There’s another article out today about research done at Oregon State University on gay sheep.
The researchers found marked differences in the brain anatomy and hormones between male- and female-oriented rams, Stormshak said.
In rams who like other rams, the anterior preoptic area of the hypothalamus was about half the size of this part of the brain in heterosexual rams, he said.
“This was exciting to us because this area of the brain has been found in many species to regulate sexual behavior,” Stormshak told The Gazette-Times of Corvallis.
This study seems to correlate with sexuality studies on humans, many of which reference the hypothalamus (including pheromones, Simon Le Vay’s studies, etc.). Anti/ex-gay activists have been quick to discount the human studies, arguing that the physical differences may be a result rather than a cause of sexual orientation.
Even the observations of penguins and seagulls have been dismissed as being caused by an environmental factor, the lack of mates.
However, in the case of the rams it is not so easy to dismiss. These rams had more than ready access to ewes. In fact, the research was started out of observation that some rams refused to provide stud service and instead preferred to mount other rams. And it is silly to suggest that the rams had distant fathers, dominant mothers, inadequate rough play, or any of the other pseudo-psychological answers that are provided regularly by the “change is possible” crowd.
While the jury is still out on exactly what are the factors contributing to the determination of sexual orientation (in rams or people), it is becoming increasing difficult to argue that there is no biological component.
I’ve read about this study. It’s comparable to Simon Levay’s hypothalamus study with human cadavers. There’s definately a strong correlation here.
“it is becoming increasing difficult to argue that there is no biological component.”
Even all the people that you hate (Dobson et al.) would admit that there IS a biological component. What they won’t admit is that one’s biology inevitably determines the course of a person’s future life.
Gay rams? There are gay penguins, as we all know. Also we have discovered, there are lesbian swans:
Thou art no Romeo
Famed swan couple is all-female
Boston’s beloved pair of swans — feted by city leaders, residents, and tourists alike as one of the Hub’s most celebrated summer attractions — are a same-sex couple. Yes, scientific tests have shown that the pair, named Romeo and Juliet, are really Juliet and Juliet.
More at https://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/08/12/thou_art_no_romeo/
I found a fascinating book on the subject of bi/homosexuality in animals a while ago: Biological Exuberance, by Dr. Bruce Bagemihl.
The book lists the behaviors of animals with a predisposition towards the same gender (or both), rather than studying them to see how they differ from “regular” animals. He also goes into the biases of scientists and some of the reasons that you don’t regularly hear about gay animals. Very interesting read.
As any sheep farmer can tell you…Somewhere about 10 to 15% of rams prefer each other’s company to that of the lady sheep. Breeders often offer a “performance guarantee” on stud rams for this very reason, and this gay sheep thing happens even though stud rams have long been carefully selected for their breeding potential — this alone indicates that whatever homosexuality is, it is not linked directly to males passing on their genes. Rather, that the coding is possibly embedded across a number of other traits as well or that male homosexuality is linked via the female.This maternal link has been observed in a number of other studies, and possibly explains why male homosexuality continues even though gay males have lower average numbers of offspring.”Lesbian” sheep are much more difficult to observe the trait in, just as with humans…
I couldn’t tell from the article if this is old news that the paper got around to printing or not. This group published a paper in Nov 2004. The abstract is here:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.08.017
Have they come out with another paper that hasn’t shown up in the PubMed database yet?
Animals tend to have less complex physical systems than humans.
Research such as this is still hard pressed to find any rationally acceptable similarities in human physiology.
Living things are SEXUAL, period.
Humans, having the consciousness level and more deliberate reasons for our actions cannot be made comparable to sexual aspects in the animal world.
Animals are the living things who DO have sex for the sake of procreation and on an instinctual level.
Those animals who have been observed being homosexual have mostly been in captivity, right?
Humans work to achieve more control over their environment and each other.
By using birth control, and eyeglasses and air conditioning, religious discipline and barter.
Justifying or studying homosexuality as natural and normal by observing animals makes as much sense as doing the same thing to explain heterosexual sex issues.
If this hypothalamus thing keeps coming up, how long before clinical trials on a drug that influences what ever endocrinological distinctions there are?
Are people studying the causes of homosexuality to ‘cure’ it, or leave in alone?
So far the ex gay movement thinks it’s certain of the causes.
Are they invested in any of these sheep behavior or animanl sexuality issues to cure homosexuality or leave it alone as a force of nature they can’t influence through any mental disciplines and shouldn’t try to.
It’s predictable that the ex gay movement would simply change their agenda and lobby for the anti homosexuality pill or vaccine.
Of course, there is as much point in curing homosexuality as there is in curing a small breasts through implants.
The point isn’t that they COULD cure it, the point would be what for.
How often was surgical or chemical castration employed to cure deviance?
It didn’t cure it, just lowered the sex drive.
This whole process by studying animals and the motives behind it all seem sinister.
To what end is this all for?
How ironic-
St. Francis of Assissi was the patron saint of animals.
He was also credited with this prayer:
God grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change.
The courage to change the things I can.
And the wisdom to know the difference.
LIA and Exodus haven’t a clue about the last of that prayer.
Sheep will always act like sheep.
Humans can build chariots into the infinity of space.
Only religious people like those in the ex gay movement are humans going along with such anti gay policy LIKE sheep.
Animals tend to have less complex physical systems than humans.
Less so than we’d like to believe.
Research such as this is still hard pressed to find any rationally acceptable similarities in human physiology.
No? Then what was that Xeno said about this being analogous to Simon Levay’s study?
Living things are SEXUAL, period.
…
Animals are the living things who DO have sex for the sake of procreation and on an instinctual level.
Wait, I’m confused. Living things are sexual, but have sex just for the sake of procreation?
Those animals who have been observed being homosexual have mostly been in captivity, right?
Not really. Since you said “mostly” I can’t say that you’re necessarily wrong; I’m not aware of the specific ratio of captive-to-wild instances of homosexual behavior in animals. But there have been many instances of it in the wild, yes. See the book I plugged a few comments above.
Animals tend to have less complex physical systems than humans.
Less so than we’d like to believe.
I’m not so sure about this. I could go into details (I won’t) but I grew up as a teenager in a household with an intact male dog. I can clue you that I found it annoying when he tried to relieve himself on my lower leg.
If you think that I might be joking, I can assure you that I am not.
I’ve actually read about practices among non-human animals in Scientific American, and it is actually amazing the extent to which members of other species adapted the environments to their needs. I put that pointedly: adapted their environments to their needs.
That may be so, raj, but I hope you’ll forgive me if I fail to see how your dog’s desire to urinate on you or an animal’s ability to terraform makes it any less physically complex.
Skemono, I was saying that animals mostly do have sex for procreation only.
HUMANS have it for many other reasons than that, of course.
Other than eating and finding shelter…sex is the next most powerful urge in us.
However, the way we conduct ourselves in the pursuit of sex is a matter of culture.
I was only stating the fact based on the differences between us and animals, not the similarities the scientists are looking for.
I don’t think I much care about these comparisons.
Some people have strange reasons for making human/animal comparisons and blurring the lines.
In any case: our civil laws regarding how we pursue our happiness and conduct ourselves with one another has nothing to do or shouldn’t have anything to do with sexual orientation.
Trying to find a biological connection to homosexuality is fine.
That might take a long time, or never.
It’s how the culture will define it’s civil responsibility to gay people that matters.
We’re equal or we’re not.
The laws say we all are, so let the treatement of gay people reflect it.
Rather than changing all the rules no matter WHAT gay people do, or what research on the social factors around gay people reveal.
All the legal and political people need to know is that gay people form bonds, with their families, significant others, their professions or their own children that are as equal and socially supportive of a successful society.
That’s all that anyone really needs to know.
Everything else that people do, to either deny gay people equal protection and access or cohesion with their loved ones is just cruel and superfluous to being civil, period.
Skemono, I was saying that animals mostly do have sex for procreation only.
I understand this. I cannot say that I agree. Animal sexuality is much, much more varied than we have been led to believe. There are animals that participate in homosexual acts, which clearly do not have to do with procreation. There are females who mount males–a heterosexual act which also does not result in procreation. There are even animals who practice forms of birth control. I must once again highly recommend Dr. Bagemihl’s book.
Even if we are to assume that the vast majority of animal sexual acts are heterosexual male-on-female acts that could result in pregnancy, I still do not believe that pregnancy/procreation is the reason animals engage in such acts. I believe that they do it for much the same reason as humans–because it feels good. The evolutionary reason behind sex is undoubtedly procreation, which is why it was designed to feel good–so that animals would engage in it. This, though, may just be supposition on my part.
I don’t think I much care about these comparisons.
Some people have strange reasons for making human/animal comparisons and blurring the lines.
I appreciate your wariness in people making human/animal comparisons and the motives behind them. It may well happen that if we find a “cause” behind homosexuality people will then try to subvert this information into creating a “cure” for it. But on the other hand, the more information we can point to showing that it is biological in nature–certainly these rams did not suffer from overly-doting mothers or distant fathers–the better we can refute homophobes who claim it is a choice.
Everything else that people do, to either deny gay people equal protection and access or cohesion with their loved ones is just cruel and superfluous to being civil, period.
I agree whole-heartedly.