In one of the more remarkably barking contributions to "science", Scientists in Canada have "discovered" that the probability of a man being gay rises significantly according to the number of elder brothers he has, but only when these brothers are true biological siblings. The new findings "indicate firmly" that conditions in the womb before birth, and not the subsequent family environment, are responsible.
Ah, so the mother is responsible. The older brother is responsible. Patronising guff but then again, it does get VERY cold in Canada and all one can presume is that it affects the mental process to think clearly. What next - global warming to blame?
That at least a large majority of gays are born with that potential inclination must be clear to anybody who knows a few. Whether it's the mother who's "responsible" or somebody else (the father?), is really irrelevant.
To say that nurture or environment determines a person's sexual orientation is like saying that anyone can be turned into a top athlethe with the right training.
It doesn't work.
Future generations will look back at our naive trust in the power of upbringing and psychology in general with the same bemused wonder as we look back at times when people believed the earth was flat.
Posted by: Cunningham | June 27, 2006 at 07:36 AM
David
You haven't challanged the findings scientifically. I don't see why it couldn't be true.
Posted by: aileen | June 27, 2006 at 07:52 AM
not sure about the use of the word "fault" either.
Posted by: aileen | June 27, 2006 at 07:53 AM
was thinking the same too, aileen. harsh vocabulary. but then if its leftist communist scientists who cares. Gas em all and the gays.
Posted by: daytripper | June 27, 2006 at 08:46 AM
I have often thought that in an over populated world a rising homosexual population maybe a natural consequence. but then again, I just made that up in my head.....
anyway, the youngest brother in Ireland joins the priesthood does he not ? so he's celibate anyway...
Posted by: jaun / P.A.B.L.O. | June 27, 2006 at 09:20 AM
Aileen,
What is the "probability" that I am right?
Posted by: David Vance | June 27, 2006 at 09:24 AM
Well, the probability that you're right when you say "subsequent family environment" is responsible is practically zero.
Posted by: Cunningham | June 27, 2006 at 09:38 AM
Scientists in Canada have "discovered" that the probability of a man being gay rises significantly according to the number of elder brothers he has,
Um, no it hasn't. This fact has been known for some time and is confirmed by a pile of other studies.
What this study does is rule out the explanation that this is to do with effects of having older brothers in the family environment, and other social factors.
Posted by: Frank O'Dwyer | June 27, 2006 at 10:27 AM
So, according to the above, those who practice paedophilia are also 'born that way'? And that makes it 'morally' acceptable to society and the community therefore?
To be logically consistent this MUST be your argument - or you simply don't have a cogent one.
Posted by: Peter C Glover | June 27, 2006 at 10:35 AM
We've just done a survey in my office and no one can think of a gay man we know who has a brother, let alone an older one.
That said... we're hardly a scientific sample!
I can't believe this stupid nature / nurture debate persists!
I've always been a big gay - and I was born that way.
Argument OVER!
Posted by: DST | June 27, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Equating paedophilia with homosexuality ... I would suggest Peter C Glover is a stranger to cogency! Certainly to logic.
Posted by: DST | June 27, 2006 at 10:39 AM
>>To be logically consistent this MUST be your argument - or you simply don't have a cogent one.<<
Peter, I'm afraid it's you who isn't thinking logically or cogently.
Gays, as everyone else, have a right to live their lives as they choose. Their sexual or emotional conduct doesn't harm anyone.
Paedophiles may also be born with their inclination, but their conduct harms innocent people and for that reason can't be tolerated.
Posted by: Cunningham | June 27, 2006 at 10:45 AM
So, according to the above, those who practice paedophilia are also 'born that way'? And that makes it 'morally' acceptable to society and the community therefore?
Notice the confusion of 'blame' with 'cause' - as if science is trying to "blame" homosexuality on something.
I also notice that it takes a conservative to confuse facts about the world with moral prescriptions. They must think that Ohm's law makes it OK to electrocute somebody.
Posted by: Frank O'Dwyer | June 27, 2006 at 10:46 AM
boring ... who cares? As long as sodomy remains optional and not compulsory it is a non issue.
Posted by: NRG | June 27, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Oh David, not roasting this old chestnut again are you?
Posted by: fatmammycat | June 27, 2006 at 10:51 AM
Well said, DSL (10:36). But it is really true that none of your colleagues knows a gay man with a brother?
What small families they must have in your neck of the woods!
Posted by: Cunningham | June 27, 2006 at 10:54 AM
I too think it's a stupid debate. I don't understand why people get so worked up about it, or why it matters one way or the other, unless you're a fundamentalist of some description.
Posted by: Hugh Green | June 27, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Good morning Ms. Cat,
I think the polymath sociologist Paul Goodman had it about right when he divided the world into flamboyant 'ambidexters' and dreary old 'heteraceteras.'
Posted by: Alexander Bowman | June 27, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Well I'd say this is rather one in the eye to those who seriously believe that homosexuality is a "bad life choice" - or that gays are possessed by the Devil.
Posted by: Ben-Con | June 27, 2006 at 02:06 PM
And a dandy afternoon to you Alexander.
Posted by: fatmammycat | June 27, 2006 at 02:06 PM
Ben-Con,
In what way, exactly? For centuries homosexuality has been opposed on the grounds that it is unnatural to have sex with another individual of the same sex but not necessarily unnatural or demonic to be born with the tendency.
Posted by: Adrian | June 27, 2006 at 03:38 PM
Adrian,
What do you mean by unnatural? The separation of man from nature is a man-made concept. In brute reality, man is part of nature. If he has sex with another man, then that's as natural as anything else he might be inclined to do.
Posted by: Hugh Green | June 27, 2006 at 03:45 PM
Adrian,
That something is "unnatural" is stupid grounds to oppose anything. Many natural things are bad and many unnatural things are good.
It also begs the question of how anything that appears in nature can be "unnatural".
Posted by: Frank O'Dwyer | June 27, 2006 at 03:48 PM
I would ask how, with the sheer amount of homosexuals on the planet - far too many to be considered a tiny minority, although technically minority they are - it can possibly be "unnatural".
Posted by: Ben-Con | June 27, 2006 at 04:01 PM
Sometimes when I listen to you straights I think all us gays should gang up and give you a good hiding.
That would learn ye.
Posted by: DST | June 27, 2006 at 04:10 PM