On the point of risk for various disorders. I think this is a highly significant study. And one that does not eliminate the role of social environment. However, in asking which comes first, environment or genetic vulnerability, I would say this study provides preliminary but solid evidence that the vulnerability is prior to experience.

An interesting counter point to the “new” NARTH paper which finds all of the mischief in men behaving badly.

Evan quoted…..
Secondly, we used our genetically informative sample to assess the viability of explanations invoking a common cause of both nonheterosexuality and psychiatric vulnerability. We found significant genetic correlation between sexual orientation and both Neuroticism and Psychoticism, but no corresponding environmental correlations, suggesting that if there is a common cause of both nonheterosexuality and psychiatric vulnerability it is likely to have a genetic basis rather than an environmental basis.

Gee…. so you want to say ‘nonheterosexuality’ is innate and likely genetic? And along with that so to any neurosis or psychosis? So what then does the oppression I’ve felt over the years have done to me? Or…. is fleeing to people like NARTH to get rid of my ‘nonheterosexuality’ then a part of their statistical review? I mean if you’re told your mentally ill, that is have an SSA of which you should rid yourself, then your by definition mentally ill and become a part of their statistics.

Tell you what, normalize ‘nonheterosexuality’ in the society and then see what those statistics come out to be.

I think what scientists, including “hard scientists” might be wondering is if there is a biological/neurological component to SSA are there correlations to other brain functions?

It is a reasonable question. I just think we have to be very careful to keep in mind that theories are just that — theories, and that correlation does not equal causation. It’s a basic tenet of good research.

For some reason, (I suspect anti-gay bias that there must be something “wrong”, inferior or disordererd” with being gay) researchers are prone to say — “aha! These two things seem to be related, therefore one must cause the other”.

NARTH seems to be particularly prone to this sort of logical fallacy.

You seem to be suggesting pthat there is something about being gay (in and of itself) that makes gays more vulnerable to mental illness. I disagree.

Actually,no, I am doing no such thing. I am not in the position to suggest that at all. I only am responding with a reference since the topic came up some posts back. I recalled that the researchers involved in the study concluded with two points, one of them that ,” future research needs to address the inadequacies in the measurement of both sexual orientation and suicidality in population-based samples.”

There are studies going on as we speak, I believe, probably many. Studies with better controls and population samples may provide more “trustable ” data.

Michael, I realize your fear, but one does have to maintain some distance here. I think what scientists, including “hard scientists” might be wondering is if there is a biological/neurological component to SSA are there correlations to other brain functions?

The question about depression is often asked as it relates to men vs. women as well. Do women simply seek out help for their depression more than men? Or, do they experience more stressful life circumstances than men? Or, are women simply biologically more susceptible to depression than men? Researchers are busy with the differences, therefore between male/female on this topic.

Also, they are researching the differences in depressive episodes and reactions between adults and adolescents.

I think that when science will have some definitive answers on the essential factors, both parties will have something to chew on. As I said, I don’t assume one party is completely right at the expense of the other. On the contrary, I think the better the research will get, the more dots will be connected, and that will provoke mixed reactions to both parties.

I think these stuides are still examples of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. Correlation does not equal cause. You seem to be suggesting pthat there is something about being gay (in and of itself) that makes gays more vulnerable to mental illness. I disagree.

Every theoretical possibility must be examined, in my opinion. I pointed at this possibility since the brain studies which showed some components of the stress system were similarly shaped in gay men and straight women, which explains why they are similarly affected by or at higher risk for some mental health problems. The dots seem to start to connect in this direction:

Sexual Orientation and Psychiatric Vulnerability: A Twin Study of Neuroticism and Psychoticism

Brendan P. Zietsch, Karin J. H. Verweij, J. Michael Bailey, Margaret J. Wright and Nicholas G. Martin

Published online: 9 July 2009.

Abstract

Recent evidence indicates that homosexuals and bisexuals are, on average, at greater risk for psychiatric problems than heterosexuals. It is assumed with some supporting evidence that prejudice often experienced by nonheterosexuals makes them more vulnerable to psychiatric disorder, but there has been no investigation of alternative explanations. Here we used Eysenck’s Neuroticism and Psychoticism scales as markers for psychiatric vulnerability and compared heterosexuals with nonheterosexuals in a community-based sample of identical and nonidentical twins aged between 19 and 52 years (N = 4904). Firstly, we tested whether apparent sexual orientation differences in psychiatric vulnerability simply mirrored sex differences—for our traits, this would predict nonheterosexual males having elevated Neuroticism scores as females do, and nonheterosexual females having elevated Psychoticism scores as males do. Our results contradicted this idea, with nonheterosexual men and women scoring significantly higher on Neuroticism and Psychoticism than their heterosexual counterparts, suggesting an overall elevation of psychiatric risk in nonheterosexuals. Secondly, we used our genetically informative sample to assess the viability of explanations invoking a common cause of both nonheterosexuality and psychiatric vulnerability. We found significant genetic correlation between sexual orientation and both Neuroticism and Psychoticism, but no corresponding environmental correlations, suggesting that if there is a common cause of both nonheterosexuality and psychiatric vulnerability it is likely to have a genetic basis rather than an environmental basis.

Arch Sex Behav
DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9508-4

It seems it’s not a question of environment as much as a natural outcome from the interplay between society and certain vulnerable individuals.

You are making my point, Evan. Any marginalized and despised minority is apt to experience more depression and more stress. That only makes sense.

I think these stuides are still examples of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. Correlation does not equal cause. You seem to be suggesting pthat there is something about being gay (in and of itself) that makes gays more vulnerable to mental illness. I disagree.

@Carole:

Several recent studies have found a higher lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts in homosexual males compared with heterosexual control subjects or population rates.

See my comments to Evan.

Black slaves probably got depressed a lot.