Homosexuality, a psychodynamic process?

I’ve recently been conversing with a Christian on townhall.com about homosexuality. He is making many dubious claims about homosexuals and condoms that have led me to develop this post and probably more to follow. The primary basis for his claims is that homosexuality is a purely psychodynamic process and has no physiological basis. This contradicts all reputable scientific, medicine and psychological organizations that I am aware of so I did a quick review of the literature.

Homosexuality has been demonstrated to have an underlying physiological influence by many different examples of research that have evolved from twin-sibling studies to more recent brain and physical trait studies.

The earliest study that I’ve found supporting a physiological influence on homosexuality was a twin study from 1952 [Twin and Subship Study of Overt Male Homosexuality. Am J Hum Genet]. The author stated:

“It is also quite evident that the presently available genetic evidence, especially the observation of practically complete concordance as to overt homosexuality in monozygotic male twin pairs, throws considerable doubt upon the validity of purely psychodynamic theories of predominantly or exclusively homosexual behavior patterns in adulthood.”

There have been many twin studies since and they have all pointed to a physiological basis to homosexuality. Here is the short list:

A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples. Behav Genet. 1999;29:79–86.

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favoring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proc Roy Soc London B. 2004;271:2217–2221.

Familial aspects of male homosexuality. Arch Sex Behav. 2000;29:155–163.

Family size in white gay and heterosexual men. Arch Sex Behav. 2005;34:117–122.

Sperm competition and the persistence of genes for male homosexuality. Biosystems. 1993;31:223–233.

Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: Toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality. Arch Sex Behav. 2000;29:1–34.

A genome-wide scan of male sexual orientation. Hum Genet. 2005;116:272–278.

Molecular investigations into complex behavior: lessons from sexual orientation studies. Hum Biol. 1998;70:367–386.

Is homosexuality familial? A review, some data, and a suggestion. Arch Sex Behav. 1981;10:465–475.

A family study of sexual orientation. Arch Sex Behav. 1982;11:511–520.

Human sexual orientation has a heritable component. Hum Biol. 1998;70:347–365.

Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 July 11; 103(28): 10771–10774.

Sexual orientation and the size of the anterior commissure in the human brain.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 August 1; 89(15): 7199–7202.

Twin and sibship study of overt male homosexuality
Am J Hum Genet. 1952 June; 4(2): 136–146.

It should be noted that these studies are often cited as evidence for a genetic influence to homosexuality but they are also compatible with a hormonal influence, maternal immunity or any combination, thereof. It should also be noted that very few aspects of human nature are dependent upon a single variable but is the culmination of interactions between physical and environmental factors.

My favorite fossils

As we know, science and history are the harbingers of doom for religion. Without the superstition born of ignorance, religions are unable to guilt, terrorize or tempt the masses. One of my favorite sciences is paleontology because of the fascinating variety of life over the past millennia. Here are some examples of my favorite fossils:

 

Stromatolites - 

 

Some of our oldest fossils, stromatolites are mats of cyanobacteria that lived long before any of the multi-celled organisms that we usually think of when we imagine fossils.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stromatolites.jpg

 

Aglaspis eatoni - 

 

This arthropod is an ancient relative of the modern horseshoe crab.

 

Adriosaurus -

 

This ancient reptile possessed rudimentary front and working hind legs.

 

http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=2&did=26511

 

Tiktaalik-

 

This ancient creature demonstrates the transition from water to land and has features of both fish and amphibians.

 

http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2006/apr/fossil/tiktaalik_240.jpg

 

Archaeopteryx -

 

This ancient bird shares many features with the raptor type dinosaurs: conical teeth, a long tail, and three fingers.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilpictures-wpd/Archaeopteryx/Archaeopteryx.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilpictures-wpd/Archaeopteryx/Archaeopteryx.htm&h=401&w=601&sz=102&tbnid=Qqwh58KhwVoJ::&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Darchaeopteryx&usg=__iBgbHYwh51Qn0hUO8N9DDJXBIjw=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=7&ct=image&cd=1

Introduction

Let me begin by welcoming all who have come here and to explain why I’ve named my blog “sodium channels versus the soul.”

 

What is the soul and why is it important? The soul is often used as the basis for the life after death mythologies and is, therefore, very important for the religious ideologies that utilize life after death as both a carrot and a threat to tempt people into belief. Religions rely on a limited variety of methods to maintain their beliefs, namely threats, promises and the lifestyle benefits of belonging to the in-group. Nullifying the belief in a soul destroys several of religion’s more powerful methods of control. Without a soul there is no heaven or hell. Without consciousness there is no need for an afterlife.

 

The soul is also the non-body mind in philosophical dualism. The soul is often used interchangeably with the conscious mind: responsible for cognitive thought, emotion, personality and memories. These characteristics of our mind are what most people want to remain after death.

 

Another, more contemporary, definition of soul that has been put forward is that the soul is the epiphenomenon that links the physical workings of the brain to the “mind.” Of course, this definition fails the believer for the same reason that the older definitions of the soul fail, because there is no evidence to suggest a supernatural origin for this link. The evidence suggests that the mind is a function of the spatial structure and electro-chemical activity of the brain.

 

So, why use sodium channels? This is easy, sodium channels exist in all nerve cells of the body as either ligand gated or voltage gated channels and inhibition of neuronal sodium channels can decrease brain activity to the point that there is no consciousness. In other words, blocking sodium channels can shut off the soul. We use this concept every day, throughout the world as we shut down the brain during surgery using volatile anesthetics.

 

Which wins, sodium channels or the myth of the soul? In my opinion, the microscopic sodium channels win every time because, unlike a soul, they exist and manipulating them provides benefits to society and the individual.