He did not listen to us. Many of us wrote polite, fact filled, logic and reason filled letters, faxes, and emails, but he ignored us.
Men With Older Brothers More Likely To Be Gay? Study Expanding To Biological Origin
Posted: 09/05/2013 Cavan.Sieczkowski@huffingtonpost.com
LGBT, Gay Rights, LGBT, Gay Man Older Brothers, Gay Older Brothers, Homosexuality, Homosexuality Brothers, Homosexuality Older Brothers, Man Older Brother Gay, Nature Nurture, Nature Vs Nurture, Older Brother Gay, Older Brothers Gay, Gay Voices News
Seven years ago a study made headlines for finding that men with older brothers are more likely to be gay. Today the study has resurfaced as researchers extend upon the original findings by looking deeper into the possible biological basis of homosexuality.
Published in New Scientist magazine, the 2006 study was conducted by sexologist Anthony Bogaert, a Community Health Sciences chair and professor at Ontario's Brock University. His research led him to conclude that having more older brothers makes it more likely a man will be gay. Each older brother raises the odds of homosexuality by a third, potentially going from a 3 percent chance with the first son to a 6 percent chance with the fourth.
Bogaert studied 944 gay and straight men, including some who were raised with non-biological male siblings, to pit prenatal against postnatal factors. His research, which reappeared in a Sept. 4 New Scientist article, ultimately determined that fraternal birth order seems to have a connection to sexual orientation. "That means for each male gestation that occurs, something changes in a woman’s body that makes her more likely to give birth to a gay son," as Brock University explains Bogaert's findings.
An abstract from the study, published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, summarizes the research:
Only biological older brothers, and not any other sibling characteristic, including nonbiological older brothers, predicted men’s sexual orientation, regardless of the amount of time reared with these siblings. These results strongly suggest a prenatal origin to the fraternal birth-order effect.
Today, Bogaert is looking to determine that prenatal origin.
"[The 2006 study] was an important study and it does suggest there is probably a biological basis to the older brother effect," he told The Huffington Post during a phone conversation from Canada Thursday afternoon. "It's an important study in the context of sex orientation development. We have additional research going on right now testing specifically the underlying biological effect of the older brother. ... There are no results yet. We are collecting samples of mothers of gay men and comparing them to mothers of heterosexual men and looking to see if there is evidence of a biological factor that differs between the two groups."
Bogaert explained that the 2006 study never determined a specific "mechanism" -- a biological factor or process -- behind the older brother effect. He suggested this mechanism could be a maternal immune response, a hormone change in the womb, a gestational factor during pregnancy or even genes.
"The 2006 study really strongly suggests that there is biological mechanism but it never really tested the specific mechanism itself in terms of determining what factor is in fact influencing a change in a mother's development during pregnancy," he explained to HuffPost. "What we're doing now is we're looking at the specific mechanism and seeing if we can find evidence for that. We have a study looking at ... mothers of gay and heterosexual men and seeing if there is a maternal immune response. So, that's something very unique and new."
Bogaert says that isolating the exact biological mechanism or process will support the "nature" side of the Nature v. Nurture debate. If successful, his new research could provide a biological backing for homosexuality.
"I think there's strong evidence that people who believe that there's a biological basis to sexual orientation tend to be more tolerant to sexual minorities, and that's one of the more positive [possible] social outcomes," he said. "And I am in that camp. I don't believe that homosexuality is a disorder or immoral."
The overarching purpose of the new study is to delve deeper into the origins of sexuality. Bogaert says he is trying to understand sexual variability, human sexuality and sexual orientation as a piece of the larger puzzle.
"Understanding the biological mechanisms may have some social ramifications, and for me that's great if it ends up being positive," he added. "But a larger motivation is just trying to understand sexuality, and understanding sexuality has its own benefits from a scientific perspective."
The one thing I remeber about '97, is a certain sports reporter for the Gazette getting each and every single word he said about the Broncos absolutely wrong. You could make book on this guy in Vegas, just whatever he said, bet the opposite way. Ah yes, 1997, and after the Broncos thoroughly dismantled the Super Bowl champs last night, I just want to say the same thing I said in 1997. Ahem .... "Nice prediction Nostradumbass". Wow, it's been so long it feels fresh and new again. Keep predicting the Broncos losses Routon, that'll get them to the Super Bowl for sure!
Sen. Morse did listen to his constituents. He simply refused to entertain the well-documented abuse that many people on your side threw at him and his colleagues. Have you read some of those emails? They are out there, easy enough to find. Why should he listen to vitriol?
Hey Gina, please define "reasonable" and "sensible" and "common sense" as they would apply to everyone. And I mean everyone, not just you or half the population. Every single person, again, please.
Then perhaps you can decipher for me, (I read your comments and you seem to be a thinking person) as I am stumped by Bob Powell's request that we "vote for sanity". I am all for sanity but voting for it seems kind of borderline... uh... insane. Bob Powell is against "Insane freedom" which he believes promotes "distribution" of weapons to mass murderers. Is he "reasonable" and "sensible", taking into consideration he did not define "high capacity"? How high is "high"? Consider "capacity", which means the most that something can contain. What if we do not fill something to its capacity then would that be reasonable? If I think it is sensible and Mr. Powell does not then what does common sense tell you? (I think he is just afraid of firearms or he is into dictators, and the dictator in question being him. I vote "NO" on that. Is that sensible? Absolutely!)
If you are able you may tackle "insane freedom" but if you don't that is okay because I think Powell is just plain "stupid". (That he has too much freedom is reasonable to say as he himself said it, but I believe he stated in so many words "we" meaning "him". Him don't like him having "insane freedom' and I think he right but only about he. Him. Right?)
Oh yeah, you can vote or not. It is your choice. It is not a "veteran's" business what you do. Some nitwits think that by casting a vote they have fulfilled their civic duty!
Tommy P. I'm sorry, but what did you expect when you decided to live near a college campus? CC is actually much better than other areas surrounding other colleges in the way that it is contained to only a few blocks. I understand you are frustrated but it is definitely not at all a surprising cycle to reoccur every year. Taking it out in this manner seems like a desperate move because you reached a certain emotional point, and this will only heighten tensions. You really can't be shocked and annoyed to have to deal with new tenants every year - college is only meant to be four years....Can CC students be more respectful? of course. Is it right to call them "barbarians" and their landlord "slumlords"? absolutely not. did you never enjoy a college experience? You also seem like the type of neighbor that adds to the reasons of the tensions between CC students and their neighbors. And no I am not one of these "barbarians," more commonly known as 18-22 year old students, causing this noise in your "hood."
Tommy P. The college is a perennial place, while your decision to live right on a college campus is not. Also the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results. Get over yourself or move. Or at least come have a beer!
"The recalls, pushed by those opposing laws against high-capacity magazines and against comprehensive background checks, promote the distribution of weapons of mass murder to those who clearly shouldn't have them." -- Bob Powell
What a load of manure!
You gun clutchers just don't get it. Your 2nd Amendment right CAN be regulated by the majority of the people. That is exactly how this Republic works.
We want universal background checks, and we want military grade weaponry off our streets and out of our neighborhoods. And that's what is going to happen.
And before you even say it: Just because a criminal might get their hands on 30-round magazines doesn't mean that we shouldn't ban them. We outlaw murder, but people still kill. We outlaw heroin, but people still make fortunes selling it while others destroy their lives using it. Are you saying that, because a law might be violated, we shouldn't establish the law? Insane.
And before you even say this: You aren't Rambo. Sorry to burst your bubble. You aren't gonna stop the next mass murderer with your AK-47. You just aren't.
Rob Harris. Klebold and Harris caused all that terror with ten-round magazines? That's your argument?
There are also laws banning murder. There are laws banning the possession of narcotics. There are even laws against speeding. Laws are widely disregarded on a daily basis. I would just like to point out that "limiting the size of magazines" or "increasing background checks on gun purchases" will not mean shit to someone who wants to get their hands on a weapon with the intention of harming another living human being. Maybe we should attack this problem at its root, by showing compassion and understanding towards our fellow man in their time of need.
Gina, you actually represent the number one reason why Senator Morse is being recalled. He refused to listen to his constituents. For me, it was during this past legislative session. For you, it was another time. But the same thing happened to both of us, Senator Morse was deaf to us, his constituents.
The reason that 20% of the petitions signatures were Democrats and 30% were Unaffiliated voters is this very reason. Senator Morse DID NOT LISTEN.
The media makes this recall election to be all about guns. It is about much more than guns. And you hit the nail on the head, Morse does not listen to his constituents.
What do Aurora, Sandy Hook, Ft Hood, Columbine, and Virginia Tech all have in common? They are Gun Free Zones. I feel sorry for those who lost loved ones in these senseless murders. But law abiding citizens did not commit those murders.
Mere days after Sandy Hook occurred, at a theater in San Antonio, TX, a mass murder did not happen because an off-duty police officer with a gun was able to stop the murderer who had started shooting at that theater. Just like at New Life Church here in Colorado Springs when a concealed carry holder who was serving as a security guard was able to stop a mass murder from occurring when a murderer was stopped. What do these two incidents have in common? A good guy with a gun stopped a bad buy with a gun.
Morse and Giron and others like to say that guns kill people, but they don't say that guns also help protect people. What they really should say is that EVIL people kill people. NONE of the laws that were passed this legislative session would have changed ONE SINGLE THING at Columbine. That occurred during the 1994 magazine limit (10-round limits) and those guys had lots of 10-round magazines plus propane bombs and shotguns. And they were not legally allowed to own guns anyway. That did not stop them.
Emotions are not a reason to create laws. One of the least reported statistics is that gun crime has actually decreased over the last 20 years. The CDC study that Obama ordered did not provide the data he expected. Don't believe me, go look it up yourself.
What I don't understand is the far right tends to bitch about government spending, but then they force a special election which, surprise, means lots of government spending takes place to fund it. Bunch of hypocrites.
Uevegues voted for Palin and drinks Fox News Koolaid. Lots of right wing musicians out there.
Joe Uvegues is an idiot. He plays a mean guitar but couldn't find a fact to write about if it bit him in the butt. I love Joe, but this guy repeats lies like a mocking bird...not listening to constituents? Not hearing the public? Where were ya Joe, when civil union discussion was limited by the R's in the legislature in...oh I think 2010...and even after more people lined up, they closed the conversation by running out the clock? Oh ya, you were silent...so STFU until you can find balance and equality and peace...that includes the people who think rocket launchers are not a 2nd amendment right. REad the constitution, read a book, and definitely read the voters who support John Morse.
Great, and really depressing, point Happyfew.
"Jessica Ghawi was killed by six of those rounds from the AR-15 before the drum, thankfully, jammed"
Could the six rounds have been the 21st thru the 26th bullets? If so, if the new laws had made it more difficult to get the drum and he had only a 15 round magazine, then he would of had to reload... gunuts like to say that this reload happens instantly. this was when the nutjob that shot gabby giffords was stopped. these new laws make sense to the vast majority of people... even in this village.
Also, as Rich points out in this essay, Jessica Ghawi was killed by six of those rounds from the AR-15 before the drum, thankfully, jammed.
So, Stacy, you are saying because all guns are dangerous 100-round drums should be legal?
That makes no sense.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation