Is there scientific proof of homosexuality being a trait at birth?
216373
It is likely that there are both biological and environmental factors at work in sexual orientation (not to mention free will).  For instance, men who develop breast cancer typically have very high estrogen levels.  They are also many times more likely to be homosexuals.  This evidence suggests a strong biological basis.  Conversely, adult lesbians are several times more likely to have undergone rape during their childhoods compared to heterosexual women.  This evidence would seem to indicate a strong environmental and psychological influence.\n\nWhen talking about a system of behavior as complex as sexual orientation, it is impossible to determine a single cause.  Asking if someone is born gay is like asking if someone is born Republican, or born spiritual, or born enjoying horror movies.  To the best of our knowledge, humans are born with certain behavioral tendencies.  These tendencies are strenghtened or suppressed by our experience, then translated into action through conscious expression of will.
493227
I don't know about "designed", but homosexuals ARE born that way.
343253
I don't believe a person is born gay or lesbian.  I believe it is a choice.\n\nSecondly, yes.  If that person asked for forgiveness, repented and changed his/her life according to God's will, then he will be forgiven by God.
89031
Scientists have reported that they've found an "extremely unusual" trait in the cells of some mothers with two or more gay sons, providing more evidence to suggest that homosexuality might be inherited.\n\n\nMothers of multiple gay sons were about six times more likely than other women to process their X chromosomes in a certain way, researchers discovered.\n\n\nResearchers aren't entirely sure what the findings mean, said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA. Making things more complicated, about 75 percent of mothers of multiple gay sons don't have the trait.\n\n\nStill, the study, released Tuesday in the journal Human Genetics, raises plenty of questions, Bocklandt said, especially as researchers try to figure out whether homosexuality has genetic roots and if there truly is a "gay gene" -- or genes.\n\n\n"What everybody wants is the gene, and we don’t have it yet," Bocklandt said. "But this is an independent confirmation that the X chromosome is involved."\n\n\nBocklandt and colleagues looked at a phenomenon known as X-chromosome inactivation, in which cells inside the bodies of females automatically turn off -- or inactivate -- one of their two X chromosomes. That leaves them with one working X chromosome -- just like males, who have a single X and a single Y chromosome.\n\n\nNormally, each cell in a female's body randomly turns off one or the other X chromosome. In some cases, such as when families share a genetic disease, there is "extreme skewing" -- one X chromosome is more likely to be turned off than the other, Bocklandt said.\n\n\nIn the new study, the researchers looked at 97 mothers of one or more gay sons and 103 women with no gay sons to see what their blood cells did with their X chromosomes. The researchers recruited many of the women with the help of PFLAG.\n\n\nThey found that nearly a quarter of the mothers of multiple gay sons inactivated the same X chromosome -- in other words, nonrandomly -- compared to just 4 percent of the women without gay sons. Of those with one gay son, 13 percent inactivated the same X chromosome.\n\n\nDr. Ionel Sandovici, a genetics researcher at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, England, who is familiar with the research findings, cautioned that the study is small, with just 44 mothers of multiple gay sons being examined. More research in larger groups must be done to confirm the results, Sandovici said.\n\n\nThe research does provide "circumstantial evidence" that the X chromosome contributes to the development of male sexuality, Sandovici said. But "we still understand very little about molecular mechanisms of sexual orientation, and this seems to be rather a complicated biological puzzle."\n\nBut of course its Nature vs. Nurture and its possible that the person could just become gay because of his environment/experiences or just be born that way.
585174
We once had a male Siamese cat that allowed kittens to nurse on him, and he nurtured them like his own, even though of course he could not produce milk.\n\n  So, I believe cats can be gay and inbreeding does produce behaviour similiar to bi-polar.
302312
The convoluted answer to this question is kind of partly yes and partly no.  People want to believe that there is a gay gene because it'll erase the idea that somehow they were corrupted into being a homosexual child because of bad parenting or early childhood sexualization or some other such thing.  If being gay were a genetic predisposition, a recessive one obviously like red hair as you point out, then people can just throw up their hands and relieve themselves of any potential guilt.  Politically it's also an important card to have because that makes the discrimination against gay people a matter of science, and not social mores.\n\nOn the other hand if being gay were something that was a result of nurturing then there is blame to be assigned for "who did this to the child?"  This implies that it could be fixed or de-programmed, and we all know how well that goes.  Some people say it's a choice and the overwhelming response from queer people is "who would choose this life?"  This is just the way we've always been, at least as far as we know.  \n\nPersonally I think it's a combination of genetics and learned behavior.  But it's one of those learned behaviors that you just can't change after a while, like the accent you have when you talk.  Psychologically people settle and things are just locked in there.
380261
This is a very valid question but one which is better addressed to the LGBT community than to those who for whatever reason can not or will not ever understand.\n\nHomosexuality is indeed inborn but it is not a disorder. A question to ask yourself is why nature has created the phenomenon of homosexuality in the first place and why does she seem to like it enough to allow it to continue from generation to generation. Nature seem to want to keep the ratio of gays to straights in humans at a relatively constant 1 to 10, this despite the undeniable reality that many gays and lesbians do not breed. The fount of the gay world is and always has been the straight world. And homosexuality most definitely occurs in many animals.\n\nAnyone who believes in evolution I think would agree that only traits that serve a purpose and benefit the species persist for any length of time. Harmful mutations are not preserved by nature. The individuals that are born with truly dangerous genetic makeups usually die before adulthood and do not contribute to the gene pool of the species. \n\nFrom this perspective it would seem that homosexuality must benefit the species in some as yet undefined way. Nature not only permits but actually promotes homosexuality. Why? Perhaps it is partly because homosexuals contribute so much to various fields of human endeavor (arts, sciences, literature, music, even athletics) that they help propel the human race forward exponentially in its cultural development. Worth considering anyway, wouldn't you say?\n\nBut to address the main question here:\nFace it, there will always be people who try to validate their own choices by questioning you for making different choices. Some you can talk to, some it's best to just ignore because try as you may you will not rescue them from their mental blocks nor squeeze from their mental prisons an ounce of true humanity.
220242
We are born who we are.I see your point of view however, i disagree somewhat. Based on your  premise isn't being straight also a psychological disorder?Gays,Lesbians etc. are born from straight persons.These variations exist throughout nature.Take  a look at some of our other animal brethren to see it.Former anything can change by choosing to. Once this country was populated by child brides.It was considered a good thing to give your daughter to a well established male.Over time,we have come  to understand that such unions placed the girls at an unfair advantage. We have now enacted laws to protect our young from this.To allow pedophilia breaks said laws. Thanks for sharing your opinion.Respectfully,Will
281297
Say it's a recessive gene.  Heterosexual parents without the expressed trait each contribute one allele.  Voila!  Gay kid from straight parents!  How does the recessive gene go on, you ask?  Siblings who only receive one allele.  (Do'h!)\n\nWell, there's one way of demonstrating flawed logic (or in your case, abysmal ignorance).
636446
I just saw an article today in the paper that said men's sexual preference is decided before birth. I did not read the whole article...but if a baby comes out of the womb and sees good window treatments he is gay...just kidding. I dont think you should categorize that evil is done by most straight people and good by gays. I have seen a little of both from both sides... I don't think sexual preference has anything to do with the good that you do- that is an individual thing that comes from the heart not your groin. Just be happy with who you are and if you think you were born gay then so be it. Why is important to debate it? You will never change other opinions who are homophobic.
159427
Of course you can. People can be any age and be gay, just like people can be homicidal maniacs when they're only 4. People are born with all kinds of different mental disorders and homosexuality is just one of them.
556039
I've said this before and I'll say it again. \nThe term homosexuality is a label created by humans. Many species demonstrate variations in sexual behavior including attempts at mating with a same sex conspecific. Animal behavior researchers prefer not to refer to behaviors as "homosexual" it is not useful to the science of understanding animal behavior. \n\nYour page doesn't provide any new information. We already know a crazy amount of info about animal behavior including that same sex conspecifics engage in sexual behavior with one another. The empirical question for each individual species is why do they engage in this behavior? What are the developmental contengencies that lead to that behavior. \n\n\n\nYou want to really collect some info and learn about sexual behavior across species and see what people are doing now see my list below.
405468
Before stating "it can't have been in you ever since you were born" in your question, you may want to check out some scientific studies on the matter.\n\nMy first source shows that homosexuality for males has been linked to the Xq28 in males; second source is on a genetic link of the X chromosome to a gay person's mother; third source is on gene variations on the X chromosome; fourth source states that it "confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved," and the last source is on a link between brain structure and homosexuality.
617933
Contrary to what liberal theologans say the Bible strictly condems homosexuality. You dont need to get hung up in the old testament with levitical law that they love to pull apart. Look right at the New testament-Romans -vs 26,27. The answer is no one can prove it. Even if it is claimed that a person is "born with it" that changes nothing. Lets try this, Iwas born to be a alcoholic, should I keep drinking although its wrong? Dont let anyone trick you , this culture is trying to ram it down our throats.
451684
It's genetic. Alot of heterosexual people have homosexual relatives and alot of homosexual people have heterosexual relatives....we're born this way as you were born straight..
168644
According to most scientists and psychologist, being gay is physiological verses psychological. There is a part of the brain called the hypothamalus. In heterosexual men this gland is larger than a heterosexual woman’s which is much smaller in size. Recent studies of autopsies performed on gays reveal the size of hypothamalus’ of homosexuals (both male and female) aren’t as large as a heterosexual male or as small as a heterosexual female.\n\nHomosexuality occurs naturally in most species of animals.\n\nForgoing the physical causes of homosexuality, socialization, environment and personal beliefs often have an influence on whether a person live a gay or straight life. For instance, a person who believes they may be gay might suppress those feelings if they are raised in an environment where homosexuality is considered taboo and self expression is censored. On the other hand, a person with homosexual tendencies may be more willing to explore those feelings if raised in an environment which encourages expression and self individualism.\n\nSince our sexuality doesn’t develop until long after birth, I don’t see how anyone can be born heterosexual or homosexual. \n\nSome uninformed individuals claim homosexuality is a choice. The question to those people would be, “Did you have to choose to be straight.” The answer will almost always be, “Hell no!” Just as a heterosexual could no more “choose” to be gay, a homosexual would have a difficult time choosing to be straight.\n\nAs for religious arguments, the passages in Genesis merely explain heterosexual relationships and does not condemn or even speak to homosexual acts. The only direct mention of homosexuality in the Bible can be found in the Old Testament under Leviticus along with the sins of wearing woven clothing (cotton), eating shell fish, shaving, and not allowing women to preach the word of God, amongst other forgotten sins. These sins were made non-sins by the words of Jesus. That is why good “Christians” can shave, while wearing their cotton briefs and eat oyster without having to worry about going to Hell.\n\nIn the New Testament, many newer interpretations claim that the rapists who came to Lot’s house were gay, but they were rapists, which rape is a sin. In another passage the words used to describe male prostitutes has been translated into “homosexuals” by watered down modern day Bibles. Prostitution is a sin, but at the time, there was no homosexual culture to condemn.\n\nThe most prolific argument against Biblical condemnation of homosexuals came from Jesus who was to be God’s final word on the subject. When given the opportunity to condemn homosexual behavior, He did not.\n\nWhen you see the word “homosexual’ in a Bible understand there was no word to describe homosexuality at the time of the writing of the Bible. Go to the King James Version and read the same passages. Those translations of those same words pertain only to male prostitution and rapists, which are both sins.\n\nLastly, many lost Christians say the Bible says intercourse is for the purpose of reproduction only and the only reason man was put on this earth was to reproduce. Well I can’t find one Christian who says they only have intercourse for the purpose of reproduction. As for the misnomer man was put on this earth for the sole purpose of reproduction, what about people who for one reason or another cannot reproduce? Are they all going to hell? If all of the world’s trees produced fruit, the fruit would lay rotting on the ground.
528231
YES\nhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm\n"This particular study, along with others, strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans," said the study's lead author, Charles E. Roselli, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, OHSU School of Medicine. "The hope is that the study of these brain differences will provide clues to the processes involved in the development and regulation of heterosexual, as well as homosexual, behavior."