Nature vs. Nurture – Gay the CLE

Contents:

• THERE IS NO ‘GAY GENE.’ THERE IS NO ‘STRAIGHT GENE.’ SEXUALY IS JT PLEX, STUDY NFIRMS
• CAN SOCIETY MAKE PEOPLE GAY?
• ON GAY NATURE VS. NURTURE
• DO THE 'NATURE VS NURTURE' DEBATE EXIST TO HELP THE GAY COMMUNY, OR BEG S DECLE?
• NATURE VS. NURTURE: BORN GAY
• SCIENTISTS FD DNA DIFFERENC BETWEEN GAY MEN AND THEIR STRAIGHT TW BROTHERS

THERE IS NO ‘GAY GENE.’ THERE IS NO ‘STRAIGHT GENE.’ SEXUALY IS JT PLEX, STUDY NFIRMS

-- Half of Amerins Gallup's 2018 Valu and Beliefs poll say that beg gay or lbian is a tra om birth, easily eclipsg the 30% who believe is a product of upbrgg and environment.

CAN SOCIETY MAKE PEOPLE GAY?

Another 10% say both explanatns play a role, while 4% attribute beg gay to somethg else and 6% are unsure. Adults (56%) said beg gay or lbian was due to people's upbrgg and environment, and only 13% saw as a birth tra.

Separately, Gallup recently reported that the percentage of Amerins intifyg as lbian, gay, bisexual or transgenr has creased a full pot sce 2012 and is now 4.

The perceptn that a person is born gay rather than beg the rult of upbrgg or other factors has creased among all mographic and polil groups. Nurture argument about the origs of sexual orientatn has been an tegral part of the gay rights bate over the years, and is clear why. Amerins who believe gays and lbians are born wh their sexual orientatn are much more supportive of gay rights than are those who say orientatn is due to upbrgg and environment.

ON GAY NATURE VS. NURTURE

The vast majory (88%) of those who thk beg gay or lbian is prent at birth believe same-sex marriag should be legal.

Notably, among the 10% sayg both factors ntribute to beg gay, a solid majory (67%) believe same-sex marriag should be regnized by the law as valid. Amerins have gradually moved toward the belief that beg gay or lbian is not "ed" by upbrgg and environmental factors, but rather is a tra a person is born wh. This uld have important implitns for public support for gay rights, as those who believe nature has a hand sexual orientatn are much more likely to be sympathetic to affordg gays equal rights marriage.

It's not clear if the two views merely go hand hand, or whether views on the explanatn for beg gay or lbian drive attus about gay rights. To the extent 's the latter, as Amerins creasgly adopt the "nature" explanatn for sexual orientatn, support for gay rights uld also grow.

DO THE 'NATURE VS NURTURE' DEBATE EXIST TO HELP THE GAY COMMUNY, OR BEG S DECLE?

And if male heterosexual orientatn is so difficult to alter after birth, there is no reason to doubt the same is te of male homosexual orientatn. At the time, the Amerin Psychologil Associatn still listed homosexualy as a disorr and psychologists and psychiatrists were traed on ways to treat . The first psychologil tt unrtaken to terme whether there was a blogil explanatn for homosexualy was 1957.

Wh a grant om the Natnal Instute of Mental Health, Karen Hooker studied the relatnship between homosexualy and psychologil velopment and illns. Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals—matched for age, telligence, and tn level. In 1973, based on Hooker’s fdgs, the Amerin Psychiatric Associatn removed homosexualy om s Diagnostic and Statistil Manual of Psychologil Disorrs and 1975, released a public statement that homosexualy was not a mental disorr.

There have been numero studi signed to terme whether or not homosexualy has a geic e. Michael Bailey, a profsor of psychology at Northwtern Universy, nducted the early 1990s that found that homosexualy is largely blogilly termed, not environmentally fluenced. Pillard and Bailey examed intil and aternal tw brothers—as well as nonrelated brothers who had been adopted— an effort to see if there was a geic explanatn for homosexualy.

NATURE VS. NURTURE: BORN GAY

They found that if one intil tw was gay, 52 percent of the time the other was also; the figure was 22 percent for aternal tws, and only 5 percent for nonrelated adopted brothers.

Your rearch suggts that there is often a faial pattern It seems to that beg gay ns fai much more equently than you would expect by chance alone. The objectn to homosexualy exclively om the nservative relig streak, who say, ‘Well, the Bible forbids , therefore we mt be guid by what the Bible says.

Lbians and gay men don’t do worse at their jobs, they are jt as good as iends and cizens. As more gay people are out and open about their orientatn, the general populatn realiz, ‘Well, they’re pretty much the same as everybody else. When I was my medil school trag the 1950s, the only plac you heard about gay people beg were prison or a mental hospal.

SCIENTISTS FD DNA DIFFERENC BETWEEN GAY MEN AND THEIR STRAIGHT TW BROTHERS

Then the late 1960s, when civil rights were beg granted to people of lor and to women and fally to gays, was realized that they’re like everybody else. Even so, there are people who thk that gays shouldn’t be teachers or who are agast gay marriage.

The most powerful weapon the homosexual special rights arsenal is the victim stat. ” If scientists n show that homosexualy is a geic tra, then homosexuals may have a legimate claim to beg protected as a mory class unr feral and state civil rights laws. Whatever the oute of scientific studi, the most important pot that we n make is that the qutn over the geic nature of homosexualy is pletely irrelevant to the bate.

Even if homosexuals are “born that way, ” this is absolutely no exce to give to their sir and endanger themselv and others. Fally, if “homophobia” is proven to have a geic ponent, will homosexual activists regnize and embrace their mands?