June 27, 2006



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.



You haven't challanged the findings scientifically. I don't see why it couldn't be true.


not sure about the use of the word "fault" either.


was thinking the same too, aileen. harsh vocabulary. but then if its leftist communist scientists who cares. Gas em all and the gays.

jaun / P.A.B.L.O.

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...

David Vance


What is the "probability" that I am right?


Well, the probability that you're right when you say "subsequent family environment" is responsible is practically zero.

Frank O'Dwyer

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.

Peter C Glover

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.


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!


Equating paedophilia with homosexuality ... I would suggest Peter C Glover is a stranger to cogency! Certainly to logic.


>>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.

Frank O'Dwyer

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.


boring ... who cares? As long as sodomy remains optional and not compulsory it is a non issue.


Oh David, not roasting this old chestnut again are you?


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!

Hugh Green

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.

Alexander Bowman

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.'


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.


And a dandy afternoon to you Alexander.


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.

Hugh Green


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.

Frank O'Dwyer


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".


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".


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.