11/05/02: Gay sheep and sexuality

[Freakapotimus]

Gay sheep shed light on sexuality
Homosexual rams have different brain structures

Nov. 4 — Gay sheep that mate only with other rams have different brain structures from “straight” sheep, a finding that may shed light on human sexuality, U.S. researchers said on Monday. The differences are similar to those seen in some homosexual humans, but probably only go a small way to explaining the causes of different sexual preferences, the team at Oregon Health Sciences University said.

"WE ARE not trying to explain human sexuality by this study," Charles Roselli, a professor of physiology and pharmacology who led the study, said in a telephone interview. "Whether this is a big component of what contributes in humans, that’s still debatable."

Working with a team at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, Roselli’s team studied 27 sheep — 10 ewes, nine rams that mated only with other rams and eight rams that mated only with females.

The "gay" sheep are strongly homosexual, Roselli said.

"They don’t pair-bond," he said. "But they are exclusive. They don’t court or mate with females. They only court and mate with males."

First the scientists watched the sheep to be sure of their behavior — something that cannot be done with humans. Then they took apart their brains.

DIFFERENCES IN HYPOTHALAMUS

"There had been reports in humans that a certain area of the hypothalamus, the preoptic area ... was usually larger in males than females," Roselli said. This area was also found to be larger in heterosexual humans than in homosexual men.

But the researchers had used the brains of men who had died of AIDS in their study, which meant the disease or drugs used to treat it could have had an effect on the brain.

"With an animal model you can be more selective and do more controlled studies," Roselli said.

The sheep had similar differences in their brains, the researchers told a meeting in Orlando, Florida, of the Society for Neuroscience.

"In a sense we confirmed what been found in humans," Roselli said.

The brain cells in this area also made greater amounts of an enzyme called aromatase in the heterosexual rams. Aromatase is involved in the action of testosterone, the so-called male hormone.

This does not mean the gay rams had less testosterone in their brains, Roselli stressed. "It is not necessarily the activational effect of the hormone," he said. Other types of neurons are probably active — they just have not found them yet.

No differences in testosterone relating to sexuality have been found either in the sheep or in humans, he said.

It’s not that gay men have lower levels of testosterone," he said. "And it’s not the case with these sheep."

Roselli believes that exposure to hormones while still in the mother’s womb may affect the brain and cause differences in sexual preference, and more experiments will aim to show whether this is true.

© 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

[blkwolf21]

yes, indeed very messed up. i always knew gay people had a glitch in their brain, and thats what made them gay. a normal animal will always be attracted to the opposite sex

[Freakapotimus]

You do realize that not everyone who posts here is "normal", right?

[RandomFreak]

Huh, interesting. I'm just wondering when they'll find out how much of an impact the brain difference is or if it's just a small piece.

[SolarisDX]

At 11/8/02 09:02 PM, blkwolf21 wrote: yes, indeed very messed up. i always knew gay people had a glitch in their brain, and thats what made them gay. a normal animal will always be attracted to the opposite sex

Be careful when using that word normal. You could offend someone very easily if you start comparing them to what you call normal.

[Freakapotimus]

At 11/13/02 04:05 PM, RandomFreak wrote: Huh, interesting. I'm just wondering when they'll find out how much of an impact the brain difference is or if it's just a small piece.

It is interesting! Findings like this can make or break the "nature/nurture" arguement, add or delete information from it, and possibly hurt or help the LBGT "movement".

Although, I dislike movements. If people were just tolerant *hint*above*hint* we wouldn't have to worry about rallies or marches.

[blkwolf21]

im sure its only a small part. if u studied the brain you would know that destroying or altering even one little area can have major results

[swayside]

there is nothing genetic about homosexuality. just like alcoholism is not a disease as some people think it is. no matter what you genetics are, in the end it is the person who decides wether they want to be gay or straight, or wether to drink or not. gay people are wrong and disgusting, that's fact not and opinion.

[SolarisDX]

At 11/17/02 04:35 PM, swayside wrote: there is nothing genetic about homosexuality.

Your source for this claim?

:just like alcoholism is not a disease as some people think it is. no matter what you genetics are, in the end it is the person who decides wether they want to be gay or straight, or wether to drink or not. gay people are wrong and disgusting, that's fact not and opinion.

How ignorant of a statement is that. Your 'fact' is nothing but an ignorant opinion.

[swayside]

At 11/18/02 11:38 AM, SolarisDX wrote: How ignorant of a statement is that. Your 'fact' is nothing but an ignorant opinion.

i am not ignorant. you tell me what i'm being ignorant of, and how i'm wrong, and i'll gladly concede to you. choose your words carefully.

[Freakapotimus]

Alcoholism is an illness, just like cancer, bi-polar disorder, and kleptomania. Whether is it chemical, genetic, or environmentally based doesn't change that fact.

Would you say that all sexuality is disgusting? Gay people are, you say. What about bisexuals, transgendered, polyamorous, kinky, asexual, pansexual, promiscuous, celibate, monogomous, duogomous, and everything in between? There is too much to be explored, learned, researched, and discovered to say that the only way to go is boy on girl in missionary position.

[SolarisDX]

At 11/18/02 04:10 PM, swayside wrote:

At 11/18/02 11:38 AM, SolarisDX wrote: How ignorant of a statement is that. Your 'fact' is nothing but an ignorant opinion.

i am not ignorant. you tell me what i'm being ignorant of, and how i'm wrong, and i'll gladly concede to you. choose your words carefully.

You're just uninformed. For one, alcholism is a disease. A mental one.

Secondly, you claim "in the end it is the person who decides wether they want to be gay or straight" which is not necesarily true. I have friends that are gay that tell me that they were born gay and there wasn't any sort of decision point on when they chose to be so. Ever since their birth, they just found the opposite sex not as attractive as thier own.

[swayside]

You're just uninformed. For one, alcholism is a disease. A mental one.
alcholism is not a disease. it's a choice. it's the person's choice to drink or not.

Secondly, you claim "in the end it is the person who decides wether they want to be gay or straight" which is not necesarily true. I have friends that are gay that tell me that they were born gay and there wasn't any sort of decision point on when they chose to be so.

no one is born gay. there's nothing genetic about it. it's a matter of choice, no exceptions.

[SolarisDX]

At 11/20/02 04:45 PM, swayside wrote: You're just uninformed. For one, alcholism is a disease. A mental one.
alcholism is not a disease. it's a choice. it's the person's choice to drink or not.

Secondly, you claim "in the end it is the person who decides wether they want to be gay or straight" which is not necesarily true. I have friends that are gay that tell me that they were born gay and there wasn't any sort of decision point on when they chose to be so.

no one is born gay. there's nothing genetic about it. it's a matter of choice, no exceptions.

The article above, as posted by Freakapotimus, is scientific evidence that gay people are born gay.

Where is your scientific evidence for your claim?

[Freakapotimus]

I don't recall ever making a choice about the matter.

I know other people who've been asked "Why'd you make that choice?" To which they answered something like "Yeah, like I'd choose to be ridiculed and mocked, beaten up and outcast."

It's a damn shame that people still have fears about things like that. Oh, wait! It's because of negative, uninformed, and ignorant ideas!

[SolarisDX]

At 11/20/02 05:34 PM, SolarisDX wrote: Where is your scientific evidence for your claim?

So do we not have any takers?

Thought so.

[swayside]

to clear this up once and for all: alchaholism is not a disease. some of you would believe that it is, just like cancer. that's very ignorant of you. you don't choose cancer (though by smoking, you increase your chances of lung cancer) like you choose to drink a beer. alchaholism is an adiction, not a disease. you can always just not have alchahol, but you can't just stop having cancer. some of you would believe that one can be born with alchaholism, wrong again. a person isn't born into alchaholism like someone is born into a.i.d.s. people are born with certain tendancies, some have higher tendancies to certain fashions, movie genres, and, yes, alchaholism. but this is all subject to nurture. we were all born with a great tendancy to pee indiscriminately, no matter where we were or what time it was. that tendancy was broken by those who raised us and taught us to pee in the toilet. if a person is born with a higher tendancy to drinking, his parents can raise him telling him not to drink, and that will dramatically decrease his tendancy to give in to dinking, but it is still his final decision as to wether he wants to drink or not. just like no one is born alchaholic, but chooses to be, no one is born gay. it's all about higher tendancies not inborn preference. so don't give me that crap about "i didn't choose to be outcast" or "i don't want to shunned because of what i can't change", because you chose that path, it wasn't chosen for you.

[Freakapotimus]

OK, let's get this straight.

Yes, alcohol is an addiction, which classifies it as a mental *illness*. Drug abuse, nymphomania, kleptomania... addictions that are mental illnesses.

Illnesses are not neccessarily diseases. Bipolar disorder: illness, not disease. Cancer: illness, not disease. AIDS: illness, also disease. Black plague: illness, also disease.

Do you see the difference here?

[swayside]

OK, let's get this straight.

Yes, alcohol is an addiction, which classifies it as a mental *illness*. Drug abuse, nymphomania, kleptomania... addictions that are mental illnesses.

there is a huge difference between being alchaholic and kleptomaniacal. to be alchoholic one must consume alchahol. kleptomania is an environmental condition either of the person not grasping the concept that stealing is wrong or willingly and knowingly doing it.

alchoholism is characterised by excessive consumption and abuse of alchohol causing an addiction. cancer isn't the abuse of carcinogens. big difference.

and no, alchoholism is not a mental illness. it's a dependence. just like a caffiene addiction is a dependance, not an illness.

[Freakapotimus]

Duh, they are different issues. But they are both addictions. Addictions like alcoholism, kleptomania, drug abuse, etc. fall under the mental illness category. Addictions can be physical, mental, or both.

Of course alcoholism and cancer are also different. But both can be detrimental to a person's health and both are classified as health issues.

And I was mistaken before. Alcholism is a disease, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism:

"Alcoholism, also known as alcohol dependence, is a disease that includes the following four symptoms:
- Craving--A strong need, or urge, to drink.
- Loss of control--Not being able to stop drinking once drinking has begun.
- Physical dependence--Withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety after stopping drinking.
- Tolerance--The need to drink greater amounts of alcohol to get "high."

"Alcoholism is a disease. The craving that an alcoholic feels for alcohol can be as strong as the need for food or water. An alcoholic will continue to drink despite serious family, health, or legal problems.

"Like many other diseases, alcoholism is chronic, meaning that it lasts a person's lifetime; it usually follows a predictable course; and it has symptoms. The risk for developing alcoholism is influenced both by a person's genes and by his or her lifestyle."

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/q-a.htm

[swayside]

At 12/2/02 08:41 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Duh, they are different issues. But they are both addictions. Addictions like alcoholism, kleptomania, drug abuse, etc. fall under the mental illness category. Addictions can be physical, mental, or both.

while kleptomania (not an addiction, by the way) may be a mental illness, drug and alchohol abuse don't even come close.

natural and unnatural is what this comes down to. natural conditions are those that are inborn or caught (cancer, animea, chicken pox, etc.). these are examples of diseases and illnesses. unnatural conditions are those which (obviously) do not occur naturally (drug/alchohol dependance). these are not diseases.

Of course alcoholism and cancer are also different. But both can be detrimental to a person's health and both are classified as health issues.

just because something is detrimental to a person's health, doesn't make it a disease. if i cut my leg on purpose and i bled excessively, that could be detrimental to my health and classified as a health issue. drinking too much, be it once or often, is detrimental to one's health, as well, but just as cuting myself isn't a disease, neither is alchoholism. they are both a choice.

Alcholism is a disease, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

do you think i'd confront you with this argument and directly state that you are wrong in calling alchoholism a disease, and not be willing to say the same to an institution with your opinion? if so, your wrong again.

...alcoholism is chronic, meaning that it lasts a person's lifetime; it usually follows a predictable course; and it has symptoms. The risk for developing alcoholism is influenced both by a person's genes and by his or her lifestyle."

though alchoholism is chronic, it doesn't nescessarily last a person's life time. people can stay sober for years and possibly for the rest of their lives after getting over an alchohol adiction.
and what i said before is now being backed up in a condensed version by your source. that alchoholism is not inborn or natural, it is the tendancies of one's inhierant manerisms and outer influences that may lead someone to drink.
it is the fact that one has to choose to drink, choose to lift it to his lips and choose to swallow it, to become alchoholic in the first place proves that alchoholism is not a disease.

[the-fiend]

At 11/17/02 04:35 PM, swayside wrote: there is nothing genetic about homosexuality. just like alcoholism is not a disease as some people think it is. no matter what you genetics are, in the end it is the person who decides wether they want to be gay or straight, or wether to drink or not. gay people are wrong and disgusting, that's fact not and opinion.

I dont even think he read the article. and it is an illness or "dependance" as you so willingly call it. Just liek being adictied to drug is "dependace" and im sorry small minded people like you dont get it and hate everything like gay people and think there right about everything even when there is SCIENTIFIC ARTILCE ABOUT IT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE but nope all of the science men are wrong most people here are wrong this one kid is right.Ha, i dotn thinkso. Really think about what your saying you skin head.

[swayside]

i probably shouldn't have dignified this with a response, but i felt it nescessary.

:At 12/2/02 05:57 PM, the_fiend wrote:

even when there is SCIENTIFIC ARTILCE ABOUT IT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE

everything i have said is scientifically valid. the only difference is that in freakapotomus's post, someone else stated his point. i have been very analydical in my opposition to his argument. i have not gotten personal at all.

but nope all of the science men are wrong most people here are wrong this one kid is right.Ha, i dotn thinkso. Really think about what your saying you skin head.

it's so easy for you to call me a skinhead, intollerant, or a hater for not agreeing with you and not being "politically correct". it's getting to the point where those that would stand up for the points that i'm bringing forth are just as ridiculed as the ones we are arguing with. the majority is not always correct. just because i am one of the few poeple in this forum to say the things that i am saying, doesn't make me wrong by lack of allies. only judge my validity by my points.

you say i'm a closed-minded idiot for not accepting your views, how should i feel about you and your not accepting my views. why is it that only the ones arguing against your point are label closed-mind when you are just as closed-minded toward my views?

[MarijuanaClock]

Who cares? Are you telling me they actaully pay people to watch gay sheep?

What a waste of money, who could give a damn?

[Freakapotimus]

I wasn't asking you to change your views on alcoholism as a disease. I debated my points, but I can't make you change yours. However, I was quoting a statement made from a national institute and government organization. So, from an official view, alcoholism is a disease.

though alchoholism is chronic, it doesn't nescessarily last a person's life time. people can stay sober for years and possibly for the rest of their lives after getting over an alchohol adiction.

Alcoholism does last a peron's lifetime. I am not implying that a former alcoholic cannot stay sober for many many years. There are many people who have fought, and who still fight, to overcome their addiction, and dependence, to remain sober.

There are temptations for each person who has ever had any kind of addiction: the former gambler goes to Atlantic City for a day at the beach and sees the people coming in and out of the casinos; the former drug addict offered one more hit from a buddy; the former kleptomaniac in a department store, and no one is watching; the former alcoholic offered a drink while at a party or wedding.

Even though the battle has been won, there are still obstacles to overcome each and every day, for the rest of that person's life.

[SolarisDX]

At 12/2/02 09:21 PM, swayside wrote: everything i have said is scientifically valid.

Wrong. You said, "there is nothing genetic about homosexuality". This article posted here is more scientific evidence towards linking homosexuality with genetics than you have provided. You have provided NO scientific evidence of your claim.

[swayside]

At 12/3/02 09:32 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: So, from an official view, alcoholism is a disease.

i'm still going to be as opposed no matter who says it's a disease.

...any kind of addiction: the former gambler goes to Atlantic City for a day at the beach and sees the people coming in and out of the casinos;... the former kleptomaniac in a department store, and no one is watching...

kleptomania and gambling are not addictions. the body does not build up a dependance, tolerances are not doveloped, and they have no direct physical degradation. alchoholism and drug abuse do show such characteristics.

Even though the battle has been won, there are still obstacles to overcome each and every day, for the rest of that person's life.

i agree

[Slizor]

Swayside, all of your arguments are based on the idea that people are fully autonomous rational beings all the time. Frankly, that's not true. We are animals, we mix instinct, emotions and rational higher thought. You seem to think that people can just flick a switch and then say "Hey I'm gay!" and suddenly start getting turned on by the same sex. It's the same with alcoholism, someone doesn't just have a drink one day and decide to become an alcoholic. They don't think "Continual drinking could lead to a physical/mental dependency".

p.s. Look at the word "disease", then split it up "dis-ease" something which is against your ease.

[the-fiend]

you say i'm a closed-minded idiot for not accepting your views, how should i feel about you and your not accepting my views. why is it that only the ones arguing against your point are label closed-mind when you are just as closed-minded toward my views?

Well i never said i didnt accept it and prove that your right. post something that supports what you say. If you cannot find anyting on it then i do not believe, sorry.

[swayside]

At 12/3/02 06:09 PM, Slizor wrote:
p.s. Look at the word "disease", then split it up "dis-ease" something which is against your ease.

does that mean that everyone that is missing a leg is diseased? homework isn't easy. does that mean that everyone with homework is diseased? no, of course not.