PDA

View Full Version : Men With Older Brothers More Likely to be Gay


Cariaoke
Jun 26th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Men with older brothers more likely to be gay

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID


WASHINGTON - Having several older brothers increases the likelihood of a man being gay, a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that there is a biological basis for sexual orientation.

"It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada, "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis for" homosexuality.

S. Marc Breedlove of Michigan State University said the finding "absolutely" confirms a physical basis.

"Anybody's first guess would have been that the older brothers were having an effect socially, but this data doesn't support that," Breedlove said in a telephone interview.

The only link between the brothers is the mother and so the effect has to be through the mother, especially since stepbrothers didn't have the effect, said Breedlove, who was not part of the research.

Bogaert studied four groups of Canadian men, a total of 944 people, analyzing the number of brothers and sisters each had, whether or not they lived with those siblings and whether the siblings were related by blood or adopted.

He reports in a paper appearing in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=National+Academy+of+Sciences) that having several biological older brothers increased the chance of a man being gay.

It's an effect that can be detected with one older brother and becomes stronger with three or four or more, Bogaert said in a telephone interview.

But, he added, this needs to be looked at in context of the overall rate of homosexuality in men, which he suggested is about 3 percent. With several older brothers the rate may increase from 3 percent to 5 percent, he said, but that still means 95 percent of men with several older brothers are heterosexual.

The effect of birth order on male homosexuality has been reported previously but Bogaert's work is the first designed to rule out social or environmental effects.

Bogaert said he concluded the effect was biological by comparing men with biological brothers to those with brothers to whom they were not biologically related.

The increase in the likelihood of being gay was seen only in those whose brothers had the same mothers, whether they were raised together or not, he said.

Men raised with several older step- or adopted brothers do not have an increased chance of being gay.

"So what that means is that the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference," he said.

What makes a difference, he said, is having older brothers who shared the same womb and gestational experience, suggesting the difference is because of "some sort of prenatal factor."

One possibility, he suggests, is a maternal immune response to succeeding male fetuses. The mother may react to a male fetus as foreign but not to a female fetus because the mother is also female.

It might be like the maternal immune response that can occur when a mother has Rh-negative blood but her fetus has Rh-positive blood. Without treatment, the mother can develop antibodies that may attack the fetus during future pregnancies.

Whether that's what is happening remains to be seen, but it is a provocative hypothesis, said a commentary by Breedlove, David A. Puts and Cynthia L. Jordan, all of Michigan State.

The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

___

On the Net:

PNAS: http://www.pnas.org (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/ap/ap_on_he_me/storytext/sexual_orientation/19471307/SIG=10lhfeomm/*http://www.pnas.org)

Mattographer
Jun 26th, 2006, 05:26 PM
I don't have a brother and only have two older sisters yet I'm still gay :tape:

SelesFan70
Jun 26th, 2006, 05:29 PM
I'm an only child...and gay.

Experts and their studies... :rolleyes:

jmd
Jun 26th, 2006, 08:46 PM
3 % i thought it was 10 %

gentenaire
Jun 26th, 2006, 08:58 PM
It's true in my family. My youngest brother is gay, he's got two older brothers.

Monica_Rules
Jun 26th, 2006, 09:05 PM
I have read another study done in Italy that said women who have gay sons are more fertile and therefore produce more offspring, this would point to the elder brother being gay.

bionic71
Jun 26th, 2006, 11:31 PM
...this study or similar has been done before.
Interesting that the focus is on gay men only.

I am the oldest though...

Martian Willow
Jun 26th, 2006, 11:44 PM
...this study or similar has been done before.
Interesting that the focus is on gay men only.

I am the oldest though...

I've posted the New Scientist article before...twice. :p

Philip
Jun 27th, 2006, 12:10 AM
Well i have an older brother... so it could be right! :p

Scotso
Jun 27th, 2006, 12:12 AM
3 % i thought it was 10 %

It's probably more than 10%.

Marcus1979
Jun 27th, 2006, 12:16 AM
I have a older brother

dav abu
Jun 27th, 2006, 01:21 AM
almost every study I've read about being gay has been an absolute heap of cock!

CrossCourt~Rally
Jun 27th, 2006, 01:23 AM
I have an older bro :eek:

No Name Face
Jun 27th, 2006, 01:31 AM
i guess in a darwinian sense it could have validity --- the oldest have the better chance of survival, so the youngest is gay to increase the chances of the older siblings to reproduce. i'm not sure if i buy it though.

Drake1980
Jun 27th, 2006, 01:59 AM
OMG, I have an older brother:lol:

RatedR Superstar
Jun 27th, 2006, 02:02 AM
wtf!!! im the youngest and i have two older brothers, but im not gay...the study is flawed!!! :fiery:

mapaliey
Jun 27th, 2006, 02:07 AM
i hope my young brother not being gay....

Crazy Canuck
Jun 27th, 2006, 02:14 AM
Quick! Start killing off the youngest son's!

Scotso
Jun 27th, 2006, 02:36 AM
am I the only person that fantasizes about hot twin guys humping? :drool:

Marcus1979
Jun 27th, 2006, 02:40 AM
no I used to all the time :o :lol:

I used to wish I had my own twin :lol:

~{X}~
Jun 27th, 2006, 03:30 AM
am I the only person that fantasizes about hot twin guys humping? :drool:

No. :tape: :lol:

~{X}~
Jun 27th, 2006, 03:30 AM
I'm the youngest son and I'm gay and I have an older brother. :D

kosmikgroove
Jun 27th, 2006, 03:57 AM
3 % i thought it was 10 %

the 10% figure is meant to conjecture that 10% of men have at least some sort of homosexual tendency, whether it be brief thoughts or actions.

Kenny
Jun 27th, 2006, 05:28 AM
wtf!!! im the youngest and i have two older brothers, but im not gay...the study is flawed!!! :fiery:

I think he doth protest too much....

lol

No read the title.. it says.. MORE LIKELY TO BE GAY. Not will be.

CooCooCachoo
Jun 27th, 2006, 05:37 AM
I'm an only child...and gay.

Experts and their studies... :rolleyes:

They don't say there is no likelihood of a single child being gay :shrug:

CooCooCachoo
Jun 27th, 2006, 05:39 AM
Anyway, they cannot infer causality here at all. There is no way they can scientifically link being gay to having (an) older brother(s).

Talula
Jun 27th, 2006, 07:11 AM
This is twaddle. I know loads of gay people who are only children, youngest with only sisters, oldest with only sisters, middle with older sister and younger brother...on and on an on!

Kirt12255
Jun 27th, 2006, 07:34 AM
Another university that has to come to a conclusion for funding....I stopped listening to this crap years ago.

DoctorG
Jun 27th, 2006, 09:01 AM
I do have an older brother. OTOH, my significant other is the oldest of 3 children, and his younger brother is not gay.

Do researchers really have nothing better to do? :lol:

Martian Willow
Jun 27th, 2006, 09:56 AM
I read another study that said people who post on tennis boards are less likely to understand probabilities than the general population. :)

Kirt12255
Jun 27th, 2006, 10:00 AM
I read another study that said people who post on tennis boards are less likely to understand probabilities than the general population. :)

Less likely to understand? ...or...more probable to blow things out of proportion? ;)

tfannis
Jun 27th, 2006, 10:01 AM
My gay brother has an older brother :)

Dominic
Jun 27th, 2006, 09:48 PM
the 10% figure is meant to conjecture that 10% of men have at least some sort of homosexual tendency, whether it be brief thoughts or actions.
I actually heard a cpuple different times that 10% of men were exclusively homosexual and that about 40% have at least some tendencies.

Scotso
Jun 27th, 2006, 10:26 PM
I actually heard a cpuple different times that 10% of men were exclusively homosexual and that about 40% have at least some tendencies.

ditto.

Wannabeknowitall
Jun 27th, 2006, 10:51 PM
That's interesting. James Blake has an older brother. He has a girlfriend that doesn't mean he's not you know. I can dream.

capriatifan78
Jun 28th, 2006, 08:49 PM
Oh so that explains it....and here all this time I thought I was gay because I like to suck CO--! ;)

venus_rulez
Jun 28th, 2006, 09:40 PM
Can some of you not read. It clearly says that having older brother makes you MORE LIKELY to be gay. Not that all people with older brothers will be gay or that you can only be gay if you have older brothers. It's the same as saying if your mom gets breast canacer and you're a woman you're MORE LIKELY to get it. It's possible to get breast cancer and no previous members had it or your mom can have it and you not have it. Jesus peopl learn how to read!

TF Chipmunk
Jun 28th, 2006, 10:10 PM
To the oldest (or only child) sons out there who are gay and automatically think this study is flawed: maybe you could ask your mother about miscarriages before you :shrug:

Dexter
Jun 28th, 2006, 10:13 PM
lol. true in my case :p

Slumpsova
Jun 28th, 2006, 11:46 PM
totally bullshit. me and my friends have no older bro :rolleyes:

Fingon
Jun 29th, 2006, 01:14 AM
I am sick of all those useless studies that are NOT based on science and are merely counting cases.

they are basically trying to tie facts that have no relation whatsoever, they do it all the time, most of the studies published are bullshit.

Next, they will try to find a relation between religious beliefs and the day they were born, they will say that people that were born on an odd day are mire likely to be catholics.

the "more likely" is the key phrase for this half-assed studies, more likely means maybe or maybe not.

Some people, particulary in the universities should get a real job :fiery:

SelesFan70
Jun 29th, 2006, 01:24 AM
am I the only person that fantasizes about hot twin guys humping? :drool:

Depends on how young is "young" :tape:

mboyle
Jun 29th, 2006, 01:29 AM
I'm an only child...and gay.

Experts and their studies... :rolleyes:

It doesn't say all gay men have older brothers:p . It just says one is slightly more likely to be gay if one is not the eldest child. 3% to 5% is not a big difference.

And re the 10% thing: I have always thought that was bs. Unless the vast majority of gay people are closeted, I cannot imagine how 10% of the population could be gay.

mboyle
Jun 29th, 2006, 01:31 AM
I am sick of all those useless studies that are NOT based on science and are merely counting cases.

they are basically trying to tie facts that have no relation whatsoever, they do it all the time, most of the studies published are bullshit.

Next, they will try to find a relation between religious beliefs and the day they were born, they will say that people that were born on an odd day are mire likely to be catholics.

the "more likely" is the key phrase for this half-assed studies, more likely means maybe or maybe not.

Some people, particulary in the universities should get a real job :fiery:

It is not just counting cases. There is a clear controllable variable (the homosexuality) and an uncontrollable variable (number of brothers.) There is a reasonable number of trials. It is based on science (that homosexuality is genetic in nature.) It is a very typical sociological study:confused: .

Couver
Jun 29th, 2006, 03:08 AM
Weird thing is all the gay people I know either have sisters or are only children. None have brothers.

Fingon
Jun 29th, 2006, 03:29 AM
It is not just counting cases. There is a clear controllable variable (the homosexuality) and an uncontrollable variable (number of brothers.) There is a reasonable number of trials. It is based on science (that homosexuality is genetic in nature.) It is a very typical sociological study:confused: .
hmmm, no, that's the line of reasoning that those pseudo-scientists use.

you don't need a "reasonable" number of trials, you need the proper number of trials, there isn't such a thing as "reasonable" in statistics.

Second, the fact you get some numbers doesn't mean you can draw a conclusion, without a logical and proven explanation. You can't say "it looks like", if you just put to unrelated variables and count them together, you can get amazing numbers, the people that do that don't understand, or don't care about statistics.

and it's based on science? homosexuality is genetic by nature? really? where did you get that from? that's a theory it's unproven.

The degree of confusion you are showing it's clear when you say it's a very typical sociological study, make up your mind, it's sociologic or is it genetic? they have nothing to do with each other you know?

One thing you are right, it's a typical study, bullshit.

Fingon
Jun 29th, 2006, 03:33 AM
It is not just counting cases. There is a clear controllable variable (the homosexuality) and an uncontrollable variable (number of brothers.) There is a reasonable number of trials. It is based on science (that homosexuality is genetic in nature.) It is a very typical sociological study:confused: .

btw, I can give you an example of another "typical study" they tried to demonstrate that ugly parents are more likely to have unhappy children, yes, they counted cases and they got more positive than negative, that wasn't bullshit, it was dinosaur shit, and 99% of those published studies are just garbage, and really, if I was rich and was giving money for reseach and they come up with a study like these I would cut the funds immediately.

take a look how many of these "studies" get published in really serious scientific publications such as medical journals. See how many are sponsored by corporations interested in the result such as big pharma, how many are really taken seriously in the scientific community, you will be surprised.

And another thing, it's not my idea, it's a known facts that many universities invest times in useless studies, just to keep the funds coming, and there are known cases where they actually invented the whole thing.

capriatifan78
Jun 29th, 2006, 06:46 PM
LOL ok I admit it.....I wouldn't mind seeing the Bryan Brothers make out. :)

WorldWar24
Jun 29th, 2006, 09:23 PM
Journalists know nothing about science and it shows, they can't even right an article porperly. Before every wtaworld "scientist" starts bashing the real scientists, just because there are gays who have no older brothers it doesn't mean this isn't true. There have been several studies on this and it has been confirmed a 2nd son has a 33% chance of being gay, a 3rd 66% and a 4th 99%. But these gays only account for 10-15 percent of the total gay population and only for men, not for women.

It is thought to be due to the antibodies from the mother, formed after the first son is born, against the Y cromossome but results have been contradictive.

So this article portrayed this study wrong, it doesn't explain why people are gay but it proves there are different kinds of gay people, some probabyl being genetic and others, like in this case, being congenital(mother, older brothers)

Craigy
Jun 29th, 2006, 09:36 PM
I have an older brother and I'm not gay. :shrug:

Fingon
Jun 29th, 2006, 11:49 PM
Journalists know nothing about science and it shows, they can't even right an article porperly. Before every wtaworld "scientist" starts bashing the real scientists, just because there are gays who have no older brothers it doesn't mean this isn't true. There have been several studies on this and it has been confirmed a 2nd son has a 33% chance of being gay, a 3rd 66% and a 4th 99%. But these gays only account for 10-15 percent of the total gay population and only for men, not for women.

it has been confirmed? so you mean that 99 out of 100 4th male is gay?

and don't you find a little suspicious that the numbers raise like that? 33, 66, then 99? a 5th male then has an 122% chance?

It is thought to be due to the antibodies from the mother, formed after the first son is born, against the Y cromossome but results have been contradictive.

to my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence linking a particular cromossome with being gay, there have theories about it but nothing else.
And how antibodies? which are part of the inmune system affect cromossomes? do you mean hormones?

So this article portrayed this study wrong, it doesn't explain why people are gay but it proves there are different kinds of gay people, some probabyl being genetic and others, like in this case, being congenital(mother, older brothers)

sorry, but congenital and genetic are the same thing, if you have a congenital feature, that is genetic, by definition.

And the article didn't portray the study wrong, what they did wrong was to publish a study that has no merits, if you want real studies, go to the medicine journals, not newspaper. As I said before, it's a known factor that most of the studies conducted are useless and are done to ensure funding, very, very few of them make it to the serious scientific circles and most of those don't ever get noticed by the media.

The study proves nothing, as I said they tied two variables in an statistically meaningless way, serious studies are not a shot in the air trying to find a relationship, but are based on scientific theories and try to demonstrate them, eventually, they might get a result they consider unusual or abnormal and then, after confirming the numbers are right they might try to explain the anomalies. But this study is trying to tie variables that are not related.

Statistics don't work unless the population is large enough and homogeneous enough, and neither is the case here, where are the data about the social background of the people researched? how do they know they are gay? how do they know they are not gay? what percentage of gays do not have older brothers? and more important, if the study is right, why? and please, no, "some cromossome", no "it could be", but concrete explanation, if they spent time and money doing it they should have been prepared to answer questions, they rarely are.

WorldWar24
Jun 30th, 2006, 12:30 AM
The study proves nothing,

hm look I don't mean to sound arrogant but I've known of this for a while now, it's not based on a study, it's been known by scientists for a while now, and I'm not talking about one study, I'm talking about dozens of studies confirming the first one, and studies with credibility. Check pubmed.com. The reason why this hasn't been known is perhaps because the general public is not ready to know some stuff. Imagine the impact on homophobic parents with 3-4-5 sons. It has the potential to cause the kids a lot of harm. Society doesn't accompany science very well, that's why it takes some caution.

it has been confirmed? so you mean that 99 out of 100 4th male is gay?

and don't you find a little suspicious that the numbers raise like that? 33, 66, then 99? a 5th male then has an 122% chance?.

it means the probability of being straight is decreasing each time, doesn't mena it happens every time of course. It's just an average. A 5th male has an even smaller percentage of being straight, but that would depend on the other 4. They could all be straight of course, or all gay or all but the first etc. It's just a matter of probability

sorry, but congenital and genetic are the same thing, if you have a congenital feature, that is genetic, by definition.

congenital and genetical are not the same thing. Genetical disease derives from "errors" in the genes, they may or may not reveal themselves depending on some things. Congenital may have to do with genes but means to distinguish from aquired diseases. Includes the time the "healthy" baby/fetus is developing, depending on the mothers habits for instance, health etc and its influence on the baby before he/she is born.

to my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence linking a particular cromossome with being gay, there have theories about it but nothing else.
And how antibodies? which are part of the inmune system affect cromossomes? do you mean hormones?.

No I don't mean hormones. Cromossomes have genes that codify proteins as you probably know and one of the possible explanations is that the mother develops a reaction against certain proteins expressed from genes coming from the Y cromossome. There other explanations. These studies apply to a small population of the big population of gay people. Other gays have been linked to genes but what is widely accepted is that, like so many other things, like hypertension, it's a group of genes and not one or two that combine, with many variables, especially since it affects something as complexas the human brain. It's also accepted that being genetically gay(unlike the gays from these studies) has to do with polymorphisms that explain how it maintained its prevalence throughout evolution, otherwise they would have gradually disappeared.

And the article didn't portray the study wrong, what they did wrong was to publish a study that has no merits, if you want real studies, go to the medicine journals, not newspaper. As I said before, it's a known factor that most of the studies conducted are useless and are done to ensure funding, very, very few of them make it to the serious scientific circles and most of those don't ever get noticed by the media

I repeat it's not ONE study, it's several of them. And who are you to say they have no merit lol. I'm talking about real studies, from people who actually know what they're talking about and sending them to medical journals for their peers to investigate, and that's what they did and several other studies confirmed the first one.

égalité
Jun 30th, 2006, 12:58 AM
I have a younger sister... oh well, whatever works. :p

Direwolf
Jul 1st, 2006, 02:50 PM
it just showed once again that being a homo is abnormal...

i kinda agree with it...

bionic71
Jul 1st, 2006, 02:59 PM
it just showed once again that being a homo is abnormal...

i kinda agree with it...

it did?
I kinda must of misunderstood the theory underpinning the study, but what would I know.....being abnormal and all......??

égalité
Jul 1st, 2006, 03:03 PM
it just showed once again that being a homo is abnormal...

i kinda agree with it...

Yeah, kind of like how being left-handed is abnormal.

The study shows that being gay is normal and is genetic. Take your hate somewhere else.

GoDominique
Jul 2nd, 2006, 04:46 PM
I have an older brother and I'm not gay. :shrug:
Outrageous!!! The study must be crap then!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with catherine.

Fingon
Jul 2nd, 2006, 05:27 PM
hm look I don't mean to sound arrogant but I've known of this for a while now, it's not based on a study, it's been known by scientists for a while now, and I'm not talking about one study, I'm talking about dozens of studies confirming the first one, and studies with credibility. Check pubmed.com. The reason why this hasn't been known is perhaps because the general public is not ready to know some stuff. Imagine the impact on homophobic parents with 3-4-5 sons. It has the potential to cause the kids a lot of harm. Society doesn't accompany science very well, that's why it takes some caution.


there can be many studies, still, without a scientific explanation of the relationship between one and the other they are just statistics oddities. And no, guessing an explanation isn't good enough.


it means the probability of being straight is decreasing each time, doesn't mena it happens every time of course. It's just an average. A 5th male has an even smaller percentage of being straight, but that would depend on the other 4. They could all be straight of course, or all gay or all but the first etc. It's just a matter of probability

sorry, but it's not like that, 1/10 means or 10% means one in 10 cases are likely to be positive, of course, you can count 10 cases and find 3 positives or none, but in big numbers it should be true, that's what probabilities mean. It's not an average, an average is a number divided by the number of cases, a probability is the chances of something being a certain way.

And how would it depend on the other 4? except from a psychological point of view.


congenital and genetical are not the same thing. Genetical disease derives from "errors" in the genes, they may or may not reveal themselves depending on some things. Congenital may have to do with genes but means to distinguish from aquired diseases. Includes the time the "healthy" baby/fetus is developing, depending on the mothers habits for instance, health etc and its influence on the baby before he/she is born.

Ok, I give you that, congenital is a genetical disease that is inherited, so a particular kind of genetical disease.


No I don't mean hormones. Cromossomes have genes that codify proteins as you probably know and one of the possible explanations is that the mother develops a reaction against certain proteins expressed from genes coming from the Y cromossome. There other explanations. These studies apply to a small population of the big population of gay people. Other gays have been linked to genes but what is widely accepted is that, like so many other things, like hypertension, it's a group of genes and not one or two that combine, with many variables, especially since it affects something as complexas the human brain. It's also accepted that being genetically gay(unlike the gays from these studies) has to do with polymorphisms that explain how it maintained its prevalence throughout evolution, otherwise they would have gradually disappeared.

the only thing that has been demonstrated in genetics is that they know shit, it's far too complex and there are too many variables involved. They decoded the human genome (part of it) not long ago, they still have no clue what most genes do, nevermind how they interact together. Everything is speculation and everything is attibuted to genetics because the genes hold the key on how the body develops, what features a person have, and most diseases, if not all of them have a genetic component, it's always come cells mulfunctioning for some reason (a virus, radiation, mutations, whatever you call). they simply don't know, they are just speculating, and that's the issue I have with studies, they are speculative but they still publish them as certain.


I repeat it's not ONE study, it's several of them. And who are you to say they have no merit lol. I'm talking about real studies, from people who actually know what they're talking about and sending them to medical journals for their peers to investigate, and that's what they did and several other studies confirmed the first one.

I know enough to know that most of the studies published have no merits, there have been articles on that.

As an example, there is a recent study about nutritition that contradicts everything they have been saying over the year, which one is right?

In many cases, they have a preconceived idea and they just try to back it up. I may not know much about biology but I do about statistics and most of these studies are flawed, they simply don't have enough numbers.

Take a look at the studies conducted by pharma companies, they are very serious, monitored by the FDA, they invest billion of dollars in them and yet, they are often inadequate or incomplete, remember vioxx, it passed all the tests but when it went mainstream it happened they didn't know everything.

So, an study with a lot smaller population, not as well funded and whose conclusions don't appear logic doesn't appear to me to be valid, they should better invest time and money trying to solve real problems like aids or cancer, not trying to find screwed explanations to something that isn't a disease or defect.