of years by Christian missionaries as well. All that aside, however, is that, as the Bible tells us, God has given mankind a law. He is the Lawgiver. He has written these laws upon our hearts. That is why a remote cannibalistic tribe knows they are doing "wrong" when practicing cannibalism or murder. It is why we know it is "wrong" to do violence or harm against another individual. I think my point is made without having to give several more examples. If these things are "wrong" they are wrong for a reason, and it is an objective one. When we desire to change an objective truth into a subjective one to suit our own wants or whims, regardless of what those wants or whims are, then THE truth is not served. It is exactly this kind of selfishness that the Bible condemns.

Your point has not been made. The Chinese had a civilization thousands of years before the first missionary visited (unsuccessfully) in the 5th century AD. My point is still relevent: there are many civilizations and cultures that were not influenced by judeo-christianitym in fact a huge chunk of the eastern world beleived in ancester worship and buddhism which don't involve the affirmation of a 'god'. And they weren't cannibals either.

And, yes, I do beleive there is a 'truth.' Hurting one human hurts us all. And I don't beleive that a 'god' is telling us that. That truth comes from nature and is wired in us to protect the species.

And speaking of hurting each other, the beliefs that christians have about homosexuality hurts other people.

I would recommend taking a history of civilizations or a comparative religions course at your local university or college. It will definitely help you to understand that christianity is not universal, and that many non-christian beliefs flourished before the first words in the bible were told around the fire.

I would recommend taking a history of civilizations or a comparative religions course at your local university or college. It will definitely help you to understand that christianity is not universal, and that many non-christian beliefs flourished before the first words in the bible were told around the fire.

Thanks for the recommendation. My point was, obviously, not that New Testament Christianity predates these civilizations, but that for a universal law to apply there had to be a lawgiver. The best explanation for who that lawgiver is, in my estimation, the God of the Bible. How does my belief that homosexuality is a sin hurt you any more than your belief that Christianity is bogus hurts me? You still haven't proven why your desires and wishes should prevail over someone else's simply because you choose to live your life a certain way.

"How does my belief that homosexuality is a sin hurt you any more than your belief that Christianity is bogus hurts me? You still haven't proven why your desires and wishes should prevail over someone else's simply because you choose to live your life a certain way."

Because you (by you I mean Christians, not you personally Mike) are trying to dictate my life for me by legislating my rights away (marriage, military service, adoption, etc), whereas I have no desire to make your faith illegal or restrict your ability to privately practice it, even though I disagree with it.

Also, you have no moral standing from my point of view to tell me that my sexuality is chosen. You don't, and unless you somehow become a gay man, you never will. If you can't even allow me to own my own life experiences, and instead impose your belief that somehow all my struggles to be a healthy and happy gay man were simply something I chose to go through, then I will not continue to debate you on my site. You may not know that, but it's extremely offensive to me.

Andy, I certainly am not trying to be offensive to you and I'm sorry if that's the case. My point about "choosing" is not so much that you chose to be gay (I think we've already covered that). But, just like me, you choose every day to live a certain way however that may be. That's all I meant.

Mike, you said:
"But, just like me, you choose every day to live a certain way however that may be"

I am okay with that, and I would even agree, however, what I rally against is legislating against those choices which affect only me. My being gay and choosing to marry my boyfriend, has no implications on your life. So stay out!!! That's what I think Andy is trying to say also. We don't legislated against adultery, divorce or marrying someone of a "heathen" religion, so why legislate against gay marriage?

Mahndisa-

Sorry I've been busy writing a Master's Thesis.

I talked to my cousin, Dr. Jim Pekar from the Kennedy Kreiger Institute and John's Hopkins University School of Medicine. Here is the essence of what I have learned from him.

Q1. When you do studied such as this, is a group of 40 participants a typical sample size, as it seems small and unreliable. If it is typical, under what auspices is it justified?

A1.N=40 (N being the number of trials) is actually fairly large for fmri studies probing (purportedly) homogeneous populations. See

Desmond JE, Glover GH. J Neurosci Methods. 2002 Aug 30;118(2):115-28. Estimating sample size in
functional MRI (fMRI) neuroimaging studies: statistical power analyses.

Q2. The second question pertains to the response in the brain being a genetic response or a conditioned response (i.e. Pavlov's dog). The paper claims that heterosexual men and homosexual women have higher response to the faces of attractively rated women, which heterosexual women
and homosexual men have higher response to the faces of attractively rated men. Is the reward circuitry in the brain dynamically conditioned or is it statically maintained from birth?

A2. It seems to me (David) that the neurological response would be trained by conditioning and thus the results of this study don't really have that big of an implication in the scientific world.

A2.(Dr Pekar) In general, functional neuroimaging results are in the "correlational hole," philosophically speaking. That is, imaging results ("brain activation") correlate with behavior. Period. We don't know (just from the imaging study) whether they CAUSE the behavior or RESULT from the behavior. It's even worse in disease, as we don't know whether correlation-with-disease is a RESULT of the disease or an ADAPTATION to the disease or a result of TREATMENT for the disease. The general solution to this problem is to appeal to a century's worth of neurology and neuroelectrophysiology when interpreting results.

In this specific case, yes you are right in that these results do not address the "nature vs. nurture" dichotomy. They are (again) correlational. Seen in this way, an additional concern about the paper in question arises: To what extent are the signals they're studying
properly to be considered as neural substrates of "face perception" vs. being merely neural correlates of face perception? This is not an
esoteric point; it is essential.

See Haxby, et al., Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science. 2001 Sep 28;293(5539):2425-30.

Hope this helps... feel free to email me if you have more questions, I think that this is a curiosly interesting dichotomy.

I am okay with that, and I would even agree, however, what I rally against is legislating against those choices which affect only me. My being gay and choosing to marry my boyfriend, has no implications on your life. So stay out!!! That's what I think Andy is trying to say also. We don't legislated against adultery, divorce or marrying someone of a "heathen" religion, so why legislate against gay marriage?

Let me state, adultery and divorce are wrong. Adultery laws did exist, in fact, up until a few years ago. Sadly they are not upheld any longer. I don't see any legislation against gay marriage. I see legislation FOR gay marriage and there are many, not just Christians, who stand against it. What I believe we are seeing start to happen is legislation to pre-empt legislation. It may be a small point, but gay marriage has not been accepted. It is taking legislation to make it so. I don't see why the government should be expected to sponsor something that has been wrong, not because of any psychosis or pathology, but because of morality, and has been labeled as such for centuries. I just don't get why you need the government to sanction your lifestyle choices (whatever they are) when it doesn't really matter to you what people think anyway. I have no problem with you living the way you want. I just don't see why your choices have to be pushed on a society of people who don't agree with you.