1. Two pieces of evidence, a structure within the human brain and a genetic link, point to a biological component for male homosexuality, what does LeVay and Hamer authors from the article, refer to?
2. What strengths and weaknesses do you see in the research or research method?
3. Many scientists argue that viewing homosexuality as deviant behavior is based on faith, but not on science. In 1974, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, a position it has since reaffirmed. Further, the APA rejects the practice of "reparative therapy" because if defines homosexual desire as natural, not deviant. "Deviant" is a relative term that depends on our perception of what is "normal." Who defines what is "normal" in our culture? How do you define normal sexual activity? Does your own definition of "normal" match those of your family, peer group, community, or culture? Where did those beliefs come from (what are the sources)?
4. What are the implications of concluding that being gay is a choice?
5. What are the implications of concluding that being gay is biologically determined?
OPTIONAL:6. Has this assignment changed your perspective on this topic--if you are comfortable doing so can you discuss in what ways?
163 comments:
1) They say that there are pieces in the brain in which are bigger in a "straight" man's brain than a "gay" man's brain.
2) They didn't really do much research on a gay man that hadn't died from AIDS, they only did it on 1. They also didn't ask if any drugs, alcohol, or tobacco had been taken at the time of the developement of the child. They didn't know if there had been any brain damage during the life time.
3) Everyone has a different definition of normal. I guess that the media and people who are "famous" define what is "normal". I believe that if a person loves a person, then it's love and that's all that matters. I don't think that love should be restricted just because people are intimidated by it, or think that it's different. Everyone is different and everyone has there quirks, if someone loves a person of the same sex then so be it. I would probably have to say my definition of "normal" is quite different than that of my family or peers. My view on normal changed when I became friends with lots of the drama people and fine arts/art students at my old school. It got me thinking that I'm ok with whatever people want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt me I'm fine with it. And loving a person of the same sex is fine with me.
4) Implications that it is a choice are as follows: If a person were to have a homosexual friend. they would be more inclined to want to experience that. Meaning that the person might see their friends love interests as their own (the sex of them anyways). If a person were to live in a society in which homosexuality was shunned, they are more likely to not want to show their sexual orientation if they are gay. Also the vice versa of that, they might be more inclined to go that route if all their friends are "doing it".
5) Implications that it is biological are as follows: The parts in the brain that are smaller than that of a "straight" person. Also that it follows in families. According to Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hammer, 57% of identical twins, 24% fraternal twins and 13% brothers of gay men are likely to be gay. So it probably has something to do with something in the family.
6) It kind of has changed my view on it. I had a sneaking suspicion that it had something to do with genetics, and I always had an idea that it had something to do with the way that society shapes the person. I guess I've grown a little more towards the idea of genetics having some input in the shaping of sexual orientation.
Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, authors of "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality", explore evidence for a biological link to male homosexuality. There were two pieces of evidence that pointed to this. One was found when Gorski and his colleagues at U.C.L.A found a dimorphic structure in the human brain called the INAH3. This is found in the hypothalamus. After much research, they noted that this region is three times larger in men than in women. Later after more research and autopsies were conducted, INAH3 was also found to be two to three times larger in straight men than in gay men. That was the structural evidence within the human brain. The other piece of biological evidence that was found was a genetic link. The trait showed up in twins and siblings. For men, it showed that fifty-seven percent of identical twins, twenty-four percent of fraternal twins, and thirteen percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. In women, it was a bit similar except that fifty percent of identical twins, sixteen percent of fraternal twins, and thirteen percent of sisters of lesbians are also lesbian. They said that a brother of a gay man had a fourteen percent chance of being gay and a brother of a man who is not gay has a two percent chance. The trait also showed up in maternal uncles-- saying they had a seven percent chance of being gay, and sons of maternal aunts had an eight percent chance.
I noticed when I was reading that when LeVay examined the hypothalamuses, he only studied nineteen of homosexual men who died from AIDS, and sixteen heterosexual men who also died from AIDS. I think this was a bit of a weakness in the research, because I think those are two small of numbers to make such a big conclusion upon. The small number of women (six) that he studied didn't even have a known sexual preference. The women possibly didn't even die of AIDS. Such small and uneven numbers could possibly throw off the results. Another possible weakness in looking into the genetic trait of gay men, was that Hamer and his colleagues initially surveyed men. Surveys are not always to be trusted. They don't say how big of a sample they surveyed, and no one knows what they're basing their "percents" off of. Different people could also have different definitions of homosexuality, also possibly throwing off the survey itself. A very big strength in this research, however, was getting to the core evidence. They studied actual brains of humans (and animals): those of homosexuals and heterosexuals to compare. This limits some bias to the experiment, as people can't make general assumptions.
I believe "normal" will never fully be defined. There are so many factors and opinions that make up the definition of "normal". I believe that religion plays a big role. I believe that if people follow a certain religion, generally, things they learned to follow is what is considered normal to them. If, for example, people grow up to learn that marriage is to be between a man and a woman, that will become what is normal to them. This is not always true. Each and every person has a choice to decide what is and isn't normal to them. Society is the basis of it all. Children grow up in society and are expected to believe certain things. Society pushes beliefs onto people. I strongly believe normality is only a personal belief, and these beliefs generally come from society, expectations, religion, or the things we've learned through life. To me, sexuality between a man and a women is what is normal. My family mostly believes the same, but many of my friends think differently. I think my definition of normal sexual activity matches our culture's. What I mean is if the culture as a whole viewed homosexuality as "normal", we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I do not mean this in a disrespectful way. We have many debates going on in society right now such as gay marriage, because everyone deserves the right to feel "normal". My beliefs came from growing up into Christianity , and as I said before, everyone is entitled to an opinion on what they believe is "normal".
It has been said that being gay is a choice. By this, I believe they're saying that they chose to be that way. They had a choice whether or not to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. But there are implications to this. I do not believe it can be concluded that being gay is a complete choice because then people who are straight chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. To me, this doesn't make sense because attraction can be automatic... biological. Humans do have instinct. Maybe some are born to automatically be attracted to the same sex, and some the opposite. Perhaps people have been so strongly influenced by society and wanted to feel "normal", so they forced heterosexuality upon themselves. But then again, to say that being gay is biologically determined also has implications. Some families may not have had any homosexuals in the family and gave birth to someone who has become homosexual. Did they choose to be that way? Or were they born with a different structured brain? Perhaps it's a combination of both? Let's say in a couple centuries, homosexuality outnumbers heterosexuality. Would that make heterosexuality abnormal and homosexuality normal just because it's more common? Many questions can be asked with this topic, but I think conclusions cannot be made, as they would only be assumptions at this point. The sole issue of sexuality as a whole is the belief of what is "normal". And I believe that because of the diversity in the world, this will remain a touchy subject for years to come.
Ryan McEachern:
In the article Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality the authors LeVay and Hamer talk about how male homosexuality is not based upon choice. They have found that homosexuality among men is also based on some biological and genetic characteristics. For instance, in homosexual men it has been found that in the Hypothalamus of the brain there is a cell group called INAH3 that differs in size between men and women but also straight and homosexual men. On the genetic side of things they found that if one sibling is homosexual there is a much higher chance of another sibling being homosexual as well.
Initially men and women contain the same amount of neurons in the cell group INAH3 but this changes around the time of birth. When males are born there is a surge of testosterone that stabilizes the neurons within this cell group. In females there is not this surge which allows many of the neurons to die. Because of this the cell group shrinks which has been found to be the same throughout their life. In addition to this LeVay and Hamer also found that the cell group of INAH3 in homosexual males is much smaller than that of straight males and is about the size of a female’s. On finding this unusual statistic they began to ponder why this happened, and even when this happened.
After much research they came up with three logical possibilities. The first of these possibilities was that the differences in size between homosexual and straight men was present early in life and even possibly before birth. The second possibility is that the differences occurred during adult life as a result of the man’s sexual feelings or behavior. The third prospect was that there really is no connection between the size of INAH3 and sexual preference but there is an unknown third variable that is causing this to happen. Through continued animal research they found that the second possibility was unlikely but there is always the likelihood that statistics could change when tested on humans. Although they have seemed to narrow it down to two characteristics, as of now they have not determined which would be the most plausible.
Another connection between the biology of the human body and homosexuality was in genetics. Through research LeVay and Hamer found that siblings of homosexual people were more likely to homosexual themselves. This was found to be especially prevalent in identical twins. In fact it was found that about fifty-seven percent of male identical twins were both homosexual. In women approximately fifty percent of identical twins were found to both be homosexual. It was also found that thirteen percent of siblings of homosexual people were also homosexual for both females and males. When looking at their research LeVay and Hamer found that this connection between siblings and homosexuality were mostly prevalent in only same sex siblings. Although the increase in chance of being homosexual based on genetics is small it is important to keep in mind that this is still a factor.
When looking at the research of LeVay and Hamer I found them to be fairly credible but there were some instances in which they could have done a better job. For instance in both the biological and genetic experiments their sample sizes seemed to be lacking. They did not have enough people to fully represent the general population. Also much of their research has been derived from experiments on animals. Although animals have been used in many other experiments there is always an unknown of how something acts between humans and other species. On the positive side most of their research was conducted in a laboratory which limited many intervening variables creating more credible research. Overall I thought LeVay and Hamer did an excellent job on their research based on what was possible to achieve.
Throughout the years there have been many disagreements between people about homosexuality. People have been torn over the topic of whether homosexual behavior is deviant or not. The basis of this comes from what people believe is normal. Normal has proved to be a very difficult word to define because people have different views. In my opinion there is no true definition of normal but it is solely defined by one’s beliefs.
I believe that homosexual behavior is not deviant because in the view of the person being judged they are normal. People should not be able to decide what normal is for other people. Although people should not judge others out culture has become more accepting of this tragic act. It seems that a majority of people do not believe homosexual behavior is normal which causes the discrimination to spread. Although there is no true normal, because of agreement between people’s views of homosexual behavior one view is becoming more accepted.
Many of the beliefs of people on homosexuality have risen from religion. People are putting their trust into a religion and using its views on this controversial issue instead of creating their own. When this happens many variables are discounted for and an educated decision cannot be made. To make a decision on how homosexual behavior should be treated everything needs to be taken into account. For instance, by discriminating against homosexuals people are denying ordinary citizens their natural rights of being treated fairly based only on their sexual preference. Also by being against homosexuals people are forgetting how it feels to be someone that is discriminated against. Regardless of their sexual preference people need to be treated fairly.
Although I believe that homosexual behavior should be accepted many of my peers have disagreed with me. I feel that they are basing their decision on their religion and not based upon what they truly believe. In my opinion, people that are in disagreement with me should be more open and discuss the issues that are derived from denying fair treatment of homosexuals. In my experience, I have found that accepting other’s thoughts and combining them with my own creates a much better solution. From doing this I have came about my beliefs of treating homosexuals equally.
When looking at the implications of viewing homosexuality as a choice people’s beliefs change. I have found that people believe that it is their choice if they are homosexual or not and they should deal with the consequences. In my opinion, people should not be punished for choosing to be homosexual. Even if it is their choice, people should be free to pursue what they want and if that includes homosexuality than there should be nothing wrong with that.
If we switch it around and conclude that homosexuality is biological I believe people will be more accepting. Although I believe the views of people should be the same regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice or not, there will be more people that accept people’s sexual preference if it is biological. If homosexuality is proven to be biological it will bring about the issue of people not being able to decide their sexual preference. If this happens it will be similar to race and people’s views may change. In the United States there was a trying time where African Americans were discriminated against. Since that time a lot has changed and people are more accepting of other races because people cannot change what ethnicity they are born into. If the same happens with homosexuality our society may be able to overcome their sexual differences and come to a peaceful conclusion.
When writing this blog I feel that my opinion on homosexual behavior has not been changed but it has been reinforced. As I read the tragic story of Billy Jack’s Life and Death I was appalled by what people have done to people just because of their sexual preference. When looking at the article of Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality I was intrigued by the fact that male homosexuality could be biological. I feel that if this hypothesis is proved that many more people will accept homosexual people. Although this did not change my views on homosexuality I enjoyed researching this topic.
In conclusion, people need to accept people for who they are and not their sexual preference. Although religion plays a factor upon the acceptance of homosexual behavior, we need to examine other variables. Discriminating against homosexuals is a violation of human rights and needs to be stopped. If we take into account of what life is like for a homosexual I believe that we can solve this controversy once and for all.
1. That there is a part in the brain that, when in straight men, is larger than that in gay men. This area is called the INAH3 area.
2. For the most part, I think that the research had a good strength behind it. But I also saw some weeknesses. When I was reading the number of subjects that he used, I was merely confused. It seemed to me to be such a small group, in every group that they tested. Also, another flaw that I saw was they mostly used just gay men who had AIDS, none that were AIDS free. This would also refer to all the other types of subject that were used. With the heterosexual men that were used in the experiment, were not a consistent number. There was sixteen all together, but then there were the six that had died from compilcations of AIDS. Another thing that I did see was that they didn't use a good amount of women in the experiment. Even if they didn't have a HUGE impact on the experiment, trying to get an equal and good amount of each would have been ideal to make the experiment better. And also since they didn't know the orientation of the women, that also made the experiment not as valuble because they once again, did not give that large of an impact. Although some parts of it were flawed, I do think that the method they used was a good choice. Really digging deep and going to the brain shows right in front of our eyes what may be the cause of homosexuality. That was one of the cool things that I felt was in this experiment.
3. Sadly, I don't think that we all determine what our own state of normalcy is. We may be able to, but only in a small way. To me, I feel that our society has a large impact on how normal is to be defined. We all see it throughout our lives, through different people in the world. Also, media can play a big part in making the definition of normal for us. In most TV shows and movies, it just shows a man and a woman falling in love. But never the man and man or the woman and woman. I think that can also play a huge part. And mostly, our own families will be the ones that tell us what they think is normal from the time we are very young. I really have had a hard time to stick to what I feel is normal sexual activity, mostly because of what others may think of me. But at this point in my life, I see normal sexual activity as two people, no matter what gender, loving and caring for each other. It is quite a vague definition, but that is what I believe. I do think that my mom and I have similar outlooks on homosexuality, as maybe some of my friends too. But I have found that it is something that we usually don't talk about because it can turn into a contraversal subject. I feel that my beliefs come from what I was taught growing up, to not judge anyone until I know who they are. I think that is a strong line to live by, at least for me. But in honesty, we know not all of our society believes in homosexuality and that there is a large number that does not care for it at all.
4. I think that it can be concluded in a few ways that being gay is a choice, although I feel that it is more than just a choice. I think that one thing can be someone saying "well, I don't like men any more, so I'm going to like women." That is just one thing that comes to mind as being gay as a choice.
5. With biological implications, I think of family and also the biology of the human. I believe that they are both interconnected in some way. I feel that we are all born to know who we want to be with in life, no matter what sex that person maybe. Love will be love no matter who is involved. I also feel that it will come through from your parents, but not always. But in some way, a different gene could come forth when a person is born, making the hypothalamus a different size.
6. So far in this discussion, my perspective has not changed of what I think of homosexuality. I'm sure as the discussion grows larger, I'll continually be able to come back and answer this question.
1.)In their research, LeVay and Hammer, authors of Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality, found that a certain part of the hypothalamus, called the medial preoptic area, is what derives males to be attracted to females. They tested this on male monkeys and found that male monkeys that had a damaged medial preoptic area, didn’t want to have sex with female monkeys. But when they stimulated the medial preoptic area of the same monkey, the monkey approached and mounted a female monkey. When LeVay and Hammer examined a human brain, they found that the medial preoptic area was more than twice as large in men than in women. They also found that that area is two to three times bigger in straight men than gay men. LeVay and Hammer also seem to think that there is a genetic link between families and homosexuality. They did a study on twins and found that people who have a gay sibling are more likely to be gay than someone who doesn’t have a gay sibling.
2.)One of the weaknesses of this study is, in my opinion, is that researchers found no connection between having a small medial optic area and being gay. They just found a common pattern, but there was no evidence to prove that those to things have a correlation. I thought that one of the strengths in this study was that the researches experimented and tested their theory on multiple things. For example, they looked at and study the brain and behavior of monkeys and rats. And they also examined a human brain.
3.)In my opinion, popular trends and behavior is what defines what is “normal” in our culture. I think this because younger people tend to mimic what they see. They do this because, in my opinion, no one really wants to be different, because people associate being different with being weird. Therefore, behavior that is practiced all the time is seen as what is normal.
I define normal sexual activity by what I have been exposed to the most; which is heterosexual relationships. As I was growing up, I always learned that there is one mom and one dad, not two moms or two dads. But that does not at all mean that I am against homosexuality, because I am not. Because homosexual relationships are becoming more public and advertised, I have developed an open mind and I think that as long as you love someone, it doesn’t matter what sex they are.
I believe that my personal definition of “normal” matches my brothers’ and sister’s because we all grew up together and were taught the same values. I do also think that my definition of normal sexual activity matches my parents, but they do not believe in homosexual relationships. In my opinion, they think this because of the generation they grew up in, where homosexuality was not considered normal in any way. I think that my group of friends has a somewhat similar definition of normal as I do. That is partly why we are friends, because we share some of the same beliefs. Now, as far as my peer group goes, (kids my age), their definition and outlook on normal sexual activity might be different than mine. In my experience, I’ve noticed that some boys my age are against homosexuality and feel very strongly about it. That does not mean in any way that I think that all teenage boys think that, because they don’t. I cannot really speculate on the definition of normal sexual behavior of my community, because I simply don’t know. It’s my guess that some people agree with me and some don’t. In my opinion, our culture is starting to open up to the idea of homosexuality, but it isn’t totally there yet. I think that the beliefs of my community and culture are shaped by what we see and what is most common. For example, people see heterosexual relationships displayed all the time, like on TV shows or at public places like the mall, so of course people are going to think that is what’s normal. However, more and more homosexual relationships are being displayed, so people are trying to get use to that, and accept it as normal.
4.)To me, when people say that being gay is a choice, it’s the same thing as saying that being heterosexual is a choice. In my opinion, that isn’t true. If you were to talk to a straight person and say “Yea so you chose to straight right?” they would mostly be confused and say no. I think that being gay or straight is not a choice, it just happens. Certain people are attracted to certain other people. That’s just the way it is. So the implications of saying that being gay is a choice, basically means that you’re that everyone, including straight people, has total control over who they are attracted to.
5.)In my opinion when people say that being gay is biologically determined, they are saying that there is a certain part of the brain that makes someone gay. The implications of them saying that is they are assuming that some people lack that part of the brain. There is no medical or scientific evidence that points to that at all.
In Response to Faith:
I totally agree with your definition of normal. It shouldn't matter who a person loves, as long as love is present. I also think it's unfortunate that what is popular defines what is normal,because in my opinion, no one should be able to tell another person what is normal and what is strange. I was also wondering how exactly your definition of normal changed when you became friends with the drama people?
LYDIA MCMILLAN::
The cell group named INAH3 in the medial preoptic area, which is located in the hypothalamus, was more than twice as large in men than in women, as noticed by LeVay. It was also found that INAH3 was two to three times larger in straight men than in gay men. This is a structural difference between brains that is related to male sexual orientation. Another piece of evidence is genetic, it is apparent in siblings/family members. In the case of male twins, 57% of identical, and 24% of fraternal twins are gay. Along with that, 13% of men who have a gay brother are also gay, compared to the 2% likelihood of a gay man with a striaght brother. For women, approximately 50% of identical twins, and 16% of fraternal twins are lesbian. Again with 13% of sisters of lesbians are too a lesbian. Furthermore, in more distant relatives, maternal uncles had a 7%chance of being gay, whereas maternal aunts had an 8% In an interesting study is was found that fathers, paternal uncles, and three other types of cousins showed no correlation whatsoever.
I think the only major fault with the research was the fact that there weren’t an adequate amount of subjects to represent the population as a whole. He studied only 35 men, with 16 of them heterosexual and 19 homosexual, along with 6 women; this isn’t a large enough group. Also the sexual orientation of the heterosexual men was unknown because they were already deceased, they just assumed and said that no more than one or two were likely to have been gay. Along with that the orientation of the six women was unknown; this could have swayed the results. But with that aside I think they did a wonderful job, they actually worked with human brains, not just animals which can’t be one-hundred percent reliable.
There are so many possible definitions of “normal” it is hard to find a catch-all definition, this has caused many problems and disputes. “Normal” is defined different by every person, their views and how they view society. Religion and environment play a huge role in the difficult defining process. If you grow up around the central belief marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman and that is all, you are going to be less likely to include same sex marriage in your definition. If you are around people who are in a same sex marriage and you see them happy and content, you have no reason to think it isn’t normal. But as society changes our views will follow. Now we begin to see in TV shows same sex relationships, we hear songs about kissing the same sex. I think it is just a matter of time before our views change, sure there will be people that stick to their religion and beliefs and that is great, I have nothing against that. I personally think that that marriage has nothing to do with your gender. Marriage is about loving someone and commiting to them for the rest of your life regardless of what others think, and your sex. If you truly love someone I think others should respect that, and wish you the best. My definition matches that of my family, and most of my peers. If people disagree it is usually for reasons affirmed by their religion which I respect. Society and our community on the other hand may be a different story. I think some would like America to stay like it is seen in pictures: white picket fence, a nice house with kids playing outside, a husband reading the paper in his favorite chair after a hard day of work and the wife making dinner. A noble depiction, but times are changing, and with that comes controversy.
With saying gay is a choice, there comes implications. If you say being gay is a choice, than you make the argument that being straight is a choice. Who you are attracted to sexually may be a choice, but not physically. You can’t chose to love someone with brown hair, just as you can’t chose to love someone with green eyes, but you may choose between genders. But then again, there are implications with concluding being gay is biological. If you are gay, sadly, you may be more accepted by society knowing that this was not your choice, you are just lacking part of you brain. But then you start asking question within the family like, was this my fault? Do I have this too? It is unproven which of these are actually correct but I think regardless we should respect the choice of sexual preference.
Personally I used to think that it was weird to see boys holding hands in public and watching boys kiss other boys /girls kiss other girls on TV and in public. But after reading all the comments, hearing about Billy Jack, and reading the articles and info on the internet I realized who was I to judge? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it should be the same for sexual preference. I have no reason to put myself above them based on my own beliefs and preferences. Also when I thought of a gay man, the first thing that came to my mind was a shopping partner. I always thought that they were just girls in man form: they loved to shop and gossip. I now know I was completely wrong. They are the same as me, just with a different definition of “normal”.
LYDIA MCMILLAN::
IN RESPONSE TO JADE'S ORIGINAL COMMENT::
About your comment how in a couple of centuries if homosexuals outnumbered the heterosexuals...i know it was theoretical... but i have a question for you.
In your opinion do you think society would let it get that far? Or do you think that because of everyone's different religions and beliefs it would never happen??
MORGAN RENO:
1) LeVay and Hamer believe that a person's sexuality is determined by biological factors and genetics. First of all, they refer to the small group of cells located on the hypothalamus. They say that this part of the brain (NAH3) is two to three times larger in a gay man than it is in a heterosexual man. This was concluded after a study on monkeys showed that male monkeys with a damaged medial preoptic area did not want to mate with female monkeys. LeVay and Hamer also believe that sexual orientation is partially determined by genetics. This conclusion was made after doing a study on twins to find out the percent of chance a sibling has of being gay if their brother or sister is gay. They found that you had a higher chance of being gay if one of your siblings were.
2) Overall, I think that LeVay and Hamer did a good job at conducting these experiments, but some things could have used adjusting. For example, when I read that they only used 19 homosexual men and 16 heterosexual men, along with 6 women, I was very surprised. Having less than 50 subjects represent the entire world population didn't seem to make too much sense. Even though the results continued to be consistent from subject to subject, they still should have used a larger sample. I also was concerned with the fact that only gay men with AIDS were studied while only some of the heterosexual men and women had AIDS. Though they later proved that AIDS having an effect on the results was unlikely, it is a variable that is too questionable to ignore. Therefore, they should have expanded to subjects that died of various reasons. A strength that I saw was the fact that it was all done in the lab, which means the findings were very accurate. I also noticed that some of the subjects were tested blindly. That in itself greatly lessened the chance of any bias. Finally, the researcher took other variables and possibilities into consideration that may change the final conclusions. This shows that they were well informed and particular about this study. In conclusion, I think that the strengths of this research far outrank the weaknesses and that it is therefore a valuable and viable study.
3) In our culture today, normal is defined by the rich and famous. It is defined by what the TV says and by what the media declares. It is ultimately defined by those we look up to and admire. Whether it be a superstar, our parents, religion or friends, these are the people who we will believe. In my opinion, there is no normal. Everyone is different and everyone is unique. Being normal is just another way that people today can categorize, stereotype, and segregate against others who are not like them, and that isn't right. To me, "normal" sexual activity is between a man and a woman. That's how I was taught growing up and that's what I believe, but I have no objection to homosexuality either. I was lucky enough to grow up learning that homosexual behavior is ok too and that people should be who they feel they are. The rest of my family on the other hand is not quite as understanding as I am of homosexuality, yet my peers share my views. I also think that our culture as a whole is becoming much more accepting of homosexuality than they used to be, as well as some religions. As a whole, I think that one's view on homosexuality is greatly learned through how society portrays it. Growing up learning that it is ok or not will greatly influence that person’s future opinion. Friends and family are also large factors in how children learn about homosexuality.
4) Saying that it is your choice to like the sex that you do implies that people can change their sexuality whenever they want and that there is nothing instinctive about it. In my opinion, this doesn't really make sense. At the time when being homosexual was basically a sin, when they were harassed and bullied by society for being gay and were treated unequally, why would somebody choose to be gay? Why would someone choose to live a life where they were perceived as an outcast and different? This only shows that people can't control who they will fall in love with or be attracted to. It just is how it is. There is no choice in the matter.
5) Saying that a person is gay because of biological reasons implies that they have no choice in the matter and that they like who they like because of how that biological part of them ended up. This may be misinterpreted negatively by some people. Some may think that having a different sized INAH3 means that they are a fluke or mistake, or even that they are inferior to the rest. While this is not true, society has a tendency to point out the differences and distort their meanings. Yet, proving biological connections could lead to a better understanding and acceptance of homosexuality because it is not a choice for them. This would definitely change how the world treats homosexuals for the better.
6) In the end, my views on homosexuality have not changed, but I do feel that I am better informed on the subject. Maybe after reading all these blogs I will gain some new insight.
1) Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer, while studying the human brain, came to find that in the period of time just before and just after birth, while the brain received messages to shape certain parts, certain hormones send instructions to parts of the brain that control sexuality. When androgen, the male sex hormone, is sent to these parts, the INAH3 grows. What LeVay and Hamer found was that women, who receive less androgen, have an INAH3 twice as small as most males. Also, they found that homosexual men have an INAH3 twice or three times smaller than straight males. Suggesting, that although everything else in the man’s body is that of a male, it’s INAH3 is that of a female, thus the attraction to men. These findings suggest that at some point, long before we have the ability to make decisions for ourselves, our body has already pre-determined our sexuality simply based on the release of hormones throughout our earliest days.
2) The research done by LeVay and Hamer was overall quite well done, but I’m not convinced that they were able to research enough subjects to base such controversial results. Their research was only done on nineteen homosexuals, and done on only sixteen straight men. Fortunately, all of these men died from the same cause (AIDS). This provides some basis of similarity. Further more, only six women, whose cause of death and sexual orientation was unknown, were studied. Personally, I think only six persons is not enough to represent an entire population. I also found it difficult to find how reputable their surveys were, and how many people were surveyed.
3) Normality has been defined by Webster as the conforming to an accepted standard. This, to me, sounds like what we base most of our judgments off of in America; the majority. Normal pertains to the overall, general way of life. As a culture, we have come to believe that what is “normal” is what’s right, and because a majority of us are not homosexual, we feel that those who are are not normal. It seems that this word (normal) is too difficult to truly define in any specifics, because normal changes daily. Even though smoking weed was normal for the youth of America in the 70’s because the a majority of the population did, it is no longer normal to get high. People base their views of normality on others views on normality, and in a way nobody knows what normal is because it is a web of all opinions rolled into one general idea. Because we as a population find the majority to be ‘normal,’ those who choose not to conform are thought to be deviant. Due to this, because homosexuality is not a majority feeling, it to was thought to be an act of deviancy, a conscious act against the mainstream. Now research is showing it is not a conscious choice, but rather a malfunction in the body during development.
4) Certain people have been known to be unsure of their sexuality, and because the size of the INAH3 may be in between 100% straight and 100% gay, they must choose which sexual orientation they are more comfortable with. This supports the idea that sexuality can be a choice.
5) Certain INAH3’s are the exact opposite, where they have clearly developed into a straight or homosexual preference. If a homosexual male does have an INAH3 that is three times smaller than that of a straight male, it is said that he could not make any decision not to be gay because his mind is so set on it. Homosexuality, according to LeVay and Hamer, the biological development of the INAH3 is the source of our sexuality, and we do not have any say in it at all.
6) I had always thought that homosexuality was a complete lifestyle choice, but I couldn’t understand how a man being with another man sexually could fulfill desires. After reading all of the information given I have come to find that it may not be a choice after all. I have always had a negative stereotype linked with homosexual males, but after finding that their orientation does not play a major role in any other ways of thinking, I do no know how I could have thought that way. It was great to be informed from a different fresh perspective.
In Response to Morgan Reno:
I TOTALLY aggree with what you said about why would people choose to be gay when homosexuals are constantly ridiculed for it. That's why I cannot understand why there are so many people against homosexuality. Obviously its something they cannot help. Your comment also makes me think about all of the homosexuals who never go public about thier sexual prefernece because of all the pain that they will face. This makes me really sad to think that some people go through thier life without the person they love just because of what other people think.
In response to Mike Swartz:
I would jsut like to say that I was really impressed about what you said about your opinion totally being changed by what you read. I think its really mature that you can admit that you had a negative sterotype about gay men, and now that you have more information on the topic, you understand. I wish more people would just educate them on the topic, because if they did, there would be a lot less hate in the world.
MORGAN RENO in response to.....
LYDIA
I completely agree with what you had to say about how it's just a matter of time before society's view on homosexuality changes. We can see it everywhere today that the times really have changed along with the views. Your examples of this were great. I believe that our generation is much more comfortable with the idea of being gay than our parent's or grandparent's generation because of the what society's standpoint was at that time. It's amazing to me that we get to grow up in the generation that's changing so many things for the better. We're very lucky in my opinion.
RYAN
I thought it was really interesting that you compared the discrimmination against homosexuals today to that of the African Americans in the past. I too agree that America as a whole has come a very long way in becomming accepting and fair to African Americans and that even now we are headed on the same path concerning homosexuality. I also agree that if being gay is found to be biological, the entire society will become much more accepting. However, even today African Americans continue to be treated differently. Do you think homosexuality will ever reach the point of being completely normal?
TABITHA'S COMMENT ON MINE
First off, thanks for understanding my point on it not being a choice. i wasn't sure if it made sense. I also agree with your statement about how it's sad that people who are gay will sometimes hide that fact about them, and therefore will never find the one they love and be truely happy
LYDIA MCMILLAN::
IN RESPONCE TO MICHAEL SWARTZ....
Michael i totally agree with your comment about how "normal" changes daily. What is normal today may not be tomorrow and that is why it is such a hard word to define.
TIM GROVER:
In the article, “Evidence for Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality” by Simon Levay, and Dean Hamer, and the articles on the pbs.org website, the main point of contention is whether or not homosexuality is biological. LeVay and Hamer have studied and completed research on the brain structure of heterosexual males, homosexual males, and women. They found, when examining the hypothalamus (the area controlling instinctual and sexual behavior), that the cell INAH3 was twice as large in males as it was in females. Furthermore, INAH3 was two to three times larger in heterosexual males than in homosexual males. What were their conclusions about these findings? They found three possible correlations between sexual orientation and brain structure. First, the differences in brain structure may have been present early in life and could have established the sexual orientation. Secondly, the differences in brain structure may have occurred in adult life, resulting from sexual behavior. Thirdly, there could be no correlation between brain structure and sexual orientation, but rather these differences are due to a third factor. LeVay and Hamer could not make precise conclusions about these three possibilities. However, when testing animals they found that the second possibility (the difference occurring in adult life), to be unlikely. They found, when testing rats, that the dimorphic cell group was present early in brain development. The first possibility (the difference being present at birth) also proved to raise a major question. How did the structural difference arise? There is no solid answer to this question. Some feel that androgen levels of fetuses cause homosexuality. They think that low androgen levels in male fetuses, and high androgen levels in female fetuses cause a difference in sexual orientation.
The last part of the article talks about the notion of a gay gene. LeVay and Hamer have two approaches to this topic: twin and family studies, and DNA linkage analysis. The concept is that genetically influenced traits run in the family. When looking at statistics of homosexuality in families, the results show that there is a considerable amount of family clustering of sexual orientation in both sexes. However, the family clustering is more evident for relatives of the same sex, than relatives of opposite sexes. Hamer and some of his colleagues put together a survey for the extended families of homosexuals. The results showed some correlations between relatives, such as connections between brothers and so forth. They also found no correlations between some relatives, such as fathers and cousins.
I think that there could definitely be some connection to the difference of brain structure and sexual orientation. Homosexuals think differently than heterosexuals, just as men think differently than women. A difference in brain structure could certainly prove that. What I disagree with, is the notion of the structural difference occurring at or before birth. For me, the facts just don’t cut it. I think that other factors such as the environment attribute to sexual orientation, rather than a biological difference from early development. Also, I wonder why there is no difference in the brain structure of homosexual and heterosexual females. If the condition is biological, wouldn’t it prove to show up in both sexes? Why is there only a difference in the size of INAH3 in gay and straight men? Why not gay and straight women? Furthermore, if the brain structure is different in humans, would it not also be different in animals. Are there a significant number of homosexuals in other parts of the animal kingdom? Why are only humans the point of debate? These issues, to me, show that there is more to homosexuality than biological factors.
The definition of “normal” in our society is a very gray area. To conclude a reasonable definition that is agreeable to everyone is nearly impossible. There are so many, that a person really has to decide for themselves what is normal. Society has changed over the years and views aren’t the same as they were before. For me, I define normal from the Bible. God created sexual relationships to be between men and women. But, just because God created heterosexual relationships, doesn’t mean that homosexuals should be condemned, discriminated against, or even treated differently. God loves every creature in the world, no matter who they are. Just because someone is a homosexual doesn’t mean that God’s love does not apply to them. For me, my conclusions come from the Bible. This view can be problematic for some because there are many wrong interpretations to certain passages. The Bible is a complex book, and conclusions can only be made after examining the pretext, the context, and many other factors of a certain passage. People can say that homosexuals are going to hell because of their sin of homosexuality, but that is simply not true. In regards to eternal destiny, homosexuality is not the issue; the issue is faith. I strongly feel that homosexuals should never be treated wrongly. If God can love everyone, then why can’t we?
There are two contending views towards homosexuality: homosexuality is a choice, and homosexuality is biologically determined. There is much confusion in regards to sexual orientation. Many people struggle with what feels natural to them. Some may be in heterosexual relationships and feel uncomfortable. They may not feel the attraction that they think they should. In realizing this, they can actively choose to become homosexual. This is the only case of “choosing” that I feel could happen. The other view is that homosexuality is biologically determined. A person has no choice in their sexual orientation; rather it was predetermined even before birth. Science has stood behind this view, and research has shown some incredible findings.
I must say, that I disagree somewhat with both views. I don’t feel that people can decide who they are attracted to. It is not something a person consciously thinks about, whether gay or straight. Attraction starts at a fairly young age, with both sides of sexual orientation. But, with homosexuality, it may not be as evident. Young children may not feel comfortable with what they are feeling if their parents and community have condoned homosexuality. With adolescents, they are experiencing these feelings for the first time, they are not choosing to be attracted to a certain gender, it is just happening. But I also have a problem with the biological side of homosexuality, at least on the pre-birth level. In saying that a person is biologically determined as gay, means that there is either a genetic trait, or a chemical imbalance. To me, that doesn’t seem right. I think that there is a difference in brain structure and thinking, but not chemical makeup.
Overall, my views on homosexuality have not changed dramatically. I feel that I have a better view on the scientific side of the issue, and I better understand the biological side of homosexuality, but my views are the same. I feel that homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as anyone. Human and civil rights belong to everyone, no matter who they are or what they have done. Homosexuals are no different; they deserve to live in a world of peace and understanding, just as do heterosexuals.
Lydia: I do not think that would ever happen because of religion and so-fourth. I guess nothing is impossible, but that's something I believe would be near to impossible. Especially if you look at the ratios and percents of homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. Also, if that did happen, world population could possibly fall flat. I don't think society has much to do with this bascially for that fact that we are humans, and one of our basic instincs is to reproduce. But good question. =]
Jessica Muehlbauer:
Levay and Hamer, authors of "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality", believe that biological factors, genes, and brain development all play a significant role in sexual orientation. There were specifically two pieces of evidence that made the title a possibly true statement. First, they found a grouping of cells located near the front of the hypothalamus. In a study conducted by Roger A. Gorski at the University of California, he found that this grouping of cells is much larger in male rats than in females. Later on, Gorski and his colleagues located the cell group they called, INAH3. They were able to discover that this group is three times larger in men than in women. In 1990, LeVay decided to study INAH3, to see if it had anything to do with sexual orientation as well as sex. He examined the hypothalamus of 19 homosexual men, who had all died from AIDS, 16 heterosexual men, 6 of whom died from AIDS, and he also studied the autopsy specimens of six women. LeVay was able to calculate the volumes of each of the individuals’ cell group. LeVay observed that INAH3 was between two and three times larger in straight men than in the gay men. In some of the gays, the cell group did not even exist. One suspect was AIDS, so LeVay obtained the hypothalamus of a gay man who had not died from AIDS, the volume of the INAH3 was still less than half than that of the straight man. Also, Gorski found other areas of the brain that were also different between heterosexuals and homosexuals. He found that it was smallest in heterosexual males, larger in women, and largest in homosexual males. The second piece of evidence was found in family studies and DNA linkage. Pooled data showed that 57% of identical twin males were both gay, and 50% of all identical twin females were both gay. A brother of a gay man had a 14% chance of being gay versus a 2% chance of men without gay brothers. The overall study showed that you have a greater chance of being gay if a sibling is also.
I felt the research was done very well. When LeVay had questions about AIDS being a factor on the size of INAH3, he was able to obtain the hypothalamus of a homosexual man who had not died of AIDS. This made the study much stronger and more viable to me. The problems I found with the research however were the numbers. Forty two gays, straits, and females, are not enough to persuade me to believe this research one hundred percent. It just is not a big enough number to represent all of the hetero and homosexuals. Also, they did not know much on their specimens. Were the "structural differences" present too early in life to be workable. Did something go wrong to create these sizes? There were a lot of factors that could have thrown this experiment off. However, overall I feel the experiment was a success. Although the number of specimens was small, they were still able to create results. They provided answers for questions that have been asked for years.
Normal should no longer be considered a word. There are too many different definitions, everyone has their own. I honestly think the media now defines "normal". We are seeing things that have designed a new era. People, such as celebrities, are doing things that at one point were unethical and inappropriate. However, we see them in the tabloids so often; it has become a normal occurrence. I will not lie when I say that when I hear the word "gay" or "lesbian", it does indeed make me feel uncomfortable. It is not that I feel homosexuals are “deviant” but rather that they are not a regular occurrence in my life. I consider myself a religious person; I have learned that marriage is between a man and a woman. If it is any other way, this is not necessarily normal for me. This by no way means that I have designed “normal”. Each and every person has their right to propose their own meaning. I believe my definition of normal sexual activity may not be quite similar to a radical liberal in California, however, I do not believe they have any less of a right to voice their opinion. My definition, I believe, matches those around me. In my family, I was raised into Christianity. I learned that in the Bible, it says, marriage is between a man and a woman, this is normal to me. The funny thing is, and it is quite ironic. “Normal” really is quite different.
I do not believe being gay is a complete "choice". Saying you chose your sexual orientation means you can change it whenever you feel. This does not make any sense to me. I believe that people cannot help who they fall in love with. What happens, happens.
I feel that concluding being gay is biologically determined would only help with gay rights and respect. Although, when someone is told that they are gay because a part of their brain is smaller, I may take that as a negative comment. You may begin to ask yourself, why am I different? What if I wasn't this way? Also, your family may begin to question if they are the reason, did something happen? Am I this way? ect. Overall, I feel being gay is not a choice, but who am I to make this conclusion? We should respect all homosexuals, whether it is their choice, or if it is a biological factor.
I do not believe this assignment has changed my views, but it has most definitely changed my perspective. I never took into consideration the biological factor. The fact that there is a study out there and it is showing these differences, well, it is an amazing step. I always felt homosexuality was just something that happened. Perhaps the way you were raised, or the way society has shaped a person. I believe the debate on what is “normal” will never end. The world is a changing place, and who knows what will happen. However, we just need to accept people for who they are. I have learned to broaden my perspective. Although homosexuality is looked down upon in the bible, so is violence. Discrimination is cruelty, and nobody deserves that.
Jessica Muehlbauer: in response to Morgan Reno, Lydia McMillan and Tim Grover.
Morgan: I completely, one hundred percent, agree with you on the implications of concluding that gay is a choice. You stated, “At the time when being homosexual was basically a sin, when they were harassed and bullied by society for being gay and were treated unequally, why would somebody choose to be gay?” I believe this sums my thoughts up completely. Why would someone choose to be tormented and harassed? It does not make sense to me, and thank you for putting my thoughts into words.
Lydia: I must say, I have to disagree with you. You said that it's only a matter of time before our views change. I must disagree. I feel that many people are set on there views, and I feel that the topic of homosexuality is a controversial subject that will always be somewhat debated. As sad as it may seem, people are often set in stone with how they feel on this topic.
Tim: Thank you also for summing up my thoughts. I could not find a way to describe my feelings on the Bible. However, your section on what is “normal” portrayed what I was trying to conclude. Although the Bible says all of these things that are so difficult to interpret, doesn’t it just come down to, God loves everyone?
AMBER STEINERT ~
In the article “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality” by Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, they had two pieces of evidence for male homosexuality. This is a structure within the human brain and a genetic link, which points to a biological component for male homosexuality. With the genetic link, there is a difference between homosexual and straight males. Straight males tend to have section of the hypothalamus that is two or three times as large as a female. It was also concluded that the straight males section of the hypothalamus was two or three times larger than the homosexual men as well. It was also shown that in some homosexual men, the cell group was absent. The section of the hypothalamus that they studied is called INAH3, though the size does of it does vary significantly within one sex. LeVay came upon this in 1990 when he examined the hypothalamus of 19 homosexual men, who had all died from AIDS, and 16 heterosexual men, 6 of these men died from AIDS as well. Though, in this experiment there may have been one or two gay men because they didn’t know their sexual orientation before they died. Six women were also involved in this study but their sexuality was unknown.
The strength of this research is that LeVay did test a multiple number of people and they did come out with the same result for each of the gay men when the autopsy was performed. Also, LeVay go t the same results with the men who were heterosexuals who had AIDS and didn’t have AIDS. This may suggest that AIDS had no affect on this research whatsoever. Though there are many weaknesses, almost all of these autopsies were done on males who had died from AIDS. Also, every single one of the homosexual males had died from AIDS except for maybe one or two who’s sexuality were unknown. Six out of the 16 males that were heterosexual died from AIDS which also could have affected the outcome. LeVay also didn’t check for any family background on brain damage or previous brain damage that could have affected the male or female before the autopsy was performed.
I believe the definition of “normal” is whatever our society is willing to except at that time. It depends on what viewpoint people are looking at it from. There is no way to define “normal” without offending someone in our society today. That’s just the way it works. People have different believes, we can’t all share the same opinion. I believe our society at the moment is definitely getting more excepting to gays as time goes on. It used to be a taboo subject that barely anyone would talk about and now it is being discussed about freely. I believe the public is making very good progress on adjusting to the norm. I think that “normal” is whatever is comfortable for that person. No one necessarily has to fit in to be “normal.” I think as long as people believe that they are normal in their own mind then what other people think will not be “normal” to them or even matter. I believe people need to have their own belief in life. People need to be their own person and decide for themselves what is “normal.” My own definition of “normal” definitely matches my family and my culture. My believe comes from my religion and how I was raised. Yes, I may be agreeing with my parents and relatives beliefs but I have decided to believe that myself. It wasn’t forced upon me. Though, I think my belief is “normal,” I believe it doesn’t always match up with my peer group. That is alright though; we are each our own person and have the right to believe and think what we want.
Homosexuality can either be considered a choice or biological. The reasons behind the implication for homosexuality being a choice is that at some point in time, the person will choose to be a homosexual. The person may have experienced things in their adult life that will result in them choosing the homosexual life. The reasons for implication for homosexuality being biological is that there is a structural difference early on in their life, which may even occur before birth, that will help establish what the person’s sexual orientation may be. There is also a third possibility about homosexuality which may be caused by a developmental event that happened soon after birth. Though, none of these ideas are for sure.
Upon reading this article, I feel I have become more aware of my surroundings, though, I do believe it has not changed my view on the topic at hand. It has also left me more open minded to everyone’s views on such a touchy topic. I will continue to believe what I believe, but with an understanding of both points of views.
AMBER STEINERT ~
TIM ~
I definitely agree with you and have also thought about the topic of animals and the number of homosexuality. Have animals ever been tested? If there are homosexual animals why are there never heard about. Maybe I just don’t watch the news enough or just am not aware of my surrounds but I also believe that there has to be more to being homosexual then there is out there today.
I also agree with how you defined normal as from the Bible. You said almost exactly what I wanted to say. God loves everyone and no homosexual will be going to hell because of it. I am no one to judge people who are homosexual. I live next to a couple who are homosexual and they have three kids of their own. I have to say that they are the biggest impact on my views of homosexuals today. They are kind, loving, and caring people who just happen to love the same sex. Since when can people go to hell for that?
FAITH ~
I definitely agree with your view on the weaknesses on this research. There were too many unknowns that were not taken into account. I’m sure there were more than even we know possible that could affect how the brain works.
I somewhat believe that the media/famous people set the “normal” standards. Though, I do believe that today people are looking to themselves to find the norm. Times are changing and people are realizing that they have to look to themselves and not to people who are famous. As people get older, they realize that they can’t base their lives off of everyone else’s “normal” standards, their own must be set. At least, that is what I would like to believe is happening; I know it’s happened to me.
ROCHELLE LENTZ:
The structure within the human brain Levay and Hamer refer to in the article is a group of cells in the hypothalamus called the medial preoptic area, which has been implicated to generating sexual behavior. Particularly in this area, they studied the cell group deemed NAH3 in 41 subjects and found that the size of this cell group was two to three times larger in straight men than in gay men. This indicated that there is a possibility that these NAH3 cells had a role in determining men’s sexual orientation. When LeVay and Hamer refer to the genetic link, they are stating the combined data of six different systematic studies of twins and siblings of gay men and lesbian women. This data showed that 57 percent of identical male twins, 24 percent of fraternal male twins, and 13 percent of brothers of gay men were also gay. It also showed that 50 percent of identical female twins, 16 percent of female fraternal twins, and 13 percent of sisters of lesbians were also lesbians. This was described as “family clustering of sexual orientation” which showed that there was a potential correlation between genetics and homosexuality.
I had a lot of trouble with finding the research in the article viable. For one, there was such a small amount of subjects that were tested; 41 homosexual and heterosexual men and women is quite a small sample to be placing such a large assumption and theory upon. Also, the majority of the subjects that were tested died of AIDS. Yes, in the article they did explain the evidence that indicated that the AIDS had little to do with the small size of the NAH3 and LeVay did observe the hypothalamus of a gay man who had died of natural causes. However, the observation was only done on one other gay man who died of natural causes, and there was not any extra research completed to find the effect of AIDS on the NAH3 volume in gay or straight men. Another issue that arose with the research dealt with their study of the 6 women. They did not even know their sexual orientation; therefore any assumptions or conclusions made about the volume of the NAH3 in these women related to homosexuality cannot be viable.
When I think about who defines “normal” in our culture, I would ultimately have to say media and our family. The media plays such a huge role in our lives nowadays, whatever people see and observe on television, radio, or other mediums of communication, this is what will be taken to heart as pure fact and what is meant to be. Also, depending on if one’s family had some strict beliefs for or against homosexuality, then these beliefs will evolve into what that person perceives as normal. I personally believe that sexual activity between a man and a woman is what is “normal”. This is not because of what society has taught me, but what my religion leads me to believe. Pulling in a little bit of a biological factor, I believe that the purpose of sexual activity is solely for reproducing and creating life, and when there is sexual activity between members of the same gender, this is not happening. My definition of “normal” sexual activity does seem to match that of my culture, but I am not sure as to what the definition of normal sexual activity in the community would be. If, like many of my friends and peers, it is between two people who feel very attracted to each other and love one another, then I my views do not match up with such. However, my beliefs have nothing to do with how I view homosexual individuals as people. Most that I have known have very pleasant personalities, and I do not believe that they are “deviant” people or have anything wrong with them, they are simply different. I would never hold anybody’s sexual orientation against them, for my personal opinions should have nothing to do with how others choose to live their lives.
To conclude that being gay is a choice, would mean that there are no biological factors in it whatsoever and that it is not something one is born with. I think that when people exposed to a lot of homosexuality in their lives, whether it be from peers around them, family, or what they observe in the world around them, they could be more inclined to become what they have been around. After all, it is in my concrete belief we learn by association. Sexual orientation fits in with that. However, concluding that one is only gay because they choose to be, I do not believe is completely true because in order to “be” with another person would mean that there must be some element of physical attraction actually felt within a person.
Concluding that being gay is biologically determined implies that one is born with homosexuality already “programmed” into their mind. This, I cannot completely agree with because there is not enough scientific or medical evidence that I have seen that points to this. Though, I do think that there is some element of physical emotion and attraction that determines one’s sexual orientation that has nothing to do with choice.
I would definitely have to say that, for me, this assignment was extremely difficult. Usually, I would try to ignore any controversial issues that I never have to deal with directly in my daily life, and homosexuality was definitely one that I was very passive about. This assignment really got me to take a look at the world around me and forced me to solidify an opinion. Reading all of the information about what the bible said and about the violence towards homosexuals, I realized that this is an issue that is in the world, but that shouldn’t be. I will admit, I always felt pretty awkward around gay people, mostly because I had never been around a lot of them before. I realize now that homosexuality is just another factor that makes the world more varied and people more individual. Sure, I now have a strong belief that men are meant to be with women, but whenever I meet someone who is gay, I will be more open and focus on other aspects of their personality, because sexual orientation is not the only aspect of what really makes a person who they are.
Samantha Kallberg
The authors LeVay and Hamer of "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality" stated there are two pieces of evidence for male homosexuality. One piece of evidence was from Gorski. Gorski looked at the hypothalmus of a rat. What he found, was the cells near the front of the hypothalmus (INAH3) is several times larger in male rats then in female rats. LeVay later observed the brain of a human and also found the INAH3 in the hypothalmus to be larger in men then in women, but aslo found the INAH3 to be two times larger in the straight men than in the gay men. In another study done by Richard C. Pillard and James D. Weinrich, showing data from twin and family trees. Men show about 57 percent of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. In the same study for women: about 50 percent of identical twins, 16 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of sisters of lesbians are also lesbian.
While I was reading this article I noticed one downside to the research. In my opinion, I felt the number of subjects was not a big enough number. LeVay only examined the hypothalmus of 19 homosexual men who died of complications AIDs and 16 heterosexual men, who had also died of complications AIDS. The sexual orientation of the men who didn't die from AIDs causes was not determined. But he assumed there were no more than one or two who were likely to be gay. LeVay also studied 6 women whose sexual orientation was unknown. I think the results may have differed a little if the sexual orientation was known. I have to say I liked how the research was not only done on an animals brain, but also with a human's brain.
I believe there are endless possibilities to define the word normal. Normal is a word that is definded differently to everyone. Although some definitions are similar to eachother, but most likely not the same. In my opinion, the media in our culture defines "normal". From what we watch on TV can shape how we view a certain topic.Another source that may define normal, would be religion. I don't believe my definition matches up with my grandparents view of normal sexual activity. I believe this because when they were growing up homosexuality was taboo, or unheard of.
There are implications that go along with saying being gay is a choice. In my opinion, this doesn't make any sense to me. Choosing your sexual orientation to me, means it could change it whenever you felt like it. I believe whoever you fall in love with just happens.
There are also implications saying being gay is biological. It has been said the INAH3 is smaller in gay men than in straight men. This means you had no choice in being gay or not it is just how your brain was "built".
Throughout reading about this research and other articles on the Internet, I have learned some pretty interesting things along the way.
MARIAH MELIN
**I would just like to remind you that i belive everyone should have the right to their own opinions and that it's best that i keep an open mind.**
1)Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer authors of the article "Evidence for a biological Influence in Male Homosexuality" say that it is believed that genetics play a big role in deciding a person’s genetic orientation. In 1990 LeVay wanted to see if INAH3 (derived from "third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus") or some cell other cell group in the medial preoptic area varies in size at all with sexual orientation as well as with sex. LeVay (Like Allen And Gorski) observed that INAH3 was more than twice the size in men than women, but when they also studied the difference between gays and straight people they found that Straight men have two to three times larger INAH3 than in gay men. Also reported to be reported by Allen and Gorski was that the anterior commissure, a bundle of fibers running across the midline of the brain, is smallest in heterosexual men, larger in women and, largest in gay men. Logically they believe it could also be possible that the structural differences were present in life-perhaps even before birth. The other piece of biological evidence that was found was a genetic link. It was also found that data shows that about 57 percent of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. For women, there are approximately 50 percent of identical twins, 16 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of sisters who are lesbians are also lesbians. So therefore that may lead me to believe it is genetics and that you don't just all of a sudden decide you’re gay.
2)I would have to say a weak study for LeVay to only study 19 gays and 16 straight people (who both died from AIDS) and the small number of women he studied didn't even have known sexual preferences (Who may have not even died from AIDS). More studies would have to be done to be able to broaden the conclusion. I also believe that surveys are not always the best and most reliable experiment they could have conducted on the genetic trait of gay men. I also felt like their studies sometimes contradicted each other by saying you were born with it and saying that I could even be your environment and how you are raised. So are they saying if a gay couple adopts a baby the baby could be gay also. Or what if a gay man gives his sperm to a clinic and some women who her husband is unable to help in making babies gets this (gay) donors sperm. But on the record he says nothing about being gay does that mean they have a higher chance of having a gay baby also. I don't know if I believe that but I do believe are born with the compulsion to be gay and that by making a choice they could be gay. The best thing to back up their research though was the experiments they conducted on humans and animals both homosexual and heterosexual.
3)I am glad that in 1974 they (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorder because there is no disorder there it’s just their sexual preference. Deviant is a relative term that depends on our perception of what is "normal." who has any say in what is normal everyone is different so how can we be put into groups of normal and unmoral. I believe no one has a right to say what is normal and what isn't. Yes when you say "normal" sexual activity I fall into the group of stereotyping and saying I first think of a man and a women, like Adam and eve. That is what we have been raised to think that, that is the right way to go. But it's not like even in the time of Adam and eve there weren't any gays or lesbians they just weren't as open as they are more and more today. There has always been a negative feeling towards gays but really who cares it has very little to do with anyone else’s life. I believe this is a lot like racism just because people see them as different they feel the need to disgrace them and feel they need to change them to be more "normal" so to say. This right here is from the reading and also believes the same that I do, "McConahay and Hough (1976) defined symbolic racism as "the expression [by whites], in terms of abstract ideological symbols and symbolic behaviors, [of] the feeling that blacks are violating cherished values and making illegitimate demands for changes in the racial status quo." This definition can be used to delineate the third functional category of attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. As with symbolic racism, symbolic sexual attitudes express the feeling that cherished values are being violated and that illegitimate demands are being made for changes in the status quo. I will expand the definition, however, to include favorable attitudes that are based upon the belief that discrimination and prejudice themselves violate the values of freedom and equality." Sex differences in the direction and intensity of attitudes have been observed fairly consistently. Most common stereotypes are related to cross-sex characteristics. Additionally, significant numbers of individuals characterize male homosexuals as mentally ill, promiscuous, lonely, insecure, and likely to be child molesters, while lesbians have been described as aggressive and hostile toward men. Positive characteristics are also part of the homosexual stereotype including such traits as sensitivity, intelligence, honesty, imagination, and neatness. It appears that heterosexuals tend to have more negative attitudes toward homosexuals of their own sex than of the opposite sex. . . . My beliefs have originated from my surroundings and how I was brought up like religion.
4)Implications of being gay is a choice so they say. this means people choose to be the way they are and love the people they wish to love because they chose to, or whoever they are attracted to and it is there choice to do the rest and carryout the feeling. I feel that Love will still be love with whomever it is in your life that you choose. which is the same for both homosexuals and heterosexuals, but i do at sometime feel it is more instinct for a male and a female than say a male and a male, or at least that is what we have mainly learned and had immbedded into us.
5)Implicationst that being gay is biologically determined: biological seems to be a bit more accpeted but i still feel that peoples' views should still be the same no matter what their choice is. the society accepts you more because they feel it isn't your choice and that you are just different-just like the (APA) who believes it is considered a mental disorder.
Neither have been proven which is correct again it is you opinion
6)No I do not feel this assignment has changed my thoughts. I still believe that it is their personal choice and it is their life so they can live it however they please. The only thing that I am disturbed with is some types of public display but same for a man and a woman, I don't need to see their affection for each other in public. And I also feel that they should be able to get married because besides the vows and what not I believe marriage just ends up being a piece of paper and it's just a name that says your single or not, so why not let them have that name too. I mean really what is the fear of them getting married? I thought we were the land of the free well where's the freedom here.
MARIAH MELIN
JADE yes i am also wonder the same questions as LYDIA who brings up a good point would our society ever let it get that far? I Believe since we are such a diverse country it would never happen but who knows anything could happen.... And what would you feel if they were the more domoninate....thats how they feel now.What if it was normal to be gay?? but do you really think there are that many gays out there or would people just start saying they are gay...like i believe lindsay lohan is doing.just to get the attention of being different.
***********************************
what about those people who are BI What do you guys think about that cause its somewhat the same??
I think our country spends way to much time debating on little things that shouldn't cause so much up roar and should focus on other things (not saying we should ignore it) cause who really cares if someone is black or lesbian or gay (that shouldn't be what matters) that is their preference and i believe that it's highly doubtful anyone will be able to change that. its like telling straight people they can love who they want either. it's kinda hypocritical if you think about it
MARGARET TIERNEY
1. In their article "Evidence for a Biological Inflence in Male Homosexuality", Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer discuss two pieces of evidence that point to a biological component for male homosexuality.
The first peice of evidence is a structure within the human brain. In 1978 Roger A. Gorski found that a group of cells
near the front of the hypothalamus is larger in male rats than female rats. This area of the hypothalamus where
the group of cells is located is known as the medial preoptic area, and it is connected to the generation
of sexual behavior. Gorski and his co-workers found that the typical male hormone (androgen) plays a big part in
creating the difference in size of this cell goup between males and females. Gorski also discovered dimorphic structures
like those in the rats in the human brain. One of theses structres is named INAH3 and it is aproximately three times
larger in men than in women. In 1990 LeVay decided to see if INAH3 varied in size with sexual orientation. He
examined the hypothalamus of 19 homosexual men, 16 heterosexual men, and 6 women with unkown sexual orientation.
LeVay discovered that INAH3 was two times larger in males than in females and between two and three times larger
in straight men than in homosexual men. In some of the homosexual men, INAH3 was missing completely. Allen and Gorski
found that the anterior commissure (a bundle of fibers that run across the midline of the brain) is smaller in
homosexual men than in women and homosexual men. It is unknown whether these differences were present early in life and helped to establish men's sexual
orientation, they arose later in life due to men's sexual feelings or behavoir, or the correlation between brain structures and
sexual orientation are connected to a different variable.
The second peice of evidence is a genetic link to homosexuality. Studies on the twins and siblings of gay men have shown that
57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twons, and 13% of brothers fo gay men are also gay. These results show a substantial
amount of family clustering of sexual orientation. This clustering could be a sign of a genetic link to homosexuality.
2. I think a weakness of the research is that LeVay only studied the hypothalamus of nineteen homosexual men, 16 heterosexual men, and six women. I think this
research should be continued on more subjects to make the results more conclusive. Also, the results of the studies done on families of homosexual men may not be very sufficicent
evidence for a genetic link to homosexuality because people who believe that homosexuality is caused by nuture and the way you were broguht up may argue that the clusters of
homosexualaity in families may be due to the fact that siblings and twins of homosexual men were most likely brought up in a similar way, which could contribute to the liklihood of
them being gay and it may not necessarly be their common genes that is causing the clusters.
3. I think that many people's views about homosexuality and "normal
" sexual orientation stem from religion and the beliefs of their family, friends, and society. I think that what is considered normal in our culture is determined by what
a majority of people do. However, just because a majority of people behave in a certain way, it doesn't mean that that is the best way or that other ways are bad.
I believe that our culture needs to embrace diversity more, and that people should be accepting of people who are different from themselves. I dont think there should
be one specific definition of what normal sexual activity is because what one person beleives is normal may not be the same as what another person beleives and i think it is unfair to say that everyone
should behave in a certain way because it is "normal" because while it may be what one person considers normal, it may not be normal for another person. There is no one definition of what is "normal"-
it varies from person to person. There are people in my family, peer group, community, and culture who have different views on what is considered normal sexual activity. For many of these people,
I think their opinions are largely based on their religion. Friends, family, community, and our culture also have an impact on opinions.
4. Concluding that being gay is a choice may lead to more discrimmination against homosexuals because people may say that its their choice to be gay so they should have to deal with the consequences
, which I absolutely disagree with, but some people in our society do feel that way.
5. Concluding that being gay is biologically determined I think may lead to society being more accepting of gay people because if the person doesn't have a choice
in the matter, i think they would be more likely to be discrimminated against. I think it is wrong that homosexuals are discrimminated against at all, and I know that saying
being gay is biologically determined would not end the discrimmination, but i think society would become more accepting of gay people if it was concluding that being gay is biologically determined.
6. This assingment has given me the opportunity to learn a lot more about the possible biological
links to male homosexuality. Before doing this assingment I knew that there were some possible biological
connections to homosexuality, but I didn't know very much about them. The articles that went
along with this assingment were very interesting and gave me more insight about possible biological
influences on male homosexuality. Also, reading about the death of Billy Jack really made me sad and appalled at how
some people treat other human beings just because they happen to be attracted to people of their same sex.
MARGARET TIERNEY
In response to MARIAH MELIN-
When you said "There has always been a negative feeling towards gays but really who cares it has very little to do with anyone else’s life." did you mean that people shouldn't care that there is a negative feeling towards gays or that people shouldn't care if other people are gay? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but if you ment that people shouldn't care that there is a negative feeling towards gays because it doesn't affect their lives, I have to say I dissagree. I think that everyone should care that there is still violence and discrimmination against homosexuals in our society. Just because it may not immeadiately affect a person's life, they should still care that brutal acts of violence like the death of Billy Jack Gaither are being carried out against gays in our society. I don't think people should just stand by while things like this are happening just becuase it doesn't affect them individually.
If you ment that people shouldn't care whether or not others are gay, I completely agree with you. I don't think that homosexuals have any kind of negative impact on our society at all, and you are right-their choice to be gay has very little affect on the lives of other people so I don't really see why it is such a big deal to people who it barely affects.
MARGARET TIERNEY
in response to MIKE SWARTZ-
When i noticed that at the end of your blog you said that this assingment has changed your opinion I was really impressed that you were open-minded enough to consider different explanations for what may cause homosexuality because a lot of people aren't able to put aside their original beleifs and consider other ideas like you did :)
MORGAN RENO in response to Jessica Muehlbauer's comment.
I'm glad that I could help you put some of your thoughts into words :) and thanks for agreeing with me. After reading your final paragraph of your blog, i found that you too summed up a lot of my thoughts in your own words. Things such as...I too never really took into consideration the biological factor of homosexuality, and now that they have studies out that are proving a connection, my perspective has also changed. I also agree with your statement, "discrimination is cruelty, and nobody deserves that." I really couldn't have said it better myself.
Jessica Muehlbauer in response to:
Morgan Reno
Margaret Tierney
Michael Swartz
Thanks Morgan! :)
Margaret, I completely agree with you and your comment about Michael's final section. It takes a lot to be able to express yourself and your views, while still being open minded. It is difficult for me to change what I feel is customary in this bizarre world of ours. I agree with Michael when he said he was once stereotypical, but now has a fresh perspective. It was impressive to read, and I agree with Michael on the new, different explanations. Therefore, I agree with Margaret’s comment, and Michaels statement.
MICHAEL STOCKE:
Homosexuality is a controversial subject that, if not conducted in the proper manner, can elevate into high aggression with ease. In a way, it has striking similarities with evolution because science intervenes with common religious beliefs. Certain religious parties view homosexuality as a sin because they are choosing to go against the bible and have relations with the same sex. However, in the article “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality” by Simon LaVay and Dean Hamer, recent scientific research has shown a genetic link, and brain structure that could change the way homosexuality is viewed.
In 1978, long before LaVay and Hamer, there was a study on rats done by Roger A. Gorski. He discovered that a particular group of cells near the front of the hypothalamus was substantially larger in males than in females. This portion of cells, even though extremely small, is known to have been implicated with sexual behaviors. Gorski and his workers also found that androgen, the male hormones, are a crucial part of sexual development. Male and females both start with the same amount of androgen and estrogen, the female hormone. However, at birth there is a rapid increase of testosterone that keeps the neurons stabilized. Females do not have this surge, so many neurons in this cell group die off. This creates our structure and different characteristics about each gender. Simon LaVay, a neuroscientist that has been working with homosexuality, then found revolutionary evidence to help support his view that sexuality is within the brain, and it is not entirely the choice of an individual. First off, he was able to find that a region of the brain in the medial preoptic region (INAH3), otherwise known as the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, was about three times larger in males than in females. Then he conducted an experiment to test this region again. He found that the INAH3 was significantly smaller in nineteen gay men infected with AIDS than in sixteen heterosexual men with AIDS. This proved that sexual orientation altered the brain, specifically the INAH3. Gorski and his student Laura Allen also found that the anterior commissure, which are fibers that run across the midline of the brain, in women and gay men were similar to each other. They also found that this region in heterosexual men was smaller compared to the other two. However, this study could not pinpoint the exact correlation between sexual preference and brain structure. It could be that structural differences were present at or before birth, they originated in adult life because of society, sexual feelings, and behavior, or even that a link isn’t present, causing a third unknown variable to come into play. Genetics is another possible link to homosexuality. After totaling data from several studies, it is found that there is a 53% chance that homosexuality is heritable in men and 52% chance it is in women. It is most common in identical twins (57%), fairly close in fraternal twins (24%), and brothers of gay men were also gay 13% of the time. Another scientist, by the name of Dean Hamer, conducted research on 76 known gay men families and found that their relatives were about 13.5% more likely to be gay while the other men without gay brothers were 2% more likely. All of this evidence shows that it is possible that sexual preference is genetic.
The evidence used by LaVay and Hamer was up to par, but it was not overwhelming. The first flaw that caught my eye was the amount of subjects used in the autopsies of the men with AIDS. I do not believe that enough people were experimented on in order to apply the findings to the majority of mankind. Right after reading the AIDS section I also was not persuaded heavily that AIDS could have been a factor in the size of the INAH3. Once both types of men without any disease are put under the microscope, it will help put to bed that AIDS is in fact a role. Animal experimentation played was another subject that was up in the air. Although it is a safe way to test, it is not always reliable to jump to conclusions. I believe that more of the testing should be towards humans so we have a better understanding. However, they did have strengths to their research. They did a great job by doing much of the testing in a lab setting so then any problematic areas are covered. Also, by doing a large variety of different testing, it enabled them to have more solid answers than if they stuck to one area.
Normal is defined as usual: conforming to the usual standard, type, or custom. It is also defined as healthy: physically, mentally, and emotionally. However, this is a term that is difficult to define. Some say it is simply being able to go through life living a healthy life without any roadblocks, such as diseases or mental issues. Others view it as being able to do daily activities without the aid of others, for example, eating, shopping, school, work, etc. In essence, there really isn’t an exact answer for what it is like to be normal. I believe that this definition is formed by our society and culture. Normal can mean one thing for a group of people, and another for a different culture. America’s definition of normal is mainly decided by society. For example, in most parts of America it is normal to have schooling and clothes. However, in other parts of the world, Africa for instance, it is normal to have a small hut for shelter without the privilege of being able to have school and new clothing. Normal all depends on the environment a person is in. In my opinion, normal sexual activity is between a man and a woman. That is because I have been raised to see it that way and haven’t looked at both ends of the spectrum. Almost every person I know, ranging from my family members, to my several relatives, to my many friends, believe that sexual activity occurs between a man and a woman. This view originates in a variety of ways. It comes from religious teachings, common knowledge passed on from generations, and the normal flow of society. When all of the sources are combined, it is clear how these thoughts are pushed down to each generation of family.
By individuals concluding being gay is a choice, consequences become more aggressive towards gay people. As stated several times in the pbs website, there are many people that just think being homosexual is wrong and jump to conclusions, quickly becoming violent for no reason. There are killings each year simply because of straight men having a strong dislike for a gay person. I think it is because they believe they chose to be gay, so they assume they deserve punishment. People have far more harsh views/actions towards homosexuals because it is viewed as a choice.
When the tides change, that is when a complete different approach is used. If being homosexual is attributed biologically, people now feel sorry for them because they believe it is not their fault. I believe it would become much more accepted because not only is it out of their control, but it cannot really be fixed. Even though it should be accepted either way, it would be a tremendous leap so stereotypes and criticism can slowly be put to rest.
After completion of this blog and thoroughly reading many different facts, statistics, and stories, I have found that my view has changed slightly. I really do not mind what sexual preference people have because, really, it is their choice and there isn’t a reason for me to be mad at someone for doing what makes them happy. Whatever makes the individual feel better is fine with me. I would hope that more people would overcome the harsh stereotypes of gay people so they can feel more welcome. I don’t know how to describe my feeling toward gay individuals because I haven’t been able to actually meet a homosexual that I know of so I do not want to jump to conclusions. Overall, whether it is a choice or a heritable trait, this subject needs to lighten up so we all can feel happy about it.
Samantha Kallberg
Kelsey
I agree with you when you said the media plays a role in defining "normal". It is very true how in movies and in television shows, they always show a man and a women together.
Tabitha
I liked how you explained your opinion of being gay by choice. I completely agree with what you were saying.
TIM GROVER in response to LYDIA
I totally agree with your argument about homosexuality as a choice. Actually, your whole section on "normal" makes perfect sense to me. You can't really pinpoint a reason for homosexuality without someone feeling that they are different, or in the wrong. If you define it as a choice, then people will have an excuse to discriminate. "It's their fault, they're the ones choosing to do it." that's not right. And the biological side does the same kind of thing. It causes people to wonder and doubt about their role in causing homosexuality in a loved one. "What did I do to cause this? was there something I could have done?" That makes homosexuality sound like a curse, or illness, or something absurd like that. With these options, homosexuality becomes a blame-game, that that is simply outrageous.
MICHAEL STOCKE
In Response To Rochelle Lentz
I agree with most of what you have to say Rochelle. I, too, believe that sexual orientation is a mix of biological and how you are raised. However, I think that it is more on the biological factor and less on how you are brought up. I think we both can agree that you are born with the urge to want others. That magnetic attraction is associated with birth. How you are raised can either help reinforce this attraction or make the person hide the feelings within, forcing them to be someone they are not.
In Response To Samantha Kallberg
I completely agree that the definition of normal has infinite possibilities. It has to take into account the country, race, religion, culture, daily life, experiences, and so on. That is why it is hard to pinpoint an exact definition. However, I would say that the media does play a role in this too, but not as much as other factors because not all people have access to materials that are needed in order to experience this. Although those who do, do in fact have to take that into account also.
In Response To Amber Steinert
When you referred to homosexuality being a choice, I partially disagree with you on that. I do think it plays a key role in how your sexual preference is, but I believe that it must be biological too. You can’t really choose who you are attracted too, but experiences can alter that, so that is why I do agree with you on that part.
ROCHELLE LENTZ:
In response to Tim Grover,
You make a good point in saying that basing one's beliefs on what the bible says can lose some credibility because of different possible interpretations. Though, I do not believe that there are wrong interpretations, but, like you said, that the bible is so complex that many contrasting conclusions can come from one passage. I also agree with you that God loves everybody who has faith in him and is not going to cast out homosexuals from a heavenly afterlife.
In response to Morgan Reno:
I am in complete agreement with you that there is no normal.I think, that when people define "normal" that always means that there will be a group that is "abnormal". Defining what is truly normal just puts more stereotypes and prejudice into a world already filled with so much separation and hatred. Hopefully, the barriers of what is normal will slowly dissolve in society so that nobody will need to worry about being accepted if they are "abnormal".
KELLY GUSTOFSON:
In the article “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality,” Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, the writers, discuss the difference in brain structure between straight men, women, and gay men. Using a cell group in the hypothalamus called INAH3, they found that it was two to three times the size of women’s for straight men, and was also two to three times larger in straight men, than in gay men. The article also gives three reasons for why there might be a connection between the brain structure and sexual orientation. First is that the structural differences were present early in life, possible even before birth, that helped with the establishment of sexual orientation. Next was that the differences arose in their adult lives, depending on their feelings or behavior, and finally, that there was no causal connection, but both brain structure and sexual orientation is linked to an unknown third variable such as a developmental event during uterine or early postnatal life. Also in their research, they found a biological link using family tree studies, based on belief that genetically influenced traits are passed down through generations. When the results were gathered together, they found clusters where if one son was a homosexual, there was a much higher chance of his brother being homosexual as well. The same was found among sisters, identical twins, and fraternal twins, but the family clustering was most obvious for relatives of the same sex, rather than a male-female pair.
Some very strong points in the research are all the different statistics and studies they used. They made their points, and backed them up with experiments and knowledgeable explanations. However, When LeVay examined the hypothalamus from autopsies of 19 homosexual men, 16 heterosexual men, and only six women, he didn‘t use enough subjects to represent our entire population. Besides that, all of the homosexual men died from AIDS, whereas only six of the heterosexual men died from AIDS. Not to mention that the other 10 that he classified as heterosexual were really unknown, he just assumed no more than one or two of them were likely to have been gay. He also didn’t know the sexual orientation of the women, and if he would have had all this information, the results could have been affected drastically. Needless to say, I think they were on the right track with their research using the idea of sexual orientation coming from the brain.
I think in our culture “normal” doesn’t exist. Well sure it does, but if you think about it in the United States, we don’t have one dominant gender, race, religion, hair color, eye color, clothing style, and we speak more than one language; it’s not like we all try look the same to be classified as normal, but we all have our own definitions of it. That’s the unfortunate part, in our country there are people who think they are the definition of normal, and anyone who isn’t like them is abnormal, but in my opinion IF it was more socially acceptable to be homosexual, I think we’d find a lot more people speaking out about it. I’m not sure how well my opinion matches with the general population, but I know it matches with my family and friends. I don’t think it’s fair that someone has to hide a part of who they are, out of fear of not being “normal,” but we all know stereotyping is out there in our world, and not everyone is going to have the same opinion, or beliefs. Even with the different versions of the media, we get a different version of the same story. Should Americans change theirs social acceptance views, or keep them just as they are?
As with anything, there are implications when you say being gay is a choice, or saying being gay is biological. I don’t know which it really is, but studies and research are starting to prove that it could very well be biological, and with the way your brain develops, not give you a choice at all. Then again, it could very well be one’s personal choice who to love. If someone does choose to be homosexual, who are we to tell them they can’t? That theory doesn’t make complete sense to me, but if one were homosexual, and not comfortable with it, I could see that being explained as biological and that person could have a long hard struggle trying to figure out why they’re the different one, instead of someone else. Whichever truly is the “right” one, it shouldn’t matter in the end, it should be about two people falling in love, and making each other happy, not just dependant on their genders.
Overall, my opinion on homosexuality hasn’t changed. However, I do feel much more informed about the topic, I never thought about homosexuality as being biological before now, and people really not having a choice of who they fall for. I think that all people should be treated equally, after all isn’t that what America is supposed to be about? Freedom to express who you are, and what your beliefs are, without being punished for them. Yes, some people need to be punished for their actions, but it’s socially acceptable for a man and woman to go out in public and show PDA, but you’re going to punish two men/women for doing the same thing? To me that just doesn’t seem right.
JAYMIE BURT:
1. In the article Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality, Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer discuss the biological and genetic components that they find to be present in sexual orientation and delve into their belief that homosexuality is not based on something as simple as choice. They explain that research has proven that the hypothalamus, which is an area at the brain’s base involved with instinctive behaviors and metabolism, is several times larger in males than it is in females. In fact, the cell group termed INAH3 is more than two times larger in men than women, and it ended up being two to three times larger in straight men than in gay men when tested. Also, they have found there to be traces of a biological factor that touches on genetics. Data pooled shows a connection between siblings and states that about 57 percent of identical twins of brothers of gay men are also gay, among other eye opening statistics with fraternal twins. The same proved true with women. They then concluded that the percent chance of a child being gay can be altered by the homosexuality of one or more of his or her siblings and how closely they are connected. This, of course, points to there being a much larger reason behind homosexuality then what originally meets the eye of being a mere lifestyle choice.
2. A major weakness that is automatically apparent in LeVay’s examination of the hypothalamus was that all the homosexual men had died from AIDS and there were only 19 of them. In addition, ten of the sixteen heterosexual men had unknown sexual orientation and were merely assumed heterosexual due to world-wide statistics. Also, the six women included were also of an unknown sexual orientation, and when testing on sexual orientation, this seems to be a bit of a hazy area. A major strength, however, is that the test was not only done on human brains; mice and monkeys were examined as well, so there is a lot of information going towards the final outcome of results and their discovered answers. All in all, I think that, though not flawless, the experiment certainly was not faulty, and the variety of specimen leads to its success.
3. Though I don’t believe that anyone should be allowed to define a word as subjective as “normal”, I think that basically everyone in our society will try to and does try to regardless. Even without a clear definition of normal, it seems that many people seek to be it, and generally anything not normal is anything that is looked down upon, insulted, or made a pun out of. So, many people and things define what is normal in our culture, and it really depends who you listen to and what you chose to believe. Often times, whatever “circle” you reside in, in the current position of your life, will alter what your definition of normal is or will tend to be. Sadly, when I think of the phrase “normal sexual activity”, I automatically think of a man and a woman, rather than a man and a man or a woman and a woman, because for so long that has seemed to be generally the most preached and accepted. When I stop to think about it though, there’s really nothing abnormal about anyone doing what they feel or feel the desire and need to do. Homosexuals are doing the same thing that we are essentially; they’re acting upon an urge or sensation, and it’s wrong for us to say that that isn’t normal because of the in particular target that that may be. My definition of normal I’m sure differs from many, but specifically my definition of normal sexual activity I’m sure varies widely. My father, for one, is in strong opposition of homosexuality, and we often butt heads on the subject. I do, however, believe that if he read through the given material with an open mind that his views would be persuaded as mine were confirmed. These beliefs come from society. Our society as a whole is much more accepting now than it was even twenty years ago, and that is truly a beautiful thing. To reference the case of my father, his own father was against homosexuality to an extreme, and it was looked down upon greatly when he was growing up. Nowadays, people are more accepting, understanding, and really since they’re more open minded, more informed. I think that this helps because with anything you’re going to take a stance on, it’s important to know the whole story.
4. As I have previously discussed, many people look down upon homosexuals, so to merely write it off as a choice would not altogether make sense even in plain logic, seeing as it would not seem to be one that would reek much but havoc. Even just looking from the outside, heterosexuals begin to show their sexuality at young ages. It’s obvious walking into even an elementary classroom that the boys teasing the girls on the playground like them and the girls’ drawings of hearts with boys’ names on them like them as well. For the homosexuals, we often don’t even find out about their sexual orientation until they are at a much older age. I don’t believe that this is because they didn’t know; I believe that with all the pressure society puts on they fear it and often times even try to ignore it or change it. If it was truly just a choice that they made, why would they be fearful or at all ashamed? But, in a deeper level, as we have read in the experiment done by Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, there are clearly other things biologically and genetically happening. To not at least admit that is to be in denial because hypothalamus size is not something that can be chosen or individually altered. It just wouldn’t be logical to chose the complications that the heterosexual majority of the world brings upon the homosexual, and I think that we should all feel remorse in this and want to make a better, as well as fairer, tomorrow for all those born into a differing sexual orientation who feel abnormal for these things in which they cannot control.
5. The implications to assuming that homosexuality is dependant solely on biological factors is that though they have proven there to be a difference in the homosexual and heterosexual brain, no direct link to what this specifically means has been stated. Until there is some kind of proof that because of the varying size of the hypothalamus something specific happens, I don’t think anyone will or could be completely convinced. There is clearly a difference, but until it is proven what this exactly means for the individual, this will not be a fool proof argument.
6. This assignment has not drastically altered my beliefs on sexual orientation, but rather, it has strengthened them. I feel much more confident in my defending of homosexuality now that I know some background and that there is a biological and genetic link. Although, in any case, I don’t believe they are doing anything wrong and that everyone should shamelessly and fearlessly be able to be with the ones that they love in whatever way feels correct to them and not have to worry about anyone else.
AMBER STEINERT ~
MICHAEL STOCKE ~
I see where you are coming from with the homosexuality maybe being more biological. I don’t totally disagree with that statement but I would have to say I’m more on the choice side of the spectrum.
Your whole normal definition was exactly how I thought of it myself; I just maybe didn’t word it like that. I believe that other people’s upbringing and religion have a major affect on how people come to their viewpoints. Though, I believe, as time goes on, the person will come to their own conclusions to what they believe, even if it doesn’t match their peers or family members. Everyone is their own person and I think it just comes out to what people truly believe inside, but with the effect of religion and family involved.
JAYMIE BURT ~
I would have to disagree with your statement on how the experiment was overall a success. I believe there were too many variables that were not taken into consideration at the time. Such as brain damage previous to their death from AIDS and family history. Also most of them were victims of AIDS and I believe that they didn’t use enough people to cover for the general population, they had only 19 gays. Who knows what else was out there that could have also affected those results?
Sara Hudson
1.) In the article Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality, Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer discuss two major pieces of evidence dealing with male homosexuality. Roger A. Corski or the University of California at Los Angeles studied rats and the size of their hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is the region at the base of one’s brain. It is involved in instinctive behaviors and metabolism. Studies of the rats showed that males had a larger amount of certain cells towards the front of the hypothalamus than female rats did. The area where these cells were found was the area called the Medial Preoptic Area. This area has been noted to be involved in sexual behavior, especially in males.
They also found that the male sex hormone androgen was one of the big factors in the size of the cells in that area. It also brings about the dimorphism during development. Male and female rats have about the same amount of neurons in the Medial Preoptic Area, male fetuses will have stable neuron amounts when much testosterone is secreted. Many of these neurons will die in females because of the lack of this surge of hormones.
Gorski and his colleagues at U.C.L.A. found dimorphic structures in the human brain. They found a cell group named INAH3 in the same part of the brain- the Medial Preoptic Area. This is about three times larger in men than in women. In 1990 LeVay examined the hypothalamus in 19 homosexual males and 16 heterosexual males. He cut the hypothalamus of each body into slices. To mark the neuronal cell groups, he stained them. LeVay calculated the volumes of each cell group in each piece of hypothalamus. He too, observed the INAH3 was more than twice as large in males as in females. Also, it is two to three times larger in straight men than in gay men.
The final bit of information concluded from Hamer and his colleagues was about siblings. A gay man’s brother has a 14% greater chance of being gay, compared to a 2% chance of a straight man’s brother. Maternal uncles have a 7% chance of being gay, and aunts had a 8% chance. Of gay brothers; 57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twins and 13% of brothers are gay as well.
2.) I think a weakness is the amount of subjects studied. It was all based on male sexuality, but there was not enough females tested to create an equal amount and valid results. There was no concrete evidence to compare the results with. Also, studying rats does not constitute studying human beings. We are much different from rats in many ways, therefore the results can not be directly compared to humans.
A strength in the research done is the amount of variables and intervening factors they took into consideration. One could tell from reviewing the article that variables which could potentially affect the experiment were taken into account. It made for more reliable results.
3.) I think in this day in age, the media defines who and what is normal. The definition of the word normal is somewhere along the lines of “being the same, blending in, or conforming to the standard type.” This is absolutely impossible to do! There are no two people out there in the world who are the same, and there cannot be one normal type. The reality of things states differently. Because of the importance of social standards and how a person is viewed, there are countless things these days that will categorize people into boxes outside of “normal.” Magazines, television, models, movie stars and musicians are just a few of the things that set the standards for what is “cool” or in this case, “normal.”
Sexual activity is something that has changed drastically throughout the years. From long ago until now, the change is monumental. A long time period passed when it was not acceptable to speak of any sort of sexual activity or show sexual attraction toward anyone in public. This was improper and rude. Now days, the amount of sexual activity shown is unreal. We see everything from holding hands and hugging to kissing on live television. It is more accepted by culture and society today.
Also, sexual activity between the same sex has changed dramatically as well. Even within the last decade or so, things have changed in this category a lot. In today’s world, two women holding hands on the street is not a huge deal. It is not exactly in that “normal” category, but it is something that people do see. Two men holding hands, however, seems to be a bit more of a problem. The stereotypical man is strong and masculine, and somehow a homosexual man is no longer a “real man” by today’s standards. I do believe, however, that this is getting better and better every day as people become more open to homosexuals and stop categorizing everyone in the “normal” category or not in it.
I personally define normal sexual activity as a man and a woman, but I have nothing against homosexuals. I do not like to admit that I categorize this way, putting homosexuals outside the “normal” standard, but it is something I am still doing. I feel that because of the amount male-female couples there are out there compared to the male-male or female-female couples, male-female couples seems more “normal” to me.
My definition of “normal” does not match those of many peers and family members around me. If I had been writing this a few years ago, my opinion on this whole matter would have been completely different. I did not totally agree with homosexual relationships at all. I didn’t scorn them or anything, but I didn’t feel they were “normal” or right per say. About a year back I met one of the nicest guys I have ever come across. He became a good friend of mine and we got along very well. I found out about three weeks after I met him that he was indeed gay. He had a boyfriend and they were happily in love. At first it struck me as “weird” or too much to handle, but after seeing the two of them together, I began to change my mind. They are now married and happy together. The two of them have completely changed my opinion on homosexuality.
Like I said, many people around me do not agree with this opinion of mine. They find it “wrong” or unacceptable to be gay, my mother being one of them. I have approached the subject with her before, and it never ends up good. She is completely against it and probably always will be. I know many of my friends are like this as well, but I don’t agree with them. I think it is a person’s right to be with who they want to be, and no one is going to change my opinion on that.
4. and 5.) Many people say that being gay is a choice. I do not personally agree with that. I don’t think sexuality is just decided one day when you wake up. I believe it is a part of who we are. It makes me angry when someone says it is a choice they have made so they should deal with the consequences. Every human being is attracted to a different human, and we are all attracted to different types of people. Some females are attracted to guys who are tall and scrawny, others might be attracted to guys who have a shorter stature and are a little more round. Maybe you like blonde hair and blue eyes, or maybe you like brown hair and hazel eyes. No matter what you are attracted to as a human, I believe we are born with this. I believe it is a biological determinant. Usually people do not discriminate against someone being attracted to a tall guy with blonde hair, so why should we have the right as human beings to discriminate against a male liking a male. We all like different things, and I do not believe we have any right to be upset over what that is from person to person.
6.) This article has not changed what I believe. I am sill a believer in love. Love is what we as humans search for. Whether it is a baby searching for a mother’s love or an old man looking for the love of his family while he overcomes sickness. A little girl searches for a loving friend on her first day at school the same way a man seeks for his beloved to spend the rest of his life with. I think this is something we all can agree on. The magic of love is something that each person yearns to have. In the same way, someone who is gay spends their time searching for their beloved. It may be someone of the same sex, but it is still love that they are seeking. And love is searched for throughout the entire world. The love of a spouse, of a God, of a mother, or of a friend.
Sara Hudson
Mariah Melin:
I really liked your comment about Love being the same with whoever you choose.
Morgan Reno:
I totally agree with you when you stated “At the time when being homosexual was basically a sin….” That makes complete sense to me and is exactly what I was trying to get across but could not find the words. So thanks for saying that!
Michael Swartz:
I just wanted to send out kudos to you for being honest about you opinions being changed. I think it takes a lot to admit that you have changed your opinion on something touchy like this, and I admire that. So kudos!
Ryan McEachern:
I thought it was really cool how you compared this discrimination to that of African Americans in the past. It’s something that many people today can relate to and better understand.
Colten Zacharias:
In the article "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality" by Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer, the authors discuss the possibility of a homosexuality being biologically-induced, rather than being a choice. There are two pieces of biological evidence that LeVay and Hamer base their conclusions upon. The first is that there is a significant size difference in the area of the brain known as INAH3, part of the hypothalamus. Straight men possess a larger cell group of INAH3 than gay men in a ratio that is similar to the size difference of this medial preoptic cell group between men and women. Sometimes this cell group is completely absent in gay men. The similar amount of INAH3 cells in women and gay men suggests a difference of brains in sexual orientation is as great as the difference of the brain based on sex. The second piece of biological evidence is that there is a part of the x chromosome that influences gay behavior and increases the likelihood of being homosexual if you have a homosexual sibling. The statistics on this subject are that 57 percent of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins, and 13 percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. For women approximately 50 percent of identical twins, 16 percent of fraternal twins, and 13 percent of sisters of lesbians are also lesbians. This similarity is much less prevalent in male-female family members. There are numerous other statistics on this subject that support the relation between sexual orientation and family.
There were both strengths and weaknesses in the research conducted by LeVay and Hamer. I believe that overall, the studies were fairly credible. The experiments were conducted in the laboratory, so many intervening variables were either prevented or controlled. Also, all of their conclusions seem to be justified, at first glance, by their experimentation and the presence of a reputable brain researcher like LeVay increases the validity and scientific relevance to their experiment. However, there are also several weaknesses to their researches. The most glaring of these is the fact that the size of their samples and the magnitude of their conclusions is disproportionate and one is not conducive to the other. In LeVay's hypothalamus studies, the researcher only experimented upon 19 homosexual and 16 heterosexual males, all who died of AIDS. They also only tested six females, all with sexual preference unknown. First of all, I believe it was a mistake in using AIDS victims, as the disease might change the body in ways unknown. Also, all of the above sample sizes are far too small for LeVay and Hamer to make the enormous conclusions that they discuss concerning the entire population.
I believe that normal is a loaded word that is given far more meaning than the actual term constitutes. No one person has the right to decide whether another person is normal or not, but society disagrees. Society as a whole, as well as pop-culture and famous personas, seem to define what we perceive to be normal. In my opinion, I believe that normal is simply what is considered the behavior of the majority of the general populace. Normal is defined, to me, as what is the accepted or common behavior in our society as a whole. Thus, since, according to Alfred Kinsey's study, somewhere around 90+% of the populace are heterosexual, normal sexuality would be defined as being attracted to the opposite sex. It is normal because being heterosexual is a survival technique, as it is the only way to procreate and repopulate the human species, continuing our survival. Since this is crucial, heterosexuality is by far more prevalen, thus it is more culturally accepted which in turn defines the term "normal." I believe that my definition of normalcy would match up almost entirely with that of my parents because of the fact that I learned most of my closest held beliefs and morals from them. However, I believe that each person has their own unique definition of normalcy, as there are no two people completely alike in our world. I cannot say for a certainty that my ideas of normalcy do or do not coincide with that of my peers or community because most of what we perceive to be normal is buried deep within our subconscious. Childhood and American society and culture are the two most prolific contributors to my definition of being normal. Deviant is a term that rarely has any relevance because it is a term that is determined by each individual.
The implications of concluding that being gay is a choice are quite immense. First of all, you are saying that every person's sexual desires are completely decided consciously when it is a commonly held belief that much of a person's sexuality is controlled by the subconscious mind. It assumes that a person is always in control of their sexuality when it is almost a proven fact that sexual desires are rarely within our control. This also implies that all sexuality is a choice and that every human being chooses to like the opposite sex. This could be true, but not likely. Humans are born with the instinctual need to procreate and that is only achieved through coupling with the opposite sex. Yet another implication is that, if it is a choice, who's to say it is the wrong choice? It is not up to us as people judge the validity of the decisions of others. We do not have that power. The implications of deciding that homosexuality is a choice are numerous and possess great cultural impact.
The implications of deciding that being homosexual is a biological choice are equally as significant as deciding it is a choice. Deciding homosexuality is biological would basically demoralize the entire argument of most religions. How would creationists be able to condemn homosexuality if the trait is biological, provided by the very same creator they believe put them on this planet? Also, it would reinforce the ideal that people cannot be blamed for what they cannot control. How can a person be condemned for something they are absolutely powerless to stop? It could also alleviate the stigma of disgust placed upon homosexuals because of their "choice" to be gay. If one does not choose a behavior that may be perceived to be morally wrong then that individual is not held quite so responsible for his/her actions. It could lead to a more peaceful of acceptance if biological homosexuality were ever concretely proven. These are the main implications of deciding that homosexuality is biological.
My opinion upon homosexuality has not been altered a bit by these articles, merely strengthened. I possess a "live and let live" mentality. Someone else being homosexual does not change my life at all, so why should I condemn a person whose choices do not affect me? I'm still not quite sure whether homosexuality is biological or a choice, but I believe it might be a mix of both, each aspect feeding off the other. I think that it is possible there may be a biological aspect to homosexuality that may influence a person to act upon such urges, and that person in turn chooses to act that way. However, regardless of its sources, stories such as the Life and Death of Billy Jack Gaither are disgusting and despicable. Hate crimes of any kind are awful and abhorrent and if society endorses such acts or even turns the other cheek because it was done to a homosexual, then we are no better than the dirt upon which we trod. A person's sexual orientation may not coincide with your own, but who are we to say what is right and what is wrong?
In conclusion, regardless of what you believe is the source of homosexuality, no person has the right to condemn or ostracize a person based on their sexual preference. In an issue that speaks to all of our morals, withholding judgment is the strongest moral we can condone as human beings.
Colten Zacharias:
Jade:
I completely agree with your comments upon the definition of normal. No one person has the right to justify what is normal because such a term is extremely subjective and is decided by the thought and feelings of each individual. How can such a loaded term that has a separate meaning for every human on the planet ever be narrowed down to any semblance of a coherent definition?
Ryan:
I concur with your belief that if homosexuality was ever proven to be biological, it would be much more culturally accepted. If such a dramatic scientific breakthrough were ever achieved, then I believe that anti-gay protests would dissipate in a similar fashion that groups such as the KKK disappeared from mainstream society after the civil rights movement. Good conclusion, my friend.
HANNAH AHLBERG
1) In the article Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality authors LeVay and Hamer discuss why they believe homosexuality is not a choice. They have established both biological and genetic reasons to assist in their belief. LeVay found that in the hypothalamus there is a cell group named INAH3 that is twice as big in males as it is in females. Upon further testing he also found that INAH3 is two to three times bigger in straight men than in homosexual men.
A genetic connection that was found was between twins and siblings. Pooled data showed that 57% of identical male twins, 24% of fraternal male twins, and 13% of brothers of gay men are also gay. 50% of identical female twins, 16% of fraternal female twins, and 13% of sisters of lesbians are also lesbians. The studies also show that 8% of maternal cousins and 7% of maternal uncles of gay men are also gay.
2) Some weaknesses I found in LeVay’s study were the number of subjects and who the subjects were. To me it seemed like to little a number; 41 subjects all together, 19 homosexual men, 16 heterosexual men, and 6 women of unknown orientation. That seems like to small of a group to find an answer for everyone. Also all of the homosexual men had died of AIDS but only 6 of the heterosexual did. One thing that really stuck out at me as a huge weakness was that aside from those 6 heterosexual men that had died of AIDS the sexual orientation of the other 10 was assumed to be straight. One strength was that because of the laboratory setting most of the intervening variables were controlled. Overall I think the experiments were strong.
3) I believe that our media and pop culture are the main culprits in controlling what is “normal.” In movies and TV shows a man loves a woman or vice versa you never see a man falling in love with a man or a two women together. Every once and a while a movie or a show comes along that is about a gay couple, and then I believe that is where the family values of normality come into play. For instance one of my favorite childhood memories is one of watching the comedy Will and Grace with my parents. I never knew that the lifestyles shown in that show were considered wrong by some people until I tried turning it on in my grandfather’s, a Lutheran pastor, house. I was told that I am not to watch shows like that because they were shows about sin. My parents and grandparents each had their own view of what was normal and I had to chose which one I was going to adopt. I define normal sexual activity as something that happens between to people that love each other. To me it doesn’t matter what gender as long as they care for each other and genuinely love one another. My view matches my parents to some extent but I believe that I am on my own within my family; Within my friends however we are all on the same page. I believe that our culture is warming up to the idea of love being between anyone no matter what gender, but unfortunately we are not ready to completely accept the idea.
4) When saying that being gay is a choice you are implying that they could change one day and be straight. The biggest question I have for those who say someone chooses to be gay is-Why would anyone chose to be persecuted? Humans naturally chose the path of least resistance; if your sexual preference was a choice a believe that no one would choose to be gay.
5) Some people can misconstrue saying that someone is gay because of a biological difference. Society tends to find differences in others and turn them into negatives whether they are or not. Because of the size of their INAH3 they might be treated inferior or even alienated. On the opposing side discovering that it is because of something biological that people are homosexual it may lead to more equal civil rights.
6) Overall I don’t believe my beliefs have changed because of this assignment. I am however more informed and happy to discover that there is more discoveries being made about the biological affects that come into play.
Julia Gilbert says:
1) According to Leval and Hamer, there are 2 possible biological causes to homosexuality. The first is the evidence that the INAH3, a cell group derived from the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, is smaller in bay men than in straight men. The INAH3 was, at time, even nonexistent in those men who were gay. In fact, a gay man and woman had basically the same sized INAH3.
2) The second theory was that of homosexuality is a genetic trait. Scientists believe, that in the fetus, atypical levels of circulating androgens cause the fetus to become a gay adult. They have also found a link in families and homosexuality. This however, is only found in the maternal or Dads side of a person’s family. Scientists have found that if a certain maternal relative is homosexual, a child has a greater chance of becoming homosexual as well.
3)However, I do see weaknesses in the research. First of all, all of the subjects who were gay had AIDS and only some of the heterosexual subjects had AIDS. AIDS is a disease that could have caused the INAH3 to become smaller and therefore thrown off the results. They used an average amount of both the victims so in fact, the AIDS could have been the cause for the small INAH3 and because it was only an average size, the overall size could have been larger in the heterosexuals because they were the ones that had some nonAIDS victims. Also, the scientists didn’t know the sexuality of all of their subjects. They simply assumed that they were straight basing their experiment merely on statistics. For all they know, they could have been doing their experiment on all gay guys and this could have thrown off the results tremendously. Finally, why can’t they prove that a woman is gay from their INAH3 just like they can from a man. That just doesn’t make any sense to me. Although they did test in the subjects in a controlled environment, without bias, I do not believe that these results should be credible.
4) I define normal sexuality of that of a man and a woman. I say this not believing that it is wrong if it were a man and man or a woman and a woman, I just believe that is not normal in our society. I believe that my peers, family and community have the same beliefs that I do.
Finally, I believe that the media and all of Hollywood defines what is normal. For example, if a straight couple is the scoop of the media, the headlines read things such as cute, or adorable, but if a person is found gay the headlines read things like shocking, and unbelievable. This shows that Hollywood believes that it is normal to be straight. I also believe that a person’s opinion is influenced by his or her family and people older than them. Everyone has a role model and they believe the same things as their role model. A person’s view on these sort of subjects is made when they are young, and that is why I believe my foundation on the subject was made when I was little, because I looked up to my parents and family and they influenced my beliefs.
5) There are many implications proving that a person being homosexual is a choice. Some people believe that a person can choose if or not they are gay, just like a person can choose to be straight. Also, in the Bible it is stated that homosexuality is a sin and I believe that a person can choose whether or not they would like to sin.
They are also facts proving that homosexuality is biological. This is dealing with the genetic aspects and the INAH3 from which I discussed earlier in this blog.
I believe that a person’s sexuality is both a choice and biological. I believe that they are partially biologically gay when they are born, but as they grow up I believe that they can choose whether or not they are what their biological sexuality states. I believe that in the end, a person has the choice whether or not to display their homo or hetero sexuality.
6) This assignment has changed my opinion about this subject. Before I read these articles and web sites I believed that a person’s sexuality was solely their choice. But now, after I learned about the different biological aspects that can affect sexuality I believe that it is a mix and both a person’s choice and biological. I believe that a person can’t choose to be homosexual and that it is not their fault.
JADE: I do believe with what you said that there will never be a "normal" in this situation. But I do disagree that it has to be man to woman, vice versa. I feel that it's the same either way. And that our society shouldn't show that to our youth of that being right. But I do understand where you are coming from.
RYAN: I agree with how you stated that people let their peers influence what they should believe in and not go with their gut instinct. That was well put.
MARIAH: I agree with you on how you stated that they should be able to marry. I think of it as being not only that piece of paper, but an unbreakable bond. And I find that two men or two women can have that same type of bond as a man and a woman.
KELLY: Nicely stated about our coutnry not having normalcy. I like that a lot. And agree with that. Thanks for putting that out there.
Julia Gilbert:
In response to Margaret Tierney:
Podge, first of all I don’t agree with your theory of why the genetic aspect of gay marriages may not be liable. You stated that the clusters of homosexuals in the family had partly to do with the nurturing in a family. I don’t believe this because the clustering is not found on both sides of the family. If this were so, then the results would show up in both sides because if you think about it, both sides got nurtured the same way.
MARGARET TIERNEY
In response to JULIA GILBERT’s comment on my blog-
Gilly, when I mentioned that the environment in which a person is raised may have an influence on the clusters of homosexuals in families because family members are likely to be raised in similar environments, I was not saying that I disagree with the idea that there may be a genetic link to homosexuality. I was simply pointing out that a weakness of the experiment is that there are other possible explanations for the clusters. I’m not saying that there definitely isn’t a genetic link, I was just pointing out that I don’t think this particular experiment can be used as conclusive evidence that there is a genetic link because there are other factors that could have influenced the results. The clustering occurred mostly with twins and siblings of gay people, and they are likely to be raised in a similar. Twins and siblings of gay people are not on different sides of the family and those were the people who were most likely to also be homosexual. I don’t disagree with you that there may be a genetic link to homosexuality, I just think that more research needs to be done before anything can be concluded.
Julia Gilbert
In Response to Margaret Tierney's comment on my comment about her post:
Marge, I understand what you are coming from and also believe that more research should be done on the topic. Also, I was rereading your original blog and I noticed that you commented about Billy Jack's death. I too cannot believe that that sort of thing can happen just for the fact of someone's sexuality. I mean, it is very disturbing esspecially for the fact that the murder was extremely gruesome.
MARGARET TIERNEY
in response to JULIA GILBERT-
I completely agree with what you said about Billy Jack's death. I think it's really sad that such violent acts like his murder still occur in the world today. I think it is unfair that homosexuals have to face so much discrimmination.
to whom it may concern,
All of these arguments are absolutely haggard. Not only are all of you idiodic, you are all lesbians as well. Gay people are kinda cute.
The biggest boss uve seen dus fa.
Julia Gilbert
In response To Margaret Tierney once again...
No kidding
Haley Sundstrom
Homosexuality has proven to be a controversial topic that sparks passionate debate with arguments from both ends of the spectrum. Opinions are not only based on personal beliefs anymore, scientific studies have come into play, as well. In the article, Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Sexuality, authors Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer discussed potential differentiating brain structures and genetic links in male homosexuality. After learning of a group of cells in the hypothalamus called INAH3 (which is speculated to have an influence in sexual orientation) is about two times bigger in males than in females, LeVay conducted an experiment to determine if the size differed depending on sexuality as well as gender. Nineteen homosexual men, who died of AIDS, and sixteen heterosexual men, who had died of non-AIDS related causes, were examined. It was found that INAH3 in the gay men was between two and three times superior in size then in the straight men. The scientists also established that the volume of INAH3 was basically the same in gay men and straight women. It has also been found by scientists Laura Allen and Roger Gorski that a bundle of fibers running across the midline of the brain (anterior commissure) differs in heterosexual and homosexual males. Variations in genetics were studied and links between sexualities were discovered in the genes of twins, siblings, and extended family members. It was found that 13% of brothers, 24% of fraternal twins, and 57% of identical twins of homosexual men were gay as well. The percentage results for the siblings of homosexual women were found to be about the same. After it became apparent that homosexuality may tend to occur more in families, J. Bailey tested the heritability of sexual orientation and approximated the chance to be around 52% for women and 53% for men. More correlations in family members were recorded; including that a man with a gay brother has a 14% chance of being gay himself, with the number dropping to 2% if a gay brother is not present. In distant relatives, maternal aunts had an 8% chance of being gay and uncles had a 7% chance. Out of all family members, both extended and immediate, fathers, paternal uncles, and several cousins had no connection in the genetic experiment.
After reading the research article, several pros and cons became evident. It was interesting to see the article contained two different potential biological components of homosexuality, instead of just focusing on one certain topic. The experiment on differentiating brain structures was straightforward and simple, but some factors could have been adjusted. First, the subject number was too low. There weren’t enough brains studied to outweigh any intervening variables and gather a solid conclusion. Also, it was misleading for the homosexual set of subjects to all have died of AIDS. It was revealed, though, that one gay man was examined who didn’t die from AIDS and the same results were yielded. It is confusing for me to grasp the reason for the majority of AIDS-related deaths in the homosexual category. Not every homosexual person is going to die from AIDS and not every person who dies from AIDS is gay, so why use that as a factor in gathering test subjects? The section on genetic links in homosexuality was insightful because I had never really seen statistics on the subject before, but it seemed like it lacked experimental backup and detail about the supposed ‘gay gene’.
Normality in our culture today has so many definitions and interpretations, it is impossible to pinpoint an exact meaning. Behaviors that are called ‘normal’ really differ depending on the common behavior of the community and its citizens. For example, small, isolated towns have not been exposed to as much diversity as heavy-populated cities, making their definitions of ‘normal’ vary. I think it also has to do with what the celebrities and people in power recognize as acceptable. The spotlight is constantly on them and the population looks to them in idolization and conformation. Religion is a key factor, because there may be certain standards for what is accepted. Family values and beliefs play a part in the idea of normality, too. What you were raised to believe influences how you will make decisions later in life. Deep down, though, you have to decide for yourself what you are going to consider ‘normal’. When looking at what is ‘normal’ as far as sexual orientation, it is hard for some to broaden their way of thinking when heterosexual couples greatly outnumber homosexual ones.
When I think of ‘normal’ sexual activity, I picture two people in love. It doesn’t matter if they are straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, whatever; I define sexual behavior as not ‘normal’ when two people are together, but have no respect or love for one another. It’s hard for me to imagine that someone can have a problem with two members of the same sex loving each other while at the same time women are being beaten by their husbands and half of married couples are getting divorced. The focus should be on ending violence and dishonesty, not tearing apart what may be meant to be. Love is blind and if you are lucky enough to find your true love, nothing should stop you from being with them.
My definition of ‘normal’ comes from my own personal experiences and decisions, but there is a chance it could have been different if my family wasn’t the way they are. My immediate family and most of my extended family is very accepting of many things; homosexuality, multiracial relationships, you name it. Someone in my extended family is gay, and she has always been supported whole-heartedly. It is a given that people in my family who grew up in an earlier time may have different views, but it is just how thought was back then. We have definitely come a long way. Most of my friends share my definition of ‘normal’, too; again I think it comes with the idea that today’s culture is a lot more accepting.
Identifying homosexuality as a choice brings up numerous contradictions. Firstly, I don‘t think it’s possible for someone to just wake up and decide their sexuality. You could never make a straight person have a relationship with a gay person, it wouldn’t work. Knowing that, why do some think that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ and gay people can just ‘turn back’ into straight? Secondly, you hear about all the violent attacks against gays and how people are killed just because of their sexuality. Billy Jack is a prime example of when extreme homophobia fueled the death of an innocent man. People have become depressed and committed suicide just because their sexuality is not accepted by others. Where was the choice for these people? If homosexuality was indeed a choice, none of these violent acts would occur, let alone exist.
Classifying homosexuality as being biologically determined has a number of implications, as well. If the study of the differentiating brain structures proves that there is a difference in heterosexuals and homosexuals, it could raise some fears and concerns. Homosexuality could be thought of as a ‘deformity’, or that gay people have ‘something wrong’ with their brains, when in reality none of that is true. If a ‘gay-gene’ is proven to exist, there is the possibility (although extreme) that the gene would one day be eradicated. What kind of world would we live in if we purposely ‘rid’ the population of homosexuality because it didn’t fit in our definition of 'normal'?
When this assignment was first assigned, I was worried that my beliefs would differ from my peers and I would be forced to defend my views on homosexuality. It was a relief, though, to find out that most of my classmates agree with me and we can have a measured, controlled discussion on a topic that is so immensely controversial. This assignment didn’t really change my perspective, it just provided new ideas to ponder and consider. I’d never had a concrete opinion on what homosexuality is based on, but after this I can say that I think it is a mix of both choice and biological. A person will be attracted to the sex they were born to be attracted to, and they have to choose whether or not to let themselves fall for them. That still may not be defined as a choice, though, because you can’t always control when, where, and whom you’re going to fall in love with and if you choose to go against your feelings you may just be fooling yourself in the end.
Mary Tierney
1. Leval and Hamer say that there are two different possible biological reasons for homosexuality. The first reason is the evidence that the INAH3, a group of cells taken from the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, is larger in straight men than in gay men. In certain cases, the INAH3 was even nonexistent in homosexual men. And as a matter of fact, gay men and women had basically the same sized INAH3.
2. Laval and Hamers’ second theory states that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Scientists state that in a fetus, atypical levels of circulating androgens predetermine the fetus to be a gay adult. They have also found a common link between families and homosexuality. This however, is only found in the maternal side of the family. Research has found that if a maternal relative of a child is homosexual, the child has a greater chance of also becoming homosexual.
3. I found Hamer and Levals’ research to be quite legitimate. However, I do see weaknesses in the process. First of all, only some of the heterosexual subjects had AIDS, while all of the homosexual subjects dealt with the disease. This was a large intervening variable that they failed to control. AIDS is a disease that could have caused the INAH3 to become smaller and therefore vary the results. They used an average amount of both the victims, so the AIDS could have been one of the causes for the small INAH3 and because it was only an average size, the overall size could have been bigger in heterosexuals because they as a group had some non-AIDS victims. Another flaw in the experimentation was that the scientists didn’t know the sexuality of all of their subjects. They just assumed that they were straight, basing their experiment merely on statistics. For all they know, all of their subjects could have been gay, resulting in tremendously different results. Finally, I don’t understand why they can’t prove that a woman is gay from their INAH3 just like they can from a man. That section of the experiment did not make sense to me. Although they did test in the subjects in a somewhat controlled environment, I do not believe that these results should be credible.
4. There are a few good points that support homosexuality being a choice. Many people believe that nobody is born gay, they simply decide to become homosexual based on their upbringing and culture. Some people believe that a person can choose whether they care gay or not; and if they are gay, they can simply choose to ignore it. Some believe that sexuality is totally a factor of how you view people. It is possible that a past negative encounter with someone of a certain sex can cause homosexuality.
5. There are many good points that support homosexuality being biological. Hamer and Levals’ research about INAH3 is very sufficient evidence that supports the genetic view on homosexuality. Also, their research on gay fetal development provides proof. In my opinion, the proof of biological homosexuality is much greater than that of “choice.”
6. I believe that homosexuality is a mixture of nature and nurture. However, I believe that the bulk of it comes biologically. Leval and Hamers’ research about homosexual fetal development, in my opinion, is quite legitimate. I believe that homosexuality is not really a chosen trait. That is why many people hide the fact that they are gay from the public; it may be hard for them to talk about it when they did not choose to be gay. Also, from personal experience, I have a friend who is gay. I have talked with him before about his homosexuality, and he explained that it definitely was not something he chose. My friend said that it was something that just seemed to develop; when he started developing sexual feelings, they seemed to be towards men, not women. He struggled with this for the bulk of his teenage years, feeling embarrassed and confused. However, after awhile, he learned that sexuality can be determined biologically; it may not be a choice. Now he is comfortable and happy being gay. Now, I know that this is just one case. Not all homosexual people may feel the same way he does. However, having personal experience with the issue is in great part what shaped my opinion on gay being biological or a learned choice.
My view of homosexuality has been slightly altered by this article. I have always believed that a person’s sexuality was determined biologically. My opinion still leans slightly towards that side of the scale, but this article really opened up my eyes to others’ points of view. Also, through reading my classmates’ blogs on the topic, I have come to realize homosexuality really may be a partial choice.
Julia Gilbert
In response to Mary Tierney
Fenny, I must have made a type-o in my original blog. I did, indeed, mean to say woman’s side of the family.
I completely agree with your view about how you believe that it is partial choice and also biological. This is because of your friend which, also, is my friend. Because we share the same homosexual friend, we both have seen the situation from his shoes. I have also had conversations about coping with his sexuality and also the challenges with his career and how hard it is to cope even as an adult. This leads me to believe that our friend didn’t choose to be this way and that is why I think that homosexuality is partly to do with biological reasons, as you do as well.
Mary Tierney
In response to Julia Gilbert:
Gill, I thought you raised a lot of great points in your blog. I agree with a lot of the things you mentioned. However, I think you may have made a slight mistake while talking about the research. When you said that homosexuality comes from the maternal side of the family, you implied maternal to mean from the dad’s side. To clear things up, Maternal=mom, Paternal=dad. :]
Mary Tierney
In response to Julia Gilbert’s response to my blog:
Hi, again. Indeed, we do share the same gay friend. I definitely think that having him as a friend has biased our perspectives. But, is that a bad thing? I mean most everyone has an opinion on the topic. However, not many people have factual evidence or experiences to support their opinions. It is good that our opinions are actually based on a personal experience, rather than on nothing!
Julia Gilbert
In response to Mary Tierney:
I do in fact believe that our personal experiences have provided bias in our perspectives and do believe that it is also good that we based our opinions on a personal experience instead of nothing. But, to be clear, the opinions of many other people, especially in our class, is based on research, not just nothing.
Mary Tierney:
AGREED!!!! I definitely don’t mean to undermine anyone’s opinions! When I talk about the majority of the population, I did not include our peers. I realize that everyone here has done their research :]
Haley Sundstrom
In Response To:
Ryan McEachern
Ryan, I really liked how in your concluding paragraph you said "Discriminating against homosexuals is a violation of human rights and needs to be stopped. If we take into account of what life is like for a homosexual I believe that we can solve this controversy once and for all". Every citizen of the United States is guaranteed certain basic rights and those rights are not contingent on sexuality. I totally agree with you when you say that the issue needs to be looked at through a homosexual's point of view because some people make rash decisions based on discriminatory opinions without taking the time to consider the situation from the other side.
Michael Swartz
Michael, after reading your ideas on normalcy in our country today, I have to say that I disagree with one part. You said that research is now showing homosexuality as a "malfunction in the body during development". Although I understand that this is your own personal opinion, it is hard for me to see where you are coming from when you define homosexuality as a "malfunction". Just because someone isn't attracted to the opposite sex doesn't mean they are 'broken', they just love in a different way.
Tim Grover
Tim, I really liked how you described the connection between religion and homosexuality by saying that "the Bible is a complex book" and "if God can love everyone, then why can’t we?" Most of the time people just talk about how faith reprimands homosexuality, but you really took the time to look at both sides of the issue, which is pretty cool.
In response to Kelsey:
I know that it isn't much of a disagreement, and I still agree with you, but there was one gay male that they used for testing that didn't have AIDS.
I know that, that isn't a huge number, and that there should be more, but there was one. Now I totally agree with you in the facth that there weren't enough subjects used in the experiment. Most of this might have come from not having enough people who volunteered for their bodies to be used in science, but I still think they could have tried harder to get more males. Females as well, there weren't enough. They also didn't know their sexual orientation, so they should have had more females definitely!
All in all I agree with everything except the fact that they didn't have any gay males that didn't have AIDS.
Jessica Muehlbauer:
in response to Michael Stocke's comment on Rochelle.
Michael, I must disagree with you on what you said to Rochelle. You said that we have this urge and attraction at birth, and I feel it is more of how you are raised. When we are born, we do not know who we are supposed to be attracted to. This comes in time I feel. You grow up alongside your parents, in most cases, a male and a female. This guides us most likely to the heterosexual orientaton. If someones parents were gay, I feel it would be a greater chance that that child would be, because of their lifestyle. I do not mean a biological factor, like genetics, I mean the way someone is shaped. I feel how you are raised has the largest effect, besides the size of your INAH3. I agree with you on the biological factor, but I must disagree that it is instant when we are born.
In response to Tabitha:
In response to your opinion on whether it's a choice, is very interesting. I never saw it that way, and I see it as true.
MEGAN MULLEN
1—First, they refer to the cell group named INAH3, which is located in the anterior of the Hypothalamus. They stated that this region is was more than more than twice as large in men than women, and also two to three times larger in straight men than in homosexual men. Secondly, LeVay and Hamer believe that homosexuality directly connects with genetics. They found this after a study was done between twins to find out if one was gay, what the percentage would be that the sibling would also be gay. In the study, they found that there is a higher chance that if one twin is homosexual, the other will be too.
2—Overall I believe that the studies were drawn out in a precise way, yet there were a few variables that could have been improved. One example is when they used 19 homosexual men and 16 heterosexual men, along with 6 women. Using under 50 subjects to represent the entire world is definitely not enough. I also think they should have used women who died from AIDS also. This would have provided the exact same cause of death for each and every subject. When they said that they had surveyed people, it doesn’t say how many people were surveyed, the age groups, their environment they were in when the subjects were surveyed, and how many subjects they used. I find this study to be no help to be used as any evidence. A strength that stood out in my mind was that they were informed about the other intervening variables that could have come into play.
3—In this time, normal is merely defined by what ‘everyone else is doing’ or what we want to see instead of accepting reality. Also I think that TV has a major impact. Our role models, whether they are actors/actresses, models, siblings, parents, or friends, eventually define who we are. I believe that there is no normal. Everyone should be who they and what they want. If everyone was the same, the world would be extremely boring. ‘Normal’ sexual activity to me is a man and a woman, but I have no opposition to homosexuality. My family has just the same views as I do; be who you want to be. This is because of the way my entire family was brought up, and we are not against it in any way.
4—If people have the opinion that being homosexual is a choice, I disagree. Nowadays, homosexuality is being accepted…to an extent. People that are homosexual don’t want to get made fun of, be called derogatory names, or be discriminated against. They wanted to be treated like an everyday person. Who would want to live a life of being harassed, and treated differently every single day?!?
5—If being gay is, in fact, biologically determined, and it also was proven with an abundance of evidence, then I believe it would lead to less discrimination. However, when something changes in the so-called ‘normal’ life of society, there is always going to be some kind of disagreement. Over time though, being homosexual would be more accepted. Because of homosexuality being genetic, other people would just have to realize that it’s reality, and there’s nothing you can do to change that.
6—I don’t think this discussion changed my views in any way, but I definitely have thought of how this topic can be viewed in various ways. I have gained more insight on this issue and now have more knowledge about homosexuality from this blog.
Ryan McEachern in response to Tim Grover
I feel that your views of the bible being prominent in the issue of homosexuality is very similar to the majority of the population in the United States. I support your belief of Christianity and am glad to hear that you believe all homosexuals should be treated equally. Even if the bible does not neccesarily support homosexuality it everyone's role to treat people equally even if they are homosexual.
On the contrary, I disagree with your view on homosexuality evolving after birth. In our society the majority of people are against homosexuality. If this is true, I do not find it plausible that people would become homosexual in response to such an environment. Since our society is so unforgiving to people that are homosexual I believe that it is highly unlikely that the environment makes people homosexual.
MEGAN MULLEN in response to:
MICHAEL STOCKE— When you said “there isn’t a reason for me to be mad at someone for doing what makes them happy”, I totally agree. There isn’t a better way to say it. When someone is happy with the person they are in love with-whether it’s a man or a woman, why should society be mad at them? If anything it should be jealousy rather than discrimination against homosexuals.
SARA HUDSON— I agree with what you said about the study being conducted mostly on males. They should have found more women for the study to find more conclusive results. I disagree with your statement of studying rats. Yes, we are much different from rats, but if we discover something, it is likely that the same problem is similar in humans. It may not be the exact same, but close. Scientists and doctors are obviously very smart people and know how to link similar problems with one another.
COLTEN ZACHARIAS— “I believe it was a mistake in using AIDS victims, as the disease might change the body in ways unknown”. I also agree with this statement. In the article they state the subjects that hadn’t died from AIDS was unknown. How can you conduct a study when you have a HUGE intervening variable that could ruin the study completely? They also said that “no more than one or two of them were likely to have been gay.” I just do not understand how they conducted this study with SO many variables that were not controlled.
Ryan McEachern in response to Morgan Reno
In your blog you mentioned that normal was a word created so people could stereotype others. I agree with this view of normal. To define normal you would have to take everyone's opinion on the word. If this was attempted the definition of normal would become so vague and bland that it would not be able to be used. People's views of normal differ so much that a complete definition could not be made. People use this word to categorize people that they are different from. It is not right that people can discriminate people just because they are different. We need to become more accepting of the fact that everyone is different.
Although your "definition of normal" is concurrent with the majority of society you have chosen to accept the people that are "different". It is great that even though you have been raised to believe something different you can still be open enough to accept homosexuals. Even if they are different they are still people and deserve to be treated equally. Everyone is unique and so it is not fair to discriminate against a group because of one different quality.
In response to your comment about my blog.
Since it is apparent that African Americans are still not treated as equals in our society it is unlikely that homosexuals will be treated equal as well. People will always be looking to discriminate against people that are different. Therefore the occurence of everybody being treated equal is a far fetched thought. Although it might be difficult, people need to be more open to other's views. If this happens, our society may treat homosexuals more equal even though perfect equality may never be reached.
Connor Hady:
In the article Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality LeVay and Hamer talk about how homosexuality is much more than a choice or prefference. They studied the hypothalamus in gay men and women and found the cell group INAH3 in the medial preoptic area to be different in gay and straight men. This cell group was found to be more than twice as large in men as it was in women. It was also found that in straight men the INAH3 cell group was two or three times larger than in gay men. LeVay and Hammer also found that the anterior commissure which is a bundle of fibers running across the midline of the brain is smallest in heterosexual men and largest in gay men and women.
They came up with three possible reasons for the correlations between brain structure and sexual orientation. One is that the structural differences in the brain were present early in life and possibly before birth. Another is that the difference arose throughout the person's life as a result of feelings and behavior. The third reason is there is some other variable not yet known that is affecting the brain structure and sexual orientation such as a developmental event during uterine or early postnatal life.
There also could be a genetic link between sexual orientation. They found that a fair amount of a fair amount of family clustering of homosexuality occurs for both sexes. Some statistics are that 13% of brothers of gay men are also gay. 57& of identical twins, and 24% of fraternal twins are homosexual for males. They also found that aproximately 50% of identical twins, 15% of fraternal twins, and 13% percent of sisters of lesbians are also lesbian. This evidence points to some sort of correlation between genetics and sexual orientation.
I found that LeVay and Hammer's research was for the most part credible. They conducted the research in a labratory, so it was a controlled enviroment which limited any intervening variables which would through off the experiment. However, I think they should have tested a greater number of subjects in both the genetic and biological experiments, so that they could have a better representation of the population as a whole. Also much of their research was based on animals which is okay, but animals are not identical to humans so it doesnn't compare as well as doing it all on humans. Overall they did a good job with there research, and I believe it is credible.
Normal is something that is very hard to define here in America because we are made up of so many different cultures who have different beliefs. However, the majority of people in America are straight, so that is why many people view homosexuality as devient behavior. To me normal sexuality is a man and a women. That does not mean that homosexuality is wrong, I am just saying that most people are not homosexual. I think my definition of normal matches the definitions of most other people. I believe my beliefs came from my family, peers, and my religion. Those sources have influenced me to believe a certain way, but that doesn't mean homosexuality is wrong in any way. It just usually is not considered "normal" behavior. Religion has a major influence on how I view homosexuality because the church views marriage as a commitment between a man and a women, and does not accept homosexuality.
When you conclude that being gay is a choice people tend to react more harshly towards gay people. If you choose to like guys and you a guy people will wonder what is wrong with you, and might make fun of you for it.
If being gay is biological I think people will accept it more than if it were a choice. I believe this because it was meant to be, and it's not like you are just choosing not to like the opposite sex. If it's biological than it is a natural feeling and should be viewed in that way. I think if it can be proven that being gay is actually biological then many more people will accept gay people for who they are.
This assignment has changed my perspecitve on homosexuality. Before this assignment I thought that being gay was more of a choice. Now I believe it is more biological, and not a choice. I think it has much to do with the brain and the composition of the hypothalamus. That is how this assignment has changed my perspective on this topic.
Lindsey Envall said:
1.LaVay and Hamer, authors of the article Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality, both believe that there is a biological link to male homosexuality being supported by two significant pieces of evidence. The first is the difference in structure within the human brain and the second is a genetic link. First to try to find a biological link was Roger Gorski. Gorski and his colleagues at U.C.L.A found a cell group named INAH3 in the medial preoptic region of the hypothalamus. They realized that this group of cells was three times larger in male rats than in female rats. After realizing this information, LeVay decided to examine the hypothalamuses in 19 homosexual and 16 heterosexual men. All having died from AIDS, including six women, LeVay began to dissect the hypothalamus. In his study, he found that the INAH3 was more than twice as large in men as in women, and two to three times larger in straight men than in gay men. The group of cells was even absent in some of the gay men. One very interesting fact was the INAH3 was similar between gay men and heterosexual women. The genetic link was later when scientists found patterns of homosexuality within families. Links between twins and siblings and gay men and lesbians have also been found. The results between these tests and the data compared with the baseline of homosexuality were then called family clustering of sexual orientation. These two findings point to a biological component to male homosexuality.
2.When reading this article, I came upon some strengths and weaknesses, but the strengths seemed outnumbered. One of the strengths I found was that the experiments were conducted in a laboratory, so the variables were controlled. Another one was that LeVay and Hammer conducted the experiment on different animals and found that the same region within the brain was responsible for sexual behavior. This made it a little more convincing for me.
Some of the weaknesses I found, however, were the number of people they had for the autopsies. Having only 41 people does not accurately represent the total population. They also didn’t look into the past health information of their subjects to see if there were any intervening variables effecting the results of their study.
3.I do not believe that there is a set definition for “normal” in our culture. I believe that each person has to define it for themselves. The definition of normal, in my opinion, is what is usual. Usually, a person sees a man and a woman together. Fitting this definition, being gay isn’t normal. Straight people just outnumber gay people. This isn’t saying that gay people are bad, just that they are not the majority. I do not have the authority to tell others what is normal or not. It is just not my place. If I had to flat out say what I believe is normal sexual activity, I would say that it is between two people who are married, and deeply in love with each other. This definition may not fit with others however. My definition fits well with the definition of my family, although I believe that they would throw in “between a male and female.” This is how our culture believes normal sexual activity is also. Movie stars and the higher up in society show that if you are homosexual, you are different. They tend to make a big fuss about it, and post headlines on magazines if something is found. These beliefs also stem from the government. They do not want to allow marriage between gays and lesbians because it isn’t normal, or between a male and female. This is incredibly one sided! OKAY, so it doesn’t fit YOUR definition of NORMAL…so what. What ever happened to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? It may seem strange to some people, but gays deserve the same rights as others! I am also a religious person. I know that marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman, but I am not one to shove religion down other people’s throats. I may not agree with them, but I can accept what they are doing by looking at it from their point of view. Finally, the source of my beliefs, and others, come from how each person is raised and what environment they grew up in. Growing up with a homosexual person in your family will greatly change your view, rather that growing up with parents and family members totally unaccustomed with the concept.
4.With saying that being gay is a choice means that every person chooses who they love for certain reasons. Half of this I agree with, and half I don’t. Yes I agree with how each person has partial control of who they are able to fall in love with. I do not agree, however, on what gender that person is. What I mean by that is a male who sees a male and female with identical traits pleasing to them would have to have something tweaked inside their brain to make them go for the male. Saying being gay is a choice, sounds like one day a man would wake up and all of a sudden like guy living across the road. It just doesn’t make sense. I just don’t think that it is even logical that being gay is a choice. A person cannot help who they love, it just happens.
5.Saying that being gay is biologically determined means that there is something within the persons’ brain that makes them attracted the same sex. This makes a little more sense to me. Also, after reading the article, I totally agree with the idea and I think that if everyone knew it, they would accept the concept of homosexuality more. Scientific evidence is hard fact, and easier for people to accept. It gives something concrete for people to base their beliefs off of, and to compare to others with different beliefs.
6. This experiment has not really changed my opinions of homosexuality. More that anything, it has clarified some of the questions that I have had. I never really understood why people would be homosexual, or what would make them want to be. After reading the article and many internet sites, I am even more accepting than I was before. To me, it only makes sense that something within their brain was changed in a certain way to throw off their attraction to others of the opposite sex. In some ways, I think that is why people are not as comfortable with the idea of homosexuality…they just don’t know the origin and believe that it’s an “unacceptable” personal choice. If they knew why they acted that way, I believe they would be more accepting.
Andrew Motley...
1. In their article, both Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer discuss two pieces of evidence that point to a biological component for male homosexuality. The first being a struture within the human brain. This structure happens to be a group of cells located near the front of the hypothalamus. Roger A. Gorski, in 1978, found that this group of cells is several times larger in male rats than in female rats. The region in which these cells are located is known as the medial preoptic area. This area affects behaviors, those of which are more commonly displayed by men. The differentiation of the brain's structure is called sexual dimorphism. Well Gorski did another study with his co-workers, and found that androgens (male hormones) play an important role in the bringing about of dimorphism during early development. One cell group in the medial preoptic region, discovered by Gorski and his student Laura S. Allen, known as INAH3, is about 3 times larger in men than in women. In a 1990 experiment completed on 19 homosexual men, 16 heterosexual men, and 6 women with unkown sexual orientation, done by LeVay, findings concluded that the cell group INAH3 was at least 2 times larger in men than in women, and 3 times larger in straight men than in homosexual men. Even more intriging, this cell group was found completely missing in some of the homosexual men. The second piece of evidence is believed to have correlations with a genetic link. 6 different studies, all done on the patterns of homosexuality within families and on the twins and siblings of gay men and lesbians, have been reported since 1985. The gathered information speaks for itself: 57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twons, and 13% of brothers of gay men are also gay. For women: about 50% of identical twins, 15% of fraternal twins, and 13% of sisters of lesbians are also lesbian. These results merely suggest that homosexuality is possibly genetic in one way or another.
2. Most of the research done had weakpoints, more or less; it had no strengths. The studies and experiment done were done on very few subjects and weren't carried out properly. When the genetic link to homosexuality was mentioned in the article, I laughed. I thought to myself, how can a person's choices on sexuality genetically affect their offspring? I do believe that there is possibly a link between gay parents and their children's sexuality, but I strongly doubt that it's a genetic link. The research done on homosexuality within families is most likely wrong. I think the link is due to how parents raise their children. If you grow up in an environment where your parents are homosexuals, then they influence your own sexuality.
3. No one person, or group, can define such an abstract word as normal in our culture. Individuals put it upon themselves to determine what they think is normal and abnormal. However, the reason that so many people have so many different 'versions' of normal is due to the never-ending influence of which television, music, religion, and political issues have upon us all. Some parents raise their kids based on their own beliefs; whether it be more religion based or past experiences. Therefore, normal is a word that defines what we as individuals see among our peers and their beliefs...if that makes sense.
Normal sexual activity is another thought and/or perception that can not be determined by one person, or group. The bible shares its rules and laws of which its followers must abide by. As does the government. But neither of these large influences can totally control everyone's train of thought; its way to controversial of a topic.
I think that my "definition" of normal varies from everyone else's on earth. How can two people share the exact same thinking process and attitude towards everything? I think that my "definition" of normal is, however, somewhat similar to that of my friends, only because we communicate about it a lot though.
Like i mentioned earlier, most beliefs of my peers and family are influence by religion and past experiences.
4. The conclusion that being gay is a choice shouldn't have any implications because it is just that; a choice. Everyone makes choices everyday about everything they do. Its human to decided to like something and dislike something else, but that decision is ONLY an opinion. So how can one say that being gay is immoral and should have consequences? I think its wrong that we as an industrial nation discrimminate against people that choose differently than "us" when it comes to sexuality (i don't mean "us" as in a certain group of Americans, its a loose term).
5. Again, this determination shouldn't have any implications. If it is a biological determination, than it is in the same category as other biological determinations, like AIDS and mental disabilities. So how on earth can you punish those who are gay? You might as well beat up the mentally handicapped while you're at it... (but please don't).
Lindsey Envall said in response to
KELSEY YOKI
-I strongly agree with you on the idea the being gay is not a choice. It just doesn't make sense to me. How can someone all of a sudden decide... "Um, I don't
like her anymore, so maybe I will go out with him."
SARA HUDSON
-I agree with your opinion on homosexuality. It is a person's choice to love whoever they choose, and to be the kind of person they want to be. No other person as any right to intervene into their decision.
Chelsea Cossin
In the article "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality" by Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer explore for evidence for a biological link to male homosexuality. In 1990 LeVay decided to do a study to check whether INAH3 or another cell group in the medial preoptic area varies in size between males and females as well in as sex orientaion. Due to LeVays study of his 41 subjects. He
examined the hypothalamus of 19 homosexual men, 16 heterosexual men, and 6 women with unkown sexual orientation. He found out that the cell group INAH3 in the hypothalmus in the medial preoptic area was more than twice as large in men then in women. INAH3 also turned out to be two to three times larger in straight men than gay men. In some of the homosexual men, INAH3 was missing completely. Allen and Gorski. LeVay found this evidence to suggest a difference related to male sexual orientation about as great as the relation to sex. The second peice of evidence is a genetic. Studies on twins and siblings of gay men have shown that
57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twins, and 13% of brothers for gay men are also gay. These results show a large
amount of family clustering of sexual orientation. These results could be a sign of a genetic link to homosexuality.
I think one weakness of LeVay's research is that he only studied the hypothalamus of 16 heterosexual men nineteen homosexual men, and six women. I think this study should be continued with more subjects to make the result more clear. I think another weakness is the results of the studies done on families of homosexual men may not be very sufficicent
evidence to be a genetic link between homosexuality and families. This is because people who believe that homosexuality is a result of nuture and the way you were broguht up may argue that the clusters in the families may be because some people believe they way people are brought up can lead to homosexulaity and beeing siblings they could have been brought up in very if not the same enviroments. This than resulting in the fact the it may not directly be the specific genetic link.
I believe that people views on "normal" sexual orientation and what is the right way is based on religion, society, friend, ect. basically what the majorty of people think is normal causes people to sway their thoughts. Just because a majority of people think one way is right, doesn't mean in any terms that the other way is wrong. Today our culture is getting less and less excepting of others and defining certain people do to how they view a certain person. I believe society should become more excepting of others and not judge a person just by their beliefs. I think for many people "normal" can mean one thing but than on the other spectrum others can have a totally different view or definition of "normal." This is why I don't think we should have a one way definition of "normal." Everyone has a different opinion on whats the normal sexual orientation or normal sexual activites but some people can be comfortable with one belief others could be greatly unconfortable with the same belief.
If we conclude that being gay is a choice it could lead to a much greater conflict. I think this would lead to great conflit do to some people in society would say being gay is a choice making it a persons choice to face the issues and problems that come along with being gay and all the controverisy. Even though I strongly strongly disagree with this statement, not everyone feels the same one.
Concluding that being gay is biologically determined could minimize the disscrimination against gay people would sadly would not put a end to it all. I strongly disagree with the way gay people are treated and or looked apon. I think the conclusion of gay being biologically determined would make society a little more accepting of gay people but would still have discimmination around.
Before doing this assignment a had little if any idea that being gay was biologically linked. Doing this assignment has let me look deeper into the conflict and different view points of how gay people are looked apon. Reading the articles also made me think deeper into this controversy. After reading the "Billy Jack's Life and Death" made me think how far could our society take this controversy. Reading this article made me sick and at the same time was a wake up call to help limit the discrimmination against gays. It was surprising to me that such people would do that to a person just based on who their sexually attracted to made me angry and disappointed at the same time at how people treat one another.
LYDIA MCMILLAN::
IN RESPONSE TO JESSICA...
What i meant is not that people now will change their ways...and that is totally ok, i don't think it would be benificial to have everyone view the same on the topic... what i meant is in the future, if homosexuality becomes more regular, i think that people will change thier views. Surely not all at once but slightly over a long peroid of time. I think it will take a quite some time for homosexuality to become embraced by most.
MEGAN SNYDER:
1. Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer, authors of "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality," find that an area in the hypothalamus, INAH3, of a man is two times larger than the same area in a women's brain. It is also to be found that the same area is two to three times larger in a straight man's brain than a gay man's brain.
2. Overall I feel that this experiment was set out fairly well. They not only examined human brains, but monkeys and rats as well. Although they did conduct several valid experiments, there always seemed to be a major flaw. They never had enough subjects. I don't see how you could do such a controversial experiment on only several people. Also, it seemed as though they only held this experiment with gay men who had AIDS, which may have distorted many results they have received. If they had done this experiment on a much larger and more diverse group of people, then there may have been more accurate of results, otherwise, I do feel like this research was played out well.
3. There is no definition of normal. Normal shouldn't even be used to describe anything. If anyone defines "normal," it's society. We really do shape our opinions on what people will think of us, what society will think, or what our family and friends may think. What we see on tv, and everything else around us is, shapes our normal definition. If you grew up in a household with a mother and a father who were happily married, then that is normal to you. If you grew up with two fathers, or two mothers, that is also normal. There is absolutely no way that we will ever have a definition of normal who abides to everyone's beliefs. My definition of normal sexual activity would have to be, whatever makes you happy is good. If you are a women and you choose to love another women, then by all means, do it. Same goes for a man loving a man, or a man loving a woman! It really is all the same thing. I could never be against same sex marriage, or relationships, because as long as you love someone, why should it matter who it is? Many people say that in the Bible it says that a man and a woman are to be married. But don't we live in a society where church and state are separate? My opinions of "normal" are not the same as those around me, simply because everyone has their own opinion. I feel like I have very strong views, and many people can relate. Yet, no two people have the exact view on what normal is. I think my beliefs come solely from my parents. They have always told me to not judge anyone and to have everyone treated equally.
4. I do believe that being homosexual is a choice. If you are a woman and you're attracted to women, then it is completely your choice to continue liking women. Same for men. It is also my choice to like guys, same as any guys choice to like girls. I feel like there are some people out there that do change their minds, so be it. If you are finding who you are and you make they choice to change from being heterosexual to being homosexual, why should anyone have the right to judge that?
5. To say that homosexuality is based off of the biological aspect, is like saying you have no choice. If you were so called, born with a gay man's brain, then you may begin to question yourself like, why am I like this? Who made me this way? Do I have to be homosexual? I disagree with this because I do feel like it is someone's choice, not just on what their brain looks like.
6. I do no think that this assignment has changed my perspective. Although, it has informed me on the scientific aspect. I know I will always agree with gay rights, and I will always feel like homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. If you are happy being who you are, and love the person you are with, then why is anyone to judge you on that factor? I have my definition of normal, just as everyone else in the world does. So who are we to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman? Times are changing, and I am hoping that some day soon, we will all respect one another.
LYDIA MCMILLAN::
IN RESPONSE TO JESSICA ON HER COMMENT TO MICHAELS COMMENT ON ROCHELLE...
Jess i totally agree with what you said here. I think the same, you don't come out of the womb saying i'm going to like males or i'm going to like females. It's about how you are raised. I'm really glad you put that out there
MEGAN SNYDER:
response to Jessica's comment on Michael's comment on Rochelle's comment:
Jess, I must say I completely disagree with you. I do not think that Michael meant that the second you are born, you know who you are attracted to. He merely meant that we begin to find who we are at birth. You say that we find out who we are attracted to by what we see when we grow up. For instance, you said that if you grew up with a mother and a father you are more likely to be straight. And if you grow up with homosexual parents you are more likely to be gay. The vast majority of homosexual people grow up in an environment with a mother and a father. This is one of the factors why this topic is so controversial. Many parents do not understand when their child says they are gay. Some tend to push their children further away or try to change who they are. As sad as that may be, it is true.
Response to Michael's comment on Rochelle:
I completely agree with you Michael. Many kids do grow up knowing they are gay, and if their family is not open to that, they may feel as though they are forced to hide their feelings, and like you said, grow up as someone they are not. We must be much more open to other things. Just because we are not exposed to something, does not mean it isn't normal.
Chelsea Cossin in respones to:
Megan Mullen: I agree on the part where they used less than fifty subjects to represent the world. But I think were you said they should have used all males and female who had died from AIDS instead of a variety I think your right they should have all died the same way, but overall I think they shouldn't have used people who had died from AIDS because of what we don't know AIDS could have been and uncontrolled varible.
Mariah Melien: Mariah when you made the statement, "**I would just like to remind you that i belive everyone should have the right to their own opinions and that it's best that i keep an open mind.**" I totally agree with you 100% even though this was not part of the questions i'm glad you put how you felt into your assignment and I believe people should be able to also be who they want and more of our society should have an open mind and be much or excepting of others!!
TIM GROVER in response to RYAN
Ryan, I get what you are saying, and you make a good argument. There is definitely hostility to homosexuality, especially in smaller areas around the nation (like Hermantown), no doubt about that. But that is not the case everywhere in the country. There is certainly a wider acceptance in different areas, such as the big cities. Homosexuals can live in a good environment. Just because someone is homosexual does not mean that they will automatically be ridiculed. I have to admit, Hermantown is pretty sheltered when it comes to issues like this, and your point makes sense here. I just think in other places, homosexuality is not such a big deal. People may or may not be born homosexual, I personally have no idea what the true facts are. It just comes down to opinion and beliefs I think.
CARL VAGLE:
1)Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, authors of "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality", explore evidence for a biological link to homosexuality in males. There are two pieces of evidence that pointed to this. One was found when Roger A. Gorski and his colleagues at U.C.L.A found a dimorphic structure in the human brain called the INAH3 which is found in the hypothalamus. After hours and hours of research, Gorski noted that this region is three times larger in men than in women. Later after more research and autopsies were conducted, INAH3 was also found to be up to three times larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. That was the structural evidence within the human brain. The other piece of biological evidence that was found was a genetic link in the trait that showed up in twins and siblings. For men, it showed that 57 percent of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins, and 13 percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. In women, it was a bit similar except that 50 percent of identical twins, 16 percent of fraternal twins, and thirteen percent of sisters of lesbians are also lesbian. They said that a brother of a gay man had a 14 percent chance of being gay, and a brother of a man who is not gay has a 2 percent chance of being a homosexual.
2)The research of LeVay and Hamer seemed to be fairly credible but there were some instances in which they could have done better. For instance in both the biological and genetic experiments their sample sizes seemed to contain an insignificant amount of people. They did not have enough people to fully represent the general population. Along with that, much of their research has been derived from experiments on animals, even though animals have been used in many other experiments there is always an unknown of how something acts between humans and other animal species. On the positive side most of their research was conducted in a laboratory which limited many intervening variables creating more credible research. Overall I thought LeVay and Hamer did an good job on their research based on what they were trying to achieve.
3)I believe "normal" has a meaning beyond our comprehension. Although everyone has their views on what "normal" means the true meaning will remain undefined. The factors in making up what normal should be defined as are so limitless that we will never be able to fully define "normal". My beliefs on normal sexual activity include a male and a female, not 2 males or 2 females. My family believes the same way I do on the topic of "normal" sexual activity. This may be because I have been raised watching these beliefs in action. I believe my friends feel the same way on this topic. They don't believe that a man and a man together doing "things" a married couple do is "normal" or two females doing these "things". I believe my community thinks a man and a woman together is "normal". This is shown because there is no big debate going on in my community about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Our culture belives the same way even though there are the debates going on about legalizing gay marriage so that homosexuals can feel "normal". My beliefs towards what is normal are based on what my parents have taught me, what my religion teaches me, and what I see everday in the places I go.
4)The implications of viewing homosexuality as a choice causes people’s beliefs change. If homosexuality is someone's choice people believe that they should deal with the consequences of choosing to be gay. I belive that people who choose to be homosexual choose to have difficulties come there way. Even if it is their choice, people can go through the hardship and if it was worth it to them than they've succeeded and if not then they chose the wrong choice.
5)The other perspective of homosexuality being biologically determined would end up being more accepted by other americans. This way of turning out gay would not be the person's fault and they wouldn't have as much hardshhip. They would still have some struggle but not as much as if they chose to be a homosexual.
6) This assignment has not changed my views towards homosexuality. Instead it has broadened my view of homosexuality and how some people are the way that they are. However I still believe that homosexuality is someone's choice and not biological.
Brett Ludwig
1)
In the article, LeVay and Hamer discuss the evidence which supports the opinion that there are biological components that can result in male homosexuality. An experiment in 1978 by Roger A. Gorski found that a group of cells in the hypothalamus is larger in male rats than female rats. Gorski found that androgen (typical male hormones) play a key role in developing the dimorphic cell group. A structure called INAH3 is a group of cells found in rats was also found by Gorski and his colleagues in the human brain. This dimorphic structure is about three times larger in men and women. LeVay later in 1990 decided to take a closer look at INAH3 and see if there was any connection to the size of the structure and sexual orientation. It turns out that there is a correlation. LeVay discovered that INAH3 was two to three times larger in straight males than gay males.
Another discovery of sexual orientation was found in the anterior commissure (a bundle of fibers running across the midline of the brain) is smallest in straight men, larger in women, and largest in gay men. The correlation between the brain and its structures like the anterior commissure is just one possibility in determining the sexual orientation of a male.
The second piece of evidence is a genetic link to homosexuality. These studies on family are based off the fact that genetic traits run in families. These studies answer the question on whether or not homosexuality is a genetic trait. Data has shown that 57 percent of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. These results support that there is a genetic link to homosexuality.
2)
One weakness that I see in the research done by LeVay is his number of test subjects. He only had 19 homosexual and 16 heterosexual samples. In my opinion this is not sufficient enough numbers to provide concrete results. I also believe that the research done on the genetic link could be distorted. To me, it would make sense that family members have many of the same experiences and share most of the same opinions. So if one brother was gay, it would make sense to me that the other brother might be gay as well, because of how the environment has shaped both of them relatively the same. Though, there are a lot of exceptions to this idea.
Some strengths of the research are that the experiments seemed very controlled in a lab environment which would help eliminate contradicting variables. Also, I believe that they variety of research that was done and the amount of research taken place backs up the statements and theories suggested in the article.
3)
I believe that “normal” in our culture is defined by the majority. What I mean is that whatever most people tend to believe is “normal” is the “normal.” Also, normal is our way of life. The things we do and how we do them. For example what we consider “normal” to eat here in America would not be normal to eat in India. One instance would be if people liked to eat sushi. Some people couldn’t bear to think of eating raw fish. On the other hand there are people who love to eat sushi and don’t understand why people wouldn’t like it. I hope this makes sense. All in all, it is what people do without thinking too much about it. I define normal sexual activity being between a man and a woman. I think that yes, most of my opinions match those of my family. Consequently, I have began to notice that not all of my views correspond with my friends and peers. Take for instance the election. My friends and I did not agree with some of the candidates and what was right or wrong. That doesn’t mean we aren’t friends anymore because each of us knows that we are entitled to our own opinion. For me, I believe for the most part that my definition or the norm is similar to the community and our culture. My beliefs are mostly from my parents. They raised me in a Christian setting so religion is also a huge factor. So, the main source backing up my opinions come from the bible. Other sources are peers and family. Peers help me to understand what is normal to wear, or how to act, or what to have. Basically, peers help me to understand what is hip and what is not. In the end, I believe the majority controls what is “normal” and to me normal for sexual activity is between a man and a woman mostly because what the bible says.
4)
Concluding the implications that being gay is a choice are that people in my opinion will not accept it as well. Why? I believe that if people view being gay a choice than they won’t accept them and that they will discriminate against them. With a choice comes consequences and those consequences are that there will be people out there who do not agree with that choice. Though, they should remain respectful of that person because it is his/her choice and there isn’t anything that they can do about it.
5)
Concluding the implications of being gay are biologically determined is that in my opinion more people would accept homosexuals. I believe by not having it be their choice it provides them fact that there is nothing wrong with it and that it is just they way the were born. Without the power to control if one is homosexual or not it would be more “normal” to be gay. To conclude, if homosexuality was determined biologically then being gay would be accepted and the stereotypes and discriminations would surely diminish.
6)
No, this assignment has not changed my opinion on this topic. Though, it has opened my eyes to other people’s opinions. I think that to have a strong opinion on an issue that you should have the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. I believe that this assignment has looked at one of the sides and given very solid evidence behind it. I have learned much about the biological reasons for homosexuality and was very intrigued reading and comprehending the material.
Brett Ludwig
In response to:
Jade Lendacky:
I like how you said that if it was normal to be gay then we wouldn’t be talking about it. I think that is a good way of stating what you believe. It sums up the whole argument extremely well. To me, it just makes sense. I would have to say I enjoyed reading your opinion partly because I have many of the same views.
Ryan McEachern:
I disagree with what you had to say about religion. You say that people shouldn’t use religion to form their views, but isn’t that one of the points of religion. I know that I am far from what is expected from what a religious person is to be, but I still view myself religious. I think that religion should have a huge impact on your views especially on the controversial issues. Not that you are wrong at all, but I just am saying that I think that religion should be apart of a person. The way they act, what they do, what they say, and what they think. I really enjoyed reading your opinion on homosexuality mostly because it is different than what I believe.
Rochelle Lentz:
I agree with you completely that the media determines a lot for us what is “normal.” After thinking about it I started to realize how big of a role the media does play in making decisions about whether or not something is “normal” and I was a little disappointed in myself that I let a square box tell me my what to do. I really enjoyed reading your opinion because it enlightened me to new ideas.
Michael Stocke:
I understand what your saying about that the environment shapes a person and could have an affect on whether or not a person is gay. From what I am understanding you are saying that yes, maybe a person is born gay based on biological reasons, but that doesn’t mean that they have to pursue to the same sex. They choose whether or not if they want to be a “homosexual” or not.
ELLEN FOLMAN
1) Opinions of sexual orientation are no longer solely based on personal beliefs. Scientific studies have contributed to the debate on sexual orientation, and in the article, Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality, authors Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer discuss potential structural brain differences and “gay genes” in homosexual men. LeVay and Hamer refer to these structural brain differences as the size of the INAH3, and Allen and Gorski refer to the size of the anterior commissure. The INAH3 is a group of cells located in the hypothalamus and it is about two times bigger in males than in females. LeVay decided to conduct an experiment to determine the size of the INAH3 due to sexuality. The study included 19 homosexual men who had died of AIDS, 16 heterosexual men, six of whom died of AIDS, and 6 women of unknown orientation. LeVay examined the INAH3 and found that it was two to three times larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. This makes the INAH3 the same size in gay men and straight women. Laura Allen and Roger Gorski discovered differences in the size of the anterior commissure of the brain between homosexual and heterosexual men. The anterior commissure is a bundle of fibers that runs across the midline of the brain. It is smallest in heterosexual men, larger in women, and largest in homosexual men. After correcting for brain size however, the anterior commissure in women and in gay men is comparable in size.
Variations of genes were also studied. Genetic research, which focuses on genes that sway rather than determine sexual orientation, found sexual links between the genes of twins, siblings and various extended family members. These twin and family tree studies are based on the principle that genetically influenced traits run in families. Richard C. Pillard and James D. Wenrich published the first modern study on the patterns of homosexuality within families in 1985. There have been five other systematic studies, which have been reported on the twins and siblings of gay men and lesbians. It has been found that about 57 percent of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins, and 13 percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. For women, approximately 50 percent of identical twins, 16 percent of fraternal twins, and 13 percent of sisters of lesbians are also a lesbian. Hamer and his colleagues’ initial survey of males confirmed these results found by Pillard and Weinrich. Hamer’s survey found that a brother of a gay man has a 14 percent likelihood of being gay, as compared to a 2 percent chance of men without gay brothers. Among distant relatives, maternal uncles had a 7 percent chance of being gay, whereas sons of maternal aunts had an 8 percent chance. No correlation was found between fathers, paternal uncles, and three other types of cousins.
2) After examining the article, I found many positives and negatives in the research and its method. I liked the fact that the article included two biological differences in homosexuality instead of focusing on just one, and I also enjoyed that the research was simple and easy to understand. The research was also conducted in a laboratory, which most likely controlled some intervening variables. I found many negatives in the research however. I thought that LeVay should have included more subjects in his research. Only a small sample, 19 homosexual men, 16 heterosexual men, and 6 women of unknown orientation, were included and I feel that this is too small of a sample to apply to the general public. I also did not like the fact that the 19 homosexual men died of AIDS and only 6 of the heterosexual men died of the same disease. The AIDS virus could have altered the size of their INAH3, which would completely throw off the results of the experiment, but why was it necessary that the homosexual men had AIDS? Not all men who have AIDS are gay, and not all gay men have AIDS. But, I found that the following was the largest weakness of the experiment. LeVay ASSUMED the sexuality of the 10 heterosexual men who did not die from AIDS. IF one of these men were gay, then the results would not be legitimate.
3) It is impossible to define ‘normal sexual activity’ in our culture today. The term ‘normal’ has many different meanings for many different people, and can be effected by your community or town, your political or religious beliefs, and what people in the spotlight think is acceptable. For instance, smaller towns have most likely not been exposed to as much diversity of larger cities, thus people in the larger cities MAY be more accepting. Also, the media has defined what ‘normal sexual activity’ is. In almost any movie or television show you watch, it is a man with a woman. It is almost never a woman with a woman or a man with a man.
I define ‘normal sexual activity’ as two people who are in love. I think that love is not supposed to be about being ‘normal,’ but it is supposed to be about respect and caring for one another. It shouldn’t be about a man being with a woman, it should be about the love and devotion to each other and the relationship. My family and peers share the same viewpoint as me. I have a cousin who is a lesbian and the majority of my family has supported her. I am very fortunate to grow up in a family that encourages “being you” and “being unique”, and my beliefs have come from this. I believe that our culture is slowly becoming more accepting, but it still has a ways to go.
4) When it is said that being gay is a choice, the implications are that a person can one day choose to be gay or straight. I do not agree with sexuality being a choice because I’m not sure that anyone would necessarily choose to be gay because our society does not necessarily reward it. For instance, look at the death of Billy Jack; he was violently killed for being gay. If being gay is a choice, who would choose it if they knew they too could be Billy Jack?
5) When it is said that sexual orientation is determined by biological factors, the implications are that a person is gay because of different biological factors than a person who is straight. Society does not always look positively on differences and being gay may be thought of as a genetic aberration. If in the future, differences in sexuality can easily be detected by biological means, the potential exists for sectors of society to discover and discriminate against individuals.
6) This assignment has not necessarily changed my perspective on this topic, but it has given me new ways to look at things. Before reading the article and reasearching, I never really grasped the concepts of sexuality being biological or a choice. I think that I now have a better understanding and grasp of these viewpoints.
ELLEN FOLMAN
IN RESPONSE TO HALEY:
When you said that, “It was found that INAH3 in the gay men was between two and three times superior in size then in the straight men,” I’m pretty sure you meant inferior when you said superior.
Also I totally agree with this statement of yours, “When looking at what is ‘normal’ as far as sexual orientation, it is hard for some to broaden their way of thinking when heterosexual couples greatly outnumber homosexual ones.” It is hard to broaden ways of thinking when homosexual couples are greatly outnumbered.
ELLEN FOLMAN
IN RESPONSE TO MICHAEL SWARTZ:
When I read what you had to say about being gay is a choice, it all made sense. “Certain people have been known to be unsure of their sexuality, and because the size of the INAH3 may be in between 100% straight and 100% gay, they must choose which sexual orientation they are more comfortable with. This supports the idea that sexuality can be a choice.” I see what you’re trying to say. When a person has a INAH3 that is between 100% gay and 100% straight, the choice is there for them to choose what may be more comfortable for them.
HALEY: Nicely stated about stating why it has to be a problem for two people of the same sex to be in love, while other couples of a man and woman are getting divorced and having abuse taking out on them. That was a good point. It's sad to think that some people are beaten and killed because of their sexuality, when most of the time it cannot be changed. I love your outlook on this whole thing.
IN RESPONSE TO FAITH: Thanks for pointing that out to me. I must have read right over that. And yes, I felt that they used a pathetic amount of people for the experiment, considering it is quite a contraversial subject to be spoken about. More would have made the results a little bit more concrete.
CONNOR: I was just confused about when you said that there is not a lot of homosexuality. I think that we may think that because we don't see it a lot, but who can we be to judge that? Some people may be hiding what they really feel because they don't want society to hurt them in any way possible, so they feel better keeping it to themselves. And we can't be the ones to define normal as being a man and a woman. Because in the eyes of a homosexual, normal to them is being in love with the same sex.
ELLEN KUECHLE:
In the article “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality” by Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, they discuss that homosexuality is a biological component, rather than a choice. LeVay found that the INAH3, a group of cells in the hypothalamus, is between two to three times larger in straight men than in gay men. They also observed hat there may be a genetic link to homosexuality. They saw that 57 percent of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins, and 13 percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. For women, approximately 50 percent of identical twins, 16 percent of fraternal twins, and 13 percent of sisters of lesbians are also lesbian.
One of the weaknesses of the experiment was the number of subjects who were studied. LeVay only examined the brains of 19 homosexual men, who died of complications of AIDS, and 16 heterosexual men, who also died of complications of AIDS. He also only studied 6 women, whose sexual preferences were unknown. (They may or may not have died from complications of AIDS.) One of the strengths of the experiment is that they took many intervening variables and other studies and experiments into consideration.
I think that “normal” is hard to define, and it is different for everyone, and is usually defined differently in many situations. In the U.S. there is no one who can be completely defined as “normal.” There are many different races, religions, ethnicity, languages, etc. I also think that the media also defines some things as normal, and many people listen to that opinion. As far as defining “normal sexual activity”, I would consider it to be sexual activity with the person you love, whether that person is of the opposite sex or the same. My definition of “normal” is not always the same as my some of my family or my peers. I believe my definition of normal is different than others because I was raised believing that homosexuality was acceptable, because of gay people in my extended family. I think a lot of these beliefs come from religion and the culture and environment that people are raised in, which is different for everyone.
I think there are some contradictions when implying homosexuality is a choice. People can not just wake up and decide if they want to be gay or straight, and then change that if it doesn’t work out. You could never force a straight man to be in a relationship with a gay man, it wouldn’t work. Also, there are many violent attacks against homosexuals due to extreme homophobia. If you knew that being homosexual could be potentially harmful, or life threatening, not to mention not always socially acceptable, I do not think someone could “choose” that lifestyle.
As far as implying that homosexuality is biological, there are a couple contradictions that came to mind. I think that saying homosexuality is biological is valid, and it is personally what I agree with. However, people may say that there is something “wrong” with a homosexual brain, and that they may need “treatment.” Also, if a “gay gene” did exist, scientists may try to eradicate it from the world, just as they did viruses like smallpox, because it didn’t fit in with the “definition of normal.”
I do not think this assignment has completely altered my views on homosexuality, but it has given me different ideas and situations to think about. I still believe that homosexuality is not a choice, but I have been able to see that some people think it is, and it really got me to think about why I believe the way that I do.
Lauren Scott:
1.) In the articleby Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, there were two pieces of evidence that showed a biological connection to homosexuality. The first is a cell group called INAH3 which is found in the Hypothalamus. Thye found that it is three times larger in men than in women and was two to three time larger in straight men than in gay men. In some gay men the INAH3 was all together absent. They also found that androgen levels are unusually low in male fetus's that become gay and high in female fetus's that become lesbian. Secondly, they studied the twin and family tree studies. Pooled data for men has shown that 57 percent of indentical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of brother of gay men are gay as well. Women had 50 percent of identical twins, 16 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of sisters of lesbians also be lesbian.For distant relatives maternal uncles have a 7 percent chance of being gay and sons of maternal aunts have and 8 percnet chance.
2.) I think that LeVay and Hamer did a good job overall. The biggest problem to me with this research was the amount of sujects they used. It was too inconsistent. First off, the numbers were uneven. They only studied 41 subject, 19 of them being homosexuals males, 16 heterosexual males, and 6 females whose sexuality was unknown. They also did not have a good variety of subjects. Every homosexual man had died of AIDs and 6 of the heterosexual men had died of AIDs, the other heterosexual men's sexuality was not certain. This mixture of subjects surprised me on how unorganized it was and how inconsistent it was.
3.)I believe our culture is formed around media, religion, and peers. We listen to what these people have say because they are the ones who chose who fit in and who doesn't. Those who are strong on religion are most likely going to follow what is believed in their church. A good example for media would be Ellen Degenerous. When she first came out and told the public she was lesbian many people were horrified by it. But as time went on, she kept her show, and the public started to realize that she wasn't any different than anyone else and, according to me, homosexuality became more exceptible in our country. To me, normal sexuality is have a sexual attraction for some one, whether it be of the same or opposite sex. My definition matches that of my family and church. Some of my friends believe differently than me. My beliefs came mostly from my parents.
4.) To me I don't think being gay is a choice. However I do believe that people who have been brought up being told being gay is wrong may be able to fight back the urges and maybe even convince themselves that they are attracted to the opposite sex. Yet that feeling for the same sex will always be there.
5.) I believe that homosexuality is completely biological. After reading the article by LeVay and Hamer and how the INAH3 is greater in straight men than in gay men, I strongly agree with this. Though as i said before i believe that some people may be able to make themselves believe what society wants them to believe but their true instintual feelings will not go away.
Andrew Samberg
1.LeVay and Hamer wrote an article that basically described how having homosexual preferences is not a choice. The two authors have discovered that there are several aspects of the body and brain that differ not only between male and female, but heterosexual and homosexual males. Biologically they found that the size of cell groups in the hypothalamus was two to three times bigger in strait males compared to homosexual males. Genetically, there has been research that has found that in males there was a higher chance of being homosexual if they had a homosexual sibling.
2. In my opinion, LeVay and Hamer had a very strong experiment, but when reading the research I came across a few flaws. First, they did not test a big enough group to make a conclusion about the whole population. Even though each subject responded similarly, the small subject group would be a flaw in this experiment. Another blemish in this experiment was the fact that the homosexual males all had AIDS while only most of the heterosexuals had the disease. Last, most of the information was taken from animal testing. Even though this technique has been used many times successfully, there is still a chance that a human would be different. A strong point in this experiment would be that LeVay and Hamer did all of the testing in a laboratory. This leads me to believe that their results were very accurate and precise. The experiment was very strong and an overall success in my opinion.
3. To me there really is not a definition of being normal. People have different thoughts and definitions of what normal is, and it is basically based on what a person’s beliefs are. Today we see normal as the people on TV and listening to what the media has to say about the normal people. There are so many different ways people think about being normal, by doing this they categorize people and what they do. To me there is not a normal, it is what you think and do. To me normal sexual activity is between a male and female because that is what I was taught and that is what my parents and friends also believe. In my opinion being homosexual is an ok thing, and as a whole, most people are starting to accept the decision of sexual activity between two men or two females. Today people are learning to accept this decision, but in past years the society has mostly been anti-gay. My opinion is very similar to my family and friends and I think that it is not right to judge homosexuals because it is their decision and we should mind our own business.
4. I believe that you cannot choose your sexuality just because you want to. Homosexuals do not choose to be gay because they want to get made fun of sometimes. Years ago being a homosexual was a horrible thing and they did not want to be harassed because they like a certain sex. Being attracted to someone is not a choice it is a biological part of your body.
5. When people make the implication that some one is gay, I think about how there is different sizes of the INAH3’s. When some one has a smaller INAH3 they cannot control what sex they are attracted to because their brain is set on that one sex and there is no changing.
6. I still believe that being homosexual is a different life style, but I now know some reasons for the decision. These people cannot control who they are attracted to and they do not deserve being treated differently because of it. I now have a better understanding about this topic and learned some new things in reading about why and how people are homosexual.
ELLEN KUECHLE:
IN RESPONSE TO SAMANTHA KALLBERG:
I agree with you when you said that being gay is not a choice, because I also do not think that you could change your sexual orientation when you feel like it, it just wouldn’t make sense to choose to be homosexual one day and heterosexual the next.
IN RESPONSE TO TABITHA BOORTZ:
I like that you brought up the point that some of our parents may not believe in homosexual relationships, because of the generation they grew up in, and how they were raised. I also think that homosexuality is beginning to become more acceptable in society today, at least more than it was many years ago.
Also, I like how you said that if being homosexual is a choice, so is being heterosexual, which many people do not believe.
In response to Brett Ludwig:
I completely agree with what you said about whether homosexuality is a choice or not. That is exactly how society sees it in my perspective.I believe that many people just want it to seem ok so they considered it biological, that way they don't have to deal with the consequences.
Lauren Scott in response to Tabitha Boortz:
Tabby i think you bring up a good point on how many parents don't think it's correct to be homosexual because they grew up in a time when it wasn't correct, and they have taught their kids their beliefs. That is a huge reason why it is such a big controversy today.
Lauren Scott in response to Brett Ludwig:
I completely agree with what you said about whether homosexuality is a choice or not. That is exactly how society sees it in my perspective.I believe that many people just want it to seem ok so they considered it biological, that way they don't have to deal with the consequences.
STEPHANIE THUN
1. LeVay and Hamer researched tiny cell groups (INAH1, 2, 3, and 4) which exist in the hypothalamus. When exclusively looking at INAH3, they discovered there were varying sizes between genders. The INAH3 in males was twice the size of those in females. Then they found straight men had an INAH3 two to three times larger than that of a gay man. Finally, they found that gay men and women have no significant difference in INAH3 size.
Also they reviewed a study by Richard C. Pillard and James D. Weinrich that looked at homosexuality within families. The study found you have a higher chance of being homosexual if your sibling is homosexual. This helps support the possibility of sexuality being genetic.
2. Strengths-
•The experiment was conducted in the lab meaning variables can be better controlled.
•They used heterosexual men that had died from AIDS along with ones that did not allowing for comparison.
•LeVay and Hamer did not know the orientation of the women in the study eliminating any bias.
Weaknesses-
•They only used 41 people to represent the general public. I believe that they need a larger sample to apply it to the public as a whole.
•All of the homosexual men that were studied had died from AIDS allowing no comparison within gay men.
•LeVay and Hamer only used one disease, AIDS. I believe they should have expanded their research and studied other diseases, and their effects, as well.
This experiment was conducted well overall, but I believe that a larger sample and expanded research would make this experiment more credible outside of the original discover of INAH3 size.
3. In the modern world society is one of the main factors in life. It sets limits, roles, and the normal. Society is one of the most judgmental and controlling aspects people confront daily. Conflicting with society is like fighting an army alone. Homosexuals are one of these groups that society as labeled as outside the normal.
My definition of normal sexual activity is a male and a female. I am only applying this to myself and not labeling it as right or wrong. By no means am I saying that homosexual activity is wrong it is simply not my choice. I do understand that everyone has their own normal and I try not to be judgmental of others.
I believe my family and peers share the same views on homosexuality. We attempt to remain open but choose not to live that lifestyle.
I believe my beliefs come from past generations of my family and the church when dealing with homosexuality.
4. I believe that being gay is partly a choice. What causes me to believe that is I have known people who have either dated or married one sex and then paired with the other sex later in life. Although this could be because they were originally unclear of themselves, I believe that it is a choice they have made due to themselves, there significant other, and the harsh society. I believe that harassment and other actions towards homosexuals could cause one to choose not to live that lifestyle. Also, I believe that unpleasing encounters with members of the opposite sex could cause one to want to become gay.
5. According to research there are noticeable differences in the INAH3 and the anterior commissioner in straight and gay men. Because of these discoveries, there is now physical proof of biological differences. Also it has been proven that homosexuality is genetic by Pillard and Weinrich. Both of these discoveries help support homosexuality being biological.
6. This assignment has not change my perspective on homosexuality, but it has reinforced it by exposing me to more details. I never viewed homosexuals as immoral or wrong, but knowing that homosexuality could be biological does help me strive to be more open to people that choose to pursue that lifestyle. Homosexual or not people are people and all deserve that same respect and rights.
Andrew Samberg
In response to:
Morgan Reno:
Morgan, I completely agree with your statement that said people would not choose to be homosexual in a time where it was considered a sin. I thought this was an excelent comment that really explained that homosexuality is not a choice.
Brett Ludwig:
Your definition of normal is great. When i was thinking of the meaning i never thought about what you said. I thought you did an amazing job explaining what you thought normal was and how it changes with different cultures.
Connor Hady:
I agree with your statement where you said that people will accept homosexuality more if they know it is biological rather that a choice. If people know you are choosing to be homosexual, they will tend to harrass you more because when they know that there is nothing you can do about being homosexual they will not harrass you as much in my opinion.
STEPHANIE THUN
IN RESPONSE TO ANDREW SAMBERG:
I understand where you are coming from when saying that homosexuals do not choose to be gay, but if you step and look at the whole picture you can see that there is more than attraction that causes someone to go through public harassment. Unless they are mentally strong and have good family and friends for support, I believe that society alone could cause people to settle for fondness towards someone of the opposite sex rather than attraction towards someone of the same sex. Maybe I am wrong, but I see it as you have a choice to settle for less and go with the flow of society in order to avoid conflict with judgmental people.
STEPHANIE THUN
IN RESPONSE TO MEGAN MULLEN:
I disagree that homosexuality is not a choice. I believe that saying it is solely biological is an understatement. I understand what you are say when you think that no one would want to go through harassment if they could avoid it, but if you look at it as they are choosing follow their attraction which is causing them to be harassed you can see there is choice. They could live life as a single or go against what their mind is telling them and follow societies set ways but they don’t. Being gay is a lifestyle, it takes more than attraction from the brain to withstand the public. So although I understand your view, there are too many other factors for me to agree with you. The original instinct may be biological to follow that instinct is a choice.
Connor Hady
In response to:
Brett Ludwig:
I completely agree with you when you talk about the implications of being gay as a choice. I agree with you because when people choose to be gay they have to accept the consequences of other people who might harass them for it. The truth is there are many people out there that feel being gay is immoral, and who will make fun of those who are gay. I think the world needs to learn to accept gay people for who they are and this will help if more people realize being gay as biological.
Ryan McEachern:
I agree with you when you said that more people will accept gay people if it is biological. Many people will then realize that it is not a choice as to what sex you prefer,it is simply who you are. I also agree with you when you say that it shouldn't change peoples' views because it shouldn't matter what one chooses to do. We should learn to accept people for who they are.
Connor Hady
In response to:
Morgan Reno:
I agree with you when you said that homosexuality is not a choice. I believe pople do not just choose to be gay. They have feelings that make them that way, so we should not judge them at all. That is why I feel it is much more than a choice, and there must be something biological that makes people like the same sex.
IN RESPONSE TO:
Ryan McEachern
I enjoyed reading your comments and completely agree with how you noticed that homosexuality may be chosen for us by how our body develops before birth. The research very well supports this and I understand also.
Morgan Reno (and Ryan McEachern)
The way you guys approached the "definition" of the word normal was fun to read. I think that it is a word we use as a stereotype or classification just like any other labels such as jock, prep, emo, etc.. Who really is better than the rest of us to use such words? (even normal)
MICHELLE BENSON SAYS:
“Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality,” an article by Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, upholds two pieces of evidence that supports the theory that homosexuality is biological. First, the authors point to INAH3, a cell group in the hypothalamus. In heterosexual men, the group of cells was found in studies to be consistently at least twice as large as heterosexual women. Also, there was a size difference between hetero and homosexual men; it was two to even three times as large. Interestingly, in some gay men INAH3 was “altogether absent.” Second, LeVay and Hamer bring up studies showing a correlation between family trees and homosexuality, which would suggest that homosexuality is genetic. The authors compiled the data of five studies and found: 57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twins, and 13% of brothers of gay men are also gay. For women the results followed a similar pattern, although the numbers were slightly lower.
The research done on INAH3 size in straight men and women compared to gay men was very flawed. Although the scientists’ results were new and groundbreaking, it seems to me a similar study needs to be conducted in order to rely on the findings. One issue with the study is how small the group of people that LeVay studied was. Only 41 people total is a very small group, plus the amount of straight men (16) to gay men (19) to women (6) are not in any way corresponding. Another problem with they way they went about the research was that all the homosexual men had died of AIDS. While this may have been a misguided attempt to weed out an intervening variable (reason of death,) it opens up too many new variables because not enough is known about the effects of AIDS on brain structure. Finally, the sexual orientation of the women was unknown. There were strengths to the research, however. The scientists chose to encode the subjects to eliminate bias, and did present findings that helped eliminate the questions about AIDS. For example, some of the heterosexual men had died of causes other than AIDS, but the size and structure of their INAH3s was the same as the other straight men. Also, after the study was completed LeVay acquired a hypothalamus of a gay man who had died of something other than AIDS, his INAH3 size corresponded with the men of the initial study.
In our culture, normal is defined by whatever the majority believes. When the majority of people are in agreement, that is what the media picks up. After the media
starts hyping it, more people listen and either change their view or strengthen what they already thought (if they were part of the majority.) In reference to sexuality, I believe that love and attraction is normal, no matter who it is between. My viewpoint strongly aligns with my parent’s beliefs; I will admit we are a particularly liberal family. Although I have developed my standpoint on my own without the specific intervention of my parents, their openness and acceptance of all walks of life has strongly affected mine. Considering a number of our close family friends are in fact homosexual, I can not comprehend how I would think negatively of them. I also would like to think I am friends with a similarly accepting group of people; however I understand many people’s
morals and faiths are different than mine. I don’t mind. Hermantown is a relatively sheltered area, even compared to just Duluth, but reading most people’s blogs is promising. Our culture as Americans varies, mostly (as I see it) between large cities and rural communities, and also socioeconomic classes.
If it is concluded on a whole that your sexuality is determined by choice, it becomes a much more personal, moral issue. If it is truly just a choice, it means someone is going against the “norm” of a male/female partnership and accepting that many people for a variety of reasons will discriminate against them without ever even speaking a word with them. However, if they believe that homosexuality is what they want and they can move past other’s opinions, then it will probably make them a stronger person. In the past couples chose to break the racial barrier and date, when they did that it was because they realized all that mattered was the love they had for each other. Perhaps it is an equivalent situation for couples of the same gender.
On the other hand, it may be that eventually conclusive evidence is found that homosexuality is caused by genetics or some other biological component. In that case, perhaps religions will be more accepting since in their eyes it would be God who made the decision for that person to be gay. Also, maybe even if people still didn’t support it, they would feel mercy because it wasn’t that person’s choice. Unfortunately, people ignorant enough to not accept homosexuals as humans equal to them now will continue to disrespect and stereotype them, no matter if it was their choice to be gay or something decided by brain structure and genetics. Think of midgets and dwarfs. Obviously a deficiency in growth hormones is not something chosen, but for centuries they have been thought of as “freaks.” Tolerance has and continues to grow for little people; but still stares follow them down the street and some go so far as to assume they are mentally slow or incapable. Another example is religion, something that, ironically, causes much debate in the gay rights discussion. Although religion is definitely a choice, you are typically born into a certain following and continue to believe in that religion. In the days of Nazism, Jews were horribly discriminated against. Although there has not been genocide of gays, the discrimination sometimes seems comparable. Religion is generally a family practice; children were born into it without much choice- yet they were still sent to the death camps. Now, however, disrespect of another’s religious beliefs is not tolerated. Hopefully society will soon accept homosexuals in a similar fashion.
This assignment has not in any way changed my perspective, it only reinforced it. I personally feel that whether you are gay or straight is biological, and it is not abnormal or deviant in my eyes. It is just how nature made you. Just like everyone else you look for love, it just happens that who you are attracted to is your same sex. Prior to reading the articles I believed that there was no substantial difference between hetero and homosexuals, and also that everyone should have the same rights. I know this assignment does not delve into the rights issue, for obvious reasons, but I do know my belief that being gay is not a choice (although if it was, it would not change my support for it) ties in heavily with my instinct that everyone should have the same rights.
MICHELLE BENSON SAYS:
KELSEY:
I am confused by your response to number four:
"4. I think that it can be concluded in a few ways that being gay is a choice, although I feel that it is more than just a choice. I think that one thing can be someone saying "well, I don't like men any more, so I'm going to like women." That is just one thing that comes to mind as being gay as a choice."
Are you supporting the "I don't like men anymore" phrase? or reputing it? I think you must have forgetten a word or need to rephrase the surrounding sentences, or else I am just silly and not conprehending it.
HAILEY:
"It is confusing for me to grasp the reason for the majority of AIDS-related deaths in the homosexual category. Not every homosexual person is going to die from AIDS and not every person who dies from AIDS is gay, so why use that as a factor in gathering test subjects?"
This is very true, and I appreciate your wording of it. I thought about that as I read through the article, but completely forgot about it as I was typing.
KELLY GUSTOFSON:
In Response To:
ELLEN KUECHLE - When you said, “People can not just wake up and decide if they want to be gay or straight, and then change that if it doesn’t work out.” I completely agree with you on that. If someone’s brain is telling them to be attracted to men, but then they get hurt by a man, I don’t see it logical for them to just say, ok I’m going to like women now, because men hurt me.
KELSEY YOKI - I’m glad I’m not alone in my opinion of how there isn’t really a “normal” in the US, but I really like in your definition how you said that society plays a big roll in how that normalcy is defined. That goes along with when you said, you don’t hear many people talking about homosexuality, because it is such a controversial topic, and you are 100% right. I feel like everyone is afraid to speak out about what their opinion is, because we do worry about how we will then be viewed by society.
LYDIA MCMILLAN - I really like how you brought up the fact that we as Americans are split into two groups, Americans who wouldn’t mind if the image was changed, and Americans who want our image of, as you put it “the white picket fence” to stay the same. Also, I agree with you that people should be free to marry the love of their life, whoever that might actually be.
Samantha Kallberg
In response to Michael Stocke
I completely see where you are coming from, and I agree with you. I guess I wasn't thinking about the people who do not have access to the media. Thank you for pointing that out to me.
Ellen Kuechle
I think you have a good definition for normal sexual activity. It shouldn't be about the gender of the person you love, but whether or not you love that person.
Sara Hudson
I liked the way you described the change of the definition of normal sexual activity. You gave good examples of two men holding hands and two women holding hands, and how others tend to look at it in todays world.
Zach Schade
1. In the article Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality, Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer converge between two pieces of evidence that could lead to conclusions to a biological component for male homosexuality. Roger A. Corski of the University of Cali. Studied rats and the sizes of their hypothalamuses. The research showed that male rats have a larger number of cells in the area called the Medial preoptic area than female rats did. The medial preoptic area is said to have involvement in sexual behavior, (especially in males.) Research also found that androgen was a factor in the cell mass of the area. The male hormone is said to bring about dimorphism during development. Along with rats, Corski and the others in Los Angeles also found dimorphic structures in human brains. Discoveries include a cell group called INAH3 in the medial proptic area of the brain, (this cell group being about 2 times bigger in males than in females.) After further investigation, it was also said that the cell mass (INAH3) is two to three times bigger in heterosexual men versus gay men. The last factor LeVay and his colleagues touched on was a genetic factor between siblings. There are several surprising statistics that they came up with; such as 57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twins, and 13% of brothers are gay as well. The same held true for women. So the conclusions from the data can draw that homosexuality can be related to the sexuality of siblings and the connection between them.
2. The weakness of LeVay’s research I found was in the lack of subjects. Specifically women, the experiment was conducted on only 16 heterosexual men, 19 homosexual men, and 6 women. Also, of the 16 heterosexual men, ten of them had unknown sexual orientation and were just considered straight because of other facts. I think that he needs many more subjects in all of the categories to draw more specific and correct conclusions. However, the fact that the experiment was done to animals as well as humans was a plus for the experiment. The different experiments were also fairly valid and helped get rid of complications, and the fact that the research was done by professionals in the laboratory was also a strength to the method. In conclusion, although there are many sketchy, shady areas to the experiment, I would say it was fairly valid and conducted pretty well.
3. In my opinion, this is the part that most strongly opposes homosexuality. In this day and age I think that “normal” is determined by peers and others in society. If you’re a kid, you can be easily influenced by peers that are strongly for or against homosexuality. Your parents and siblings can also be a major factor. If you are raised by heterosexual parents and around heterosexual siblings I think you will tend to take after them, because it’s in your nature. If you have homosexual parents or siblings I think you would tend to be more homosexual yourself, but I don’t know. I would define “normal sexual activity” as being sexually active with a significant other from your opposite sex. This however, comes from how I was raised, and the people I am often with. My definition of normal differs from time to time. Usually, I think of “normal” as men liking women and visa versa. However, when I read all the necessary articles I think to myself, “what is normal?” normal should be in the eye of the beholder and shouldn’t wander due to other people’s opinions and beliefs. My personal definition of “normal” could be influenced on my family, friends and whoever, but for the most part I like to think of myself as mature enough to accept people for who they are and not put them up against some set of guidelines that label them as normal or abnormal.
4. Implications of viewing homosexuality as a choice could lead to more harassment. I think that if people knew it was just a choice, they would try to use their bias’s to change your outlook and view on things. Homosexuals may also want to keep their orientation a mystery, because if people know they chose to be gay, they could be looked down upon or shunned in society.
5. Viewing homosexuality as biological also has its implications though. Homosexual individuals could be referred to as inferior or defected due to their biological differences. People who are heterosexual may think they are better than gays because of the different brain cell masses and the biological factors that separate heterosexuals from homosexuals. However, this could also be a positive approach because if homosexuality if seen as a biological happening, people might be more understanding and less judgmental if they think it is out of the persons will to change.
6. As I said in the 3rd section, my outlook on homosexuals when reading articles such as the ones we read somewhat changes. If a person truly loves another, it shouldn’t matter what sex they are, it should simply be accepted. And although it may be against my personal beliefs, I understand peoples reasoning and will do nothing to oppose it. Normality shouldn’t be altered because of others codes, it should be a person decision that should just be naturally accepted by others
Zach Schade, in response to Mike Swartz.
I agree with your number 6. we have similar outlooks after doing this blog
Zach Schade in response to Sara Hudson.
I agree with most points of your entry, including all the strenghts and weakness of the experiment. I also like your points on the implications of the biological versus choice homosexuality points
SIRJEFFREYJAMESCOTTRELLTHEFIRST
The article Evidence for a Biolofical Influence in Male Homosexuality, Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer go over two different pieces of evidence. These show biological influence in male homosexuality. The part of the brain they believe controls this is a group of cells in the hypothalamus. The group of cells is called INAH3. It is approximately three times larger in males, than in females. Studies show that this section is larger in males rats than in female rats. The bunch of cells gives a person behaviors that are more commonly shown by males. In 1990 an experiment included 19 homosexuals, 16 heterosexuals, and 6 women with and unknown orientation. It showed that the group of cells INAH3 was 2 times larger in males than females, but 3 times larger in straight males than females. Even so, some homosexuals didn’t even have INAH3. The other evidence they talked about said that homosexuality was a genetic thing. 6 studies, studying homosexuality in families. Such as siblings of gay men, and lesbians. The studies show that 57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twins, and 13% of gay men’s brothers are also gay. They also show that 50% identical twins, 15% of fraternal twins, and 13% of lesbians sisters are also gay. These results show that it is possible that sexual orientation can possibly be genetic.
Basically all research has weak points. The above studies were done on a very small amount of people. It is hard to state something about people all over the world, simply based on merely 40 people. I honestly find no strengths in these studies. I think they are incompetent because of the lack of people.
I think it is said that homosexuality was thought to be a mental disorder. It is good to see how far we have come as people. I also don’t think people can say what is normal and what is not. People should all have an equal chance and be known as who they are, not who they want to have sex with. Homosexuals can’t be known as not normal, but a human like everyone else. I hope that other people don’t disagree with me and not think that all people are equal. I think people have become much more accepting and open minded over the years. I think I was raised to give all people and chance and encouraged to be an accepting person as I was raised. It paid off and I have never tried to be stereotypical towards people no matter what. I have always given an equal chance.
If people claim that being gay is a choice, some people won’t agree. Like they do know. Some people think its their choice, and are pleased with the choice they, or others have made. Other people think sexual orientation is a choice are disgusted with the choice they or others have made. If this is their choice it should be accepted and respected.
If the choice is said to be biological, people may be more accepting of a persons orientation. People may think that if a person didn’t chose to be gay, they had nothing to do with their orientation. If a homosexual person heard this news they may get angry, or blame on their parents. As I said before people should just accept people no matter what their orientation.
Honestly I do not have an opinion in this situation. I don’t care if homosexuality is biological or a choice. I don’t think it is important information for my knowledge, and I really don’t care.
JEFF COTTRELL
That last part sounded harsh on mine. I just meant that people are who they are, and the way they got that way shouldn't matter.
ROCHELLE LENTZ
In response to Jessica and Michael:
Jessica, I also do not think that our sexual desire is already set at birth. However, Michael, you do make a good point that there may be more of a biological factor to sexual orientation than there is in choice or what we have been exposed to.But I do not think there is enough concrete research out there yet to really prove that our sexual orientation is determined at birth. At least from what I have seen.
In response to Brett:
I am glad to know that my opinion helped you to consider some new ideas. I think that when more people begin to consider new ideas, then society becomes less discriminatory to those who may be different than them.
Haley Sundstrom
In Response To:
Ellen Folman's comment on mine
Thanks Ellen! I'm glad you caught my mistake, I did mean inferior instead of superior.
OLIVIA CARLSON :):):):):)
In the article, "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality", the authors, Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, were trying to discover the biological evidence between male homosexuality. There was a few pieces of evidence supporting their view, and research. One point of evidence was the research done on the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus on the brain was examined for differences related to sexual orientation. The hypothalamus of each of the 41 subjects were stained to mark personal cell groups. The cell INAH3 in teh medial peroptic area was more than twice as large in themen as it was in the women. INAH3 also turned out to be two to three times larger in straight men than it was in gay men. This finding suggests a diference related to male sexual orientation about as great as that realted to sex. The second view point was in the family trees studes, with twins and siblings. They studied tat 57 percent of identical twins, 24 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of brothers of gay men are also gay. The womens studies were also similar in that 50 percent of identical twins, 16 percent of fraternal twins and 13 percent of sisters of lesbian are also lesbian. When the data was compared with baseline rates of homosexuality, a good amount of family clustering of sexual oreintation becomes evident for both sexes.
In the article, i found that there were a vast amount of strengths, but a good amount of weaknesses throughout the article. Many of the weaknesses consisted of the lack of subjects that were involved. I was disappointed to find out, not only was there a very small amount of men subjects being experimented, but that they had aid, and were gay. This didnt seem to contribute much information. I also was confused that they only used very few straight men in the experiment, which was 16, and that 6 had already died of aids. I was also disappointed that they women played such a small role in the whole thing. I know that the experiment was just for the men, in finding the biological reasoning for homosexuality, but why change it to one gender? i didnt understand this. I think they should have had equal information about each of the genders. But the one strength i saw was how close they looked at the brain, and how they discovered they hypothalumus activity in the brain. I thought that it showed a very important piece of evidence in the research.
The culture that we live in today is merely anything but "normal". I think anything we hear or read, specially the what the media tells us. What we see on TV, and read in magazines, is what people are starting to think is normal. What i believe is normal, is that a man and a woman should be together. Dont get me wrong, i think love is love, and that is that. But i'm kind of one of those people that see black and white. What is right and what is wrong. But this in this matter, its more gray. I think that love is love, and nobody should take that away from anyone else. My parents do have a different view on the matter, in that they believe one thing, and they're sticking to it. I think that people shouldn't judge, and i dont think that this topic should be so touchy, and whatnot. It's not a big deal in my eyes. If people like the same sex. let them. It is easier said than done, i know. but i do believe your family life, and how you're brought up, influences your views quite a bit, along with the media.
The implications of the choice to be gay are small. I think straight up that people chose who they like. You dont just all of a sudden like the same sex. You have to have chose some part in the matter... people make choices everyday. It seems that it's not as complicated as people are making it. I choose to like the opposite sex, not because of some way i was born, but because i'm attracted to them.
The implications for the biological reasons are confusing. They did show a few pieces of evidence in family ties, and siblings. But it seems as though its just running on a thin line. How the brain works. The statistics the article shows about the percents in twins and relating it to homosexuality, are just statistics. I believe love is love, and everyone has it out there.
Overll all, this assignment, however, did not change my perspective on things. I still, and will always believe what i do. That love is love, do not judge.:)
IN RESPONSE TO MY DEAR SIR JEFF.... OLIVIA SAYS,
I agree completely with this line you said... "Homosexuals can’t be known as not normal, but a human like everyone else."
i think that people know that homosexuals are different, but that if they're different, they should still be treated the same.
In response to SHELLY,
Olivia Carlson :
I completely agree with your opinion on how shelterd Hermantown is, let alone, Duluth. I also agree with how you put, That the media plays a huge part in peoples decision, and how they listen and either change their view point or stengthen it.
Haley Sundstrom
In Response To:
Ellen Folman
Ellen, I really liked it when you said that you thought "love is not supposed to be about being ‘normal’". I completely agree with you! There are so many standards in our world today and the last thing you should be judged on is the person you love.
Kelsey Yoki
Kelsey, thanks for your comment on my blog. I'm glad that you feel the same way as me! I liked how in your blog you talked about how we don't usually talk about homosexuality because it is such a controversial topic. It is nice that we looked past all the negative stereotypes to complete the blog assignment.
Mariah:::
For the most part, I answered your question when I responded to Lydia. But I completely agree that a lot of people are using 'being gay' as a path to attention (Just as Lindsay Lohan) But maybe just maybe she is? Do you think the media is over-doing it? I have personally noticed that since the media has been targeting gays and gay marriage, that there are many... MANY children who have started calling themselves 'bisexual'. And I do not by ANY means mean this in a bad or hurtful way, but many of the teenagers who are stereotyped as 'emo' are saying that they are bisexual. Do you think this is an attention issue? Or are they really bisexual. Maybe they are confusing themselves. Perhaps they don't know the real definition to a bisexual? Because thinking that someone of the same sex is a beautiful person, physically, is not what makes you gay or bisexual. That's just a question that anyone can reply to if the wish.
Kelsey:::
What did you mean by saying, "And that our society shouldn't show that to our youth of that being right." Are you saying that people shouldn't teach our children that a man and a woman is what is right? I believe people should stay open-minded. But as a Christian, I personally will in the future teach my children that a man and a woman is right. So here religion plays its roll again. By teaching them this, I'm not telling them that being gay is wrong, though. I will let them hold their own opinion as every human has the right. Some people are just born with different preferences. Just as some choose fruit over vegetables or pink instead of purple. Either way, opinions are going to cause controversy. If a guy chooses the color pink over green, he might get called 'gay'. Which could very well be false.
ELLEN FOLMAN
IN RESPONSE TO STEPH THUN:
When you said, "LeVay and Hamer only used one disease, AIDS. I believe they should have expanded their research and studied other diseases, and their effects, as well." what do you mean by this statement? Are you trying to say that the disease may have an affect on the size of the INAH3 and that they should have looked into other diseases?
Mary Tierney:
In response to Brett Ludwig:
Brett,
you raised some great points about what our society defines as "normal". I liked how you applied it to more everyday situations to make the topic more applicable to those people that dont have as strong as opinions about homosexuality.
I, being a christian myself, totally understand what you mean when you talk about your views on homosexuality. However, you can only wonder when you think about the fact that sexuality could be biological. There are billions of very religious people in the world today who are gay. If sexuality is indeed genetic, how can a person be punished religously for being gay? Is it fair for them to be considered "less christian" for the sexuality that they have no control over? Seeing as i believe that homosexuality is a biological trait, this aspect of the matter brings a lot of conflict in my mind.
SAM RUBERG:
1. LeVay and Hamer found two pieces of evidence that linked brain structure and homosexuality in males. The first piece of evidence was found in the hypothalamus of the brain. The researchers found that males neuronal cell group INAH3 found in the hypothalamus was twice the size of women’s. This was also found when looking at straight men vs. gay men. They found that the straight male’s INAH3 was two to three times larger than a gay male’s. The second piece of evidence found was a genetic link. There was a similar trait that showed up in twins, brothers, and sisters. Men that for example that had a gay brother have a 13 percent chance of being gay also. This is the same with twins also, except the chance increases, 57 percent for identical and 24 percent for fraternal twins.
2. The research seemed strong to me, but there were a few details that they could have been fixed which would have made the research stronger. First, they only used men that had AIDS, which I think to make the experiment completely unfair. I believe they should have used a combination of men with and without AIDS. Also, in my opinion, their subject count was a little low. In order to get a true result they should have used more subjects. Plus, the numbers were not very consistent; they used 16 straight men, 19 gay men, and 6 women. The numbers should have been a little closer to get a true conclusion.
3. Normal is defined in a number of different ways. In America I believe a lot of our views on “normal” come from media and Hollywood. The media in such a way, that we believe most of what we hear. We envy over people in Hollywood and listen to what they tell us. So, what the media portrays as okay we usually accept because we are so exposed to it. Also, we want to be like the people we look up to, which in America is a lot of the time celebrities. In essence, we then mold our definition of “normal” to fit theirs. My definition of normal sexual activity is what my family has raised be to believe. My idea of normal would be between a man and a woman, but I’m not against homosexuality in anyway. I believe be with who makes you happy and it shouldn’t matter what sex they are from. My family feels the same way about this. My friends feel generally the same way, but of course have their own spin on it because of what their family believes.
4. In my opinion, homosexuality is a choice. There are always people that aren’t sure of their sexuality, and so they eventually CHOOSE what is right for them. It is the same as other major decisions we make in our lives. Just as we make choices on our careers, or family issues, we choose what we feel fits us the best. There are going to be some males that look at the size of their INAH3 and then have to make a decision if they will follow what it says about them. In that case they may choose the opposite or follow with what it says, either way it is a choice.
5. I think that if your brain was classified as being “gay” than you would constantly have the problem of people being forced into sexuality. Say when you were younger, you were told that “you are homosexual and you have no choice, because it is just the type of brain you have.” You would again be forced to be gay, and that is just as, if not more, unfair.
6. This assignment has not changed my views on homosexuality; I have always believed that it has been a choice. It has informed me of the scientific aspect of this controversial subject. It is also, nice to hear of other people’s views because I feel like I can better understand the entire subject and make a more informed choice on what I believe in.
STEPHANIE THUN
IN RESPONSE TO ELLEN FOLMAN:
I am not saying that AIDS has any effect, but they were looking to see if it did effect the INAH3. I was not saying that their research was inaccurate, I took it as they were eliminating disease having any effect and I thought that they should have to dig deeper to print that statement.
CLAIRE GIBBONS:
Levay and Hamer talk about the connection between homosexuality and biological and genetic factors. Their studies found that a cell group called INAH3 in the hypothalamus. This area is two times larger in straight men than women, while in gay men, it was significantly smaller, and in some cases, completely absent. Also, 57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twins, and 13% of brothers of gay men are also gay. There are other interesting statistics related to the hereditary connections between homosexuality and family.
I definitely don’t think the research was done thoroughly enough. Not enough people were tested, and the general population wasn’t adequately represented. Only 19 homosexual men were tested, and they had all died of AIDS. It’s hard to base results off of this information, because AIDS could have affected the brain in ways that would throw off the experiment. The people who hadn’t died of AIDS were just given assumed sexualities. Not enough women were tested either. One positive was that the experiment was conducted in a lab setting, but this doesn’t make up for the other obvious faults.
What is normal, anyway? I don’t think anyone can really pinpoint what is normal. Taking a hot shower and eating a full dinner at night seems normal to me, but to a child in Africa, even the idea of this would sound completely improbable and definitely not something normal to them. We have no right to say what normal should be, none the less discriminate because of it. Despite this, society still shapes what is acceptable and considered the norm.
To me, normal isn’t an adjective we should try to use for or against anyone, but when asked what normal sexual activity is, I can’t say that a man with a woman is the only kind of normal I picture. I was brought up only knowing about heterosexual love, but normal sex shouldn’t be defined as only this. Love is love, and everyone should be allowed to show their feelings and emotions in the way they want. Their passion for each other is not hurting anyone, such as the obsession some terrorists have with their religion. Even though I’m not fully educated on this, I am a religious person, and I think that God would want two people who loved each other to not be happy, even if homosexuality wasn’t necessarily accepted in the Bible.
My definitions of normal go along with that of my parents and most of my friends and other peers. Our culture today still has much controversy about the subject of homosexuality, but it is becoming more acceptable and is being discussed more freely. Hopefully, we will see progress in the way homosexuality is viewed in our country. I would love to see it become more appreciated in society because in my opinion, gays and lesbians deserve just as much respect and rights as any other heterosexual person.
Homosexuality cannot always be seen as a choice. Research shows that there is biological and genetic proof that there are differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men. This doesn’t necessarily ensure that homosexuality isn’t a choice, but it definitely points in that direction. My main question is, as other people before me have mentioned, why would a person choose to be homosexual when our society is so against them? Terrible acts have been done to homosexual people for their orientation. Sexuality has to be more than a choice, in my mind.
On the other hand, homosexuality can’t be considered simply biological this easily. Research has been conducted, but it is not completely conclusive, so we can’t take any solid facts from it. In the future, more evidence will most likely be found either confirming the biological roots of homosexuality or refuting the idea all together.
My opinions on homosexuality haven’t been altered by this blog experience, but I do feel more educated on the subject. Now, if I was in a debate over sexual orientation, I would have a much better basis for my opinion, and I’d be able to back up my thoughts with actual facts and stories.
SAM RUBERG:
In response to....
Jade: I completly agree with your idea of normal. There will always be people that have different views and there are so many aspects that will effect our views. Such as religon and family beliefs.
Lydia: I agree with your statement about how being gay may be more accepted by society if it was biological. Which is indeed sad, because we shouldn't judge people on the choices they make. But, it is true because people are more understanding if people are forced to be that way i think.
Mary Tierney:
in response to margarets response to julia:
I agree with you guys 100% on the topic of Billy Jack's death.
Everyone has their own opinions about whether being gay is normal or not. I have seen great points on both sides of the scale.
I do believe that even if homosexuality isnt considered "normal", gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.
What exactly is normal? no two people on earth are the same. Everyone has different physical and personality traits that set them apart from the rest of society. I think that peoples differences are what make our society mesh together so well. Yes, there are some clashes in opinion sometimes. and yes, there is often conflict. But, if everyone were the same, not only would our world be boring, i think there would still be conflict.
The only difference between gay and straight people is their sexual preference. What is the big deal?
I like carbs, my sister likes fruit.
I like reading, my best friend despises it.
However, we still get along great.
life is full of clashing preferences. Now comparing sexuality to things like foods and pasttimes may seem somewhat elementary, but when you think about it, it all comes down to the same subject:preference.
Even though i have different preferences than some of my friends, we still get along great. I dont see why people cant just accept homosexuals as having a simple conflicting preferance and get over it. Being gay does not make them less fun, smart, athletic, or any less of a person. I believe that if our society learns to mature and accept that, we will all get along much better.
Andrew Motley,
In response to Shelly:
Michelle, you raise a valid point when you talk about how normal is defined in our culture/society. You say that "it is defined by whater the majority believes. When the majority of people are in agreement, that is what the media picks up. After the media
starts hyping it, more people listen and either change their view or strengthen what they already thought (if they were part of the majority.)" However, contrary to popular belief, I believe that even a majority can't decided what we as individuals 'should dress like', how we 'should eat', and even what age is 'appropriate to marry' at. Sure, the majority has an overwhelming say in the matter, but just because we select our government to represent us as cities, states, and a country, it doesn't mean they can tell us how we should act or what we should look like. But for the most part, i sincerely agree with you.
In response to Hades:
Connor, you mention your interpretation of homosexuality and if it were biological, and agree partially with you i must. I do believe that if the choice of being gay were not really a choice but more of a genetic trait/link that we aquired through conception, people would more likely respond to this controversial issue as if it weren't the individuals fault. Homosexuals would be much more accept I believe. If only...
ELLEN FOLMAN
IN RESPONSE TO STEPH THUN'S COMMENT:
Ok I now see what you're getting at I think. So you're trying to say that LeVay should have included other diseases in order to say that they had no effect on the size of the INAH3 or that he should have done more research or experiments in order to state that?
JAYMIE BURT
In response to Claire Gibbons...
I agree completely with your ideas on normalcy. What is normal to you and me may be different from someone across the globe and even different from someone down the aisle in one of our classes only a desk away. Also, I agree whole heartedly with your line about equal respect and rights for homosexuals and heterosexuals. To me, that couldn't be more correct, and I hope that someday our society allows that kind of living to be more than just a dream.
Jeff Cottrell
in response to OLIVIA
I agree with what you said about homosexuality and family ties. The research we talked about cannot give us an idea about anything. They chose such a small number of people. Also the biggest number was 57%...thats a fifty fifty split. It means nothing. It only says its kinda more likely that both siblings will have the same orientation...for these 40 people. You're speaking the truth.
CLAIRE GIBBONS:
In response to Mary Tierney
I really like how you described that you and your friends all have different preferences but that you still get along. You are totally right to say that we should all be able to to accept homosexuals and realize that they aren't different from everyone else.
ELLEN FOLMAN
IN RESPONSE TO CLAIRE GIBBONS:
I completely agree with this statement of yours, "Love is love, and everyone should be allowed to show their feelings and emotions in the way they want. Their passion for each other is not hurting anyone, such as the obsession some terrorists have with their religion." I agree with you that other's feelings and passions are not hurting anyone, but I do not understand what you are trying to say here, "Even though I’m not fully educated on this, I am a religious person, and I think that God would want two people who loved each other to not be happy, even if homosexuality wasn’t necessarily accepted in the Bible."
Jeff Cottrell
in response to Michael Stocke
I agree with what you said about people being more accepting if homosexuality was not a choice and biological. It is just the way people are, If they had no say in it, and can't change it, they are more accepting of it.
HANNAH AHLBERG
in response to Michelle Bensen
I completly agree with everything you said about who decides normality. Sadly in our culture many people conform to popular belife and many times that is coming from the celbrities and people in the public eye.
in response to Jade Lendacky
You raise many interesting questions about wheather homosexuality is a choice or biological. I also believe that it is a combination of many things and that it will take a very long time to determine the cause of ones sexual orientation.
HANNAH AHLBERG
in response to Michelle Bensen
I completly agree with everything you said about who decides normality. Sadly in our culture many people conform to popular belife and many times that is coming from the celbrities and people in the public eye.
in response to Jade Lendacky
You raise many interesting questions about wheather homosexuality is a choice or biological. I also believe that it is a combination of many things and that it will take a very long time to determine the cause of ones sexual orientation.
Claire Gibbons:
In response to Ellen Folman
Here's great proof of what happens when you don't proof read lol. I meant to say "Even though I’m not fully educated on this, I am a religious person, and I think that God would want two people who loved each other TO BE happy, even if homosexuality wasn’t necessarily accepted in the Bible." Pretty much that in my opinion, God loves everyone and would want them to be happy even if they were gay.
Sorry about the confusion.
Haley Sundstrom
In Response To:
Steph Thun
Steph, I liked how you described fighting society like "fighting an army alone". It sometimes seems like you are the only one standing up for what you believe in and everyone is against you. I have to say, though, that I completely disagree with you when you said that "unpleasing encounters with members of the opposite sex could cause one to want to become gay". Are you trying to say that if a woman had a bad experience with a man, she is just going to give up on the entire male gender and 'turn' into a lesbian? It makes sense for a person to switch between genders if they are bisexual, but I find it hard to imagine that someone can just decide to be attracted to another sex, especially with the reason being that they had bad experiences with their prefered sex.
ELLEN FOLMAN
IN RESPONSE TO CLAIRE GIBBON'S COMMENT:
I figured that that is what you were trying to say, and I agree with it. I think that God would want people to be happy even though homosexuality isn't necessarily accepted in the Bible. I'm glad that we have that all figured out now! =]
MARIAH MELIN
In response to:
MARGARET TIERNEY~
when i said there has always been negative feeling towards gays i ment that some people have so much negative feeling towards gays that it leads to violence but i ment your second answer we shouldn't care if they are gay or what but we should care about the negative feeling towards them because also like the laramie project and Billy Jack Gaither there are so many others who are brutally attacked just because of their sexual prefrence. something should be done about it i think its ridiculous the things that have happened to gays. i totally agree with you i don't think people should just stand by and watch. something needs to be done, because they are no different homosexual or heterosexual.
SARA HUDSON~
I agree with you when you came to the conclusion that most of the studies were only conducted on men or at least thats what we were told i beleive this is not good enough to base a conclusion off of if you don't study everything.
JEFF COTTRELL~
I agree with your last part and no i don't think it as to harsh it was very straight forward. but i do like how you clarified it by saying that people are who they are, and the way they got that way shouldn't matter. because it shouldn't matter what you like it's like saying people who like pink are different from people who like blue, it's their preference and their opinion you don't have to agree.
OLIVIA in response to SIR COTTRELL~ i disagree with what you said when you stated you think people know that homosexual are different because i don't think anyone know what is different or what is normal so their for they are the same and yes i agree they should be treated the same.
JADE: yes i saw that after i posted that and i agree and you very well answered our questions. yes true we will never really know about lindsay lohan, and i do feel the media is over doing it but i also think the media just in general over does everthing that has to do with celebraties which i think is horrible its their life and it shouldn't be so open but that's where most of them make their money getting the dirt. i agree with you also on the whole bisexual thing many more people have been saying that they are but i don't think they know the true meaning and think it is the new thing and that they are doing it for attention although many teenagers may be at the age of questioning there sexual preference and since they don't quite know what they are they catagorize themselves in the middle as bisexual. but why is it that if you are bisexual you are not thought of negatively but yet if your gay it's a totally different story??
CLAIRE GIBBONS:
In response to Kelly Gustofson:
I really like what you said about how homosexuals shouldn't have to hide a part of themselves. I definitely think that Americans should change their acceptance views of different sexual preferences, because it's not fair to those who aren't considered "the norm." And like you said, normal doesn't really exist. In America, we all are different and have various physical characteristics, and we don't all dye our hair a certain color to be like everyone else. For physical characteristics, it's okay to be different, so why isn't it okay for someone to be homosexual?
Haley Sundstrom
In Response To:
Mary Tierney's response to Margaret's response to Julia :)
Mary I LOVE your whole response, you took the words right out of my mouth! People think homosexuals are so different than heterosexuals, the only difference is sexual preference! I don't see what the big deal is, it isn't like there is some big controversy going on between dog lovers and cat lovers. They accept each other's differences and move on, why can't society do that for gays? The gender of the person you are in love with is nobody else's business and they have no right to tell to you who it is ok to love.
AMBER STEINERT ~
ELLEN KUECHLE ~
Most of the way you defined normal I agree with, especially how there are different languages, cultures, and a variety of other things that could affect people’s viewpoints. Though, with the media, I would say it has less of an impact on some people. There are people out there that know the media isn’t always the best place to turn to when coming to making up your own opinion on a subject. That, I believe, has to be decided for themselves. People may say they believe what the media has said has set the norm for them, but deep down, they may have a completely different norm that they find exceptable.
BRETT LUDWIG ~
I liked the way you defined normal in the beginning of the paragraph. You made it more understanding for a reader who would have less comprehension to this topic. Sushi is definitely a black and white food, you either like it or you don’t. The view example about the candidates as well was a good analogy pertaining to this topic. I would say that the bible definitely has a big impact on my views as well.
Also, I agree with both of your gay being a choice verses biological statements. That is how I view that topic as well. Having being gay proven biological, I believe, would make people more excepting of the matter. Though, I feel the only problem with that is people may only be more excepting because they have pity for that person, not because they believe it’s biological.
SHELLY: I was just putting an example out there of why someone would think homosexuality is a choice. That is not what I believe whatsoever tho. By the way, I like how you answered your idea of normalcy. Kudos...And yes, I do think I sort of worded it funny. Thanks for pointing it out.
JADE: I think that we should just show our kids that love is love no matter who it may be between. From this assignment, I have found a great belief in that it is somewhat biological and just how you are. Yes, I do think that my kids will see the man and woman example because of how I am, but I will teach them that if someone is in love with the opposite sex, it is the same as a man and a woman.
Whitney Walker:
1. LeVay's research suggests that a person's sexual orientation is determined by the presence and size of the medial preoptic area, located in the hypothalamus, called INAH3. This area is larger in men compared to women, and in gay men, this area is two to three times smaller than it is in straight men. Hammer's research looked at how genetics can play into someone's sexual orientation, and most of this research was done on twins. The data that came up showed that, with men, 57% of identical twins, 24% of fraternal twins, and 13% of brothers are gay. With women, 50% of the identical twins, 16% of fraternal twins, and 13% of sisters are lesbian. This research implicates that heredity can affect the outcome of a child being gay or not gay.
2. Levay's research was conducted largely on people who died from AIDS. I think in order to draw stronger conclusions, these experiments should be tested on more people who didn't die from this disease. Also, there wasn't a large group studied on. Less then twenty of both homosexual and heterosexual men were tested; there were only six women, that of which the scientists didn't know their sexual orientation. I think testing more women will give more interesting results, being that the INAH3 area may be smaller in lesbian women compared to straight women. Otherwise, the research they performed was fairly strong, only a couple holes in it. Hammer's research was not as in depth as it could've been, so it seemed. They only tested brothers and sisters of the same sex, and didn't look at siblings that weren't of the same sex.
3. "Normal" in our culture is determined by what our society finds acceptable. Unfortunately, anything that's too extreme or too "out there" is just seen as weird and, sometimes, immoral. I believe these thoughts come from what we view in the media and our families beliefs. When we're young, the only beliefs we know of are our families; there really isn't much exposure to the outside world. Normal sexual activity these days is really none of other people's business. It shouldn't matter who is having sexual relations with who, and if they're in love with each other that's the most important thing. My thoughts on people being normal or being a deviant have been shaped so much by everyone around me. My family has always made it very clear to not judge people before you get to know them, even if they sneer at the kid walking down the street covered in tats. My friends, and a majority of my peers, are more accepting of people who don't fit into the "norm." I think this is because we've learned how horribly people have been treated in the past, and we don't want to repeat the same meaningless discriminatory mistakes people made back then.
4. I feel that the implications that being gay is a choice can be applied in certain cases. In my opinion, I think people are too nervous to come out in such a young age that they keep it hidden for years and years, and when they're finally old enough and comfortable enough with themselves, their true feelings come out. It takes people so long to really figure who they are, and sometimes their perspective on love will be changed in the process. There's nothing wrong with this, and people should be understanding of why people do the things they do.
5. The research conducted by LeVay specifically has shown the possibility that being gay is a biological correlation, and not something we have a choice in. We are born a certain way, and there's nothing one can do to change this. I think, however, that our surroundings may change what our chemical makeup is initially. Our feelings are constantly changing as we grow up, and the research that has been done so far isn't strong enough for me to believe in it.
6. This assignment hasn't really changed my thoughts, I have always thought that whatever you choose is perfectly fine, and that you shouldn't let other people's scrutinies get in the way of what makes you happy. I always think of the saying, it's what's on the inside that counts, and I think that if people against homosexuality can think of it more in that respect, maybe they can begin to understand.
1. One piece of evidence found in the structure of the brain was the size of the INAH3. The INAH3 is a part of the hypothalamus related to sex. It has been shown to be smaller in a homosexual male, similar to the size of a woman's INAH3.
Another piece of evidence found was links and patterns through family trees between homosexual males. It was found that many males that had homosexual twins were homosexual themselves.
2. I see several strengths and weaknesses in the research. One strength is that all studies done were blind studies, preventing the researchers from creating bias. Another strength was the attention to detail, taking into account that women's brain sizes are slightly smaller when reporting results. One weakness was the sample size. The amount of subjects was too small, at about 20, to represent an entire population. Another weakness was the use of only AIDS victims as homosexual subjects. A wide variety of causes of death need to be used to accurately produce results. The use of a smaller amount of women doesn't make sense either.
3. "Normal" is created by the people around us and the people we idolize. The rich and famous, family, friends, and religion all factor into our personal definition of normal. To me, normal sexual behavior is between members of the opposite sex, but I accept things that are not normal to me. There really is no such thing as a universal normal because each person's definition is so different. I have noticed, however, that people who are close to us have similar definitions. This is because these people have shaped our "normal" over the years, and have the largest effect om it.
4. To me, it doesn't make much sense to say that being gay or straight is completely a choice. It is an instinct for most people. Most people don't decide to be gay or straight, they just are that way. Some people, however, are unsure of their sexuality. There could be many different explanations for this. One could be that the INAH3 is somewhere in the middle as far as size. Another explanation could be social pressure. A gay person may be pressured into acting straight, causing confusion about sexuality.
5. Saying that sexuality is biologically determined means that the person has no choice. They are instinctively attracted to males or females depending on their genes and brain structure. This view will probably help homosexuality become more accepted in society. It classifies it as something a person cannot change rather than a personal choice.
6. This has not really changed my views, since I am generally tolerant of lifestyles that are different than my own. It opened my eyes to a new way to look at homosexuality, though. I had never heard of these studies about the biological differences of homosexuals before this assignment, so while my opinion remains the same, the way I look at the issue is different.
KELLY GUSTOFSON:
In response to HALEY SUNDSTROM’s response to Mary’s response to Margaret’s response to Julia: Haley, I really like the way you compared the controversy between heterosexuals, and homosexuals with dog lovers and cat lovers. That proves a very good point, on how people should be able to accept other’s differences. I completely agree with you in wondering why society can’t just accept people the way they are, and realize they have no right what so ever telling people who to love.
Gina Sterk:
1. In their article "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality", authors LeVay and Hamer found two pieces of evidence suggesting that homosexuality in males can be a biological thing. The first piece of evidence was found when examining the structure of the brain. A cell group called INAH3, located in the hypothalamus, was examined, and researchers found that gay men have less than half the volume of INAH3 in their brains as heterosexual men do. This definitely suggests differences in gay and straight brain make-up. Researchers also found that there seems to be a genetic link to homosexuality; not that there is necessarily a gay gene which determines a gay sexual orientation, but more likely that there is a gene which sways it. They found that people with gay siblings were more likely to be gay themselves, due to genetics.
2. Overall, I found the studies and research methods used in the article to be fairly strong. There was some suspicion that the small size of INAH3 in gay men wasn't due to their sexual orientation at all, but instead due to AIDS, the disease which killed them. However, this counterargument against the study isn't very strong, in my opinion, because it was found that heterosexual men who had died of AIDS had the same INAH3 levels as those who died of other causes. However, before being fully convinced by either study, I would like more detailed information as to the nature of the study and the subjects it was conducted on, because that could definitely prove to be a weakness if the general population is not portrayed accurately.
3. Normal is not a term any of us can really even define; we decide for ourselves what is and is not "normal". However, since all human beings seem to crave the approval of others, many of our beliefs do lean heavily on the beliefs of our culture; many people seem to just accept and conform to the general attitudes displayed in the media in an attempt to receive approval from others. It can't be denied that our culture (books, movies, music, celebrities, fashion trends, and everything about us as a nation), is capable of influencing what we do and do not accept. Which I think is quite unfortunate.
However, on the bright side, few of us allow ourselves to become COMPLETELY brainwashed by our pop culture, we also tend to be greatly influenced by our family, peers, and community; much more so than our culture as a whole. I believe that as we journey through life, everyone we meet shapes us in some way or another--even if it's hardly noticable, our own beliefs tend to be a collection of other people's thoughts that we've picked up along the way, but somehow shaped into being our own. This also goes for what should be considered normal sexual activty; there really isn't a normal. There's only a "right", and what's right is different for everybody.
Although I try not to define it, the loose definition of "normal" that DOES exist in my head is at least of my own creation. It doesn't perferctly align with any certain group's definition, but it is largely a mishmashed product of my family's, peers' and community's beliefs.
4. When you imply that being gay is a choice, you're saying that nothing biological is involved; a person simply decides that they're going to be gay. To me, that just doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think too many of us could get out of bed in the morning and say to ourselves, "Today, I think I'm going to be straight...ah, I take that back, I'll be gay..." I mean, this is just my opinion of course, but I don't think that sexual orientation really works that way. It's not that simple. However, some people seem to think so, which results in the horrible assaults that have happened to gay people throughout history. Somehow viewing being gay as a choice justifies, in some people's minds, using violence against gay people.
5. By concluding that being gay is determined biologically, you're saying that a person doesn't CHOOSE their sexual orientation; it's built in, and it's just the way that they are. In fact, the PBS webpage suggested that sexual orientation may be as biological of a fact as eye color. I would generally agree with this. In fact, to me, the simple fact that, for much of this century, homosexuality was defined by the medical and scientific community as a psychiatric disorder is upsetting. The medical and scientific community has even defined homosexuality as a sickness, deviance, sex perversion, a form of criminality, and worse. In my mind, I have read enough evidence to belief that genetics and biology play a role of some kind in a person's sexuality. But regardless, such treatment of anyone, due to the fact that they choose to define "normal" in their own way, as they are entitled to, is absolutely unacceptable.
6. This assignment hasn't changed my perspective on the topic much. However, it has brought to my attention new things to think about. Before this assignment, I wasn't aware of any strong scientific evidence suggesting that homosexuality is biological. Learning that seemed to strengthened my belief that being gay is (generally) not a choice. We can't control who we love, and certainly not our genetics or biology.
Gina Sterk
In response to:
Claire~ Claire, I think you put it very well when you said "love is love". I agree with you. Love just isn't something that people have much control over, and if love happens to reveal itself between two men, or between two women, it is just as much love. I also agree with you that regardless of sexual orientation, we all deserve to be treated with the same respect and to be allowed the same rights. I think when it comes to respect and equal rights, no matter what our differences are, that's something we are all entitled to. It just shouldn't matter.
Gina Sterk
In response to Lindsey Envall: Lindsey, I think you brought up a lot of really good points in your blog. I really liked what you said about how you don't have the authority to tell someone what is and is not normal. I completely agree with that; none of us should be able to assign ourselves the power to determine something like that. I also like that you don't think it's right to shove your religion down other peoples' throats. I'm a religious person too and I completely agree with what you're saying. It doesn't seem right to tell anyone else how THEY should feel. We all have the right, and the responsibility really, to make up our own minds. One section of your blog was a little confusing to me though...you said that you felt that people have partial control over who they fall in love with. But later, you said that "a person cannot help who they love, it just happens". I'm not trying to back you into a corner by any means, but I was wondering if you could clarify your opinion at all? One final point you made that I also wanted to comment on was what you said about knowing the origin. You feel that if everyone could understand what makes someone gay, we may be more accepting of them as a society, simply because their lifestyle would make much more sense to us. I agree with you on that point too. There have been many instances in my life where a lack of understanding, a simple miscommunication, or a missing piece, has caused me serious stress, anger, and frustration. As human beings, it seems to be our instinct to want to UNDERSTAND. When we understand, it's WAY easier to accept.
JAYMIE BURT
In response to Gina Sterk...
I am in total agreement with your belief that being gay is not a choice. To me, it would seem that since heterosexuality is not a choice, homosexuality would be the same. I don't think that one can chose their sexual orientation and agree with you when you say, "It's not that simple." It just wouldn't make sense and doesn't seem reasonable; if they can pick then why can't we? I don't feel like I have any choice over who I am attracted to and I think that many feelings are out of our individual control. To say that they are for some people and aren't for others just isn't logical and seems unfair.
Gina Sterk
In response to Jaymie: I thought you brought up an interesting point when you said that people seek to be “normal” even though there’s no clear definition as to what normal even is. I agree with you. I think being “normal” is not a worthwhile goal for anyone to strive for in live; I don’t even think that the word exists. I also agree with you that society puts a lot of pressure on homosexuals, and would most likely cause many of them to fear, ignore, or attempt to change who they are. So, I would agree that for them to choose that complication-filled path doesn’t make much sense. Finally, I would agree that it’s not abnormal to do what you feel is right; whether that is a gay or straight sexual orientation. In my mind, there's nothing wrong with doing what feels right to you, and I think it’s good that you seem to be so open and accepting of the beliefs of others. As a society, we definitely have come a long way with that, and believe that we will just continue to do so in the future.
Jessica Muehlbauer in response to Megan Snyder's comment:
Meg... I simply meant that even though we have discovered that there is definate "linkage" between INAH3 and homosexuality, I still feel that the way society shapes a person affects a person's sexual orientation. A person may choose to deny his/her gay feelings because in their environment, it is not accepted. However, if a person grows up in an area where homosexuality is a normal occurence, he/she may feel less stressed on the decision of "coming out of the closet". I definatley agree with you on the biological factor, I just feel we shouldn't forget about a person's environment, I feel it has a huge effect also.
Lindsey Envall in responce to Gina Sterk:
Okay, I know that part was a little confusing. I know what I want to say, but it is just a little hard trying to write it out. It is in my head somewhere. I'll see if I can explain it. So, in my opinion, if a person had a choice between two different people to go out with (with the same traits they are attracted to) they are able to make the decision of who to ask out. But then again, if all of a sudden they just have a HUGE crush on some other person, they cannot help it. Sometimes love just happens. Did that help?
RUDI SUMMERS:
1. When Gorski conducted his experiment, he found that a group of cells in the hypothalamus of male rats is significantly larger than that of female rats. He found the group of cells in the medial preoptic area, which is assumed to control sexual behavior. He found that male monkeys who had a damaged medial preoptic area did not want to have sex with the female monkeys, but those males who had intact medial preoptic areas approached and mounted the females. The genetic link found is called INAH3.
2. When reading this, I only found a couple flaws. Number one: all of the groups tested were very small. To me, this doesn't represent the general population. Number two: I saw that most of the gays that were looked at had AIDS. They should've looked at more people without AIDS. A strength to this experiment was how in-depth it was. It seems that the scientists really dug deep into the brain.
3. Normalcy, in our culture, is mainly defined by the large group, or everyone. Some is defined by what we see on television, or read in books. The term "normal" is defined as, "conforming to the standard or common type". To most people, I think normal sexual activity is between a male and a female. That doesn't mean I'm against homosexuals, it's just the truth that the mass majority of us are heterosexual. Yes, my beliefs on what is normal are shared by most of my friends and family. The beliefs most likely came from what we see around us, for example (again), the media.
4. Implying that being gay is a choice means that it has no genetic connection. I do not believe this. I didn't just wake up one day and say, "Hmm, I think I'll be straight." And I'm sure I can't just wake up tomorrow and say, "Ya know what? I've decided I want to be attracted to women." I don't think that's how it works. Like Tabitha said, certain people are just attracted to certain people. That's the way they were born. And, in my opinion, it is not wrong to be attracted to one sex versus the other.
5. To me, implying that being gay is biologically determined means there is a definite link, and that you have no choice in the matter. I think this is somewhat true. The article provided some viable information that lead me to believe that there is a definite link. Back in the day, doctors considered being gay a disease, and had "treatment" for it where the doctors would try to make you attracted to the opposite sex. I highly disagree with that. Homosexuality is not a disease.
RUDI SUMMERS:
IN RESPONSE TO FAITH:
I agree with you when you said that they should've questioned the subjects about drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. Those factors could have definitely swayed the results. I also agree with who you think defines normal. The celebrities nowadays totally affect how the viewers percieve normal.
IN RESPONSE TO TABITHA BOORTZ:
I agree with you when you said that children are likely to mimc what they're seeing so they learn their definition of normal from their parents and older siblings. And when you said that you have the same definition as your siblings, I agreed. Me and my sisters have the same definition, except my younger sister and I have a slightly different position than my oldest sister, who is eleven years older than I. This is definitely because she grew up in a somewhat different time with different media exposure.
ELLEN FOLMAN
IN RESPONSE TO JESS M'S COMMENT TO MEGAN:
Jess, I completely agree with you when you say that a person's environment also has a huge effect on homosexuality. I think that especially now because of the found biological factor, a person's environment may sometimes be forgotten about, but I feel that society can help shape sexuality.
ELLEN FOLMAN
RESPONSE TO WHITNEY WALKER:
Whitney, I really liked your statements about homosexuality being a choice. When you talked about certain cases that the choice can be applied to, it made a lot of sense. It is true that when people are at a younger age they may feel too nervous or afraid to come out, and wait until they become more sure of themselves. The line I agree with the most is, "There's nothing wrong with this, and people should be understanding of why people do the things they do." I completely agree.
Sara Hudson
In response to Megan Mullen
Thanks for catching that. I guess I didn't relay what I was meaning to say exactly. Animal testing has helped so much in past research and has been a main sorce of knowlege in the research industry. However, I thought from the way the article talked about the testing, it seemed as if they based a lot off of the information they retrieved from this testing.
So thank you for pointing that out. I didn't realise it sounded the way it did!
Whitney Walker in response to Olivia Carlson::
I agree with you completely that love is love and people shouldn't judge others for their choices. I also think you're right with people choosing whether they're gay or straight, it's not as simplistic as waking up and saying, "I'm going to like the same sex today," which I noticed a lot of people put on here. We really may not understand why people choose to do the things they do, even with all the research, but we should be respectful of other people's rights.
CARL VAGLE:
In resposnse to Brett Ludwig:
I agree with you on this subject. You made some great points about how majority rules how we define normal and that if homosexuality was biological it would be more accepting. You also showed how our peers and friends help to show us what is "hip" and what is not.
In response to Lauren Scott:
I like your example of Ellen in your paper. But I'm not sure how homosexuality is biological. According to the Bible we are all created different from one another and we make our own decisions. God did not make us so our DNA would cause us to be gay. Our enviroment effects if we will choose to be a homosexual or not.
In response to Connor Hady:
I agree with you that if being gay was caused biologically then gays would be more accepted. Although it would be really hard to prove that it is. Your assumption that most people are straight I believe is true but there are probably thousands of people living double lives. This means that they act straight at work or in public but when they are in private they may lead a homosexual lifestyle.
Whitney Walker in response to Andrew Samburg::
I agree with what you say about homosexuals not choosing to be gay, really, why would someone want to get harassed? I do disagree with you a little about it being strictly biologically related, I really think there are other aspects that play a role in how someone may chose to be.
Haley Sundstrom
In Response To:
Rudi Summers
Rudi, I really loved the last sentence of your blog,"homosexuality is not a disease." It is such a simple statement, yet it totally focuses on the issue we are discussing. Homosexuality is NOT a disease, there is nothing wrong with being gay, and the world would be such a better place if everyone was accepting of each other's differences.
STEPH THUN
In response to Ellen Folman:
Yes that is exactly what I was getting at. I didn't think he had a strong enough base to state that.
Steph Thun
In response to Haley Sundstrom:
Haley I am not saying "bad experience" as in a bad date I am reffering to rape or some tramatic event similar to rape. Also I was thinking it would have happened more than once. I guess I was a bit unclear, so I hope that this may have cleared it up a bit.
Haley Sundstrom
In Response To:
Steph Thun's comment
Steph, I understand what you meant by tramatic experiences, I just find it hard to believe that someone can 'turn' to a different sex. In my opinion, I think that there's more to sexuality than just your personal experiences, whether they are good or bad.
1] Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer, the authors of “Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality” explored differences in the brain in an attempt to discover a link to homosexuality. Researchers of the past have found it hard to find proof of sexual dimorphism, which pointed toward sexual differences (preferences). In 1978, Roger A. Gorski, from UCLA, discovered that in a homosexual male there seemed to be a cell group called INAH3, both males and females obtain it, but it differed between gender, and also between homosexual and straight men. The possibility for homosexuality is also present. For example, in twins, homosexuality seems to relay off each other. If one is homosexual, especially in males, the chances that the other will also be homosexual rises.
2] In my opinion, the research/study conducted wasn’t completely accurate. The number of “subjects”, seemed to be low, and lacking in any reasoning. Was there a reason for picking that EXACT number, or were the “subjects” all they could find? Not to mention the fact that some of them were deceased and they made a guess about the sexual orientation. Whatever the reason was for choosing the numbers, to me, threw off my openmindness about the study.
3] Defining normal isn’t as easy as it sounds. I suppose you could go to a dictionary and list that definition, but in our day and time normality isn’t even normal anymore. There isn’t a normal, it’s everyone being who they are, and being true to themselves with the occasional pressure to be like someone else. Just reading through theses blogs, and zoning in on the third section, I am surprised of how many “definitions” people came up with. As for who defines normal it, to me, would have to be ourselves. If we have our own definition and keep firm, no one should be able to change us. As I grew up I never was told what “normal” sexual activity was. I assumed it was between a man and women since I spent everyday with a mom and a dad. As I got older, I witnessed it outside in the “real world” and it didn’t bother me. It makes sense for everyone to love who they are in love with, no matter the gender. My definition of normal came from within myself and my beliefs on how things should be in this world. Not everyone will agree, but I was raised to be strong in my beliefs and opinions, so I stick with them.
4] If it was set in stone, or concluded, that being homosexual was a choice, the intense hate that America seems to have for gays would increase, and there more than likely would seem to be no choice for homosexuals to lead a completely happy life. I completely disagree with the discrimination against them, but one person can’t change the world, it takes millions.
5] Concluding that homosexuality is biologically determined would cause people to feel sorry for the individual because they may believe that it wasn’t a choice. However, it isn’t our choice to be male or female? So why would it be any different? If it was biologically determined we would be clueless as to what it “should be”. I placed the last two words in quotations because that’s the big question. What should it be? It should be whatever feels right to the person.
6] This blog, has opened my eyes to the reasons that could be behind homosexuality, but it hasn’t changed my opinion. I still believe that you should be able to love whomever you want, whether it is a female and male, male and male, or female and female. Love is unconditional, and gender never mentioned.
in response to Gina Sterk...
Gina, I agree with your opinion/comment on how unfortunate it is that our society is so influenced by the media. How true is that? However, i think as individuals we define normal to an extent that is unknown to anyone else. Overall though i agree with almost everything you say.
in response to Jaymie Leigh Burt...
"Often times, whatever “circle” you reside in, in the current position of your life, will alter what your definition of normal is or will tend to be."
This is so ridiculously true that it's not funny. Family defines normal, friends define normal, life defines normal. It is sad that as a teen ,most of us, think that being normal is what should be reached. However, the more mature you get, I think, the more normal doesn't matter anymore. You become more comfortable in your skin, and throw all definitions of normal out the window.
Post a Comment